You literally cannot have "no rollbacks" along with a 50% revenue split with the last NHL proposal unless revenues increase to over $3.6B next season.
Honestly Jarick, either pick up a clue or drop the troll act. Do you really think arguing semantics makes you sound smart? I would hope you have enough activity in your head to let you understand what the statements you're trying to misconstrue say. It's really sad otherwise.
I'm curious to read squidz reply to this interview.
Don't think it's been posted yet, but I have a couple point by point things to note:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
But we have this system. It doesn’t work all that well in sports for all kinds of reasons. It particularly doesn’t work well in the salary-cap sports because it almost guarantees a lockout in every negotiation
Baseball under Fehr underwent by far the most unrest of any sport in labor history. It was not until this most recent negotiation where there was not an issue with it. In contrast, the NFL has had (off the top of my head) the fewest labor issues, and those issues only occurred after a season without a salary cap. In fact, to my knowledge, there has only ever been two work stoppages in the history of salary cap sports. That's an issue almost exclusively in the domain of the uncapped world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
Q: Why does the system guarantee a lockout in “salary-cap sports?”
A: Doesn’t in baseball.
See previous comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
Well, first of all, why are we not playing? It wasn’t a decision the players made. We indicated from our first proposal they (the players) were willing to see their percentage fall over time. The owners first proposal went enormously backwards, so the movement they’ve made since then is from a proposal that nobody – not even them – took seriously to begin with. So you go into buy a car and let’s say it has a $35,000 sticker on it and you offer 15. The dealer laughs at you and says, ‘maybe 33.’ And you say, ‘No, I’ll improve my offer to 20. I improved it 33 percent.’ Well it still doesn’t mean it has any reasonable chance of success at any point.
Incredibly false dichotomy, and ridiculous revisionist history. Aside from the league's first offer, the distance in dollars between the league and players is incredibly small. As Bozak has mathed for us several times, the difference between the proposals is very small in dollars. The reason we're not playing isn't about dollars, it's about structure. The players have refused to negotiate within a reasonable range of the structure the league currently has and wants to continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
When we came in (August 14), we came in with a real offer from the beginning
The players' proposal was significantly more outlandish the the one offered by the league that he's so dismissive of. That's fine, if the players responded in kind to an extreme proposal, that's fair. However, if that's the case, admit to it. No one with any knowledge of the situation buys that sob story and it just serves to make the union look stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
They’re saying the things players got in the last agreement in return for the 24 percent rollback [and salary cap], they have to take it back. They (the players) lose ground in salary arbitration, they lose ground in free agency, lose ground in the entry-level system, contracts are limited in all kinds of ways that make them much less secure.
Almost none of these things are true, and those that are are simply bargaining points. The arbitration point has long since been taken off the table. The "lost ground" in free agency is 1 year which can be negotiated. The entry-level system actually benefits fringe players, and only through very difficult stretches of logic can be seen to affect a meaningful number of players outside of the extreme upper end of the spectrum. As has been pointed out time and again here, if the players want those things, submit a proposal that gives them those things. This is something they've refused to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
Q: Same kind of question. You’re fighting for $1.6 billion over six years. You could potentially lose that in player salary this year alone.
A: In theory, sure. Then, so do they.
Strong words, but surely Fehr is aware that the league stands to lose $1.6BN minus those expenses that do not occur if there is no season. Those expenses are likely in the range of some $1BN so it's silly to try claim their losses are in any way equivalent to the salary losses players face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
A: We asked them if they have any plans for expansion, if it’s even on the calendar or anything like that, and they’ve said no.
This is very good to note as it more or less quashes several unsourced rumors about possible expansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr
Q: Do you believe the owners are as resolute as the players?
A: That’s something that will become obvious. I assume they mean what they say.
Did you hear that Walsh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Daly
“We gave on HRR (hockey-related revenue) definitions, we moved again in their direction on revenue sharing, we gave them appeal rights to a neutral third party for certain on-ice and off-ice discipline, we confirmed no roll-back in salaries, and we offered a ‘make-whole’ that we indicated a willingness to negotiate over.
