HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money! (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1273257)

Mr. Canucklehead 10-19-2012 03:38 PM

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!
 
And...go.

dave babych returns 10-19-2012 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 55120149)
This is why the owners are taking such a hard line right now imo, the U.S. economy is in the tank. They aren't going to be able to claim poor much longer, by the time this deal expires, the economy in the states should be be back or well on its way.

I don't know about that.

If the league and owners as a group believe the economy is turning the corner and will improve over the course of the next CBA then they might be tempted to drive a hard bargain and get an unlinked cap at a number where they believe revenues will comfortably beat what it would take for a 50/50 split.

I doubt they believe that and even if they do I doubt they believe it strongly enough to make such a huge bet on it.

Ultimately direct linkage is at the core of what ownership wants, and at the core of what the players don't want (if they are going to give up 7% of HRR like they've been asked to do).

CCF23 10-19-2012 03:45 PM

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploa...a-simpsons.gif

Scurr 10-19-2012 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave babych returns (Post 55120477)
Ultimately direct linkage is at the core of what ownership wants, and at the core of what the players don't want (if they are going to give up 7% of HRR like they've been asked to do).

They have linkage and are getting their 50/50... they are also going in for the kill on everything else.

dave babych returns 10-19-2012 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 55121175)
They have linkage and are getting their 50/50... they are also going in for the kill on everything else.

Yep. But I bet it would not be hard to reach an agreement on the rest of that if there was any agreement about linkage.

As it is to get linkage, the owners (in the players minds at least) will probably have to keep the players share in the mid 50s and make major concessions with all these contract restrictions they want to impose.

opendoor 10-19-2012 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave babych returns (Post 55121447)
Yep. But I bet it would not be hard to reach an agreement on the rest of that if there was any agreement about linkage.

As it is to get linkage, the owners (in the players minds at least) will probably have to keep the players share in the mid 50s and make major concessions with all these contract restrictions they want to impose.

I doubt it. Even in the worst revenue growth scenarios, the NHLPA proposals offer a step down in the players' share that goes into the 51% range within 5 years. I don't think there is the expectation on their side that they'll get linkage in the mid 50s.

It's not like no linkage (or only partial linkage) is always better for the players than full linkage. At most realistic growth scenarios (0-5% per year) their proposals are almost indistinguishable from a simple step down of something like 55-53-52-51-51. Obviously the owners will want those numbers to be lower, but the step between where they are now and a scenario with full and unfettered linkage is a fairly small one in my mind.

DL44 10-19-2012 05:12 PM

On the HRR split:

Re: the deferred costs above 50-50...

Owners: to be paid at the expense of future contracts (linked).. a pure 50-50
Players: to be paid ON TOP of the 50-50 split. (sort of de-linkage).. which actually pushes the % towards the players and away from their stated 50-50

Daley i think has stated a that the real dollar difference between the 2 is roughly i think $600 mil...

So here's my bright idea.... split that deferred cost 50-50 as well.

Aren't we all in on the 50-50 train right now? just ride it to the finish line man...


Split the difference... or use the difference as leverage for all the other smaller issues...

i.e. NHLPA: ok, we'll pay for 30% of the hit, but all contract and UFA issues to remain status quo.
NHL: WE"LL pay for 30% of the hit, but with all our changes: 5yr, 28-8, 5% rule, etc..
PA: We'll take on 40%, but no limit to contract and UFA age decreases one yr.

NHL: We'll take 50%, contract limits 7 yrs, 5% variance, UFA age same, 2 yr ELC..
PA: done.



Let's put the $600 mil in perspective: $100 mil/ yr of the CBA which equals about 4-5 games/season of total player salary.

I don't know... any way i look at it, it just doesn't to be enough of a gulf between them to justify a loss of a single game.


It's Right There...

(Am i missing something? still out to lunch?)

Royal Canuck 10-19-2012 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCF23 (Post 55120517)

^ Gary Bettman at the meeting of the NHLPA's 3 offers.

KISSland 10-19-2012 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Canuck (Post 55123641)
^ Gary Bettman at the meeting of the NHLPA's 3 offers.

Isn't it the other way around, but with Fehr?

west in the east 10-19-2012 08:28 PM

While I agree existing contacts should be honored and the sIgning of them by owners was disengenuous, the players were being willfully blind to what was obviously going to happen in the cba negotiations.

