I really don't think it takes much intuition or savvy to realize the majority of owners don't want a canceled season. I also think the decision to push things this far was made WELL before the last month or so.
Its not like Fehr is reading the tea leaves of the past month of so and thats when he came to a realization that the majority of owners don't want to cancel the season. The NHLPA already had a plan in place to push things to this point with that very idea in mind. Since it wouldn't make much sense to push things like they have if they didn't think that was the case.
The NHLPA/Fehr game plan going into the summer was to push the talks until the season was in jeopardy. The PA felt putting the season on the brink was the best way for them to get some leverage and get a deal they could live with. Thats why they dragged their feet on making proposals at all. When they did actually make them, they put de-linkage poison pills in knowing the NHL would never go for them. Or nitpick each item knowing full well the NHL proposals were meant to be looked at as a whole. Thus pushing talks further down the road and closer to the season in jeopardy. Many players comments have alluded to this strategy. Steve Ott's recent comments come to mind as an example.
I sure hope so. I didn't really think I was missing NHL hockey that much, particularly with how busy I have been with my coaching duties. But after watching the Amerks on TV a few times recently it made me realize how much I really do miss watching the games.
You might not feel this way, but you sound as if you feel this extended lockout is the NHLPA's fault (mostly anyway). The NHL came out of the gate with an absolutely ridiculous offer that was roundly criticized from all corners of the hockey world as both unfair and a transparent negotiating ploy. All that did was strengthen the players' resolve and cause them to dig their heels in more than they already planned on. What kind of message did the NHL send? Sounded to me like, "you better put the gear away and grab a Snickers, because this is going to take a while".
This entire process has not been anything remotely close to a "give and take" negotiation, it's been entirely about how much the NHL will take. In what world would anyone expect the NHLPA to NOT play the 'union negotiating tactic' playbook to the hilt after that? Maybe it would've gone this route anyway, but when one side is only looking at how much they will lose, after already having their tail handed to them 7 years ago but seeing revenue almost skyrocket, would anyone expect them to not do whatever is necessary to lose as little as possible?
I don't like the situation, but I find it real hard to blame the NHLPA very much, even if the economics do need to sway toward the NHL. The league and owners simply haven't done a very convincing job of crying poor man after spending like drunken sailors, middle rung teams and wealthy teams alike, every season. Crying poor after forcing an unviable expansion plan to markets that can't compete.
You might not feel this way, but you sound as if you feel this extended lockout is the NHLPA's fault (mostly anyway). The NHL came out of the gate with an absolutely ridiculous offer that was roundly criticized from all corners of the hockey world as both unfair and a transparent negotiating ploy. All that did was strengthen the players' resolve and cause them to dig their heels in more than they already planned on. What kind of message did the NHL send? Sounded to me like, "you better put the gear away and grab a Snickers, because this is going to take a while".
This entire process has not been anything remotely close to a "give and take" negotiation, it's been entirely about how much the NHL will take. In what world would anyone expect the NHLPA to NOT play the 'union negotiating tactic' playbook to the hilt after that? Maybe it would've gone this route anyway, but when one side is only looking at how much they will lose, after already having their tail handed to them 7 years ago but seeing revenue almost skyrocket, would anyone expect them to not do whatever is necessary to lose as little as possible?
I don't like the situation, but I find it real hard to blame the NHLPA very much, even if the economics do need to sway toward the NHL. The league and owners simply haven't done a very convincing job of crying poor man after spending like drunken sailors, middle rung teams and wealthy teams alike, every season. Crying poor after forcing an unviable expansion plan to markets that can't compete.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I don't really remember the NHLPA making any formal offers in the negotiations. Their, here's 3 to pick from...2 on a single sheet of paper and the other verbal isn't exactly negotiating in good faith. It seemed as if the NHL has been negotiating against itself this entire time, while Fehr sat back and told the union to play the waiting game as they'll get better.
The NHL started off so far away from reality in their initial offer that the NHLPA (Fehr) saw the writing on the wall, and knew exactly how things would pan out and exactly how he and the NHLPA would have to act. To think that Bettman and the owners would be closer to a more favorable deal right now if only the NHLPA offered more formal deals at a faster pace is naive. Owners came in with an idea that they could push the NHLPA around again, and if anything a delay would hurt players more. Players simply made a decision to go whatever distance necessary this time around. It might not be the most "right" or "fair" economic outlook that they have, but from their perspective this was about emotion and pride as much as money. You can't reason or negotiate past that, but I think the owners totally ignored or under-estimated those factors. Or, owners just wanted to roll the dice and see how long THEY could push things in order to get the best deal for THEM.
