HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New Jersey Devils (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   CBA Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1231015)

Devils86 07-15-2012 04:51 PM

CBA Talk
 
An article from Brooks...This could get ugly...See how those 7.5 cap hits look soon.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...3ctsOZ3siejtMI

BenedictGomez 07-15-2012 04:57 PM

It's not a big deal yet.

The owners knowingly have to way overshoot they're realistic expectations on a first draft so that they have room to negotiate down to what they think they can give the players.

Devils731 07-15-2012 05:01 PM

Brooks hysterics as if the NHL made a final offer they won't budge on instead of an initial offer.

After 2 meetings media pundits worried there was no offer made by either side. Then an offer is made and pundits worry about how extreme it is. Media pundits know worries gets them more views than being even keel.

Devils86 07-15-2012 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils731 (Post 52570395)
Brooks hysterics as if the NHL made a final offer they won't budge on instead of an initial offer.

After 2 meetings media pundits worried there was no offer made by either side. Then an offer is made and pundits worry about how extreme it is. Media pundits know worries gets them more views than being even keel.

obviously....but i think this is going to be tougher than alot of people first thought..the owners want apretty significant roll back..

kyle evs48 07-15-2012 05:05 PM

It's called the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The NHL and the PA bargain. Then they agree.

Devils86 07-15-2012 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle evs48 (Post 52570477)
It's called the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The NHL and the PA bargain. Then they agree.

or they dont and we miss a year.................

CFD 07-15-2012 05:12 PM

You don't start off a negotiation by insulting the other party if you wish to achieve results.

Scott04 07-15-2012 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkson Falls Down (Post 52570647)
You don't start off a negotiation by insulting the other party if you wish to achieve results.

And you also don't start off a negotiation with an offer that is totally fair/right down the middle unless you want to get destroyed by the final result. That's not how bargaining works. The first offer being ridiculous is fine, as long as the owners then move off their position towards the middle from here. If they do not budge, then its a problem.

Ilkka Pikachu 07-15-2012 05:22 PM

They kind of have to budge on some things here. They just will.

The 5 year limit for contracts they propose is retarded, but I can totally see the PA allow a higher limit of like 8 or 9 if that means a gain of 1 or 2% in the revenue share.

MJB Devils23* 07-15-2012 05:30 PM

I really don't think this will be as ugly as the media is trying to spin it. But at the same time, these CBA negotiations are also extremely unpredicatable.

Scott04 07-15-2012 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockie (Post 52570899)
They kind of have to budge on some things here. They just will.

The 5 year limit for contracts they propose is retarded, but I can totally see the PA allow a higher limit of like 8 or 9 if that means a gain of 1 or 2% in the revenue share.

5 isn't a terrible suggestion. It just seems like it is because of the unlimited terms that have been allowed and recently given out in increasing frequency. The NBA has a max of 5 years. I don't recall if the NFL has a max but contracts longer than 6/7 years are very very rare. You really don't see anything longer than 10 for baseball, and those aren't overly common. I don't think it will stay as low as 5, but a 6-7 year max contract length isn't exactly unreasonable. Until recently you rarely saw deals longer than 8 years anyway. And if they reconfigure how the cap hit is determined, no one would want a contract longer than that anyway. Adding the years won't be beneficial to anyone anymore with the right configuration.

njdevsfn95 07-15-2012 05:41 PM

Players wont settle for any share less than 50%.

Of course the owners went for 46% because they want any number less than the current 57%.

I dont understand Brooks' opinion that this means the situation is fubar.

Scott04 07-15-2012 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njdevsfn95 (Post 52571469)
Players wont settle for any share less than 50%.

Of course the owners went for 46% because they want any number less than the current 57%.

I dont understand Brooks' opinion that this means the situation is fubar.

Its a lot like the theory many Devils fans when any of our players hit UFA. Anything and everything that is not a signed contract is bad news. Brooks takes anything but an agreement (be it on a term, or an entire CBA) is a sign of impending doom. Its ridiculous. This was the first offer. Anyone panicking now is blowing things out of proportion. The real judge of the situation comes in the follow up offer(s).

kyle evs48 07-15-2012 05:47 PM

I will be interested in the counter proposal.

But I think one way or another, there is going to be a limit on contracts. My gut says 7 years.

Vilgraining 07-15-2012 05:54 PM

It was a stupid and pointless offer. We all get you have to start off with something they won't accept then "compromise". But that was dog **** in a bag. The only good of that offer was it probably got Fehr to laugh all weekend. I would love the NHLPA to offer 75% and UFA after 2 years or 21, whichever comes first. Now there is no reason to go crazy, because we have 2 months, but at some point they do have to get serious about this.