Either way, I don't think the sides are all that far apart now. Its just whether they can come to an agreement where they both lose or both win.

me2 10-19-2012 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by west in the east (Post 55127525)
While I agree existing contacts should be honored and the sIgning of them by owners was disengenuous, the players were being willfully blind to what was obviously going to happen in the cba negotiations.

Either way, I don't think the sides are all that far apart now. Its just whether they can come to an agreement where they both lose or both win.

the players knew exactly what was going to happen because of those contracts. The players all wanted massive front loaded deals with huge bonuses. They are just as guilty and the owners, any attempts from the guys that signed to pretend they didn't know what would happen is farce. "Wot me! How would I know that signing a deal that would force the NHL to close the loophole would force the NHL to close the loophole."

west in the east 10-20-2012 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2 (Post 55129089)
the players knew exactly what was going to happen because of those contracts. The players all wanted massive front loaded deals with huge bonuses. They are just as guilty and the owners, any attempts from the guys that signed to pretend they didn't know what would happen is farce. "Wot me! How would I know that signing a deal that would force the NHL to close the loophole would force the NHL to close the loophole."

Definitely agree. Also, the players are not looking at the big picture if they're willing to lose a season. I haven't done the numbers, but I imagine the percentage of total salary earned in their career that would be lost if a season is missed for a good chunk of players would be greater than what they would lose if they accept something within the ball park of where the negotiations are now.

Also, as a pure negotiator, it appears the only reason Fehr is seen as good is he's stubborn and does not negotiate. He was played by Betman in the last exchange and looked disingenuous in those last offers which did not appear to be well thought out. I hate Betman, but he's coming off as much more astute than Fehr in this negotiation. Fehr started well, but now that push has gotten to shove, his apperant performance is going down hill. I also question how well he's been educating the players. He's good at having them on message, but I wonder how much they understand the numbers a big picture.

MajorCanuck 10-20-2012 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by west in the east (Post 55132121)
Definitely agree. Also, the players are not looking at the big picture if they're willing to lose a season. I haven't done the numbers, but I imagine the percentage of total salary earned in their career that would be lost if a season is missed for a good chunk of players would be greater than what they would lose if they accept something within the ball park of where the negotiations are now.

Also, as a pure negotiator, it appears the only reason Fehr is seen as good is he's stubborn and does not negotiate. He was played by Betman in the last exchange and looked disingenuous in those last offers which did not appear to be well thought out. I hate Betman, but he's coming off as much more astute than Fehr in this negotiation. Fehr started well, but now that push has gotten to shove, his apperant performance is going down hill. I also question how well he's been educating the players. He's good at having them on message, but I wonder how much they understand the numbers a big picture.

I think a lot of people are starting to feel the same way about Fehr. Don't get me wrong, Bettman is still hated by many hockey fans, but in this event, he seems to be the lesser of the two evils. Fehr's sole purpose is to get the best deal possible for the players where as Bettman has a long term mandate, and due to that in a simple one vs one, it seems Bettman might be the more rational of the two in this battle.

Cogburn 10-20-2012 02:32 AM

Mutual compromise: Negotiating and whittling down your core desires, on both sides, until both parties leave feeling screwed.

I appreciate that the owners have made large concessions, but until I have the full details of all prospective offers, I honestly can't pick a side and have to assume both sides are being unreasonable.

I am still curious as to how Bettman was recently renewed...all the bluster and use of a lockout as a negotiating tactic and he still abandons his hardline. I hope the board of governors gets wise to this sheep in wolves clothing. I remain unconvinced by either side, but 3 lock outs in his time? Come on!

ProstheticConscience 10-20-2012 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MajorCanuck (Post 55132675)
I think a lot of people are starting to feel the same way about Fehr. Don't get me wrong, Bettman is still hated by many hockey fans, but in this event, he seems to be the lesser of the two evils. Fehr's sole purpose is to get the best deal possible for the players where as Bettman has a long term mandate, and due to that in a simple one vs one, it seems Bettman might be the more rational of the two in this battle.

What was he last lockout? And the one before that?

