HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

10/26 - NHLPA Statement from Don Fehr

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 04:39 PM
  #426
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Are you convinced it's just about the money for the PA, and not any of the other items in the NHL's [package] proposal?
100% sure, otherwise they would have negotiated off the owners offer to get those other things at a level of where they want them other than propose alternate views of how money should be paid. Their own actions make it very obvious.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 04:55 PM
  #427
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
And if the players are fighting for "principle," they're fools.
Because the owners are certainly not fighting on principle? Just, um, just ...?

If i told you that i have a way tomorrow to end this lockout, It will sow dissension within the PA ranks and make them vote, narrowly mind you but a majority, to surrender and return. Give me $5 and you can press the button to sell out all your favourite players from millions of dollars over their career. Would you press the button?

Im thinking you would. Im thinking thats also why you dont understand the fight on principle.


----
That is another of those funny propaganda master pieces - the players arent negotiating off the owners proposal. Funnier moreso after the strawman creations of Fehr as this evil svenjolly, or is that svengolly, who has brainwashed the playres into0 doing his bidding to end the salary cap. even though all his proposals contain it and work entirely within the owners framework, other than the immediate salary cuts during times of increasing revenue yes. How do you guys say it with a straight face?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 05:00 PM
  #428
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Because the owners are certainly not fighting on principle? Just, um, just ...?
No, the owners are fighting for money. The difference is simple:

Difference between player’s last offer and owners last offer: $500M.

What the players lose with the cancellation of ~25 games: $500M.

Ergo, if the league comes to them TOMORROW and accepts the PA's last offer, but they still lose 25 games on the season, the players would have been better off just taking the owners offer a week ago.

Of course, that's not going to happen. The owners are likely to go for 49% now, since they pulled 50% off the table. Even if the union gets 50% back on the table, they're not going to get 50% and a full season ever again. And it's axiomatic that the players are NEVER going to get more than the PA’s last offer, so as soon as the season loses 25 games (which many would argue has either happened already or is a foregone conclusion) it's impossible for the players to get as much money as they could've a week ago. Not unless the players retract their offers and somehow get the league to go higher. Not happening.

Now that there are real dollars coming off the table with the cancellation of games, yes, we can measure how much money the players are losing, and it's more than they stand to gain from getting their way. That's called losing. Or fighting for principle, whatever you want to call it.

As opposed to the owners: If ~25 games get lost, owners will lose ~30M, net. It would take 4 years of cancelled games before the owners would lose enough to make taking the players offer worth it. So yeah, the owners can damn well sit it out, and the players are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment where they realize the only people keeping them from making money is themselves.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 05:18 PM
  #429
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Well they'll lose it this year, but its a multi year deal.

But yes, they will lose money, and they know it, and yet they are still fighting. And the best answer you can come up for that is that Fehr is an evil brainwasher who has them doing his bidding to remove the salary cap? Dont you think that would kind of make you hard to take seriously?

Why might this be so important to the players then to do this? Just because they arent as smart and informed as you are?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 05:23 PM
  #430
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Well they'll lose it this year, but its a multi year deal.

But yes, they will lose money, and they know it, and yet they are still fighting. And the best answer you can come up for that is that Fehr is an evil brainwasher who has them doing his bidding to remove the salary cap? Dont you think that would kind of make you hard to take seriously?

Why might this be so important to the players then to do this? Just because they arent as smart and informed as you are?
First off: multi-year deal doesn't help your argument. When I said they lose more money by cancelling games than they stood to gain under their proposal, I mean for the entire lifetime of their proposal.

Second: I didn't say anything about Fehr wanting to remove the cap or brainwashing people. I'm not sure why the players are doing this, but I know it's self-destructive from a financial perspective. Why do you think they're giving away money? I think the most likely explanation is just that they don't realize they are. It's not like if they win, the owners are going to apologize.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 05:26 PM
  #431
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That's just it. Fehr had said initially the PA wasn't interested in discussing the NHL's player movement and contract limit proposals. When the NHL weaved into into their "Save the Season, but Take It or Leave It" proposal, the PA was told those items were not negotiable.

