It's all part of the negotiations. The NHL ***** on the players counter offer to put even more public pressure on them. The amount of people saying the NHL's deal is "fair" is absolutely astonishing. Even on the radio the other day here in Pittsburgh, Mark Madden was preaching to his yinzer army about how sweet of a deal it was for the players and that if they didn't take it they're just greedy punks.
The NHL is working from it's original proposal, and the NHLPA is working from their original proposals towards an agreement. Obviously the NHL is trying to force them to bargain from their proposals only.
Exactly. And people are now ******** on the NHLPA because they want their hockey back, and the easiest way for the to happen would be for the players to cave. **** that. This is a typical negotiation. Sucks that it takes this long, but that's just how it is.
Escrow is calculated at the end of the year. The owners would get money back at that point
e: that is to say, the real money calculation (which is realistically what the owners care about) comes at the end of the season and is based on the money generated during the season. If next year had a big revenue growth, the league could end up splitting things closer to 50-50 (more realistically like around 54-46 players if it was a good increase) and still pay the value of the players contracts, especially since they would no longer be required by the CBA to give back money to get the split up to 57% for the players
that's why the players are saying "we'll go to 50-50 if you honor the contracts", because you can get to 50-50 in a couple of seasons if you assume good revenue growth and not requiring the owners to pay 57% of the revenue no matter what. It would basically be a 50-50 split on the revenue for next year and then if that's not enough to pay the existing contracts then the league gives back more until it does. That could easily come in under the old 57% number, and would definitely be closer to 50-50 in year two, and almost certainly 50-50 in the 3rd year. Hell, there could even be room to calculate some certain cap on how much the league would pay back in year one, like it can't be over X percentage or something.
players don't want escrow, to them thats just another word for rollback
Exactly. And people are now ******** on the NHLPA because they want their hockey back, and the easiest way for the to happen would be for the players to cave. **** that. This is a typical negotiation. Sucks that it takes this long, but that's just how it is.
It's definitely unfortunate that it goes on so long, and that it gets so ugly, but as you know first hand, it's the reality of the situation. Sure, it's millionaires fighting billionaires, but cutting worker salary by 12% or more isn't something that's easily accepted by any workforce. People at Foxconn were jumping off roofs for improved treatment and pay raises that basically amounted to a hundred extra dollars a month. Now these guys are fighting over millions and people are surprised they aren't bending over backwards to accommodate the league? It's just naive.
Exactly. And people are now ******** on the NHLPA because they want their hockey back, and the easiest way for the to happen would be for the players to cave. **** that. This is a typical negotiation. Sucks that it takes this long, but that's just how it is.
cave? no...be a little bit more realistic about things then 'lets just pretend its 50/50'? um yeah
players don't want escrow, to them thats just another word for rollback
They don't want escrow because with the leagues proposal, going immediately to 50-50 would create a huuuuuuuuge escrow amount the players would have to pay back unless revenues skyrocketed through the roof next year.
They could still easily have an escrow system that works (can't really do the current hard cap system without it) if the league is flexible in the first couple of years of the new CBA and is willing to accept some sort of step down method instead of an immediate drop
That is really what the issue is here...the league is demanding an immediate drop in the revenue split which amounts to a rollback on salaries no matter how you look at it. The players want a step down approach that allows them to get most of the value of their contracts and relies on expected revenue increase to bring down the split.
Maybe I'm biased but the players position sounds pretty reasonable to me in that both sides eventually get what they want (though the details probably need to be looked at closely).
Bettman and the owners are clearly still trying to be hardasses and clamp down on the players in the hardest way this side of the NFL's CBA. Even the NBA had a stepdown approach to implementing its cap.
It's definitely unfortunate that it goes on so long, and that it gets so ugly, but as you know first hand, it's the reality of the situation. Sure, it's millionaires fighting billionaires, but cutting worker salary by 12% or more isn't something that's easily accepted by any workforce. People at Foxconn were jumping off roofs for improved treatment and pay raises that basically amounted to a hundred extra dollars a month. Now these guys are fighting over millions and people are surprised they aren't bending over backwards to accommodate the league? It's just naive.
