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.
Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII
It's not like the NHLPA said "Let's extend the current CBA another 6 years!". They said they'd keep using it while negotiating....pretty standard thing for a Union to do.
The NHLPA is nothing like a standard union. The players know the next CBA is going to be at a lower percentage. Why would they negotitate a lower percentage while they are playing and getting a higher percentage?
On TVA Sports during the Abbotsford/Hamilton AHL game, veteran reporter Yvon Pedneault (he's been covering the NHL for decades) talked about there is some talk the owners will be presenting a ''business model'' this week to the PA.
Also said several owners are starting to be quite unhappy and putting pressure on Gary.
These cut gets so overdramatized, when the big picture is that player salaries basically doubled over those six years in spite of the cuts, while team profits stayed flat.
As for "let's play while negotiating," it makes no sense for the league. No PA is going to give the league anything if the default is just that the league lets them keep playing anyways. In fact, the league wanted to play while negotiating last year, and the PA refused to negotiate until summer. And if you were paying attention, you'd know that Donald Fehr has a reputation for striking just before the playoffs in order to get big concessions. The owners would be idiots if they let him do that after he already did it to baseball.
I was simply saying they offered to play under the current CBA because that is what one side usually does in a labour dispute, not because they think the current CBA is worthy of being extended or is one that the Owners want.
They knew a new CBA wouldn't be the same....it's why they offered to get to 50/50. I agree that the league couldn't let them continue playing under the current CBA because of the potential for a strike at any time.
The league making the initial offer they did wasn't a sign to show players it isn't fair after they wanted to keep playing under it. It was a shot across the bow, a low-ball, a message. It was also an absolute waste of time and kicked things off horribly.
On TVA Sports during the Abbotsford/Hamilton AHL game, veteran reporter Yvon Pedneault (he's been covering the NHL for decades) talked about there is some talk the owners will be presenting a ''business model'' this week to the PA.
Also said several owners are starting to be quite unhappy and putting pressure on Gary.
Can't be true! I've read nothing on here but how the Owners will sit on their hands for as long as it takes. The players will crumble and become unhappy with Fehr....not the Owners getting mad at Bettman!
I'm so confused....this guy that knows a lot about the game and has been part of it for years.....he can't know as much as the people on these boards right? He's gotta be wrong!
The NHLPA is nothing like a standard union. The players know the next CBA is going to be at a lower percentage. Why would they negotitate a lower percentage while they are playing and getting a higher percentage?
Because you're still getting a paycheck while you're negotiating it...instead of what they are getting now.
And more importantly...that offer to play under the current CBA made this a 'Lockout', not a 'Strike'. Big PR right there.
No.....they think "This is where we are now....we aren't moving too far from that."
The NHL was overjoyed they got the split in the last CBA. Well you got it....now you have to negotiate to get it changed.
That's how it works. We're at 10, they want us at 5. Ehhhhh....we'll dip to 8 but that's it. Now if you STARTED at 8...you'd dip to 6. So it isn't that anyone thinks they're worth 8...it has everything to do with the fact they're currently at 10. Knawmeen?
The NHL wanted to be where we are right now...so to move off of those numbers, it isn't going to be easy. Has nothing to do with what they think they are worth, it has everything to do with how far off from the status quo you can get the other side to go.
Or the NHL gave in to get the cap last time. yes, i am sure they were overjoyed to agreeing to pay 57%
Starting at 57% was a starting point to show how it wasnt a fair deal for the NHL. Thats how negotiations work.
You say negotiate yet the NHLPA refuses to negotiate off the NHL offers. They arent even being given a chance to negotiate even off the old CBA because that not what Fehr wants to do. He wants to change everything.
IF, i will repeat that again, IF the NHLPA was ok with negotiating off the old CBA, all their proposals would be based off a drop in percentage.
However they are trying to completely rewrite the last CBA so they get fixed raises essentially. The players want guaranteed salaries and raises no matter revenues. Thats the problem
On TVA Sports during the Abbotsford/Hamilton AHL game, veteran reporter Yvon Pedneault (he's been covering the NHL for decades) talked about there is some talk the owners will be presenting a ''business model'' this week to the PA.
Also said several owners are starting to be quite unhappy and putting pressure on Gary.
I wonder if that ties in with the GlobeKPD tweet about the owners coming back with a lower offer . Also the speculation about some owners being upset with the last offer being too much. This week could get really interesting
Or the NHL gave in to get the cap last time. yes, i am sure they were overjoyed to agreeing to pay 57%
Starting at 57% was a starting point to show how it wasnt a fair deal for the NHL. Thats how negotiations work.
