Sides 'a long way apart' (MOD: CBA negotiations status thread)

[Fugu]

I'll frame this thread with the linked article, but this can serve as our thread on the status of the negotiations and any new proposals:

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly to SportsBusiness Journal on Sunday afternoon: "We remain a long way apart. We need to hear again from the Players' Association before this can move forward."
The league maintains that it will lock out the players on Sept. 15 without a new deal.
Daly said the two sides were in touch over the weekend, but there have not been any formal discussions since a pair of meetings on Friday.

...
Donald Fehr, the NHLPA executive director, said Friday that the sides are "still trying to bridge the gap" between their proposals.

Click to read more...

 

[Fugu]

List to last general thread:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1254049

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Since the players are the beneficaries based on the increase in the number of jobs for those markets - I think a collective effort is required to get the core issue addressed. I definetely think that a close look at revenue sharing is in order, but to say this is 100% on the owners propaganda IMO.

There is no doubt that the players should shoulder some of the burden -
But that is not what the NHL is even close to suggesting. The NHL's first offer was a declaration of war -- in terms of this negotiation.

It puts nearly all of the onus on the players to solve the problems for the poor market teams -- and none of the onus on the league and its owners to solve the league's true issue.

 

[Freudian]

What is most frustrating is that they are eventually going to settle for a 50/50 split. So they are just wasting time huffing and puffing, while fans get screwed.

 

[Ted Black]

I just want a deal to get done, as I know everyone else does too; I just can't help from reiterrating that.

The NHL as a whole really has some momentum right now. Besides that, I'm going to be extremely dissapointed as a fan if no deal is made quickly.

That said, I'm still on the owners' side. They take all the risk and most of them don't make anything on this hobby. The players make way way more than enough. That's an overly simple perspective, but it's the truth.

Get a damn deal done.

 

[Riptide]

There is no doubt that the players should shoulder some of the burden -
But that is not what the NHL is even close to suggesting. The NHL's first offer was a declaration of war -- in terms of this negotiation.

It puts nearly all of the onus on the players to solve the problems for the poor market teams -- and none of the onus on the league and its owners to solve the league's true issue.

The NHL offered it's ideal CBA. You can't take that personally. Yes it sucked... just as the PA's first offer sucked. The idea is to negotiate... the NHL seems to have grasped that... the PA still hasn't.

 

[BLONG7]

The owners have already proven they can lose a season if they have to...the PA need to negotiate the absolute best deal they can, and sign on the dotted line...

 

[BLONG7]

The NHL offered it's ideal CBA. You can't take that personally. Yes it sucked... just as the PA's first offer sucked. The idea is to negotiate... the NHL seems to have grasped that... the PA still hasn't.

Bingo!!

Owners own, players play...get a deal done boys!!!

 

[WinterEmpire]

The owners have already proven they can lose a season if they have to...the PA need to negotiate the absolute best deal they can, and sign on the dotted line...

Why? Why should the PA just bend over a take it?

 

[BLONG7]

Why? Why should the PA just bend over a take it?

If they want to get paid, then they have to...they couldn't recognize it last time, and lost a years wages, and based on a 10-12 yr career they lost significantly...have they learned nothing???

And yes, I am on the players side, but ya have to use your noodle, they don't hold the cards...

 

[WinterEmpire]

If they want to get paid, then they have to...they couldn't recognize it last time, and lost a years wages, and based on a 10-12 yr career they lost significantly...have they learned nothing???

And yes, I am on the players side, but ya have to use your noodle, they don't hold the cards...

Lost wages shouldn't be a huge issue. Most players are paid well enough that they can take a hit for a year, if not they'll go to a lesser league. Not only that but consider the NHLs proposal, they'll be losing that money anyways over the next 4-5 years if they sign whats on the table now.

While the players don't hold much power(considering this is an owner driven work stoppage), this situation isn't the same as it was last time. Support was mostly behind the owners because everyone and their dog saw a cap system as a necessary. Now I would venture to say public opinion has gone against the owners, seeing as they're the ones handing out these monster contracts than turning around and whining about how much money they're 'losing'. The owners and the NHL front office would look very very bad if this is any sort of extended lockout seeing as the players have been generally dealing in good faith and even committing to play under the current CBA while negotiating a new one.

