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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHLPA annoyed with circumvention of negotiations

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2012, 01:00 PM
  #76
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,535
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
Question for the panel...

Can anyone see this as an opportunity for the PA to come back and say they won't pursue the NLRB to take up this manner if you accept one of the 3 proposals from last week? I know it seems like a reach on my part to ask but, these series of events in the last 10 days have really left me dumbfounded.
The NHL would simply laugh them off, and then the PR battle would turn even more against the players as people would realize the NHLPA is attempting to blackmail the league because the league decided to answer questions that should have been directed to the NHLPA in the first place.

There is absolutely no legal standing for NLRB action against the owners as, per the memo, they are not initiating conversations and are not negotiating in any way. The NHL has simply allowed them to respond to the players with factual information based upon a public proposal for the purpose of maintaining good relationships with employees.

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:01 PM
  #77
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
TRUE transparency is providing information accurately without any spins to persuade players to think a certain a way.
In Fehr's letter to the players, he used the word "Draconian" to explain the leagues last offer.

There were a few other words in the letter designed to incite anger in it's readers.

I doubt many players know that they are being manipulated through simple language.

ThePhoenixx is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:07 PM
  #78
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
But it's OK for the league to use every advantage they have to get the union to knuckle under?

I hope every player that went overses stays there once an agreement has been reached. See how that would affect these owners.

It's amazing that you think it's OK for the league to play hardball with the players, but it's not OK for the players to do the same?

sad.
You hope the players commit financial suicide to satisfy your hurt feelings about the big mean owners. Seriously get a life and stop taking this so bloody personally.

It's between the owners and players.. but you would see the people from the side you try to defend suffer for your own pleasure/need for revenge.

You talk a big talk when you have nothing at stake.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:09 PM
  #79
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
no less blackmail than the owners saying, Take this offer or we cancel a season.

seems pretty much the same, just not using the courts to do it.
Except the owners have never said that.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:10 PM
  #80
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Doubt that's it at all.

More likely the players are fishing for those owners that are as eager to get a deal done as some of the players are.

the desire to get back on the ice is not a one way thing.

Teams lose alot of money as well by not playing and similar to the way the NHL broke the union last time, I'm confident the NHLPA are probably looking for cracks amongst the owners.

Fair is fair.

But by far there are not enough owners to swing a vote who are making money. And the players are losing about 10 times as much as the owners so the pressure is more on them.

Really, the owners are looking for a deal that helps the less than fortunate teams, which outnumber the big revenue teams. So to crack the owners is very difficult as they do not have the numbers.

The PA meanwhile is looking for a deal that is most beneficial to the top end player, of which there are few. The rank and file members which make up the majority will see little difference between the last CBA and this proposed CBA. So its a relatively easy nut to crack.

Look, I'll agree it sucks to be the players, they are not in a good spot. But that does not change the numbers behind this. The NHL is bargaining for meaningful gains for 70% of their franchises, the NHL is bargaining for the top 30% of theirs. Who will crack first? Its easy to see.

ottawah is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:13 PM
  #81
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,496
vCash: 500
I feel for the GM's in all this, they are stuck in the middle. They are employees just like the players, but are management and therefore are bundled closer to ownership.

GM's are by and large hockey guys, and a lot of them are incredibly tight with their players. A lot of NHL'ers might not necessarily trust their owners 100% when it comes to negotiations, but you can bet that a vast majority of them trust their GMs.

I would think GM's would be neutral in all of this and a good source of information for the players as they see both sides. They want their owners to be successful so they pump more resources into the team, and they want their players to be happy and motivated so they are at their best. That is probably the reason for this memo - they don't want the GM's to be too close to the players and sway them either way, knowingly or unknowingly.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:13 PM
  #82
ahimsa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
I had a chance to sit in on a conversation with a 5th/6th defenseman recently and for "a lot of players like" him, there is an over all feeling of being misled by the PA. This guy, in particular, had a call in with his GM wondering what the "make whole" scenario was, as it was not explained well on the PA's conference call a week ago.

