HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1282733)

RandR 11-13-2012 01:21 PM

Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now
 
Interesting article on the TSN website posted a couple of hours ago,

RECCHI: NHL, PLAYERS MUST SIGN CBA NOW AND DROP THE PUCK

Quote:

"My advice," Recchi told Kevin Paul Dupont of The Boston Globe, "is that the longer it goes, the worse (the offer) is going to get (for the players)."
Quote:

Look at that last deal. We ended up with the cap and everyone thought it was a bad deal. But it ended up great, right? No matter what the system is, or has been, the players get their money. No matter what the contract, the owners always find a way to pay them more. That's why I say, get a deal and get back in there...the money's always there.
Quote:

Recchi also expressed his shock regarding the news three years ago that the players fired then-executive director Paul Kelly.

"And it has been frustrating to see how it's played out, obviously. If Paul had stayed on the job, I don't think you would have seen this happen. The two sides would have started talking long before, maybe a year sooner (in 2011), and not with two or three months to go before (the CBA) expired. There would have been something in place, absolutely. And now here they are, trying to get to 50 per cent and also trying to make everyone whole. Well, you know, with the escrow we paid, I know I wasn't made whole over the last few years I played. That's just the way it was and we accepted it."
I particularly agree with that point.

Lacaar 11-13-2012 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandR (Post 55739459)
Interesting article on the TSN website posted a couple of hours ago,

RECCHI: NHL, PLAYERS MUST SIGN CBA NOW AND DROP THE PUCK







I particularly agree with that point.

That's why I have a lot of animosity for the NHLPA. They're not looking for a deal. They're looking for a fight.

There's something sick and twisted at the heart of that Union. It uses fear on it's own members. "They'll just lock us out again!", "They haven't conceded anything!". It's not a labour Union but a brainwashing academy.

deckercky 11-13-2012 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacaar (Post 55739683)
That's why I have a lot of animosity for the NHLPA. They're not looking for a deal. They're looking for a fight.

There's something sick and twisted at the heart of that Union. It uses fear on it's own members. "They'll just lock us out again!", "They haven't conceded anything!". It's not a labour Union but a brainwashing academy.

On the other hand....the NHL will just lock them out a gain and the NHL hasn't conceded anything, so it's not like they're lying.

Thordic 11-13-2012 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacaar (Post 55739683)
That's why I have a lot of animosity for the NHLPA. They're not looking for a deal. They're looking for a fight.

Agreed. Hiring Fehr was like bringing Mike Tyson with you when you go to buy a used car.

The players (individually) only stand to lose money out of their pockets through this lockout. In almost no case with a work stoppage causing lost games will any player see a larger gross career income than if they had simply agreed to a deal and went back to work. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Fugu 11-13-2012 01:36 PM

Recchi knows as much about economics as he does medicine apparently.



Fehr was the right call. When you're dealing with Proskauer Rose and Luntz PR blitzes, you need a real defense system, not some mock ups left lying on the beach to spook the boogeymen away. :laugh:

TheRedressor 11-13-2012 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55739903)
Recchi knows as much about economics as he does medicine apparently.



Fehr was the right call. When you're dealing with Proskauer Rose and Luntz PR blitzes, you need a real defense system, not some mock ups left lying on the beach to spook the boogeymen away. :laugh:

Let's be honest here, what are the players gaining if* they make a deal?

NHL offered 50-50, make whole and an 82 game season.

Wherever they go from here were be less $ based soley from a games played perspective if they are able to even make a deal.

NHLPA are costing themselves money. NHL owners don't make their living of the NHL. Each member of the NHLPA does.

HH 11-13-2012 01:41 PM

Meh. We all know the behind work of the NHLPA hard liners led my Mr.Concussion, Eric Lindros.

Enough defending those pathetic morons.

TheRedressor 11-13-2012 01:41 PM

MOD

Isn't it the NHL's right to lock the players out? This is THEIR business. They run and operate it.

Fred Brathwaite 11-13-2012 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55739903)
Recchi knows as much about economics as he does medicine apparently.



Fehr was the right call. When you're dealing with Proskauer Rose and Luntz PR blitzes, you need a real defense system, not some mock ups left lying on the beach to spook the boogeymen away. :laugh:

Ya your right. If the NHLPA hired someone other than Fehr the two sides would have met much earlier and we would probably be watching hockey right now.

MOD

Fugu 11-13-2012 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRedressor (Post 55740005)
Let's be honest here, what are the players gaining if* they make a deal?

NHL offered 50-50, make whole and an 82 game season.

Wherever they go from here were be less $ based soley from a games played perspective if they are able to even make a deal.

NHLPA are costing themselves money. NHL owners don't make their living of the NHL. Each member of the NHLPA does.

Rather than re-write in my own words, I'll quote Halibut's post from another thread:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Halibut (Post 55734103)
I think the contract details might be a bigger deal than the 50-50 split here's why.

All of these issues the league is trying to control affect the salaries of the younger players. Pushing back the age of UFA, changes in arbitration rights, even the max contract length makes it hard for teams to buy much in the way of free agency years while players are young. This combination of changes makes it much harder for young players to have any leverage in negotiations. Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty, they dont get the deals they did if they have that many years until UFA and a max contract length that prevents them from signing into UFA.

