HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Who has given up more? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1284487)

echlfreak 11-17-2012 01:29 PM

Who has given up more?
 
"We are extremely disappointed in where we and the players find ourselves," deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Thursday evening. "And from our perspective, we have made repeated moves in the players' direction with absolutely no reciprocation.* Unfortunately, we have determined we are involved with union leadership that has no genuine interest in reaching an agreement. Regardless of what we propose, or how we suggest to compromise the answer is "no."* At some point you just have to say "enough is enough."

Per TSN.ca



Using the last CBA as a gauge to which side has moved in the others direction...what is the truth?


The NHL has proposed 50/50 right away, yet agreeing to a make whole clause which defers players salaries to later in the agreement. Along with restricting all contracting rights for the players.

NHLPA agrees to taking 7% less on a step down scale and doesn't agree to contracting changes.



NHL recieves over 1 billion dollars more in HRR plus the most restrictive contracting rules in any pro sport.

NHLPA concedes 1 billion in revenue slowly. But, want contracts honored and be able to determine their share based on previous contracting rules.



Given Bill Dalys statement and the comparison of current offers to the previous CBA how is their any truth whatsoever to his words?

Negotiating allowed the players to reduce their share down 7% over time. Why not "negotiate" contracting rules the same way. I am sure there is a little give on the players side with regards to contracting rules. But not if you say we want all of these take it or leave it as the NHL has done.


ELS could easily change from 3 to 2 years
Free Agency can be 27 or 7 years
Contract length remain the same...only about 15% of players will ever sign them anyways as per current contracts. Most deals are only 1-5 yrs
Change back diving contracts...a must for the NHL and something players should be fine with

The problem is the NHL says they are moving in the players direction but that is only based off their own first proposal.

To my point of this thread is who has really given up more and how if any way have the owners given concessions in the players direction compared to the previous CBA?

billybudd 11-17-2012 01:43 PM

I don't think anyone's given up much of anything at this point.

Leaving a future growth percentage that you were never promised isn't a concession, so the players haven't given anything up.

The league's made concessions on revenue sharing, but that would sort of have been necessary for the business whether the PA wanted it or not.

Leaving the only concessions made by anyone as the league's concessions on ancillary things (hotel rooms, masseurs...stupid things like that) and non-monetary issues (disciplinary appeals going to third parties...which shouldn't have been a CBA issue to begin with).

The PA's been more intractible in negotiations and their "ask" (guaranteed dollar amounts vs guaranteed percentages) is crazier than anything the league currently wants, but that doesn't mean the league has "conceeded" anything of note.

Actually, I take that back. The owners have said they'll reimburse any player who wants to go around the team doctors and seek independent treatment from health professionals of their choice. That's probably not expensive, but were I a player, that would be BIG for me. I wouldn't trust a team doctor as far as I could throw him.

echlfreak 11-17-2012 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 55835083)
I don't think anyone's given up much of anything at this point.

Leaving a future growth percentage that you were never promised isn't a concession, so the players haven't given anything up.

The league's made concessions on revenue sharing, but that would sort of have been necessary for the business whether the PA wanted it or not.

Leaving the only concessions made by anyone as the league's concessions on ancillary things (hotel rooms, masseurs...stupid things like that) and non-monetary issues (disciplinary appeals going to third parties...which shouldn't have been a CBA issue to begin with).

The PA's been more intractible in negotiations and their "ask" (guaranteed dollar amounts vs guaranteed percentages) is crazier than anything the league currently wants, but that doesn't mean the league has "conceeded" anything of note.

Actually, I take that back. The owners have said they'll reimburse any player who wants to go around the team doctors and seek independent treatment from health professionals of their choice. That's probably not expensive, but were I a player, that would be BIG for me. I wouldn't trust a team doctor as far as I could throw him.


Where has it been stated about players and their reimbursement for treatment. Not saying I don't believe you but haven't seen and I agree that would be nice for the players

Fugu 11-17-2012 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echlfreak (Post 55834877)
The problem is the NHL says they are moving in the players direction but that is only based off their own first proposal.

To my point of this thread is who has really given up more and how if any way have the owners given concessions in the players direction compared to the previous CBA?


It's really about how the question is framed, as you point out. If you use the original and 'draconian' offer the league used to start the negotiation, then yes, they have moved in the players' direction-- taking less than all that they'd demanded.


If you use the last CBA as the starting point, which is rational to some of us, because that's the last watermark and the CBA at least one party wishes to change but using the same framework, then the owners haven't moved at all in the players' direction. Players' direction being defined as the last CBA. In this frame, the owners have only sought changes on the core economic issues and contracting rights.

Freudian 11-17-2012 01:53 PM

The NHLPA hasn't really given up a single thing. I can't recall they agreeing on anything up to now that isn't something the players asked for. Rhetoric that they are willing to give up a lot is just rhetoric.

