When this tree fell in the forest, who noticed? (CBA & Lockout Discussion)- Part V

[JAX]

its still possible to rework the schedule to get in short preseason and 82 games.

It's as about as possible as finding the elusive Yedi. Fehr wants games to be missed because his gameplan depends on the owners caving.....

 

[Butch 19]

Very true, but they have been brainwashed into thinking if they hold out for a long time the owners will cave and give Fehr whatever he wants....because that's what happened when Fehr worked for the MLB players.

Yeah, but America cares about baseball.

(and there's boatloads more money in baseball)

 

[kfan22]

its still possible to rework the schedule to get in short preseason and 82 games.

Our beat writer in Minnesota said they could strike a deal maybe in the 3rd week of October and still play 82 games with an extra game each week during the season, I suppose you could look at it like an Olympic year where they are shut down during the season for a few weeks and still play 82 games. I would imagine in the next 2-3 days you will get at least the first week and maybe 2 weeks of games canceled

 

[JAX]

Our beat writer in Minnesota said they could strike a deal maybe in the 3rd week of October and still play 82 games with an extra game each week during the season, I suppose you could look at it like an Olympic year where they are shut down during the season for a few weeks and still play 82 games. I would imagine in the next 2-3 days you will get at least the first week and maybe 2 weeks of games canceled

I think by the middle of the week if nothing is done the league wil start to cancel games by the month not weeks, the playrs need to know that the PA's posturing will not be tolerated and time matters.

 

[rdawg1234]

Our beat writer in Minnesota said they could strike a deal maybe in the 3rd week of October and still play 82 games with an extra game each week during the season, I suppose you could look at it like an Olympic year where they are shut down during the season for a few weeks and still play 82 games. I would imagine in the next 2-3 days you will get at least the first week and maybe 2 weeks of games canceled

yea you could extend it a couple weeks in april too.

I dont care if we dont get ALL 82 games. I dont see a problem with 70 games, or 60 games. If anything it makes it very interesting and gives the teams less time to catch up.

I am worried about the winter classic, not the game itself, but the lead-up. I really want the 24/7 this year and I'd feel kind of jipped if we didnt get it as it was a huge part of the reason why I was so excited that the leafs were playing.

 

[LadyStanley]

It's as about as possible as finding the elusive Yedi. Fehr wants games to be missed because his gameplan depends on the owners caving.....

Perhaps because The Doctor took care of the Yeti in the 1960s? Too bad Captain Jack Harness isn't at the table; he has, let's say, unusual negotiating tactics.


Fehr would prefer to get full (100% of what's owed) to 600+ players for the (full) season, plus the (league) bonuses due to players for the playoffs.

By "eliminating" the preseason exhibition games, he's cut some of the revenue of the owners.

Owners not only are having lack of revenue from lost games, but now they also have the pressure of their sponsors and broadcast partners.

NBC won't be happy to pay $200mm for a "season" of hockey that is only 4 months rather than 6 months long.

 

[mossey3535]

Perhaps because The Doctor took care of the Yeti in the 1960s? Too bad Captain Jack Harness isn't at the table; he has, let's say, unusual negotiating tactics.


Fehr would prefer to get full (100% of what's owed) to 600+ players for the (full) season, plus the (league) bonuses due to players for the playoffs.

By "eliminating" the preseason exhibition games, he's cut some of the revenue of the owners.

Owners not only are having lack of revenue from lost games, but now they also have the pressure of their sponsors and broadcast partners.

NBC won't be happy to pay $200mm for a "season" of hockey that is only 4 months rather than 6 months long.

Yeah but $200M is nothing. NBC alone pays $600M a year for NFL, and the networks collectively pay in $3B a year for the entire league (soon to be $6B a year). In other words, the NFL makes the entire NHL revenue pot in their TV deal alone. That's why there was so much impetus to get a deal done, because there really was a lot of money to be lost by both sides. Oh, and by the way, a NFL player's average career lasts only 3 seasons.

I think Fehr vastly overestimates the amount of money in this league compared to MLB, NFL and NBA. When the scale is smaller, some of these 'pressure' tactics won't work because the overall revenue isn't really that much.

Sure some of these are tax writeoffs but if you were a smart owner, you'd want cost certainty so you could control exactly how much you're writing off. Not letting that part of your business drag everything else down.

