HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHLPA starts another 'disclaimer' vote

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 07:11 PM
  #26
LeHab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
There was no reason to do it last night. They were still negotioating at the time.
In that case what prevents the owners from pulling the same trick this time?

LeHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:13 PM
  #27
LeHab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
The owners' own deadline will come first
You mean Jan 11? Is there already a deadline set by PA for the new window of opportunity for DOI if vote passes? All I heard is that they want to have a 48 hrs vote period.

LeHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:16 PM
  #28
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
The owners' own deadline will come first
There are a couple columnists on twitter/TV suggesting Bettman etc.. have changed their stance on a few things now that their disclaimer time has expired and are playing hardball again. I'm not sure how this helps anything?

Bruce Garrioch ‏@SunGarrioch
As I said this morning, the tone of talks changed with disclaimer off the table as an option. Thus it is being brought back.

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Belief within PA that Bettman/Batterman pulled bait and switch after initial disclaimer deadline passed.

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Other day NHL would allow 7 yr contract to start at 10 and end at 4 per. Now would end at 6. Don't quite get what game theyre trying to play


Rumors are about Pension, which had thought to be settled and changing of term HHR and then correcting it back to the original. I can't see the NHL trying to sabotage the negotiation as it makes no sense.

For people who think the PA are screwed if they disclaim, keep in mind the owners WILL eat each other, that is afterall why we need a CBA. Both sides will lose and IMO owners more so than players b/c if they don't pony up to get elite players, their teams will fold. Although they may be "losing" money, franchise values are certainly higher year after year.

In addition, filing a DOI again doesn't necessarily hurt the argument. The fact that Fehr could be portrayed as willing to do whatever he can to get a deal done, should only help the argument that he can no longer offer anything of benefit to the NHLPA.

He has danced long enough, he has won a few, albeit small, battles. It's time for both these dbags to get this crap over with.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:17 PM
  #29
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Where did I say I was? I'll wait. Or maybe I just posted my opinion.

Snark aside, DOI cannot be used as a negotiation ploy by present legal standards. How does the PA go about justifying that is not precisely what they are doing?
Because it is no longer a negotiation ploy. If they genuinely feel that negotiations are not working (and please, tell me how you would prove, in court, that they don't feel that way), then they can file for DOI.

Pilky01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:18 PM
  #30
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 新香
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,888
vCash: 500
Regardless of how negotiations are doing, the NHLPA should be expected to keep DOI as an option to ensure they are maximizing their leverage during the negotiations. Even if following through the disclaimer might be self-destructive, it's something that the NHL doesn't want to deal with so it makes sense for the union to keep the threat alive.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:20 PM
  #31
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Holding it over the owners heads hasn't really worked at all. From day 1 the owners have been after a 50:50 split, contract term limits, variance limits and a long term CBA. They are going to get all of those things DOI or not. Where the current status of negotiations are is a state the PA could have been at without losing any games. ANything that is fundamentally involved with the financial system is going to end up in the area everybody said the NHL was after with their very first offer....that 50:50 split, term limits around 7 years, limit the amount of variance (this one will likely be higher than they would have liked by 5 or 10%), a 8+ year term. THe players have gained nothing they couldn't have had if they negotiated off the 82 game saving offer way back in October (and well before that actually). The only accomplishment is missing 30+ games, damagining the game to hurt their near term future earnings and potentially threaten the season. For goodness sakes they are threatening DOI again to really nibble around the edges of things now that they've apparently caved on full linkage and no escrow limits.
I'm sure someone can correct or verify for me.

I'm pretty sure Bettman was pissed b/c Fehr suggested the original 50/50 offer was a good starting point. Bettman insisted this wasn't a starting point but a "best offer" which would be pulled off the table as it was an attempt to save an 82-game season.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:23 PM
  #32
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
First offer was a carbon copy of the NBA's first offer last year.
Like he said, pretty far off the map.

massivegoonery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:25 PM
  #33
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Because it is no longer a negotiation ploy. If they genuinely feel that negotiations are not working (and please, tell me how you would prove, in court, that they don't feel that way), then they can file for DOI.
Well, in a civil case, your burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence - meaning that it's more likely than not that x is true (or 51% likely). It's not criminal, so you don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. So I would think that, faced with the history of negotiations, a litany of player quotes stating to the media that disclaimer will be their negotiation ploy, and the complete absence of anyone in the PA stating that they feel it's in the player's best interest to go into next season as an unorganized labor force, you would find most judges agree that it's more likely than not that the PA is using this as a negotiation ploy.