I think the idea is that if you can keep the best players cheaper while they are young then teams can hold onto the players they draft longer, field competitive teams for less and then not have to worry so much about revenue sharing since teams wont necessarily have to spend to the cap to be competitive. Of course it does almost take us back to the pre cap days where the richer teams will be scooping up all the best talent once it becomes available, it does allow for more teams to be in that rich category since the ceiling is limited.

To players, because they each have to maximize their own earnings under any system, the contracting rights issues distorts value to an unacceptable degree.

As a group, they can only get 50%. The NHL shouldn't care how that 50% is divided. However, individual teams care very much because spending $4 MM on Stamkos is preferable to spending it on a 2nd liner they had to pick up off the UFA market.

They want the best players salaries restricted above and beyond anything that a cap system alone can deliver.

If you're a player, why would you support a system that pushes most of the money into the pockets of members whose greatest asset may be that they reached UFA status.

deckercky 11-13-2012 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacaar (Post 55739975)
See you just proved the point. They will just do it again. That means no matter what happens this CBA they'll just "Do it again".

Tommorrow can come and the NHL could get 99.9 percent of hrr.
By your statement.. the NHL will lock out the players again next time for sure.. guess for that 0.1 percent.
MOD

MOD

Second....the ideal is that the union has someone like Kelly who would be negotiating, trying to find a good middle-ground well before the deadline. At a certain point pro sports will have to make this adjustment.

However...the union didn't have their act together in time, so had to take the best path. A big part of that is ensuring that the NHL feels a loss from the lockout. This isn't 2004 - the league overall is profitable right now so a lockout actually means something. If the NHL doesn't get hurt in the process of locking out, then the NHL will continue to do so. Coming to the table with a plan of hurting the NHL unless there's a generous deal is the only way to make the NHL consider not locking out the players next time.

Already the NHLPA has offers on the table 16% better than what the owners were tabling before the lockout. At the current time...the best longterm plan is to get any extra ground they can and to sign a CBA with a long term. That may not be the best for some individual players, but for the collective entity is it.

Fugu 11-13-2012 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Brathwaite (Post 55740259)
Ya your right. If the NHLPA hired someone other than Fehr the two sides would have met much earlier and we would probably be watching hockey right now.


If that indeed had happened, the PA would be better off to save their money and not have an expensive head of the PA. If the only thing that guy is deliver is a rubber stamp for NHL proposals, why would you pay him good money?

XX 11-13-2012 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55740395)
If that indeed had happened, the PA would be better off to save their money and not have an expensive head of the PA. If the only thing that guy is deliver is a rubber stamp for NHL proposals, why would you pay him good money?

So lost games is somehow an indicator of how good of a negotiator someone is? :dunno:

deckercky 11-13-2012 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRedressor (Post 55740005)
NHL offered 50-50, make whole and an 82 game season.

Near as I can tell, the two sides have significantly different definitions of what "make whole" is.

CpatainCanuck 11-13-2012 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55740339)
Rather than re-write in my own words, I'll quote Halibut's post from another thread:




To players, because they each have to maximize their own earnings under any system, the contracting rights issues distorts value to an unacceptable degree.

As a group, they can only get 50%. The NHL shouldn't care how that 50% is divided. However, individual teams care very much because spending $4 MM on Stamkos is preferable to spending it on a 2nd liner they had to pick up off the UFA market.

They want the best players salaries restricted above and beyond anything that a cap system alone can deliver.

If you're a player, why would you support a system that pushes most of the money into the pockets of members whose greatest asset may be that they reached UFA status.

The exact same logic you use here can be used in the PAs case. With the players share of revenue set at 50% the players as a whole should not care about contracting rights. For every player hurt financially by the NHL's proposal another is helped financially to the same degree.

So where is the voice of the faction of nhl players who would benefit from the League's proposal?

Beukeboom Fan 11-13-2012 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55739903)
Fehr was the right call. When you're dealing with Proskauer Rose and Luntz PR blitzes, you need a real defense system, not some mock ups left lying on the beach to spook the boogeymen away. :laugh:

I guess Fehr was the right call if you were looking for a knock-down, drag out, fight. If the NHLPA was looking for the best deal it could get going forward - I'm not so sure.

Obviously - if Fehr's strategy gets the players what they want (de-linked revenues & guaranteed raises for the forseeable future) - it was the right call to hire him. If the season & cancelled, and the PA ultimately accepts something similar to what's on the table now (50/50 HRR split, w/ make whole $'s from owners), the players just flushed about $1.6B of salary down the toilet, and that is money that is never coming back.

WAY too early to say that Fehr was the right call, unless you think that tweeking Bettman & the NHL noses is worth at about $300+M in lost wages (assuming 64 game season at this point), and potentially $1.6B if the whole season is cancelled.

I just come back to - the parties involved have to know what is worth fighting over. I'm worried that the NHL doesn't understand that with some of the contracting issues, and I TRULY believe that's the case with the NHLPA. From my perspective, they are fighting because they "lost" the last time, and the NHL started with a low-ball offer.

