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.

Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 06:24 PM
  #226
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Cool. I was ballparking that one off the cuff. I usually try to be generous to my opponents when I do that.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:57 PM
  #227
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=RustE;57229001]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
But it only increased from $60 million to $64.3 million.
Again... small tweaks.
But I'll add it to the OP.

Why couldn't these little things be negotiated 3 months ago?[/QUOTE]

because the NHLPA hired a man named Donald Fehr.
Right.

+ why did Fehr refuse to start negotiating last June or July ?

Habtchum* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:04 PM
  #228
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
+ why did Fehr refuse to start negotiating last June or July ?
He didn't. The PA's opening offer was delivered around (or even before) that time.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:16 PM
  #229
Tkachuk4MVP
23 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
He didn't. The PA's opening offer was delivered around (or even before) that time.


Source? This is the first I've heard of a PA offer from that long ago.

Tkachuk4MVP is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:58 PM
  #230
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Fehr responded to the very reasonable Oct. 16th offer with three separate de-linked offers.

That's what made this whole mess last so much longer.

For the owners, the very big issue was money and they came right out and said they were open to negotiating 'make whole'.
If the nhlpa was so close on most of the money issues, then why the hell didn't they just make a counter offer based on the leagues proposal? Why make 3 de-linked proposals?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:01 PM
  #231
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
Source? This is the first I've heard of a PA offer from that long ago.
The PA stated they were happy with an unchanged CBA.

That was their opening offer.

It was the league that wouldn't accept it as a starting point for negotiations.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:17 PM
  #232
JS19
Four Kicks
 
JS19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
I'm just wondering, I know the CBA was dominated by bigger issues such as pension, make whole etc.

But what did the PA and NHL negotiate in terms of Olympic Hockey? Unless it wasn't even an issue for both of them.

JS19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:19 PM
  #233
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS19 View Post
I'm just wondering, I know the CBA was dominated by bigger issues such as pension, make whole etc.

But what did the PA and NHL negotiate in terms of Olympic Hockey? Unless it wasn't even an issue for both of them.
They decided to put together a NHL-NHLPA Joint Committee to decide on a later date whether NHL players participate.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:29 PM
  #234
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
He didn't. The PA's opening offer was delivered around (or even before) that time. [June/July]
No it wasn't. The PA's first offer (after they finally sat down) was 1 month after the NHL gave them their opening offer in early/mid July. The PA's opening offer/response was their proposal of a 4 yr deal, 3 de-linked years, with a player option to snapback to 57% in the 4th year.

Up until that time, the PA refused for several different reasons to meet with the NHL. In Sept 11 it was that they still hadn't gathered enough info/input from the players. In Jan/Feb it was something about not interrupting the AllStar break. In June 12 it was something about waiting until after the playoffs were done.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:39 PM
  #235
JS19
Four Kicks
 
JS19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
They decided to put together a NHL-NHLPA Joint Committee to decide on a later date whether NHL players participate.
Alright, thanks. Given the way that the negotiations have gone prior to agreements, you'd have to wonder if players are going to get a chance to play in Sochi. On one side, you have players who are prideful and want to play for their country while on the other side you have owners who likely would oppose a 2-week shutdown as it hurts their profit margins and slows down momentum to get arenas filled if cities aren't aware of NHL activity.

JS19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 09:02 PM
  #236
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Cool, but that's not what you said. You said you "wonder how much they paid the great Fehr?" They paid him nothing.
What are you talking about.
I said no such thing.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 09:26 PM
  #237
Oni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Wow.

I don't understand how a thread can go so many pages with such a fundamental disconnect.

So much "free market capitalism" arguments for something involving COLLECTIVE bargaining. If this was about "individual rights" the union is dissolved and everyone negotiates individually (and they all undercut each other and drive salaries waaayy down)

Unions and Collective Bargaining exist because the theory is that a collective of specialized workers can consistently negotiate better deals for the collective (sometimes (or often?) these can actually be worse deals for the exceptional) through this form of negotiation (which flies in the face of capitalism).

So it's amazing to see that "individual contract rights" were such a big deal, when they truly are neutral across the union since they just change the way the pie is split up.

Even this contract length argument breaks down because longer term deals mean that more money is committed when people come up for new contracts in 6-7 years. The person above (forget who) that commented the contracting was actually owners vs. owners made a great point.

Unions exist because the belief is that they make the employee's pie bigger. In this case, the 50% HRR and Make Whole number is what the union primarily negotiates. In other industries, they will negotiate benefits and other intangibles, but in those cases, they aren't revenue neutral, they are additional employer contributions (more sick days = employer contribution etc.). These negotiations happen because often, what the employer gives vs. what the employer gets are different (for health benefits, its not taxed etc. sick days are offset by lower employee production while sick at work etc.). These were generally not issues that popped up (although the pension may be if it is a way for employees to reduce their earnings during high tax periods and increase during low tax periods - in all fairness, I have not looked much into the pension deal)

From there forward, once the union feels that the pie is "maxed", a well educated union will have the overwhelming majority of the "average" membership (those that aren't going to qualify for these additional "rights" being negotiated) force a deal.

