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 Responds to Owners Withdrawing Latest Proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 12:26 AM
  #26
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
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.

They also want to change UFA age, impose contract term limits, count the contracts being paid for players no longer even playing in the NHL against the NHL players' share, change ELC terms... what did I leave out?

Fugu is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:31 AM
  #27
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
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).
If they're holding linkage as something they can give back in order to get movement on contract issues then why not make a proposal with linkage and the contract terms that would get them to where they want to be. (e.g.: 55,53,51,50,... 3 year entry level, 3 year arbitration, 5/25 to UFA).

They must thing by holding out on negotiating against the league's framework that either they will get a delinked system or incredible gains in a linked system.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:31 AM
  #28
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
They also want to change UFA age, impose contract term limits, count the contracts being paid for players no longer even playing in the NHL against the NHL players' share, change ELC terms... what did I leave out?
You left out the fact that the only issue with the players is their personal income...not once has a player come out in their statements and commented on ELC terms, UFC, etc. They are very clear in their stance.

Please link any player in their ELC or currently making the league minimum that has been placed in the public eye by the NHLPA to speak about their concerns.


Last edited by Lobotomizer*: 10-26-2012 at 12:37 AM.
Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:32 AM
  #29
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Why would any business owner with common sense agree on delinkage which changes every single number the NHLPA has included in their proposal?
Linkage has actually been rather harmful to the league over the course of this past CBA. Linkage gave them immediate relief last CBA at the cost of suffering over the past few years. If they had taken the de-linked proposal last time around the players would have been bent over a barrel most of this last CBA and all but a couple of the poorest teams would have been pulling profits.

That said, the NHLPA isn't pushing for de-linkage. They're holding it ransom.

This video isn't about the owners budging/not on linkage. The video is about the owners being unwilling to negotiate on Make Whole until the players accept every provision of the offer.

Willingness to negotiate on Make Whole indicates a willingness to work within linkage to the owners on the player's behalf, because the Make Whole provision itself is something that works with linkage. The players are showing an (albeit ass-around) willingness to move towards linkage, but the owners do not want to negotiate because they also do not want to budge on other issues (more specifically, contract-related issues).

Quote:
There is more than one side to a medal and very rarely one side is 100% right.
Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGuy View Post
If they're holding linkage as something they can give back in order to get movement on contract issues then why not make a proposal with linkage and the contract terms that would get them to where they want to be. (e.g.: 55,53,51,50,... 3 year entry level, 3 year arbitration, 5/25 to UFA).
They sorta just did, albiet in a really ass-around manner. Willingness to negotiate with the league on Make Whole is a statement that says "we're willing to work within a linked system." They're not going to go so far as to make an offer on it yet, that'd be giving up too much leverage too soon.

Quote:
They must thing by holding out on negotiating against the league's framework that either they will get a delinked system or incredible gains in a linked system.
Exactly. They'll either get luckier than they likely expect, too many owners will cave, and they'll get delinkage, or they'll give linkage back in return for a relaxed stance from the owners on a number of issues.

Mantha Poodoo is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:32 AM
  #30
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
They also want to change UFA age, impose contract term limits, count the contracts being paid for players no longer even playing in the NHL against the NHL players' share, change ELC terms... what did I leave out?
I thought that the contracts for players outside the NHL would only count against the cap, not against the player's share.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:34 AM
  #31
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
You left out the fact that the only issue with the players is their personal income...not once has a player come out in their statements and commented on ELC terms, UFC, etc. They are very clear in their stance.
Did you just listen to Schneider's clip? Are you going to edit the clip and make your own youtube that forces the other words out of his mouth?


Fehr told the league the players couldn't accept those other terms, but would talk to them about the Make Whole aspect. The league wouldn't even talk to them unless they accepted ALL the other things.

