HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Guarantee Clause

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-21-2012, 12:29 PM
  #1
Lewy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 377
vCash: 500
Guarantee Clause

Anyone think the owners and players can work a guarantee into the new CBA under which neither side can lock-out or strike. Play would continue under the old CBA while ongoing negotiations took place. Bad idea? Do both sides balk?

Lewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 12:31 PM
  #2
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewy View Post
Anyone think the owners and players can work a guarantee into the new CBA under which neither side can lock-out or strike. Play would continue under the old CBA while ongoing negotiations took place. Bad idea? Do both sides balk?
Why would either want this? And how would you enforce a clause in an expired CBA? (queue the lawyers)

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 12:33 PM
  #3
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewy View Post
Anyone think the owners and players can work a guarantee into the new CBA under which neither side can lock-out or strike. Play would continue under the old CBA while ongoing negotiations took place. Bad idea? Do both sides balk?
The problem, under what economic structure does play continue? At certain points, people/players need to be paid, and what economic arrangement is to be used to do that?

Not that it can't be done, but there'd still have to be an agreed upon arrangement as to how to do it.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 12:36 PM
  #4
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewy View Post
Anyone think the owners and players can work a guarantee into the new CBA under which neither side can lock-out or strike. Play would continue under the old CBA while ongoing negotiations took place. Bad idea? Do both sides balk?
Horrible idea. Think about what would have happened this time around. The current CBA would never end because the players would have zero reason to negotiate any concessions.

Basically doing this ensures its a perpetual CBA because neither side has a reason to give up anything, and if its not working for one side, they have no out.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 12:39 PM
  #5
tko78
Registered User
 
tko78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Why would either want this? And how would you enforce a clause in an expired CBA? (queue the lawyers)
It's not too difficult to include a clause in an agreement that says something along the lines of, "If, as of INSERT DATE OF AGREEMENT EXPIRY, no new agreement has been reached between the Parties, this Agreement continues to be of force and effect until such time as a new agreement has been reached."

As to why you would want to do this, I have no idea... clearly, if a new agreement hasn't been reached, the old agreement is not working for at least one of the parties and there would be no reason to want the old agreement to continue.

tko78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 12:39 PM
  #6
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,259
vCash: 500
The one thing that has to be done going forward, is once a deal is reached, then 1 yr before it expires, there has to be a negotiation started right then...so they would have an entire season to work at it behind the scenes...and sign off before the last year is done...no more of this crap, it's disrespectful to fans, and employees of the league and individual teams and organizations...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 01:24 PM
  #7
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
The one thing that has to be done going forward, is once a deal is reached, then 1 yr before it expires, there has to be a negotiation started right then...so they would have an entire season to work at it behind the scenes...and sign off before the last year is done...no more of this crap, it's disrespectful to fans, and employees of the league and individual teams and organizations...
The problem with this, is neither side has any incentive to truly negotiate in good faith. Go to a used car lot. Their bottom line when you first start talking to them is a hell of a lot different than when you start to walk away.

As much as I'm pissed at Fehr for his delay tactics (a month to respond, not agreeing to meet until July, and never yet putting forth a full proposal, etc), I'm also a realist in that I don't think it would have made that much of a difference in the end result.

The NHL wanted reduced player costs (cite whatever reason you want - franchise value, necessity/league health, etc) and the PA has zero interest in giving those up. Now things would have been easier for the players had both sides come to an agreement without losing games, but for that to happen the players would have had to agree to take a lower split. Meanwhile the players are still demanding raises.

__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 01:28 PM
  #8
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
The problem with this, is neither side has any incentive to truly negotiate in good faith. Go to a used car lot. Their bottom line when you first start talking to them is a hell of a lot different than when you start to walk away.

As much as I'm pissed at Fehr for his delay tactics (a month to respond, not agreeing to meet until July, and never yet putting forth a full proposal, etc), I'm also a realist in that I don't think it would have made that much of a difference in the end result.