You say negotiate yet the NHLPA refuses to negotiate off the NHL offers. They arent even being given a chance to negotiate even off the old CBA because that not what Fehr wants to do. He wants to change everything.
IF, i will repeat that again, IF the NHLPA was ok with negotiating off the old CBA, all their proposals would be based off a drop in percentage.
However they are trying to completely rewrite the last CBA so they get fixed raises essentially. The players want guaranteed salaries and raises no matter revenues. Thats the problem
Last I read is that the NHLPA's proposals were based on a salary freeze at current levels...until revenue rose enough to make those salaries worth 50%, then they would be tied to revenue again.
Who has a link to the NHLPA's offers? Or a Reader's Digest version of them?
Because you're still getting a paycheck while you're negotiating it...instead of what they are getting now.
And more importantly...that offer to play under the current CBA made this a 'Lockout', not a 'Strike'. Big PR right there.
so why did the players REFUSE to negotiate last year, a full year in advance.
why werent these comments coming out then. We will tell you. Because at that point, they would have NO LEVERAGE TO STRIKE. They were under contract still.
You calling that a PR move shows how absolutely clueless you are to what happened in Baseball.
On TVA Sports during the Abbotsford/Hamilton AHL game, veteran reporter Yvon Pedneault (he's been covering the NHL for decades) talked about there is some talk the owners will be presenting a ''business model'' this week to the PA.
Also said several owners are starting to be quite unhappy and putting pressure on Gary.
Total BS! Tune in to another station and you hear the opposite from another so called expert with inside sources. Sounds like YP is pro-player and trying to generate heat on the league with this so called unhappy owners bit. That guys knows about as much as you and I do when it comes to what the NHL is preparing to do.
Last I read is that the NHLPA's proposals were based on a salary freeze at current levels...until revenue rose enough to make those salaries worth 50%, then they would be tied to revenue again.
Who has a link to the NHLPA's offers? Or a Reader's Digest version of them?
Based off of hypothetical growth with fixed raises.
Because you're still getting a paycheck while you're negotiating it...instead of what they are getting now.
And more importantly...that offer to play under the current CBA made this a 'Lockout', not a 'Strike'. Big PR right there.
Who cares if this is a lockout or a strike. To us it is binary: hockey/no hockey. But imagine an argument between millionaire's and billionaire's and one side was saying "you pay me first, then I'll see if I can give you a break". Which side would you assume would be able make this demand?
I think we might have to wait another several months for that to happen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller
hopefully some of the agents, heck even the wives of players start talking some sense into these lower tier players who make up the majority of the league.
At some point, someone will convince them that the talking heads for Fehr, the Crosbys and Toews of the world who are set for life already, are the only ones this lockout is helping and is preventing them from making a living. The agents will start to guide these fringe players in time.
There's already some players speaking up to get a deal done and put the differences aside.. There's probably more that haven't spoken up just yet.. It will happen soon enough
The league making the initial offer they did wasn't a sign to show players it isn't fair after they wanted to keep playing under it. It was a shot across the bow, a low-ball, a message. It was also an absolute waste of time and kicked things off horribly.
See, I disagree with this strongly. The NHL sees half its teams losing money and no other pro sports league in NA paying more than 50%. I think they identify 50% as their red line. They see the PA at 57%, their end goal at 50%, and then the most logical thing in the world for them to do is start at 43%. Goal is exactly halfway between.
Everybody acts like the first offer was terrible because the union pretended to faint, howled to the media, etc., and refused to negotiate with it. But I put that on them. I think that's their bad negotiating. And the proof in the pudding for me is that they're paying the price now. Their people are losing money now, more money than they could even make back under their own proposal, because they refused to look at a pretty logical first offer and play ball. They're going to end up worse off in the long run no matter how this negotiation concludes, because they didn't get their membership on board, give them reasonable expectations about what the league's red lines would probably be, and prepare them to try and get there.
On TVA Sports during the Abbotsford/Hamilton AHL game, veteran reporter Yvon Pedneault (he's been covering the NHL for decades) talked about there is some talk the owners will be presenting a ''business model'' this week to the PA.
Also said several owners are starting to be quite unhappy and putting pressure on Gary.
What does that mean?? doesnt sound like a proposal? Any way I think the League could offer exactly what the players want and Fehr would still find a way to try and get more
Last I read is that the NHLPA's proposals were based on a salary freeze at current levels...until revenue rose enough to make those salaries worth 50%, then they would be tied to revenue again.
