Thucydides
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2009
- 8,154
- 845
Ovie has been kind-of an idiot throughout this whole thing, and strikes me as completely arrogant.
That right there is likely one of the reasons the PA is playing hardball. They might compromise on the % of HRR but you mess with UFA and RFA status and you mess with everybody bread and butter.
Has anyone posted ideas regarding the "make whole" provision? The league certainly has dropped enough hints that they are willing to be creative in this area.
Would a 50/50 split for funding make it more palatable for the players?
How about a 50/50 split with the league having to match their amount as an add on to revenue sharing for the bottom 5 teams?
Ovie has been kind-of an idiot throughout this whole thing, and strikes me as completely arrogant.
Question. Does anyone have the info as to how much the players lost each season (% wise) that went back to the NHL in escrow?
I know there were 2 years where the players received more than 100% of contracts, and that last year the player received 99.something% of their contracts. What about the other 4 years?
The ''make whole" provision is the closest attempt at humor in these CBA talks. I'm sure the PA sees it as a bad joke used by the league for puiblic PR and is not even considering it... Even the term "make whole" is a Luntz word re-engineering type term destined for public consumption.
Some of the contract issues have been discussed.
But Fehr seems to be pushing for some further concessions from owners in response to union taking less $$s.
The players paid 8.5 % of their salaries in escrow, and got 7.98 % of their salaries back.They're getting back 7.98% from 11-12 (see thread -- may still be on first page). So, I think that was 7.02% they "donated" via escrow.
Again, to be clear, the bulk of the blame belongs to the owners. They locked out the players for an entire season in 2004-05, and they got a salary cap and a 24-percent salary rollback. Now, despite seven years of record revenues, they're locking them out again and asking for more, more, more. They want them to go from 57 percent of HRR to 50, right now, when that represents $231 million a year, if revenues are flat. They want to tighten contracting rules, when loosening them was their concession last time. Their opening offer was too harsh, and now they're being only less harsh, and they're still being stubborn.
Fehr helpfully reminds us of the 2004-05 background every time he holds a news conference. But again, the players are not blameless victims. They prospered under the last CBA and are better off than ever before. They did so well under the last CBA that they wanted to keep playing under the deal. How are they going to win here? What is their end game? They should not cave just because the owners want them to. They should not take a bad deal just because they are under pressure. But they have to acknowledge that the owners have the hammer – like it or not, as bitter as they are at Bettman, as much as they distrust the owners – and their goal must be to get the best deal they can. They are going to lose in the end; they have to mitigate their loss. Is this the best way to do that?
We haven't been able to run the numbers yet," Fehr said.
Really? What the heck has the union been doing since Sept. 12, the last time it made a proposal? The leaders haven't run the numbers yet on their best-sounding offer so far? What do the rank and file think about that? Did the rank and file press the leadership to make that proposal during that last-minute conference call Thursday? Is that why the negotiating session was delayed?
Enough. Enough of the games. Enough of the too-smart solutions and strategies. Enough of the history lectures and economics lessons. Enough of the grudges and the greed.
Owners, get back to the table and find more in the players' proposals you can adopt. Players, get off your high horses and find a way to give the owners more of what they want without compromising your principles.
Ask yourselves how much is enough, because the rest of us, we already know.
The players paid 8.5 % of their salaries in escrow, and got 7.98 % of their salaries back.
Blasphemy! They didn't get face value! Oh wait, that was under the CBA which they wanted to maintain...
The real negotiations will take place in the next few days.
The players won as much as the owners under the last CBA. The players only feel like their lost because they were the ones caving. So it's more emotional than rational.
A league that has 73% of revenue going to player salary wouldn't have survived. So the players won by actually having a league to play in.
The PA doesn't like the NHL's offer of "make whole" which is basically players paying players down the road.
That's true but isn't the PA's 3rd proposal essentially the same thing ? Future players signing contracts would get bent over backwards to pay for the existing contracts which will be expiring over the next few years. Isn't that "players paying players" too ?
The season is toast and that's all there is to it. That's what media types like this guy have to come to terms with. What the owners want they are only going to get by starving the players out, and that's not going to happen with enough time left to still salvage the season. The owners have always known that to be true. I think it's safe to say the players have been prepared by Fehr for this reality since he was brought in. So they are stocked up to last a while as well. Eventually the two sides will lose enough money that they will be forced into making concessions neither of them want to make today. But 2012-13 is gone.
How so? Other than the 3rd one which devalues the contracts (13% guaranteed, and 87% subject to escrow at 50/50), the other two are fixed figures over the first 2-5 years. The 3rd proposal might not honor the contracts (although with growth, it realistically will), but the first two certainly do. Fixed dollar amounts with fixed raises. How does that not honor the contracts?
question. Does anyone have the info as to how much the players lost each season (% wise) that went back to the nhl in escrow?
I know there were 2 years where the players received more than 100% of contracts, and that last year the player received 99.something% of their contracts. What about the other 4 years?