How do you negotiate on those points when the other side wants you to sign the package deal?
I'm not sure if you are purposefully ignoring the chain of events or just don't remember, but the NHL presented the 50/50 split and 82 game season on a Tuesday and said a deal would have to be signed by the following Thursday to open camps on Friday and start the Season on November 2nd. The NHL said everything was up for negotiation.

Fehr told the media that the proposal was a great starting point and said the NHLPA would take a couple of days to look it over and create a counter-proposal.

On Thursday, Fehr decided to come to the meeting with 2 written proposals that were the same as the ones in August with minor tweaks and a verbal proposal that he "didn't run the numbers" on. The NHL quickly rejected the proposals since they were still based on de-linking salaries from revenue and only using future growth to move the HRR% toward 50%.

It was only after the NHLPA refused to negotiate with linked salaries that the NHL took the hard-line stance of "we will only meet if you use our template or present a new proposal". The NHL was tired of negotiating with themselves.

We will never know what would have happened with the contract terms because the NHLPA doesn't want current salaries linked to revenue, only future salaries. The NHLPA is possibly out to get rid of the cap, but they know they can not say it because the fans would vilify them. Instead the NHLPA has a propaganda campaign being spewed by their players that the NHL is not "honoring" and "rewriting" their contracts. When the facts are that the NHLPA is the only ones trying to change how their contracts work by changing the accounting system. The contracts were all signed in a "linked to HRR system" via escrow and the NHLPA wants to remove that link and escrow via the CBA. That is not honoring the contracts signed by the players.


At least the owners were honest. They said the players make too much money and presented proposals to help reduce the money they make. You may disagree with it, but at least you know the owners stance.

What is the NHLPA's stance? Didn't they say that they wanted to "fight for the future" and then they propose something that only protects the current contracts and leaves future contracts to fight over the reduced, leftover pie.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 05:52 PM
  #432
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Thats another one of those hilarious whoppers i find, that the players are proposing de-linkage. The political spin machines would be proud of you for that one.

Had the owners chosen to enter negotiations, seeing a PA led by a hardliner that was proposing to keep the cap, linkage, and all current salary restrictions, and was proposing to take a smaller percentage of revenues going forward than before, as an opening offer, with a less combative stance, we may be have got somewhere.

But had PA's last offer been accepted, its pretty likely that revenures would continue to grow between 5-9% a year as always even though we went through one of th reworst financial crisis since the great depression. And they were offering to take a fixed raise of only a couple percent a year for a few years and then a salary freeze for a few years until the 50-50 came about due to revenue growth.

And you are actually trying to paint that as de-linkage? Well i guess you are technically correct - freezing salaries would be de-linking them. That's a principle though you want to stand on and fight for while wondering what on earth are the players fighting over?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:04 PM
  #433
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Thats another one of those hilarious whoppers i find, that the players are proposing de-linkage. The political spin machines would be proud of you for that one.

Had the owners chosen to enter negotiations, seeing a PA led by a hardliner that was proposing to keep the cap, linkage, and all current salary restrictions, and was proposing to take a smaller percentage of revenues going forward than before, as an opening offer, with a less combative stance, we may be have got somewhere.

But had PA's last offer been accepted, its pretty likely that revenures would continue to grow between 5-9% a year as always even though we went through one of th reworst financial crisis since the great depression. And they were offering to take a fixed raise of only a couple percent a year for a few years and then a salary freeze for a few years until the 50-50 came about due to revenue growth.

And you are actually trying to paint that as de-linkage? Well i guess you are technically correct - freezing salaries would be de-linking them. That's a principle though you want to stand on and fight for while wondering what on earth are the players fighting over?
What the players proposed is delinkage. Nothing you said changed that. The reason owners fight for linkage is cost certainty. They had it under the last CBA. If you have fixed salaries and no linkage, $1.9B in player salaries can become 60% of HRR overnight if (and it's not far fetched) there's a backlash following the lockout.

