The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA
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?
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.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
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.
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).
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
