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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHLPA starts another 'disclaimer' vote

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 07:05 PM
  #51
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
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.
I believe it was one of the give and take. I heard both willing to do a 10yr CBA, players want a 7yr opt out, owners want 8.

Steve is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:06 PM
  #52
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
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.
Maybe within a single meeting, Bettman has said here's our offer today, take it or leave it - which makes sense, because his caucus is small and active and probably wants to have a say in every offer he makes, so that he can't just go into a meeting with one offer and leave having made another on the fly. Maybe Don Fehr can afford to do more "on the fly" negotiating because he represents 700 people who mostly aren't involved in negotiations and just let him do his thing.

But plainly between meetings the league's offers have changed dramatically. That counts just as much. You're describing a situation where the league is still offering 43% of HRR, no "make whole" money, 5 year contract limits, 5% variance, free agency at 29 and 2 year ELCs. That's just not the case.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:08 PM
  #53
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I believe it was one of the give and take. I heard both willing to do a 10yr CBA, players want a 7yr opt out, owners want 8.
7 to 8 years sounds perfect to me. I still say that it should be 8 years with a requirement that the negotiation process starts 1 month after the 7-year mark, with responding proposals required every month until an agreement is reached.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:09 PM
  #54
no1b4me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
In the end does it really matter? No matter what the PA gives, no matter the term, etc. We will all be back here in 5, 7 or 10 years with NHL teams crying they can't make money.
Another lockout until they try to fix ththeir flawed system.
I still go back to get rid or move of the failing teams.

no1b4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:12 PM
  #55
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
In the end does it really matter? No matter what the PA gives, no matter the term, etc. We will all be back here in 5, 7 or 10 years with NHL teams crying they can't make money.
Another lockout until they try to fix ththeir flawed system.
I still go back to get rid or move of the failing teams.
I still go back to basing Salary Cap on the League Revenue median and not the average, with a strict 50/50 split, with 1/4 to 1/3 of Profit (from those teams profiting) going into Revenue sharing.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:16 PM
  #56
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Well, again, what makes an offer morally "questionable"? 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.
I think it has something to do with the 3rd lockout and trust. NHL was in bad shape, no question, why do the players HAVE to be the ones to fix the issues though? These issues could have been resolved after the last lockout, but owners decided to turn on each other, and they probably will find a way again. Surely you would agree some relocation's would help solve some of the issues, no? If they are truly a partner, wouldn't a complete 50/50 without this "HRR" make more sense?

I'm not really sure I agree with your comment about them accepting the Oct 15th offer. They would have had MUCH less negotiating rights, UFA and RFA's would be held back before they made serious money also. The "Make Whole" puts a reasonable chunk back in the players favor, Pension helps as well but the kicker lies in the next lockout/CBA. Regardless of how this ends, the next CBA will be based off the existing one. You may very well be correct but we won't know until this one ends.. or perhaps when the next lockout begins.

Steve is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:17 PM
  #57
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
7 to 8 years sounds perfect to me. I still say that it should be 8 years with a requirement that the negotiation process starts 1 month after the 7-year mark, with responding proposals required every month until an agreement is reached.
I think one side needs to let the other determine how long the CBA is, knowing the max contract length will be equal to that term.

EDIT - If Bettman is still here, there will not be a "Best Offer" (although there could be 3-4 best offers before that one) until Dec/Jan. Negotiating 1 month after the 7yr mark would be a waste of time. Same could be said for negotiating earlier in the summer. I think we all knew this was coming down to January. Hopefully we don't have to deal with him next time, I can't imagine he or Fehr would around in 7-8yrs.

Steve is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:20 PM
  #58
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I still go back to basing Salary Cap on the League Revenue median and not the average, with a strict 50/50 split, with 1/4 to 1/3 of Profit (from those teams profiting) going into Revenue sharing.
Just FYI:

- Mathematically, doing a cap based on revenue medians rather than averages only makes a difference if you presume that the top teams will grow revenues disproportionately faster than the bottoms teams. So if Toronto doubles its revenue in the same time that Phoenix doubles its revenue, there's no difference between median and average (even though, in dollar for dollar terms, Toronto had much larger gains). You'd just be looking at a cap effectively at 46%, rather than 50%.

