HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
11-03-2012, 04:05 PM
  #501
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
I agree with this. Isn't there a 7 year insurance limit?

Players will still push for 10 years though IMO, but that's an okay limit. the Variation is extremely important as well.

It's where the insurers put the limit for the league-run policy. Each team pays a premium based on their top 5-7 contract values, but can apportion the insurance on the team as they wish, for up to seven years.

Teams can take out additional insurance at their own cost/option, but of course, this is very expensive as you're talking about risk in predicting value in yrs 8 and beyond.


Contract length isn't as onerous if you make it impossible to massage the cap hit with the lower $$ values at the end.

Fugu is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:06 PM
  #502
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Wouldn't this go into the "this is neither here nor there" file.

Just to humor you..... why?
He has a public face to maintain and protect (Tough no nonsense negotiator guy) and he also has a job to make the best deal possible. Sometimes those two things conflict. A pragmatist would always have a back channel open and working.

Mike Jones is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:07 PM
  #503
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilty00 View Post
"Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland

Talking to players...if #NHL moves on contract rigjts that dont hurt young or future players it could lead to #NHLPA vote"

Fasten your seatbelts.

Right?
WTF? If that's ALL thats in the way, then they should be negotiating daily. If thats the only thing left, then this shouldnt go on for more than a week or two at most.

That can't be all thats left.

CBJBrassard16 is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:07 PM
  #504
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
He has a public face to maintain and protect (Tough no nonsense negotiator guy) and he also has a job to make the best deal possible. Sometimes those two things conflict. A pragmatist would always have a back channel open and working.

I guess I'm not convinced he's worried about the former. He's not looking for a job after this gig. He came out of retirement to help the NHLPA restructure it's organization, and it's known he's only sticking around until a new CBA is signed.

Fugu is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:11 PM
  #505
BoxOfChocolates
Registered User
 
BoxOfChocolates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cap Floor
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I guess I'm not convinced he's worried about the former. He's not looking for a job after this gig. He came out of retirement to help the NHLPA restructure it's organization, and it's known he's only sticking around until a new CBA is signed.
Thank God!

BoxOfChocolates is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:11 PM
  #506
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,198
vCash: 500
I expect Fehr to do something to sabotage an agreement.

WingedWheel1987 is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:12 PM
  #507
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Now there's a beautiful misuse of statistics isnt it? I might save that one for my collection.

Regardless what happened to the mean average for salaries, the total envelope for salary payments maintained complete cost certainty throughout the deal and rose in direct synchronization with revenues - not a penny faster.

Revenue sharing on the other had, which was also supposed to be linked to revenue became decoupled and shrank. The principle of linkage wasnt fought over there.

If the owners have an ounce of sincerity in the media leak they announced of working towards making whole out of their money rather than future players, then of course they would also be de-linking.

It seems rather poor business judgement to refuse a salary freeze from the players on the grounds that a freeze would be de-linking. Kind of misses the forest for the trees?
Well done. I think this touches on the complexity of the issue. I don't think Fehr wants to be giving up player salaries to the likes of TO, NYR and Mont. Not even a little bit. The NHL on the other hand may have the motivation to do so to get them onside with the lockout strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
I think the PA was thinking the WC was a big leverage point for them that's why the league had to can it when they did besides time restraints. I still believe Fehr will posture for at least another month until he thinks the gun is at his head and hand on the trigger.
I am interested in what Fehr's strategy actually is. He has had the league negotiating against itself and essentially fighting shadows (eg "make whole"). He has also made comments about the timing of the deal about getting the best deal. I would really like him to publicly address Mossey's continuing point about losing so much in pay that continued resistance can never pay. He has been quoted regarding Bettman's posture in the room and as to whether it meant that the best deal was on the table. Is Fehr going after the cap? Is it waiting for his read of Bettman's position? Does he have a Maginot line under the current CBA framework?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Again, I challenge someone to come up with a realistic CBA that would benefit players so much that they could recoup even half a season of lost wages - nevermind a full season.

If you can't do that, Fehr is not looking out for the player's best interests.
See above comment. I think de-linking has the potential to recoup although I don't think de-linking will happen or that enough will happen to make it better than accepting a linked deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
Yes, it's no secret that Fehr's master plan is to stall but that doesn't mean he can't come up with proposals and present them. If the league won't negotiate off them then he can continue to posture but so far he really hasn't done squat to show he wants to get a deal done.
This is what leads me to believe that he is going after the cap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Not if everyone in the world can already see the outcome. If the ultimate outcome is a linked soft landing 54 52 50 50 or something of the sort, this whole plan of inaction was a waste because it resulted in a de facto rollback of player salaries.

