HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-05-2012, 12:03 AM
  #951
John Swartzwelder
MOAR TUFFNESS!!!1
 
John Swartzwelder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callhee View Post
I've been relying on terrible quality AHL streams and playing the old Eastside Hockey Manager game to feed my hockey need.

John Swartzwelder is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:04 AM
  #952
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
That depends on whether the union is interested in a cooperative style or an adversarial style. Given the NHLPA sacked their leader for being too cooperative and replaced him with an adversarial style leader.

I'll give you one example

10-11 cap $59.4m
11-12 cap $64.3m
12-13 cap $70.2m

Both sides could have worked together to lock have locked the salary cap in at 2011-12 levels for 2012-13 (kept it until it was passed 50% based cap in 2013-14). No rollbacks, buy outs, no lockout, no lost games, no lost cash etc. The owners would have agreed because repeating $64.3m cap this year would have represented 52% this. Clear and painless way forward for the players without the players feeling like they had something in their hands ($70m cap) and then were asked to give it back. Now the players feel they are giving up a $70m cap which is nonsense since it doesn't exist because it was part of a CBA that didn't get extended.

A cooperative approach from both sides would have done wonders.
I'm curious how you avoid rollbacks when existing contracts total about $1.75 billion? Throw in the $100-150M in additional salary that invariably gets added through injury replacements, attained bonuses, etc. and it's pretty clear that anything less than $1.85B or so would constitute a rollback for existing contracts. If they held the cap at the 11-12 level (assuming they kept the players share at that level too), players would lose about 10% more in salary on top of the normal escrow losses.

Perhaps if NHL teams had exercised even a modicum of restraint last offseason they could've held the players share down without eating into existing deals, but they didn't and now the players are expected to pay for the owners' indiscretions.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:06 AM
  #953
Callhee
Embrace the hate.
 
Callhee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Swartzwelder View Post
...
Do you update the rosters? I recently started a new game and used Mannimal's 2012-13 roster, I think a Oilers fan did the update, ALL of our prospects are terrible, and almost all of the Oilers' prospects are superstars.

Callhee is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:07 AM
  #954
Reverend Mayhem
Freeway's closed man
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,814
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Gary Bettman has a press conference tomorrow at 10AM PST doubt it's any news at all though let alone good news. How long did they meet today? I doubt they hammered out a deal today probably just saving some face and trying his best to inform media of what went on yesterday.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:07 AM
  #955
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,529
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
The give by owners was always going to occur after NHLPA gave on economic issues

Been said for months ,, I imagine for there to be real progress the NHLPA is giving on economic issues and NHL like planned is giving on Contract issues
You'd think they could have figured this out earlier and saved us all the hassle.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:09 AM
  #956
Reverend Mayhem
Freeway's closed man
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,814
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Though Dec. 5-7 has been whispered as dates of optimism for awhile.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:18 AM
  #957
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Though Dec. 5-7 has been whispered as dates of optimism for awhile.
Yeah, it sounded like Bettman had until Dec. 1st to get something done. Failing that, he would be asked to sit in the corner and shut his dick hole. I'm just glad he did it.

Shortened season should play very well into the Canucks hands. Nobody has played more or travelled further than Vancouver in recent years.

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:21 AM
  #958
John Swartzwelder
MOAR TUFFNESS!!!1
 
John Swartzwelder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callhee View Post
Do you update the rosters? I recently started a new game and used Mannimal's 2012-13 roster, I think a Oilers fan did the update, ALL of our prospects are terrible, and almost all of the Oilers' prospects are superstars.
I did heavy editing of that database yeah

John Swartzwelder is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:27 AM
  #959
Callhee
Embrace the hate.
 
Callhee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Swartzwelder View Post
I did heavy editing of that database yeah
I also noticed the FHM 13 logo as your avatar, I'm pretty excited for the game, hopefully they add lots to the EHM formula. I always wanted to get into the finances as well, like ticket prices and how they fluctuate according to team performance, playoff performance, and how these prices could affect your yearly budget.

Callhee is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:29 AM
  #960
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,324
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I'm curious how you avoid rollbacks when existing contracts total about $1.75 billion? Throw in the $100-150M in additional salary that invariably gets added through injury replacements, attained bonuses, etc. and it's pretty clear that anything less than $1.85B or so would constitute a rollback for existing contracts.
Escrow would only hurt if the players were signed to fit under a $70m cap and then forced to play under a $64m one. The players wouldn't be losing anything because the cap would have been set at 64m for this year. Signings would have had to fit under that $64m cap and the season would have been played at that. Escrow would have been set at ~52% to match 64m cap and would have functioned no differently than it does now.

