CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!
View Single Post
12-05-2012, 08:10 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Originally Posted by
The NHL was offering a 43% share back then. If the NHLPA came to them in June with a 52% share that tapered down to 50% the NHL would've played hardball to get them down into the 40s.
I'll quote Proto, he's agreeing with me even though he'd rather not
Originally Posted by
Offering to reduce salaries to 50% without linkage was the only reasonable leverage Fehr had to get a deal done. The fact that the NHL didn't jump all over that (counter with the same soft landing with linkage, reduce contracting rights demands, offer something in return like younger UFA rights) is squarely at the feet of the league.
If they NHLPA had negotiated it could have locked the cap at 64.3m until it was overtaken by 50% HRR. That provides the same stepdown proto just offered. Of course that would involve negotiating to avoid a fight - let's be honest this was never about negotiating and always about the fight for the sake of it.
It's simply not realistic to expect the NHLPA to unilaterally get a deal done months before the CBA expired, especially when the NHL initially offered a 25% drop in their share. Look at it the other way, do you think if the NHL offered a 50/50 deal in June that the NHLPA wouldn't have put the screws to them? Of course they would.
IMHO that's the kind of misguided nonsense being feed to the NHLPA. Us or them. They are coming to kill you families, fight to death. blah blah blah. The whole point of advanced negotiations is to feel each other out and to find mutual solutions before it turns to into a back alley us or them brawl.
Originally Posted by
So your example is that the players wouldn't have had a salary rollback imposed if they'd imposed one themselves last summer -- how does this benefit anyone but the owners? What would the owners have given up for this? The answer seems to be the same one a lot of people have, which is nothing, but at least we'd have hockey!
There is no rollback since 64m stays at 64m. All the players get paid their contracts in full exactly the same as they had before, exactly the same as they want. The owners wouldn't have given up anything except 1.6b or whatever it was. In the next CBA it doesn't look like they are going to be giving up much anyway.
I chose 64m as an example they might have been able to get more 65m or 66m. Much easier to get that then and much less messy.
Why would the NHL agree to a deal 3-4 months before the CBA expired unless they were getting everything they wanted?
1. because it's easier to carry on with no disruption between seasons? without losing games or sponsors? It's easier for the league and the players.
2. because it's easier to carry on negotiations while both sides are relatively friendly and cooperative
3. because the players have more to offer under a current CBA than under no CBA. The NHL can gain from the last year which means they are more likely to be generous going forward. If the players had reached a mutually acceptable nerf to backdiving contracts we might have avoided Weber/Suter/Parise/etc this year and the NHL might not have countered with 5 year deals.
4. because it's easier to sell a salary pause than a rollback, even if they amount to the same thing. A pause at a 64m cap was $180m difference in total verses $70m cap being. You avoid the whole "not honouring our contracts" line being trotted out by the NHLPA completely.
5. Long term I can't see the NHLPA being better off under any of the proposed CBAs, especially factoring in lost games and lost fan revenue.
When's the last time a capped NA league settled on a CBA months before the existing one expired? Like I said earlier, the NBA began negotiations 18 months before the CBA expired but it still took 5-6 months after it expired until they reached a deal.
It's still better than not negotiating.
1. The chance of success while refusing to negotiate is 0.
2. You also put yourself into a position where the opening offer from the other side is going to be very low so they have room to move. Maybe that's the point if you are trying to get mob riled up.
3. if you succeed you can set the stage for future peaceful negotiations. Right now, I'm expecting more of this crap at the next CBA because it's hard to see the calmer heads in the NHLPA being allowed anywhere near leadership.
Maybe I live in a utopian dreamland where I believe employers and employees should work together for their mutual benefit. The NHLPA should have the best interests of its players in mind, which includes looking at the bigger picture and the long term health of their work environment, rather than just fighting because the other side "must be evil". Us vs them ain't healthy.
If the NHLPA started negotiations a year ago and the NHL was hardline from start I'd lay all the blame on NHL.
Last edited by me2: 12-05-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by me2