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.

Does Anybody Here Remember Vera Lynn? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXVIII ‎

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 03:13 PM
  #626
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
I've never heard the terms "take it or leave it" with PA proposals.
That's because the NHL doesn't aggrandize things the way Don Fehr does. The only person saying "take it or leave it" is Don Fehr when he's trying to whine about how obscene the league is. If the league wanted to be that bombastic and misrepresent the players as well, they easily could.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:14 PM
  #627
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,850
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
I've never heard the terms "take it or leave it" with PA proposals.

And i said when you use it, it's DETRIMENTAL to the process of negotiating.
The only time "take it or leave it" was even brought up was by the PA. This is telling because it indicates it's very likely not true.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:15 PM
  #628
Alesle
Registered User
 
Alesle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Lol how can you say that with a straight face when the players agreed to go from 57% to 50% (yes, they agreed to it, even if it may take a couple of years to get there), which is estimated to over a billion $ over the life of the next CBA, depending on growth.
The PA agreed to maintain last year's pay plus a 1.75 % raise. All other numbers are purely hypothetical, and based on lots of 'ifs'. In my dictionary, maintaining your salary plus a small increase does not quite constitute giving something up. The things you can argue they have given up come with a lot of attachments, and they would only be truly given up if certain criteria are met.

I prefer to look at the actual numbers rather than guessing what the future might hold.

Alesle is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:18 PM
  #629
habfan1968
Registered User
 
habfan1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 50
Can anyone here tell me exactly what is unfair about the latest NHL proposal? sidthe kid8787 does not want to. Can anyone please tell me what is not fair about it?

habfan1968 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:20 PM
  #630
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
That's because the NHL doesn't aggrandize things the way Don Fehr does. The only person saying "take it or leave it" is Don Fehr when he's trying to whine about how obscene the league is. If the league wanted to be that bombastic and misrepresent the players as well, they easily could.
I tend to agree with this. When Fehr continues to make proposals that have already been made clear are not workable for the NHL in structure over and over again, this is effectively what he's saying.

He's being passive aggressive, that's his strategy. By not flexing on the basic structure, he's basically saying to the league take it or leave it, just not in an explicit fashion. He really can't because from his side it makes little sense to negotiate that way, that's more of an owner model.

The owners have been extremely up front about their demands and why they are there. Those who support the players may not agree with the spirit of these demands but they are calculated and the league is being transparent about them.

I'd have preferred they did a 50/50 proposal fully funded before the 82 game schedule was lost, but I guess you don't give your best offer until the 11th hour otherwise it won't be taken as your best offer anyway. Especially since the negotiations have been one sided to date...to me they've had little choice.

If the players were talking to the owners, they probably would have gotten their best offer sooner, but that's not Fehr's style. He wanted the lockout in my honest opinion.

Rinzler is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:21 PM
  #631
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Daly is the using the Proskauer Rose script

Change the names and its the same script. NBA backed off and a deal was struck.

But sources briefed on the owners' thinking insisted to ESPN.com that there will be no further budging from the owners, no matter how close a deal seems on paper. .

"It's sad," one ownership source said. "I think they've seen their best offer."



http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/72...-further-talks



https://twitter.com/NYP_Brooksie/sta...78822526640128
The NHL should at least take some limited creative license on the NBA script. Maybe, try to change the wording? Or the timing?

Erik Estrada is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:21 PM
  #632
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
Can anyone here tell me exactly what is unfair about the latest NHL proposal? sidthe kid8787 does not want to. Can anyone please tell me what is not fair about it?
Nothing really. The only thing that should likely (and probably will) be changed in terms of the players is keeping UFA, ELC and arbitration rights as was, and maybe just choosing 1- contract term limit or variance.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:21 PM
  #633
Hullois
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alesle View Post
The PA agreed to maintain last year's pay plus a 1.75 % raise. All other numbers are purely hypothetical, and based on lots of 'ifs'. In my dictionary, maintaining your salary plus a small increase does not quite constitute giving something up. The things you can argue they have given up come with a lot of attachments, and they would only be truly given up if certain criteria are met.

I prefer to look at the actual numbers rather than guessing what the future might hold.
Maybe but in the real world, NHL revenues grew all 7 years of the last CBA. I guess you can choose to ignore that and say the players didn't agree to anything.

