The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII
Does anybody know the particular section of CBA text that discusses the term/existance of the CBA and how it relates to potential rollbacks under a new one?
Does anybody know the particular section of CBA text that discusses the term/existance of the CBA and how it relates to potential rollbacks under a new one?
PREAMBLE
This Collective Bargaining Agreement, together with all Exhibits hereto
("CBA"or"Agreement"),whichistheproductofbonafide,a rm’slengthcollective
bargaining, is entered into the 22nd day of July, 2005, by and between the National
Hockey League, a joint venture organized as a not-for-profit unincorporated association
("NHL" or "League"), which is recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the present and future Clubs of the NHL, and the National Hockey
League Players’Association("NHLPA"or"Association"),whichi srecognizedasthe
sole and exclusive bargaining representative of present and future Players in the NHL.
The NHL and the NHLPA hereafter shall be referred to collectively as "the parties". This
CBA supersedes and replaces all prior collective bargaining agreements between the
parties.
Since the SPCs are all affected by the CBAs and the CBA that is current supersedes the previous one, if there's a rollback put into it the CBA, a rollback would take place
As for the length of the CBA length, it's article 3 :
3.1 :
3.1 Term.
(a) This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 2004 (the
“EffectiveDate”),andshallremaininfullforceandeffec tuntilmidnightNewYorktime
on September 15, 2011, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and
until either party shall deliver to the other a written notice of termination of this
Agreement at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011 or not less than a like period in
any year thereafter.
(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in subparagraph 3.1(a),
the NHLPA shall have the right: (i) to terminate this Agreement as of September 15,
2009 by delivery of written notice of termination to the NHL at least 120 days prior to
September 15, 2009; or (ii) to extend this Agreement for one additional year to
September 15, 2012 by delivery of written notice to the NHL of such election to extend at
least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011.
I the they would be much closer to as deal if Bettman hadn't bungled the negotiations by walking around with a sledge hammer beforew things even got going.
If the NHL had been the least bit skilful in their appraoch they might have a deal now; even perhaps on the very same terms of their last offer if not better.
I have the sense that the NHLPA is wikllking to work with the league, but not to roll-over and play dead. You always have to leave something on the table for the other guys if you want to make a deal, and the NHL hasn't figured that out yet. Neither has the chattering class here.
For me the sign of good faith from the NHL was not touching the HRR definition. There was a lot of "sky is falling" rhetoric on the player side about HRR, and it even continued after the league made its 50-50 proposal, which kept the current revenue definitions (there were players chirping about HRR right after the NHL proposal). Once the NHLPA realized the ownership had capitulated on HRR they had to find something else to whine about.
50-50 should be taken as a given, that's the end game here and always has been. The owners bridged the gap when they left HRR alone and offered a fair 50-50 split. That should have set the stage for come creative bargaining to get the contract issue resolved.
Players made a mistake going after linkage. That is akin to the owners going after guaranteed contracts in my opinion. You got two things that are sacred to each side: linkage for owners and guaranteed contracts for players in the scope of the CBA.
Players should have focused on what mattered long-term to them in the NHL proposal: 1. working creatively with the 'make whole' provision to develop somethng that they liked; 2. Negotiate on contract lengths, ELC provisions, and UFA specs (which is probably the most logistically important aspect to any given player); 3. Just agree on 50-50 because you aren't getting anything better.
That is what makes this whole lockout frustrating.. The players have no end game and no vision for what they want. Just to make people think they are getting screwed over.
I think the players are not being told the whole story
Kypreos writes that most owners are in the dark on negotiations:
Quote:
Worse is the perception that only three people control all the power and information when it comes to the future of the NHL, that a new deal hinges solely on Bettman, Bob Batterman (lead counsel for the NHL) and Jeremy Jacobs (Boston Bruins owner and chairman of the NHL board). Everyone else is on the outside looking in when it comes to power in the league.
Ask many NHL owners outside of this small circle and if they answer truthfully they'll tell you they know as much of what's going on as you or me. Some teams will also tell you a two- to three-year slope toward 50/50 split works just fine, and to potentially burn the whole village down in an effort to keep fighting for teams like Phoenix and Florida is just plain wrong. Like McCabe and Walker in 2004, many owners' frustration lies in not having their voice heard when it matters most.
As for 2 and 3:
2) The escalator - This is just something that had to be done. If the NHLPA doesn't ask for the escalator then they are basically conceding that they are wrong and are going to lose out on more in the end. If they take what was given to them, in this case the escalator, then give some back during the negotiations, that isn't as bad as them not getting the escalator and giving more back during the CBA negotiations.
Do you think if the NHLPA didn't ask for the escalator that the NHL would have looked to cut the players share at a smaller %?
