To Make Whole or Make Partial -- THAT is the question (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXV

[JAX]

I think most people do understand the difference.

I also think that most people understand that the NHL was paying the players something like 74 percent of HRR when the revenue pool was $2 billion, and are currently paying them 57 percent when the revenue pool is $3.3 billion.

What (some) don't understand is why the owners can't turn a profit when their labor costs have decreased (in relative terms) at a time that revenues have more than doubled.

Because you say that as if the "owners" are all 1 team when their is 30 different ones. This big revenue increase was result of a handfull of teams....not the league in general. most of the league is still not "healty" and the assymetrical growth from the Toronto's and the Rangers is causing the cap to raise at a faster level then most teams can deal with.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[meedle]

I think most people do understand the difference.

I also think that most people understand that the NHL was paying the players something like 74 percent of HRR when the revenue pool was $2 billion, and are currently paying them 57 percent when the revenue pool is $3.3 billion.

What (some) don't understand is why the owners can't turn a profit when their labor costs have decreased (in relative terms) at a time that revenues have more than doubled.

Do you believe that all other costs are static? Airlines, Food, Coaches, Refs, Insurance, etc etc etc. Also when they were paying 74 percent most were taking on massive loses.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

Because you say that as if the "owners" are all 1 team when their is 30 different ones. This big revenue increase was result of a handfull of teams....not the league in general. most of the league is still not "healty" and the assymetrical growth from the Toronto's and the Rangers is causing the cap to raise at a faster level then most teams can deal with.

That's it in a nutshell.

Yup, that's exactly right, and that explains why the record revenues haven't resulted in profits for all franchises.

(But that doesn't mean people don't understand the difference between the two, or the way in which they are related. That's all I was responding to. I assume most people understand what you've stated above, and why revenue sharing is necessary).

Do you believe that all other costs are static? Airlines, Food, Coaches, Refs, Insurance, etc etc etc. Also when they were paying 74 percent most were taking on massive loses.

I didn't say they were, did I? But certainly you aren't suggesting that the increases in those costs are greater than the decline in the share in players' pay?

Didn't question that re: the 74 percent. I'm just highlighting, in a nutshell, why it is simplistic at best to cite labor costs as the sole reason that some teams are experiencing losses.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

And I can't blame the PA side for attempting to get more from the league in proposals. The league's offer is essentially what they want so if you can get them to move more towards the middle, it's just gravy. Hopefully a deal gets done in the coming week or two, as long as they are still meeting regularly it's a good sign.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

Yup, that's exactly right, and that explains why the record revenues haven't resulted in profits for all franchises.

(But that doesn't mean people don't understand the difference between the two, or the way in which they are related. That's all I was responding to. I assume most people understand what you've stated above, and why revenue sharing is necessary).

You need revenue sharing and costs cut. Both should help make all the teams a little more viable. That seems to be accepted on both parties though.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Friedman has a pretty good article/timeline of yesterday's events and even after reading the article it was evident there was some seriously weird communication going on..

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

..... the majority of players are ready to get back onto the ice if revenues are split 50/50 and all contracts are honored in full. Several players have told the Star Tribune that in recent days.

That's exactly what the owners have offered the players, the sources say, something Fehr did not spell out in his memo.

I don't know if these quotes have been placed in these threads, but I hope the players telling Russo that theyre ready to play for 50/50 and contracts honoured is an indication that there is traction or hope in today's meetings.

Well, assuming they meet today.

Source of quote is Russo's article

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

You need revenue sharing and costs cut. Both should help make all the teams a little more viable. That seems to be accepted on both parties though.

Yup.

Most reasonably neutral observers predicted from the start that the deal would include some form of stepped-down players share (either in absolute terms (54/52/51/50/50/50), or via a "make-whole"-like concept. Most also understood that the players would only accept such a cut if they were persuaded that it would fund a massive system of revenue sharing, since there is no reason to give a team like Toronto even more profit.

All that said, we shouldn't be that far away from a final deal. At some point, though, personalities do matter.

 

[meedle]

Yup.

