HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Islanders (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!* (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1219901)

Homeland Security 06-29-2012 12:54 PM

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*
 
Keep all discussion here.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399504

Bunk Moreland 06-29-2012 02:36 PM

From what I read today is that nothing significant developed from today's discussions they kind of just exchanged ideas of what each side wanted.. The serious talks won't happen until September which scares the hell outta me cause that's waaaayyyy too close to the start of the season.. JUST GET THE DEAL DONE!!

Homeland Security 06-29-2012 07:01 PM

I tweeted this to the NHLPA this afternoon.

"@NHLPA Make sure to stop cap floor circumvention with unattainable bonuses. Make team ‪#Isles‬ actually spend to actual floor dollar wise."

JKP 06-29-2012 07:20 PM

A couple of months ago, I posted this regarding my views on the CBA negotiations:

The major points to discuss are:
- eliminating the front-loading (owners want)
- participating in the Olympics (players want)
- capping term on contracts (owners want)
- changes to the discipline model (players want)
- changing the 57-43 revenue split closer to 50-50 (owners want)
- reducing / changing the escrow (players want)

None of that is structural. None of that is worth shutting a season down for. There's lots there to afford give and take.

Be curious to see how things play out.

stranger34 06-29-2012 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct (Post 51740823)
I tweeted this to the NHLPA this afternoon.

"@NHLPA Make sure to stop cap floor circumvention with unattainable bonuses. Make team ‪#Isles‬ actually spend to actual floor dollar wise."

solid

Bunk Moreland 06-29-2012 10:25 PM

Couple things I'd like to see.. Not sure how realistic they really are though.

-Closing the Schultz/Gregoire/Kessel loophole
-Cap floor circumvention eliminated
-Amnesty clause like NBA (each team can buyout/eliminate one contract from impacting the cap)

Bunk Moreland 07-13-2012 10:55 PM

NHL Owners declare war against the NHLPA... Some of the goals of the owners:

-Reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %.
-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
-contracts limits to 5 years
-no more salary arbitration
-entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3
-Post has learned proposal calls for ceiling to be set $4M above midpoint, floor $8M under
-Post has learned proposal would eliminate signing bonuses and mandate same salary in each season

All from the twitter accounts of Renaud P Lavoie and Larry Brooks.

I'm sure they know this won't all happen nor are they banking on it but you gotta think the NHLPA is going to disagree on just about everything.

leaponover 07-14-2012 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland (Post 52527997)
NHL Owners declare war against the NHLPA... Some of the goals of the owners:

-Reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %.
-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
-contracts limits to 5 years
-no more salary arbitration
-entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3
-Post has learned proposal calls for ceiling to be set $4M above midpoint, floor $8M under
-Post has learned proposal would eliminate signing bonuses and mandate same salary in each season

All from the twitter accounts of Renaud P Lavoie and Larry Brooks.

I'm sure they know this won't all happen nor are they banking on it but you gotta think the NHLPA is going to disagree on just about everything.

Yeah, amazing. They really aren't as close as I thought they were and to open up negotiations this way with such an insulting proposal is really bad!!! Things don't look good. Here's a link to the tsn article if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=400580

IslesNorway 07-14-2012 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland (Post 52527997)
NHL Owners declare war against the NHLPA... Some of the goals of the owners:

-Reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %.
-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
-contracts limits to 5 years
-no more salary arbitration
-entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3
-Post has learned proposal calls for ceiling to be set $4M above midpoint, floor $8M under
-Post has learned proposal would eliminate signing bonuses and mandate same salary in each season

All from the twitter accounts of Renaud P Lavoie and Larry Brooks.

I'm sure they know this won't all happen nor are they banking on it but you gotta think the NHLPA is going to disagree on just about everything.


As is normal with collective bargaining, the owners know full well they'll never get all those demands through, just as the players know all their demands won't be met either, but it gives either side some bargaining room.

Actually I think there are some good ideas there from the owners, especailly same annual salary and contract length maximum

xECK29x 07-14-2012 06:02 AM

Anybody that does not think these player contracts are getting out of hand are kidding themselves. Players need to share the wealth a bit to keep the league profitable.

