Snag Alert...CBA not as close as some think??

[Mess]

Or a totally different one that the players like even less?

No .. I don't believe so .. The general rule is that you would use the last negotiated on CBA as your IMPASSE CBA .. If you made radical chances to it, you might have a problem like Baseball did ..

Why would you suggest different one .. The Owners themselves need to vote on this CBA and it passes their vote and they would accept it if the players voted yes .. Then why would you use anything different?.

If it didn't pass a players vote , and the NHL used it you could likely conclude that the players that did vote yes to accept would also be willing to cross the picket line and return to work after the NHLPA went on strike ..

Change the CBA and you can't count on that ..

 

[topshelf331]

I didnt want to start a new thread over this but:


I GOT MY PRESEASON TICKETS TODAY!!!


Complete with dates. (which are tentative of course) But this is a good sign to me.

 

[B-MEL]

OK, I am in Los Angeles and am I the only one to notice this serious flaw in this article!

The two sides in the NHL negotiations, which met in New York for a second consecutive day Tuesday, have agreed to a framework for a salary cap linked to league revenue, believed to be 54%, with a 24% rollback on current salaries.

Arn't they currently in Toronto? So let's make up some more BS and print it shall we!

 

[Spungo*]

Weird Al says: "And no matter what you might have read in some of the other newspapers, they haven't come to terms on the numbers that will be used in that agreement."


Now *that* is not good news. Looks like 2 weeks just turned into 2 months... at the very least.

 

[Mess]

I highly doubt they would acheive impasse at this point. They have come this far, they would get laughed at by the labor board if they tried this. Espically of both sides of the hierarchy agreed to this. The only option at this point is to get the deal done.

Really ??

I think the NHL has the perfect position here , and the NHLPA may regret not following through on Union status in BC ..

Remember the NHL does not go before the NLRB its the NHLPA that has to file and claim that the NHL bargained in Bad Faith ..

How could a NHLPA committee accepted CBA brought to its membership for vote not hold up to good faith bargaining ??.. If its accepted by the majority of players it is the next CBA..

If its rejected then the NHL says we tried our best this is our new IMPASSE CBA and we are open for operations .. Anyone that wants to come back is free to do so .The NHL has a right to operate and can drop the Lockout stance at any point it wishes.

I think it would be the NHLPA that would get laughed at by the NLRB in fact.. Taking it one step further I don't even think the NHLPA would file a claim .. Just go on strike, put up picket lines and see what happens ..

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

With all the rumours flying around like dispersal drafts , buyouts and restructuring requests in addition to 24%, that can't sit well with ALL players and some are hardliners just like owners ..
.

Call me crazy, but don't the rollback and buy-out's benefit the majority of players? If the 04-05 contracts aren't going to be honored, there is something like 20% of the league under contract. The rollback and the buy-out's maximize the dollars available to pay the 80% of the players that don't currently have contracts.

Rollbacks will help bring players with contracts negotiated under the previous CBA more in line with new contracts going forward. Buy outs allow teams to pay off the dead weight (Leclair, Savage, etc) without having it count against the salary cap. Isn't maximizing the $'s a team has available to spend a great thing for 80+% of the players that will have to negotiate a contract when the CBA is signed?

Sure, guys with existing contracts will be pissed off, but that's 20% of the league. That shouldn't be a big enough power block to keep this from being ratified. This is one of those cases where the vocal minority is screaming the loudest, but I think they'll get snowed under by the vast majority of players that just want to get back and play.

 

[WalterSobchak]

You obviously don't know what the term kosher means. It makes no sense the way you are using it.

kosher is slang for "honest" or "legitimate"

deal with it.

 

[HockeyCritter]

You obviously don't know what the term kosher means. It makes no sense the way you are using it.

kosher is slang for "honest" or "legitimate"

deal with it.

The meetings were indeed legitimate. However, this article seems to indicate that reports of progress might have been a bit premature.

