Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
And the NHL's opening offer was far from the start of a healthy dialogue.
If you think one side owns all the blame in this mess, I'm not sure what to tell you.
When this tree fell in the forest, who noticed? (CBA & Lockout Discussion)- Part V
- Thread starter ColePens
- Start date
- Status
And the NHL's opening offer was far from the start of a healthy dialogue.
If you think one side owns all the blame in this mess, I'm not sure what to tell you.
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
- Jul 23, 2009
- 24,429
- 2
Truth. The gloom and doom about losing multiple seasons is overblown around these parts. They are meeting every day and working out the little details. Next they have to do the big economic parts, but they'll be essentially done after that.
I have no problem with that. Fehr and Bettman represent big groups of varying opinions. Go back to them and see what the mindset is. The season is about to get cut and no one benefits from that.
lol, the NHLPA will break if they lose a whole season. Very easy to stay united when you have not lost a pay check yet.
It was pretty clear that the NHLPA caved in June of 2005 and the prospect of losing another season was overwhelming to them.
Trust me, the NHL knows this.
It was pretty clear that the NHLPA caved in June of 2005 and the prospect of losing another season was overwhelming to them.
Trust me, the NHL knows this.
I'm not saying I love the NHLPA's negotiating tactic, but I can appreciate their frustration given the NHL wants to cut the players share to fix all their financial problems. Yes 57% is too high of a number, but in the last CBA the NHL gave them that high number as a compromise for the rest of the CBA which was mostly pro owner. Now the NHL wants to cut back on player costs without really giving them anything back. Again, 57% is too high but I can understand the players frustration that the teams losing money are looking to the players for help and not the big market teams who are pulling in heavy profits.
It's going to take a combination of reduced player salaries and increased revenue sharing to get this done in a fashion that doesn't result in a nasty lockout every time the CBA expires.
Part of the problem is (was) the NHLs insistence on moving teams to non hockey markets, and their reluctance to move struggling teams to more profitable markets.
There are ways the NHL can alleviate it's financial stress without taking massive chunks of the NHLPA's money. The owners should be looking to work with the NHLPA to make the league more profitable, not simply saying well we'll just pay you guys less and that will help us make more.
Why oh why do so many people bring up the NHL opening offer as if that is what has kept a deal from happening? Guys - it was an opening offer! Do you mean to tell me that the opening salvo should have been 50 / 50?
If the players are really walking around with tears in there eyes because of the "opening offer", then there is a huge problem here. Last I heard, the offer was no change in HRR (huge player win in my opinion), and then 49% - 47%...and the players REFUSE to negotiate off of this offer. Enough of the "opening offer" being a problem - at this point it just sounds ridiculous to keep bringing it up.
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
Why oh why do so many people bring up the NHL opening offer as if that is what has kept a deal from happening? Guys - it was an opening offer! Do you mean to tell me that the opening salvo should have been 50 / 50?
If the players are really walking around with tears in there eyes because of the "opening offer", then there is a huge problem here. Last I heard, the offer was no change in HRR (huge player win in my opinion), and then 49% - 47%...and the players REFUSE to negotiate off of this offer. Enough of the "opening offer" being a problem - at this point it just sounds ridiculous to keep bringing it up.
Read in context.
You are kidding yourself if you believe that. Hockey is NOT a major source of revenue for the owners.
Hey Jack, was just picking on your post to reply and make a broader point. I have a couple of buddies in the AHL that cannot believe that their NHLPA "brethren" are not working off the last NHL offer and are prepared to sit it out...that's all.
Krishna
Registered User
Similarly, the NHLPA waiting almost 7 months to finally meet the NHL was far from the start of a healthy dialogue
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
- May 1, 2004
- 4,420
- 5
The problem comes in when you figure that out of 700 NHLPA members, the majority of them cannot afford to go two years without hockey. If the NHLPA tries to pull the cap off the table, the NHL will pull guaranteed contracts.
Sure, the star guys will be able to find jobs in Europe and the European guys will as well because import rules wont affect them. Maybe 200 guys max will find jobs in Europe. That's 500 guys that will not be working. Guys like Brad Richardson, Jordan Tootoo, Krys Barch aren't going to find jobs in Europe. And there's a lot more of those guys than there are Steven Stamkos's. Someone like Richardson, who has so far made $3.075 mil (scheduled to make another $1.35 mil this year) is one of those guys that won't find a job in Europe that pays him close to that and can't financially afford to sit out two years.
If enough players get desperate, and I think a lot of them would after 2 years without paychecks, the NHL might be able to get a CBA ratified that doesn't have guaranteed contracts. I think that's a more realistic scenario than 2 years and the owners caving on a CBA with no salary cap. Imagine being a team's 7th defenseman. You're not making a ton because you don't play. You're not going to have the exposure to get a European team interested in you. Does someone like Davis Drewiske think sitting out two years is a good move for his career? He's made about $2 million dollars to play 106 NHL games so far in his career. He'll be 28 this year. He's one of those players that has a whole heck of a lot more to lose than to gain by sitting out 2 years. I think he could be a 5th or 6th guy on another team but he needs to get ice time that he's not getting in LA. But if they go 2 years without hockey, there will be a ton of prospects ready for the NHL. Are teams going to stick with their prospects or sign a 30 year old that's played 100 career games as a bottom pairing defenseman? A 2 year lockout could kill his career. Do you think he's going to sacrifice his career so some guys can make more money in the future. Quite a few guys would be in a similar position. Those guys would go for a CBA without guaranteed contracts just to get back playing.
mossey3535
Registered User
- Feb 7, 2011
- 13,532
- 10,166
Yeah but from the player's perspective they don't care. So get to the bargaining table, propose a ten or fifteen year CBA and let the owners drown in their own ineptitude. That way by the time the next supposed 'if this happens again' scenario comes along, noone involved today as a player will care.