If players were being sincere at all about wanting to keep the league healthy, they'd accept linkage. It doesn't mean anything other than we all share in the profits and we all share in the losses.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:06 PM
  #434
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Thats another one of those hilarious whoppers i find, that the players are proposing de-linkage. The political spin machines would be proud of you for that one.

Had the owners chosen to enter negotiations, seeing a PA led by a hardliner that was proposing to keep the cap, linkage, and all current salary restrictions, and was proposing to take a smaller percentage of revenues going forward than before, as an opening offer, with a less combative stance, we may be have got somewhere.

But had PA's last offer been accepted, its pretty likely that revenures would continue to grow between 5-9% a year as always even though we went through one of th reworst financial crisis since the great depression. And they were offering to take a fixed raise of only a couple percent a year for a few years and then a salary freeze for a few years until the 50-50 came about due to revenue growth.

And you are actually trying to paint that as de-linkage? Well i guess you are technically correct - freezing salaries would be de-linking them. That's a principle though you want to stand on and fight for while wondering what on earth are the players fighting over?
And if revenue flatlined for a couple of season? Those losses could end up dwarfing the gains of the last 3 years of the nhlpa's proposal. If the nhlpa is so sure that revenues will continue to grow, why not keep their current contracts linked to HRR and negotiate a capped escrow system to reduce the players risk of lower revenue? Why de-link if you are sure of record growth?

The owners didn't lose a season to get salaries linked to HRR to turn around and give it up when the salaries are at their peak. Doesn't sound likes solid business plan for the NHL.

**** can happen beyond the nhl's control that could effect overall revenue.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:18 PM
  #435
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
If the players propose freezing salaries for several years until revenue growth makes the salaries 50% of HRR, you think the owners would fight because it is delinked? You must be kidding?

If revenues went down, then they would be forced to do what every other business in North America does i guess. But this is the same argument as last cba when Goodenow wanted the annual adjustment to be 7% instead of 5%.

So then, if the PA said they will accept a corresponding drop in salaries to match any future revenue drop thus again absolving the owners from taking any of that downside risk and then freezing salaries at 1 or 2% raises otherwise for a couple years and then a 3 year salary freeze, and only if revenues rise by more than 2% a year, you would have no objections to the players offer? And further, should Bettman not find that acceptable, you would turn against him?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:36 PM
  #436
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
If the players propose freezing salaries for several years until revenue growth makes the salaries 50% of HRR, you think the owners would fight because it is de-linked? You must be kidding?
I have no idea how the owners would have reacted because the NHLPA never proposed this. If they had offered it and the owners turned it down, then yes, I would probably wonder what the owners are smoking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
If revenues went down, then they would be forced to do what every other business in North America does i guess. But this is the same argument as last cba when Goodenow wanted the annual adjustment to be 7% instead of 5%.
Except the NHL couldn't do what every other business does when there are revenue drops. The NHL can't just "layoff" their employees because their contracts are guaranteed. They can only buy-out some contracts, but then have to replace the money anyways to remain in compliance with the cap floor. Kind of defeats the purpose of buying out players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
So then, if the PA said they will accept a corresponding drop in salaries to match any future revenue drop thus again absolving the owners from taking any of that downside risk and then freezing salaries at 1 or 2% raises otherwise for a couple years and then a 3 year salary freeze, and only if revenues rise by more than 2% a year, you would have no objections to the players offer? And further, should Bettman not find that acceptable, you would turn against him?
That sounds a lot like linking their salaries to HRR, something the NHLPA hasn't proposed except for future contracts. The NHL wants to reduce their salaries for next season, this is because the NHL feels that the players make too much right now. Doesn't matter if you or I agree with this stance, it only matters that owners have expressed this publicly and their proposals have backed up their stance. Maybe once the NHLPA has lost enough real dollars via the lockout, the owners will weaken their stance, accept a form of de-linkage and we will have NHL hockey again. Or the NHLPA will start offering proposals that have true linkage with HRR for all contracts, current and future.