Both Fehr and Bettman are utterly rational. It's what Bettman's reasoning leads to that causes all this crap. Okay, maybe it's not just him. The NHL is still run like an old school 1950's NYC mob racket, and the problem is really that as soon as these things come up, Bettman's suddenly dealing with a roomful of Harold Ballards.

Okay, Fehr's there to get the best possible deal for the players. What's Bettman there for? To spread peace, love and harmony? Not bloody likely. He's there to get the best possible deal for the owners. That's it. I have no idea how anyone who's followed the NHL during his tenure would think otherwise.

Scurr 10-20-2012 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 55122111)
the step between where they are now and a scenario with full and unfettered linkage is a fairly small one in my mind.

I agree. I think the NHLPA is just trying not to get nailed down to anything but it's driving Bettman crazy.

Scurr 10-20-2012 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2 (Post 55129089)
the players knew exactly what was going to happen because of those contracts. The players all wanted massive front loaded deals with huge bonuses. They are just as guilty and the owners, any attempts from the guys that signed to pretend they didn't know what would happen is farce. "Wot me! How would I know that signing a deal that would force the NHL to close the loophole would force the NHL to close the loophole."

They know what they're doing. Last time they didn't seem to have much of a plan, I think they have one this time.

Wisp 10-20-2012 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience (Post 55133427)
What was he last lockout? And the one before that?

Both Fehr and Bettman are utterly rational. It's what Bettman's reasoning leads to that causes all this crap. Okay, maybe it's not just him. The NHL is still run like an old school 1950's NYC mob racket, and the problem is really that as soon as these things come up, Bettman's suddenly dealing with a roomful of Harold Ballards.

Okay, Fehr's there to get the best possible deal for the players. What's Bettman there for? To spread peace, love and harmony? Not bloody likely. He's there to get the best possible deal for the owners. That's it. I have no idea how anyone who's followed the NHL during his tenure would think otherwise.

I think its obvious is that people are just picking sides. They need a villain, and since the players aren't rolling over they get to be it. That's why now, all of a sudden, Bettman's simply misunderstood and the players are the hell's angels.

Its so shallow.

west in the east 10-20-2012 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisp (Post 55133707)
I think its obvious is that people are just picking sides. They need a villain, and since the players aren't rolling over they get to be it. That's why now, all of a sudden, Bettman's simply misunderstood and the players are the hell's angels.

Its so shallow.

I don't look at it as so black and white. I think my point was closer to stating that the players are equally to blame and that Fehr is being as bad as Betman in terms of these offers. And that Betman played his last hand in such a manner that this equality was better exposed.

shortshorts 10-20-2012 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Canuck (Post 55123641)
^ Gary Bettman at the meeting of the NHLPA's 3 offers.

Nope. That's Fehr.

racerjoe 10-20-2012 12:47 PM

The core of the problem, is getting to 50/50, and defining it. Even the owners last offer was not a true 50/50 as the "make whole" would be paid from the players side of the split in later years, meaning in later years their share goes down.

IMO keep the cap where it is until 50/50, then stay at 50 50.

DL44 10-20-2012 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DL44 (Post 55122237)
On the HRR split:

Re: the deferred costs above 50-50...

Owners: to be paid at the expense of future contracts (linked).. a pure 50-50
Players: to be paid ON TOP of the 50-50 split. (sort of de-linkage).. which actually pushes the % towards the players and away from their stated 50-50

Daley i think has stated a that the real dollar difference between the 2 is roughly i think $600 mil...

So here's my bright idea.... split that deferred cost 50-50 as well.

Aren't we all in on the 50-50 train right now? just ride it to the finish line man...


Split the difference... or use the difference as leverage for all the other smaller issues...

i.e. NHLPA: ok, we'll pay for 30% of the hit, but all contract and UFA issues to remain status quo.
NHL: WE"LL pay for 30% of the hit, but with all our changes: 5yr, 28-8, 5% rule, etc..
PA: We'll take on 40%, but no limit to contract and UFA age decreases one yr.

NHL: We'll take 50%, contract limits 7 yrs, 5% variance, UFA age same, 2 yr ELC..
PA: done.



Let's put the $600 mil in perspective: $100 mil/ yr of the CBA which equals about 4-5 games/season of total player salary.

I don't know... any way i look at it, it just doesn't to be enough of a gulf between them to justify a loss of a single game.


It's Right There...

(Am i missing something? still out to lunch?)

