Thread: CBA Talk
View Single Post
07-15-2012, 08:16 PM
Registered User
Scott04's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,622
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Vilgraining View Post
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)
Stupid and pointless would be sitting back and not making an offer, even if it is unacceptable. Would you rather they play the game of "you make the first offer" "no, you make the first offer" etc. If the PA came back with an offer anything close to what you suggested, the owners probably say hell no and we'll resume talks when you're actually interested in talking. And I would guarantee you that next conversation wouldn't happen until October, or until the players came back with an offer almost identical to what the owners just put out. There's a difference between making an offer that you can't accept, and insulting the other party.

Originally Posted by Devils731 View Post
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.
Pretty much. Both sides already have an idea where the line is in the sand on some of the issues at least. A few more will be negotiated to determine those lines, and that's where the give and take comes in. But it all just starts with a wish list. The players offer back is probably going to involve a 55-58% share of HRR, no cap on contract length, and the same policy on free agency age. But that's because they're generally happy with what they have. They know they won't get it, but you have to play the game for a bit before it gets anywhere and both parties know that.

Originally Posted by Rockie View Post
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.
Exactly. This doesn't phase the PA on the whole because the overwhelming majority of its members have not, and will not receive offers that are longer than 3-5 years. The PA isn't in the business of only protecting its top stars, and that won't be their negotiating strategy. The big one is always going to be the share of hockey related revenue, so they'll give on something like this which is in line with the way things have operated for years anyway in hopes of saving every percentage point of HRR they can.

I think you generally have a good idea of how things are going to shake out. If I had to make predictions, I would probably say the players are going to get 48-51% of HRR, 6-7 year max on deals, only knock back free agency age to one year later than it is now, and maybe entry level deals will be 3 years with a team option for a 4th. Just a guess/prediction of where the mid point may sit for these things. I also think we'll see a one-time amnesty much like what the NBA has. One per team, likely must be used within a year of when the CBA is signed.

Originally Posted by Devilsfan92 View Post
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.
From the outside, 50/50 obviously makes sense. But its not so easy for the two parties to say its fair. It's not fair to the players to lose 7% of HRR when the league grew significantly since the last CBA. For owners, whether or not they feel 50/50 is fair comes down to the never ending debate of "what is hockey related revenue." Different definitions of the phrase affects how fair or unfair 50% is to them. But the owners of few sports are probably happy where the players take home a larger share of revenue than they do. That notion alone probably seems unfair to them, as does being on equal ground to some extent.

Last edited by Scott04: 07-15-2012 at 08:25 PM.
Scott04 is offline   Reply With Quote