The owners are under much more pressure this time around to get a deal done and the longer it drags out the more divided they will become between the have owners(Vancouver,Toronto,Pittsburgh,New York etc.) and the have not owners(Florida, Nashville, Islanders).

 

[BLONG7]

Lost wages shouldn't be a huge issue. Most players are paid well enough that they can take a hit for a year, if not they'll go to a lesser league. Not only that but consider the NHLs proposal, they'll be losing that money anyways over the next 4-5 years if they sign whats on the table now.

While the players don't hold much power(considering this is an owner driven work stoppage), this situation isn't the same as it was last time. Support was mostly behind the owners because everyone and their dog saw a cap system as a necessary. Now I would venture to say public opinion has gone against the owners, seeing as they're the ones handing out these monster contracts than turning around and whining about how much money they're 'losing'. The owners and the NHL front office would look very very bad if this is any sort of extended lockout seeing as the players have been generally dealing in good faith and even committing to play under the current CBA while negotiating a new one.

The owners are under much more pressure this time around to get a deal done and the longer it drags out the more divided they will become between the have owners(Vancouver,Toronto,Pittsburgh,New York etc.) and the have not owners(Florida, Nashville, Islanders).

True, you make some good points, but considering to play under the old agreement fools no one...Fehr would have them go on strike 6 weeks before the playoffs, see MLB in 1994 and that's far from negotiating in good faith...30 owners have already proven they have more resolve than 700 individuals who need to make money playing...

The players are never in the drivers seat, never have been and never will be...NFL the best of them all doesn't even have guaranteed contracts...the PA needs to get the best deal possible offered to them, and get it done...

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

True, you make some good points, but considering to play under the old agreement fools no one...Fehr would have them go on strike 6 weeks before the playoffs, see MLB in 1994 and that's far from negotiating in good faith...30 owners have already proven they have more resolve than 700 individuals who need to make money playing...

The players are never in the drivers seat, never have been and never will be...NFL the best of them all doesn't even have guaranteed contracts...the PA needs to get the best deal possible offered to them, and get it done...

More to the point, what terms would the players be playing under while the negotiations were going on? The current CBA that they were happy with? Leaving aside the issue about the players striking, I don't know what the incentive would be to negotiate seriously if they were all being paid fully...there would be no downside to them never working out a deal.

Lost wages shouldn't be a huge issue. Most players are paid well enough that they can take a hit for a year, if not they'll go to a lesser league. Not only that but consider the NHLs proposal, they'll be losing that money anyways over the next 4-5 years if they sign whats on the table now.

While the players don't hold much power(considering this is an owner driven work stoppage), this situation isn't the same as it was last time. Support was mostly behind the owners because everyone and their dog saw a cap system as a necessary. Now I would venture to say public opinion has gone against the owners, seeing as they're the ones handing out these monster contracts than turning around and whining about how much money they're 'losing'. The owners and the NHL front office would look very very bad if this is any sort of extended lockout seeing as the players have been generally dealing in good faith and even committing to play under the current CBA while negotiating a new one.

The owners are under much more pressure this time around to get a deal done and the longer it drags out the more divided they will become between the have owners(Vancouver,Toronto,Pittsburgh,New York etc.) and the have not owners(Florida, Nashville, Islanders).

I agree. The owners definitely have the upper hand...but the players aren't disenfranchised to the degree they were the last time around.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

The NHL offered it's ideal CBA. You can't take that personally. Yes it sucked... just as the PA's first offer sucked. The idea is to negotiate... the NHL seems to have grasped that... the PA still hasn't.

The problem is, the NHLPA has been criticized for basically holding its ground, but what you're asking for would have them come back to the first offer by demanding, say, 75 percent of HRR, no RFA, ELCs that run one year, and whatever else they could come up with. I'm not sure what their "ideal" CBA looks like--but I'm certain it isn't the (basically) status quo situation that they responded with.

That's less productive than what they did, which was basically say that the revenue splits are fine and the problem is on the owners' side.

