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.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 02:02 PM
  #601
wilty00
Registered User
 
wilty00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kelowna/Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,448
vCash: 500
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?

wilty00 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:06 PM
  #602
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
That offer has been pulled off the table.
The offer itself had to be removed because an 82-game season is now impossible.

The 50/50 split offer is still valid, more than likely.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:08 PM
  #603
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilty00 View Post
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?
http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/2005-CBA.pdf

The rollback part would be affected by this

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.


Last edited by Krishna: 10-29-2012 at 02:14 PM.
Krishna is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:08 PM
  #604
Bobby Lou
Moustache Power
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,459
vCash: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
This is how I read things too.

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.

Bobby Lou is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:09 PM
  #605
Hanklite*
Bettman's Bro
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: TO
Country: Canada
Posts: 996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
The offer itself had to be removed because an 82-game season is now impossible.

The 50/50 split offer is still valid, more than likely.
At this point, I wouldn't blame the owners if they hard lined at 51/49 in their favor.

Hanklite* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:10 PM
  #606
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanklite View Post
Great post. Well said.

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

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:10 PM
  #607
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanklite View Post
At this point, I wouldn't blame the owners if they hard lined at 51/49 in their favor.
They'd give up to 52 if the terms were right.

Fehr doesn't want to negotiate a fair deal. Fehr isn't fair.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:10 PM
  #608
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...wners_silence/

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.

Iggy77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:18 PM
  #609
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,945
vCash: 500
so the NHL has a 3 party negotiationg committee, 4 with Daly, and the PA has 2; the Fehrs. Sounds like everyone is getting represented well here.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:19 PM
  #610
JMT21
I Give A Dam!
 
JMT21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My House
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,060
vCash: 500
TSN reported that the drop dead date for Winter Classic is November 2nd. Cancellation before then results in the league losing it's 100K deposit.

Waiting until after November 2nd means the loss goes up "significantly".

Read more here.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408407

JMT21 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:20 PM
  #611
tbcwpg
Registered User
 
tbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviek3b View Post
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.

tbcwpg is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:20 PM
  #612
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
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.

Chelios is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:22 PM
  #613
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
TSN reported that the drop dead date for Winter Classic is November 2nd. Cancellation before then results in the league losing it's 100K deposit.

Waiting until after November 2nd means the loss goes up "significantly".

Read more here.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408407
ESPN's saying they're going to cancel it Thurs:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...ed-source-says

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:22 PM
  #614
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...wners_silence/

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.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:24 PM
  #615
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
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.

waffledave is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:33 PM
  #616
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
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.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:35 PM
  #617
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...wners_silence/

Kypreos writes that most owners are in the dark on negotiations:
Kypreos's head is still ringing from being knocked out. I wouldn't put too much stock into what he says. Ex players will pimp for other players.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:36 PM
  #618
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
Im afraid we wont be watching for quite some time.
For the sole reason that the players refuse to even make an offer including linkage.

Chelios is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:39 PM
  #619
OrangeZebra
Unregistered User
 
OrangeZebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,056
vCash: 500
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

OrangeZebra is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:40 PM
  #620
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
For the sole reason that the players refuse to even make an offer including linkage.
Honestly I dont think many of the players are smart enough to even understand the CBA so I dont blame the players.


I blame the Fehr brothers

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:42 PM
  #621
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeZebra View Post
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

Congrats. You have come up with a plan that BOTH sides will hate.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:42 PM
  #622
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeZebra View Post
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.).

Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:47 PM
  #623
wilty00
Registered User
 
wilty00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kelowna/Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeZebra View Post
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
Probably not very well as the NHL has basically said they're not willing to start a season at 54% PA let alone 57.

wilty00 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:51 PM
  #624
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeZebra View Post
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
NHL would turn it down.

Even the NHLPA's unlinked proposal is better than that.

They want exactly or close to 50/50 split.. Giving them the same rate next year doesn't help the owners who are losing money

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:52 PM
  #625
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,600
vCash: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
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.

cheswick 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 12:45 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.