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, and NHL revenues.

Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 02:57 PM
  #301
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
[/B]


Really?
Care to provide another example of anyone giving anything and not simply reducing the amount they are demanding?

Admitting that you have to take less money over the duration of the next CBA is a pretty significant step in my book.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:00 PM
  #302
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Care to provide another example of anyone giving anything and not simply reducing the amount they are demanding?

Admitting that you have to take less money over the duration of the next CBA is a pretty significant step in my book.
How is asking for less than a previous offer not taking a step back?

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:02 PM
  #303
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Care to provide another example of anyone giving anything and not simply reducing the amount they are demanding?

Admitting that you have to take less money over the duration of the next CBA is pretty significant step in my book.
It's a silly misnomer that both sides have to give in a negotiation. You only have a negotiation because one side needs to give and the other side needs to get. If both sides were just in it to do some roughly equivalent horsetrading for the sake of it, there'd be no reason to cancel games. Sure, the NHL could give away peripheral issues like UFA age etc., but those are so peripheral that the PA isn't even negotiating for them right now. They'll be squared away as grease to the wheel when a deal is close. There's no doubt, however, no matter how the peripherals shake out, that the NHL is the taker in this negotiation, and rightfully so. The biggest question is just how many dollars will owners pay to players, and so arguing about what the NHL has to give on that count is ridiculous. They're not going to offer 60%. The whole negotiation is founded on how much they're going to take.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:09 PM
  #304
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
The entire concept of collective bargaining is prefaced on the idea that neither side is inherently obliged to defer to the will of the other side. It's two bulls of varying sizes charging each other in a field, not on a mountain where one side has to run up the hill and the other down it. While the bigger bull usually wins, it's not due to downward momentum.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:14 PM
  #305
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Have a renegotiation clause in case of global financial ruin?
Another work stoppage? Since there's already a work stoppage, doesn't it make sense for the owners to just handle that now, particularly since you already have the exact mechanism you would need in all of your offers as well as the previous CBA?

billybudd is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:16 PM
  #306
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
The entire concept of collective bargaining is prefaced on the idea that neither side is inherently obliged to defer to the will of the other side. It's two bulls of varying sizes charging each other in a field, not on a mountain where one side has to run up the hill and the other down it. While the bigger bull usually wins, it's not due to downward momentum.
That's a nice metaphor, but it completely ignores my point. The point is the question in this negotiation was ALWAYS going to be "how much do players give up?" We know this for a fact because the PA offered to just play under the old agreement. They were fine with gaining nothing.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:18 PM
  #307
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Care to provide another example of anyone giving anything and not simply reducing the amount they are demanding?

Admitting that you have to take less money over the duration of the next CBA is a pretty significant step in my book.
Bettman's accounting changes reduce escrow beyond what it was in the previous CBA (albeit, only in the last two years). In addition, the "Wade Redden rule" ends the practice of stashing NHLers in the minors because you don't like their contribution vs their cap hit.

billybudd is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:22 PM
  #308
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Care to provide another example of anyone giving anything and not simply reducing the amount they are demanding?

Admitting that you have to take less money over the duration of the next CBA is a pretty significant step in my book.
Their offers only limited their raises with a speculation of 7% growth without linkage. don't be fooled by Fehr's BS offers...that's why the league threw them in the garbage after 10 mins....It's Fehr's smoke and mirrors.....

JAX is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:23 PM
  #309
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
That's a nice metaphor, but it completely ignores my point. The point is the question in this negotiation was ALWAYS going to be "how much do players give up?" We know this for a fact because the PA offered to just play under the old agreement. They were fine with gaining nothing.
The implication is that the players were obligated to give, because the owners asked, and thus the players agreeing that they needed to give was not a concession. I don't believe this is appropriate.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:23 PM
  #310
Milhouse40
Registered User
 
Milhouse40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,963
vCash: 500
I spoke to a family member yesterday.
Casual hockey fan.....but a very very smart lawyer weel known in his line of work.
And what he told me blew my mind (he followed this lockout more than hockey itself).

He is 100% sure that Fehr is going for the salary cap...since day 1 of these negociations.

To go to war, you need an enemy.
To win a war, you need an army.

And that's pretty much what Fehr did since day 1 (according to him).
He tried to build an enemy hated by everyone in Bettman and he tried to build an army with the fanbase. All the spins and rhetorics are there to fullfilled this purpose.

Nobody understand why the players are fighting for so little.
Nobody understand why they would lose more money then they would gain.....
Nobody understand why is there a lockout right now with that much money involved.

But let's say that Fehr is indeed after the salary cap......he can only acheive victory with a very long lockout, a very long battle and with everybody on board. And Fehr did nothing to accelerate these negociations but worked really hard to demonize Bettman and even harder to influence the public opinion.