/shrug

It was characterized by Fehr as "players making the player whole later on", not the owners. My understanding of the "make whole" scenario is that the owners would take it out of their percentage, after a 50/50 deal is reached...

Take it for what you will. Like I said, I just sat in on the conversation and didn't really take an active part.
I read what the NHL had posted on their site about the "making while" provision and it was not clear.

Quote:
No Rollback; Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision
The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it has worked under the expired CBA. (In other words, under the expired CBA, the compensation a Player received each year was either higher or lower than the face value of his contract depending upon Club-Player contracting levels and the level and growth rate of HRR.) Under the expired CBA, in two of the seven years Players were paid in excess of the face values of their SPCs and in five of those years they received less than their face values. That process would remain intact under the new CBA.

Under our "make whole" proposal, which is premised upon a 5% anticipated growth of HRR both this year and in future years, every Player will be paid compensation based on the full value of the Players' Share under which his current SPC was signed.

In order to effectively transition from a Players' Share of 57 percent to 50 percent, including importantly to protect Players' current SPCs against an absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars, the new Agreement contemplates, in its initial years, a "make whole" mechanism that will effectively pay each Player currently under contract the difference between 50% of Actual HRR in 2012/13 and 57% of HRR in 2011/12 -- which was $1.883 Billion.

Again, premised upon an assumed 5% growth rate between 2011/12 and 2012/13, the "make whole" amount is calculated to be a maximum of $149 million for the 2012/13 season ($1.883 Billion minus $1.734 Billion (57% multiplied by $3.303 Billion minus 50% multiplied by $3.468 Billion). Similarly, utilizing that formula and our 5% growth projections, the "make whole" amount is calculated to be a maximum of $62 million for the 2013/14 season.

To accomplish the "make whole," each Players' pro-rata "make whole" will be determined for the first two years of the Agreement and will be paid to each Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit over the life of the Player's existing SPC. For those Players whose contracts expire after the 2012/13 season, the benefit will be paid when final HRR is determined for this season (in October/November 2013). Player "make whole" payments will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits.

The "make whole" obligation will be operational only through the 2013/14 season because, beginning in Year 3, the projected growth in League-wide revenues should have resulted in an increase in absolute Players' Share dollars (in excess of the Players' Share of $1.883 Billion in 2011/12). This will effectively restore "full value" to all existing SPCs without any continuing need for a "make whole."

We note in regard to this proposal, that while the NHLPA's August 14 proposal was premised upon a 7% annual growth rate in HRR, we instead used the more conservative growth rate of 5%, consistent with our prior proposals. If the NHLPA's estimate of revenue growth is more accurate, then the amount of money needed to effectuate a "make whole" would actually be less.
Really? Clear as mud.

ahimsa is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:16 PM
  #83
Rooverick*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tko78 View Post
Probably not, but this move, if it actually happened, was just plain wrong on the part of the NHL. Sometimes, a wrong needs to be addressed for its own sake.
How exactly is it wrong?

The NHL has evidence that their offers are being misrepresented and some players may contact the GM's or owners for clarification between what they are hearing from the Fehrs and what is on the NHL website.

A fully informed player is the leagues best ally in trying to get a deal done.

Rooverick* is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:17 PM
  #84
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Big View Post
I read what the NHL had posted on their site about the "making while" provision and it was not clear.



Really? Clear as mud.
I hadn't seen the last few paragraphs from the Make Whole provision so thanks for posting that. So the 5% was in fact used for the purpose of growth because they said that only salaries lost up until the 2013-2014 season will be reimbursed.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:20 PM
  #85
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,548
vCash: 50
of course the NHLPA is pissed because it will hurt them players long term

__________________
"If the Detroit Red Wings are defying gravity" by consistently contending without the benefit of high draft picks, "the Edmonton Oilers are defying lift.

