Tim Panaccio @tpanotchCSN
Bill Daly says given NHLPA position on league's last proposal and "unwillingness" to offer a new one, he's unsure why 2 sides would meet.
Tim Panaccio @tpanotchCSN
Daly: "back to drawing board."
I hope to god that doesn't happen. Burke should rent a barn and fight Fehr in it and whoever wins gets to make the CBA.
John Shannon @JSportsnet
The NHLPA has informed the media they will meet the League at any time,with NO pre-conditions...and they have told the NHL the same.
Chris Johnston @reporterchris
Bill Daly says the union has expressed a willingness to meet but isn't going to table a proposal: "What would we be meeting about?"
They could put this on pay per view and use the revenue to help bridge the gap between the latest proposals.
I know I would pay to watch Burke lay some Truculence down on Fehr.
There is a misconception that owners make money when the value of their franchises goes up {they do make money if the franchise value goes up, but the misconception is that the values have been going up recently}
In fact, in recent years the values of most the problem teams have been shrinking.
Here is how Forbes values the bottom 12 teams in 2009 and now this year
Anaheim drops from 206 to 184 a loss of 22 million in value
New Jersey from 223 million to 181 a loss of 42 million
Tampa from 191 to 174 a loss of 17 million
Buffalo goes up from 170 to 173
Carolina drops from 177 to 169
Winnipeg with their move climbs 19 million to 164 from 143
Nashville as a modest increase of 7 million up to 163 from 156 despite playoffs
Florida with their good playoffs climbs 3 million from 159 to 162
St Louis drops like a rock 19 million down to 157 from 176
Columbus tanks 13 mill from 165 to 152
Islanders with their grea history continue at 149 no change
and Phoenix getting their 25 million dollar annual bailout still manages to go from 138 to 134 and cant find a buyer
Most these franchises have huge loses every year too... and they sure arent recooping their money on franchise value.
This is the effects of operating under the old CBA. This is the reality of the situation even if the NHL is reporting 3.3 billion in revenue. Most of the owners of these franchises are desperately trying to sucker someone else into buying the team off their hands so there is a reason to try to throw around the 3.3 billion dollar number and hope it leads to sales of the franchise. These teams never throw around their profit number though because they simply dont make profits {and this despite pretty much all these teams hijacking the tax payers into huge subsidies and bailouts}
Franchises did go up in value during the building of the new arenas in all the markets. This was an artificial one time increase that came from having new arenas. Those arenas were for the most part built with tax payer dollars. Back in the 1970's and 1980's franchises went up alot... thats true. And expansion was also a one time kick in the gear to help franchises go up in value.
But for the most part there is really only 10 or so healthy franchises in the NHL that can be counted on to go up in value under the current system. They are the same 10 or so healthy franchises that also make a profit each year.
A pro-player supporter might say that these 10 or so healthy franchises have an obligation to give all their profits to the bottom 10-12 teams so that no one makes any return on their 200 million dollar + investments but that is simply crazy talk.
It makes alot more sense for the league to get their expenses under control so that the real economy of the bottom 10-12 teams can become viable and not only stop the 5-10-15-20 million in annual loses these teams suffer, but actually get a steady increase in franchise value going again {and not at the expense of the taxpayer with more bailouts}
Once again the reality is that the players salary is the one HUGE expense that is currently out of whack and able to be adjusted. If the players weren't currently being OVERPAID so much then it would be much easier to point a finger at the owners and say they are bad bad people. The owners dont mind giving the players as much money as can be afforded though. They have been handing out huge contracts and checks for the past 30 years and more now. Maybe the owners once upon a time took advanatage of the players in the days before Gretzky, but since the million dollar a year contract barrier has been broken... just look at what has happened to contracts since.
Players make an average salary of over 2 million a year now... average...
Scott Gomez and Wade Redden both made more money last year then over have the franchises in the NHL did.
The owners DO give out huge contracts so no one needs to feel sorry for the players. The players do take home on average... millions of dollars each year. No one needs to feel sorry for the players. The reality is that most of the profit of the NHL is being fueled by taxpayers. Take away the 100s of millions of dollars each year that the 30 teams take from the taxpayers and the overall financial health of the league would be completely unworkable with the current payroll the teams have.
