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 Proposal (PDF)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2004, 07:38 PM
  #1
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
NHLPA Proposal (PDF)

Grabbed this link from the Press Conference thread.

http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3398

A lot of interesting info in here.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:51 PM
  #2
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
the fact that they have this proposal posted on their website shows that this is nothing more than a ploy to sway public opinion.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:01 PM
  #3
Lexicon Devil
Registered User
 
Lexicon Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
the fact that they have this proposal posted on their website shows that this is nothing more than a ploy to sway public opinion.
That makes zero sense.

Obviously they're going to play the PR game. That doesn't imply that the offer is illegitimate.

Lexicon Devil is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:04 PM
  #4
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
It means that if they were bargaining in good faith, they wouldn't be posting their proposal on the WWW for every Joe Hockey to read before the league has dealt with it. In fact, even after the league has addressed the proposal, it isn't in good faith to post it.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:20 PM
  #5
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
It means that if they were bargaining in good faith, they wouldn't be posting their proposal on the WWW for every Joe Hockey to read before the league has dealt with it. In fact, even after the league has addressed the proposal, it isn't in good faith to post it.

They have every right to post it considering Bettman's method of negotiaton. If they post it in its entirity, Bettman can't come back with distortions and half-truths about what is in it in any attempt to sway public opinion to the owners' side.

They put it out there, let the fans see that the players are offering up a lot and have the fans put pressure on the owners to save the season.

Once the fans turn against the owners, this lockout should end pretty quick.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:23 PM
  #6
Drake1588
UNATCO
 
Drake1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 27,846
vCash: 500
There is some irony in accusing the union of starting to play a PR game, considering the extent to which the league has tried to wield PR as a cudgel for months now...

Drake1588 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:23 PM
  #7
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
What has Bettman done that is bargaining in bad faith? He has gagged the owners, which is a good thing. Nobody should be speaking out of turn. The players are shooting from the lip like drunken cowboys at the saloon. The NHLPA is the one that has continually been bargaining in bad faith and in ways that are prolonging settlement.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:31 PM
  #8
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
What has Bettman done that is bargaining in bad faith?
He claimed that he never discussed negotiating whether or not contracts are guaranteed which was technically true but he had also set a memo to the PA indicating that it would a topic of conversation.

He also whined for quite some time about how the PA wouldn't meet with the owners and scolded them for it, then months later it was revealed that they had been meeting all along but that the sides had signed a non-disclosure agreement that they wouldn't reveal that they had been meeting.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:36 PM
  #9
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
They have every right to post it considering Bettman's method of negotiaton. If they post it in its entirity, Bettman can't come back with distortions and half-truths about what is in it in any attempt to sway public opinion to the owners' side.

They put it out there, let the fans see that the players are offering up a lot and have the fans put pressure on the owners to save the season.

Once the fans turn against the owners, this lockout should end pretty quick.
My thoughts exactly.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:52 PM
  #10
Scorpion88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
Good thing they included Arturs Irbe in this critical meeting. His input would have been absolutely crutial in making these decisions!!

Scorpion88 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:59 PM
  #11
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
They have every right to post it considering Bettman's method of negotiaton. If they post it in its entirity, Bettman can't come back with distortions and half-truths about what is in it in any attempt to sway public opinion to the owners' side.

They put it out there, let the fans see that the players are offering up a lot and have the fans put pressure on the owners to save the season.

Once the fans turn against the owners, this lockout should end pretty quick.
The rejection of this current offer will not turn fans against the owners. It is alot of fluff led by a 24% reduction they can take and throw in the garbage right now. A 24% rollback would be fairly signifigant at my company here in the real world. In the NHL it does nothing to solve the problem at hand.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:00 PM
  #12
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,950
vCash: 50
I can't see anything worng with posting it. Its their offer and they want it publically known. That's their choice. I think the people are getting paranoid if they are bagging the NHLPA over this.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:01 PM
  #13
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
They might have to cancel the money fight!!!

Seriously what is 24% to the majority who are grossly overpaid?

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:03 PM
  #14
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
It is not a proper bargaining tactic to make public a proposal at anytime, let alone before the other side has a chance to deal with it. You only make public once it has been accepted. I think they believe it will be rejected and are counting on some angry fans thinking this was a good offer.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:05 PM
  #15
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
I can't see anything worng with posting it. Its their offer and they want it publically known. That's their choice. I think the people are getting paranoid if they are bagging the NHLPA over this.
I do not have a problem with them posting it because PR is part of the business. They may fool some but they will not fool many.It is far from what it will take to end this lockout.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:17 PM
  #16
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
It is not a proper bargaining tactic to make public a proposal at anytime, let alone before the other side has a chance to deal with it. You only make public once it has been accepted. I think they believe it will be rejected and are counting on some angry fans thinking this was a good offer.
When the NHL made several proposals to the union a few months ago, an outline of the proposals was up on NHL.com almost immediately. How is this any different?