Quote:
If they held the cap at the 11-12 level (assuming they kept the players share at that level too), players would lose about 10% more in salary on top of the normal escrow losses.
You have a look at the giant cluster **** and that "10%" is basically what's killing this CBA. You avoid all that by never having the $70m cap in the first place so the players never have to "give up 10%".

You go to you boss, he says

* "we had a tough year and we can't give you a raise but we don't want to sack you and we are offering to extend you 1 more year on your old deal. Thing should pick up next year and you'll start getting raises again."

* "great work, here's a 10% raise." then 1 month later "company has had a tough year, we're going to dock you 10% of your pay to help the company, like it or lump it".

Exact same outcome, but the first one results in an acceptable outcome while the second one is going to cause a war. Think ahead and find mutually acceptable outcome that avoids as much bad blood as possible.

Quote:
Perhaps if NHL teams had exercised even a modicum of restraint last offseason they could've held the players share down without eating into existing deals, but they didn't and now the players are expected to pay for the owners' indiscretions.
The cap would have been set at $64-65m for the 12-13 season instead of being set at $70m. The owners don't have to show constraint if they haven't been given the option of going to $70m in the first place. Let's face it - if they didn't go to $70m they'd probably be sued for collusion.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:58 AM
  #961
PG Canuck
Global Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,499
vCash: 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Gary Bettman has a press conference tomorrow at 10AM PST doubt it's any news at all though let alone good news. How long did they meet today? I doubt they hammered out a deal today probably just saving some face and trying his best to inform media of what went on yesterday.
Bettman had a press conference for the BoG meeting anyways I think. They met for like 6 hours for sure, but then I went out so I don't know when they ended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Though Dec. 5-7 has been whispered as dates of optimism for awhile.
Lavoie (sp?) tyhe French insider, I believe said the drop dead date is close to start of January (can't exactly remember).

PG Canuck is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 01:17 AM
  #962
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Escrow would only hurt if the players were signed to fit under a $70m cap and then forced to play under a $64m one. The players wouldn't be losing anything because the cap would have been set at 64m for this year. Signings would have had to fit under that $64m cap and the season would have been played at that. Escrow would have been set at ~52% to match 64m cap and would have functioned no differently than it does now.


You have a look at the giant cluster **** and that "10%" is basically what's killing this CBA. You avoid all that by never having the $70m cap in the first place so the players never have to "give up 10%".
The NHL was offering a 43% share back then. If the NHLPA came to them in June with a 52% share that tapered down to 50% the NHL would've played hardball to get them down into the 40s.

It's simply not realistic to expect the NHLPA to unilaterally get a deal done months before the CBA expired, especially when the NHL initially offered a 25% drop in their share. Look at it the other way, do you think if the NHL offered a 50/50 deal in June that the NHLPA wouldn't have put the screws to them? Of course they would.

Quote:

You go to you boss, he says

* "we had a tough year and we can't give you a raise but we don't want to sack you and we are offering to extend you 1 more year on your old deal. Thing should pick up next year and you'll start getting raises again."

* "great work, here's a 10% raise." then 1 month later "company has had a tough year, we're going to dock you 10% of your pay to help the company, like it or lump it".

Exact same outcome, but the first one results in an acceptable outcome while the second one is going to cause a war. Think ahead and find mutually acceptable outcome that avoids as much bad blood as possible.
Except it wasn't a tough year; it was the most profitable in league history. The NHL is 2nd behind only the NFL in terms of both profits as a percentage of team value (ROI, effectively), and profits as a portion of revenue.


Quote:
The cap would have been set at $64-65m for the 12-13 season instead of being set at $70m. The owners don't have to show constraint if they haven't been given the option of going to $70m in the first place. Let's face it - if they didn't go to $70m they'd probably be sued for collusion.
Why would the NHL agree to a deal 3-4 months before the CBA expired unless they were getting everything they wanted? When's the last time a capped NA league settled on a CBA months before the existing one expired? Like I said earlier, the NBA began negotiations 18 months before the CBA expired but it still took 5-6 months after it expired until they reached a deal.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:10 AM
  #963
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
That depends on whether the union is interested in a cooperative style or an adversarial style. Given the NHLPA sacked their leader for being too cooperative and replaced him with an adversarial style leader.