Welcome to Edmonton Connor McDavid--the rest of you HA HA HA HA HA HA
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:23 PM
  #86
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooverick View Post
How exactly is it wrong?
They are walking along a very thin line crossing which is a huge no-no in the legal world. You have to keep reality in mind - the GM's will spin the conversations in their own way, plus you really can't guarantee that the contact was one way. "Divide and conquer" has been around a very long time for a reason. This was an extremely risky strategy by the NHL - it can plant seeds of doubt among the players, or it can convince Fehr that he should take as hard a line as possible with the NHL.

santiclaws is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:25 PM
  #87
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
How are the players being treated?

Fehr has time and again invited them, one and all, to attend a negotiating session if they had questions.

I think that they are being MORE than transparent.

The NHLPA has more transparency now then they have EVER had.

I mean, granted that was not a stretch when you had one president in Eagleson conspiring with owners to screw the players.

Then you had an idiot in Goodenow offer up a 24% rollback concession.

You guys can paint Fehr as this secretive person that is misleading the players, but you could not be more wrong.

He was hired because he was the best man for the job. He took the job on the condition that anyone at any time can be informed as to what is going on at the NHLPA's HQ.

You may not like Fehr, but to paint him as something he is not is disingenous at best.
Is it possible that it's not that they don't feel Fehr will provide them the information, but that some players don't trust him? And not in the sense that they think he's evil or some crap like that, but in they do not know him, therefor have not established a working relationship/trust with him.

Or that they don't like his spin/numbers and want a second opinion?

I have no doubt that he's pissed about this. He absolutely must control the message going to the players as much as possible in order to keep 700 players inline. But that doesn't mean the GMs/Owners who receive calls FROM THE PLAYERS shouldn't be able to talk to them - as long as they're following the rules, it's fair game.

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:27 PM
  #88
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
So, I am to assume you have spoken to NHL Union Members? Nice that you have those relationships.
NHL players have an association and not a union. Apparently they're different - or so I've been told.

The union people I talk to work for different companies and have worked on CBA's in their respective organizations. They watch what's happening between the NHL and the players and, for the most part, respond in a negative way.

If I did know players I'd be advising them to work to make a deal whether their leadership wants one or not. I'd also be suggesting that they take advantage of the opportunity and speak with their GM's so that they could get another view on the situation and a broader picture of what's going on.

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:30 PM
  #89
Seedling
Tier 7 fan (ballcap)
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by czwalga View Post
Sounds like the players are trying to go around Fehr; the NHL is just letting it happen.
This. I bet the majority of players are not in favour of this nonsense. It is the top elite players driving this. Just my opinion.

Seedling is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:31 PM
  #90
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
The players should not have to pay themselves which is what the NHL has proposed.
The players money comes out of their share now (or did under the last CBA)... why should that change going forward?

Riptide is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:32 PM
  #91
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I hope every player that went overses stays there once an agreement has been reached. See how that would affect these owners.
So do I. Then Canada has little competition for Olympic gold when all the Euros are not allowed to play in the Olympics or world championships.

ottawah is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:32 PM
  #92
ahimsa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
I hadn't seen the last few paragraphs from the Make Whole provision so thanks for posting that. So the 5% was in fact used for the purpose of growth because they said that only salaries lost up until the 2013-2014 season will be reimbursed.
Yes 5% was used by the NHL. This indicates to me the NHL believes as worst case scenario the future growth at minimum will be 5%.

This too:

Quote:
subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it has worked under the expired CBA. (In other words, under the expired CBA, the compensation a Player received each year was either higher or lower than the face value of his contract depending upon Club-Player contracting levels and the level and growth rate of HRR.

ahimsa is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:33 PM
  #93
Rooverick*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
the last proposal saw changes in ELC's, Arb. process, extending of the free agency process, limiting contracts.

These are all items that the players negotiated for.

In addition to an immediate slide in salary of 12% they want to limit the players ability to maximize their salary.

The 50/50 split is a fair number. I will never argue against that, but it should be gradual (2 year step down to 50/50) And the Owners should foot the entire bill for the contracts they agreed to. The players should not have to pay themselves which is what the NHL has proposed.

there's a deal to be made, but it shouldn't be so one sided.
Then get to the table and negotiate the deal, using a linked format and see what kind of flexibility is there.