And of course the NHL has a propaganda website set up, which contains article after article ripping the NHLPA:

www.nhlcbanews.com


Last edited by MS: 12-09-2004 at 10:23 PM.
MS is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:48 PM
  #17
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
The rejection of this current offer will not turn fans against the owners. It is alot of fluff led by a 24% reduction they can take and throw in the garbage right now. A 24% rollback would be fairly signifigant at my company here in the real world. In the NHL it does nothing to solve the problem at hand.
Says you.

To the average hockey fan, they'll hear that the players are prepared to give back a quarter of their salary and that's about it. The players are willing to cut a quarter of their salary and the owners won't accept it?

The public have accepted fluffier things from the owners in the past.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:08 PM
  #18
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Says you.

To the average hockey fan, they'll hear that the players are prepared to give back a quarter of their salary and that's about it. The players are willing to cut a quarter of their salary and the owners won't accept it?

The public have accepted fluffier things from the owners in the past.
So what you are saying is that this was a proposal aimed at the average hockey fan as the NHLPA try to end the lockout by turning fans against the owners without trying to solve the problems at hand. They may win a few fans with the proposal but it will not be the average fan that signs on the dotted line. The owners are going get a deal that works for them and this was not the one.
You know full well that a 24% cut in the current setup can be made back incredibly quickly. Yes the guys on current contracts do have to lay on the grenade to a degree but it will keep the current system intact and that is not a system that the owners will agree to.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:16 PM
  #19
Drake1588
UNATCO
 
Drake1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 27,846
vCash: 500
Without question, the owners will sit up and take notice at the sheer amount of money involved in this proposal. For that reason it is the basis for the first real negotiations to begin, since the two sides are effectively now in the same dollar range. While neither the NHL nor the NHLPA expected the first proposal to be acceptable to everyone, this is a significant start to a process in which the players will expect and be expected to give up still more concessions.

Drake1588 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:20 PM
  #20
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS

And of course the NHL has a propaganda website set up, which contains article after article ripping the NHLPA:

www.nhlcbanews.com

The NHLPA has one too.

www.nhlpa.com

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:39 PM
  #21
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
THe owners state they are losing $270mil, so the players take a pay cut over $270mil and offer ways to keep thenm lower. How can a businessman make the case that this isnt enough. He needs it guaranteed? How can people buy that fluff?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:48 PM
  #22
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,950
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
THe owners state they are losing $270mil, so the players take a pay cut over $270mil and offer ways to keep thenm lower. How can a businessman make the case that this isnt enough. He needs it guaranteed? How can people buy that fluff?
$270m before additional business costs like interest on loans, depreciation etc IIRC. I think it comes out closer to $400m (depending on figure fudging).

But its a good start by the NHLPA. Tack on a nasty luxury tax and its close.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:34 AM
  #23
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
What has Bettman done that is bargaining in bad faith? He has gagged the owners, which is a good thing. Nobody should be speaking out of turn. The players are shooting from the lip like drunken cowboys at the saloon. The NHLPA is the one that has continually been bargaining in bad faith and in ways that are prolonging settlement.
Do you have any idea what bargaining in bad faith is? What has the NHL done to bargain in bad faith, let me see, the NLRB would view all of the following bargaining in bad faith.

1. They have not tabled a formal proposal since negotiations started, 6 one paragraph concepts are not proposals

2. Like it or not the union has made 2 proposals, neither the league has offered a counter proposal

3. Take it or leave it bargaining is a huge no no. Negotiation is just that. The NLRB demands that both sides come to the table with the clear intent on give and take to get an agreement

4. Proposing items that are mandatory subjects of bargaining that are designed to frustrate the process of bargaining is a no no. They like to refer to this as surface bargaining.

5. It is highly illegal not to provide the books when you start screaming financial circumstance. This does not mean the Levitt report, the PA is entitled under law to the real books. Oh and if the owners want to go to impasse they're goona have to cough up with the real books to the NLRB

6. The league has already been taken to the board over there lack of providing a list of locked out players

Add it all up you get bad faith. The players are playing by all the labor laws.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:46 AM
  #24
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady

1. They have not tabled a formal proposal since negotiations started, 6 one paragraph concepts are not proposals
Those are proposals. There's nothing that says anything about length. They are proposals. So the NLRB would have no case; as you suggest otherwise.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:55 AM
  #25
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
Those are proposals. There's nothing that says anything about length. They are proposals. So the NLRB would have no case; as you suggest otherwise.

Sorry but proposals must contain more than one subject of bargaining. To negotiatiate on only one subject of bargaining and refusing to bargain on any other mandatory subject of bargaing is a no no. Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages, conditions of work, arbitration and free agency.

vanlady is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:40 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.