Maybe but I think the marginal utility of that first 10k is worth a lot more than that of the ten thousandth 10k. Fighting over costs of living, putting kids through college vs the difference between a ferrari f-50 and an f-500.
There are good kids in the ECHL playing hockey for 600 bucks a week, travelling all over, never seeing their families. Yet somehow the ECHL plays hockey every year.
1) The players have made a win with their constant "honor those legal contracts you signed, you thieving ********!" which the general public seems to have bought. Please. Those are subsidiary agreements subject to the master agreement, the CBA, and everyone involved in negotiating them knows that (whether or not the agents are truthful with their clients about it may be another story). Both sides had their eyes wide open negotiating what they could this past summer knowing EXACTLY what was coming. The reality is that it's as much BS as the rest of the bluster going on.
2) Fehr blundered by insisting on building off of his proposal rather than engaging on the league's document. There is no question that the league blundered first with their initial offer - however, since then they've made two more to the players' one and they also had made the last one. Theirs was the last on the table and they've been begging for a counter offer for a month. Well, you get what you want by making the league make the next move, but you've also given them control of the document if you want to move forward. Going back to your old structure is a guaranteed roadblock.
3) Delinking the cap from league revenues and/or relying on growth to ensure reaching your proposed split is likely a non-starter for most of the teams in the league. Stop trying for it.
4) Likewise, I see the PA's point about "make-whole" eating into the available funds in years 2-x until the first deals have been paid off. If you've got 50% of the pie, but a portion of that is going to pay Nash's/Crosby's/etc's escrow payments from 3 years ago, that effectively brings your percentage for that year down.
5) After sleeping on it, I do agree that it was likely that anything other than mere tweaking of the NHL's offer would likely have garnered negative public reaction from the league. They're controlling the spin war now and they're not going to let their feet off the pedal.
6) Both sides describing 50/50 as the ultimate goal is progress.
7) Having gone through this 7 years ago, I have to believe that the players realize that if they get to the point that they cancel 10/20/30% of the season, that's not recoverable in any incremental gains they make in any deal they strike thereafter, no matter how close to their current proposal(s).
8) They're not THAT far apart.
9) If they keep talking, we're in good shape.
10) There are ways to get this done if they put their creativity to negotiating rather than posturing:
- a floor to protect the owners if growth doesn't meet the players' projections.
- split at 50/50 and allow an extra 1% in every year to cover make-whole over and above until the current contracts are paid out.
- or, simply going back on the league's proposal and pushing for higher numbers in years 1 & 2 as others have suggested.
Just keep talking, fellas.
Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 10-19-2012 at 09:19 AM.
Bettman put a 50/50 deal on the table it must be good, those good and decent owners would never ever try and bend the players over and sodomize them with a baseball bat, again, like they have 50 other times, never.
They hand out contracts they never had any intentions of honoring like they were drunk sailors in Tijuana on payday. Then lets add in the fact they are locking players out because a deal in which they got nearly every conceivable concession they thought up is no longer good enough. Please don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
These owners think they are Citigroup or JP Morgan Chase and the players are their very own TARP program. What's going to happen 6 years from now when the 50/50 isn't good enough, another lock out?
With the exception of pro sports and banks, what business's get saved from themselves? You don't like the contracts, here is an idea don't hand them out.
The owners took Hockey away not the players. The owners were blowing each other over the last deal in 04' when they curb stomped the players. Now when revenues are significantly higher, this deal sucks. Pull this leg it plays jingle bells.
I love hockey and want to see the Rangers in the worst way but I do not want the players to cave this time. I am sick of the owners.
Good luck earning 26-30k (if you are lucky) in the real world while trying to support a family.
See them begging to go back to their cushy 300+k "minimum wage" "jobs" playing a game, while being pampered by billion dollar companies.
I ****ing hate the owners, but i just about had it with the bratty players, as well.
I think the only spoiled one here is you. Just because they played hockey their entire life and reached levels of eliteness that you never will, does not mean that they should be thankful for scraps that are thrown to them. You act like because they have a great job they should be thankful to be there and take anything they get.
I really can't get over what a bunch of cry babies some fans are. Oh boo hooo hooo I want to watch hockey and the players should be thankful to even get 100k a year to play! Their job is so much better than mine, and I don't make much money, so they should be grateful for anything they get! If they dont like it they can go work in McDonalds!