Fugu is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:34 AM
  #32
colchar
The Keon Curse Lives
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnydaycrash View Post
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 thought the owner's proposal went to 50/50 immediately?

colchar is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:35 AM
  #33
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 7,554
vCash: 500
I have moved on. The owners are despicable weasels, and I hope the entire season is cancelled again. I am content now watching my son play hockey for my hockey fix. To hell with the NHL. Take another year off.

ThisYearsModel is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:36 AM
  #34
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Linkage has actually been rather harmful to the league over the course of this past CBA. Linkage gave them immediate relief last CBA at the cost of suffering over the past few years. If they had taken the de-linked proposal last time around the players would have been bent over a barrel most of this last CBA and all but a couple of the poorest teams would have been pulling profits.
The interesting thing about this is that had their been a hard delinked cap in the last CBA we would probably have already gone through a player's strike when the CBA initially expired. My guess is they would have been looking for a system linked to the league's revenues while the league would have tried to maintain a delinked cap.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:36 AM
  #35
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGuy View Post
I thought that the contracts for players outside the NHL would only count against the cap, not against the player's share.

Maybe I missed that wording?

If it counts against the team cap, that restrains what a team could spend on NHL players. I was under the impression that it too would count against the players' share.

Fugu is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:36 AM
  #36
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,577
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.

But I thought the players just want to play. I thought Fehr said 'if this is the best offer that the league has to offer, why didn't they present it before the lockout?'. I know that's not how real negotiations work but at the same time, Fehr says a lot of things that are ridiculously one sided to point fingers at the owners when the PA is just as guilty. However, that was really a side comment and quite irrelevant to what we're discussing.

The league won't offer concessions so if the PA wants them, they'll need to ask for them and if they intend on using them as bargaining chips then they'll be wise to do so sooner rather than later if they have any intention of playing any hockey this year. As for the league's willingness to negotiate - they said told the PA (and they PA has confirmed this) that if they want to meet then either negotiate off of the league's framework or bring them a new proposal otherwise there's no point in arranging a face to face. So the PA isn't interested in negotiating off their framework it seems...but a new proposal would bring the league back to the table so let's not pretend that the PA has no moves to make to put their bargaining chips on the table. Again, I understand if this part of the PA's strategy but again, it doesn't change the facts of their proposals and how they choose to address the situation.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:38 AM
  #37
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,706
vCash: 500
The league bears a lot of blame for putting out a ridiculous first proposal, then putting their best offer out right after the Luntz expose.

Let's not sweep that under the rug.

Fugu is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:39 AM
  #38
colchar
The Keon Curse Lives
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
With every passing game they miss, those high school dropouts
Wow, what a reasoned argument.

colchar is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:39 AM
  #39
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Maybe I missed that wording?

If it counts against the team cap, that restrains what a team could spend on NHL players. I was under the impression that it too would count against the players' share.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570

It's the third bullet under 5. Cap Accounting.

Although I had the same initial assumption considering how much the league is trying to claw back.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:43 AM
  #40
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
But I thought the players just want to play. I thought Fehr said 'if this is the best offer that the league has to offer, why didn't they present it before the lockout?'. I know that's not how real negotiations work but at the same time, Fehr says a lot of things that are ridiculously one sided to point fingers at the owners when the PA is just as guilty. However, that was really a side comment and quite irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Non-bolded: No, the players saying that is ******** and I think anyone with half a brain realizes that.

Bolded: You already realize what's going on. Realities of negotiating, nothing more or less. Both sides will do whatever they feel they can get away with to get a leg up on the other.

Quote:
The league won't offer concessions so if the PA wants them, they'll need to ask for them and if they intend on using them as bargaining chips then they'll be wise to do so sooner rather than later if they have any intention of playing any hockey this year. As for the league's willingness to negotiate - they said told the PA (and they PA has confirmed this) that if they want to meet then either negotiate off of the league's framework or bring them a new proposal otherwise there's no point in arranging a face to face. So the PA isn't interested in negotiating off their framework it seems...but a new proposal would bring the league back to the table so let's not pretend that the PA has no moves to make to put their bargaining chips on the table.
I agree that they're both still playing hardball at the moment, though I think the players showing willingness to negotiate on make whole shows some cracks in the players' position. If there's any sincerity in the owners' own statements about wanting to get hockey going again and yadda yadda then they'll jump on this opportunity, and perhaps toss an offer the players' way that eases up on the contract issues.