The teams also seem ready to lose an entire season if need be. A couple of preseason games don't matter in that larger context. They've already cut some of that lost revenue in the salaries of regular employees.

A typical NHL player plays 5.6 seasons in their career. Depending on where the player is in their career, a single season that could mean losing at least 1/6th of their career earning, and of course much more than that if they are in their prime earning years.

I am all for sticking to your guns and trying to negotiate the best deal for yourself and the players who come after you. But the way to do that is hard negotiation, not whatever shenanigans we've seen so far.

 

[rdawg1234]

Question: Has anyone asked either the NHL or NHLPA representatives(fehr, bettman etc.) if they would do a gradual decrease to 50%? not in the style of the PA's offer but a firm decrease not linked to 7% revenue growth?

what was the response?

 

[mossey3535]

Question: Has anyone asked either the NHL or NHLPA representatives(fehr, bettman etc.) if they would do a gradual decrease to 50%? not in the style of the PA's offer but a firm decrease not linked to 7% revenue growth?

what was the response?

We've already had it. The NHL's three proposals imply that they are willing to negotiate the HRR percentage somewhere around 50/50. The PA could have chosen to respond in kind, even in an insulting way by proposing a 60% share or maintaining their current 57% share.

However, they chose not to, because acknowledging even a ludicrous HRR % would indicate their willingness to take a smaller piece of the pie. So they're stonewalling.

I respect their opinion that they deserve that much and not a penny more. I just happen to think that their opinion is delusional and will lead to their downfall and overall detriment. Unfortunately that will go for the whole league and us as well.

 

[Dado]

I think Fehr vastly overestimates the amount of money in this league compared to MLB, NFL and NBA.

Right. Everybody on the planet can see the revenues are much lower, but Fehr is too dumb to see it himself.

Yep, that's a credible hypothesis.

Sure some of these are tax writeoffs but if you were a smart owner, you'd want cost certainty so you could control exactly how much you're writing off.

"Cost certainty" is EXACTLY what Bettman and the owners called the CBA that just expired.

 

[rdawg1234]

We've already had it. The NHL's three proposals imply that they are willing to negotiate the HRR percentage somewhere around 50/50. The PA could have chosen to respond in kind, even in an insulting way by proposing a 60% share or maintaining their current 57% share.

However, they chose not to, because acknowledging even a ludicrous HRR % would indicate their willingness to take a smaller piece of the pie. So they're stonewalling.

I respect their opinion that they deserve that much and not a penny more. I just happen to think that their opinion is delusional and will lead to their downfall and overall detriment. Unfortunately that will go for the whole league and us as well.

I agree with what you said 100%. but I'm being more specific to the media and say interview questions on the matter. What does Fehr say when someone asks if he'd do a gradual drop not related to 7% growth.

But yes, this whole 57%(1.87b) no less is kind of silly, they want guarenteed raises, rather than a slight cut or say a freeze, which is kind of silly to ask when you already almost make more than the league did as a whole 7 years ago.

 

[mossey3535]

Right. Everybody on the planet can see the revenues are much lower, but Fehr is too dumb to see it himself.

Yep, that's a credible hypothesis.



"Cost certainty" is EXACTLY what Bettman and the owners called the CBA that just expired.

So what? They've admitted they were wrong, and now they're asking for a tweak. Are they just supposed to keep pumping money into a business that isn't making money? Again, it's not like they're trying to radically change the CBA in the way they did last time by asking for a salary cap. They're looking for a 50/50 split.

So 50/50 is unreasonable because it is 'unfair' to ask for the players to take another 'pay cut' when the last so-called 'rollback' resulted in them making just as much money?

Or maybe it is 'unfair' because the owners are being the irresponsible ones by competing with one another for the very few elite players in the league? Which is true. But if the owners were responsible in a non-collectively bargained way, it would be collusion. No, noone held a gun to the owner's heads. But you're telling me some of these guys took those exorbitant contracts and went out to play in front of empty arenas and not a thought passed through their heads that maybe it was too good to be true?

Yeah, you don't turn down found money. But when the gravy train stops rolling, you don't whine and complain and act like a spoiled kid. And especially not when there's another gravy train behind it.

