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

[pepty]

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.)

No one has suggested that but stonewalling and stalling and PR stunts and tweeting are wearing thin.

Maybe forget the spin and start negotiating in earnest.

 

[Section337]

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

Not surprising, a number of Fehr's talking points have implied he is negotiating against the last CBA.

 

[Hire Sather]

Topic of discussion during the PA's "Internal Meetings" today:

How can we contuine to stall, BS and posture until we actually begin to talk for real?

Pathetic. Sickening.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

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.

This is how I feel, too.

I don't think the owners have made any genuine attempt to negotiate. They just started with a very extreme position and have come back with something slightly less extreme.

I think you would start to get more movement in the negotiations if the owners didn't demand an immediate across the board cut to salaries. It's possible for the HRR % to come down w/o cutting salaries - but until the owners move in that direction I'm not expecting any meaningful negotiations to take place.

 

[pepty]

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.

The "absurd cut" as you call it was just the inverse of the split that is there now in favour of the players.

The owners did make a substantial move but the PA is sticking with their joke of an offer-players taking more every year and the owners well-maybe if the league expands more than 7 percent per year.

They cannot have expected the owners to bite on that and yet they have not come up with anything new or any response to the owners last offer.

Pretty clear that stalling and expecting the owners to cave is their plan, and that tactic has been leaked by pretty well all their media mouthpieces

That is when said mouthpieces are not claiming that the PA will not negotiate because they want revenge on Bettman and so will not make any agreement this year no matter what.

We'll see what happens, but please stop the hypocrisy of pretending that the PA are bargaining in good faith.

 

[Hire Sather]

This is how I feel, too.

I don't think the owners have made any genuine attempt to negotiate. They just started with a very extreme position and have come back with something slightly less extreme.

I think you would start to get more movement in the negotiations if the owners didn't demand an immediate across the board cut to salaries. It's possible for the HRR % to come down w/o cutting salaries - but until the owners move in that direction I'm not expecting any meaningful negotiations to take place.

We'll get more movement when the PA realizes that the owners DON'T have to come off this because most of them are losing less money by not playing. The players will be losing checks soon.

Theres one league in the world that can pay the players the amount of money the NHL can (I realize the KHL can pay some european stars compareable rates) but what about 95% of players?

Theres nowhere else the players can go to get the wages they can in the NHL.

Owners will make money off their other buisness ventures.

We'll see who caves first.

 

[Dado]

We'll see what happens, but please stop the hypocrisy of pretending that the PA are bargaining in good faith.

There is no difference in "goodness of faith" from either side.

 

[Iggy77]

Not surprising, a number of Fehr's talking points have implied he is negotiating against the last CBA.

Sounds more like scare tactics. Trying to fight the cap is a battle not worth fighting and the cap has been good for the players.

If the PA is willing to flush their careers down the drain for additional year(s) so Fehr can wage his personal war against a salary cap which is he is opposed against then the PA is really that stupid.

Honestly, does that make any sense? The NHLPA has done pretty great since the NHL instituted a salary cap. Pulling the cap after one year accomplishes what, exactly? It doesn't help the players that much and it would further entrench the NHL.

They probably think they could be doing even better without it.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

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

Honestly, does that make any sense? The NHLPA has done pretty great since the NHL instituted a salary cap. Pulling the cap after one year accomplishes what, exactly? It doesn't help the players that much and it would further entrench the NHL.

And how can anyone see the NHLPA willing to lose multiple seasons over this? How will the majority of the PA, that is, all the bottom six forwards, bottom three defensemen, and backup goaltenders feel about that? What about the minor league tweeners, and the free agents?

Fact is, the NHL and NHLPA are well further along than they were at this point in 2004-2005. While people like to postulate about worst case scenarios, and there's a lot of posturing going on, a deal will likely get done in the next 2-3 months.

Just remember, as far as the media is concerned, reporting that the league and players will simply need to hash out these issues over the next couple months and that odds are we'll have some type of season is pretty boring. It doesn't draw. Talking about anonymous sources that say this could last multiple seasons, even though that makes no sense, is much more exciting.

 

[Jason Lewis]

This is how I feel, too.

I don't think the owners have made any genuine attempt to negotiate. They just started with a very extreme position and have come back with something slightly less extreme.

I think you would start to get more movement in the negotiations if the owners didn't demand an immediate across the board cut to salaries. It's possible for the HRR % to come down w/o cutting salaries - but until the owners move in that direction I'm not expecting any meaningful negotiations to take place.

