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, 09:58 PM
  #251
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
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?
Not really what I'm saying. From a league-wide standpoint, the mid-tier players increases come from the savings on the top-tier guys who don't make it to market. Players who sign long-term extensions with their teams generally make less on those deals than players who sign long-term contracts as UFAs (that's where your magical stick is). It's the absence of these players from the UFA market that drive up the price of both the one or two top-tier guys left and also the mid-tier guys below them, as demand outweighs supply.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 09:59 PM
  #252
Oni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
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%.
I don't understand how we can say they were "successful". As a collective, I'd argue the NHLPA are easily worse off considering that the vast majority lost significant pay cheques for revenue neutral concessions.

This wining vs losing is the reason that these discussions are so poisonous. Lockouts/Strikes are supposed to be driven by the fact that the employer can't generate profit and the employees cannot generate salaries to drive to a result. When people are arbitrarily focusing on winning / losing based on "intangibles", you get this complete screw up that was the NHL lockout.

Let's look at this another way:
If back in Nov, the players association suddenly said "we want to re-prioritize and replace the make whole provisions, with these contracting rights changes", I find it incredibly hard to believe a deal wouldn't have happened almost immediately.

This would never fly because there is no way, the PA would consciously trade 300 million real tangible dollars for net neutral concessions.

And yet, we are going to argue that these net neutral concessions were worth the 700-800 million lost in prolonging this lockout?

Oni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:01 PM
  #253
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,699
vCash: 500
Oni, that last question is entirely opinion. If I were a member of the union, I would say yes, because job security and freedom of movement, such as they are, can be just as precious to a person as wages. Some others might say no. Unions are not ideological blocs.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:02 PM
  #254
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
What are you talking about.
I said no such thing.
My apologies, algernon said it, you merely continued the nonsensical argument.

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:03 PM
  #255
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Isn't the deal closer to the one the Players offered on Dec 6, when Bettman threw his fit and went home?

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:06 PM
  #256
Oni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Oni, that last question is entirely opinion. If I were a member of the union, I would say yes, because job security and freedom of movement, such as they are, can be just as precious to a person as wages. Some others might say no. Unions are not ideological blocs.
Then why didn't this happen?

You yourself earlier claimed the owners didn't care about contracting rights... The PA should have just made that switch over somewhere along the way before watching 600-800 million go by the wayside.... Heck, they could give up a % point and make it 49% if these intangibles are worth so much. 1% over 8-10 years even with inflation / additional revenues is probably still well below losing half a year.

Also, why are we pretending that the players negotiated job security? They did NOT negotiate minimum contract lengths! They negotiated the ability to negotiate a longer contract which most of them will not succeed in, and those that do, have have at least financial security in the form of getting paid multiple millions of dollars per year.

Oni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:07 PM
  #257
Riptide
Moderator
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oni View Post
Let's look at this another way:
If back in Nov, the players association suddenly said "we want to re-prioritize and replace the make whole provisions, with these contracting rights changes", I find it incredibly hard to believe a deal wouldn't have happened almost immediately.

This would never fly because there is no way, the PA would consciously trade 300 million real tangible dollars for net neutral concessions.

And yet, we are going to argue that these net neutral concessions were worth the 700-800 million lost in prolonging this lockout?
You're suggesting that the PA would have dropped the 300m for better contractual rights (or ones that remained the same)?

Wouldn't fly with the NHL. They wanted 3 things. Lower split, contract limits and a tighter variance. They eventually got all 3 - although had to give slightly on all of them. Make whole to get the 50/50, less contract limits then they wanted, and a looser variance than they wanted. Then have to give up a few other things I'm not sure they would have wanted (on buyouts and arbitration).

__________________
"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, 10:07 PM
  #258
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 18,210
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.
I kind of think they did this to insure the KHL would comply with previous statements that they wouldn't target NHL players under contract. Well rumors are they aren't doing what they said they would and my feeling is the NHL might punish them with Olympics if this turns ugly.

The Zetterberg Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:17 PM
  #259
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oni View Post
Then why didn't this happen?

You yourself earlier claimed the owners didn't care about contracting rights... The PA should have just made that switch over somewhere along the way before watching 600-800 million go by the wayside.... Heck, they could give up a % point and make it 49% if these intangibles are worth so much. 1% over 8-10 years even with inflation / additional revenues is probably still well below losing half a year.

Also, why are we pretending that the players negotiated job security? They did NOT negotiate minimum contract lengths! They negotiated the ability to negotiate a longer contract which most of them will not succeed in, and those that do, have have at least financial security in the form of getting paid multiple millions of dollars per year.
Job security: 7 potential years of guaranteed pay is better job security than 5 potential years. Simple.