I'll give you one example

10-11 cap $59.4m
11-12 cap $64.3m
12-13 cap $70.2m

Both sides could have worked together to lock have locked the salary cap in at 2011-12 levels for 2012-13 (kept it until it was passed 50% based cap in 2013-14). No rollbacks, buy outs, no lockout, no lost games, no lost cash etc. The owners would have agreed because repeating $64.3m cap this year would have represented 52% this. Clear and painless way forward for the players without the players feeling like they had something in their hands ($70m cap) and then were asked to give it back. Now the players feel they are giving up a $70m cap which is nonsense since it doesn't exist because it was part of a CBA that didn't get extended.

A cooperative approach from both sides would have done wonders.
So your example is that the players wouldn't have had a salary rollback imposed if they'd imposed one themselves last summer -- how does this benefit anyone but the owners? What would the owners have given up for this? The answer seems to be the same one a lot of people have, which is nothing, but at least we'd have hockey!

Proto is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:43 AM
  #964
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,227
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
I don't get what people don't understand about making concessions in collective bargaining. The players are making a concession by cutting their percentage of revenues down from 57% to 50%. What is the league giving back to the players in exchange for this? More contract restrictions? That's like going to work and being told by your boss that you're getting a pay cut, but to make up for it they're also decreasing your holiday time.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:03 AM
  #965
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I don't get what people don't understand about making concessions in collective bargaining. The players are making a concession by cutting their percentage of revenues down from 57% to 50%. What is the league giving back to the players in exchange for this? More contract restrictions? That's like going to work and being told by your boss that you're getting a pay cut, but to make up for it they're also decreasing your holiday time.
However, if you are making 40% more than you did 6 years ago you might be willing to live with it ....

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:11 AM
  #966
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I don't get what people don't understand about making concessions in collective bargaining. The players are making a concession by cutting their percentage of revenues down from 57% to 50%. What is the league giving back to the players in exchange for this? More contract restrictions? That's like going to work and being told by your boss that you're getting a pay cut, but to make up for it they're also decreasing your holiday time.
What you need to realize is that the concessions made in negotiations are more based on the two extremes that each side wants. Which is why Bettman had the owners offer that ridiculous offer in the summer. Both sides have made concessions based on where they were when this process started.

I do agree that the owners need to stop asking the PA to agree to reducing contracting rights. But the PA needs to understand that the league will not pay a big "make whole" payment to them. The PA needs to take what they can get in terms of that and fight hard to keep their contracting rights.

I've said this before, once the players stop asking for a large "make whole" payment and the owners stop asking for some of the contracting rights to be taken away, there will be a deal.

crazycanuck is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:54 AM
  #967
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
What you need to realize is that the concessions made in negotiations are more based on the two extremes that each side wants. Which is why Bettman had the owners offer that ridiculous offer in the summer. Both sides have made concessions based on where they were when this process started.

I do agree that the owners need to stop asking the PA to agree to reducing contracting rights. But the PA needs to understand that the league will not pay a big "make whole" payment to them. The PA needs to take what they can get in terms of that and fight hard to keep their contracting rights.

I've said this before, once the players stop asking for a large "make whole" payment and the owners stop asking for some of the contracting rights to be taken away, there will be a deal.
When the process started they were coming off an existing CBA that had seen record revenues.

The owners most assuredly did not make concessions off of the old CBA, and IMO that is where it all started.

Players quite clearly believe that the last CBA wasn't broken, so why fix it, especially on their behalf.

The league has to give up on both the transitional payments and the contracting issues IMO, it just doesn't make sense to cry about deals longer than 5 years, after signing them the day before.

The players have to feel the contracts they sign are what they are getting paid...it's not hard for me to understand.

Has any talk come up about expansion fees? As it stands those aren't considered HRR, so the league markets itself on the backs of the superstars in the NHLPA, but the PA gets to reap NO rewards for that.

The owners stance from the beginning has been ridiculous, and I can't stand the 'business is business' BS that gets spun on here all the time.

Here's hoping Crosby, Burkley, and Brisson can get this ball rolling though. Im not optimistic.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:06 AM
  #968
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
However, if you are making 40% more than you did 6 years ago you might be willing to live with it ....
If revenues are up by 50% since 2005 why shouldn't player wages go up accordingly? Why is it that when an owner looks to maximize his profits he's just being a good businessman, but when a player is trying to maximize his earnings, he's greedy and somehow doesn't deserve it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
What you need to realize is that the concessions made in negotiations are more based on the two extremes that each side wants. Which is why Bettman had the owners offer that ridiculous offer in the summer. Both sides have made concessions based on where they were when this process started.