Seriously, any one of us could go in there right now and negotiate a linked soft landing. We could probably get movement on the FA terms as well.

Does Fehr think that sometime in December the NHL will just completely cave and get rid of the cap? I think you guys are giving him too much credit here - his tactics worked to a point but now I think he's overextended and he knows it. Goodenow was a good leader too and got the NHLPA a lot of gravy train years, but in the face of actual owner solidarity he didn't have a plan B either.
I do wonder about plan B myself because I don't think he will get the NHL far enough off linkage myself. I also wonder just how united the players are. Will they break at one year like the last time? Shorter? Longer?

Other stuff:

Generally, I think the league's contracting issues are a method to create cost savings for low and mid-market teams without additional revenue sharing. I think these issues are important to both the players and the league where they are on opposite sides of the fence. Allowing movement early caters to a larger number of players. All but the most elite benefit from early movement and even the most elite derive better NPV in the long run off a shorter road to full free agency.

I do think that the second possibility for Fehr is that he is trying to remove the escrow system. This would be something with which the players are more directly irritated. There are other systems, with linkage, that will achieve the same result.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:12 PM
  #508
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Fehr has to represent the interest of professional hockey players bargaining with the NHL. As such, he represents an entity that values and wants certain things. At this point in time, from their messages, I would glean that those things are:

*50/50 split of current HRR definition as long as the legacy contracts are honored
*As few restrictions and take-backs on things important to every single player in his attempt to maximize his career earnings and potential, ergo contract term limits, UFA age, ELC and arbitration matters.It's not just about the figures this year (mossey), it's about the ability of each player who has yet to negotiate a new contract to do so under as few restrictions and income-suppressing options as possible ----- within the constraints of a cap system.

As the owners have their cap and cost certainty, they shouldn't care one iota about the other things--- as a group.

Then why hasent the PA done much to adress those issues. If they got to the table they could negotiate some of these restrictions away but Fehr seems to be content in not doing much of anything right now. Lets look at what they might be able to get from these salary structure issues.

5 year max contracts (NHL would probably be willing to go to 7)

This is why this is important to most owners:

First contracts are only insurable up to 7 years so a cap at 7 years would protect the owners in the case of a career ending injury on the player.

Second it prevents the big market teams from offering long term front loaded deals that give them an unfair advantage. This would allow for more pariety as more markets would be able to be in on FA. This could also work in the players favor as more teams would be able to bid.

UFA at 8 years of service (Will probably go back to 7): This really can't go much lower than it currently is. It starts to hurt the players as well as the teams if it decreases much further. You will see teams hold back their young talent for much longer and teams may not invest in developing project type players due to a shorter window of control.

The othere issues like entry level and arbitration are things that I'm sure the league has no issue keeping the same.

surixon is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:17 PM
  #509
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Fehr's job is to negotiate a deal for the players, not to pander to the media. Why make this kind of leap?
I'll wait for the next leaked memo before we lay judgment on whether Fehr is ready to sit and negotiate yet or not.

SidTheKid8787 is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:21 PM
  #510
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
@andystrickland: Talking to players...if #NHL moves on contract rigjts that dont hurt young or future players it could lead to #NHLPA vote
This seems to good to be true...

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:21 PM
  #511
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Why do you ignore the first NHL proposal? Redefining HRR and 10 yrs of service to UFA status? Those are critical issues for the PA.
Because it's laughably simple to negotiate these things.

Redefine HRR? Ok, if we get public subsidies and share of naming rights and franchise expansion. Oh, now you don't want to redefine it? Probably a good idea.

43% Ok, that is a little insulting. How about we get 60%? Oh, not a good idea huh? Well I guess we will meet in the middle somewhere...

Face value salaries with deferment? Present value of money is worth more than future value. Give us amnesty, and share the deferment payment or give us extra interest % on the deferred money. Put the excess salary into a luxury tax. Give us a soft landing.

The UFA years would be similar. Both sides could compromise in the middle.

Seriously, this isn't that hard. All the NHL needs is some tweaks to the last CBA. Honestly, revenue disparity is a problem in every sport and there is no proven way to get rid of it. The NFL is a special case. All they can do is try to tweak and then see where it goes.

Goodenow/Saskin had a much tougher job in 2004 and I'm willing to bet that their work will far overshadow what Fehr will end up with here.