I know the owners are willing to lose 'some money' to operate pro teams. They have shown us this all my life. I know they will overpay players again and again. No one has to feel sorry for the players. These same owners will buy wine for 5000 a bottle and drive 500 000 cars. These are men and women willing to overspend for the stuff they want and that includes hockey players for their hockey teams.
But the economy doesnt work with this CBA that we have been operating under. Franchises are not going up in value when they lose so much money and there is a limit how much even billionares will agree to lose just to own a pro sports team. Almost all the teams in this bottom 12 have sold in the last 3-5 years because they just dont work. Revenue sharing is a band aid at best. EXPENSES MUST BE CUT and player salary is the obvious expense that is completely out of whack.
There is a misconception that owners make money when the value of their franchises goes up {they do make money if the franchise value goes up, but the misconception is that the values have been going up recently}
In fact, in recent years the values of most the problem teams have been shrinking.
Here is how Forbes values the bottom 12 teams in 2009 and now this year
Anaheim drops from 206 to 184 a loss of 22 million in value
New Jersey from 223 million to 181 a loss of 42 million
Tampa from 191 to 174 a loss of 17 million
Buffalo goes up from 170 to 173
Carolina drops from 177 to 169
Winnipeg with their move climbs 19 million to 164 from 143
Nashville as a modest increase of 7 million up to 163 from 156 despite playoffs
Florida with their good playoffs climbs 3 million from 159 to 162
St Louis drops like a rock 19 million down to 157 from 176
Columbus tanks 13 mill from 165 to 152
Islanders with their grea history continue at 149 no change
and Phoenix getting their 25 million dollar annual bailout still manages to go from 138 to 134 and cant find a buyer
Most these franchises have huge loses every year too... and they sure arent recooping their money on franchise value.
This is the effects of operating under the old CBA. This is the reality of the situation even if the NHL is reporting 3.3 billion in revenue. Most of the owners of these franchises are desperately trying to sucker someone else into buying the team off their hands so there is a reason to try to throw around the 3.3 billion dollar number and hope it leads to sales of the franchise. These teams never throw around their profit number though because they simply dont make profits {and this despite pretty much all these teams hijacking the tax payers into huge subsidies and bailouts}
Franchises did go up in value during the building of the new arenas in all the markets. This was an artificial one time increase that came from having new arenas. Those arenas were for the most part built with tax payer dollars. Back in the 1970's and 1980's franchises went up alot... thats true. And expansion was also a one time kick in the gear to help franchises go up in value.
But for the most part there is really only 10 or so healthy franchises in the NHL that can be counted on to go up in value under the current system. They are the same 10 or so healthy franchises that also make a profit each year.
A pro-player supporter might say that these 10 or so healthy franchises have an obligation to give all their profits to the bottom 10-12 teams so that no one makes any return on their 200 million dollar + investments but that is simply crazy talk.
It makes alot more sense for the league to get their expenses under control so that the real economy of the bottom 10-12 teams can become viable and not only stop the 5-10-15-20 million in annual loses these teams suffer, but actually get a steady increase in franchise value going again {and not at the expense of the taxpayer with more bailouts}
Once again the reality is that the players salary is the one HUGE expense that is currently out of whack and able to be adjusted. If the players weren't currently being OVERPAID so much then it would be much easier to point a finger at the owners and say they are bad bad people. The owners dont mind giving the players as much money as can be afforded though. They have been handing out huge contracts and checks for the past 30 years and more now. Maybe the owners once upon a time took advanatage of the players in the days before Gretzky, but since the million dollar a year contract barrier has been broken... just look at what has happened to contracts since.
Players make an average salary of over 2 million a year now... average...
Scott Gomez and Wade Redden both made more money last year then over have the franchises in the NHL did.
The owners DO give out huge contracts so no one needs to feel sorry for the players. The players do take home on average... millions of dollars each year. No one needs to feel sorry for the players. The reality is that most of the profit of the NHL is being fueled by taxpayers. Take away the 100s of millions of dollars each year that the 30 teams take from the taxpayers and the overall financial health of the league would be completely unworkable with the current payroll the teams have.