Ottawa Sun interview:

Quote:

QMI: Did Gary Bettman tell you the last offer Tuesday was take-it-or-leave-it?

FEHR: "All I can tell you is that my sense in the meeting (Thursday): They reviewed our proposals. It took them 12 or 15 minutes, said they rejected them, said their offer on Tuesday was their very best offer and that outside of what he called 'minor tweaks' that was it. He said this in front of 19 players. When I said, 'So, a tweak means something small and insubstantial' or words to that effect, he said 'Yes.' That's sort of the way it ends. Except Gary said at the end of the meeting if the players were prepared to accept their offer in its entirety, minor tweaks, I could call him about the 'make whole' provision which has players paying players for the reduced salaries in the first two years. I just have to go on the basis of what I heard."
The bolded Fehr comments seems to state exactly what i was talking about in concept in my original post!

Peel away all the bullsheet, and that where we're at.


This was stated for the players as well in Fehr's letter... BUT it was completely thrown in at the end and almost glossed over... But it's the Biggest most important point in the whole letter and on proposal #3!
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ter-to-players

Quote:

Last, there is the “make whole” provision of their last offer. In short, player compensation which is below the players share total of last season would be “deferred” and paid out over time, except that the players share in subsequent years would be reduced by the amount of all such “make whole” payments. In other words, players’ salaries in later years are reduced to make these "make whole” payments. Players bear all of the “make whole” costs. At the end of yesterday’s meeting, Gary did say that if the players were prepared to agree to all of the other parts of their offer (subject, perhaps, to “tweaks”) then I could call him about this issue.
Please call if you have questions or comments.

Regards.
i.e... If the players agree to all the contract/UFA/ELC changes, then there is wiggle room to negotiate the make whole provision... like i initially posted!!










So from Fehr's letter to the players, things that stood out to me:

-The first 2 garbage proposals were just a way to pull focus to the 3rd and make it look better than it was.

- And that last statement stating Bettman is open to negotiating the make whole provision.

That last part stood out like a sore thumb to me... almost odd he added that... But imo, extremely significant that he did... because again... i believe that's all thats left to work out!!!


Hence my enthusiasm..


Split the 13%... or use the difference as leverage for all the other smaller issues...

i.e. NHLPA: ok, we'll pay for 30% of the hit, but all contract and UFA issues to remain status quo.
NHL: WE"LL pay for 30% of the hit, but with all our changes: 5yr, 28-8, 5% rule, etc..
PA: We'll take on 40%, but no limit to contract and UFA age decreases one yr.

NHL: We'll take 50%, contract limits 7 yrs, 5% variance, UFA age same, 2 yr ELC..
PA: done

Cheers! See ya Nov 2nd.

DL44 10-20-2012 02:08 PM

To summarize:

The War over HRR split is now down to value of ~13% of all current contracts.


Owners want it out of the future players' share.
Players want it on top of the 50-50 split.

Bam19 10-20-2012 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racerjoe (Post 55138339)
The core of the problem, is getting to 50/50, and defining it. Even the owners last offer was not a true 50/50 as the "make whole" would be paid from the players side of the split in later years, meaning in later years their share goes down.

IMO keep the cap where it is until 50/50, then stay at 50 50.

I agree with this if the league was capped at 59 mill this year the cap should be back at 70 with in three years.

Go with the nhl proposal and say the cap this year is 59 mill. However there is the soft cap level of 70, to preserve the current contracts. Keep the soft cap in place for 2 years. The third year goes to full linkage with a hard cap at 50/50.

A the cap should have risen to the 66-72 million range so current contracts should have no problem fitting.

B if it doesn't GM's will have had time to prepare and get there rosters in order.

C the only teams that will spend to the soft cap are the ones that can afford to so it's not putting low revenue teams in jeopardy.

And finally the cap floor should not be set at 15 mill below the cap but 66-70 % below so it rises slower.

Lard_Lad 10-20-2012 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DL44 (Post 55139801)
To summarize:

The War over HRR split is now down to value of ~13% of all current contracts.


Owners want it out of the future players' share.
Players want it on top of the 50-50 split.

Solution: find someone desperate enough to pay $231m (the dollar value of the 13%) as a "relocation fee" on top of the Coyotes' sale price, and give that to the players.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 AM.

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.