Most reasonably neutral observers predicted from the start that the deal would include some form of stepped-down players share (either in absolute terms (54/52/51/50/50/50), or via a "make-whole"-like concept. Most also understood that the players would only accept such a cut if they were persuaded that it would fund a massive system of revenue sharing, since there is no reason to give a team like Toronto even more profit.

All that said, we shouldn't be that far away from a final deal. At some point, though, personalities do matter.

They are very far apart still. They still aren't even talking the same language. Not sure how you can classify that as not far.

 

[santiclaws]

Here's why I STILL think we'll get a deal done: self-interest is on the side of playing for both sides, which is what is very different from the last lockout.

It is obvious why the players need to play. What most people forget is that for many if not most of the owners, the annual profit is not nearly as important as the increase in franchise values. If there's a full season lost for the second time in eight years, there's a very significant probability of long term damage to the brand. Long term damage = lower annual revenue = lower franchise values. The league may not recover for a decade or more, which would mean franchise values would not recover their present worth for a decade or more. Do the owners take that chance? I don't think so.

 

[Wretched Oil]

So is it still up to the PA if they meet today, as the Count mentioned?

 

[NinthSpoke06]

I don't know if these quotes have been placed in these threads, but I hope the players telling Russo that theyre ready to play for 50/50 and contracts honoured is an indication that there is traction or hope in today's meetings.

Well, assuming they meet today.

Source of quote is Russo's article

It doesn't matter if any of that is true. It doesn't matter because Donald Fehr isn't going to acccept a deal without a huge win for his ego.

Gary Bettman is a egotistical shrew like Fehr, but he actually cares about his job and his $8 million dollar salary so he wants to get a deal done. But Fehr doesn't care about the NHLPA. He is only in this for his ego,. For the fun of "winning" another labor negotiation. His reputation.

There is a deal to be made here. The problem is Donald Fehr doesn't want a fair deal or the best deal possible for the players. He wants a win and another notch in his belt.

 

[Alberta]

If I'm the NHL, I guarantee the $600 million. Mathematically, it's really doubtful that the amount comes anywhere close to that number. It will most likely be closer to $211 million. Give the PA what they want then watch them reject it anyway.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Gary Bettman is a egotistical shrew like Fehr, but he actually cares about his job and his $8 million dollar salary so he wants to get a deal done. But Fehr doesn't care about the NHLPA. He is only in this for his ego,. For the fun of "winning" another labor negotiation. His reputation.

I found this interesting in Friedmans article yesterday:

But, this accusation blew into the open what has been an undercurrent of league and team frustration at Donald Fehr. The NHLPA's executive director is driving the NHL and its bargaining team crazy.

Obviously, the owners are no angels. But, among the complaints:

• He doesn't negotiate off their proposals.
• He continues to make offers that include an overall salary raise for the players in year one
• This week, he actually raised the amount of money he was looking for in revenue-sharing (to $260 million).
• Friday, he kept the owners waiting before beginning scheduled talks; the second time that's happened.
• Rightly or wrongly, even moderates among the teams question his true devotion to the players, believing he has invested nothing in the sport and will damage it, simply walking away once this is all over.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Still feel like incompetents are behind these negotiations...

The league and union looked to be moving slowly towards a deal after trading proposals earlier in the week, but ended up exchanging some heated words after discovering they were still about US$380 million apart on economics.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409129



At any rate does anyone have the math on when the amount remaining of existing contracts is over-shadowed by games lost? That seems to be the most logical math for the NHLPA to do but something tells me they haven't done that math...

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

I found this interesting in Friedmans article yesterday:

Again, this is not an unusual complaint by business in union negotiations. Union leaders as outsiders / agitators / rabble-rousers / etc.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

If I'm the NHL, I guarantee the $600 million. Mathematically, it's really doubtful that the amount comes anywhere close to that number. It will most likely be closer to $211 million. Give the PA what they want then watch them reject it anyway.

We're unclear what the $600 million is though. It very well could be the portion of players salaries that they wont receive this year from the missed games (less than 82 game schedule). If thats the case, and the want that salary for missed games paid back over the next few seasons, how can you expect the NHL to agree to that? Thats as unreasonable as the NHL's first offer, IMO.