I know the owners are willing to lose 'some money' to operate pro teams. They have shown us this all my life. I know they will overpay players again and again. No one has to feel sorry for the players. These same owners will buy wine for 5000 a bottle and drive 500 000 cars. These are men and women willing to overspend for the stuff they want and that includes hockey players for their hockey teams.
But the economy doesnt work with this CBA that we have been operating under. Franchises are not going up in value when they lose so much money and there is a limit how much even billionares will agree to lose just to own a pro sports team. Almost all the teams in this bottom 12 have sold in the last 3-5 years because they just dont work. Revenue sharing is a band aid at best. EXPENSES MUST BE CUT and player salary is the obvious expense that is completely out of whack.
Two things-
First I don't think it's fair to start in 2009, blame the CBA and ignore the greatest economic collapse since the great depression.
Second- if we compare values today to what they were just before the last CBA, this is what they look like.
Quote:
Here is the change in NHL franchise values since the 2003-04 season:
Pittsburgh Penguins, $264 Million, 161.4%
Montreal Canadiens, $445 Million, 128.2%
Edmonton Oilers, $212 Million, 103.8%
Vancouver Canucks, $300 Million, 102.7%
Washington Capitals, $225 Million, 95.7%
Calgary Flames, $220 Million, 89.7%
Toronto Maple Leafs, $521 Million, 86.1%
New York Rangers, $507 Million, 79.8%
Chicago Blackhawks, $306 Million, 71.9%
Carolina Hurricanes, $169 Million, 69.0%
Buffalo Sabres, $173 Million, 68.0%
Anaheim Ducks, $181 Million, 67.6%
Ottawa Senators, $201 Million, 60.8%
Atlanta Thrashers, $164 Million, 54.7%
Nashville Predators, $163 Million, 46.8%
New Jersey Devils, $181 Million, 46.0%
San Jose Sharks, $211 Million, 41.6%
Boston Bruins, $325 Million, 37.7%
Detroit Red Wings, $336 Million, 35.5%
Florida Panthers, $162 Million, 33.9%
Minnesota Wild, $213 Million, 30.7%
Los Angeles Kings, $232 Million, 20.2%
Tampa Bay Lightning, $174 Million, 16.0%
St. Louis Blues, $157 Million, 12.1%
Philadelphia Flyers, $290 Million, 9.8%
Columbus Blue Jackets, $152 Million, 9.4%
Phoenix Coyotes, $134 Million, -1.5%
New York Islanders, $149 Million, -6.9%
Dallas Stars, $230 Million, -11.2%
Colorado Avalanche, $198 Million, -19.5%
No face to face meeting today. Phone conversation only.
Owners are planted firmly and are not budging. My guess is the league is banking that the group of players that wanted a third proposal last Thursday will grow and move even closer to the NHL's offer.
Taking a wild stab at it but if nothing happens this week, that a week from Friday the league will cancel a month's worth of games as opposed to the 2 week intervals we've seen so far. And that my friends ( and foes ) takes us into December.
No face to face meeting today. Phone conversation only.
Owners are planted firmly and are not budging. My guess is the league is banking that the group of players that wanted a third proposal last Thursday will grow and move even closer to the NHL's offer.
Taking a wild stab at it but if nothing happens this week, that a week from Friday the league will cancel a month's worth of games as opposed to the 2 week intervals we've seen so far. And that my friends ( and foes ) takes us into December.
Not sure why this voice inside keeps whispering no hockey at all til January, and the other voice saying "if at all"
No face to face meeting today. Phone conversation only.
Owners are planted firmly and are not budging. My guess is the league is banking that the group of players that wanted a third proposal last Thursday will grow and move even closer to the NHL's offer.
Taking a wild stab at it but if nothing happens this week, that a week from Friday the league will cancel a month's worth of games as opposed to the 2 week intervals we've seen so far. And that my friends ( and foes ) takes us into December.
Personally I'd written off any chance of seeing hockey until December anyway, so while I wish there was hockey, I'm not all that discouraged yet.
I am a little taken back though by the immature comments to the media by Fehr and Daly. I get that this is all part of negotiating, but all the rhetoric does is piss people off, and I'm not sure how that gets us any closer to hockey.
Last, fingers crossed that yet another season with a reduced schedule or no schedule brings us to the end of the Bettman era. Can't come soon enough in my opinion.