“Not sure what we do now. It’s clear to us that if the PA always wanted a long lockout, they certainly have been successful in creating an environment to successfully achieve one.”
This can't be repeated enough, and is another example of how great a job Daly has been doing through these negotiations.
Honestly Jarick, either pick up a clue or drop the troll act. Do you really think arguing semantics makes you sound smart? I would hope you have enough activity in your head to let you understand what the statements you're trying to misconstrue say. It's really sad otherwise.
You are literally incapable of admitting you're wrong. And you are.
The NHL's offer was not as amazing as you make it out to be. The NHL would pay current contract clawbacks with future contract dollars. Revenue share for future contracts would be closer to 48%.
With each passing day I just continue to be even more of the mindset that this lockout will go as long as the NHLPA still exists. Until that union withers apart, there will be an impasse. And after a certain point of going back and forth with the players, you better believe the owners will just decide to throw up their hands and move on towards breaking it apart.
And for those of who don't believe the union would dissolve, ask yourself if you can think of any other union that has the type of solidarity that this union has. All the high end players still found work and bailed on their fellow players as soon as they could, while the bulk of their membership is left at home without many meaningful options. Doesn't sound like much of a union to me.
__________________
After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
I am starting to feel the PR table tilt in the NHL's favor, and I'm not talking about just this forum. Seems like a lot of comments from "real" fans are pointing just a little bit more in favor of NHL. After reading Russo's Q&A with Fehr, I'm starting to become one of them myself.
Bottom line, they are all ****ed in the head regardless.
I am at the point where I am going to throw my hands up in defeat regarding the people that think the NHLs original offer was so damned draconian that Bettman personally pissed in every single player's Wheaties.
The NBA put forth a MUCH HARSHER first proposal...
Quote:
Negotiations on a new CBA began in early 2011. The league claimed that it was losing $300 million a year (22 out of 30 teams were losing money last season) and proposed to reduce 40% of players' salary (about $800 million) and institute a hard salary cap (at $45 million per team) as opposed to a soft cap (at $58 million) currently in use. The union disputed those figures and steadfastly opposed those changes. Players union director Billy Hunter said that he was advising players to prepare for a lockout.[15] In May 2011, the NBPA filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), accusing the league of negotiating in bad faith by failing to provide critical financial data to the union and repeatedly threatening to lock out players. The NBA quickly rejected the complaint, saying that the league complies fully with federal labor laws. The union also considered the option of decertification, which allows players to file an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA.[16]
The NHL's first proposal was a cut of 14% of the players share of HRR. I don't care what sort of math the PA or diptards like Walsh use, but when you decrease the percentage share from 57% to 43%... THAT IS ONLY A 14% REDUCTION OF SHARE!!! Not 28%... Not 30%... Yeah, there would have been a greater percentage reduction of players salaries as figured against what they previously made, but the over all share simply dropped fourteen goddamned percentage points...
The NBA's initial proposal was to slash the players share of BRR from 60% to 40%. Doing the quick math there? 20% reduction of the players share...
And I still think my proposal on FRB is the best solution to all of this...
If I wasn't busy comparing txt files between a Staging environment and Production, I think I'd take the time to do the math for each team based on AAV combined with Salary. Being that cutting the Salary Out would be my end goal and that I stubbed in AAV in my example...
OMFGFACEPALM at most of the posters in the BoH thread... I swear, half of them don't even understand that revenues are not profits and the two guys sitting there acting like they are labor lawyers are just complete buffoons.
It is sad to go back to threads that have not been posted in since before the lockout started....those were the days!! Much more positive discussions with optimism and before such threads as "So who is bummed about the (possiblie) lockout?"
The only numbers I want to be discussing are G's, A's, P's and PIMs. If it comes to numbers with '$' it better be accompanied numbers labeled in 'Yrs' and names such as FBJ, Bacon, etc.
The NBA put forth a MUCH HARSHER first proposal...