Does anyone know what the NHLPA is trying to accomplish? What is there goal in these negotiations? Seems like their stance has changed over time and the only thing we hear about now is propaganda. I would respect the NHLPA more if they just came out and said they don't want escrow anymore and want to remove the cap or re-write how it works. They wouldn't say this because the masses would understand what this means and would turn completely against the NHLPA. Instead they have created the falsehood that the NHL doesn't want to "honor" their contracts and re-write them. Do you not see that the NHLPA is the only one trying to re-write the current contracts by removing the link to HRR? It is their right to try and do it, but they should be honest about it.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:43 PM
  #437
Rooverick*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
If the players propose freezing salaries for several years until revenue growth makes the salaries 50% of HRR, you think the owners would fight because it is delinked? You must be kidding?
MOD The NHL will NEVER move off linkage in the first two years of new CBA because it is a poison pill to punish both sides if they don't come to an agreement in time to ensure revenues aren't hurt.


Last edited by Fugu: 10-28-2012 at 10:38 PM. Reason: address the topic please
Rooverick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:47 PM
  #438
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I have no idea how the owners would have reacted because the NHLPA never proposed this. If they had offered it and the owners turned it down, then yes, I would probably wonder what the owners are smoking.
And last time everyone said why dont the players just accept a gradual drop to 50-50 and compromise and this will be all over. Cause that seemed fair. But as you pointed out, fairness is not what is sought. The owners want what they want because they want it, so when they say no to a fair offer, you change your mind to whatever position is blowing in bettmans breeze that day.

Well, good to know you are on record again.

Quote:
Does anyone know what the NHLPA is trying to accomplish? What is there goal in these negotiations? Seems like their stance has changed over time and the only thing we hear about now is propaganda. I would respect the NHLPA more if they just came out and said they don't want escrow anymore and want to remove the cap or re-write how it works. They wouldn't say this because the masses would understand what this means and would turn completely against the NHLPA. Instead they have created the falsehood that the NHL doesn't want to "honor" their contracts and re-write them. Do you not see that the NHLPA is the only one trying to re-write the current contracts by removing the link to HRR? It is their right to try and do it, but they should be honest about it.
Why not look at their last offers? Did they propose getting rid of the cap. Did they want to rewrite it? They did get rid of escrow in a way that seems an entirely reasonable negotiating concession - by taking less money going forward.

The owners have demonstrated no compelling reason why players should take less money going forward. That's what the NHLPA obviously wants. Thats what they said they want. That what their proposals demonstrated they want.

What is so hard to understand about that that ridiculous conspiracy theories and fabrications need to be created to obfuscate such a simple, honourable, and justifiable position?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 07:08 PM
  #439
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Why not look at their last offers? Did they propose getting rid of the cap. Did they want to rewrite it? They did get rid of escrow in a way that seems an entirely reasonable negotiating concession - by taking less money going forward.

The owners have demonstrated no compelling reason why players should take less money going forward. That's what the NHLPA obviously wants. Thats what they said they want. That what their proposals demonstrated they want.

What is so hard to understand about that that ridiculous conspiracy theories and fabrications need to be created to obfuscate such a simple, Honorable, and justifiable position?
If one side says that they will never accept a proposal that de-links current contracts from HRR, why keep proposing it? Unless it is just to score PR points by showing that you are willing to move toward a 50/50 split? Without actually achieving it. Then you can call your proposal a 50/50 proposal without it being a 50/50 proposal.

Maybe Fehr thinks the NHL is bluffing on the whole de-linking current contracts stance, but it is costing his union a lot of real dollars to find out.

But if the NHLPA is so sure that revenues will continue to grow, why not propose a gradual reduction in HRR percentage and negotiate a limit on escrow to limit the players losses in the event that revenue doesn't grow as fast as they propose? Why take the extra step to de-link the contracts, unless you know that the other side won't accept it and you can make 3 proposals to show the world how hard you are trying to end the lockout.

Where did the concept of making the contracts "whole" come from? In a capped world linked to HRR, no contract is ever made "whole". Some years players make less and some years they make more than what their contract says. Why try and create an issue over it as part of the negotiations when it has been a part of the CBA for the past 7 years?

