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
Notices

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 Responds to Owners Withdrawing Latest Proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-25-2012, 11:20 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,048
vCash: 500
NHLPA Responds to Owners Withdrawing Latest Proposal



Haven't heard any other news that league has taken proposal off the table.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:28 PM
  #2
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,553
vCash: 500
Interesting. He said Fehr talked to the NHL over the weekend to say they could discuss the Make Whole proposal and accept 50/50, but the other (noneconomic... my understanding) terms weren't acceptable to the players.

The NHL indicated that there would be no point in meeting then, that the only point they'd discuss is Make Whole, but the other items were to remain.

Do people still believe the UFA age, ELC, term limits, and NHL contracts being paid to players in other leagues to count against the cap aren't points the league wants?

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:30 PM
  #3
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,881
vCash: 500
"Make whole... is the only thing bothering us in their proposal. Steve said we'd like to talk to you about the make whole proposal but we don't want to disillusion you we're not willing to accept the other terms."

How in the hell does this make any sense.

"we want to negotiate and play at the same time."

*FACEPALM*

Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:34 PM
  #4
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
"Make whole... is the only thing bothering us in their proposal. Steve said we'd like to talk to you about the make whole proposal but we don't want to disillusion you we're not willing to accept the other terms."

How in the hell does this make any sense.

They wanted to keep talking to at least make some progress on one of the items.

I understood him to say that the league would not yield on the other items, so why talk about the Make Whole aspect if the PA wouldn't accept the non-economic items.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:35 PM
  #5
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
They wanted to keep talking to at least make some progress on one of the items.

I understood him to say that the league would not yield on the other items, so why talk about the Make Whole aspect if the PA wouldn't accept the non-economic items.
Right, but literally the sentence before, he said the only thing bothering the PA about the NHL's offer is the make whole aspect.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:35 PM
  #6
Bob b smith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,827
vCash: 500
What I understood per Schneider::

1-League only wanted to discuss the Make Whole.
2-Players said they didn't like the Make Whole but were still willing to meet to talk about it (because League didn't want to talk about the rest)
3-Unless the Players accepted all the other terms of the proposal, League refused to meet to discuss the Make Whole.

Bob b smith is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:36 PM
  #7
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,881
vCash: 500
And I think Schneider is exaggerating. I believe the one and only key aspect that the NHL needs to be accepted is linkage. That's their framework, that's what they are willing to negotiate off of.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:37 PM
  #8
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,091
vCash: 500
love how they keep mentioning that they are willing to play while negotiations are ongoing as if thats some noble gesture on their part.

txomisc is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:38 PM
  #9
Reed Solomon
GO ✈'s GO
 
Reed Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,086
vCash: 500
"We'll go to 50/50" yeah, if theres no 50/50.

"Take take take on the owners side, give give give, on the players side".. 30% increase in salaries with the last CBA. Small rollback to 50/50 is "not fair." Whatever. You win either way, stop trying to bleed the league and fans dry, stop trying to manipulate the message and start being part of the solution.

If you lose the season, your salary gets rolled back anyways because you didn't work. It's a no win scenario. The league isn't going to give in like the MLB. You know this. History has shown it to be the case.

Reed Solomon is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:38 PM
  #10
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
And I think Schneider is exaggerating. I believe the one and only key aspect that the NHL needs to be accepted is linkage. That's their framework, that's what they are willing to negotiate off of.

Okay, maybe you think that but one of the members of the negotiating committee just said otherwise.

I have said all along that the league wants those other items, but many in the media keep saying it's only about the share. I think they're wrong.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:40 PM
  #11
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Solomon View Post
"We'll go to 50/50" yeah, if theres no 50/50.

"Take take take on the owners side, give give give, on the players side".. 30% increase in salaries with the last CBA. Small rollback to 50/50 is "not fair." Whatever. You win either way, stop trying to bleed the league and fans dry, stop trying to manipulate the message and start being part of the solution.

