The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Should the owners propose a soft landing?
View Poll Results: If the owners proposed a soft landing, would it get a deal done?
Rather than debate Brooks' credibility as a PA shill, I'm more interested in knowing whether this idea of a "soft landing" is acceptable.
1. Maintaining linkage
2. Reducing Share incrementally so that players take no immediate cuts.
3. Brooks doesn't mention it, but say the deal ends at 50 percent.
What the owners shouldn't expect is to undo all the harm they did to themselves in the last CBA in one fell swoop with this CBA. They dug themselves this hole, they should be trying to be more imaginative in how they can dig themselves out of it, without expecting the PA to just give in to whatever to solve the owners' problems.
This poll is missing a key choice. The owners cannot be the first to propose this. The PA has to be the first to suggest it. That would be a signal that the players are willing to concede something. Their only proposals so far see them getting guaranteed raises from what they received last year.
The owners moved so far on their last proposal that they can't really move further until the players come out and show some willingness to compromise.
I disagree.
Fehr can not put a big concessionary offer on the table.
If the owners offered something like goes from 55 to 47, Fehr could counter with 56 to 52... and we can get there.
Bettman can make this offer a lot easier than Fehr, and that's why he needs to make it.
Here's the thing though Bob and why the offer made wasn't even if the same ballpark. Simply put, the proposals given by the PA have tried to "drastically change the system" by creatively de-linking salaries from revenue. That's why I don't view that as a start.
Even if they were to propose something that had conditions based on how much revenue growth or loss there would be, there could at least be some discussion because it's still somewhat tied to revenue.
I agree that it will end up being a reduced drop in player share and it will be a "soft landing" but right now to me the PA has dug in, put their fingers in their ears, and are saying "lalalalalala" at even the thought of any reduction whatsoever. And that's why they can't even get to the next step of talking about further increasing revenue sharing, ufa age, etc....
Here's the thing though Bob and why the offer made wasn't even if the same ballpark. Simply put, the proposals given by the PA have tried to "drastically change the system" by creatively de-linking salaries from revenue. That's why I don't view that as a start.
Even if they were to propose something that had conditions based on how much revenue growth or loss there would be, there could at least be some discussion because it's still somewhat tied to revenue.
I agree that it will end up being a reduced drop in player share and it will be a "soft landing" but right now to me the PA has dug in, put their fingers in their ears, and are saying "lalalalalala" at even the thought of any reduction whatsoever. And that's why they can't even get to the next step of talking about further increasing revenue sharing, ufa age, etc....
Honestly, though,.. isn't linking salariies to revenue the cause of teams losing money? I don't see how the owners benefit from linkage UNLESS they can also win a, b and c.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "lalalalala." That seems like an unfair characterization. If Fehr demanded slight increases in the player share, based on 7.1 percent growth and this that and the other thing, I'd agree with you. But they didn't. They made an offer to reduce their share. And even if they delinked, that's still "give back" kind of language.
So in that respect, they've partially accepted the premise.
This poll is missing a key choice. The owners cannot be the first to propose this. The PA has to be the first to suggest it. That would be a signal that the players are willing to concede something. Their only proposals so far see them getting guaranteed raises from what they received last year.
The owners moved so far on their last proposal that they can't really move further until the players come out and show some willingness to compromise.
It'd be nice if the players knew what Gary's 'real' deadline was. If he wasn't the type that pockets offered concessions and then looks for more it wouldn't be so bad.
My guess is his deadline wouldn't be anytime soon. If it was me deciding, I would hold off on offering anything up just yet.
Honestly, though,.. isn't linking salariies to revenue the cause of teams losing money? I don't see how the owners benefit from linkage UNLESS they can also win a, b and c.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "lalalalala." That seems like an unfair characterization. If Fehr demanded slight increases in the player share, based on 7.1 percent growth and this that and the other thing, I'd agree with you. But they didn't. They made an offer to reduce their share. And even if they delinked, that's still "give back" kind of language.
So in that respect, they've partially accepted the premise.
I agree the lalalala part was sensationalist but it was to point out the lack of movement from the first to second proposal. As far as the bolded, they did do that. Fixing their anual growth was their way of dropping their overall share. But again that was de-linked. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
As far as whether or not a cap linked to revenue is a good thing or the cause of the current issues.....IMO the major concerns as have been pointed are
1 - the floor - solved by lowering it however a high floor benifits the players
2 - revenue growth disparity between the 30 teams - nothing you can do about that
3 - not enough revenue sharing - already increased to 190 from 150 and will be further increased
4 - how much the players make - small reduction in share (51/49)
5 - front loading of contracts - change this
If they have core economic talks without a specific offer on the table, this is the type of thing that could emerge without a big deal over who proposes it.
Mediation in this situation would be a no-brainer. Every litigation lawyer in Ontario, in many other Canadian jurisdictions and across the US will know immediately what I mean whether they agree or not. I think its very strange that they have not engaged a mediator before canceling games.
If they have core economic talks without a specific offer on the table, this is the type of thing that could emerge without a big deal over who proposes it.