This is why Fehr wanted the NHLPA to hold out for 2 season to avoid the salary cap and escrow in the first place. He didn't want to fight over HRR percentages.

Why did the NHLPA announce to the world that they hate how the owners always ask for concessions with each new CBA and then propose a 3+1 year initial proposal? Shouldn't they be the ones fighting for a longer term CBA? What is their motivation for asking for fewer years and start the fight over again in 4 years?

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 07:17 PM
  #440
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
So since you missed it last time, i'll ask again. If the players proposed that they 1 or 2% raises for a couple years and then a salary freeze for 3 years you think the owners would reject that because it is de-linked? I think that's a ridiculous assertion, they are against it because its not an immediate pay cut.

But again, if the players guaranteed that would only be the case if revenues grew by 1% a year, otherwise they would take a corresponding escrow hit, you would support the players gradual dropping to 50-50 via revenue growth and forget all the other nonsense about restricting their salaries which should be moot when the total package is fixed?

Would you support that even if Bettman said not enough?

---
Its also funny how so many argue that nowhere was it written that player salaries are guaranteed, ELC's are 2-way and not guaranteed, RFA's can be bought our for one third their salary so not guaranteed, all others can be bought out at two thirds, and this very cba is once again arguing over how much a rollback they should one again take. And if they dont accept it, then the owners will start taking away their guaranteed contracts.

How do you guys not go crazy with logic breakdowns trying to rationalize support for the mobster bullies and their one-trick pony consigliere?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 07:44 PM
  #441
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
So since you missed it last time, i'll ask again. If the players proposed that they 1 or 2% raises for a couple years and then a salary freeze for 3 years you think the owners would reject that because it is de-linked? I think that's a ridiculous assertion, they are against it because its not an immediate pay cut.

But again, if the players guaranteed that would only be the case if revenues grew by 1% a year, otherwise they would take a corresponding escrow hit, you would support the players gradual dropping to 50-50 via revenue growth and forget all the other nonsense about restricting their salaries which should be moot when the total package is fixed?

Would you support that even if Bettman said not enough?
Why are you trying to make it so confusing what you are offering? Why so many rules to try and keep track of? Are you saying that you want 58-59% of HRR this season and 59-61% in the next season? And then freeze that dollar amount for three years or until it reaches 50% of HRR? Why would the owners accept that? That sounds very close to the NHLPA's first offer of 3 years of raises and then snap back to 57% of HRR.

Just negotiate HRR% and escrow. The owners get to pick the system they want, not the players. If the players don't like the system, then sign with a league that offers the utopia that they want. And definitely don't sign a contract that lasts longer than the CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
---
Its also funny how so many argue that nowhere was it written that player salaries are guaranteed, ELC's are 2-way and not guaranteed, RFA's can be bought our for one third their salary so not guaranteed, all others can be bought out at two thirds, and this very cba is once again arguing over how much a rollback they should one again take. And if they don't accept it, then the owners will start taking away their guaranteed contracts.

How do you guys not go crazy with logic breakdowns trying to rationalize support for the mobster bullies and their one-trick pony consigliere?
If the players want to remove ELC's, then negotiate for it. If they want to change the RFA rules, then negotiate for it. If they want to change the buy-out rules, then negotiate it.

Contracts are guaranteed because the owners can't just walk away from them. They have to buy-out the contracts, which still pays real money and suffer severe cap penalties to reduce the money available to sign replacement players.

Do you think the Rangers are happy that they have to pay Redden $6.5 million per year to play in the AHL? Don't you think they would rather cut him and save the money? If they buy him out, there is a cap penalty, but if they send him to the AHL, there is not cap penalty. It only costs them money, but they are a strong revenue team so they can suffer the monetary loss easily.

This is why the owners want to remove the "send to the AHL or Europe" loophole in the next CBA.