You don't open negotiations by poisoning the well. That's what the NHL did.

 

[Lomez]

Do the NHL and NHLPA think the league can withstand another loss of a season in the States? Unless their goal is to emulate the CFL or a niche sport like the MLS. Good luck with that.

 

[Riptide]

which was basically say that the revenue splits are fine and the problem is on the owners' side.

Except they're not fine. Even if the owners were to agree to keep the split the same and massively increase revenue sharing to cover every teams losses every year (which we all know they wouldn't). At some point as the cap goes up, there will not be enough profit to cover it. That and the big clubs who are basically funding the league just took a massive massive hit to their value.

Most agree that with the disparity in revenue, that RS is needed. But so is a more favorable share of the split.

There's still concessions that the players can get. Higher min contract, quicker ufa, better options as a RFA, phased in split so no major hit in escrow, etc. These are just some of them - there's more (see creative CBA solutions thread).

But the players need to come to the table and ask for these in return for the owners getting their better split. This is not what they've done. Until they're ready to do this, we will not have hockey.

 

[PaPaDee]

There are two big issues that need to be resolved:

1) Creating an adequate RS system

2) Finding a reasonable split of overall revenues between owners & players

It would seem that the league is willing to talk further about the richer teams providing more revenue sharing to the less profitable teams.

The players seemed somewhat flexible to discussing a different revenue split, but only for a temporarily basis, with the split returning to the current levels again in 4 years. Until they are willing to at least discuss the permanent adjustment in HRR% splits, nothing will happen.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Bob McKenzie: Fear, loathing and 'I can't believe we are doing this again'

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404989

 

[caliamad]

nicely written article. Helped me understand at least some of the issues with the current cba. Thought he did a good job of respecting both sides POV.

 

[KINGS17]

Doesn't that basically suggest that the problem isn't with the revenue splits, but rather with the revenue sharing system?

That's essentially the players' argument: that the owners can't figure out how to share their record cut with each other, so they've decided to come after the players share and avoid addressing the underlying problem, which is how the revenue is divided among the clubs. Shaving a few points off the players' share doesn't address the underlying issue.

Neither side is blameless in this, but I genuinely find it difficult, optics and posturing aside, not to fault the owners / league for the looming lockout.

Part of the owners' argument remains that 57% is too high a percentage of revenue to give the players, and I agree. The owners are going to have to come up with a better revenue sharing plan though, as both issues need to be addressed.

 

[hizzoner]

I wonder if McDonalds would keep its losing franchises open if losing money? What would be the approach if the employees had a union and submitted that the franchise owners making good money should chip in to keep the losing franchises open and pay their employees the union wages? Greedy owners?

 

[caliamad]

50% revenue split would be forward progress for the owners and I don't think the NHLPA has any argument against that. They should take that before they are forced to 47% which may make more sense wrt NBA/NFL.

Revenue sharing an seem like the other big issue and has nothing to do with players. Big teams making more money doesn't make it right for the other 20 teams to have to pay $10 million more salary to be competitive when they make much less than in increased revenue. I don't have specifics but this has to be rebalanced.

And these long term contracts are crap. I love how Philly traded away both of Richards and Carter's contract. I wonder how they like Pronger's contract now. I can't think of too many situations this worked out well. 5 or 6 year contracts max and only if ends before 40.

Everything else is just noise and should be thrown out. Solve these problems and we have a season.

 

[kdb209]

I wonder if McDonalds would keep its losing franchises open if losing money? What would be the approach if the employees had a union and submitted that the franchise owners making good money should chip in to keep the losing franchises open and pay their employees the union wages? Greedy owners?

The business relationship between McDonalds are completely different than those between NHL clubs - they are completely independent businesses which happen to have franchise agreements with the same parent company as opposed to a joint venture partnership.

 

[PaPaDee]

What is most frustrating is that they are eventually going to settle for a 50/50 split. So they are just wasting time huffing and puffing, while fans get screwed.

This. The precedent has been set by the NFL and NBA.

 

[pepty]

nicely written article. Helped me understand at least some of the issues with the current cba. Thought he did a good job of respecting both sides POV.

It is intelligent, well reasoned and even handed.