FYI, this is why certain players got max signing bonus's (in case of a roll back or no games)

Devils731 07-15-2012 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilgraining (Post 52571817)
It was a stupid and pointless offer. We all get you have to start off with something they won't accept then "compromise". But that was dog **** in a bag. The only good of that offer was it probably got Fehr to laugh all weekend. I would love the NHLPA to offer 75% and UFA after 2 years or 21, whichever comes first. Now there is no reason to go crazy, because we have 2 months, but at some point they do have to get serious about this.

FYI, this is why certain players got max signing bonus's (in case of a roll back or no games)

The 2 sides probably spent the first 2 meetings arguing who should make the first formal proposal. If you make a reasonable first proposal you're probably going to be crapped on, since you won't budge on almost anything, so you have to make a horrifically bad offer if you're forced to be the first to propose something.

Ilkka Pikachu 07-15-2012 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott04 (Post 52571335)
5 isn't a terrible suggestion. It just seems like it is because of the unlimited terms that have been allowed and recently given out in increasing frequency. The NBA has a max of 5 years. I don't recall if the NFL has a max but contracts longer than 6/7 years are very very rare. You really don't see anything longer than 10 for baseball, and those aren't overly common. I don't think it will stay as low as 5, but a 6-7 year max contract length isn't exactly unreasonable. Until recently you rarely saw deals longer than 8 years anyway. And if they reconfigure how the cap hit is determined, no one would want a contract longer than that anyway. Adding the years won't be beneficial to anyone anymore with the right configuration.

Which is exactly why the PA might want to give something up here for wiggle room in the main event in these negotiations, which is the revenue share. Adding the limit as a demand was stupid for the owners because it gives the players the right to go "yeah, we can live with that, so long as you do X" if this is as big a non-issue to them as I think it is.

I personally think that, should this be resolved, players will end up taking 52-53% of the pie but give up an increase in UFA age and a limitation in contract years.

njdevsfn95 07-15-2012 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilgraining (Post 52571817)
It was a stupid and pointless offer. We all get you have to start off with something they won't accept then "compromise". But that was dog **** in a bag. The only good of that offer was it probably got Fehr to laugh all weekend. I would love the NHLPA to offer 75% and UFA after 2 years or 21, whichever comes first. Now there is no reason to go crazy, because we have 2 months, but at some point they do have to get serious about this.

FYI, this is why certain players got max signing bonus's (in case of a roll back or no games)

The owners are in the business to make money or lose as little as possible.

The PA counteroffer will determine which side the fans are on.

Yeah, it doesnt mean much but if the PA offers something ridiculous, theyre done from the PR pov - just like last time.

Negotiation involves give and take so the players will say something like 7yrs or 27 (whichever comes first) for FA and 55%.

They know theyll get neither and the possible settlement would be 8yrs/28 and 52% - among other things.

If the players ask for an even larger share, they can go **** themselves.

Devilsfan92 07-15-2012 06:19 PM

Still two months away from the expiration date, and three from the season... I'll worry later.

And in terms of the revenue sharing... why can't they just meet in the middle? Seems like a fair compromise. 50/50.

CerebralGenesis 07-15-2012 06:37 PM

Some of you guys live in quite a Eutopia.

I'll be impressed if they really get down with negotiations before the end of August.

åboriginal 07-15-2012 07:00 PM

nobody wants another lockout. **** will get done.

....and the isles will be free of dp.

njdevsfn95 07-15-2012 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis (Post 52572807)
Some of you guys live in quite a Eutopia.

I'll be impressed if they really get down with negotiations before the end of August.

Id be surprised if there werent serious negotiations until Sep 13 or so lol this is the NHL and NHLPA we are talking about.

Devils86 07-15-2012 07:31 PM

Brooks has always been very pro player..I posted this article because I thought it was interesting to see where the owners started. Obviously this proposal is unacceptable but you can begin to see a road map...50-51%( 62 mil cap) ..7 year contracts .. limited bonus structure..no front loading..pay for year=cap hit. Buyouts? ..Re alignment?...will they give some in one for another..will be interesting.

Saugus 07-15-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njdevsfn95 (Post 52573489)
Id be surprised if there werent serious negotiations until Sep 13 or so lol this is the NHL and NHLPA we are talking about.

I guess they're just following Lou's lesser known motto: When you have time... you sit around and do nothing for 95% of it, before half-assing something at the last second to save the season.

And that initial offer from the owners wasn't pointless or insulting. Both sides understand how negotiation works. The owners don't expect the PA to that take offer, nor are they going to dig their heels in on any of those stipulations. I expect the NHLPA to make an equally absurd counter-offer shortly, and eventually they will meet in the middle.

Bleedred 07-15-2012 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by åboriginal (Post 52573409)
nobody wants another lockout. **** will get done.

....and the isles will be free of dp.

And Montreal free of Gomez. Vancouver free of Luongo too cause no one wants to pay the BS they're demanding. I doubt that happens with Luongo though.

Maybe we're free of Kovy!:sarcasm:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.