You still haven't answered why the NHLPA had to de-link current salaries. What is the purpose? If they really think the revenues would increase 7.1%, why not just negotiate a new HRR% that would be enough to cover current contracts? If the owners rejected that, then they would have more on their side and the owners would have a tremendous amount of pressure on them to get a deal done.

Now that games have been lost, how does the NHLPA make current contracts "whole"? How do they move on their proposals? There is already a 25% rollback for 2012-13 now.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:04 PM
  #442
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
So since you missed it last time, i'll ask again. If the players proposed that they 1 or 2% raises for a couple years and then a salary freeze for 3 years you think the owners would reject that because it is de-linked? I think that's a ridiculous assertion, they are against it because its not an immediate pay cut.

But again, if the players guaranteed that would only be the case if revenues grew by 1% a year, otherwise they would take a corresponding escrow hit, you would support the players gradual dropping to 50-50 via revenue growth and forget all the other nonsense about restricting their salaries which should be moot when the total package is fixed?

Would you support that even if Bettman said not enough?

---
Its also funny how so many argue that nowhere was it written that player salaries are guaranteed, ELC's are 2-way and not guaranteed, RFA's can be bought our for one third their salary so not guaranteed, all others can be bought out at two thirds, and this very cba is once again arguing over how much a rollback they should one again take. And if they dont accept it, then the owners will start taking away their guaranteed contracts.

How do you guys not go crazy with logic breakdowns trying to rationalize support for the mobster bullies and their one-trick pony consigliere?
Since you seem to have missed all the posters critiquing you the players have never offered what you are suggesting.

What they offered was a guaranteed raise for themselves that IF revenue continued to grow greater than 5% would mean a reduction in player costs per year over time until they reached a 50/50 split. However if revenues drop the owners are on the hook for more than 57% to the players as it's 1.9 billion PLUS the guaranteed raises.

You talk about one trick ponies and yet you ignore Fehr and the players constantly talking about playing under the old CBA while negotiating a new one...which is the Fear's 1 trick pony as well or have you forgotten about the 94 MLB strike he orchestrated? There are reasons people dislike Fehr and why no league has played without a signed CBA since 94...and it isn't Bettman.

Brian28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:10 PM
  #443
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Why are you trying to make it so confusing what you are offering? Why so many rules to try and keep track of? Are you saying that you want 58-59% of HRR this season and 59-61% in the next season? And then freeze that dollar amount for three years or until it reaches 50% of HRR? Why would the owners accept that? That sounds very close to the NHLPA's first offer of 3 years of raises and then snap back to 57% of HRR.
What could possibly be so confusing? The players are negotiating a concession, that they will agree to the owners desire to get to a 50-50 split. In return, they think its fair in a time of rising revenues and overall profits that that can be done through growth. The way most fans thought. And the way most think a mediator would propose.

Also, in return for them taking a smaller percentage going forward, the escrow provisions should be removed. And would be safe to do so since they are taking less money - that seems a reasonable trade off to me.

If the owners had a choice of maintaining linkage to prevent downside risk even though the liklihood of that is minimal or take their desire for 50-50 in a slow but certain way over a few years that technically delinks but only because there is a salary freeze like the the rest of teh country, what kind of principle are they standing on not to take it?

These guys have so much money they could afford to sit out 3 years i've been told. But not take a fair deal like that?


Quote:
The owners get to pick the system they want, not the players.
They can pick the system they want, but they have to negotiate the system they want to implement. That why they call it collective bargaining.


Quote:
If the players want to remove ELC's, then negotiate for it. If they want to change the RFA rules, then negotiate for it. If they want to change the buy-out rules, then negotiate it.

Contracts are guaranteed because the owners can't just walk away from them. They have to buy-out the contracts, which still pays real money and suffer severe cap penalties to reduce the money available to sign replacement players.

Do you think the Rangers are happy that they have to pay Redden $6.5 million per year to play in the AHL? Don't you think they would rather cut him and save the money? If they buy him out, there is a cap penalty, but if they send him to the AHL, there is not cap penalty. It only costs them money, but they are a strong revenue team so they can suffer the monetary loss easily.