Also, why wouldn't the owners ask for even more next time? Of course there is nothing stopping them from doing so. But there is nothing stopping the players from asking for more at that time either. That's what noone mentions - if the league continues to grow and becomes more profitable (as opposed to generating 'more' revenue) it would be in the player's best interest to renegotiate the CBA later. That's how CBAs work. They are supposed to be regularly negotiated.
How do I know the NHL wants a 50/50 split? Because you don't offer a 49/48/47 split down from a 43% split when you know full well the negotiations aren't done. The NHL is still saving it's cards like grandfathering/amnesty. This has been established by what Daly has said on the radio several times - once they can agree on the 'core economic issues' i.e. a 50/50 split they can be 'creative' about the transition.
Obviously the owners think the whole league can survive on a 50/50 split. Yes, you're right, as it stands the owner's proposal doesn't entirely fix the problem. But I look at it as an incompletely formed offer. This is a pie in the sky offer that they expect to be compromised on if the PA would actually deign to negotiate.
Also, the notion of 'fixing' the league by moving franchises is a myopic idea. As Craig Button (as much as I hate him) pointed out today, in 2004 they should have moved Edmonton, Calgary and Pittsburgh. Ottawa was in dire straits at one time. Before they moved Winnipeg/PHX it was literally bleeding money and it's still bleeding money. It's really only popular to say we should contract the league because right this moment it means contracting non-traditional hockey markets.
This is what pissed me off the most. Everybody knew the CBA was expiring. Everybody knew that the owners would likely be locking players out if a new agreement wasn't reached.
Yet, it still took until the end of June to even have the first meeting.
Iggy77
Registered User
The PA knew there would be a lockout, I think all signs point to this.
They knew what the league would ask and they knew the league wouldn't accept their proposal either. Not that I agree with this but there was little to talk about in their eyes, but prepare for a work stoppage and start trying to find leverage starting with "Look they locked us out again when all we want to do is play".
The only question is are they really prepared to lose another season again when it comes down to it ?
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
They can't just decertify, first they need a court ruling that NHL is not negotiating in good faith.
The NFLPA did it by sacrificing money going to the new players coming into the league the next season. Problem with the NHL is that their rookies don't make nearly as much on ELC's.
Really? That's not how I remember it happening with the NBA, but you could be right.
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
What would happen if the owners proposed a tiered rollback? So, almost like income tax works, any salary over $X dollars were rolled back by X%.
$8.0M - 30%
$6.0M - 25%
$4.0M - 20%
$2.0M - 10%
<$2.0M - 5%
You can play around with the thresholds. I think a lot of players at the lower to middle end of the income scale might be somewhat amenable to this if it helps them play soon.
$8.0M - 30%
$6.0M - 25%
$4.0M - 20%
$2.0M - 10%
<$2.0M - 5%
You can play around with the thresholds. I think a lot of players at the lower to middle end of the income scale might be somewhat amenable to this if it helps them play soon.
That is such an important point. The great majority of these owners make their money from other sources, and all of them came into the League rich from other sources. In general, professional sports shouldn't be considered as a profit-making venture, though certainly some teams do make a lot of money for their owners. Any owner (unless they're joining the League somehow in a gold-mine market) isn't or shouldn't be doing so with the idea that he's going to significantly improve his wealth. Most become owners because they have a passion for the sport, and if they can break-even then they're relatively content with that. Of course making a profit in a market where the sport wasn't firmly established previously, well that would be an owners dream, I imagine, because it would show that his having the team there is serving for the growth of the sport he loves.
Most owners, with their already deep pockets, probably will withstand money losing Seasons if it's not an almost constant reality and if the losses aren't that great. Of course though, some owners get into money troubles elsewhere, and then having a sports franchise that's losing money becomes an issue they cannot support. I also think that there is the ocassional owner who comes into the League with the erroneous idea that he can be making money within a short, and when he doesn't then he wishes to bail.
Why oh why do so many people bring up the NHL opening offer as if that is what has kept a deal from happening? Guys - it was an opening offer! Do you mean to tell me that the opening salvo should have been 50 / 50?
If the players are really walking around with tears in there eyes because of the "opening offer", then there is a huge problem here. Last I heard, the offer was no change in HRR (huge player win in my opinion), and then 49% - 47%...and the players REFUSE to negotiate off of this offer. Enough of the "opening offer" being a problem - at this point it just sounds ridiculous to keep bringing it up.
Conversely the players have moved, their latest offer while it was delinked would have dropped the players share to around 52% of HRR given a reasonable amount of growth in revenues for the league but it would have done it gradually.
The owners wont move off of immediate cuts, until they do the players wont make any more concessions. Neither side is willing to move and neither side is being more or less reasonable than the other. They each have made a line in the sand that they're unwilling to cross, the owners wont give up immediate cuts and the players wont arent willing to budge on that.
How do you know the owners won't move off immediate cuts? Daly has come out publicly and said they can get "creative" if they are negotiating.
I guarantee we would be a whole lot closer if the players would have come back to the owners and said "ok, we will work off your framework, but here is the deal - no immediate cuts - we go down to 50/50 over time". I bet you they would still be in the room talking over that.
LadyStanley
Registered User
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Who should the Chicago Blackhawks select 2nd overall in the 2024 NHL Entry Draft?- Latest: DisgruntledHawkFan
-