In this case, I don't think the union was well educated because all these "average players" fought for stuff that they are going to be on the losing end of. They clearly drank some of the PA Kool-Aid and gave up cheques fighting for minority membership "rights" (which didn't increase the pie).

Oni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:02 PM
  #238
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 500
Yeah, all that blather is meaningless. Why? Because unions in most industries don't represent a group of people negotiating exclusive service contracts with their employers on an individual basis.

In a pro sports negotiation in which it is clear from the very beginning that the pie will be shrinking, the union's job is to negotiate the most freedom of movement and most job security and financial security possible. In this atmosphere, it was clear the job security was going to take a hit as well, but the union's job is still to maximize what's possible in that situation. In these things, the NHLPA was successful because they were able to use the league's stronger desire to shrink the pie, as opposed to restrict the players, as leverage. 50% is 50%. Beyond the promotion of parity (also a unique concern to pro sports that doesn't exist in other collective bargaining), the league doesn't care at all whether or not a guy can get a 7 year deal instead of a 5 year deal. 50% is 50%.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:04 PM
  #239
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
No it wasn't.
Yes, sorry, it was.

The PA explicitly offered to keep playing under the existing CBA. That is an OFFER. It is also a starting point for negotiations.

It was the NHL who refused that as a starting point, and consequently shut down the league.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:12 PM
  #240
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Yes, sorry, it was.

The PA explicitly offered to keep playing under the existing CBA. That is an OFFER. It is also a starting point for negotiations.

It was the NHL who refused that as a starting point, and consequently shut down the league.
It wasn't actually any kind of proposal for the next CBA. It was an offer to continue playing under the old CBA for this season only while negotiating the next one. Since it explicitly disclaimed any attempt to outline what the next CBA should look like, I'm gonna call ******** on that being an offer.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:12 PM
  #241
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that you disagree with me.


  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:17 PM
  #242
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oni View Post
Wow.

I don't understand how a thread can go so many pages with such a fundamental disconnect.

So much "free market capitalism" arguments for something involving COLLECTIVE bargaining. If this was about "individual rights" the union is dissolved and everyone negotiates individually (and they all undercut each other and drive salaries waaayy down)

Unions and Collective Bargaining exist because the theory is that a collective of specialized workers can consistently negotiate better deals for the collective (sometimes (or often?) these can actually be worse deals for the exceptional) through this form of negotiation (which flies in the face of capitalism).

So it's amazing to see that "individual contract rights" were such a big deal, when they truly are neutral across the union since they just change the way the pie is split up.

Even this contract length argument breaks down because longer term deals mean that more money is committed when people come up for new contracts in 6-7 years. The person above (forget who) that commented the contracting was actually owners vs. owners made a great point.

Unions exist because the belief is that they make the employee's pie bigger. In this case, the 50% HRR and Make Whole number is what the union primarily negotiates. In other industries, they will negotiate benefits and other intangibles, but in those cases, they aren't revenue neutral, they are additional employer contributions (more sick days = employer contribution etc.). These negotiations happen because often, what the employer gives vs. what the employer gets are different (for health benefits, its not taxed etc. sick days are offset by lower employee production while sick at work etc.). These were generally not issues that popped up (although the pension may be if it is a way for employees to reduce their earnings during high tax periods and increase during low tax periods - in all fairness, I have not looked much into the pension deal)

From there forward, once the union feels that the pie is "maxed", a well educated union will have the overwhelming majority of the "average" membership (those that aren't going to qualify for these additional "rights" being negotiated) force a deal.

In this case, I don't think the union was well educated because all these "average players" fought for stuff that they are going to be on the losing end of. They clearly drank some of the PA Kool-Aid and gave up cheques fighting for minority membership "rights" (which didn't increase the pie).
The salient point here is that whatever psychic value you want to ascribe to the contracting terms, it's psychic value that doesn't affect 88% of the league. 88% of players will never sign a 6 or more year deal, or a front-loaded deal, so it fairly boggles the mind to think that this is supposed to be their big win here.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:18 PM
  #243
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Why did we miss 4 months of hockey when things were so close to the current cba in mid October?
Fehr's plan from Day 1 was to go to the deadline.

Cawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:19 PM
  #244
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that you disagree with me.

