The owners knowingly have to way overshoot they're realistic expectations on a first draft so that they have room to negotiate down to what they think they can give the players.
Brooks hysterics as if the NHL made a final offer they won't budge on instead of an initial offer.
After 2 meetings media pundits worried there was no offer made by either side. Then an offer is made and pundits worry about how extreme it is. Media pundits know worries gets them more views than being even keel.
Brooks hysterics as if the NHL made a final offer they won't budge on instead of an initial offer.
After 2 meetings media pundits worried there was no offer made by either side. Then an offer is made and pundits worry about how extreme it is. Media pundits know worries gets them more views than being even keel.
obviously....but i think this is going to be tougher than alot of people first thought..the owners want apretty significant roll back..
You don't start off a negotiation by insulting the other party if you wish to achieve results.
And you also don't start off a negotiation with an offer that is totally fair/right down the middle unless you want to get destroyed by the final result. That's not how bargaining works. The first offer being ridiculous is fine, as long as the owners then move off their position towards the middle from here. If they do not budge, then its a problem.
They kind of have to budge on some things here. They just will.
The 5 year limit for contracts they propose is retarded, but I can totally see the PA allow a higher limit of like 8 or 9 if that means a gain of 1 or 2% in the revenue share.
I really don't think this will be as ugly as the media is trying to spin it. But at the same time, these CBA negotiations are also extremely unpredicatable.
They kind of have to budge on some things here. They just will.
The 5 year limit for contracts they propose is retarded, but I can totally see the PA allow a higher limit of like 8 or 9 if that means a gain of 1 or 2% in the revenue share.
5 isn't a terrible suggestion. It just seems like it is because of the unlimited terms that have been allowed and recently given out in increasing frequency. The NBA has a max of 5 years. I don't recall if the NFL has a max but contracts longer than 6/7 years are very very rare. You really don't see anything longer than 10 for baseball, and those aren't overly common. I don't think it will stay as low as 5, but a 6-7 year max contract length isn't exactly unreasonable. Until recently you rarely saw deals longer than 8 years anyway. And if they reconfigure how the cap hit is determined, no one would want a contract longer than that anyway. Adding the years won't be beneficial to anyone anymore with the right configuration.
Of course the owners went for 46% because they want any number less than the current 57%.
I dont understand Brooks' opinion that this means the situation is fubar.
Its a lot like the theory many Devils fans when any of our players hit UFA. Anything and everything that is not a signed contract is bad news. Brooks takes anything but an agreement (be it on a term, or an entire CBA) is a sign of impending doom. Its ridiculous. This was the first offer. Anyone panicking now is blowing things out of proportion. The real judge of the situation comes in the follow up offer(s).
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)
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)
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.
5 isn't a terrible suggestion. It just seems like it is because of the unlimited terms that have been allowed and recently given out in increasing frequency. The NBA has a max of 5 years. I don't recall if the NFL has a max but contracts longer than 6/7 years are very very rare. You really don't see anything longer than 10 for baseball, and those aren't overly common. I don't think it will stay as low as 5, but a 6-7 year max contract length isn't exactly unreasonable. Until recently you rarely saw deals longer than 8 years anyway. And if they reconfigure how the cap hit is determined, no one would want a contract longer than that anyway. Adding the years won't be beneficial to anyone anymore with the right configuration.
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.
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)
The owners are in the business to make money or lose as little as possible.
The PA counteroffer will determine which side the fans are on.
Yeah, it doesnt mean much but if the PA offers something ridiculous, theyre done from the PR pov - just like last time.
Negotiation involves give and take so the players will say something like 7yrs or 27 (whichever comes first) for FA and 55%.
They know theyll get neither and the possible settlement would be 8yrs/28 and 52% - among other things.
If the players ask for an even larger share, they can go **** themselves.
Brooks has always been very pro player..I posted this article because I thought it was interesting to see where the owners started. Obviously this proposal is unacceptable but you can begin to see a road map...50-51%( 62 mil cap) ..7 year contracts .. limited bonus structure..no front loading..pay for year=cap hit. Buyouts? ..Re alignment?...will they give some in one for another..will be interesting.
Id be surprised if there werent serious negotiations until Sep 13 or so lol this is the NHL and NHLPA we are talking about.
I guess they're just following Lou's lesser known motto: When you have time... you sit around and do nothing for 95% of it, before half-assing something at the last second to save the season.
And that initial offer from the owners wasn't pointless or insulting. Both sides understand how negotiation works. The owners don't expect the PA to that take offer, nor are they going to dig their heels in on any of those stipulations. I expect the NHLPA to make an equally absurd counter-offer shortly, and eventually they will meet in the middle.