Again, reasonable minds could differ, but I find it very unlikely that a judge determines that it's more likely than not that the union is actually planning on going into next season without a draft, RFA status, any gaurantees to their contracts, etc..

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:25 PM
  #34
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
First offer was a carbon copy of the NBA's first offer last year.
Really? Where was the luxury tax?

Pilky01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:27 PM
  #35
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
Like he said, pretty far off the map.
Well, that's negotiations for you. First offer is always unlikely.

Consider that 50%, the highest percentage of revenue that anyone league pays, was halfway between 43 and 57. That seems like a pretty textbook negotiation move to me.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:29 PM
  #36
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Really? Where was the luxury tax?
Okay, so that piece was more favorable to the NHLPA than the NBPA got. As far as I see, taxing teams for spending too much on players tends to deflate player salaries.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:33 PM
  #37
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,821
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Bruce Garrioch ‏@SunGarrioch
As I said this morning, the tone of talks changed with disclaimer off the table as an option. Thus it is being brought back.

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Belief within PA that Bettman/Batterman pulled bait and switch after initial disclaimer deadline passed.

I.
Both Bruce and Brooks will repeat any rumour floated by the PA.
The disagreement abut the pensions pre-dated the elapse of the DOI, if you don't remember just look back on the debates on here.
Means nothing.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:37 PM
  #38
Erik Estrada
Registered User
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,758
vCash: 500
From the Memorandum filed by the NHLPA earlier today:

"...the NHL is using (their December 14) suit in an attempt to force the players to remain in a union. Not only is it virtually unheard of for an employer to insist on the unionization of its employees, it is also directly contradicted by the rights guaranteed to employees under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act."

"In essence, the NHL’s position is that the Court should force the players to remain a union so that the NHL can continue to claim that the non-statutory labor exemption protects activities that would otherwise be flagrant violations of the antitrust laws."

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:38 PM
  #39
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
How the hell hasn't Bettman been negotiating? His offers have improved every two weeks like clockwork since August. How can you say that kind of thing seriously?
If you you go from a ridiculous position to an unnaceptable one, that's not really negotiating.

I'm pleased that it looks like some of the issues look like they have movement, but there are a lot of balls in the air, who knows. I think it does benefit the NHL if it looks like they are negotiating.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:41 PM
  #40
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Both Bruce and Brooks will repeat any rumour floated by the PA.
The disagreement abut the pensions pre-dated the elapse of the DOI, if you don't remember just look back on the debates on here.
Means nothing.
The truth generally lies somewhere in the middle. I'm sure the NHL is breathing a little easier knowing the PA didn't disclaim regardless of what they say.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:42 PM
  #41
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
If you you go from a ridiculous position to an unnaceptable one, that's not really negotiating.

I'm pleased that it looks like some of the issues look like they have movement, but there are a lot of balls in the air, who knows. I think it does benefit the NHL if it looks like they are negotiating.
Negotiation, in a legal sense, isn't defined whatsoever by the substance of the offers being made. Just that dialogue is occurring and the sides are attempting to bridge their differences. A series of consecutively closer offers slams the door shut on that, and no court in the land will determine otherwise.

Maybe in a moral sense, the NHL isn't "negotiating." But I really have to ask what your moral standard is, then. Is anything less than 57% not morally cool? What's the moral range of negotiations? You could just as easily say anything less than 74% isn't morally okay. I don't understand what your moral definition of proper negotiations are.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:43 PM
  #42
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
How the hell hasn't Bettman been negotiating? His offers have improved every two weeks like clockwork since August. How can you say that kind of thing seriously?
If you you go from a ridiculous position to an unnaceptable one, that's not really negotiating.

I'm pleased that it looks like some of the issues look like they have movement, but there are a lot of balls in the air, who knows. I think it does benefit the NHL if it looks like they are negotiating.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:44 PM
  #43
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by persh View Post
So the reason why they had the first deadline was simply to put extra pressure on owners? Now that the owners called the bluff they want to have another deadline?
That pretty much says it. Now let's see if the players are for real with the next disclaimer vote.

I heard something about the players wanting a $65mil Cap in 2013-14 and the owners offering a $60mil Cap. I thought the "Make Whole" was a resolved issue, and thus this Cap $ debate is finished. Sounds like the players want more from the Make Whole. Owners... Tell the PA to shove it! See you next Season! Time to switch the tables and call the players bluff. Bettman and owners have been led around by the nose too damn much in these negotiations.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:46 PM
  #44
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
From the Memorandum filed by the NHLPA earlier today:

"...the NHL is using (their December 14) suit in an attempt to force the players to remain in a union. Not only is it virtually unheard of for an employer to insist on the unionization of its employees, it is also directly contradicted by the rights guaranteed to employees under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act."