The NHL's first proposal was a cut of 14% of the players share of HRR. I don't care what sort of math the PA or diptards like Walsh use, but when you decrease the percentage share from 57% to 43%... THAT IS ONLY A 14% REDUCTION OF SHARE!!! Not 28%... Not 30%... Yeah, there would have been a greater percentage reduction of players salaries as figured against what they previously made, but the over all share simply dropped fourteen goddamned percentage points...
The NBA's initial proposal was to slash the players share of BRR from 60% to 40%. Doing the quick math there? 20% reduction of the players share...
/rant
Seriously...
To the players, it doesn't matter what percentage of the total pie they make; the relative change in salary vs. current earnings is much more important.
If you tell someone "we're cutting your paycheck from 2% of the total budget to 1%", they're going to be way more upset about losing half their salary. The fact that it's "only a change of 1%" of the total budget is totally meaningless to them.
The important figure is a (57-43)/(57) = 24.6% reduction, because that is the amount of their individual paycheck that a player would have lost under the original proposal.
The important figure is a (57-43)/(57) = 24.6% reduction, because that is the amount of their individual paycheck that a player would have lost under the original proposal.
This isn't true. The union and players want this to be true, they desperately need this to be true, but it's not. That's not how player salaries are calculated.
This is the #1 biggest most important distinction that needs to be made. That calculation is incorrect and does not represent in any way the salary reduction that players face.
Gross player salaries are (under the 2005 CBA) calculated exactly equal to their share of HRR. However, that's gross player salaries, not the salaries paid to an individual. Since contracts do not all expire in the same year, for any year where there the salary cap is in true effect (meaning, not this season if a deal is reached since there will be cap exceptions to fit salaries), this is the formula to calculate pay reduction (still talking about gross and not individual):
OS = OS
and
7% * HRR / HNS
Where OS is "original salary" and represents players on existing contracts and HNS is "hypothetical new salary" and represents the salaries players would have received under the old system when their contracts expired.
Players on existing contracts are entirely unaffected by salary reductions except in the first year where there is an approximately 9% escrow clawback (note, this is pretending that the NHLPA's crying and grandstanding hasn't irreparably harmed the league because these are the only figures I have to work with). Anyone on a 6 year or longer contract is completely unaffected by any changes except in the first year, which can be resolved via out of pocket "make whole" provisions. (Note, those players who require another contract eventually could be indirectly affected by the impact these negotiations have on the next CBA) So, Parise, Suter, Crosby, Luongo, Kovalchuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Hall, Eberle, Doughty, Karlsson, and all those other people on contracts that still have 6 years remaining are almost entirely unaffected by these negotiations.
Now here's the big kicker, for players whose contracts would expire in the first two years of the new CBA, they're facing a much much smaller pool of money for free agent signings. They can reasonably argue that they'll get less than "fair market value" for their deals because of the time period when they sign. This works in exactly the same way (except reverse) as the contract explosion the past two offseasons. When the cap rose rapidly, teams had so much room to bid on so few players, or to re-sign their own stars before they hit free agency. When the cap rises slowly (which is effectively how this would be implemented as there are no salary rollbacks) teams won't have as much money to throw around. Those players that teams would usually easily retain might hit free agency, broadening the supply there and driving down new contracts and teams still will have very little cap space to spare and won't be able to offer much. These players will suffer almost the entirety of any salary reductions.
There's also another wave of players of note though. Considering that behavior, and assuming that contracts will be handed out normally during that time, where does that leave players whose contracts expire in the later years of such a CBA? Depending upon how many contracts with longer than 1-2 year term are issued during those first 3 years, the contracts on the back half of the CBA could face the same rising effect as we saw in offseason 2011 and 2012. With so many players tied up in smaller contracts, and so many of those overpayment deals coming off the books from 2011 and 2012, it's possible that these players will actually see a pay increase over what they might have seen under the 2005 CBA. The most likely scenario is that they see a small pay cut (think 2%-4%) but it will be nothing like the cut players in the first part of the deal would receive.