If you lose the season, your salary gets rolled back anyways because you didn't work. It's a no win scenario. The league isn't going to give in like the MLB. You know this. History has shown it to be the case.

It would get them there.


And at whom is that directed? Do you think Schneider et al are reading your posts here?

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:41 PM
  #12
sunnydaycrash
Registered User
 
sunnydaycrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Portugal
Posts: 3,726
vCash: 500
What an idiot.....seriously,....he's essentially talking out of his ***
Why not mention the fact it doesn't get to 50/50 for a few years or that's it not linked to revenue ?

I just wanna slap his face.......**** these players and their acting like victims!

sunnydaycrash is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:42 PM
  #13
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,816
vCash: 500
So they asked themselves what would they need to do to get the league's attention and they came up with two more official offers that include delinkage. Doesn't seem like they were thinking too hard.

Hey Fehr, you know another way you can make sure the league isn't disillusioned that the PA will accept the other issues??? You can actually COUNTER those issues in your own proposals. Just a thought.

And they keep saying all the players do is give and all the owners do is take. Owners agreeing to upgraded comfort, travel and services isn't a 'give' by the owners? Owners agreeing to more revenue sharing isn't a 'give' considering it was your side that lobbied for an increase in RS? It may not enough for the players, but maybe they shouldn't be so disillusioned with the potential dollars they're giving up to realize that the league has actually committed REAL dollars to some of their requests.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:42 PM
  #14
sunnydaycrash
Registered User
 
sunnydaycrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Portugal
Posts: 3,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
love how they keep mentioning that they are willing to play while negotiations are ongoing as if thats some noble gesture on their part.
Maybe they're stupid to realize Fehr's reputation is tainted when it comes to noble gestures.


MLB 94'.....,owners agreed to play under the expired CBA,.....then 'ol Donnie boy pulled the plug on the World Series

sunnydaycrash is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:45 PM
  #15
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
And I think Schneider is exaggerating. I believe the one and only key aspect that the NHL needs to be accepted is linkage. That's their framework, that's what they are willing to negotiate off of.
Were you paying the slightest bit of attention? They wanted to discuss the Make Whole provision, which is only possible under the current linkage framework.

The issue is the owners don't want to discuss Make Whole unless the players agree to everything else, and players have issue with the contract/players rights related issues (UFA age, contract limits etc).

Somewhat unfortunate that the players are willing to negotiate at least one item within the owners' framework but the league is sticking to strong arming instead of talking.

Mantha Poodoo is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:50 PM
  #16
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Were you paying the slightest bit of attention? They wanted to discuss the Make Whole provision, which is only possible under the current linkage framework.

The issue is the owners don't want to discuss Make Whole unless the players agree to everything else, and players have issue with the contract/players rights related issues (UFA age, contract limits etc).

Somewhat unfortunate that the players are willing to negotiate at least one item within the owners' framework but the league is sticking to strong arming instead of talking.

If the players had issues with the contract/player rights, wouldn't their counter proposal have been an appropriate place to address those issues? They had issue with the HRR and it didn't stop them from countering that. From the very first proposal, the league had put down changes in players contracts/rights and you know how many times the players addressed them? ZERO. It's not the least bit unfortunate for them when they have the opportunity to address all the issues they have with the league's proposal but instead focuses on ONE topic and then simply complains about the other changes only when a camera and microphone is shoved in their face. Countering those other issues may not have made a lick of difference about where we are right now on those issues but they should shoulder blame for not taking the initiative of even addressing them in their proposals.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:54 PM
  #17
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
If the players had issues with the contract/player rights, wouldn't their counter proposal have been an appropriate place to address those issues? They had issue with the HRR and it didn't stop them from countering that. From the very first proposal, the league had put down changes in players contracts/rights and you know how many times the players addressed them? ZERO. It's not the least bit unfortunate for them when they have the opportunity to address all the issues they have with the league's proposal but instead focuses on ONE topic and then simply complains about the other changes only when a camera and microphone is shoved in their face. Countering those other issues may not have made a lick of difference about where we are right now on those issues but they should shoulder blame for not taking the initiative of even addressing them in their proposals.
I see you didn't take the owners seriously enough. They said that their most recent offer must be taken as is and they won't negotiate on any point except Make Whole. Hard to negotiate an issue when one side isn't negotiating it.