You just defined negotiations. The only way it gets less extreme is if THE NHLPA ACTUALLY RESPONDS.

Until now they have just crossed their arms and shaken their heads like children who don't want to eat peas. Then when the NHLPA asked them..."well okay what do you want for dinner?" they replied "Chocolate cake with marshmallows." And that's what the PA has been doing....since July.

Look, the PA has not acted in good faith AT ALL through these negotiations. They've wanted a lockout since ****ing last year. The NHL wanted to get these talks underway last year and the PA said no, wait til the All-Star break. All-Star Break comes, and they say nooo let's wait til the end of the season. End of the season shows up and the PA says...well...let's wait til the finals.

They met for 10 minutes during...I think it was game 4 or game 6 in LA? PA said we'll talk more this summer. NHLPA says on July 5th ish I believe..okay we're ready to go. NHL makes an offer on on July 14th. NHLPA did not respond until AUGUST 14TH. One month. And it wasn't even a counter offer, it was an offer of their own that took nothing from the NHL offer into consideration. NHL made a second proposal that was less extreme on August 27th.

August 31st NHLPA comes to the table and presents THE SAME EXACT OFFER FROM AUGUST 14TH.

September 13th-15th, NHL makes a THIRD OFFER, even less extreme then the previous two. NHLPA says no thank you and offers THE SAME EXACT OFFER FROM AUGUST 14TH.

And here we are, October 1st, and the PA is still crying "We just want to play."

Reading that you can't tell me that throughout this entire process Fehr and the PA had ANYTHING less than lockout on their minds. They want to stick it to the owners for last time. They have had no intention and made no attempts at working cordially with the NHL Owners since last year so that they can solve their differences on this. **** if they really wanted to "Just play" like all these guys are saying they would have started the negotiations last year so that we could be "Just playing" right now instead of listening to the Krys Barchs of the world cry about how they have to buy Regular Unleaded for their BMW now instead of Premium.

 

[Epsilon]

There is no difference in "goodness of faith" from either side.

Most people on here talking about "bargaining in good faith" have no idea what it means from a legal perspective, and are using it as an intelligent-sounding stand-in for "making proposals that are closer to what I think the CBA should look like".

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

You just defined negotiations. The only way it gets less extreme is if THE NHLPA ACTUALLY RESPONDS.

Until now they have just crossed their arms and shaken their heads like children who don't want to eat peas. Then when the NHLPA asked them..."well okay what do you want for dinner?" they replied "Chocolate cake with marshmallows."

...no, not really.

In your scenario, the NHLPA would be a more productive partner if it had started with something as absurd as the NHL (demanding, say, 70 percent of HRR), and then lowered their demands to 65 and 62 perecent over the following sessions. That's movement, to be sure, but its movement from an absurd and counterproductive starting point.

What the NHLPA has said, in essence, is that they like the current system and do not believe it is need of structural overhaul. You can find fault wit that--but it isn't quite the childish act you suggest.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

You just defined negotiations. The only way it gets less extreme is if THE NHLPA ACTUALLY RESPONDS.

Until now they have just crossed their arms and shaken their heads like children who don't want to eat peas. Then when the NHLPA asked them..."well okay what do you want for dinner?" they replied "Chocolate cake with marshmallows."

Not really. A key to a negotiation is creating some sort of traction between the two sides - and so far there has been little to none. All that's happen is the owners have made a couple of offers slightly less stupid than the first one and are complaining that the players won't play along with their nonsense.

If the NHLPA were to actually respond in the way the owners' first offer merited then they would be offered to take 65% of the HRR, decreases ELCs to one year and allow players to become UFAs after 3 years...then gradually backtracked (baby steps only) from there.

 

[Iggy77]

Fehr's proposals hinge on de-linking salaries from HRR and ensuring the players get their $1.8B (and increases in the following years) with no escrow. So if league revenues drop, the owners have to pay the players regardless.

The PA's offer gets worse as this lockout drags on as there is no way league revenues don't drop significantly, I wonder if they will make a new proposal at some point to take that into account.

 

[Epsilon]

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.

The problem is that it's going to take a lot more than a "tweak" to fix the problems the NHL faces economically, and neither side is really proposing something that would fix it from what I can tell.