"In essence, the NHLís position is that the Court should force the players to remain a union so that the NHL can continue to claim that the non-statutory labor exemption protects activities that would otherwise be flagrant violations of the antitrust laws."
This is untrue. The NHL is asking the court to rule that, at this time and in the context of these negotiations, it won't entertain an anti-trust suit from the PA (as it legally cannot if negotiations are occurring).

If the PA cuts off negotiations altogether and its members start preparing to go into next season as an unorganized labor force, I'm sure no court in the land would have a problem with entertaining their antitrust suit, and the NHL would probably not object to it.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:52 PM
  #45
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianPirate View Post
Apparently the reason for the pa doing this might be because of the NHL returning to a hard line stance.

Eric Macramalla ‏@EricOnSportsLaw
I warned here yesterday that once disclaimer deadline passed NHL might revert back to less favourable terms - may be happening
There is a comment on the Sportsnet website saying that players believe Bettman/Batterman pulled a bait and switch after the deadline passed.

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:54 PM
  #46
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Negotiation, in a legal sense, isn't defined whatsoever by the substance of the offers being made. Just that dialogue is occurring and the sides are attempting to bridge their differences. A series of consecutively closer offers slams the door shut on that, and no court in the land will determine otherwise.

Maybe in a moral sense, the NHL isn't "negotiating." But I really have to ask what your moral standard is, then. Is anything less than 57% not morally cool? What's the moral range of negotiations? You could just as easily say anything less than 74% isn't morally okay. I don't understand what your moral definition of proper negotiations are.
I think he's suggesting that looking for rollbacks (originally), less rights for UFA, RFA contract length, variability etc.. is poor etiquette. The fact that the NHL is working towards the PA from a questionable offer is the issue. The NHL is negotiating, however, they're looking for a big win - which they will get and I believe need for a better league. I can understand why the players are pissy though, I think we all would be. There is no trust at all. The PA just wants something to hold onto, something to win, this is probably why the pension has become an issue.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:56 PM
  #47
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
How the hell hasn't Bettman been negotiating? His offers have improved every two weeks like clockwork since August. How can you say that kind of thing seriously?
Because he has issued one too many ultimatums and has refused to negotiate. Saying "here is our offer, take it or leave it" is not negotiating - it is making demands. When the federal mediators were last there it was reported that they hardly spent any time with the league because the league's answer to everything was "here is our offer, take it or leave it." I simply do not understand how anyone can think that that ******* Bettman has been negotiating or has been doing so in good faith.

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:58 PM
  #48
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Puck View Post
They don't need the players permission to disclaim. The union can make a disclaim of interest at any time whether the players like it or not.
No, the membership has a say.

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:00 PM
  #49
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
There is a comment on the Sportsnet website saying that players believe Bettman/Batterman pulled a bait and switch after the deadline passed.
Bettman seeing how much they want it.

Hey, anyone know what CBA length they apparently came to agreement on? Since it seems that's no longer being debated.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:02 PM
  #50
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I think he's suggesting that looking for rollbacks (originally), less rights for UFA, RFA contract length, variability etc.. is poor etiquette. The fact that the NHL is working towards the PA from a questionable offer is the issue. The NHL is negotiating, however, they're looking for a big win - which they will get and I believe need for a better league. I can understand why the players are pissy though, I think we all would be. There is no trust at all. The PA just wants something to hold onto, something to win, this is probably why the pension has become an issue.
Well, again, what makes an offer morally "questionable" or "poor etiquette"? The NHL is looking for significant concessions from the last CBA. Of course, the last CBA saw player salaries increase dramatically while nearly half of all franchises lost money year over year. So the mere concept of the NHL looking for concessions seems pretty kosher to me. What I don't understand is some people's belief that past a point, the NHL asks for so much that they're no longer morally okay.

And what compounds that doubly for me is the idea that the NHL, at this point, is offering more to its players than baseball, football or basketball. So if the NHL is morally out of line, these other leagues must be criminal.

In my mind, there's zero difference between how the NHL brass have handled these negotiations and how the NBA and NFL handled theirs. The difference is that the NBPA and NFLPA each took worse deals earlier in the process in order to get back to work. And the case is very simple to make that if the NHLPA had taken the October 15th offer, they'd have made more money than if they get even their current demands met now.


Last edited by haseoke39: 01-03-2013 at 08:10 PM.
haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:51 PM.

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.