Try a linked 54, 52 , 50, 50 ten year deal with all the contracting rights based on the previous CBA and FIND OUT WHAT THE OWNERS WILL AGREE TO.

Stop showing up with de-linked deals that are a NON STARTER.

Rooverick* is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:39 PM
  #94
Rooverick*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
They are walking along a very thin line crossing which is a huge no-no in the legal world. You have to keep reality in mind - the GM's will spin the conversations in their own way, plus you really can't guarantee that the contact was one way. "Divide and conquer" has been around a very long time for a reason. This was an extremely risky strategy by the NHL - it can plant seeds of doubt among the players, or it can convince Fehr that he should take as hard a line as possible with the NHL.
Your explanation of "wrong" is tactical.

The previous questions of "wrong" was ethical.

Rooverick* is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:41 PM
  #95
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhoenixx View Post
In Fehr's letter to the players, he used the word "Draconian" to explain the leagues last offer.

There were a few other words in the letter designed to incite anger in it's readers.

I doubt many players know that they are being manipulated through simple language.
Having your salary cut in excess of 20% in two successive CBAs is Draconian, and this is exactly what the NHL's initial offer proposed, and what Fehr was referring to.

I don't believe for a second the players are being incited to anger or manipulated by Fehr, Bettman is accomplishing those things quite nicely on his own.

BTW you are being extremely condescending with the bolded, players aren't quite as thick as you seem to suggest.

Support the owners all you like, however to ignore what the NHL has done while ripping on Fehr doesn't make your case stronger, just shows bias.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:46 PM
  #96
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
This. I bet the majority of players are not in favour of this nonsense. It is the top elite players driving this. Just my opinion.
Of course.
The same thing happened in 04-05.
Same then as now, a select few tried to control and manipulate the majority in order to acheive what they wanted.
If they never vote, which they didn't do then nor are doing now, how can they get a pulse of what the majority wants?
The answer is they don't want to know because then they lose their control.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:48 PM
  #97
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooverick View Post
Then get to the table and negotiate the deal, using a linked format and see what kind of flexibility is there.

Try a linked 54, 52 , 50, 50 ten year deal with all the contracting rights based on the previous CBA and FIND OUT WHAT THE OWNERS WILL AGREE TO.

Stop showing up with de-linked deals that are a NON STARTER.
Too simple of a solution.

Riptide is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:58 PM
  #98
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
Having your salary cut in excess of 20% in two successive CBAs is Draconian, and this is exactly what the NHL's initial offer proposed, and what Fehr was referring to.
If I was a player, I wouldn't mind so much seeing how salaries have increased at crazy levels since then. Draconian would be salary cuts with no raises.

If those cuts weren't made during the last negotiation, who knows if growth is the same. It can't be said for certain, but I have a feeling that the reason for that growth was economically healthier franchises.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:03 PM
  #99
Fictional Realism
Moustache Power
 
Fictional Realism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,502
vCash: 894
This has just got to be music to the ears of the owners. I mean there is already cracks in the PA rank and file? The Fehrs are already grasping at straws to attempt to outline some crack-pot NLRB crap. If the owners had been soliciting calls from the players I'd buy it, but if its NHLPA members calling their owners for information the NHL isn't doing anything but fielding inquiries.

Fictional Realism is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:05 PM
  #100
Erik Estrada
Registered User
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,008
vCash: 500
There are repercussions to have devised a conscious strategy for the owners to go over the PA's head. If the CBA gets settled this week, it'll have been worth it. If it doesn't, the whole negotiation process could spiral out of control.

Some very smart people run the NHL and they have top-notch advisors. They didn't do this on a whim. They weighed the risk-reward ratio and figured the contact was worth it... There must have been some pressure and desperation to throw a hail-mary pass like that at this point in the game.

Erik Estrada 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 01:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.