 

[Dado]

Again, it's not like they're trying to radically change the CBA in the way they did last time by asking for a salary cap.

Disagree.

Their proposed changes to ELC and free agency are huge changes from the previous CBA, and has been noted by more than one person in the negotiations, those aren't throw-away points, the owners actually mean it.

 

[McJC]

WHY CAN'T ONE OF THESE ****ERS MAKE A DEAL ALREADY!? I want hockey

 

[knorthern knight]

how exactly does one grandfather in old contracts while reducing the players share? Remove linkage? Just have newly-contracted players pay into escrow?

it doesnt make sense.

A couple of ways, off the top of my head...

1. slowly ratchet down players' HRR share by 1% a year for the next 7 years
2. multiply cap-hits for existing contracts by 0.877 (i.e. 50/57), while contracts signed after new CBA are rated at 100%

 

[AlexanderTheGood]

Both sides are so absurdly far apart that it makes me laugh, and both sides are so committed to not resuming play that it wouldn't surprised me if we missed more than one season. The owners proposed changes to the CBA were in all aspects (meaning changes to the ELC, FA, arbitration, and HRR sharing) a complete affront to the players. To a certain extent, the league's initial offer could allow one to make a conspiratorial case that the NHL wants a lockout. After all, the league was never more popular following the 2004-2005 lockout, and has never been so popular since. The players strategy appears to be locking themselves out essentially, and waiting until the owners cave, which is basically the same strategy the league took during the last lockout. In a sense the strategy appears to be a waiting game on both sides, which does not bode well for the 2012-2013 NHL season.

On an unrelated sidenote, I've always found people's indignation, incredulousness, and shock at professional athletes going on strike to be somewhat humorous. They're professionally trained to be competitive, and collective bargaining is a form of competition. They've been thoroughly mismanaged on a PR front by the NHLPA, however. They cannot for their own sakes make this strike appear to be over the issue of money. Krys Barch's Twitter comments and the fans response to them is more evidence than necessary. But this is more than perception being reality for NHL fans, this approach hurts the players on a much deeper and tangible way. The players need to approach this negotation the same way the CAW needs to approach their bargainings with GM. NHL hockey players are paid very well, Canadian auto workers are paid more than practically any other auto worker in the industrialized or non-industrialized world. GM is not doing very well, and neither are many of the NHL's owners. When your employer is on the precipice of bankruptcy, when you're a well paid employee of that company, and when your wage and benefits are inextricably linked with your company's falling stock, it's really not a good time to bargain collectively for a raise. God, now that I think about it, why do I not see more people criticizing unions in general when discussing sports lockouts?

 

[fredrikstad]

I'm not sure they do. My favorite talking point by the players, i.e. Lupul's piece, is talking about the NHL's record revenues over the span over the past CBA.

I guess they don't realize that in addition to record revenues, the NHL has had player expenses grow over the CBA as the cap has went from $39 million to $70 over the span of only 7 years.

I guess most of the players don't understand things like that. Except players who have spend three to four years in The NCAA. I guess they have at least a little clue?

 

[Pepper]

I guess most of the players don't understand things like that. Except players who have spend three to four years in The NCAA. I guess they have at least a little clue?

Some actually don't understand, some do understand but play the PR-game and others just keep quiet.

And then there's Miller, Liles and Barch who like to wear clown hats.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

So what? They've admitted they were wrong, and now they're asking for a tweak. Are they just supposed to keep pumping money into a business that isn't making money? Again, it's not like they're trying to radically change the CBA in the way they did last time by asking for a salary cap. They're looking for a 50/50 split.

So 50/50 is unreasonable because it is 'unfair' to ask for the players to take another 'pay cut' when the last so-called 'rollback' resulted in them making just as much money?

Or maybe it is 'unfair' because the owners are being the irresponsible ones by competing with one another for the very few elite players in the league? Which is true. But if the owners were responsible in a non-collectively bargained way, it would be collusion. No, noone held a gun to the owner's heads. But you're telling me some of these guys took those exorbitant contracts and went out to play in front of empty arenas and not a thought passed through their heads that maybe it was too good to be true?

Yeah, you don't turn down found money. But when the gravy train stops rolling, you don't whine and complain and act like a spoiled kid. And especially not when there's another gravy train behind it.