If the whole season is cancelled and I'm the owners, I now have to make gains on an entire year of lost revenue. At that point I'd look to break the union with non-guaranteed contracts. That hasn't happened so far.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:25 PM
  #512
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
This is what leads me to believe that he is going after the cap.
And what would be the point of that? He knows that even attempting to remove the cap would result in such a protracted, bitter, costly lockout that it would surely result in his termination before a deal got done. And it would likely all be for nothing, since the owners would be hard-line enough on that issue to really break the union again, regardless of the collateral damage, which would not only preserve the cap but leave the PA's other stances in ashes as well.

So it is really a mystery to me why you believe Fehr would even want to think about doing this. It's like saying Bettman is working toward the re-introduction of the C Form.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:40 PM
  #513
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,343
vCash: 500
Small note and I would probably need Mossey or a like mind to confirm.

No matter how long the lockout lasts, the players are going to lose actual dollars at about a 3 to 1 rate over the league. From what I can see, teams are spending about $15mil/year average to maintain the infrastructure without player costs (yes, some guesstimates are involved). The league is not losing net HRR revenue minus player payroll. You need to also deduct support costs like arena personnel, air fare, hotels, etc. to arrive at the figure. This leads to my second point about continuing clawbacks with each CBA. There is a player percentage at which it stops, when the league loses as much as the players in a lockout. Using my numbers above and the $120mil profit for the league to total $570mil per year in owner money lost, I arrived at a rough number where a clawback doesn't pay. Bring that $570mil number equal to total player salary. $570mil plus 1.8bil, 2.37bil, and split it. $1.18bil for the players or about 35.8%.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:41 PM
  #514
IslesBeBack*
NHL Free Agent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
Just come to a ****ing agreement! The league is clearly willing to move off its stance, just ****ing sit in a room and come to an agreement! This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen... that a "professional" league can't come to an agreement when a majority of the principles could be figured out if they would just sit in a room for longer than 10 minutes.

Everyone is to blame. The players for not truly understanding the things they say with social media and making things worse, and this weasel Bettman for strongarming the players when he could have just NEGOTIATED all these principles, the same ones he said the league wouldn't come off of!

Seriously, it's beyond comprehensible at this point. Just sit in a room and figure this out and get back to playing hockey. If the players and the league want to steal the spotlight, do so in a positive manner! Expand, add more Winter Classic games, come up with more positive developments for this league. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO STEAL THE SPOTLIGHT.

I'm really on the verge of walking away from this mess of a league. I can't come up with a good reason why I spend as much money as I do on this league when they are this far removed from reality. The players have a point that having a lockout is not a negotiating tactic.

Cut the **** Gary and get the deal done. Enough is enough. If they lose this season they can kiss my white ass, I'm done. It took me over a year to come back to hockey after the last lockout. Give me a good reason why I shouldn't make it two ****ing years with this league.

/rant, but I'm really losing it. I just suffered immensely from this hurricane, and all I need right now is hockey. Everyone involved with the league needs to realize that while it's entertainment for most, for others it's engraved in our bloodlines. I know I speak for many in the Northeast that having hockey back would be such a huge positive for us in such a horrible time.


Last edited by IslesBeBack*: 11-03-2012 at 04:47 PM.
IslesBeBack* is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:44 PM
  #515
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,959
vCash: 500
Maybe both sides can bring Danny Cleary's 6-year-old daughter in to figure this out..

Quote:
Danny Cleary, one of the team's player representatives, shared a conversation he'd had with his 6-year-old daughter. She asked why he was home so much more than usual. After he told her, Cleary said the girl asked why the sides don't just split everything 50-50.

If a kid can figure it out, Cleary wondered, why can't the NHL and the NHLPA?
Full article here:
Red Wings' Ian White sums up players' concerns on lockout: 'It's starting to look like '04'

http://www.freep.com/article/2012110...ws|text|Sports

sheed36 is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:44 PM
  #516
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
And what would be the point of that? He knows that even attempting to remove the cap would result in such a protracted, bitter, costly lockout that it would surely result in his termination before a deal got done. And it would likely all be for nothing, since the owners would be hard-line enough on that issue to really break the union again, regardless of the collateral damage, which would not only preserve the cap but leave the PA's other stances in ashes as well.

So it is really a mystery to me why you believe Fehr would even want to think about doing this. It's like saying Bettman is working toward the re-introduction of the C Form.
I am aware of the strong potential of a nuclear owner response. However Fehr's tactics are equally as strong. The only unknown is how much stomach the players have for going nuclear. Essentially, I believe that he is going after the cap or he is going after escrow and probably in a way that is much stronger than has been revealed.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:46 PM
  #517
Gberg
Registered User
 
Gberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Because it's laughably simple to negotiate these things.

