HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Make Whole, Not War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XIX

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-02-2012, 07:31 PM
  #126
Jonas1235
Registered User
 
Jonas1235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,461
vCash: 500
If the nhl is going to pay the make whole agreement, then the nhl will want to keep the contract stipulations in their proposal. With only minor changes. Will the nhlpa accept that? Or are they really greedy ****s and want the entire soup kitchen?

Jonas1235 is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:38 PM
  #127
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas1235 View Post
If the nhl is going to pay the make whole agreement, then the nhl will want to keep the contract stipulations in their proposal. With only minor changes. Will the nhlpa accept that? Or are they really greedy ****s and want the entire soup kitchen?
The PA have not negotiated at all off of the NHL's proposal. I'd bet there is a lot of wiggle room in a lot of areas, as along as the PA accepts linkage.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:42 PM
  #128
JoeLH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Agent Walsh is going crazy in classifying the new 'make whole' concession as more or less pure PR to soften the bitter fallout by fans due to the cancellation of the WC today. He might be right regarding they leaked it for having some good news, too, but i also think that Walsh is pure PA propaganda guy who likely doesn't know any more detail than anyone (any player) else. So, we will see if this new idea has legs or is indeed what Walsh thinks: PR on a sad day for hockey.

JoeLH is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:43 PM
  #129
xlnc66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,798
vCash: 500
Just heard Doug Mclean talking on Team 1040. Was saying that the league was offering the players the option of walking away from an Arbitration settlement if they didn't like it, so Fehr and company went and asked a player who currently doesn't even have a contract and came back and said that doesn't work for us.

xlnc66 is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:43 PM
  #130
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 40,113
vCash: 500
What percentage does this make whole amount represent?

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:47 PM
  #131
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Since posters keep throwing the term "concessions" about, let's make sure we understand what the term means. It refers to alterations of the current agreement in the other side's favour. Arguing that the players haven't made any concessions while the owners have is just factually incorrect. What has happened is the owners have demanded concessions from the players and have, as time has worn on, moderated those demands.

I suspect that if a deal is to be reached, it will mostly be, relative to th last agreement, in the favour of the owners and to the detriment of the players. It will be the players who will have made concessions before this thing is done.

MeHateHe is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:49 PM
  #132
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlnc66 View Post
Just heard Doug Mclean talking on Team 1040. Was saying that the league was offering the players the option of walking away from an Arbitration settlement if they didn't like it, so Fehr and company went and asked a player who currently doesn't even have a contract and came back and said that doesn't work for us.
I wonder who the player was. That's a really strange way to do business.

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:51 PM
  #133
JoeLH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeHateHe View Post
Since posters keep throwing the term "concessions" about, let's make sure we understand what the term means. It refers to alterations of the current agreement in the other side's favour. Arguing that the players haven't made any concessions while the owners have is just factually incorrect. What has happened is the owners have demanded concessions from the players and have, as time has worn on, moderated those demands.

I suspect that if a deal is to be reached, it will mostly be, relative to th last agreement, in the favour of the owners and to the detriment of the players. It will be the players who will have made concessions before this thing is done.
You are wrong. They had a share of 57 percent in the last deal, yes. But that doesn't mean they are entitled to that number as a starting point again. (We are not talking 'whole' contracts here, because that's a point i think is legit for the players).

JoeLH is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:53 PM
  #134
RipsADrive
Maybe next year?
 
RipsADrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeHateHe View Post
Since posters keep throwing the term "concessions" about, let's make sure we understand what the term means. It refers to alterations of the current agreement in the other side's favour. Arguing that the players haven't made any concessions while the owners have is just factually incorrect. What has happened is the owners have demanded concessions from the players and have, as time has worn on, moderated those demands.

I suspect that if a deal is to be reached, it will mostly be, relative to th last agreement, in the favour of the owners and to the detriment of the players. It will be the players who will have made concessions before this thing is done.
There is no current agreement. The last CBA is expired and it's time to negotiate a new one.

Definition of concession: "something done or agreed to usually grudgingly in order to reach an agreement or improve a situation."

Sounds like a concession to me.

RipsADrive is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 07:59 PM
  #135
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,675
vCash: 500
Dreger: NHL Makes signifcant move on 'make whole' provision

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408711

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:04 PM
  #136
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLH View Post
You are wrong. They had a share of 57 percent in the last deal, yes. But that doesn't mean they are entitled to that number as a starting point again. (We are not talking 'whole' contracts here, because that's a point i think is legit for the players).
That is factually incorrect. They are entitled to that number as a starting point because it was negotiated in the previous agreement just as much as the owners being entitled to a salary cap. Is that logic going to lead to a mutually beneficial agreement between owners and players that gets hockey back on the ice? You decide.

Now what you and others with the same opinion fail to realize is that we're here because the owners made a miscalculation in the previous CBA. Not the players. The owners.

The owners were so fixed on a salary cap last time (and they got it) that they overlooked the math. With their number of 43%, even with record revenues of $3.3B, they seemingly didn't have enough money to manage their businesses. It was a complete miscalculation on their part. Yet they still spend $100m+ for 10+ years in contracts? Is that smart to you?

Now they want to correct that mistake. The players are willing to play ball but the owners previously asked them to take a 24% rollback, now want a 12% immediate reduction in player salaries. The players are saying for what?

The owners messed up the calculation. The players are willing to give back. What are the owners willing to concede for the players to give back another 12%? This potential make whole concession may be the start.

But the illogical arguments you guys are posing creates a lot of misinformation.

"They players aren't entitled to 57% as a starting point" is a completely irrelevant argument in any salary-cap based proposal. Enough of it already.

Ginu is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:09 PM
  #137
Captain Saku
Registered User
 
Captain Saku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9,785
vCash: 500
So are the players going to say it's a strategy from the owners now?