- The league has already promised to do much more revenue sharing than you're suggesting in terms of 1/4 to 1/3 of profits. If every team making a profit last year donated 33% of their profit to RS, you'd see about $120M in revenue sharing. As opposed to the $250M on the table now.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:22 PM
  #59
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,848
vCash: 500
If Bettman truly did pull back after the deadline than the NHLPA should just file to decertify, there is no point in negotiating with that sort of childishness.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:29 PM
  #60
eXile59
Shirts on.
 
eXile59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 17,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1b4me View Post
In the end does it really matter? No matter what the PA gives, no matter the term, etc. We will all be back here in 5, 7 or 10 years with NHL teams crying they can't make money.
Another lockout until they try to fix ththeir flawed system.
I still go back to get rid or move of the failing teams.
That would be half the league.

eXile59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:32 PM
  #61
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I think it has something to do with the 3rd lockout and trust. NHL was in bad shape, no question, why do the players HAVE to be the ones to fix the issues though? These issues could have been resolved after the last lockout, but owners decided to turn on each other, and they probably will find a way again. Surely you would agree some relocation's would help solve some of the issues, no? If they are truly a partner, wouldn't a complete 50/50 without this "HRR" make more sense?
- I haven't heard a good argument of what is excluded from HRR that has anything to do with something the players earn. Do you know what gets excluded from that figure that shouldn't?

- Sure, relocation could help. It could also hurt. And it doesn't have any place in these negotiations.

- The players aren't truly partners. They're employees. If they were "partners" in any kind of sense, they'd be on the hook for franchise losses and liabilities. They're not. They're folks who show up, do a job and take home a check. That's the definition of employee. You can't demand all the perks of partnership without any of the responsibilities.

- Players aren't and won't be the only ones doing something to fix the problems. For the past six years, about half the owners in the league have paid money out of their own pockets to subsidize higher wages for the PA than the players would have made if they just charged the fans directly. So that's one other group that has paid the price for the league's problems. Relocation has been and continues to be actively explored. I'm sure past a point it'll happen for a couple teams, and maybe there will be better markets, but maybe not. I haven't heard anyone suggest that the league will abandon any of these other fixes if it gets certain CBA conditions, have you?

Quote:
I'm not really sure I agree with your comment about them accepting the Oct 15th offer. They would have had MUCH less negotiating rights, UFA and RFA's would be held back before they made serious money also. The "Make Whole" puts a reasonable chunk back in the players favor, Pension helps as well but the kicker lies in the next lockout/CBA. Regardless of how this ends, the next CBA will be based off the existing one. You may very well be correct but we won't know until this one ends.. or perhaps when the next lockout begins.
As far as negotiating rights, UFA and RFA designations, etc: none of that has any impact on how much money the players make as a whole. It shifts money around between players. The total amount of money being paid is exactly the same.

Between "make whole" and pensions, players have clawed back about $300M. Let's assume the season goes off with 48 games. Had they accepted the October 15th offer, they would've been projected to make $1.7B this year. Meaning they'll have lost more than $700M in order to fight for $300M. Plus, in the future I expect fan support will diminish at least marginally in reaction to this lockout, which hurts their future wages. There's no doubt in my mind that the best offer the players have seen all this time has been the October 15th offer. Once games started getting cancelled, they were losing dollars to fight for cents.


Last edited by haseoke39: 01-03-2013 at 07:43 PM.
haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:33 PM
  #62
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Just FYI:

- Mathematically, doing a cap based on revenue medians rather than averages only makes a difference if you presume that the top teams will grow revenues disproportionately faster than the bottoms teams. So if Toronto doubles its revenue in the same time that Phoenix doubles its revenue, there's no difference between median and average (even though, in dollar for dollar terms, Toronto had much larger gains). You'd just be looking at a cap effectively at 46%, rather than 50%.

- The league has already promised to do much more revenue sharing than you're suggesting in terms of 1/4 to 1/3 of profits. If every team making a profit last year donated 33% of their profit to RS, you'd see about $120M in revenue sharing. As opposed to the $250M on the table now.
Thanks for the info, really. But if that's in fact the case, regarding RS, then I don't see what the hell some people are always complaining about, saying 'if there were some real RS then these economic problems in the League wouldn't exist. 66% RS is damn good RS, IMO.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:41 PM
  #63
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Thanks for the info, really. But if that's in fact the case, regarding RS, then I don't see what the hell some people are always complaining about, saying 'if there were some real RS then these economic problems in the League wouldn't exist. 66% RS is damn good RS, IMO.
That's exactly what I believe - it's one of my pet peeves. In another thread, I did the math and showed that if the NHL adopted the NFL's 60-40 gate split, they'd only end up redistributing around $94M - probably proportional to what the NFL redistributes through that system, as well. People (read: sports journalists who don't really do well with math) confuse "sharing" with "redistribution" and complain because the NFL has a bigger pot from which it does its sharing. But with even the rich teams taking from the pot and even the poor teams paying into it, it doesn't do any more redistribution than the NHL does by just making a direct payment.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:54 PM
  #64
NickWIHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Port Washington, WI
Country: United States
Posts: 205
vCash: 500
RS is a must. the NFL does about 60% NHl should work towards 50% RS. what is RS now, 2-5%? and you have to meet a certain criteria in order to be eligible for RS too. so say a team like phoenix, who has been bleeding money like a stuck pig since it was founded, might not be eligible for Rs under the system. Even though RS is precisely what money-losers need to order to at least cover their losses, or some of them.

NickWIHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 07:57 PM
  #65
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
That's exactly what I believe - it's one of my pet peeves. In another thread, I did the math and showed that if the NHL adopted the NFL's 60-40 gate split, they'd only end up redistributing around $94M - probably proportional to what the NFL redistributes through that system, as well. People (read: sports journalists who don't really do well with math) confuse "sharing" with "redistribution" and complain because the NFL has a bigger pot from which it does its sharing. But with even the rich teams taking from the pot and even the poor teams paying into it, it doesn't do any more redistribution than the NHL does by just making a direct payment.
Well your calculations make sense in great part because we never hear the players complaining that RS should be increased.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:09 PM
  #66
no1b4me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eXile59 View Post
That would be half the league.
I'm fine with that. I started watching hockey in 1967. There was only 6 teams at that time. More isn't always better.


Last edited by no1b4me: 01-03-2013 at 08:15 PM.
no1b4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:20 PM
  #67
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Just FYI:

- Mathematically, doing a cap based on revenue medians rather than averages only makes a difference if you presume that the top teams will grow revenues disproportionately faster than the bottoms teams. So if Toronto doubles its revenue in the same time that Phoenix doubles its revenue, there's no difference between median and average (even though, in dollar for dollar terms, Toronto had much larger gains). You'd just be looking at a cap effectively at 46%, rather than 50%.

- The league has already promised to do much more revenue sharing than you're suggesting in terms of 1/4 to 1/3 of profits. If every team making a profit last year donated 33% of their profit to RS, you'd see about $120M in revenue sharing. As opposed to the $250M on the table now.
What happens if you consider the current and foreseeable reality rather than the careless comment above that sees Phoenix actually doubling revenues? (That being.... that Toronto is increasing revenues on a percentage and actual basis far more quickly than Phoenix-- to use your examples.)

I can't believe you're being this careless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
- I haven't heard a good argument of what is excluded from HRR that has anything to do with something the players earn. Do you know what gets excluded from that figure that shouldn't?
One could argue that expansion and relocation fees have a lot to do with what players offer, e.g, someone being convinced they want a 'hockey' team, hence hockey-related fees.

This is all beside the point. If it has anything to do with staging hockey games and reaping revenues as a result, it's hockey-related revenue. It's still up to the two sides to agree what it actually does count.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Thanks for the info, really. But if that's in fact the case, regarding RS, then I don't see what the hell some people are always complaining about, saying 'if there were some real RS then these economic problems in the League wouldn't exist. 66% RS is damn good RS, IMO.
It only considers gate receipts. If the old values hold, gate receipts account for roughly half of all HRR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
That's exactly what I believe - it's one of my pet peeves. In another thread, I did the math and showed that if the NHL adopted the NFL's 60-40 gate split, they'd only end up redistributing around $94M - probably proportional to what the NFL redistributes through that system, as well. People (read: sports journalists who don't really do well with math) confuse "sharing" with "redistribution" and complain because the NFL has a bigger pot from which it does its sharing. But with even the rich teams taking from the pot and even the poor teams paying into it, it doesn't do any more redistribution than the NHL does by just making a direct payment.
And your exercise was only half relevant. The NFL sharing model is based on gate receipts and ALL tv contract money, in addition to other elements. You didn't bother to consider even a hypothetical value of local tv money to see how the revenue sharing would look in that case.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:32 PM
  #68
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,095
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 don't think there is any moral component to it and to be frank I am at a loss to understand what you mean. My point is thast if I propose two things that I know you will not independently accept and then are willing to change on one knowing that it won't make a difference, is that negotiating? Can I point to my willingness to moderate my position on item1 but not item 2 if they are linked?

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:40 PM
  #69
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What happens if you consider the current and foreseeable reality rather than the careless comment above that sees Phoenix actually doubling revenues? (That being.... that Toronto is increasing revenues on a percentage and actual basis far more quickly than Phoenix-- to use your examples.)

I can't believe you're being this careless.
Nothing careless about it. I stated my assumption and then drew the conclusion. Not everybody believes that Toronto will continue growing faster than most of the league indefinitely. Didn't happen for 90 years and probably isn't sustainable. If you believe that Toronto will grow it's revenue by 200M faster than Pheonix will grow its revenue by about 65M, then you believe in a situation in which it would make a difference whether you linked to the median or the average. And that's fine. I just stated what you had to assume for it to matter.

Quote:
One could argue that expansion and relocation fees have a lot to do with what players offer, e.g, someone being convinced they want a 'hockey' team, hence hockey-related fees.