3). The normal now is for a lockout. The past 3 CBAs have expired and there has been a lockout each time. This is the new norm and not the exception. It is in the players best interest to get some protection and if the teams are willing to give it to them in bonuses, then why shouldn't the players take it. Similar to NFL salaries where players get bonuses because the contracts are not guaranteed. The players would get the bonus money either way. If they play the season, they get the bonus money, plus salary. If they don't play the season, then they just get the bonus money.
Also, if we look at the case of Philly and Nashville, I think Weber was given a ton in bonuses because Philly's thinking was that Nashville couldn't sign him. I don't know if it was necessarily the player saying he wanted all the up front bonus money.
I agree with your answers for points 2 and 3 from the players' perspective. They did have to do that PR wise, and I'm sure most people looked for a possible lockout and to protect themselves from that.
What I have issue with, however, is that the players escalated the cap, and negotiated these signing bonuses, and then come out in the media and say that the owners are spending more money than ever before, and giving out tons of cash on contracts and then asking for a rollback. The players are acting blameless when they certainly share some of the blame (the owners are doing this too, but they are much less public about it, bar Bettman).
Also, the players are saying "it's not about the money", but have yet to propose anything where they actually lose any money immediately. They want their money now. They are twisting the NHL's proposal in saying that the league does not want to pay them their full contracts, when the league's latest proposal includes provisions that would, if we take it at face value, pay them that full amount over time. The players want all of it up front. At least the owners are saying it's about the money. The players are saying in public that it's not, but their offers are definitely saying that it is.
I feel Bettman is being a bit more reasonable in what the league is looking for, and that's why I'm on the owners' side more than the players. The players are, to me, not looking to negotiate what's best for the league that employs them going forward, but they are looking out for what's best for them without thinking long term. To be fair to them, I don't like the negotiation tactics that the league has put forth, but when Fehr has basically told the players "The league is just stalling, they'll break", the league does need to make the statement that they are not just stalling.
Why is it that the pro PA crowd always ask why the owners won't agree with a phase in period for coming down to 50-50? This seems to be lamented by all kinds of people, and yet there is no evidence that the owners wouldn't entertain some sort of phase in period. In fact, their previous proposal that started at 49% and then down to 47% suggests that they would have no problem phasing it in. There is just one problem: the NHLPA has refused to even include linkage in any of their proposals. Had they even came back to the owners with a phased in 56-54-52-50-50-50 type of deal it could at least be used as a starting point and we would be probably watching hockey in a couple days.
Kypreos writes that most owners are in the dark on negotiations:
Honestly, that reads like Kypreos taking the players side and trying to put out a propaganda piece inferring that the owners are getting ready to break. There's not one single named source in the entire article, it's all "ask an owner and he'll tell you this" or "an owner might tell you that". I don't think it's worth the screen real estate it's displayed upon.
Daily said Steve Fehr called him and asked to meet. Daily asked if they were prepared to make a deal based off hte the NHL's offer. Fehr said no. Daily asked if the NLHPA was going to present a new offer. Fehr said no. Daily said there's no point in meeting.
So in short NHL wants to meet as long as if involves working off of their offer.
NHLPA wants to meet as long as if doesn't have to involve working off the NHL's offer.
So we are at an impasse then. Neither side is willing to back down.
Why is it that the pro PA crowd always ask why the owners won't agree with a phase in period for coming down to 50-50? This seems to be lamented by all kinds of people, and yet there is no evidence that the owners wouldn't entertain some sort of phase in period. In fact, their previous proposal that started at 49% and then down to 47% suggests that they would have no problem phasing it in. There is just one problem: the NHLPA has refused to even include linkage in any of their proposals. Had they even came back to the owners with a phased in 56-54-52-50-50-50 type of deal it could at least be used as a starting point and we would be probably watching hockey in a couple days.
Im afraid we wont be watching for quite some time.
I wonder how both sides would react to this proposal.
Year 1: 57-43 PA
Year 2: 56-44 NHL
Year 3: 55-45 PA
Year 4: 54-46 NHL
Year 5: 53-47 PA
Year 6: 52-48 NHL
Year 7: 51-49 PA
Year 8: 50-50 NHL
Not very well. It doesn't make much sense. One of the biggest issues is going from 57 to 50 from one year to the next and how to deal with such a big drop (rollbacks, escrow, etc.).
No, NHLPA wants to meet whenever the league wants to meet. They'll meet even if the only item on the agenda is: "working off the NHL's offer".
When did they ever say that? Publicly Fehr has said a few times - "we're prepared to sit down and negotiate with no pre-conditions". The NHL would only meet with the condition that they work off of the NHL's proposal and Fehr has refused to agree to that and only wants to meet if there is no conditions on the discussions.
Since Thursday Daly has said they pulled their proposal and are discussing internally how to proceed now that an 82 game season is not possible.