The NHL wanted reduced player costs (cite whatever reason you want - franchise value, necessity/league health, etc) and the PA has zero interest in giving those up. Now things would have been easier for the players had both sides come to an agreement without losing games, but for that to happen the players would have had to agree to take a lower split. Meanwhile the players are still demanding raises.
True, you make some very good points, that's just the fan in me, who never wants to see the process go down this road again....

There's gotta be a way to stray from these types of negotiating tactics, Fehr is a manipulator for sure...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 01:53 PM
  #9
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,190
vCash: 500
Given the reports of a "guarantee clause" (relating to not seeing the players' share of revenue, in dollars, decrease from year to year) in the NHLPA's latest offer, can we change the title of this thread? The potential for confusion is obvious.

Mystlyfe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 02:44 PM
  #10
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Horrible idea. Think about what would have happened this time around. The current CBA would never end because the players would have zero reason to negotiate any concessions.

Basically doing this ensures its a perpetual CBA because neither side has a reason to give up anything, and if its not working for one side, they have no out.
You have to have a punitive economic arrangement for the years where things were to be renegotiated. Punitive to both sides. Something like minimum NHL wages to players and owners contribute the previous years payroll amount + 10% - minimum wages to an escrow account to be held and paid out when agreement is reached. If more than one year, 10% additional per year. There are other ways and it is not so difficult to do such that both sides have incentive to come to the table.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 03:21 PM
  #11
disgruntleddave
Registered User
 
disgruntleddave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,493
vCash: 50
The reason why it is a terrible idea:

- If the current CBA starts to screw the owners for some reason (eg: revenues drop to 50% of current while money is still guaranteed to be high), the players will be thrilled to keep playing and the owners can't stop them and get screwed

- If the current CBA starts to be in the benefit of owners somehow, the players can't do anything about it.

I agree that there should be some kind of framework to help ensure that we don't end up with more lockouts, but this is not it. Neither side would go for it.

disgruntleddave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 03:22 PM
  #12
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,468
vCash: 500
why would Bettman/owners give up his prime option of a lockout...

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 04:52 PM
  #13
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
True, you make some very good points, that's just the fan in me, who never wants to see the process go down this road again....

There's gotta be a way to stray from these types of negotiating tactics, Fehr is a manipulator for sure...
The only way there's a way to stray from lockouts is for the NHL to get a deal that allows the vast majority of teams to make money, and where the rest can have minimal losses (this is assuming that most teams are well managed, and are attempting to run a sound business). That's the NHLs side.

The players would need to still be well compensated (in reference to the general revenue the NHL brings in - not to the general public), and have the 'rights' (reasonable arbitration, UFA, contractual rights (whatever these entail), some mechanism for raises/min wage, benefits, etc) that they're content with.

And those two sides needs to be balanced to the point where whatever gain someone might get from holding out in signing a new CBA would cover the losses they'd receive from missing games. I think there's a couple different ways to get there. Sadly I do not think that the current CBA (either what the NHL or PA proposed) will accomplish this.

When you look into the system of the past CBA, it's fatally flawed in the sense that it doesn't make any effort to take into account the impact that large revenue teams have on small revenue teams (via the cap and floor). I think the proposal the PA put forth comes closer to addressing this (cap floor/ceiling is +/- 20% of the mid point), however it has it's own issues in that the cap will be higher, and there'll be a much larger range between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. We'll almost certainty see this impact the league's parity. Which may have an impact in the success (and thus the growth) of the league. One of the great things of the cap was how the floor forced teams to spend money, and in doing so meant that there were more meaningful games later into the season. With a large gap, this may turn some teams who are rebuilding (or who are just cheap, or who can't match the growth) into very weak teams who down the road basically become feeder teams. I don't think it'll be as bad as MLB, but with a potential 40% difference (on the current cap that's a 25m gap - 12.5m above/below the MP) the potential is there for it to be pretty obvious. This is great for the smaller clubs in the sense they have more flexibility to run their team according to their budget/revenues, however as the league growth continues, this gap could mean 30-40m. That would mean a huge disparity in talent between what the top and bottom teams can afford.

Riptide is online now   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 04:51 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.