The contracting issues were important, but no one ever claimed they were more important that the money the players felt owed to them by the contracts already put to paper. That issue was first and foremost in these negotiations. Once the NHLPA started gaining traction in at least retaining some of that money, the negotiations on the contracting issues began in earnest.

I didn't say the owners don't care about contracting rights, either. I said that the split was of overriding importance.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:21 PM
  #260
Oni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Job security: 7 potential years of guaranteed pay is better job security than 5 potential years. Simple.

The contracting issues were important, but no one ever claimed they were more important that the money the players felt owed to them by the contracts already put to paper. That issue was first and foremost in these negotiations. Once the NHLPA started gaining traction in at least retaining some of that money, the negotiations on the contracting issues began in earnest.

I didn't say the owners don't care about contracting rights, either. I said that the split was of overriding importance.
I don't understand.

If the contracting rights aren't more important than the "money that was owned to them" (300 million) how on earth can these contracting rights justify the additional loss of money that was half the season??! (600-800 million?)

Also, is a 5% chance of an extra two years of job security worth half a year of real salary?

Oni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:27 PM
  #261
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Not really what I'm saying. From a league-wide standpoint, the mid-tier players increases come from the savings on the top-tier guys who don't make it to market. Players who sign long-term extensions with their teams generally make less on those deals than players who sign long-term contracts as UFAs (that's where your magical stick is). It's the absence of these players from the UFA market that drive up the price of both the one or two top-tier guys left and also the mid-tier guys below them, as demand outweighs supply.
Got you - this makes sense. So maybe top end guys don't end up making the same and that gap is what trickles down, to appropriate a loaded term.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:28 PM
  #262
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oni View Post
I don't understand.

If the contracting rights aren't more important than the "money that was owned to them" (300 million) how on earth can these contracting rights justify the additional loss of money that was half the season??! (600-800 million?)

Also, is a 5% chance of an extra two years of job security worth half a year of real salary?
Although your math obviously works $600-800M>300M. They got a lot of rights including the variation and 7yr contacts. The x factor here is if they took that deal and didn't fight back, we would have been here at the end of this CBA, and again. At least if/when we have another lockout, the owners will think twice and expect a battle and from the PA's perspective, they will be negotiating from a better position than they would had they accepted the old offer.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 10:29 PM
  #263
Nihiliste
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Nihiliste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,450
vCash: 500
To be honest the PA got a better deal than I expected they would, and as much as I was anti-PA through the last couple months of this process, the concessions they got are absolutely important ones. More than anything, the deal they got provides more flexibility for individual players in addition to things like pension and make whole to go out and sign the deals that suit them, even if as a whole they all get a bottom line of 50% collectively.

IDK, it seems like 7 years vs 5 is a small concessions but two 7 year deals are almost the same length of time as three 5 year deals. Job security and security in where you're going to live for the next 7 years IS important.

I do think that the main problem though is that the PA could probably have gotten these concessions earlier if they had been willing to work within the NHL framework rather than constantly demanding guaranteed raises and delinkage.

Nihiliste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:04 PM
  #264
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihiliste View Post
To be honest the PA got a better deal than I expected they would, and as much as I was anti-PA through the last couple months of this process, the concessions they got are absolutely important ones. More than anything, the deal they got provides more flexibility for individual players in addition to things like pension and make whole to go out and sign the deals that suit them, even if as a whole they all get a bottom line of 50% collectively.

IDK, it seems like 7 years vs 5 is a small concessions but two 7 year deals are almost the same length of time as three 5 year deals. Job security and security in where you're going to live for the next 7 years IS important.

I do think that the main problem though is that the PA could probably have gotten these concessions earlier if they had been willing to work within the NHL framework rather than constantly demanding guaranteed raises and delinkage.
While I agree with most of what you say...
I think that if the players negotiated off of the leagues Oct 16 proposal, they probably could have won similar contractual concessions from the owners while saving an 82 game season.
Fehr responding with 3 separate de-linked proposals, only to agree to very similar finances 4 months later is what I am questioning.

Wouldn't it have been better to at least try to win those contractual concessions from the owners without losing almost half of the season?
Why the 3 de-linked proposals?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:27 AM
  #265
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,003
vCash: 500
I cannot help thinking that the driving factor behind the prolonged lockout was very much the PA's desire to prove that they (no longer?) cannot be pushed over. I suspect that many players honestly believe that choosing to negotiate off the League's October framework would have made PA seem weak and showing strong unified front throughout the negotiations was in itself a victory for the Association. Unfortunately it came in expense of its current members (in terms of lost salary).

Noldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:02 PM
  #266
Tkachuk4MVP
23 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
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.



Like I said, the PA never made an offer that long ago.

Tkachuk4MVP 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 04:46 AM.

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.