Personally I'd written off any chance of seeing hockey until December anyway, so while I wish there was hockey, I'm not all that discouraged yet.
I am a little taken back though by the immature comments to the media by Fehr and Daly. I get that this is all part of negotiating, but all the rhetoric does is piss people off, and I'm not sure how that gets us any closer to hockey.
Last, fingers crossed that yet another season with a reduced schedule or no schedule brings us to the end of the Bettman era. Can't come soon enough in my opinion.
First I don't think it's fair to start in 2009, blame the CBA and ignore the greatest economic collapse since the great depression.
Second- if we compare values today to what they were just before the last CBA, this is what they look like.
id say the economic collapse has very little to do with anything... the nhl revenues are at all time highs. the players themselves are saying that revenues have had amazing growth. so these franchises are taking more money in then ever before but the values of the 'broken' franchises just isnt changing.
and you see the owners of all these teams bailing. if you doubt the numbers and think that the owners are 'lying' then why arent they keeping their teams? why arent they buying new teams if they are making profits from the sales?
there was increased values in franchises in past years because all the teams just got new buildings. These buildings were financed by tax payers. If you take the 100 million here and the 200 million there that taxpayers put into these new buildings and add it to a team's value then you account for all the increases in franchise value over the past decade. without the taxpayer money, there is no increases in franchise value.
there might be 8-10 teams we can all point to that actually make a profit off their hockey operations. These teams are not what im talking about when it comes to the need for a new cba that fixes this problem. I personally say that these teams should be allowed to spend whatever they want on player salaries. IM NOT ANTI-PLAYER as far as saying the players should be allowed to get whatever they can get.
But more and more and more and more, teams are coming to taxpayers and holding us hostage claiming they cant afford to operate up to the standards they are trying to live up to. They tell us they need a new building to generate revenues and they make us pay for it. Then this new revenue is used to fund huge pay raises for the players. But then the team says it cant make enough money even with the new builings and they come to the taxpayer for more handouts. Or like Phoenix and Atlanta, they just move the franchise and all the taxpayer handouts are history.
The system is broke. The taxpayers are getting killed. At least half the franchises are not profitable unless they are lucky enough to be winning a cup within the last year or two... and meanwhile the players are averaging over 2.5 mill a year guaranteed and willing to shut down the season if they cant get more during the next CBA.
At least half the NHL franchises go into each season with a better then 50-50 chance they will lose money but not a single nhl player goes into the year without a guarantee of making over half a million dollars before the year is done.
No one needs to cry poverty for NHL players if they might get their share of the revenuse cut from 57 to 50%. I just hope to hell that the differnce goes towards letting us taxpayers off the hook. Im not saying that owners of Toronto and New York need to pocket this money either. It's us taxpayers that have been funding the mess here and it is us that deserve the break when a new rational CBA is signed.
No face to face meeting today. Phone conversation only.
Owners are planted firmly and are not budging. My guess is the league is banking that the group of players that wanted a third proposal last Thursday will grow and move even closer to the NHL's offer.
Taking a wild stab at it but if nothing happens this week, that a week from Friday the league will cancel a month's worth of games as opposed to the 2 week intervals we've seen so far. And that my friends ( and foes ) takes us into December.
still feel they meet the week of the 12-15th of November (that is meet not settle) to see if they can get it resolved, get the guys back in that 7 days and start on Black Friday. That is Veterans week and a good reality check as small as it may be to these negotiators about what is really important.
That is nothing but a feeling but I do channel the Infinite (Bruins Hate Guy of the Month) David Krejci for answers.
The NHLPA requested a meeting with the NHL today, and the league told them to go suck an egg, in slightly more professional terms.
The players executive board had a conference call on Tuesday night, which they followed up with the request.
Kevin McGran of the Toronto Star wrote on what came next:
“We informed the NHL we are willing to meet (Wednesday) or any other date, without preconditions, to try to reach an agreement,” the union said in a statement. “We hope to hear from them soon.”
The answer came quickly — no.
NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said because the players were unwilling to bargain off the league’s last proposal, there’d be no point.
“Given their rejection of our proposal and their indication that they aren’t prepared to make a new one, what is there to meet about?” Daly wrote to the Star in an email.