Whether it's pure greed or a misguided view of what's "fair", both sides share responsibility for still having no hockey on Jan. 2nd. As far as having a realistic outlook on where a potential deal would end up on the scale between the owners end and the players end, I think the owners came in with totally unrealistic aspirations fueled by the cakewalk they enjoyed in 2005. IMO that was huge mistake.
The majority of teams were not making money on their investment. The NHL decided they wanted to not lose money. They decided that the richer teams should not pay the rich salaries for the competing money losing teams. The NHLPA knew this and knew the NHL would come after them for a profit sharing plan akin to what other pro sports teams in North America had. So they hired the Fehr brothers to stall, obfuscate and drive the owners nuts in efforts to hang on to as much of the loot as they could. That is it in a nutshell.
Uh...the NHLPA brought a new revenue sharing plan to the table that the owners flatly rejected. The majority of teams are losing money because of an unviable expansion plan that the owners chose. THE OWNERS decided to ram crappy hockey markets into the league, driving down revenue across the board, sapping revenue sharing money from other teams that could actually break even or better. Don't forget that owners might lose money annually, but rake in a profit at the point of sale. Nutshell? Maybe a broken half of a nutshell.
Anyone think that provision Bettman proposed earlier about retiring players counting against the cap will make it into the final CBA? I can see them taking away the option of stashing players in the AHL, but if they ultimately go with 6 or 7 year contract limits, it seems spiteful to retroactively punish the teams with longer contracts currently on their books.
Because they have a bunch of (speculatedly) awful language about long-term contracts counting forever even if you trade them, they retire, etc. With no recapture provisions, Buffalo could buy out Ehrhoff then re-sign him for a better term.
Because they have a bunch of (speculatedly) awful language about long-term contracts counting forever even if you trade them, they retire, etc. With no recapture provisions, Buffalo could buy out Ehrhoff then re-sign him for a better term.
I would think that there would be language preventing a player from being signed by the team that bought him out.
Because they have a bunch of (speculatedly) awful language about long-term contracts counting forever even if you trade them, they retire, etc. With no recapture provisions, Buffalo could buy out Ehrhoff then re-sign him for a better term.
Riiiiiiight. I understand. That would be a lotttttttt of cash going to Christian.
Can you explain the recapture provision? Ehrhoff wouldn't be on my list for buyout canditates.. He has a pretty reasonable cap hit.
Based on reports, the league wants teams to be punished for signing those long, cap-circumventing contracts (unofficially, of course, unless you're New Jersey), so they're proposing this provision that states that the team who signed the player to the contract in excess of X years (X= 6 or 7, supposedly) will have the player's cap hit on their books for the duration of the contract if the player ceases playing in the NHL.
In Ehrhoff's case, let's assume that he decides after Year 7 of his deal that he's already earned $37m of the $40m owed to him under his current deal, and he's going to take his money and run into retirement. Buffalo would have three years of his $4m cap hit on their books--that's dead cap space--even if they traded him to another team at some point prior to his retirement and he played for that other team.
The PA wants this rule to apply only to contracts signed after this CBA goes into effect. The League wants this rule to also apply to all deals currently in effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zman5778
I would think that there would be language preventing a player from being signed by the team that bought him out.
You would think. But this is the league that didn't foresee GM's extending these long-term deals to lower cap hits in a salary-capped sport.
You might not feel this way, but you sound as if you feel this extended lockout is the NHLPA's fault (mostly anyway). The NHL came out of the gate with an absolutely ridiculous offer that was roundly criticized from all corners of the hockey world as both unfair and a transparent negotiating ploy. All that did was strengthen the players' resolve and cause them to dig their heels in more than they already planned on. What kind of message did the NHL send? Sounded to me like, "you better put the gear away and grab a Snickers, because this is going to take a while".
This entire process has not been anything remotely close to a "give and take" negotiation, it's been entirely about how much the NHL will take. In what world would anyone expect the NHLPA to NOT play the 'union negotiating tactic' playbook to the hilt after that? Maybe it would've gone this route anyway, but when one side is only looking at how much they will lose, after already having their tail handed to them 7 years ago but seeing revenue almost skyrocket, would anyone expect them to not do whatever is necessary to lose as little as possible?
I don't like the situation, but I find it real hard to blame the NHLPA very much, even if the economics do need to sway toward the NHL. The league and owners simply haven't done a very convincing job of crying poor man after spending like drunken sailors, middle rung teams and wealthy teams alike, every season. Crying poor after forcing an unviable expansion plan to markets that can't compete.
The problem is yourself and many others don't seem to understand that opening NHL offer was in response to the NHLPA's actions.
