If that's the case it makes you wonder to what extent a "personality" conflict between d. Fehr and Bettman might have been freaking the process up to this point
Huh? Thatīs just silly.
On another note I think this movement really shows who cares about money(the players) and who cares about hockey(the owners). I hope when those greedy little ..... get back to playing the HRR drops and they lose a ton of money. I will still watch hockey though because I love the sport and not the players.
it may sound silly, but, in my experience it happens occasionally. i've seen it first hand. in one case it took 2 years to settle a contract because the two principles couldn't be in the same room without screaming. they were basically 1% apart on the money and couldn't get it done because they refused to deal with each other. lack of respect, mutual dislike, and/or a battle of egos can cause communication breakdowns and entrenched positions. i'm not saying that explains the entire lockout; but, it is curious that one of the longest bargaining sessions thus far was between s. fehr and daly in a neutral location.
Interesting article in the Globe and Mail regarding how some of the more moderate owners in the mid- and smaller-smarkets and minor-league players may not like some of the provisions in the NHL's standing offer, including (1) not permitting teams to count potential bonuses--that, more times than not, never get paid or only paid in small part--towards their salary cap in order to get to the cap floor, and (2) counting all salaries in excess of $105,000, even those on the minor league roster, against a team's NHL cap.
Under the old agreement, a club such as the Islanders routinely made sure there were several entry-level players on its roster whose cap hit was much larger than their actual salary thanks to several bonuses. For example, in the 2011-12 season, rookie Nino Niederreiter’s entry-level contract paid him $900,000 in actual salary but nearly $2-million in bonuses brought his cap hit to just under $2.8-million. The 20-year-old was on the NHL roster for 55 games and scored exactly one goal, which meant almost all of that bonus money was never paid, a huge saving for the cash-strapped Islanders.
But under Bettman’s proposal, that would no longer be allowed. Instead of declaring $2-million they wouldn’t spend, the Islanders and other teams would have to cough up that cash in player salaries.
A boon for the players because teams would have to put up real cash rather than "fake" bonus money that's likely never to be paid out to the younger players on ELC's. But I can't imagine teams like Florida, Colorado, or Anaheim, to name a few, would be too happy about that, as some of their increased revenues in a 50-50 split may be negated by the additional "real money" that has to be spent on the roster.
On the issue of putting salaries in excess of $105,000 on the team's NHL cap, including salaries of minor-league players:
Quote:
In the case of the minor-league players, the NHL could find itself in court. Following the 2004-05 lockout, the Professional Hockey Players’ Association, which represents minor-league players, sued the NHL because the labour agreement decreed any team that had a player with a salary of $75,000 or more claimed by another team on NHL re-entry waivers would have to pay half of the salary, which would count against their own payroll. This effectively capped salaries for AHL veterans at $75,000 and the PHPA managed to have the limit scrubbed.
Now that Bettman proposed to include all salaries above $105,000 in a team’s cap count, the PHPA could move again. At present, NHL teams often like to pay some veterans as much as $300,000 to serve on their AHL teams as mentors for the young players but this means teams would not be willing to pay more than $105,000. It would also mean the AHL would quickly lose those players, who are often fan favourites, to Russia’s Kontinental Hockey League or the European leagues.
I, too, would anticipate a legal battle there. I'd imagine some owners would be upset with that rule too, because, as the article says, they may have difficulty retaining AHL vets to mentor youngsters if their salaries are effectively capped at $105,000. Given that the PHPA is not a party to any CBA entered into by the NHL and NHLPA, I'd imagine an antitrust suit would be forthcoming, alleging that the CBA between those parties constitutes a restraint of trade, and artificially keeps salaries down. That's an interesting issue to watch.
Finally, the interplay between those two issues could get interesting. Would cap floor teams sign a few $300,000 minor-league players to get to the cap floor that way?
That article a yet another example of how the owners have a ton of in-house issues they need to resolve in order to form a viable, long-term CBA with the NHLPA. Until owners can find consensus on the financials, there will always be a group of owners on one end or the other that are unhappy and will risk another work stoppage with the next CBA expiration date.
I don't expect that to happen, no consensus that works for everybody, no revenue sharing plan that works for everyone, no single policy on finer aspects of salaries, parking and luxery box revenue, etc. In the meantime, the owners should (which SHOULD have been two months ago) be willing to agree with the players on a salary reduction schedule that reduces player HHR% over time without reducing actual dollars or reneging on recently signed contracts. I know the effect of an expired CBA on all these things, but if the owners want to get where they feel they need to be, they should have a common sense approach to it. Trying to hammer the players again after hammering them in 2005 and finding out their cap plan didn't work out well enough, knowing the players feel like they got screwed, is not common sense approach to these talks.
Come up with a 57%-50% timeline that doesn't cut actual dollars and doesn't cut into other areas like ELCs and FA eligibility and there is no reason the NHLPA doesn't sign. The revenue sharing plan has already been tweeked so the NHLPA should be happy enough with that. A 60 game schedule won't feel official, but it may actually allow for some better hockey, and I can't be too upset with Buffalo in a transition stage right now. Get it done.