This is all beside the point. If it has anything to do with staging hockey games and reaping revenues as a result, it's hockey-related revenue. It's still up to the two sides to agree what it actually does count.
Could very well be true on the expansion fees point. Of course, the logic behind expansion fees is that they devalue every other franchise by some percentage, and players don't hold actual franchises (with all their sticker price and liabilities), they hold a portion of their receipts. Otherwise, I still beg you to tell me what part of "anything to do with staging hockey games and reaping revenues as a result" is excluded.


Quote:
And your exercise was only half relevant. The NFL sharing model is based on gate receipts and ALL tv contract money, in addition to other elements. You didn't bother to consider even a hypothetical value of local tv money to see how the revenue sharing would look in that case.
How in the hell was my exercise only half relevant? I carefully defined and answered the damn question I set out to answer in a way that nobody on this board can quibble with. Just because I didn't answer a second question related to how much TV money would stack up doesn't mean I didn't answer what I meant to.

There are no figures published for the values of these NHL TV deals. In the other thread, you guessed a few out of the air based on this or that you've read in the past without even linking sources, thank you (and for which offense I see you now delete parts of my posts), but really, there's no way to rigorously answer what you're asking for. The NHL doesn't have a big national TV contract anyways, and I don't think for a minute the NFL would split up its little private TV deals in the same way if they weren't blessed with the big national contracts they have. You can't expect teams to negotiate the best TV deal they can get if they get nothing for it.

My larger point is one that I don't think anybody has any business trying to put down at this point: people are blindly complaining that the NFL does more "sharing," but at least a huge chuck of that sharing (the gate receipts) would stand to do less than 40% of what the NHL is planning to do in direct redistribution. There's a difference. And so maybe the NFL actually does more redistribution than the NHL would if they tried to mimic their model (if such a thing is even possible without a major TV deal). But it's a hell of a lot closer than people suggest, if just looking at the gate receipts tells you anything.

Please don't keep bringing up these other unknowable questions for which no figures exist and pretend they defeat the larger point. If 60% of the NFL's total redistribution came from its TV deals and 40% came from its gate receipts, they'd be talking about the exact same proportional amount of redistribution as the NHL. If it's a little more lopsided on the TV end, maybe they do a little more redistribution than the NHL. Whoop doo. It's not like people keep portraying as this huge chasm between the two leagues. The NHL is planning on redistributing 66% of the total profits from all teams that earned a profit last year. Is that seriously not good enough? Maybe you should ask why the players aren't even bothering to ask for more.


Last edited by haseoke39: 01-03-2013 at 08:55 PM.
haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:43 PM
  #70
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I don't think there is any moral component to it and to be frank I am at a loss to understand what you mean. My point is thast if I propose two things that I know you will not independently accept and then are willing to change on one knowing that it won't make a difference, is that negotiating? Can I point to my willingness to moderate my position on item1 but not item 2 if they are linked?
Yes. Yes, if you propose 2 things that your opponent dislikes and then only concede one of them, you are negotiating. That's what I believe.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:08 PM
  #71
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Yes. Yes, if you propose 2 things that your opponent dislikes and then only concede one of them, you are negotiating. That's what I believe.
It may be negotiating, but it is not in good faith if you intend to pull both off the table when you are unwilling to move on both.

And it is not dislike, but something that you know the other side won't except.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:14 PM
  #72
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,366
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Both sides know this will be settled in a conference room, not a court room.
No, rational people on both sides know this should be settled in a conference room, not a court room. I'm worried too many people on both sides - especially the PA - want to settle it in a court room though.

NJDevs26 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:17 PM
  #73
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
To be fair, the NHL's first proposals were pretty extreme. Easy to make it look like you're negotiating more than the other side when your first proposal was as far off the map as the NHL's was.
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.
Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

What is "extreme" or "ridiculous" about an offer that merely mirrors what the opposite side has been getting in the last deal? 57-43 for the side that takes the risk of the business and pays for the costs, vs. the side that doesn't have any risk for the business.

With the make whole, the deal is going to end up being more than 50-50 for the players, and yet they STILL whine about that opening offer.

Scheme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:19 PM
  #74
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
How the hell hasn't Bettman been negotiating?
Both sides have been negotiating. That isn't the issue.

The issue is Bettman/Owners issuing threats/ultimatums and then backing down. Ain't nobody going to take you seriously when you do that, time after time.

Now the players are in danger of the same thing with the DOI thing - this time, they're either actually going to have to do it, or it will be taken as an idle threat.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:22 PM
  #75
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 13,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Puck View Post
This is ridiculous. 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. Yesterday's deadline was purely for show.

This is just so obviously a negotiating ploy.
The union could do that. Not sure if a union has ever disclaimed 100% of their members though?

Usually unions do that for a subsection of the union membership.

mouser 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 07:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.