JKP 07-14-2012 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslesNorway (Post 52532735)
As is normal with collective bargaining, the owners know full well they'll never get all those demands through, just as the players know all their demands won't be met either, but it gives either side some bargaining room.

Actually I think there are some good ideas there from the owners, especailly same annual salary and contract length maximum

Exactly. Starting position is all that is.

JKP 07-14-2012 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xECK29x (Post 52532813)
Anybody that does not think these player contracts are getting out of hand are kidding themselves. Players need to share the wealth a bit to keep the league profitable.

Honestly, no. If the owners are giving them 57% of what they make, as agreed, then the salaries aren't out of whack because the owners are making more money.

One could argue the ratio needs to change to be a more equitable 50-50 split, but even then, if overall revenues continue to climb, the salaries will go up.

What would be curious to see is what happens some year if revenues actually decreased...

mitchy22 07-14-2012 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslesNorway (Post 52532735)
As is normal with collective bargaining, the owners know full well they'll never get all those demands through, just as the players know all their demands won't be met either, but it gives either side some bargaining room.

Actually I think there are some good ideas there from the owners, especailly same annual salary and contract length maximum

Just wanted to second this. You always ask for everything when you start a negotiation. You never know what the other side is going to surprise you and agree with right off the top. It's also much easier to bargain from your starting position than to add something out of the blue at a later date.

This is how the give and take works. You start with your list of demands. You come together on what you can. You try to get past nonstarters on both sides. You hold pat on your sticking points.

If the NHLPA is willing to move lower on their percentage of revenues, I bet you can knock out every other of the NHL's requests and guarantee strict lower limits and many other NHLPA requests. I'd suggest that if the NHLPA is willing to go all the way down to 47% that they'll get almost everything else they want.

As long as that number can slide, there'll be a real negotiation on issues from both sides. If that numbers stays at 57%, then the NHL is going to get some of their other requests and we may not see lower limits remedied.

If the NHLPA was willing to come down to 50%, then I could see the following happen:
  • Specific performance bonuses are extended to other kinds of contracts (perhaps for RFAs, UFAs, or simply a lower age and longer term limits.) Strict rules will be placed on what types and they will always be percentage based in terms of the overall salary; they also will be limited to some percentage of the salary.
  • Signing bonus rules stay the same.
  • ELC rules (and bonuses) stay the same.
  • Scheduling becomes more of a team effort; attendance in the Olympics will be worked out here.
  • Discipline becomes codified and more black and white.
  • Lower limits are strictly enforced.
  • The NHL will still get contracts limited to 7 years.

For every pro-NHLPA bullet that gets removed, give them 1% of revenues back to the cap.
Raise the contract limit by a year? NHL gets 1% in their favor.
Lower the contract limit by a year? Players get 1% in their favor.

Both sides will figure out ways to make the final revenue percentages more stable.

There are several other things that can be bargained for, as well. I think the last CBA set a lot of strong groundwork. I also think both sides fully know what their major issues are at this point. I think both sides fully understand that a lockout is not in their best interest. They'll add; they'll subtract; they'll move to the middle when they have to. I'm a lot more positive this time around about how these negotiations will pan out.

:),
Mitch

boredmale 07-14-2012 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland (Post 51748975)
-Amnesty clause like NBA (each team can buyout/eliminate one contract from impacting the cap)

What's the use of Amnesty? It's not like the Islanders would take advantage of it. Amnesty just gives high spending teams a get free out of jail card. Only way I see there being Amnesty would be if the cap goes down

A Pointed Stick 07-14-2012 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslesNorway (Post 52532735)
As is normal with collective bargaining, the owners know full well they'll never get all those demands through, just as the players know all their demands won't be met either, but it gives either side some bargaining room.

Actually I think there are some good ideas there from the owners, especailly same annual salary and contract length maximum

I am not seeing significant issues in the owner demands. As JKP very nicely summed, this might be wrapped up by season start, or played out during the season.

Isles Enforcer 07-14-2012 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pointed Stick (Post 52535549)
I am not seeing significant issues in the owner demands. As JKP very nicely summed, this might be wrapped up by season start, or played out during the season.