On another note I think this movement really shows who cares about money(the players) and who cares about hockey(the owners). I hope when those greedy little ..... get back to playing the HRR drops and they lose a ton of money. I will still watch hockey though because I love the sport and not the players.
Greed is not mutually exclusive. Both sides can be Gordon Geckos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartsabres
Huh? Thatīs just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixon Ward
it may sound silly, but, in my experience it happens occasionally. i've seen it first hand. in one case it took 2 years to settle a contract because the two principles couldn't be in the same room without screaming. they were basically 1% apart on the money and couldn't get it done because they refused to deal with each other. lack of respect, mutual dislike, and/or a battle of egos can cause communication breakdowns and entrenched positions. i'm not saying that explains the entire lockout; but, it is curious that one of the longest bargaining sessions thus far was between s. fehr and daly in a neutral location.
Agree it happens. Long before negotiations begin, strategies are set with individual roles and responsibilities. IMHO, a personal impasse between Bettman and D. Fehr is a real possibility.
Another reason for having the second-in-commands from each side talk, is it allows both sides to have an "out" that since the principal / lead people were not involved, an "unofficial" tag can be attached to the discussions. There can be a lot more probing of potential positions / "what ifs", etc., if Bettman & D. Fehr aren't involved.
But this is huge concession because players have made very clear in the last little bit that they are willing to go to a 50-50 split as long as all their contracts mutually negotiated in good faith under the previous collective bargaining agreement are honored in full.
If thats true, and theres indeed no strings attached to this owner proposition, this would be a huge step toward a new CBA and then moving on to negotiating the other systematic changes the league wants to make that the players have had issues with (moving free agency to age 28 or eight years of service, five-year max contracts, year to year salary variability of 5 percent, dropping entry-level deals from three years of length to two, etc).
There has been a lot of headway in negotiations that really has not been spelled out to date, but because the owners are looking to reduce the players share from 57 to 50 in a new CBA, there seems to be a perception that the players would get nothing in a new CBA.
Thats not entirely true.
Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams dont have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).
Some other things that the players should like:
1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a standard of care and primary allegiance obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the teams home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless youre a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.
Greed is not mutually exclusive. Both sides can be Gordon Geckos.
Agree it happens. Long before negotiations begin, strategies are set with individual roles and responsibilities. IMHO, a personal impasse between Bettman and D. Fehr is a real possibility.
Another reason for having the second-in-commands from each side talk, is it allows both sides to have an "out" that since the principal / lead people were not involved, an "unofficial" tag can be attached to the discussions. There can be a lot more probing of potential positions / "what ifs", etc., if Bettman & D. Fehr aren't involved.
Naivety - to think 30 million-billionaires and 300-400 millionaires voices mean nothing when it comes to two personalities. Get real when Billions of dollars are at stake the only thing that matters is the agreement. If you think that Bettmanīs personality stands in the way of the ownerīs needs then you really donīt know what is going on or why Bettman makes $8,000,000. Sure personalities get in the way of your mom and dad getting a divorce but lets not be stupid here. Moves are calculated and discussed(aside from the odd player lashing out) The goals are discussed. Letīs move on from this point I think it is a waste of time to discuss.
I think every time there is a layoff where theres no talks and then talks resume, theres always optimism in the air, Biron told ESPN. Obviously, everybody is cautiously optimistic with some of the exchanges that Steve and Bill had, even though it was more brainstorming than anything concrete. But to be able to schedule some meetings and get larger groups involved again is going to be a good thing. Still, as with every case in the last little while when people got too optimistic, its just part of the process and well see where it goes.
Larry Brooks tweeting that NHL not committed to contract term-limit, but is committed to rule against heavily frontloaded deals. Brooks also tweeted that amnesty buyouts are on the table.
Assuming the optimistic and that things get done soon, it's a shame (and a big loss to the league and thus the players as well) that the Winter Classic has already been cancelled. Due to the logistics involved, it would seem there's no chance of that being reversed. Anyone have thoughts or information on that?
I have a very good feeling about this. Best case ceneraio we get to watch our leino-less sabres play in a few weeks
Even if an amnesty provision finds its way into the CBA, I don't think the Sabres would buy out Leino immediately. I believe they'd give him another year or two to mesh with the team, and if things still aren't working out at that point they'll consider a buyout.
Even if an amnesty provision finds its way into the CBA, I don't think the Sabres would buy out Leino immediately. I believe they'd give him another year or two to mesh with the team, and if things still aren't working out at that point they'll consider a buyout.
Yeah, no reason to burn a one-shot provision when Leino isn't screwing your salary structure.
Even if an amnesty provision finds its way into the CBA, I don't think the Sabres would buy out Leino immediately. I believe they'd give him another year or two to mesh with the team, and if things still aren't working out at that point they'll consider a buyout.
I agree they might not do it, but they should as it might be there only chance.