NHL has given up more in the negotiations, but they are also asking for much more than NHLPA does so I guess it's debatable how much actual concessions they have given.

Both sides have not tackled any of the hard issues with the exception of revenue sharing which isn't all that contentious. Some owners like more of it, some like less of it.

For spending 3-4 months negotiating, they haven't gotten all that much done.

BLASPHEMOUS 11-17-2012 01:55 PM

Neither side has given anything on the main issues. I would not disagree that the owners have been the more constructive side, having gotten much closer to the players' demands than the other way around, but considering their end game ultimately revolves around only taking and not giving in terms of main issues, I think it would be hypocritical to call them the better "givers."

CK17 11-17-2012 02:00 PM

Everything the NHL has given up,

Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).

Some other things that the players should like:

1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/177160641.html

As for what the PA has agreed to give up - Future growth if the right hard to reach circumstances are met.

LPHabsFan 11-17-2012 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55835229)
It's really about how the question is framed, as you point out. If you use the original and 'draconian' offer the league used to start the negotiation, then yes, they have moved in the players' direction-- taking less than all that they'd demanded.


If you use the last CBA as the starting point, which is rational to some of us, because that's the last watermark and the CBA at least one party wishes to change but using the same framework, then the owners haven't moved at all in the players' direction. Players' direction being defined as the last CBA. In this frame, the owners have only sought changes on the core economic issues and contracting rights.

And it's like that because you do not consider the increase in revenue sharing, make whole, doctors, hotel rooms, etc as being within that framework because it defeats your argument. The make whole is a concession because contacts are subject to cba changes and so no they are not duty bound to honor the full value or partial value.

Giving up less POTENTIAL money by agreeing to take guaranteed less in raises while doing nothing if revenues don't grow is not a concession. If they're actually agreeing to go to 50/50 then yes that's a concession but right now whether or not they are is up for debate. What have they actually conceded in this so far?

Crease 11-17-2012 02:07 PM

From what I've been able to gather (feel free to correct me on items I'm misinformed about):

Owners
Trade player salary and cap charges in trades
Eliminate re-entry waivers
Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenue grows
Appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator for on-ice and off-ice disciplinary rulings
Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee
Establish "standard of care" and "primary allegiance" obligations between team medical staff and players
Access to second medical opinion at team's expense
Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp
Improve visiting team facility standards
Improve ice condition standards
More family-of-player benefits
Standards for rent and mortgage reimbursement for traded players
Increase access to tickets for visiting team players

Players
Reduced share of projected HRR (assumes growth rate that owners are okay with)

HockeyShack 11-17-2012 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55835229)
It's really about how the question is framed, as you point out. If you use the original and 'draconian' offer the league used to start the negotiation, then yes, they have moved in the players' direction-- taking less than all that they'd demanded.


If you use the last CBA as the starting point, which is rational to some of us, because that's the last watermark and the CBA at least one party wishes to change but using the same framework, then the owners haven't moved at all in the players' direction. Players' direction being defined as the last CBA. In this frame, the owners have only sought changes on the core economic issues and contracting rights.

MOD
But you are probably not counting improved Doctors, Hotels, Travel.

Fugu 11-17-2012 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 55835539)
From what I've been able to gather (feel free to correct me on items I'm misinformed about):

Owners
Trade player salary and cap charges in trades
Eliminate re-entry waivers
Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenue grows
Appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator for on-ice and off-ice disciplinary rulings
Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee
Establish "standard of care" and "primary allegiance" obligations between team medical staff and players
Access to second medical opinion at team's expense
Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp
Improve visiting team facility standards
Improve ice condition standards
More family-of-player benefits
Standards for rent and mortgage reimbursement for traded players
Increase access to tickets for visiting team players

Players
Reduced share of projected HRR (assumes growth rate that owners are okay with)



Not sure where to put revenue sharing. It's a loss for some teams, win for other teams, but requested by the PA.

Crease 11-17-2012 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55835649)
Not sure where to put revenue sharing. It's a loss for some teams, win for other teams, but requested by the PA.

Yep, left it out for that exact reason. I think revenue sharing is in the best interest of the league. It's a zero-sum gain on the owners side (for now). It's something the players want because it alleviates the need to trim paychecks in the future.

Ogopogo* 11-17-2012 02:14 PM

Who gives a **** who has given up more? This has nothing to do with that! It is about making the NHL healthy and the business of hockey viable.

It is of no matter who gives up what to achieve that viability. If that players are going to continue on about what they are giving up, they have no clue what is happening here.

Fugu 11-17-2012 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LPHabsFan (Post 55835465)
And it's like that because you do not consider the increase in revenue sharing, make whole, doctors, hotel rooms, etc as being within that framework because it defeats your argument. The make whole is a concession because contacts are subject to cba changes and so no they are not duty bound to honor the full value or partial value.