Why did they worked so hard to gain public sympathy?
Why did they worked so hard at demonizing Bettman as a bad guy?

If he fought the Cap from day 1......everybody would have hated him for doing so.....to do that he needs a lot of time, a lot of desperation on the owners side, a lot of frustrated players and a just cause from public perspective. And now, he got almost everything he needs.

If the players lose more than they will be able to gain........if the owners came back with a lower offer than the last one (cause the NHLPA NEVER CAME OUT ONCE with an offer that wasn't a response to the previous offer from the league), then it will be an open war and only then the players might welling to unleashed Ferh to go after the cap....

Milhouse40 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:23 PM
  #311
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,895
vCash: 500
How do they know what th next NHL offer is going to be if there isn't another offer that exists right now?

CBJBrassard16 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:25 PM
  #312
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
That's a nice metaphor, but it completely ignores my point. The point is the question in this negotiation was ALWAYS going to be "how much do players give up?" We know this for a fact because the PA offered to just play under the old agreement. They were fine with gaining nothing.
They were fine gaining nothing over what they currently had - not they were fine giving things up and getting nothing at all in return. There's a difference.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:25 PM
  #313
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
Their offers only limited their raises with a speculation of 7% growth without linkage. don't be fooled by Fehr's BS offers...that's why the league threw them in the garbage after 10 mins....It's Fehr's smoke and mirrors.....
Everything is smoke and mirrors. It's not just Fehr.

Powdered Toast Man is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:25 PM
  #314
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
How do they know what th next NHL offer is going to be if there isn't another offer that exists right now?
They are more than likely working on one since Fehr isnt.

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:28 PM
  #315
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
When emergency workers, teachers, etc. start generating $3.3B in revenue every year....I'm sure their salaries will go up.
As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with the revenue they generate.

When was the last time Sidney Crosby helped pull a two year old out of a burning house?

Mike Jones is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:30 PM
  #316
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie10 View Post
Honestly, at this point, is anyone out there still on the PA's side? Doesn't seem like it.
I started out on the PAs side, especially with that stupid first offer from the owners. But as far as I'm concerned the players have worked overtime to wizz away that good will.

Mike Jones is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:31 PM
  #317
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,495
vCash: 500
Just freeze the cap where it is for the entire 6 years of the CBA. If the league continues to grow revenue they win and the players didn't give up anything.

Confucius is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:33 PM
  #318
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Just freeze the cap where it is for the entire 6 years of the CBA. If the league continues to grow revenue they win and the players didn't give up anything.
They would give up the increases in revenue that they would make under the current CBA

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:33 PM
  #319
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
They were fine gaining nothing over what they currently had - not they were fine giving things up and getting nothing at all in return. There's a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
The implication is that the players were obligated to give, because the owners asked, and thus the players agreeing that they needed to give was not a concession. I don't believe this is appropriate.
To both of you: they haven't even bothered negotiating the non-financial aspects of this deal (their last three offers ignored them entirely), and they haven't even bothered asking for more money than they had last time. So you talk about what the league is going to give back, but the players haven't even ****ing asked for anything back. What the **** would the league even give back without a request?

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:34 PM
  #320
scelaton
Registered User
 
scelaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
It's a silly misnomer that both sides have to give in a negotiation. You only have a negotiation because one side needs to give and the other side needs to get. If both sides were just in it to do some roughly equivalent horsetrading for the sake of it, there'd be no reason to cancel games. Sure, the NHL could give away peripheral issues like UFA age etc., but those are so peripheral that the PA isn't even negotiating for them right now. They'll be squared away as grease to the wheel when a deal is close. There's no doubt, however, no matter how the peripherals shake out, that the NHL is the taker in this negotiation, and rightfully so. The biggest question is just how many dollars will owners pay to players, and so arguing about what the NHL has to give on that count is ridiculous. They're not going to offer 60%. The whole negotiation is founded on how much they're going to take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
The entire concept of collective bargaining is prefaced on the idea that neither side is inherently obliged to defer to the will of the other side. It's two bulls of varying sizes charging each other in a field, not on a mountain where one side has to run up the hill and the other down it. While the bigger bull usually wins, it's not due to downward momentum.
It is a mistake for the PA, at this point, to regard the non-monetary issues as "peripheral", because that is where they stand to make their gains. On the monetary side, of the raging 'bull' on both sides (I am desperately trying to resist the pun...), the owners have this won. It's a matter of cutting losses and the faster Fehr cuts a deal, the less they'll lose.
I actually believe there is a lot the PA could negotiate to improve health, safety, education, financial management, career counselling, etc that would have vastly more positive impact on the players' future well being than a few percentage points of HRR. At their level of income, not one iota of happiness is gained by a few more dollars.

scelaton is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:39 PM
  #321
jeety mcjeet
Registered User
 
jeety mcjeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebinne4pres View Post
I spoke to a family member yesterday.
Casual hockey fan.....but a very very smart lawyer weel known in his line of work.
And what he told me blew my mind (he followed this lockout more than hockey itself).