This is why the owners want to remove the "send to the AHL or Europe" loophole in the next CBA.
You think the Rangers really want to end that loophole? Really? As a fan you want that too?

The players arent proposing changes to any of those things anyway. Bettman is.

Quote:
You still haven't answered why the NHLPA had to de-link current salaries. What is the purpose? If they really think the revenues would increase 7.1%, why not just negotiate a new HRR% that would be enough to cover current contracts? If the owners rejected that, then they would have more on their side and the owners would have a tremendous amount of pressure on them to get a deal done.
You are calling a salary freeze de-linking. A salary freeze for 3 years while revenues are growing 5-9% is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the owners. They would trade that for the certainty of linkage in your opinion?

What does it matter what percentage of revenuews that is unless revenues are droppping? And if revenues drop, you can negotiate a different deal to protect the owners from taking any risk.

Quote:
Now that games have been lost, how does the NHLPA make current contracts "whole"? How do they move on their proposals? There is already a 25% rollback for 2012-13 now.
Making salaries whole i beleive is an nhl term not a PA one. And their method is to get future players to take less to pay them. It is a clever phrase, but it distracts from the fact the owners are asking the players to take an immediate overall salary envelope pay cut to solve a problem while revenues and overall profits are increasing. It would surely be understandable if revenues were dropping.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:16 PM
  #444
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Thats another one of those hilarious whoppers i find, that the players are proposing de-linkage. The political spin machines would be proud of you for that one.

Had the owners chosen to enter negotiations, seeing a PA led by a hardliner that was proposing to keep the cap, linkage, and all current salary restrictions, and was proposing to take a smaller percentage of revenues going forward than before, as an opening offer, with a less combative stance, we may be have got somewhere.

But had PA's last offer been accepted, its pretty likely that revenures would continue to grow between 5-9% a year as always even though we went through one of th reworst financial crisis since the great depression. And they were offering to take a fixed raise of only a couple percent a year for a few years and then a salary freeze for a few years until the 50-50 came about due to revenue growth.

And you are actually trying to paint that as de-linkage? Well i guess you are technically correct - freezing salaries would be de-linking them. That's a principle though you want to stand on and fight for while wondering what on earth are the players fighting over?
So, it's a huge whopper that the players are proposing deli mags, because they are in fact proposing de-linkage, by the very definition of what linkage means in respect to the salary cap? You're not making sense. Just because you assume a certain level of growth doesn't have anything to do with linkage. Also, the NHLPA offers aren't offering a wage/cap freeze. They are offering an delinked cap with gauranteed raises every year. And to assume any growth in the NHL right now is extremely risky right now.


Last edited by PensFanSince1989: 10-28-2012 at 08:22 PM.
PensFanSince1989 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:17 PM
  #445
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,341
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
What could possibly be so confusing? The players are negotiating a concession, that they will agree to the owners desire to get to a 50-50 split. In return, they think its fair in a time of rising revenues and overall profits that that can be done through growth. The way most fans thought. And the way most think a mediator would propose.

Also, in return for them taking a smaller percentage going forward, the escrow provisions should be removed. And would be safe to do so since they are taking less money - that seems a reasonable trade off to me.

If the owners had a choice of maintaining linkage to prevent downside risk even though the liklihood of that is minimal or take their desire for 50-50 in a slow but certain way over a few years that technically delinks but only because there is a salary freeze like the the rest of teh country, what kind of principle are they standing on not to take it?

These guys have so much money they could afford to sit out 3 years i've been told. But not take a fair deal like that?




They can pick the system they want, but they have to negotiate the system they want to implement. That why they call it collective bargaining.




You think the Rangers really want to end that loophole? Really? As a fan you want that too?

The players arent proposing changes to any of those things anyway. Bettman is.



You are calling a salary freeze de-linking. A salary freeze for 3 years while revenues are growing 5-9% is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the owners. They would trade that for the certainty of linkage in your opinion?

What does it matter what percentage of revenuews that is unless revenues are droppping? And if revenues drop, you can negotiate a different deal to protect the owners from taking any risk.