 

[Mess]

Call me crazy, but don't the rollback and buy-out's benefit the majority of players? If the 04-05 contracts aren't going to be honored, there is something like 20% of the league under contract. The rollback and the buy-out's maximize the dollars available to pay the 80% of the players that don't currently have contracts. .

I am sure each player depending where he currently sits will base his vote on how he is affected by the CBA. The players that need to take the rollback will not be too happy that they have to lose money so other players can have a job, particularly the ones that are going to be asked to take further restructing to boot.

Rollbacks will help bring players with contracts negotiated under the previous CBA more in line with new contracts going forward. Buy outs allow teams to pay off the dead weight (Leclair, Savage, etc) without having it count against the salary cap. Isn't maximizing the $'s a team has available to spend a great thing for 80+% of the players that will have to negotiate a contract when the CBA is signed?.

Sure .. For some players .. But not having a contract and getting another that you can live with are 2 different things. No guarantee that if you are bought out or are currently an UFA that you will be a NHL player again when the next season starts.

Sure, guys with existing contracts will be pissed off, but that's 20% of the league. That shouldn't be a big enough power block to keep this from being ratified. This is one of those cases where the vocal minority is screaming the loudest, but I think they'll get snowed under by the vast majority of players that just want to get back and play.

I am not saying it would not be approved via vote, but I am not sure you can draw a line in the sand so that players with contracts are against and players without are for it .. I don't think its that simple at all .. I think Goodenow has a lot of strong followers still that support him and when it comes time to make a decision on voting yes or no they may still listen to him and his advice if he can give them a good answer to ........WHAT IF they don't vote YES.

Now this is EXTREMELY unlikely at this stage because of all the progress made but you can bet that Goodenow does not support a Hard Cap .. That is a virtual given..

Its also well known that if you cross a picket line and return to work you are giving up your union status to do so ..

NOW .. STRICTLY HYPOTHETICAL .. but still remotely possible .. because it happened in the NFL before in 1989 ..

The majority vote no and the NHL moves to IMPASSE CBA .. drops the lockout and thus forces the NHLPA to go on strike .. Players that want to return to work can and will cross the picket line to do so .. Joe Montana lead this event in the NFL situation .. However then the union members remaining that are the hardliners with Goodenow can then vote to decertify the union and BLOW UP the IMPASSE CBA in place.. Again just like the NFL did in their last CBA battle ..

So while this may only have a 1% change its still is possible to happen.

Then what .. Every man for himself ..

The NFL took 5 years in this in-between CBA stance to negotiate a new CBA with the newly formed union PA again .. Players like Leclair who was scheduled to make 9 mil old system and subject to buyouts now less 24% could file anti-trust law suits, and hope to be rewarded more in courts then by the buyout .. Freeman Mcneil and a few NFL players fought and won their cases and where awarded large settlements and the UFA cam way down in the NFL as a result on all of that.

Now I don't think this will happen but it is possible and perfectly within the PA right to do so.

The NHL Owners would really be in a better position if Goodenow would not be in power as it makes sense that as his last action he falls on his sword and plays the Decertify card with his loyal followers and his legacy will as such be much different.
Now I don't need any hate posts reply .. Just stating one really remote possibilty that could happen that I don't believe will but could, because of the similarities to the NFL battle and with Jim Quinn on board with the PA that fought the PA battle in the football one giving advice to the PA in this one ..

 

[FLYLine27*]

This means nothing....number one they have been meeting pretty much non-stop...it should take no more then 48 hours for them to agree on this, also im sure they talked about these 2 issues in the past and said.."lets put this at the end and complete everything else"...so now that they hit a small wall im sure these are the final two things. CBA is as close as we think. Hockeys coming.....be ready

 

[zeke]

That Strachan article is the best.

"I'm too dumb to understand this complicated deal, so the deal is bad."

 

[CalgaryThrasher]

I didnt want to start a new thread over this but:


I GOT MY PRESEASON TICKETS TODAY!!!


Complete with dates. (which are tentative of course) But this is a good sign to me.

Yeah right... Show pics or ****

 

[X-SHARKIE]

I don't by the LA times media or Strachan really. Brooks seems legit though, although bias to the PA cause.