He is 100% sure that Fehr is going for the salary cap...since day 1 of these negociations.

To go to war, you need an enemy.
To win a war, you need an army.

And that's pretty much what Fehr did since day 1 (according to him).
He tried to build an enemy hated by everyone in Bettman and he tried to build an army with the fanbase. All the spins and rhetorics are there to fullfilled this purpose.

Nobody understand why the players are fighting for so little.
Nobody understand why they would lose more money then they would gain.....
Nobody understand why is there a lockout right now with that much money involved.

But let's say that Fehr is indeed after the salary cap......he can only acheive victory with a very long lockout, a very long battle and with everybody on board. And Fehr did nothing to accelerate these negociations but worked really hard to demonize Bettman and even harder to influence the public opinion.

Why did they worked so hard to gain public sympathy?
Why did they worked so hard at demonizing Bettman as a bad guy?

If he fought the Cap from day 1......everybody would have hated him for doing so.....to do that he needs a lot of time, a lot of desperation on the owners side, a lot of frustrated players and a just cause from public perspective. And now, he got almost everything he needs.

If the players lose more than they will be able to gain........if the owners came back with a lower offer than the last one (cause the NHLPA NEVER CAME OUT ONCE with an offer that wasn't a response to the previous offer from the league), then it will be an open war and only then the players might welling to unleashed Ferh to go after the cap....
It's a nice theory and makes a lot of sense given the PA's lack of negotiation so far. But if the deal the owners want becomes impossible because 'Bettman is the enemy' then they'll pull the cord on Gary's golden parachute and bring in a new guy. When the new guy sits down and says "sooooo, how do you feel about 50/50" then what?

jeety mcjeet is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:43 PM
  #322
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
To both of you: they haven't even bothered negotiating the non-financial aspects of this deal (their last three offers ignored them entirely), and they haven't even bothered asking for more money than they had last time. So you talk about what the league is going to give back, but the players haven't even ****ing asked for anything back. What the **** would the league even give back without a request?
um, why don't you go read your previous post. YOU said, quite shortsightedly, that the players "fine not gaining anything" because they were happy to play under the previous deal. I was merely pointing out that you were over simplifying things.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:46 PM
  #323
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
If the maximum is high enough that teams are still losing money, we didn't fix that problem. Imposing a cap by itself is meaningless if the cap is too high.
Fixed the problems you listed....got cost certainty.

If Owners just spend to the cap floor...then they start losing fan interest, people stop showing up...revenues plummet...cap goes down.

It's a system the Owners wanted, lost a year for it, got it, and now most teams spend nearly to the cap if they can afford to or not....then cry because they are losing $5M a season.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:47 PM
  #324
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasespace View Post
I wonder how they will calculate the method of raising it? Doubt they give the NHLPA a 5% escalator again, probably a 2.5-3.5% one.

Would be smart to make the floor a percentage of the cap instead of a hard number gap, would keep the floor from rising so quickly.
Not having the Cap Floor as a percentage was the biggest failure in the previous CBA and you can search my posts all the way back to that point and see that myself and several others were pointing it out all along.

Original cap of $39M and floor of $23M... floor was 58% of the cap. They should have kept it there so now at this point when the cap is up to $70M, the floor would be at $40.6M instead of $54M... allowing a POTENTIAL savings of $14M for teams at the bottom of the revenue pool. And the talent gap between rosters would still only be $30M compared to the $55M gap in 2004.

From my understanding most of the teams that are actually losing money are losing less than $10M/season. So that $14M potential saving would mean that nearly every team could be making money at this point. Having the reduced escalator would have also reduced the inflation and payroll gap, all of which would have restricted salary inflation.

If the NHL and the PA both believed in future growth, then keeping all terms of the Previous CBA and changing these two rules would be enough for labor peace.

Of course the Owners are after sure savings in terms of a rollback, or at least modifying the payout of current contracts with a percentage decrease. And the Players are never going to make an offer that has any tools that restrict salary inflation or reduces the cap floor (ie: the bottom line).

And now everyone is losing money, and the fans are losing patience. I recently googled images for the acronym SNAFU... the NHL shield was the first result.

Legionnaire11 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 03:47 PM
  #325
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man View Post
Everything is smoke and mirrors. It's not just Fehr.


But mostly Fehr, it's not by coincedence the majority of posters here see through the PA's B.S.

JAX 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 09:20 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.