Of course, there isn't any sincerity and it's a bunch of ********, same as with the players' statements. Once again, it's all part of the process.

Mantha Poodoo is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:44 AM
  #41
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The league bears a lot of blame for putting out a ridiculous first proposal, then putting their best offer out right after the Luntz expose.

Let's not sweep that under the rug.
That won't be the leagues best offer. The nhl was testing the waters if the pa by enticing them of an 82 game season. They wanted to see how many players would bite.

Crows* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:44 AM
  #42
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
They sorta just did, albiet in a really ass-around manner. Willingness to negotiate with the league on Make Whole is a statement that says "we're willing to work within a linked system." They're not going to go so far as to make an offer on it yet, that'd be giving up too much leverage too soon.

Exactly. They'll either get luckier than they likely expect, too many owners will cave, and they'll get delinkage, or they'll give linkage back in return for a relaxed stance from the owners on a number of issues.
I see the first statement as the crux of the problem with both sides of the negotiation. Neither is prepared to make a deal at this point, they are both just trying to inflict financial pain to see if they can get the other side to give in. Both sides must be very confident they won't give in, so it will interesting to see how far down they are willing to take the league.

The best deal for both sides was only available before the league started cancelling games. After that it's diminishing returns no matter who wins in the end.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:48 AM
  #43
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGuy View Post
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570

It's the third bullet under 5. Cap Accounting.

Although I had the same initial assumption considering how much the league is trying to claw back.
Thank you.

Redden and Huet might still be in the league, and several players on their old teams might be somewhere else. The desired outcome for this clause by the NHL must be to simply plug a cap circumvention as one would hope no teams would then ship big NHL contracts to the minors (no reason to do it if the cap hit remains).

Is there a downside for the PA?

Fugu is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:49 AM
  #44
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The league bears a lot of blame for putting out a ridiculous first proposal, then putting their best offer out right after the Luntz expose.

Let's not sweep that under the rug.
The league really hurt it's bargaining position by coming out with such a one sided first offer, improving it slightly with a take it or leave it offer before the season, and then coming out with an even better offer later. Their credibility is shot and i'm sure Fehr is telling the players the longer they wait the better the offer is going to get. The only problem is that I can't see the league accepting a delinked offer now that games have been lost permanently. So even a slightly higher percentage later on might not be enough to make up what's already lost.

If that 50/50 offer came out in July they would probably be playing now.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:52 AM
  #45
NewGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Thank you.

Redden and Huet might still be in the league, and several players on their old teams might be somewhere else. The desired outcome for this clause by the NHL must be to simply plug a cap circumvention as one would hope no teams would then ship big NHL contracts to the minors (no reason to do it if the cap hit remains).

Is there a downside for the PA?
The downside would be less space available in the overall cap pool. During the last CBA they seemed to have a goal of having as much space available as possible. The upside would be that less cap space used means less escrow.

NewGuy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:53 AM
  #46
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 12,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Thank you.

Redden and Huet might still be in the league, and several players on their old teams might be somewhere else. The desired outcome for this clause by the NHL must be to simply plug a cap circumvention as one would hope no teams would then ship big NHL contracts to the minors (no reason to do it if the cap hit remains).

Is there a downside for the PA?
Theoretically the player that should be sent down might be blocking contracts for lesser players. The player in the AHL who would have been sent down would still be making his contract amount, whereas his replacement might not be able to be signed for as much if the cap hit remained. Is it a downside? I guess vaguely, but not really.

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:55 AM
  #47
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGuy View Post
The downside would be less space available in the overall cap pool. During the last CBA they seemed to have a goal of having as much space available as possible. The upside would be that less cap space used means less escrow.

