The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...
Lol I can spin it in another way - only the players are giving right now, they are not making any gains from the last CBA.
And why is it they should gain? This negotiation was about correcting areas in the CBA the league felt were detrimental to future success. Whether you believe the route they've taken is good to begin with is immaterial. What the PA's gain is what remains of their salary this year.
Lol I can spin it in another way - only the players are giving right now, they are not making any gains from the last CBA.
Sometimes limiting your losses is the best you can do. The players can whine & cry about that all they want, but that's life. Not every negotiation ends with both sides getting a gold star on their paper and smiles all around. Sometimes one side just plain gets a worse deal than what they had before, because there's just no other deal to be made short of blowing the whole thing up.
If the players are unwilling to blow the whole thing up, then the deal that's on the table today is essentially the deal they will have to sign. They may as well make their peace with it.
At this stage,doesn't appear the Union will take this present NHL offer to a full vote.PA still actively engaged in internal meetings #TSN
And they shouldn't, not at least until the NHL admits that both parties are at this stage because of the mistakes, they the NHL made.
The PA accepting 50/50, the players should be given a share in the responsibility of growing revenues by having a say where NHL franchises should and should not be located. It's the least the owners should give the players in exchange for accepting a paycut.
Sochi participation would be a nice inclusion as well, but I'm not holding out for it.
If the owners would be all on the same page this would not be an issue. They would make a gentleman agreement with each other that they would not offer longer contracts and the issue is solved.
Lets see who would be the first one to break it and how other owners react. They just do not trust each other or are on the same page.
And once that happened the PA would take the owners to court for collusion and win the way they did in baseball when the owners tried to illegally collude to dry up free agency. You have to have it in writing.
Minor nit - the MLB Collusion cases in the 80's did not go through the courts. They were decided by an arbiter under the dispute resolution mechanisms of MLB's Basic Agreement (the MLB CBA) - their CBA had a specific term prohibiting collusion on the part of the owners or players. Any anti-trust action in the courts would likely have been denied due to MLB's peculiar anti-trust exemption.
That said - collusion of that sort by any other League would be subject to anti-trust litigation as a violation of the Sherman Act.
And they shouldn't, not at least until the NHL admits that both parties are at this stage because of the mistakes, they the NHL made.
The PA accepting 50/50, the players should be given a share in the responsibility of growing revenues by having a say where NHL franchises should and should not be located. It's the least the owners should give the players in exchange for accepting a paycut.
Sochi participation would be a nice inclusion as well, but I'm not holding out for it.
Agreed.
They've both already agreed that the players should be in Sochi.
After the NHL made a counterproposal -- which included raising the so-called "make-whole" payments to $300 million -- the NHL Players' Association made pensions a priority. That surprised and angered the moderate owners, and that almost led to them walking out.
The owners have long been frustrated that the players' priorities have been a moving target.
But the real danger is this: The players have gotten the owners to back off, and the rope-a-dope strategy has been effective. But if they keep ticking off the owners who came to make a deal, it could backfire. We could have another breakdown, another delay.
Doesn't matter who is doing it, but a deal is never going to happen if the goal posts keep getting moved.
Lol I can spin it in another way - only the players are giving right now, they are not making any gains from the last CBA.
The players stand to make $ billions more over the next 6 seasons than they made over the last 6 seasons. If HRR growth averages 7% it could be $4 billion more.
If the talks break off again, NHL will probably cancel the rest of December today or tomorrow.
I would think the "drop dead" date would be mid-January for any type of season and it would be closer to a 48 games season. NHLPA needs to decide if another 15% of the season is worth keeping the fight going past this weekend.
There's no need for spin...the entire deal will be a give from the players. Their share and rights are going down, period.
You do realize that there is a lot that the players are gaining that isn't getting the headlines, right? The CBA isn't just about the split of HRR and contracting rights.
If the talks break off again, NHL will probably cancel the rest of December today or tomorrow.
I would think the "drop dead" date would be mid-January for any type of season and it would be closer to a 48 games season. NHLPA needs to decide if another 15% of the season is worth keeping the fight going past this weekend.
If the talks break off again, NHL will probably cancel the rest of the season today or tomorrow. JMO
I don't see why the league would have a problem with the dipietro-type deals where the salary doesn't budge a dime regardless of the length.
I think it's a matter of protecting the Owners from themselves. They set up a cap so they wont spend oodles of money. The easiest way around that is to offer lower cap hits over a long period of time. If you're gaurenteeing money to someone who might not even be in the league in the final 2-3 years of the deal it's a problem IMO.
You do realize that there is a lot that the players are gaining that isn't getting the headlines, right? The CBA isn't just about the split of HRR and contracting rights.
It's mostly about those things. And they will both be reduced from the player perspective.
If the talks break off again, NHL will probably cancel the rest of the season today or tomorrow. JMO
That wouldn't make any sense.
That would be a rash knee-jerk reaction, and these guys are pros at what they do...
This whole procedure is so calculated that such a move would be so uncharacteristic.
Also, its just Dec 6th. Quite a bit more time left.
If they break off today... ok, whats new... step back, and get them going again in a few days.
And why is it they should gain? This negotiation was about correcting areas in the CBA the league felt were detrimental to future success. Whether you believe the route they've taken is good to begin with is immaterial. What the PA's gain is what remains of their salary this year.
Why should the owner's gain?
How about the PA stop it's concessionary approach and slap the NHL across the face by demanding the end of the salary cap?
The owners have this thing won. If they don't want to accept victory, they should prepare for the alternative.
You do realize that there is a lot that the players are gaining that isn't getting the headlines, right? The CBA isn't just about the split of HRR and contracting rights.
Ooh single hotel rooms. What a difference that will make to their bank accounts once their careers are finished.
Yes, because not having those limits costs the owners, and takes away from parity. Philly can afford to take a chance on Weber's contract (even if it's paying ridiculous amounts in year 13) because they're rich. They can afford to take the chance that years 6 to 14 are not insured because they're rich. Nashville is taking that chance, but they can't really afford to have it back fire on them. It's not just the insurance costs (Crosby's 5 years is 400k a year), but the fact that it's only the first 5 years that are insured. The rest the team would have to cover.
IMO this whole 'parody' idea that the league put forward after the cap was introduced is just a façade. It's really about not paying players true market value. Players getting paid true market value leaves 0 profits.
You do realize that there is a lot that the players are gaining that isn't getting the headlines, right? The CBA isn't just about the split of HRR and contracting rights.
It's not in the headlines because it amounts to virtually nothing.
Since it seems quite clear that the insurance issues are a driving factor behind the contractual rights demands the NHL is making, is it feasible to structure contracts in a way that something happens if the contract is longer than 5 years?
Say something along the lines that if the player wants more than 5 years he has to pay a part of the premium for the insurance or something aking to this?
If the talks break off again, NHL will probably cancel the rest of December today or tomorrow.
I would think the "drop dead" date would be mid-January for any type of season and it would be closer to a 48 games season. NHLPA needs to decide if another 15% of the season is worth keeping the fight going past this weekend.
Well isn't the PA in the most powerful position they have been in during these entire negotiations? Owners clearly want to make a deal and if 15% more of the season is cancelled they owners would lose 25% of sponsorship money.
How about the PA stop it's concessionary approach and slap the NHL across the face by demanding the end of the salary cap?
The owners have this thing won. If they don't want to accept victory, they should prepare for the alternative.
I can't believe how hard core you are to see the owners lose that you'd gladly sacrifice the well being of the union members to see your goals through.
You have no general care or interest in the actual member of the union.