I do agree that the owners need to stop asking the PA to agree to reducing contracting rights. But the PA needs to understand that the league will not pay a big "make whole" payment to them. The PA needs to take what they can get in terms of that and fight hard to keep their contracting rights.

I've said this before, once the players stop asking for a large "make whole" payment and the owners stop asking for some of the contracting rights to be taken away, there will be a deal.
I guess the owners should have started asking for 100% of revenues and taking all of the players rights, imagine how good they'd look by "conceding" 50% of revenues back to the players.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:48 AM
  #969
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
When the process started they were coming off an existing CBA that had seen record revenues.

The owners most assuredly did not make concessions off of the old CBA, and IMO that is where it all started.

Players quite clearly believe that the last CBA wasn't broken, so why fix it, especially on their behalf.

The league has to give up on both the transitional payments and the contracting issues IMO, it just doesn't make sense to cry about deals longer than 5 years, after signing them the day before.

The players have to feel the contracts they sign are what they are getting paid...it's not hard for me to understand.

Has any talk come up about expansion fees? As it stands those aren't considered HRR, so the league markets itself on the backs of the superstars in the NHLPA, but the PA gets to reap NO rewards for that.

The owners stance from the beginning has been ridiculous, and I can't stand the 'business is business' BS that gets spun on here all the time.

Here's hoping Crosby, Burkley, and Brisson can get this ball rolling though. Im not optimistic.
On principle where the negotiations are at now, I agree with the players more than the owners. Should the players get paid for the contracts they have signed? Technically yes, but in the last CBA the players weren't guaranteed their full salary anyways. Should the owners be allowed to take away contracting rights of the players? I don't think so.

The reality of the situation is much different than dealing with what should or should not happen in principle. Negotiating on principle will end up with the lockout lasting a long time and/or the PA decertifying and the NHL blowing up.

crazycanuck is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:03 PM
  #970
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
The reality of the situation is much different than dealing with what should or should not happen in principle.
The example of which is the head of the board of governors - Jacobs - himself gave the authorization to give Seguin that monster contract just before the lockout knowing full well what the league was planning to do. He's laughing all the way to the bank.



Last edited by Barney Gumble: 12-05-2012 at 12:16 PM.
Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:22 PM
  #971
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
The example of which is the head of the board of governors - Jacobs - himself gave the authorization to give Seguin that monster contract just before the lockout knowing full well what the league was planning to do. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

Oh like I said, I totally side with the players on that point but if the players actually want to be well... players instead of unemployed athletes they need understand that the owners hold more power in these negotiations than the players do.

crazycanuck is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:25 PM
  #972
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
Oh like I said, I totally side with the players on that point but if the players actually want to be well... players instead of unemployed athletes they need understand that the owners hold more power in these negotiations than the players do.
Helps that the owners have locked out the players for last three work stoppages. Pretty sure there's a strong possibility the owners will lockout the players *again* once this deal is up (that is, whenever it gets signed) & cry "me is poor" again. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't - they know the players have more leverage in a work stoppage just before the end of the regular season.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 01:36 PM
  #973
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,508
vCash: 500
Jmes Mirtle tweets:

"I'm not saying the lockout is close to ending, but Columbus has already been mathematically eliminated from the playoffs."

Nice.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 01:37 PM
  #974
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,227
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
What you need to realize is that the concessions made in negotiations are more based on the two extremes that each side wants. Which is why Bettman had the owners offer that ridiculous offer in the summer. Both sides have made concessions based on where they were when this process started.

I do agree that the owners need to stop asking the PA to agree to reducing contracting rights. But the PA needs to understand that the league will not pay a big "make whole" payment to them. The PA needs to take what they can get in terms of that and fight hard to keep their contracting rights.

I've said this before, once the players stop asking for a large "make whole" payment and the owners stop asking for some of the contracting rights to be taken away, there will be a deal.
What you need to realize is this is flawed thinking. Lets say for example the PA wanted to go back to a free market system with no cap. Is it safe to give them credit when they come down from that and concede to agree to a cap system again with revenues linked at 75%?? Afterall they would have conceded to a cap system when they didn't want one. Or does this only apply when the owners come up with an absurd opening offer?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 01:40 PM
  #975
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,227
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
However, if you are making 40% more than you did 6 years ago you might be willing to live with it ....
Not when I'm primarily responsible for driving revenues up significantly during the same period. The NHL as a whole is profitable, so why should the players have to pay for a few teams in stupid markets that are hemorrhaging money by the bucket?

y2kcanucks 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 02:32 AM.

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.