It's obvious who has a backbone, who has pride, and who has accomplished anything in life. Just because you are a nobody and would kill to play hockey for $50k a year, does not mean they should want to, have to, or need to.
It is obvious that they are being bent over, and I for one feel they should not give the owners anything. I am proud of them for standing up like this, and I hope they continue to stand up until they get what they want. Even if they never get what they want, and maybe never play hockey again, they can rest knowing they had pride and stood up for themselves.
Why doesn't the NHL agree to make the players "whole"? The players shouldn't pay for it. The NHL proposed a program where the deferred money comes out the players end. Players paying players. Management signed these players and now they want to avoid paying the full value. The NHL will be making a ton of $ with 50-50. The majority of the existing contracts will be expiring with a couple of years. 6 or 7 year labor deal. Escrow will take a chunk in the early parts of the CBA. The NHL doesn't want to live up to their responsibilites. They should fund the "make whole" program.
2) Fehr blundered by insisting on building off of his proposal rather than engaging on the league's document. There is no question that the league blundered first with their initial offer - however, since then they've made two more to the players' one and they also had made the last one. There's was the last on the table and they've been begging for a counter offer for a month. Well, you get what you want by making the league make the next move, but you've also given them control of the document if you want to move forward. Going back to your old structure is a guaranteed roadblock.
I disagree with this. From a negotiating perspective, I think the first offer was a master stroke.
A half and half revenue split looks a hell of a lot better after that first offer. The league has created the illusion that they are the ones willing to move off their positions and compromise, despite the fact they are still proposing severe across the board cuts to the players.
Look no further than this board to see how the public opinion has turned - justified or not.
Last edited by Bleed Ranger Blue: 10-19-2012 at 09:33 AM.
2) Fehr blundered by insisting on building off of his proposal rather than engaging on the league's document. There is no question that the league blundered first with their initial offer - however, since then they've made two more to the players' one and they also had made the last one. There's was the last on the table and they've been begging for a counter offer for a month. Well, you get what you want by making the league make the next move, but you've also given them control of the document if you want to move forward. Going back to your old structure is a guaranteed roadblock.
They look to be pretty similar in a lot of ways really...the question is whether it drops immediately to 50-50 or gradually. That's what's really being fought over here and you can't really work off of the leagues proposal exactly if you're in the camp of dropping it gradually.
Quote:
3) Delinking the cap from league revenues and/or relying on growth to ensure reaching your proposed split is likely a non-starter for most of the teams in the league. Stop trying for it.
The only other option is an immediate drop that will cost the players money. That's why they're against it. *edit*: this is assuming the players mindset is they don't want to lose any of that money, which would mean they're against a 54-46 style split, etc. Not saying it's right, it's just what their mindset is I guess
Quote:
6) Both sides describing 50/50 as the ultimate goal is progress.
Agreed, the main problem seems to be about getting there and the players fighting against a rollback and the league really really wanting a rollback by any name.
Quote:
8) They're not THAT far apart.
Also agreed...honestly I'd rather see them settle on something like a 54-46, 52-48, 50-50 etc deal. I know why the players are pushing the "rely on revenue growth" model, and there's a chance it could work, but I also think it'll be tough to break the league away from what they want. I don't think what the NHLPA is offering is unreasonable, but the league clearly doesn't want to go that way.
Quote:
10) There are ways to get this done if they put their creativity to negotiating rather than posturing:
- a floor to protect the owners if growth doesn't meet the players' projections.
- split at 50/50 and allow an extra 1% in every year to cover make-whole over and above until the current contracts are paid out.
- or, simply going back on the league's proposal and pushing for higher numbers in years 1 & 2 as others have suggested.
Just keep talking, fellas.
Also agree. There's stuff there for a deal to be made somehow, I still just think the league really got the players up in arms about the contracts they gave out this past summer. I agree that the players had to have known that was a possibility but that doesn't mean it wasn't a rather dick move for the owners to pull
Why doesn't the NHL agree to make the players "whole"? The players shouldn't pay for it. The NHL proposed a program where the deferred money comes out the players end. Players paying players. Management signed these players and now they want to avoid paying the full value. The NHL will be making a ton of $ with 50-50. The majority of the existing contracts will be expiring with a couple of years. 6 or 7 year labor deal. Escrow will take a chunk in the early parts of the CBA. The NHL doesn't want to live up to their responsibilites. They should fund the "make whole" program.