Mediation in this situation would be a no-brainer. Every litigation lawyer in Ontario, in many other Canadian jurisdictions and across the US will know immediately what I mean whether they agree or not. I think its very strange that they have not engaged a mediator before canceling games.
I don't think you can compare pro sports labour negotiations with anything else. I'd be more interested in hearing about game theory. It's more relevant.
I don't think you can compare pro sports labour negotiations with anything else. I'd be more interested in hearing about game theory. It's more relevant.
You're quite right.
There is a lot of brinksmanship going on that probably does have more to do with that than anything else.
That would explain the lack of mediation that would otherwise be such an obvious resource.
I cant imagine the NHL agreeing to Mediation unless absolutely ordered to do so by the Courts Mork, and there we get into jurisdictional issues.
Would mediation require the owners to open up their books to an extent they haven't already? If yes, it would prove either they are exaggerating losses or telling the truth (which would devalue their franchises). Could be a non-starter.
Would mediation require the owners to open up their books to an extent they haven't already? If yes, it would prove either they are exaggerating losses or telling the truth (which would devalue their franchises). Could be a non-starter.
Not the mediation I'm familiar with. Purely voluntary, facilitive process. No binding powers of any kind. Just discussion and persuasion.
I figured it would be
30 percent yes
50 percent no, owners giving up too much
20 percent no, players giving up too much
Once again I think it is a good way to get a deal done. I don't think either of the key players in the NHLPA or NHL board of governors is interested however. It is asking if we think both sides get closer to the middle could it help. The answer is yes. Although I think the large numbers indicate just how frustrated we are becoming with the situation. I would vote for the players to get anywhere from 20% to 80% of HRR if I thought that would bring back hockey faster at this point.
I figured it would be
30 percent yes
50 percent no, owners giving up too much
20 percent no, players giving up too much
Well, it's a terribly flawed poll question to be honest.
Most folks that are following the situation expect the end result of the new CBA to ultimately be a lower player share. What constitutes a "hard" or "soft" landing to get to that point? The two sides can't even agree on the altitude of the airport at this moment.
Not the mediation I'm familiar with. Purely voluntary, facilitive process. No binding powers of any kind. Just discussion and persuasion. I think Killion hit the nail on the head.
... further and speculating, if the Lockout carries on through Christmas & into the winter-spring, I think we'll hear a cry from the pols on both side of the border to appoint a mediator, demand it, as the loss of tax revenues & jobs, the harm caused to small businesses really starts to bite. Even with that further pressure, and with lets say an application from the NHLPA to appoint Mediators in New York and or Ontario (and Im assuming thats where youd seek relief as the league is based in Manhattan & Toronto), the NHL fighting back, resisting,
Well, it's a terribly flawed poll question to be honest.
Most folks that are following the situation expect the end result of the new CBA to ultimately be a lower player share. What constitutes a "hard" or "soft" landing to get to that point? The two sides can't even agree on the altitude of the airport at this moment.
Yeah, it offers no specifics besides "is doing something gradually good?" So yeah, I don't see how anyone could say it would or wouldn't get the job done, but everybody seems to agree it would be at least helpful.
Its a little hard to take that the vast majority of fans see this as an entirely reasonable solution, and yet if the players offered it, it wouldnt even be in the owners framework and they have no intention of giving the players that much money. However the owners would accept it, say thanks for giving us a new starting point, now lets talk about the size of the pay cut you're willing to accept.
And yet still, the players are expected to make the next move, be reasonable, and accept reality.
Well, it's a terribly flawed poll question to be honest.
Most folks that are following the situation expect the end result of the new CBA to ultimately be a lower player share. What constitutes a "hard" or "soft" landing to get to that point? The two sides can't even agree on the altitude of the airport at this moment.
That's a pretty harsh criticism of a simple poll question.
But it's not surprising, considering.
A soft landing simply means, for our purposes, no instant losses to the PA.
Just so the NHL can counter-propose another rollback through escrow?
That could happen.
Or the NHL could see that the PA is finally trying to work within their (NHL's) framework.
Either way, it's a step in the right direction.
Also, since the players seem to be concerned with how they look in the media and fans' eyes, this would certainly make it appear that they are working towards a solution.
That could happen.
Or the NHL could see that the PA is finally trying to work within their (NHL's) framework.
Either way, it's a step in the right direction.
Not really. With the littany of salary rollbacks through escrow and of rights' restrctions, it wouldn't necessarily be a "right direction" for the players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Thudd
Also, since the players seem to be concerned with how they look in the media and fans' eyes, this would certainly make it appear that they are working towards a solution.
It's been said by Steve Fehr that the owners are looking for substantial concessions. Why bother lobbing an offer which will surely get countered with a lower offer? All in the name of fake "progress"?
They've both drawn lines in the sand, so the only thing we can wait for is the line to be crossed.
It surprises me how many people want to screw the player who become free agents in the next couple of years. Plus there is no way a soft-landing and salary arbitration can exist in the deal without causing problems.