However, there is no incentive to teams to do this any longer. One must assume that the only logical reason was to dump a big contract, thereby creating cap room. If the teams cannot create cap room, and have to pay the contract no matter where the player is sent, would they still do it? I think not.

Fugu is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:57 AM
  #48
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
That won't be the leagues best offer. The nhl was testing the waters if the pa by enticing them of an 82 game season. They wanted to see how many players would bite.
You can think that if you want, but I doubt it. The moment they offer something better, they have to keep offering more until the players say yes and will say told you so.

stuffradio is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:57 AM
  #49
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGuy View Post
The league really hurt it's bargaining position by coming out with such a one sided first offer, improving it slightly with a take it or leave it offer before the season, and then coming out with an even better offer later. Their credibility is shot and i'm sure Fehr is telling the players the longer they wait the better the offer is going to get. The only problem is that I can't see the league accepting a delinked offer now that games have been lost permanently. So even a slightly higher percentage later on might not be enough to make up what's already lost.

If that 50/50 offer came out in July they would probably be playing now.
Yea, that one can definitely be filed under "massive blunder." A group of owners that's clearly too used to dealing with weak union opposition. I've even seen evidence enough of that in the easily conned around here.

"Well they started at 43% so they could come up and 'meet in the middle' at 50%!"

Except that's stupid, because 50% isn't the middle, unless you're a crappy negotiator (and Fehr may be many things but that's not one of them). From the standpoint of a strong negotiator, the previous CBA is "the middle". Fehr and the union certainly aren't treating 50% as the middle. They may be willing to go there, hell, they may even recognize a potential economic necessity in it, but they're not just going to give it away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
You can think that if you want, but I doubt it. The moment they offer something better, they have to keep offering more until the players say yes and will say told you so.
So what you're saying is that if you want something from someone else (and intend to acquire it legally) you have to offer them enough items of value for them to give you what you want?

Fascinating.

Mantha Poodoo is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:57 AM
  #50
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Non-bolded: No, the players saying that is ******** and I think anyone with half a brain realizes that.

Bolded: You already realize what's going on. Realities of negotiating, nothing more or less. Both sides will do whatever they feel they can get away with to get a leg up on the other.



I agree that they're both still playing hardball at the moment, though I think the players showing willingness to negotiate on make whole shows some cracks in the players' position. If there's any sincerity in the owners' own statements about wanting to get hockey going again and yadda yadda then they'll jump on this opportunity, and perhaps toss an offer the players' way that eases up on the contract issues.

Of course, there isn't any sincerity and it's a bunch of ********, same as with the players' statements. Once again, it's all part of the process.
Well then we're in perfect agreement. Both sides are playing their hands as best they can and I've said numerous times that that's just the nature of the negotiations and it's all business that each side feels needs to happen in order to get the best deal possible moving forward. I think with your initial comment in the thread, I assumed you to be one of those posters who claim that one side is negotiating in good faith while the other isn't. I think those people have rose tinted glasses on. Neither side is negotiating in good faith, both sides are negotiating in their best interests and I don't blame either side one bit for it. I'm looking at things from a practical point of view and I realize that the PA willing to make sacrifice by missing games also gives them leverage but we don't really know what the end game is and I just think it would be really sad and unfortunate if the players wait too late to pull the trigger so that they can land the best deal and salvage some part of the season.

My comment about the 'players just want to play' highlights my annoyance with the players themselves. There is BS being thrown back and forth from both sides and I'm just disappointed that the players have taken an active role in participating in it. They've hired a more than competent director in Fehr and he's got all the tools needed to play the mind games with Bettman in the public. Listening to the players talk, it makes me wonder if they actually understand what's going on or if they're willing to perpetuate ******** to the fans they 'care' about in order to save face during these negotiations. I could read 100 PA player articles if they were all as articulated as Ryan Miller's but unfortunately there aren't enough Ryan Millers in the league to balance out the Toews type of players speaking out, lol.

Ari91 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 12:26 PM.

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.