So now it is up to the Players to move to the NHLs five year limit and 10 year CBA, which was part of the $300M make whole.
Its simple negotiating but apparently hard for the PA to grasp. You get $100M for those two takes from the NHL.
$89M (50M of which are pension related), it was $211M before.
Maybe the PA feels accepting a 5 year term limit, a 5% variance and a 10 year CBA is worth more than $89M over many years. So they offered 8 year term limit with 25%, variance, an 8 year CBA, and added an escrow cap.
Instead of countering, maybe upping MW by another $15M, and going to 7 years across the board for term limit and going to a 10% variance and rejecting the escrow cap, the owners cut off negotiations.
Tom Gulitti @TGfireandice
RT @cotsonika: If NHL cancels through Jan. 14, we all know what that means -- soft deadline to cancel season. Some wiggle room, not much.
Please explain to me how the players have moved towards the Owners in every aspect?
I don't see how you can even realistically say one side has 'given' more than the other. What is your reference point? The last CBA? If so, the players have given more.
Each party's opening offer? That doesn't seem like a great refernce point but both sides have move significantly from their opening offers.
Starting a season in mid january is a joke, what a bunch of buffoons we got running this sport, they should all be ashamed, well they would be but they don't care. only $$$
The players haven't moved from ANYTHING! As of Sept 15, the old CBA no longer exists and it is not a starting point for right now. The old rules and guidelines do not exist present day.
Perhaps I inferred the "We aren't willing to negotiate further" part, but there are a couple right there.
Yes, it's been said. However, the last quote, "We had previously said we had made our best offer, but we wanted to get a deal done," shows that the league will continue to negotiate even though they've said they'd already given their best offer. Therefore, I think you can be assured they'll continue to negotiate now if they have a cooperative partner.
Watch out, you're going to get a barrage of "the last CBA has no bearing on this CBA" comments.
That stance makes little sense to me. I think it's very clear the last CBA is the starting point for this one. This one is a series of changes or refinements on the last CBA, not an entirely new system dredged from the imaginations of owners and players.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 12-20-2012 at 03:15 PM.
Reason: fail
Watch out, you're going to get a barrage of "the last CBA has no bearing on this CBA" comments.
Uhh no... What he's going to get is a comment that the PA is currently asking for a system that guarantees them 56.5% in year one and no 50-50 split until the 4th year. So the players want that PLUS the 300 million outside the system to make sure players get 100% of their contracts which is something the players HAVE NOT HAD in previous CBAs
Agree on all points except 6. I think that the PA will get some concessions on contract terms but will still 'lose' the most financially which was inevitable once games started to get cancelled.
IF they get concessions I suspect it will be CBA contract length not individual contract lengths. The 5 yr/7 yr model will only affect the marquis players and constitute a very low percentage of the overall number of contracts and has the biggest impact on eliminating back diving contracts to circumvent the spirit of the cap.
Actually the players can ask for any of those things if they wanted to... and factually, Fehr has mentioned at a few points that he may put the cap back on the table... That was a few months ago... but both sides know if certain things get brought up it would derail the whole process even further. After Fehr told the media the cap may be on the table, Daly mentioned that so would guaranteed contracts.
So both sides could go there if they wanted to.
So both sides are working of the framework of the previous CBA. Changing the percentages from 57/43 to 50/50, contract limits for the most part. That's pretty much how it went and no proposals included any other drastic change.
The point of no current CBA in place is meaningless argument.
Yes, it's been said. However, the last quote shows that the league will continue to negotiate even though they've said they'd already given their best offer. Therefore, I think you can be assured they'll continue to negotiate now if they have a cooperative partner.
This would imply that their counter proposals will continuously get worse, correct?
Players are losing thousands of dollars as each day passes.
The final CBA will not be too much different than the last NHLPA offer.
So because of some SUBJECTIVE MORAL JUSTIFICATION like 'they shouldn't move because they've given too much already' or 'the NHL hasn't given anything' they should forfeit all that money?
Fehr waiting is stupid for the players. But hey, I guess you sleep in the bed you made right?
And no, the contract limits are NOT worth $89M because variance and things like that are pretty much only applicable to the players who also get 10 year contracts - which is what, 5% of players? So 100% of players have to give up at least 35% of their salaries for that? I don't think so. So please, don't even try that argument.
IF they get concessions I suspect it will be CBA contract length not individual contract lengths. The 5 yr/7 yr model will only affect the marquis players and constitute a very low percentage of the overall number of contracts and has the biggest impact on eliminating back diving contracts to circumvent the spirit of the cap.
I think they will get concessions on either the 5/7 contract length or on the variance percentage and perhaps both. The NHL has asked (demanded?) more than they need on those items to stop backdiving contracts.
Well the fact of the matter is that the players are going to keep asking for more and more money... and the owners are going to keep bidding against themselves and offering more and more and more. So I hope everyone would be in agreement that there needs to be term limits because if the contracts were left untouched, the league and many teams would not survive.
So both sides are working of the framework of the previous CBA. Changing the percentages from 57/43 to 50/50, contract limits for the most part. That's pretty much how it went and no proposals included any other drastic change.
The point of no current CBA in place is meaningless argument.
The players are acting like the league wanting 50-50 is a back stabbing request. The NHL makes one third of the NFL's revenue.... and the players think it's healthy to take a little less than 60% of the league's revenue?
Well the fact of the matter is that the players are going to keep asking for more and more money... and the owners are going to keep bidding against themselves and offering more and more and more. So I hope everyone would be in agreement that there needs to be term limits because if the contracts were left untouched, the league and many teams would not survive.
The players offered term limits. The players have also offered to take less money than the last CBA. One economist, if I recall correctly, stated that the owners' previous "best offer" would equate to the players losing approx. 15%-20%.