Should be noted that as per multiple journalists siting sources from both the owners and the NHLPA that players were requesting the 1.8 billion from this year paid in full plus 5%. From Fehr's presser yesterday, that was neither denied nor confirmed.

Again, this is not an unusual complaint by business in union negotiations. Union leaders as outsiders / agitators / rabble-rousers / etc.

Never said it was.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

We're unclear what the $600 million is though. It very well could be the portion of players salaries that they wont receive this year from the missed games (less than 82 game schedule). If thats the case, and the want that salary for missed games paid back over the next few seasons, how can you expect the NHL to agree to that? Thats as unreasonable as the NHL's first offer, IMO.

Should be noted that as per multiple journalists siting sources from both the owners and the NHLPA that players were requesting the 1.8 billion from this year paid in full plus 5%. From Fehr's presser yesterday, that was neither denied nor confirmed.

What Fehr actually said was that he wanted to work off that framework, and then adjust for the lockout-related issues (e.g., pro-rating).

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

What Fehr actually said was that he wanted to work off that framework, and then adjust for the lockout-related issues (e.g., pro-rating).

He wasn't specific at all.

You're making assumptions.

If you're going to start a sentence with "What Fehr actually said was" it should be followed with what he actually said, find the quote, you'll be surprised at how open to interpretation it was!

 

[CerebralGenesis]

If they meet later today or tomorrow, I'll forget the pissing contest from yesterday even happened

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

He wasn't specific at all.

You're making assumptions.

If you're going to start a sentence with "What Fehr actually said was" it should be followed with what he actually said, find the quote, you'll be surprised at how open to interpretation it was!

It's on the previous page. I assumed people didn't need it posted again, but, for your sake, here:

"we would look at the structure of the agreement based upon what their presumed growth rates were and see if on that basis we were close enough to see if we would be in the same ballpark, the same arena and we would then deal with with the lockout issues afterwards. Based on their reactions today that I don't fully understand, they are not willing to do that".

 

[Freudian]

What Fehr actually said was that he wanted to work off that framework, and then adjust for the lockout-related issues (e.g., pro-rating).

That's not what he said at all. He said that the implications of a shortened season is something they will deal with once the economics are in place.

It can mean anything from pro-rating contracts to demanding full payments on the contracts.

That he semi-dodged a very specific question regarding this should be some cause for concern.

 

[Butch 19]

There's still time for a season, but realistically, I'm expecting, barring anything HUGE, in about two weeks NHL cancels Dec games.

And if a month from now they still arent close, all bets are off for a season. So, essentially, IMO, they've got about a month left of negotiation before they seriously start cancelling the season.

And while yes I know last time it went to Feb before cancellation, I don't think it gets that far this year-my own gut speculation.

agree with this ^^^^

if no deal is reached by Christmas, the NHL will cancel the season by Jan 1st.

Happy Winter Classic everyone!

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

It's on the previous page. I assumed people didn't need it posted again, but, for your sake, here:

I read it, wasn't sure you did.

So how did he confirm or deny russo's claimsof salary demands in that quote?

What Fehr actually said was that he wanted to work off that framework, and then adjust for the lockout-related issues (e.g., pro-rating).

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

That's not what he said at all. He said that the implications of a shortened season is something they will deal with once the economics are in place.

It can mean anything from pro-rating contracts to demanding full payments on the contracts.

That he semi-dodged a very specific question regarding this should be some cause for concern.

I guess that's one way of reading it.

It seems to me that acknowledging that there are a lock-out related issues that need to be addressed once a framework is in place is implicitly a recognition that some form of pro-rating will be necessary. After all, if he was simply going to insist on full payment, he would be denying the lockout as a factor at all (in that context), no?

Anyway, I think we can all agree that if the players demand full payment for a shortened season, they 1) will not get it, and 2) will bring a massive, near universal backlash upon themselves. I have yet to hear / read the NHLPA say that--only unsourced implications of such. Until they actually state that as a demand, I'm going to assume that common sense will prevail, at least on this narrow slice of the negotiations. (Fully recognizing that common sense seems in short supply around the NHL offices these days).