I addressed RS in response to Crease.

Make Partial/Whole is something that the NHL conjured up in its framework. The players have to move towards the NHL; the NHL agrees to take less than they'd originally asked.

You're arguing tactics or details to reach 50/50. The concession was on the PA side to accept the new rate.

Quote:

Giving up less POTENTIAL money by agreeing to take guaranteed less in raises while doing nothing if revenues don't grow is not a concession. If they're actually agreeing to go to 50/50 then yes that's a concession but right now whether or not they are is up for debate. What have they actually conceded in this so far?
A new CBA hasn't been signed, so none of these points should count yet if this you're basis.

Fugu 11-17-2012 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo (Post 55835709)
Who gives a **** who has given up more? This has nothing to do with that! It is about making the NHL healthy and the business of hockey viable.

It is of no matter who gives up what to achieve that viability. If that players are going to continue on about what they are giving up, they have no clue what is happening here.


Then don't respond to the thread.

LPHabsFan 11-17-2012 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55835739)
I addressed RS in response to Crease.

Make Partial/Whole is something that the NHL conjured up in its framework. The players have to move towards the NHL; the NHL agrees to take less than they'd originally asked.

You're arguing tactics or details to reach 50/50. The concession was on the PA side to accept the new rate.



A new CBA hasn't been signed, so none of these points should count yet if this you're basis.

And I said that getting to 50/50 was a concession but so is the make whole.

The revenue sharing is a concession because the owners don't really want it based on the fact that it wasn't in the first proposal. They'd be much happier to just cut expenses as its simpler and doesn'tcdoesn'cost money. But the pa wants it.

And as far as the last point....couldn't you make that argument about every point?

Fugu 11-17-2012 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LPHabsFan (Post 55835925)
And I said that getting to 50/50 was a concession but so is the make whole.

The revenue sharing is a concession because the owners don't really want it based on the fact that it wasn't in the first proposal. They'd be much happier to just cut expenses as its simpler and doesn'tcdoesn'cost money. But the pa wants it.

RS is a concession from the big teams, but the smaller markets will be the ones to benefit far more than if costs were just cut. That's why I put in a gray zone.


Quote:

And as far as the last point....couldn't you make that argument about every point?
That was my point. You can't steal my point!!!!! :laugh::p:

Powdered Toast Man 11-17-2012 02:53 PM

It depends on how you frame the question and your underlying opinion of the two parties involved. It's difficult to suggest the players have given up anything if you believe they are entitled to nothing to begin with.

LPHabsFan 11-17-2012 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55836213)
RS is a concession from the big teams, but the smaller markets will be the ones to benefit far more than if costs were just cut. That's why I put in a gray zone.




That was my point. You can't steal my point!!!!! :laugh::p:

I don't want to because frankly it's idiotic. If that was the case then none of us should ever talk about the CBA negotiations or have opinions on things because we don't know what they will look like in the end.

The point is, we're talking about who has given up what based on what's been reported and in the proposals. The people above made excellent lists and if you were looking at it from a purely numerical stance then the players have given up about one thing which is the 50/50 but even then they haven't given that up that much. The reason for that is a fair bit of that money is going directly to revenue sharing, extra money for hotel rooms, outside doctors, increased standards in ice and visitor dressing rooms.

So since you seem to be one of the few voices of the pro-pa side, aside from agreeing to go down to 50/50 (which imo isn't that much (see above), what else have they given up?

Fugu 11-17-2012 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LPHabsFan (Post 55836631)
I don't want to because frankly it's idiotic. If that was the case then none of us should ever talk about the CBA negotiations or have opinions on things because we don't know what they will look like in the end.

There's nothing idiotic about, just highlighting how transparent it is that you've adopted the NHL's tactic of framing the discussion. It really is about where you decide to start and stop the discussion.



Quote:

The point is, we're talking about who has given up what based on what's been reported and in the proposals. The people above made excellent lists and if you were looking at it from a purely numerical stance then the players have given up about one thing which is the 50/50 but even then they haven't given that up that much. The reason for that is a fair bit of that money is going directly to revenue sharing, extra money for hotel rooms, outside doctors, increased standards in ice and visitor dressing rooms.
I guess if you feel all of those 14 points are of equal value to what the players have given up.

Would you personally trade those 14 points for a higher share for the players, say keeping it at 57% but they get none of those 14 items?

Me neither.


Quote:

So since you seem to be one of the few voices of the pro-pa side, aside from agreeing to go down to 50/50 (which imo isn't that much (see above), what else have they given up?
I'm not pro-PA, but anti-Gary's (and Jacobs') NHL. For example, I wouldn't mind seeing contraction and I can see a case for term limits on some reasonable basis (7-10 yrs, but early UFA) and maybe lack of fully guaranteed contracts, either building in incentives or some disincentives if you can keep it clear of abuse of intent; which may mean no guarantee after some specified period of time... 3, 5, yrs, for example. I'd actually make that trade for lower UFA age especially. I personally would like to see more player movement.