Captain Saku is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:11 PM
  #138
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,681
vCash: 500
Doug Maclean ripping into the NHLPA today on the radio.

will have to listen on the podcast.

FakeKidPoker* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:12 PM
  #139
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,759
vCash: 500
So, are we optimistic?

CBJBrassard16 is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:14 PM
  #140
JoeLH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
That is factually incorrect. They are entitled to that number as a starting point because it was negotiated in the previous agreement just as much as the owners being entitled to a salary cap. Is that logic going to lead to a mutually beneficial agreement between owners and players that gets hockey back on the ice? You decide.

Now what you and others with the same opinion fail to realize is that we're here because the owners made a miscalculation in the previous CBA. Not the players. The owners.

The owners were so fixed on a salary cap last time (and they got it) that they overlooked the math. With their number of 43%, even with record revenues of $3.3B, they seemingly didn't have enough money to manage their businesses. It was a complete miscalculation on their part. Yet they still spend $100m+ for 10+ years in contracts? Is that smart to you?

Now they want to correct that mistake. The players are willing to play ball but the owners previously asked them to take a 24% rollback, now want a 12% immediate reduction in player salaries. The players are saying for what?

The owners messed up the calculation. The players are willing to give back. What are the owners willing to concede for the players to give back another 12%? This potential make whole concession may be the start.

But the illogical arguments you guys are posing creates a lot of misinformation.

"They players aren't entitled to 57% as a starting point" is a completely irrelevant argument in any salary-cap based proposal. Enough of it already.
You would be right if we would be talking about a hard cap which stays the same over the whole agreement. But it's not the case. By the way: No, for sure the owners are not entitled a salary cap. It's the players who offered to work with the old agreement for the time being, not the owners. I don't care if the owners did 'miscalculation' in 2005 or the PA negotiated pretty well in a position of weakness.

No one is entitled anything. That's why a 50-50 share in a salary cap world both sides agree on is the best solution. With all current contracts honoured through the owners' share if you want.

JoeLH is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:15 PM
  #141
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
 
Hollywood Burrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: VANCOUVER
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Darren Dreger is such an embarrassment. This is listed as his story on the tsn website. He's obviously being spun by the owners on the same day they cancel the Winter Classic. It's utterly transparent american corporate PR garbage. I'm stunned Dreger's bosses let him "report" this bs.

Hollywood Burrows is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:16 PM
  #142
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,225
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
Doug Maclean ripping into the NHLPA today on the radio.

will have to listen on the podcast.
Where is the podcast?

Lucbourdon is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:22 PM
  #143
RipsADrive
Maybe next year?
 
RipsADrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Burrows View Post
Darren Dreger is such an embarrassment. This is listed as his story on the tsn website. He's obviously being spun by the owners on the same day they cancel the Winter Classic. It's utterly transparent american corporate PR garbage. I'm stunned Dreger's bosses let him "report" this bs.
I don't understand the outrage. The owners softened their position considerably and leaked it to the media...

What's the big deal?

RipsADrive is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:24 PM
  #144
JoeLH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Burrows View Post
Darren Dreger is such an embarrassment. This is listed as his story on the tsn website. He's obviously being spun by the owners on the same day they cancel the Winter Classic. It's utterly transparent american corporate PR garbage. I'm stunned Dreger's bosses let him "report" this bs.
So you know the details of the new development? Share them please.

JoeLH is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:24 PM
  #145
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RipsADrive View Post
I don't understand the outrage. The owners softened their position considerably and leaked it to the media...

What's the big deal?
People think they only leaked it because of the public outrage of the WC cancellation.

CBJBrassard16 is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:27 PM
  #146
WhereIsIt
#gift
 
WhereIsIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,769
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
People think they only leaked it because of the public outrage of the WC cancellation.
So what, if they are willing to make a concession it's a good thing, regardless of if they leak it for PR purposes or not.

WhereIsIt is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:30 PM
  #147
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Erixons Dad View Post
So what, if they are willing to make a concession it's a good thing, regardless of if they leak it for PR purposes or not.
People think its not a concession, and that its basically the same offer. (Allan Walsh)

CBJBrassard16 is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:30 PM
  #148
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeLH View Post
You would be right if we would be talking about a hard cap which stays the same over the whole agreement. But it's not the case. By the way: No, for sure the owners are not entitled a salary cap. It's the players who offered to work with the old agreement for the time being, not the owners. I don't care if the owners did 'miscalculation' in 2005 or the PA negotiated pretty well in a position of weakness.

No one is entitled anything. That's why a 50-50 share in a salary cap world both sides agree on is the best solution. With all current contracts honoured through the owners' share if you want.
By all means with your logic please suggest both sides to start from scratch and we'll see hockey in 3 years when they "remake" the league. We all know that's not going to happen so enough with this this side isn't entitled to A and the other side isn't entitled to B. Nobody's entitled to anything but they do it for the good of the game. That should be obvious and shouldn't form the basis of any argument.

Whether it's a hard or soft cap is irrelevant. The owners got a cap, end of story.

Ginu is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:31 PM
  #149
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
People think they only leaked it because of the public outrage of the WC cancellation.
Maybe they did. So what? It's still a major step toward resolving the PA's sticking point over the last offer.

The ball is very squarely the players' court right now. If they really want an agreement, it's time for them to pony up and make a constructive response.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 08:31 PM
  #150
Flamingo
Registered User
 
Flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,341
vCash: 500
No details, though.

The vague description that the owners would eat (some of?) the make-whole payments sound like a big concession. But who knows how accurate that is. And if it is accurate, then maybe we'll see how much the PA had planned to negotiate on entry-level, RFA, and UFA contracts. Perhaps they were planning on digging in on those items too.

Flamingo is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.