Holla holla holla.

I was behind the players when this all started, but I can't get behind their spoiled attitudes anymore. All they do is whine, like last lockout, about how unfair it is and them losing money they deserve. Now they want to keep the old one because they made so much money... unbelievable. Maybe it's not as bad as dreaded?

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

A couple of ways, off the top of my head...

1. slowly ratchet down players' HRR share by 1% a year for the next 7 years
2. multiply cap-hits for existing contracts by 0.877 (i.e. 50/57), while contracts signed after new CBA are rated at 100%

While I'd guess that the owners would want things to move a bit quicker (1.5 percent a year), that seems about right.

I still think that the NHL screwed the negotiations with their absurd opening offer. It was such a transparently stupid proposal that it poisoned the negotiations.

If, as most people believe, the NHLPA probably knows they eventually have to get to 50/50, then most pressing question is how to get there.

What you propose seems like a reasonable start. It guarantees existing payouts, but fixes the system the owners created.

As long as the NHL is pleading that 18 of its clubs are in the red, though, I doubt that plan will do it.

 

[Krishna]

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype
Two sources told me this weekend that, should the lockout last the season, the NHLPA could pull the salary cap off the bargaining table

If so, I guess I'll just stick with the OHL for a few years

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

So what? They've admitted they were wrong, and now they're asking for a tweak. Are they just supposed to keep pumping money into a business that isn't making money? Again, it's not like they're trying to radically change the CBA in the way they did last time by asking for a salary cap. They're looking for a 50/50 split.

So 50/50 is unreasonable because it is 'unfair' to ask for the players to take another 'pay cut' when the last so-called 'rollback' resulted in them making just as much money?

Or maybe it is 'unfair' because the owners are being the irresponsible ones by competing with one another for the very few elite players in the league? Which is true. But if the owners were responsible in a non-collectively bargained way, it would be collusion. No, noone held a gun to the owner's heads. But you're telling me some of these guys took those exorbitant contracts and went out to play in front of empty arenas and not a thought passed through their heads that maybe it was too good to be true?

Yeah, you don't turn down found money. But when the gravy train stops rolling, you don't whine and complain and act like a spoiled kid. And especially not when there's another gravy train behind it.

They began with a 43/57 split. They are willing to settle (this time) for 50-50. What happens in 5-7 years? Why should they stop at 50-50? Why not press the players to a 40-60 split?

On what basis do you believe that the owners truly want a 50/50 system? After all, economically, the best arrangement for them would be, what, 10-year long ELC's capped at 5 million or so annually? You'd lose a few players to Russia, sure, but you'd still be able to turn a hefty profit.

(I'm not completely serious, of course, but I'm not really sure why you think the owners are legitimately entitled to press to improve their own bottom line solely at the expense of the players, but the players are supposed to simply accept whatever the owners are willing to give them.)

 

[PaPaDee]

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype
Two sources told me this weekend that, should the lockout last the season, the NHLPA could pull the salary cap off the bargaining table

If so, I guess I'll just stick with the OHL for a few years

Yeah, I can see players willing to lose multiple seasons. Like it or not, the NHL is in the driver's seat - the sooner the PA recognizes that, the sooner we'll get a deal done. Simply have the HRR% drop by 1.5% per year until the 50/50 split is achieved. No additional rollbacks and no increased escrow.

If that was offered by the PA, and was flat out rejected by the NHL, the PR battle would significantly shift over to the side of the PA.

 

[Zubrusaurus Rex]

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype
Two sources told me this weekend that, should the lockout last the season, the NHLPA could pull the salary cap off the bargaining table

So, basically, what the sources are saying is that if lockout lasts the entire season, they want a second year off as well?

Let's hope Krys and the rest of the guys have got well-stashed Porte cellars and no dogs to feed.

 

[Halibut]

We've already had it. The NHL's three proposals imply that they are willing to negotiate the HRR percentage somewhere around 50/50. The PA could have chosen to respond in kind, even in an insulting way by proposing a 60% share or maintaining their current 57% share.

I havent seen anything by the league suggesting they are willing to move to 50% gradually. They want an immediate cut and until they give up on that the players wont move, that's why we have gridlock.

The owners started with an absurd cut and have dropped to a less absurd cut but it's still immediate cuts.