The players are not going to want to budge from the 57% to 46%. Im sure they will come to some sort of agreement eventually but if you do not think thats significant you are gravely mistaken.

Bunk Moreland 07-14-2012 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pointed Stick (Post 52535549)
I am not seeing significant issues in the owner demands. As JKP very nicely summed, this might be wrapped up by season start, or played out during the season.

Of course a lot can change over the course of the summer but many TSN and other people around the game are pretty pessimistic about the league starting on time. I'm not going to get worked up until around September but I don't see how you can't see that this is pretty crappy news.

Posted from agent Allen Walsh:
Quote:

"The moment the proposal was presented, every player in the room knew Gary had just written off 1st 3 months of the season." - an NHL agent
Joe Haggerty:
Quote:

Every NHL player I talked to this summer feels like they bent over backwards for last CBA. This 1st proposal isnt gonna make for happy group
Bob Mckenzie:
Quote:

Based on reports from @RenLavoieRDS regarding NHL proposal to NHLPA, my view of labor outlook remains unchanged from weeks or months ago. That is, I was pessimistic to begin with, figured there was no way season starts on time and today's news only reinforces that sense.
Quote:

Originally Posted by boredmale (Post 52534367)
What's the use of Amnesty? It's not like the Islanders would take advantage of it. Amnesty just gives high spending teams a get free out of jail card. Only way I see there being Amnesty would be if the cap goes down

-Cap has been expected to down for quite some time.

-DiPietro.

Bunk Moreland 07-14-2012 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslesNorway (Post 52532735)
Actually I think there are some good ideas there from the owners, especailly same annual salary and contract length maximum

While you may agree with some of the points I am betting that the NHLPA will not. The players are going to be pretty pissed especially after feeling like they got screwed over in the last CBA.


Good article to read from a players perspective and why they're going to be angered over the proposal... and yes I get it is just a starting point in negotiations but it's still pretty drastic:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3225--nhl.html

Bunk Moreland 07-14-2012 11:41 AM

Another article from Larry Brooks:
Quote:

Seven years after mortally wounding the Players’ Association, the NHL Board of Governors is moving in for yet another kill, its first collective bargaining submission yesterday in Toronto as much a declaration of war as an initial proposal off which to negotiate.

The league power brokers who canceled the 2004-05 season in order to get the hard cap that is contained in the CBA that expires on Sept. 15 after seven seasons of unprecedented revenue growth, are essentially challenging the players, now led by Donald Fehr, to accept another round of massive givebacks or be prepared to miss 2012-13.

Unless the players cave in historic fashion, a lengthy lockout is a certainty.

Sources within the industry last night told The Post the league is not only demanding the players accept a cut in their percentage of the gross from the current 57 percent to 46 percent, but also recalculating the definition of Hockey Related Revenue so the pot from which the owners and players share would be drastically reduced.
The league earned a record $3.2 billion in revenue last year and Gary Bettman's salary has more than doubled since last CBA negotiations. Now they want to redefine what Hockey Related Revenue is (to decrease it) and then further decrease the amount that the players will get.


The sky isn't falling yet but I'm now more nervous than I was before.

mitchy22 07-14-2012 11:55 AM

My general response to the recent quotes.
 
Agents are biased and that comment is exactly what an anonymous agent would throw out there. The media sensationalizes even when they try not to. (Yes, even respected sources are known to do so. Less than respected sources throw whatever the **** they feel like out there.) Your first offer always has everything you want in it; the NHL's first offer is no different. I'll be concerned when the sides stop talking; that doesn't appear to be the case yet. Both sides have at least postured about getting something done in time; that has to be considered good news.

57% of revenues isn't the players getting screwed over by any extent of the imagination. Some form of cap was the main issue and it's now here to stay. The starting point is going to be the last agreement whether the NHLPA likes it or not. The 57% number is all of the NHLPA's leverage. That's the number they'll use. The NHLPA will drop that number down a bit in order to gain some things they want, or they will hold it fast and concede on most of the other issues. Neither side benefits enough from a lockout. Since the cap is tied to revenues, nobody wants to see revenues take that kind of a hit. Since it should be obvious that the cap isn't going away, the sides should find it easier to find the sweet spot in the middle.