The stage was set for this battle back in 2009 when the NHLPA hardliners orchestrated a coup to get rid of Paul Kelly. The owners knew from that point forward the CBA talks would be a confrontation and they would be dealing with a hardliner controlled NHLPA. In response to that they came with a very aggressive initial proposal that would give them a lot of space to walk back to get a deal.
Too many posters don't understand how much the Kelly ouster has impacted the current relationship between the NHLPA and NHL and what thats meant for the CBA talks. Kelly had a strong working relationship with Bettman and the NHL. Something the hardliners didn't like. Also Paul Kelly, in his attempts to clean up the NHLPA, had dug up evidence of financial shenanigans by the likes of Lindros and Pulver. He decided to do an audit and investigate the NHLPA's books from previous years looking for other improprieties. Not long after Kelly decided to do this is when Lindros and Pulver along with others, moved to remove Kelly.
The majority of players were kept in the dark about why Paul Kelly was removed. Many players back then were shocked or pissed or both and wanted answers. So did many agents. Guess what? The current NHLPA leadership will not release the report on Kelly's dismissal. Since it would reveal, in part Fehr's level of involvement in getting rid of Kelly. What a shocker.
Why? Well, it was a coup orchestrated behind the scenes by union lawyer Ian Penny and ex-ombudsman Eric Lindros, and carried out in public by players like Andrew Ference, Matt Stajan and others.
Driving the coup, along with personal rivalries, was the suggestion that Kelly, despite his impressive record as a U.S. attorney, wasn’t tough enough and wasn’t experienced enough as a negotiator to take on the NHL and Gary Bettman.
What he had done was establish a cordial working relationship with Bettman. He’d even been invited to speak to the owners at a meeting in Pebble Beach, and that didn’t sit right with some.
Ultimately, a report was done on this shameful episode in NHLPA history, a report that has never seen the light of day or been made public.
Kelly’s dismissal set in motion a series of events.
First, former baseball union head Don Fehr, who was on the phone with members of the coup later in the same day that Kelly was fired, became a consultant for the NHLPA. He’d been denied a spot on the advisory committee on Kelly’s recommendation several months earlier
Quote:
Fehr, despite being asked, has never revealed what was in the Kelly Report or what his involvement was in the sacking of his predecessor.
Here is an article from back when Kelly was ousted.
According to many, the NHLPA also may have signed a death warrant for themselves, the NHL and the game of hockey — because Kelly was looked upon as the first “true, clean” leader they ever had. “This is a very sad day for hockey,” Hall of Fame hockey scribe and former Lawrence Eagle Tribune NHL and Bruins beat writer Russ Conway told NESN.com on Monday. “Unfortunately, the union continues to drink the Kool-Aid.”
Conway — who was responsible for bringing former NHLPA head Alan Eagleson to justice with his best-selling book, Game Misconduct: Alan Eagleson and the Corruption of Hockey — knows the NHLPA inside out, and he is right on the money. Many players claim they are not kept in the loop with regard to what goes on with NHLPA matters — some even acknowledge they really don’t care to know but just want to play hockey. That’s all fine and refreshing to hear to an extent, except when something like this latest NHLPA debacle occurs.
Quote:
in recent months, a group consisting of the union’s legal counsel — Ian Penny, ombudsman Buzz Hargrove and chairman of the union’s advisory board Ron Pink — built a list of concerns regarding Kelly’s leadership. The purpose of this list was to ultimately convince the 30-member board of player reps to oust Kelly from his position with the union, which they did successfully during a lengthy meeting that ran from late Sunday afternoon until early Monday morning.
Quote:
Hargrove, Penny, Pink, Pulver and Lindros represent the old guard of the NHLPA, one that was confrontational, hard-lined and more concerned with money than the overall well-being of the union and the game. They come from a time when chaos and greed ruled the players’ association and still believe the union conceded too much after the 2004-05 lockout.
Quote:
According to sources, part of this group’s desire to get rid of Kelly also stemmed from Kelly ordering an internal audit (by a top former FBI forensic accountant) of the players' association's expenses during the previous three years before he took over. That audit was still ongoing prior to Kelly’s dismissal. Sources claim that through the audit, Kelly discovered that then-interim leaders Penny and Lindros were spending millions of dollars of the union’s money. Lindros ended up resigning, but word is, that move fueled this attack on Kelly, and Lindros was very much involved. Kelly also beat out Pink for the executive director job, and the belief is that Pink is still sour over that.