Redefine HRR? Ok, if we get public subsidies and share of naming rights and franchise expansion. Oh, now you don't want to redefine it? Probably a good idea.

43% Ok, that is a little insulting. How about we get 60%? Oh, not a good idea huh? Well I guess we will meet in the middle somewhere...

Face value salaries with deferment? Present value of money is worth more than future value. Give us amnesty, and share the deferment payment or give us extra interest % on the deferred money. Put the excess salary into a luxury tax. Give us a soft landing.

The UFA years would be similar. Both sides could compromise in the middle.

Seriously, this isn't that hard. All the NHL needs is some tweaks to the last CBA. Honestly, revenue disparity is a problem in every sport and there is no proven way to get rid of it. The NFL is a special case. All they can do is try to tweak and then see where it goes.

Goodenow/Saskin had a much tougher job in 2004 and I'm willing to bet that their work will far overshadow what Fehr will end up with here.

If the whole season is cancelled and I'm the owners, I now have to make gains on an entire year of lost revenue. At that point I'd look to break the union with non-guaranteed contracts. That hasn't happened so far.
master negotiator over here, they should get you in the room...

non-guaranteed contracts would never fly. It's terrible, it leads to contract holdouts as well, and just overall a big mess.

Gberg is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:48 PM
  #518
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
This is what leads me to believe that he is going after the cap.

I do wonder about plan B myself because I don't think he will get the NHL far enough off linkage myself. I also wonder just how united the players are. Will they break at one year like the last time? Shorter? Longer?
He has been "going after the cap" the whole time. If they kept everything in the last CBA identical except threw away the cap ceiling and floor then the players would have received the exact same amount of $ at the end of the day. With huge escrow clawbacks of course.

The cap proper is much less important than the linked % of HRR enforced via the escrow process. I note all the PA proposals have attempted to soften or delink the % of HRR for the majority of the new CBA.

That's the real core issue. The cap itself is secondary, helping to keep the salaries from straying too far from the HRR %.

mouser is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:55 PM
  #519
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
He has been "going after the cap" the whole time. If they kept everything in the last CBA identical except threw away the cap ceiling and floor then the players would have received the exact same amount of $ at the end of the day. With huge escrow clawbacks of course.

The cap proper is much less important than the linked % of HRR enforced via the escrow process. I note all the PA proposals have attempted to soften or delink the % of HRR for the majority of the new CBA.

That's the real core issue. The cap itself is secondary, helping to keep the salaries from straying too far from the HRR %.
Bad choice of words on my part. I should have said "linked percentage" and I do believe there is a strong possibility that it is his goal.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:07 PM
  #520
kfan22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange
I'm told Steve Fehr and Bill Daly still talking; less bargaining more about concepts. Good outcome would be more formal meetings to come.

kfan22 is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:09 PM
  #521
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfan22 View Post
Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange
I'm told Steve Fehr and Bill Daly still talking; less bargaining more about concepts. Good outcome would be more formal meetings to come.
God damn it.

CBJBrassard16 is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:16 PM
  #522
NinthSpoke06
Registered User
 
NinthSpoke06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chestnut Hill
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfan22 View Post
Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange
I'm told Steve Fehr and Bill Daly still talking; less bargaining more about concepts. Good outcome would be more formal meetings to come.
lol more "meetings" to placate the fans.

**** both these sides. Clowns don't deserve to make so much money off of us.

NinthSpoke06 is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:17 PM
  #523
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,955
vCash: 500
Bryan Hayes ‏@HayesTSN

@michaelgrange Good outcome would be neither side refuting what the other side leaks to the media.

Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange

@HayesTSN Absolutely right.

CBJBrassard16 is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:20 PM
  #524
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
God damn it.
Yeah but they're still talking and who knows what they're really talking about as it's supposed to be confidential.

But I could see a Fehr wasting time and talking in circles so he could come out and say they tried and failed to make headway.

Quick edit: Maybe the plan all along is to review what the league has in mind and see where they can go after that. I don't know if that's something they would consider bargaining or not.

Mike Jones is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:23 PM
  #525
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
I'll wait for the next leaked memo before we lay judgment on whether Fehr is ready to sit and negotiate yet or not.
Unfortunatly, that's what it all comes down to....

JAX 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 08:42 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.