In summary, trying to boil the numbers down to "all players are going to lose x% of money" is not only overly simplified, it's intellectually dishonest and strongly implies that players are signed to deals that owners are trying not to honor. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
This isn't true. The union and players want this to be true, they desperately need this to be true, but it's not. That's not how player salaries are calculated.
This is the #1 biggest most important distinction that needs to be made. That calculation is incorrect and does not represent in any way the salary reduction that players face.
Gross player salaries are (under the 2005 CBA) calculated exactly equal to their share of HRR. However, that's gross player salaries, not the salaries paid to an individual. Since contracts do not all expire in the same year, for any year where there the salary cap is in true effect (meaning, not this season if a deal is reached since there will be cap exceptions to fit salaries), this is the formula to calculate pay reduction (still talking about gross and not individual):
OS = OS
and
7% * HRR / HNS
Where OS is "original salary" and represents players on existing contracts and HNS is "hypothetical new salary" and represents the salaries players would have received under the old system when their contracts expired.
Players on existing contracts are entirely unaffected by salary reductions except in the first year where there is an approximately 9% escrow clawback (note, this is pretending that the NHLPA's crying and grandstanding hasn't irreparably harmed the league because these are the only figures I have to work with). Anyone on a 6 year or longer contract is completely unaffected by any changes except in the first year, which can be resolved via out of pocket "make whole" provisions. (Note, those players who require another contract eventually could be indirectly affected by the impact these negotiations have on the next CBA) So, Parise, Suter, Crosby, Luongo, Kovalchuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Hall, Eberle, Doughty, Karlsson, and all those other people on contracts that still have 6 years remaining are almost entirely unaffected by these negotiations.
Now here's the big kicker, for players whose contracts would expire in the first two years of the new CBA, they're facing a much much smaller pool of money for free agent signings. They can reasonably argue that they'll get less than "fair market value" for their deals because of the time period when they sign. This works in exactly the same way (except reverse) as the contract explosion the past two offseasons. When the cap rose rapidly, teams had so much room to bid on so few players, or to re-sign their own stars before they hit free agency. When the cap rises slowly (which is effectively how this would be implemented as there are no salary rollbacks) teams won't have as much money to throw around. Those players that teams would usually easily retain might hit free agency, broadening the supply there and driving down new contracts and teams still will have very little cap space to spare and won't be able to offer much. These players will suffer almost the entirety of any salary reductions.
There's also another wave of players of note though. Considering that behavior, and assuming that contracts will be handed out normally during that time, where does that leave players whose contracts expire in the later years of such a CBA? Depending upon how many contracts with longer than 1-2 year term are issued during those first 3 years, the contracts on the back half of the CBA could face the same rising effect as we saw in offseason 2011 and 2012. With so many players tied up in smaller contracts, and so many of those overpayment deals coming off the books from 2011 and 2012, it's possible that these players will actually see a pay increase over what they might have seen under the 2005 CBA. The most likely scenario is that they see a small pay cut (think 2%-4%) but it will be nothing like the cut players in the first part of the deal would receive.
In summary, trying to boil the numbers down to "all players are going to lose x% of money" is not only overly simplified, it's intellectually dishonest and strongly implies that players are signed to deals that owners are trying not to honor. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
so all those deals owners signed players too before the CBA expired, while on the table is a proposal that claws back player pay in year 1, and maybe a small amount is not at all dishonest?
see there is an argument to owners trying to not honor full value of a contract and it applies to everyone who has a contract for next year or so, on the MN team guys like Backstrom, Cullen, Butch are effected by it, also all the non-signing bonus deals players received in the last days of expired CBA.
while the NHLPA has been blowing wind up peoples ***** quite a few players are effected by any rollback. to date NHL has not done anything to address this, the "make whole" it wasn't what most people though it would be.
now as many have pointed out, its better if a guy like Bakstrom loses 1ish million dollars and makes 5, then if he loses 4 of that because of a short season, however every NHL proposal has asked for a reduction even if its only one year in real dollars from players.
that is the only thing PA has on their side, its that argument, one that i personally believe NHLPA could have gotten owners to agree to Making Whole from their share had they actually proposed a deal that makes sense.