Quote:
“These guys could really care less about whether the game and the NHL take another PR hit with a work stoppage,” one source told Murphy’s Law on Sunday. “They’re more concerned with making money. They had a cozy setup before Kelly came in and found out what was going on. He has done his best to clean things up and distance the union from its troubled past. Unfortunately, part of that cleaning up should’ve been a housecleaning — because now these guys are conspiring against him. This is simply crazy.”
Quote:
“This was just a scheduled meeting to update the players on certain issues and just simple stuff to discuss,” said the source. “Now they come in and probably some of them are not as connected as others, and they could be duped into voting out probably the best leader they’ve ever had.” Unfortunately, as Conway pointed out, the 30 player reps that voted Kelly out Monday didn’t realize or appreciate what they had in Kelly. A hard-liner will now take over, and the cold war between the NHL and the NHLPA will resume. When the current collective bargaining agreement expires on Sept. 15, 2011, fans may be in for some more wrangling between the union and the NHL.
But the owners, in your mind, are the bad guys because they saw what was going on with the NHLPA and reacted to it. The NHL understood the type of folks they would be up against and their opening proposal reflected that understanding.
The NHL's first offer was textbook. It put 50% exactly halfway between both sides initial positions (57 and 43), and incidentally, was identical to the NBA's first offer last year. Just because a first offer is unrealistic doesn't mean it's an insult or an act of war or anything. Unrealistic first offers are how every negotiation starts.
What I laugh about is how entitled the NHLPA thinks they are. They play a sport for millions. They need the NHL to make these millions. Now why should the players dictate the rules and such when without the support system in place by the NHL ( franchises, arenas to play in, coaches to coach, arena workers to maintain the building, serve food etc) is the reason they can make this much money? It's asinine how ridiculous this is. Players come and go but franchises ( for the most part) stay for years to come.
JJ - I'm well aware of the previous drama within the NHLPA, and to take that route you can also say the turmoil had to do with getting bulldozed by the owners in 2005. Chicken..egg...chicken. They're both at fault because it's not just about what's best for the league between these groups, it's about getting even or getting one over on the other side.
Haseoke39 - the owners actually came out with an initial offer of 44% HRR for the players.
Layne - I don't entirely disagree with you, but when the owners got everything they wanted in 2005 and still cry "poor" and come back for more after their own share of dubious contract offers and organizational mis-management, some players are justifiably suspicious of that. Then pride and greed get in the mix too, which sends the process down the toilet.
FWIW, I see the players having a pretty good reason (even if it's based too much on emotion) to be p----d off for THIS lockout. Overall though, considering recent history, I split blame between both groups anywhere between 60/40 either way. Bottom line is it really doesn't matter. I just want the NHL to eventually be able to operate in a stable and profitable manner, without dis-passionate markets like West Crooked Tree Hornytoads trying to compete with the Montreal Canadiens.
Last edited by Sabresfansince1980: 01-03-2013 at 02:31 PM.
But the owners, in your mind, are the bad guys because they saw what was going on with the NHLPA and reacted to it. The NHL understood the type of folks they would be up against and their opening proposal reflected that understanding.
But the players, in your mind, are the bad guys because they saw what was going on with the NHL and reacted to it. The NHLPA understood the type of folks they would be up against and their actions reflected that understanding.
JJ - I'm well aware of the previous drama within the NHLPA, and to take that route you can also say the turmoil had to do with getting bulldozed by the owners in 2005. Chicken..egg...chicken. They're both at fault because it's not just about what's best for the league between these groups, it's about getting even or getting one over on the other side.
Haseoke39 - the owners actually came out with an initial offer of 44% HRR for the players.
Layne - I don't entirely disagree with you, but when the owners got everything they wanted in 2005 and still cry "poor" and come back for more after their own share of dubious contract offers and organizational mis-management, some players are justifiably suspicious of that. Then pride and greed get in the mix too, which sends the process down the toilet.
FWIW, I see the players having a pretty good reason (even if it's based too much on emotion) to be p----d off for THIS lockout. Overall though, considering recent history, I split blame between both groups anywhere between 60/40 either way. Bottom line is it really doesn't matter. I just want the NHL to eventually be able to operate in a stable and profitable manner, without dis-passionate markets like West Crooked Tree Hornytoads trying to compete with the Montreal Canadiens.
I take issue with the assertion that the owners got everything they wanted in 2005. It was bargaining. Bargaining happened. Same thing this time.
One thing I'll never understand is fans incessant need to take sides in these negotiations. I feel like people use this stuff as an excuse to bicker at each other since we don't have the Sabres for that.
The NHL is so desperate for money that the NHL Network just ran a 5 minute commercial for a Cindy Crawford makeup product in the USA/CAN replay intermission.