Fugu 11-17-2012 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man (Post 55836525)
It depends on how you frame the question and your underlying opinion of the two parties involved. It's difficult to suggest the players have given up anything if you believe they are entitled to nothing to begin with.

What boggles my mind is that the linkage and a cap are sacred cows, but otherwise the last CBA is fully nulled and voided, so how they you possibly use it as the starting point for discussion. Did I miss the part where another CBA introduced the cap and linkage?

Ugene Malkin 11-17-2012 03:28 PM

In retrospect, over many many years, the owners have been on the give side of this, but when they try to take back control of their rightful position as being the owners wanting more stakes in the profit sector they're are greedy.

The owners have done nothing but give to these players, even in the last CBA the players made out pretty good. After this CBA the players will be making out pretty good.

Owners by far. AINEC

Powdered Toast Man 11-17-2012 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55837041)
What boggles my mind is that the linkage and a cap are sacred cows, but otherwise the last CBA is fully nulled and voided, so how they you possibly use it as the starting point for discussion. Did I miss the part where another CBA introduced the cap and linkage?

I get the feeling a lot of people simply don't believe the players are a fully legitimate party in these negotiations. I imagine they kind of see it like putting a bow tie on your dog, sitting it at the table and discussing politics. The dog growls when you mention same-sex marriage, but it doesn't actually have a relevant opinion and ultimately will live with whatever you tell it because it's a damn dog.

The owners and the players may sit at the same table, but the players only sit there because the owners think it's cute.

LPHabsFan 11-17-2012 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 55837011)
There's nothing idiotic about, just highlighting how transparent it is that you've adopted the NHL's tactic of framing the discussion. It really is about where you decide to start and stop the discussion.

I guess if you feel all of those 14 points are of equal value to what the players have given up.

Would you personally trade those 14 points for a higher share for the players, say keeping it at 57% but they get none of those 14 items?

Me neither.

I'm not pro-PA, but anti-Gary's (and Jacobs') NHL. For example, I wouldn't mind seeing contraction and I can see a case for term limits on some reasonable basis (7-10 yrs, but early UFA) and maybe lack of fully guaranteed contracts, either building in incentives or some disincentives if you can keep it clear of abuse of intent; which may mean no guarantee after some specified period of time... 3, 5, yrs, for example. I'd actually make that trade for lower UFA age especially. I personally would like to see more player movement.

I'm framing the question as "who gave up more?". I'm not exactly sure how you think I'm framing the question to I assume support my argument. As far as I see it you either start with the previous CBA as a starting point (as I'm doing) or everything is negated and then no one is giving up anything because they don't have anything to start with.

And no I wouldn't trade those because that would mean there would be no reason for the lockout because the old CBA was working. It was not.

[MOD] The frustration with the PA lies in their seeming unwillingness to negotiate, yes, off of the last CBA. You can argue all you want about why the cap should or shouldn't be set in stone but it is and nothing will change that.

What the fans want is for the PA to simply bring down the demands of the NHL by using the same framework rather than say "no" and "i don't know where to go from here".

But back to my point, what you put in that last paragraph were actual sugesstions that seem plausible and somewhat fair. But I don't believe that is the impression that you give and I know I don't see it.

LPHabsFan 11-17-2012 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man (Post 55837313)
I get the feeling a lot of people simply don't believe the players are a fully legitimate party in these negotiations. I imagine they kind of see it like putting a bow tie on your dog, sitting it at the table and discussing politics. The dog growls when you mention same-sex marriage, but it doesn't actually have a relevant opinion and ultimately will live with whatever you tell it because it's a damn dog.

The owners and the players may sit at the same table, but the players only sit there because the owners think it's cute.

To some degree yes but that has nothing to do with our thoughts on the PA itself but rather how I believe the majority of people view the business world in that the owners/management get what they want and the employess take it up the......fill in the blank.

No one in what I would say their right mind thinks that the PA should just bend over and take everything as the owners dictate. But what I believe is that right or wrong, a lot of people see is that there is no way the NHL will accept a non linked proposal and therefore think it's utterly idiotic to propose one. A lot of people think that 50/50 is fair because well, when you have two kids arguing over a cookie what do you do? Break it in half so both can have the same.

But at the same time, those same people also see that there needs to be increased revenue sharing and limits on contracts. But we (I) want the PA to accept thos things and talk the NHL down on contracts to 7 or 8 years and talk them up on revenue sharing and do what they did on those 17 issues and negotiate rather than have one side (imo the PA) sit their and metaphorically put their fingers in their ears and say "alalalala" by continuing to say "no" and "i don't know where to go from here"


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 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.