Who has a link to the NHLPA's offers? Or a Reader's Digest version of them?
None of them are quite as generous as you suggest. What a couple of them do, instead, is grow salaries more slowly, and then eventually get linked IF 50% ends up still being a raise (if not, what does happen isn't answered).
On TVA Sports during the Abbotsford/Hamilton AHL game, veteran reporter Yvon Pedneault (he's been covering the NHL for decades) talked about there is some talk the owners will be presenting a ''business model'' this week to the PA.
Also said several owners are starting to be quite unhappy and putting pressure on Gary.
so why did the players REFUSE to negotiate last year, a full year in advance.
why werent these comments coming out then. We will tell you. Because at that point, they would have NO LEVERAGE TO STRIKE. They were under contract still.
You calling that a PR move shows how absolutely clueless you are to what happened in Baseball.
No....it shows that the NHL isn't/wasn't. The NHLPA knew the NHL wouldn't agree to continue on under the current CBA. Still gotta offer to if yer the NHLPA.
And also...very rarely do both sides agree to open up talks earlier than they have to, takes leverage away from both sides. If both sides are relatively happy with the current CBA and don't expect many changes...then yes. They'll talk early. If that isn't the case...they wait until time causes pressure. Who feels the pressure more is the gamble.
I've read nothing on here but how the Owners will sit on their hands for as long as it takes. The players will crumble and become unhappy with Fehr....not the Owners getting mad at Bettman!
I've read that it's the PA who will wait so that Fehr gets his dream of killing a meaningless cap.
As for crumbling, I think it's been claimed that there are signs that there's potential "crumblage" on both sides.
People on both sides of this cluster ***** have reason to be choked at their leadership.
Who cares if this is a lockout or a strike. To us it is binary: hockey/no hockey. But imagine an argument between millionaire's and billionaire's and one side was saying "you pay me first, then I'll see if I can give you a break". Which side would you assume would be able make this demand?
Bullocks. If this was a player strike and the Owners wanted to continue on with the old CBA while negotiating...the court of public opinion would be MUCH different and you know it.
No....it shows that the NHL isn't/wasn't. The NHLPA knew the NHL wouldn't agree to continue on under the current CBA. Still gotta offer to if yer the NHLPA.
And also...very rarely do both sides agree to open up talks earlier than they have to, takes leverage away from both sides. If both sides are relatively happy with the current CBA and don't expect many changes...then yes. They'll talk early. If that isn't the case...they wait until time causes pressure. Who feels the pressure more is the gamble.
Then why did the NHL agree to talk so early? They were ready to go last December.
What does that mean?? doesnt sound like a proposal? Any way I think the League could offer exactly what the players want and Fehr would still find a way to try and get more
Fehr must be getting the message by now that he can only push so much farther here. He can't be living under that big of a rock.
I wonder if that ties in with the GlobeKPD tweet about the owners coming back with a lower offer . Also the speculation about some owners being upset with the last offer being too much. This week could get really interesting
Lower offer huh? They're on safe ground at 50/50 based on current HRR. I'm not sure they want to take a step back like that.
I've read that it's the PA who will wait so that Fehr gets his dream of killing a meaningless cap.
As for crumbling, I think it's been claimed that there are signs that there's potential "crumblage" on both sides.
People on both sides of this cluster ***** have reason to be choked at their leadership.
I have to assume if this lasts a year Bettman will be looked at a little differently by most Owners. They followed him last time, gave up a year....got their prized 'cost certainty'....and now it isn't good enough so they're going through it all over again.
Makes me think there are at least a few Owners that see the last lockout as an absolute waste. But...it was the Owners that exposed the loopholes and took advantage of them.
Most people, aside from those on this board, seem to be in agreement that these CBA's are basically a way to save Owners from themselves. Pretty hard to blame the players when they can only accept what is offered.
I've read that it's the PA who will wait so that Fehr gets his dream of killing a meaningless cap.
As for crumbling, I think it's been claimed that there are signs that there's potential "crumblage" on both sides.
People on both sides of this cluster ***** have reason to be choked at their leadership.
Well, clearly the PA has reason to be pissed, because they gave away the best outcome they'll get and they know it.
But I'm not sure anyone in the owner's camp is really pissed at Bettman, at least not to the effect of wanting him to give more up. What I hear is that owners, if anything, are pissed at him trying to give away too much, and are preparing a new offer that's lower than the last one.