I won't cream my pants untill Bob McKenzie comes out and says they've hit a major snag.

He has been correct 100% of the time threw all of this and i'll waite to see what he has to say...because alot of media has jumped to conclusions on their own before.

The LA times article sounds like one agent doesn't like the new deal and is trying to get it out publically that this is a bad deal, when it's likely just a bad deal for him.

 

[HF2002]

No .. I don't believe so .. The general rule is that you would use the last negotiated on CBA as your IMPASSE CBA .. If you made radical chances to it, you might have a problem like Baseball did ..

Why would you suggest different one .. The Owners themselves need to vote on this CBA and it passes their vote and they would accept it if the players voted yes .. Then why would you use anything different?.

If it didn't pass a players vote , and the NHL used it you could likely conclude that the players that did vote yes to accept would also be willing to cross the picket line and return to work after the NHLPA went on strike ..

Change the CBA and you can't count on that ..

But what difference does it make if it was negotiated? It still got rejected by the players.

If they negotiate a deal, it's reasonable to assume that both sides traded something to get something. If the players turn around and reject it, does that mean that the owners have to leave their concessions on the table but the union doesn't?

 

[London Knights]

Call me crazy, but don't the rollback and buy-out's benefit the majority of players? If the 04-05 contracts aren't going to be honored, there is something like 20% of the league under contract. The rollback and the buy-out's maximize the dollars available to pay the 80% of the players that don't currently have contracts.

Rollbacks will help bring players with contracts negotiated under the previous CBA more in line with new contracts going forward. Buy outs allow teams to pay off the dead weight (Leclair, Savage, etc) without having it count against the salary cap. Isn't maximizing the $'s a team has available to spend a great thing for 80+% of the players that will have to negotiate a contract when the CBA is signed?

Sure, guys with existing contracts will be pissed off, but that's 20% of the league. That shouldn't be a big enough power block to keep this from being ratified. This is one of those cases where the vocal minority is screaming the loudest, but I think they'll get snowed under by the vast majority of players that just want to get back and play.

Actually the things you stated, like the buyouts and 80% free agency do the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Take Owen Nolan of the Maple Leafs. Expected to mark around 5 million post 24% rollback. He gets bought out because the leafs need cap room. There is no way that he gets anywhere near 5 million in his new deal. Net result he loses well over "24%" of his "current" contract.

Now take a look at free agency. There is 80% free agency in your numbers. That means that there are 4 free agents at a position out of every 5. So a free agent second line winger is not the missing piece to a cog, but not one of 10 free agent second line wingers of equal ability who now has no leverage in negotiations. If he wants 3 million and the team says no, they just go and offer 2.5 million to one of the other guys.

 

[London Knights]

That Strachan article is the best.

"I'm too dumb to understand this complicated deal, so the deal is bad."

Although Strachan should probably be one of the last TO journalists to be throwing around the word dumb...

 

[topshelf331]

Yeah right... Show pics or ****

I currently dont have a scanner but i will try to send a pic of them from my cell phone.




Edit: They were from last season. ( my brother found them and put them with the rest of the mail. Sorry for the false hope.) I work 3rd shift and came home to this. I didnt bother to look at the post mark on the envelope.

 

[Epsilon]

Entry level contracts when speaking of players like Crosby and Ovechkin they could.

The only way this could be an issue is if teams are asking for certain exceptions to make sure they can sign "top-level" prospects without having competition for them from other leagues. Why would the NHLPA care about Crosby and Ovechkin?

 

[futurcorerock]

Honestly, I think the articles are gonna get worse as the deal gets finalized. I think a day before the deal is finally sealed, you'll hear reports that Bob Goodenow has taken the entire bargaining unit hostage and is demanding a plane to Equador along with 50,000,000 in cash

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Actually the things you stated, like the buyouts and 80% free agency do the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Take Owen Nolan of the Maple Leafs. Expected to mark around 5 million post 24% rollback. He gets bought out because the leafs need cap room. There is no way that he gets anywhere near 5 million in his new deal. Net result he loses well over "24%" of his "current" contract.