NHLPA, in the meantime, is playing the percentage game because that's where the leverage is at. They can go the route of "we'll drop de-linkage if you reconsider your stance on contracts and player rights." The current issue is that the owners are not budging on anything.

Mantha Poodoo is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:00 AM
  #18
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
I see you didn't take the owners seriously enough. They said that their most recent offer must be taken as is and they won't negotiate on any point except Make Whole. Hard to negotiate an issue when one side isn't negotiating it.

NHLPA, in the meantime, is playing the percentage game because that's where the leverage is at. They can go the route of "we'll drop de-linkage if you reconsider your stance on contracts and player rights." The current issue is that the owners are not budging on anything.
I see you aren't following the timeline properly. The league made that issue to the PA AFTER they gave their three proposals - none of which included counters to contract/players rights. The PA has submitted 6 or 7 proposals to the league and yet the only time they voice displeasure about the changes the league proposes to contractual rights is when they're doing their pressers after their proposal has been rejected by the league.

If there was any ultimatum made before the league gave their 3 proposals, I believe the league said that they wanted a proposal that followed the league's framework. Did the PA listen? No, they didn't so it's not like the league's ultimatums have changed the way the PA has made their offers.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:09 AM
  #19
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,928
vCash: 500
"This video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it."

NHLPA is such a joke! First they come late to the most important meeting of the current negotiations and then won't get to 50/50 before years while insisting on delinkage which redefines everything. As the situation wasn't bad enough, the 3rd offer didn't even come with any numbers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
I see you didn't take the owners seriously enough. They said that their most recent offer must be taken as is and they won't negotiate on any point except Make Whole. Hard to negotiate an issue when one side isn't negotiating it.

NHLPA, in the meantime, is playing the percentage game because that's where the leverage is at. They can go the route of "we'll drop de-linkage if you reconsider your stance on contracts and player rights." The current issue is that the owners are not budging on anything.
The percentage isn't the core underlying issue here as all those numbers would meaningless if you get rid of linkage.

CN_paladin is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:13 AM
  #20
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
I see you aren't following the timeline properly. The league made that issue to the PA AFTER they gave their three proposals - none of which included counters to contract/players rights. The PA has submitted 6 or 7 proposals to the league and yet the only time they voice displeasure about the changes the league proposes to contractual rights is when they're doing their pressers after their proposal has been rejected by the league.
Not confused about the timeline, just seeing through the smoke. The union has made their displeasure with the contract-related issues clear throughout the process; most of the media focus and the PR battle has meanwhile been on the percentages.

Quote:
If there was any ultimatum made before the league gave their 3 proposals, I believe the league said that they wanted a proposal that followed the league's framework.
The issue is that the "league's framework" includes not only linkage but also their desired changes to contracts. The latter is what most of the battle is at this point. The focus is on the percentages because that's where the leverage lies in these negotiations. The players are resigned towards 50% in one way or another; they're haggling their way there because the $s are the only leverage they have to get the league to back off on the contract changes.

Quote:
Did the PA listen? No, they didn't so it's not like the league's ultimatums have changed the way the PA has made their offers.
No way to prove it of course, but I'd be willing to bet the union's plan with '3 proposals' was to use those as a negotiating starting point with the intent to give on linkage and money if they could get the league to give on contracts/players's rights. The league, however, made their willingness to negotiate clear.