If I may steal a line from Peter Griffin, that last line really grinds my gears. “What is there to meet about?” Eff you, man.
What is there to meet about? Has he been following along? There seems to be an untold number of issues that need to get worked out, why would it be so terrible to sit there and talk about them, maybe find out where each side is willing to give a bit? You might get a little bit closer, you might not, but that’s the point here: there is no negative that can come from talking. If the meetings end in “Sorry, we still totally disagree on literally everything down to every last tenth of every percent,” then you’re still where you are now.
As much as I have been sympathetic to the players in this pissing match, I agree with Daly here. The league developed a comprehensive plan, pitched it (albeit dishonestly casting it as a 50/50 split), then posted it on the internet for all to examine. This presumably took days, weeks or months to craft. In response, the NHLPA crapped out a couple back-of-the-napkin responses, tacked on a verbal one and pitched them a day later.
If I'm the league, I insist the NHLPA either come to the table with something you can at least claim took some thought, or you work off the proposal we tabled that you SAID was a positive step. If you're offering neither, screw your little meeting.
The players claim they will take 50-50 as long as current contracts are honored (more than fair) and the league said they will negotiate aspects of make whole as long as they are working from deal they tabled
So what's the problems? I'm still optimistic a deal gets done, we'll see NHL hockey before December
As much as I have been sympathetic to the players in this pissing match, I agree with Daly here. The league developed a comprehensive plan, pitched it (albeit dishonestly casting it as a 50/50 split), then posted it on the internet for all to examine. This presumably took days, weeks or months to craft. In response, the NHLPA crapped out a couple back-of-the-napkin responses, tacked on a verbal one and pitched them a day later.
If I'm the league, I insist the NHLPA either come to the table with something you can at least claim took some thought, or you work off the proposal we tabled that you SAID was a positive step. If you're offering neither, screw your little meeting.
That is a totally irresponsible position. All Bourne is saying is get together and talk. Find some common ground. Go over the points. Saying "screw your little meeting" gets them absolutely nowhere.
Don't know what to make of Daily's "what's the point in meeting" comment. An attempt to start the NHL's mission to crush and destroy the NHLPA? A message to the Fehrs to prepare some "real" proposals instead of throwing out 2 hastily written proposals and an off the cuff verbal proposal? Although there is a lot of PR gibberish in the NHL's 50/50 proposal it still sounds like the blue plate for both sides to negotiate from.
The biggest problem though is the NHL's position to not honor full value on existing contracts. That is on the owners. Jacobs signed 2 big contracts (Segin and Lucic) and now it is obvious that he did that knowing that part of the NHL's strategy was going to be an immediate roll back on existing contracts. Shame on him and all the other owners that did that.
Don't know what to make of Daily's "what's the point in meeting" comment. An attempt to start the NHL's mission to crush and destroy the NHLPA? A message to the Fehrs to prepare some "real" proposals instead of throwing out 2 hastily written proposals and an off the cuff verbal proposal? Although there is a lot of PR gibberish in the NHL's 50/50 proposal it still sounds like the blue plate for both sides to negotiate from.
The biggest problem though is the NHL's position to not honor full value on existing contracts. That is on the owners. Jacobs signed 2 big contracts (Segin and Lucic) and now it is obvious that he did that knowing that part of the NHL's strategy was going to be an immediate roll back on existing contracts. Shame on him and all the other owners that did that.
That is a totally irresponsible position. All Bourne is saying is get together and talk. Find some common ground. Go over the points. Saying "screw your little meeting" gets them absolutely nowhere.
But understand that it's not meant to alienate the NHLPA, it's meant to get them to do some work! It's easy to say that sitting in the same room is a positive step, but the real positive step is when one side puts forth an offer that is realistic for the other side. At this point, the NHL feels they did that. And through backchannels, they've indicated a willingness to negotiate off that proposal. Apparently the PA has sought some clarifications on some points, but they've yet to negotiate off that proposal. Sitting down in the same room isn't enough in the NHl's eyes. they want the PA to table a proposal based on their last one and anything else is just games.
) to see if they can get it resolved, get the guys back in that 7 days and start on Black Friday. That is Veterans week and a good reality check as small as it may be to these negotiators about what is really important. 