We're not talking about implementing a salary cap anymore. The NHL as a whole has shown consistent growth over the recent CBA. There's a significant television contract again. Quite frankly, this negotiation should be easier than the last one (cap already exists) and have more pressure on it to get finished in time (revenues and league popularity have been increasing and neither side wants to see that diminish.)

:),
Mitch

Mr Wentworth 07-14-2012 12:08 PM

There's one major thing I want: Not being allowed to bury contracts like Wade Redden's in the minors. Teams/GM's need to be held accountable for the poopy and unreasonable contracts they sign players to.

Homeland Security 07-14-2012 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland (Post 52537621)
Another article from Larry Brooks:

The league earned a record $3.2 billion in revenue last year and Gary Bettman's salary has more than doubled since last CBA negotiations. Now they want to redefine what Hockey Related Revenue is (to decrease it) and then further decrease the amount that the players will get.


The sky isn't falling yet but I'm now more nervous than I was before.


http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...2odoIYatzFJPyK


Make sure you post a link please. Thanks!

A Pointed Stick 07-14-2012 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isles Enforcer (Post 52536625)
The players are not going to want to budge from the 57% to 46%. Im sure they will come to some sort of agreement eventually but if you do not think thats significant you are gravely mistaken.

As someone familiar with bargaining agreements I can tell you any negotiation can get hung up on anything if one side chooses to make it a sticking point. If things get ugly the issue you raised will probably be at the forefront, but in terms of general mood I am not seeing the smoke or hearing the war drums of an anticipated WWIII here, not like the period of time leading up to the last bargaining period. Both sides start with their real concerns augmented, plus some extra thrown in as sacrificial demands, then meet somewhere in the middle. The 57% vs 46% will in the end likely wind up not in the middle, but closer to say 50%. The owners will get more, and the players will get enough to say they "won" to their members. The rest of the issues like contract length have grey areas that benefit both sides depending on who you are, individually. The average grunt will benefit from shorter contracts because teams will have more spending flexibility for depth players each year, and the high end, hard working, good every year of their life players will get max value every 5 years. 5 year contracts only hurt the high paid, big ego albatrosses in the league. If any group needs a reason to prove themselves on a more regular basis it is them, so I see this as a win-win for pretty much everyone but the laziest high paid egoists. About frickken time too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland (Post 52537267)
Of course a lot can change over the course of the summer but many TSN and other people around the game are pretty pessimistic about the league starting on time. I'm not going to get worked up until around September but I don't see how you can't see that this is pretty crappy news.

That's what opinion mongers do. It is far easier to look intelligent going negative than going positive. I would do the same thing because CBAs, now that the owners don't have an inside man like Eagleson playing worm tongue to the NHLPA, will forever be contentious, so if you guess bad by going negative you can at least blend in with everyuone else. Remember that part of the reason the last two CBAs were fire and brimstone was because the players had been played like fools by the owners since the inception of the league. It took the great scandal involving Eagleson to give the players their chance for revenge and they did so. I know Larry Brooks likes to cry boo hoo for the players, but in reality the guys are doing just fine after the last CBA.

There are some saying that this time they may even play through discussions (I don't see you quoting them, but you should at least read their thoughts.) I have seen this with other labor negotiations, so there is no reason to think it can't happen here, all things considered.

And giant props to Mitch for a post that almost made me not respond as my views are reflected therein.

A Pointed Stick 07-14-2012 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland (Post 52537621)
Another article from Larry Brooks:

Larry wants to be the martyr'd voice of the players and is the last columnist I'd ever listen to on the CBA issue. I wouldn't be surprised if Goodenow did, and Fehr now does, ghost write his pieces

boredmale 07-14-2012 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland (Post 52537267)
-DiPietro.

If the Islanders buy out Dipietro it will be a case that the caphit will count against the cap, not a case that they pay him but don't get the caphit. This is the Islanders afterall

Now if the NHLPA agrees you can cut a player without paying him 1 shot amnesty I could see Dipietro being cut, but no chance in hell that happens.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.