Making salaries whole i beleive is an nhl term not a PA one. And their method is to get future players to take less to pay them. It is a clever phrase, but it distracts from the fact the owners are asking the players to take an immediate overall salary envelope pay cut to solve a problem while revenues and overall profits are increasing. It would surely be understandable if revenues were dropping.
Simple question. Can you, or the PA, or anyone, guarantee that the revenues will continue to increase and save them hundreds of millions of dollars instead of revenues not growing as fast as 7% and then having the owners lose more millions of dollars?

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:24 PM
  #446
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,618
vCash: 500
If the players are so confident in their growth estimates, then convert the amount they want into an actual linked percentage based on their assumption. Something tells me there's a reason they aren't doing that...

PensFanSince1989 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:39 PM
  #447
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Simple question. Can you, or the PA, or anyone, guarantee that the revenues will continue to increase and save them hundreds of millions of dollars instead of revenues not growing as fast as 7% and then having the owners lose more millions of dollars?
Of course not.

Are the owners incapable of running their business without that?

How is this even a reasonable worry that if the players freezed their salaries for a few years, such a delinkage might cost the owners a lot of money if revenues dropped?

What percentage of risk should be assigned to that possibility? How clever a businessman would turn that offer down to protect that small percentage of risk, especially when the players can easily offer a make whole provision for them should revenues actually drop, by allowing them to recover some of it in escrow.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:49 PM
  #448
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
thinkwild,

How does any of that provide what the owners want? They want a reduction in salaries immediately. How does raising salaries and then freezing them accomplish that?

I understand that you disagree with the owners, but how do change their minds by offering raises and a freeze of these raises?

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:53 PM
  #449
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,341
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Of course not.

Are the owners incapable of running their business without that?

How is this even a reasonable worry that if the players freezed their salaries for a few years, such a delinkage might cost the owners a lot of money if revenues dropped?

What percentage of risk should be assigned to that possibility? How clever a businessman would turn that offer down to protect that small percentage of risk, especially when the players can easily offer a make whole provision for them should revenues actually drop, by allowing them to recover some of it in escrow.
So then you're, and the pa's, comments about how their deal can save the owners hundreds of millions of dollars is what exactly. I'll be nice and say......"hopefull"

They only save that much if revenue is at 7.1%. If it's at 6% growth then they don't save any. True if it's more than that they save more but at best the odds are 50/50.

As far as your other derogatory comments towards their abilities as businessmen......Firstly, they are trying to design an agreement that will work with 30 individual businesses in vastly different economic situations. So in essence, ya their going to design it so that the bottom 1/3 can be successful rather than the top 2/3. Secondly, I don't about you, but hundreds of millions of dollars to me isn't something I would call minimal risk. And the individual business owners can't make that decision for themselves because of the nature of what they do.

Lastly, as has been pointed out, there has been no talk about salary freezes because the NHL needs immediate relief and the PA doesn't want to lose a penny on the current value of contracts. How they both achieve that is up in the air, I have my own opinions but that's me. Right now, the PA is refusing to talk about linkage and that's why we are where we are. Even if an ultimatum was given, there was nothing stopping Fehr from agreeing to meet "on their terms" and simply starting to talk about other things that they "had to agree with or no meeting".

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:59 PM
  #450
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
thinkwild,

How does any of that provide what the owners want? They want a reduction in salaries immediately. How does raising salaries and then freezing them accomplish that?

I understand that you disagree with the owners, but how do change their minds by offering raises and a freeze of these raises?
It isnt what the owners want. But when negotiating, and in life, the Rolling Stones hit applies.

I know the owners want that. I dont see it as justifiable, but what do i know. The players have seen the books and they dont see it as justifiable. And they arent going to accept it because it looks like plain bullying. You ask what the problem is and try to solve it and they change the problem.

How do the players change the owners minds to do what most everyone sees as reasonable? Well that's a tough one. Thats why Fehr gets the big bucks. Maybe they cant in the end. But it is still important enough for them to fight for.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.