The market dictates what a play "should" be payed, not any sort of number I or anyone else could quot you. Competition for their services depending on areas of expertise and need by the company.
The problem in this instance is that the NHL doesn't really operate that well as a free enterprise, it has its own interests as a league (Help expansion, support smaller markets, promote parity.) Not to mention they need to keep player salaries at a level that will be competitive with other top leagues in order to keep the top players here.
Actually, if the PA gets 55% this season and 52.5% next season and than 50/50 down the road, you accomplish that. And that's basically what the PA offered.
This is the union stance. Daly says it isn't 50/50, it's 56% with guaranteed contracts . Well yes, today it is 54.7 or 57%. They need to speak the same language. That is disingenuous by Daly. It's a stubborn stance.
Clearly a cap on escrow will satisfy both parties. Per the CBA contracts are subject to escrow deductions. The league botched the last CBA and insists on keeping it. Players lose on all fronts. The compromise is to make good on the contracts while still accounting for some fluctuations. Cap escrow.
I am shocked as well. How can you be a hockey fan and a fan of certain players, and not want to support them getting treated fairly?
I think it's more a reflection of the spoiled and selfish nature of Americans, than it is stupidity. It's not that they're dumb, they just don't give a **** how the players are treated.
Provide a shred of supporting evidence that what you consider to be "fair" for the players is anything other than completely subjective and it might hold some water as a practical policy suggestion.
The thing I can see happening today or early next week is the league "retaliating" by canceling a bunch of games, and IMO that'd be a stupid move. But it 's the NHL after all
Of course,they're closer to a deal. The PA never put 50-50 on paper. The NHL wants an immediate cut because Messers Jacobs and Leopold want an immediate cut and big escrow instead of a phasing in 50-50 by year 3 with the players not losing 12% in escrow. They won't fund the "make the players whole" program. Instead of fighting over 50-50,they're fighting over how to fund the program. The NHL won. They will be getting 50-50. Bettman will get his 50-50. From: @JoshRimerHockey
Sent: Oct 19, 2012 10:16a
Speaking with Sabres Goalie Ryan Miller, he sure does make a good point in saying that they're closer to a deal then they were last week.
Exactly. And people are now ******** on the NHLPA because they want their hockey back, and the easiest way for the to happen would be for the players to cave. **** that. This is a typical negotiation. Sucks that it takes this long, but that's just how it is.
I think the only spoiled one here is you. Just because they played hockey their entire life and reached levels of eliteness that you never will, does not mean that they should be thankful for scraps that are thrown to them. You act like because they have a great job they should be thankful to be there and take anything they get.
I really can't get over what a bunch of cry babies some fans are. Oh boo hooo hooo I want to watch hockey and the players should be thankful to even get 100k a year to play! Their job is so much better than mine, and I don't make much money, so they should be grateful for anything they get! If they dont like it they can go work in McDonalds!
It's obvious who has a backbone, who has pride, and who has accomplished anything in life. Just because you are a nobody and would kill to play hockey for $50k a year, does not mean they should want to, have to, or need to.
It is obvious that they are being bent over, and I for one feel they should not give the owners anything. I am proud of them for standing up like this, and I hope they continue to stand up until they get what they want. Even if they never get what they want, and maybe never play hockey again, they can rest knowing they had pride and stood up for themselves.
I am a nobody and i am spoiled and havent accomplished anything?
LOL
Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 10-19-2012 at 09:51 AM.
Good luck earning 26-30k (if you are lucky) in the real world while trying to support a family.
See them begging to go back to their cushy 300+k "minimum wage" "jobs" playing a game, while being pampered by billion dollar companies.
I ****ing hate the owners, but i just about had it with the bratty players, as well.
Then why are you still here?
I agree that its disappointing to watch two sides fight over billions like its nothing, but in principle, you still have to stand up for yourself, whether its 100k or 10 million.
Youre setting a precedent of allowing to be walked all over, which continues with each subsequent negotiation, because "well, I make more than the average person."