RandR 11-13-2012 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan (Post 55740571)
I just come back to - the parties involved have to know what is worth fighting over. I'm worried that the NHL doesn't understand that with some of the contracting issues, and I TRULY believe that's the case with the NHLPA. From my perspective, they are fighting because they "lost" the last time, and the NHL started with a low-ball offer.

I completely agree with this point. An analogy would be somebody hiring high-priced legal to try to "win" a divorce case and at some point spending so much money fighting the case that even if they get some sort of "win" they would have ended up farther ahead if they had settled early; however, they are too focused on "winning" and making sure the "evil party" on the other side doesn't get away with too much to realize that.

Fehr is that high-priced lawyer in this case.

Fred Brathwaite 11-13-2012 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55740395)
If that indeed had happened, the PA would be better off to save their money and not have an expensive head of the PA. If the only thing that guy is deliver is a rubber stamp for NHL proposals, why would you pay him good money?

I never said that they should accept any of the NHL proposals. I am just saying if he actually wanted to get a deal done in time for a full season he would have met with the NHL sooner than a few months before training camp.

Fehr used that as leverage and now he is hurting the NHLs overall health as a league which is going to hurt both parties. If they would have hired someone with a brain half as big as Fehrs ego we would be watching hockey right now.

I dont feel sorry for the players. They should have hired someone that was focused on finding common ground and making a deal that worked for both sides.

Bottom line. I believe if there was no Fehr there would be no lockout. Do you really believe otherwise?

Ernie 11-13-2012 02:35 PM

And Recchi adds another title to his resume:
Professional hockey player
Doctor
Labour relations expert



I don't know how ANYONE can argue that 'this is the best offer the players will get' when that's been proven untrue several times now.

Pepper 11-13-2012 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55739903)
Recchi knows as much about economics as he does medicine apparently.

Heh, when one of the players breaks ranks, it doesn't take many seconds for the pro-PA posters here to jump on him.

Recchi is absolutely right. Back in 2004-2005 the players lost the season and for what? They ended up giving up even more (even though that turned out to be a better deal them in the long run).

If Fehr forces the NHL to cancel the whole season, Fehr HAS to get much better terms than they are currently getting, otherwise PA gets eaten alive again.

Who here thinks that Fehr is able to get much better terms than NHL's current offer if the NHL misses the whole season? Show of hands please.

Ernie 11-13-2012 02:37 PM

I think it's funny how some people think the players should just roll over to the righteous demands of the owners.

Time to update your worldview, peeps.

Powdered Toast Man 11-13-2012 02:40 PM

Heh, when one of the players posts something the pro-owner people agree with it gets it's own thread.

Ernie 11-13-2012 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepper (Post 55741363)
Who here thinks that Fehr is able to get much better terms than NHL's current offer if the NHL misses the whole season? Show of hands please.

Your argument sucks.

The lockout is more about the future than it is about the now. If the league doesn't respect the union, it will just use brinkmanship time and time again to continually strip away player compensation and rights.

Fugu 11-13-2012 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XX (Post 55740447)
So lost games is somehow an indicator of how good of a negotiator someone is? :dunno:

The PA was locked out, and the NHL's starting position proposed a massive rollback and huge concessions on player rights won in previous decades.



Quote:

Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck (Post 55740535)
The exact same logic you use here can be used in the PAs case. With the players share of revenue set at 50% the players as a whole should not care about contracting rights. For every player hurt financially by the NHL's proposal another is helped financially to the same degree.

So where is the voice of the faction of nhl players who would benefit from the League's proposal?

You can never please everyone so, at least in my opinion, you want a system that allows each player as much flexibility as possible in negotiating his own salary and terms. Unlike traditional unions where workers rise through the ranks based on skills mastered and seniority, the players aren't quite as faceless.

Unlike the NHL owners who are in this for as long as they choose to own a team, a player has a very limited window to make money. As such, they really should be much more interested in what they will end up with versus what all players collectively are paid.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Brathwaite (Post 55741177)
I never said that they should accept any of the NHL proposals. I am just saying if he actually wanted to get a deal done in time for a full season he would have met with the NHL sooner than a few months before training camp.

Fehr used that as leverage and now he is hurting the NHLs overall health as a league which is going to hurt both parties. If they would have hired someone with a brain half as big as Fehrs ego we would be watching hockey right now.

I dont feel sorry for the players. They should have hired someone that was focused on finding common ground and making a deal that worked for both sides.

Bottom line. I believe if there was no Fehr there would be no lockout. Do you really believe otherwise?

I disagree. This is the third lockout. The NBA and NFL, the former being extremely financially successful, also had lockouts in order to revamp their CBAs. It would happen regardless of who the PA head is, and just how bad the deal for the players would get would depend on that too. Hence Fehr.

Freudian 11-13-2012 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55740395)
If that indeed had happened, the PA would be better off to save their money and not have an expensive head of the PA. If the only thing that guy is deliver is a rubber stamp for NHL proposals, why would you pay him good money?

I'm not sure why you assume obstruction/conflict is the path that will lead to the best CBA for the players.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 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.