The owners basically want the same system that they are now claiming didn't work, only with a lower percentage share of revenues going to the players and a bunch of player mobility rights taken away (none of which have an economic effect, it's just the owners - or likely more accurately, the owners acting on behalf of their incompetent general managers - trying to stick a thumb in the players' eyes just because they think they can). If income inequality in the NHL continues to explode then the exact same problems will re-occur a few years in the future, with the exact same teams in trouble; the only difference would be Toronto, New York, etc. making even high profits than they currently do. The NHLPA's revenue-sharing band-aid isn't going to fix this issue either. The two sides have simply got to give up the fantasy that some kind of tight salary range and NFL-style parity is achievable in a league where the majority of revenue is generated locally rather than from national TV contracts.

 

[pepty]

Most people on here talking about "bargaining in good faith" have no idea what it means from a legal perspective, and are using it as an intelligent-sounding stand-in for "making proposals that are closer to what I think the CBA should look like".

No need to get upset, I am sure that most people who use it are not trying to use the term from a legal perspective at all or trying to be pretentious.

 

[TCsmyth]

Most people on here talking about "bargaining in good faith" have no idea what it means from a legal perspective, and are using it as an intelligent-sounding stand-in for "making proposals that are closer to what I think the CBA should look like".

Thanks for the legal education....

How about this, I am prepared to leave my season ticket money in escrow for multiple seasons if it means flushing the Krys Barch's out of the game. Let's see those guys compete with the rest of us for employment

 

[Material Defender]

The league is now asking for a break: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftvasports.ca%2Ftvasports%2Fhockey%2Farchives%2F2012%2F10%2F20121001-104058.html&act=url

Why is that?

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

Topic of discussion during the PA's "Internal Meetings" today:

How can we contuine to stall, BS and posture until we actually begin to talk for real?

Pathetic. Sickening.

I think you're confused.

@KatieStrangESPN #CBA Day3 of labor talks btwn NHL/PA has finished. No plans to meet tmrw, per S. Fehr. League indicated they needed time to meet internally

The league needs the time off, not the players.

 

[LadyStanley]

The league is now asking for a break: http://translate.google.com/transla...archives/2012/10/20121001-104058.html&act=url

Why is that?

See news thread - Daly says league needs to do "homework" based on discussions from this weekend. (IOW, some internal discussions.)

But tentative plans are to meet on Tuesday for further discussions (on the weekend's issues, aka non-economic).

 

[Dado]

See news thread - Daly says league needs to do "homework" based on discussions from this weekend. (IOW, some internal discussions.)

There ya go, the owners are starting to crack...

 

[JMT21]

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

Say goodbye to guaranteed contracts if the NHLPA tries that.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

Say goodbye to guaranteed contracts if the NHLPA tries that.

It isn't that simple, at all..

There are owners who, at least in theory, would accept a modified cap-less league, and probably more if there was a luxury tax system as well. (You could imagine a coalition of the biggest-money and smallest-money franchises, right, the former because they could spend whatever they deemed doable to be competitive, while still turning a profit; the latter because they would reap windfall profits from the big-market's gluttony). I don't expect this to happen, of course, but it is at least plausible.

There is not similar critical mass of players who would ever have a vested interest in doing away with guaranteed contracts.

 

[Lacaar]

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

Haha well no kidding. If I was the players and lost a year of hockey I'd be fighting tooth and nail to get rid of linkage. Who knows what revenues could look like after they finally get back playing.

If the fans actually did get pissed and we saw a 50% drop in revenue after a 2 year lockout. The players could have held out 2 years to take a massive massive paycut. They almost can't risk any type of linkage once they committ to this long term.

 

[Jason Lewis]

Not really. A key to a negotiation is creating some sort of traction between the two sides - and so far there has been little to none. All that's happen is the owners have made a couple of offers slightly less stupid than the first one and are complaining that the players won't play along with their nonsense.

If the NHLPA were to actually respond in the way the owners' first offer merited then they would be offered to take 65% of the HRR, decreases ELCs to one year and allow players to become UFAs after 3 years...then gradually backtracked (baby steps only) from there.

...no, not really.

In your scenario, the NHLPA would be a more productive partner if it had started with something as absurd as the NHL (demanding, say, 70 percent of HRR), and then lowered their demands to 65 and 62 perecent over the following sessions. That's movement, to be sure, but its movement from an absurd and counterproductive starting point.

What the NHLPA has said, in essence, is that they like the current system and do not believe it is need of structural overhaul. You can find fault wit that--but it isn't quite the childish act you suggest.

At least there would be SOME sort of communication even if it is from a silly place. You work back and forth, have healthy communication and widdle it down to something that works for both.

The NHLPA has put forth no effort in communicating or having healthy dialogue when it comes to this. They want it their way or no way.