I mean, I have no horse in this race in the sense that I don't care when the PA started negotiating. But to call their plea to "please just refrain from locking us out while we put forward some proposals" a substantive proposal in itself is kinda....nonsensical.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:24 PM
  #245
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The salient point here is that whatever psychic value you want to ascribe to the contracting terms, it's psychic value that doesn't affect 88% of the league. 88% of players will never sign a 6 or more year deal, or a front-loaded deal, so it fairly boggles the mind to think that this is supposed to be their big win here.
For one thing, the elimination of front-loaded deals reduces the escrow load on the union as a whole. The only people who don't benefit from a lack of front-loaded contracts are the guys who would've been signing them. For another, see these two quotes below from earlier in the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Also, in a system with 5 year limits, 2nd liners would be getting a lot of 2-3 year deals and everyone else would be getting 1-2 year deals. With the number being 7 years, 2nd liners might get 4-5 year deals and you'd see a lot more 3 year deals among 3rd and 4th liners. So another thing that greatly affects the rank and file membership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
To expound the importance of contract term limits in the players eyes...

Longer term contracts reduces the supply of high tier UFA talent each off-season, which in turn causes bidding wars for mid-tier guys. Just because 10% of the league gets long term deals, it still affects the economics for everyone else.
And finally, the league's initial proposal included an all-out attack on contracting rights of players, damaging them on every front from ELCs to UFAs. The fact that the union fought that off is going to be considered a small victory within a larger loss for the players.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:32 PM
  #246
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
For one thing, the elimination of front-loaded deals reduces the escrow load on the union as a whole. The only people who don't benefit from a lack of front-loaded contracts are the guys who would've been signing them. For another, see these two quotes below from earlier in the thread.

And finally, the league's initial proposal included an all-out attack on contracting rights of players, damaging them on every front from ELCs to UFAs. The fact that the union fought that off is going to be considered a small victory within a larger loss for the players.
I'll grant you everything in that post except that the argument that longer-term deals increase bidding wars for mid-tier guys. At the same time as you have fewer star players on the market, you have proportionately less money on the market also. Net neutral in that sense. So maybe the GMs spend more hours fretting over what mid-level guy they can get, but the bidding war has a proportionately lower ceiling, so they should end up with the same contract.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:37 PM
  #247
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I'll grant you everything in that post except that the argument that longer-term deals increase bidding wars for mid-tier guys. At the same time as you have fewer star players on the market, you have proportionately less money on the market also. Net neutral in that sense. So maybe the GMs spend more hours fretting over what mid-level guy they can get, but the bidding war has a proportionately lower ceiling, so they should end up with the same contract.
I'm not sure I agree with that. If two teams were trying to sign the same guy to a 7 year, $7m contract, the team that loses is still going to have that $7m to spend after the player signs elsewhere. They might not spend the $7m on the mid-tier player, but they might also be willing to spend more than where teams had already been competing for the mid-tier guy. So the presence of the team with the deeper pockets on the market drives up the price for the player. I think Tim Connolly is a good example of that kind of thing happening.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:38 PM
  #248
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Also, in a system with 5 year limits, 2nd liners would be getting a lot of 2-3 year deals and everyone else would be getting 1-2 year deals. With the number being 7 years, 2nd liners might get 4-5 year deals and you'd see a lot more 3 year deals among 3rd and 4th liners. So another thing that greatly affects the rank and file membership.
I call BS on this. Even if the stars are all getting 5/7 year deals, there's nothing stopping other players from getting the same crap they're getting now. 2-4 yr deals. Teams are not going to shorten the length of the deal just because their star can only get a 5 yr deal. Other quality players who are willing to sign for the right amount (say James Neals deal 6 yrs, 5m) would easily get deals longer than 2-3 years.

This is the same BS that says the stars would still get paid, and that the money for the 2nd tier guys would disappear. That's crap too. There's always a team that will be able to afford paying/overpaying for 2nd tier talent - if only because they can't sign the top players.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:40 PM
  #249
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
I call BS on this. Even if the stars are all getting 5/7 year deals, there's nothing stopping other players from getting the same crap they're getting now. 2-4 yr deals. Teams are not going to shorten the length of the deal just because their star can only get a 5 yr deal. Other quality players who are willing to sign for the right amount (say James Neals deal 6 yrs, 5m) would easily get deals longer than 2-3 years.
You might be right, but I'm 100% sure the NHLPA disagrees with you.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:49 PM
  #250
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I'm not sure I agree with that. If two teams were trying to sign the same guy to a 7 year, $7m contract, the team that loses is still going to have that $7m to spend after the player signs elsewhere. They might not spend the $7m on the mid-tier player, but they might also be willing to spend more than where teams had already been competing for the mid-tier guy. So the presence of the team with the deeper pockets on the market drives up the price for the player. I think Tim Connolly is a good example of that kind of thing happening.
Yeah, but the whole point is that if all that money was tied up in long term deals, it would be less likely that there were two teams sitting around with $7M to blow on the mid-level guys in the first place.

Think about it: you're basically saying that top guys are making the same, now mid-level guys are going to be making more, too, so who gets the short end of this magical stick?

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 05:44 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.