Now take a look at free agency. There is 80% free agency in your numbers. That means that there are 4 free agents at a position out of every 5. So a free agent second line winger is not the missing piece to a cog, but not one of 10 free agent second line wingers of equal ability who now has no leverage in negotiations. If he wants 3 million and the team says no, they just go and offer 2.5 million to one of the other guys.

How is that? I don't understand your point at all.

The 24% rollback of Nolan's, Belfour's and Sudin's contract creates cap room that will be spent on the other 16 players on the Leaf's roster. Those 3 players will be pissed, and the other 16 players will be happy.

Same thing with contract buy outs. PHO could buy out Savage for $3.5M (2 years at $3.5M per year, x .76, x.67 = 3.5). This then gives PHO $2.7M ($3.5M x .76)more cap space each year for 2 years. This let's them get a 2nd line winger for $1M to replace Savage, and they have an additional $1.7M of cap space to pay existing players.

If Nolan gets bought out, he gets $6.7MM of cash right now, and becomes a UFA. Let's say that he's able to sign a 2 year deal making $3MM per year. He's going to make $13M over the next two years, which is actually almost exactly what he's going to get under his old contract.

It's true that some of the most overpaid players will be out $'s if they were bought out. Guys like Savage, Amonte & Leclair are guys that will likely be out some $'s, but they are also going to be getting a HUGE payday on the buy-out, and they will be UFA's where they could still make decent ($1-2M+ depending) payday.

With regard to the number of FA's. The thing to remember is that there will a ton of teams looking for players. It's not like there will be 10 2nd line wingers fighting for 1 roster spot. Salary levels will be set by supply and demand for a given position. I'm sure some players will overestimate their market value and be disappointed.

 

[Mess]

The only way this could be an issue is if teams are asking for certain exceptions to make sure they can sign "top-level" prospects without having competition for them from other leagues. Why would the NHLPA care about Crosby and Ovechkin?

If they are hoping to grow the game and generate more league revenue and sell themselves as the best league with the best players then they should give it some thought ..

Bottom line it all counts to the Cap so whats the big diasadvantage to have PERFORMANCE bonus that could reward special players .. If they achieve them then everyone gains for it all around ..

 

[nyrmessier011]

Strachan: The NHL has long been a league operated largely by lawyers. Now, it will be a league totally dominated by lawyers.

No wonder the new CBA is taking so long to hammer out. The lawyers are busy creating their ground rules for the league they will run"



SO DAMN SAD

 

[danaluvsthekings]

Just for a few of you that seem to think that an LA paper wouldn't be the one breaking any major news, Helene Elliot, one of the authors of the Times article, will receive the 2005 Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award for distinguished hockey writing. So obviously she is respected by her peers and those within the game and I'm sure she has her sources so someone from LA breaking a major story wouldn't be THAT far out of the question. I'd agree its more likely that something would be broken out of Toronto or New York since that's where the majority of the negotiations have occured.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/ind05prolog.htm

 

[flambers]

That's for sure .. We really never have known where the majority of the players stand on this .. We here a few quotes from a few select players but that does not guarantee that they speak for the majority ..

For any deal to be ratified (voted on) then you are going to need 350 + players saying yes to the new CBA ..

With all the rumours flying around like dispersal drafts , buyouts and restructuring requests in addition to 24%, that can't sit well with ALL players and some are hardliners just like owners ..

I wonder if Goodenow still has a strong enough following that this could happen as the paper suggests ??

If it didn't get accepted by the players I would imagine that the NHL would then declare an IMPASSE and put this exact document in as its CBA and move on to implementation with replacement players ..

Not likely to unfold that way but it could ...

When the vote happends I bet its 85% for yes at the very least. There is no way a union will reject the CBA its Exec Commitee proposes.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

The players provided the league with a perfectly workable system back on Dec. 9 and even offered to roll back salaries to the level that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman had demanded.

Aaah, Strachan is back... all is right in the world again.

THIS world, not Strachan's.