You, like many others here, are putting too much emphasis on the HRR debates. The numbers aren't the crux of the issue at this point... they're leverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
The percentage isn't the core underlying issue here as all those numbers would meaningless if you get rid of linkage.
You're right about the first part. It's not. And while the players would like to get rid of linkage and would happily accept that change if the owners suddenly caved, they're likely not intending to get rid of linkage. They're holding linkage as a hostage so they can "give it back" in return for the owners loosening on other issues that matter to the PA (contract limits and players' rights).

Mantha Poodoo is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:16 AM
  #21
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Not confused about the timeline, just seeing through the smoke. The union has made their displeasure with the contract-related issues clear throughout the process; most of the media focus and the PR battle has meanwhile been on the percentages.



The issue is that the "league's framework" includes not only linkage but also their desired changes to contracts. The latter is what most of the battle is at this point. The focus is on the percentages because that's where the leverage lies in these negotiations. The players are resigned towards 50% in one way or another; they're haggling their way there because the $s are the only leverage they have to get the league to back off on the contract changes.



No way to prove it of course, but I'd be willing to bet the union's plan with '3 proposals' was to use those as a negotiating starting point with the intent to give on linkage and money if they could get the league to give on contracts/players's rights. The league, however, made their willingness to negotiate clear.

You, like many others here, are putting too much emphasis on the HRR debates. The numbers aren't the crux of the issue at this point... they're leverage.
Are you sure you didn't confuse Fehr with Kelly? The former didn't build his reputation for being a soft and willing negotiator. You are entitled to your opinion but I bet most other fans would disagree with you in a heartbeat. Make a poll on here if you think Fehr will ever concede linkage first.

CN_paladin is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:16 AM
  #22
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
I see you didn't take the owners seriously enough. They said that their most recent offer must be taken as is and they won't negotiate on any point except Make Whole. Hard to negotiate an issue when one side isn't negotiating it.

NHLPA, in the meantime, is playing the percentage game because that's where the leverage is at. They can go the route of "we'll drop de-linkage if you reconsider your stance on contracts and player rights." The current issue is that the owners are not budging on anything.

That's pretty much what Schneider has summed up. The league isn't budging on any thing in it's package.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:20 AM
  #23
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Are you sure you didn't confuse Fehr with Kelly? The former didn't build his reputation for being a soft and willing negotiator.
Looking past the biases, Fehr is known best among those he represents as someone who communicates with his employers and aims to get them what they want under their terms. If the players are willing to negotiate their way down, then that's what Fehr will do for them. Of course he's going to do it in a tough manner; he's very good at what he does. And holding a hostage isn't what I'd call a soft tactic. In the owners eyes, de-linkage is likely about one step less vile than pursuing a removal of the cap. If Fehr actually went after the cap, it'd probably result in an utter standstill. I believe that he believes that linkage is leverage he can use to get the owners to budge elsewhere. Whether this strategy will actually work or not remains to be seen, of course.

Mantha Poodoo is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:21 AM
  #24
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That's pretty much what Schneider has summed up. The league isn't budging on any thing in it's package.
Why would any business owner with common sense agree on delinkage which changes every single number the NHLPA has included in their proposal? There is more than one side to a medal and very rarely one side is 100% right.

CN_paladin is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:26 AM
  #25
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Looking past the biases, Fehr is known best among those he represents as someone who communicates with his employers and aims to get them what they want under their terms. If the players are willing to negotiate their way down, then that's what Fehr will do for them. Of course he's going to do it in a tough manner; he's very good at what he does. And holding a hostage isn't what I'd call a soft tactic. In the owners eyes, de-linkage is likely about one step less vile than pursuing a removal of the cap. If Fehr actually went after the cap, it'd probably result in an utter standstill. I believe that he believes that linkage is leverage he can use to get the owners to budge elsewhere. Whether this strategy will actually work or not remains to be seen, of course.
With every passing game they miss, those high school dropouts have more to lose than the owners who would rather kill themselves before they accept delinkage.

CN_paladin is online now  
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 07:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.