Hullois is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:21 PM
  #634
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,008
vCash: 500
NHL offered the most generous revenue split in North American pro sports in time to save the full season. PA didn't even want to hear about it. As far as I'm concerned, any (financial) concessions made past that are just rewarding bad faith by the PA.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:23 PM
  #635
Yog S'loth
Registered User
 
Yog S'loth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,339
vCash: 500
The most upsetting thing to me is the word "fair". I hear it used by players and by posters, and I cannot understand it at all.

This is a business negotiation. Two sides, both with their own (and with mutual) interests, using the leverage they have available to them, are attempting to negotiate a deal most favorable to their own positions. "Fair" is a word totally devoid of meaning. How could you ever define fair? Who would define it? Is getting everything you want fair? 50% of what you want? And how do you measure that?

Fair is a word generally used by people simply to mean getting what they want. Anything less than what they want is not fair... in which case, no deal could ever be fair to anybody.

The league's negotiating strategy is unfair? Again, what does that mean? It appears to only mean that the league is offering a deal closer to their own position than that of the players... which is negotiating. "Take it or leave it", which has never been said by the league by the way, is a perfectly valid negotiating tactic. Why wouldn't it be? "Here is what I can offer; I can afford no more." What's wrong with that? If the deal is unacceptable to the other party, there will be no deal. That's just business. The NHL is prepared for there to be no deal. It's literally the first rule of negotiating: Be prepared to walk away. If there is no deal to be made, then there is no deal to be made... and both parties are free to pursue other options.

Fairness has zero... ZERO... to do with a negotiation. The side with the most leverage will generally see a negotiated result closer to their own position than the other party's position. That's just how the real world works. The more players get caught up in what they perceive to be or not be fair... the only thing that happens is no deal is struck at all. They will destroy themselves, their finances, their families, their careers, and their legacy all in pursuit of an inapplicable concept.

Yog S'loth is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:23 PM
  #636
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
Can anyone here tell me exactly what is unfair about the latest NHL proposal? sidthe kid8787 does not want to. Can anyone please tell me what is not fair about it?
It's less than they had before so in their minds, perhaps that's unfair. We aren't the right group to answer that question. What's fair to us isn't the same to what's fair for them.

I would consider a pay cut unfair if I was a top performer at my job. If vacation time or privileges were taken away I'd also consider it unfair.

I on the other hand am not a multi millionaire so cannot relate to any of this.

Rinzler is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:24 PM
  #637
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Maybe but in the real world, NHL revenues grew all 7 years of the last CBA. I guess you can choose to ignore that and say the players didn't agree to anything.
Here's the canary in the coal mine: if the PA really believed that revenues were going to continue growing at that rate, there would be absolutely no reason for them to insist on delinkage. If it doesn't mean anything, why bother with it? The fact is, neither side (smartly) believes that the NHL can continue growing at its recent pace indefinitely. And anyone who sees infinite growth as a given isn't a very prudent prognosticator.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:25 PM
  #638
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,850
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
Can anyone here tell me exactly what is unfair about the latest NHL proposal? sidthe kid8787 does not want to. Can anyone please tell me what is not fair about it?
It's not that he thinks it's unfair, it's that he believes the PA when they claim that the NHL said "take it or leave it"
Clearly he's trying very, very hard to not pick sides (commendable) but it's leading him to make a stand on shaky ground.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:27 PM
  #639
habfan1968
Registered User
 
habfan1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Maybe but in the real world, NHL revenues grew all 7 years of the last CBA. I guess you can choose to ignore that and say the players didn't agree to anything.
since NHL revenue grew and would likely continue to grow the players share of 50% will continue to grow in actual dollars being paid to NHLPA, win / win

habfan1968 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:28 PM
  #640
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Here's the canary in the coal mine: if the PA really believed that revenues were going to continue growing at that rate, there would be absolutely no reason for them to insist on delinkage. If it doesn't mean anything, why bother with it? The fact is, neither side (smartly) believes that the NHL can continue growing at its recent pace indefinitely. And anyone who sees infinite growth as a given isn't a very prudent prognosticator.
So if League revenues do cease to grow, player salaries should still continue to grow?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:30 PM
  #641
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
So if League revenues do cease to grow, player salaries should still continue to grow?
Obviously not, that's the point of linkage.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:31 PM
  #642
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Zachy Poo View Post
If the situation keeps on going, I wouldnt be surprised if an idea of a new league gets brought up.

Other staff will find a new job, the players wont quit hockey, you know. If a vacuum is left, it will be filled.
How long is that going to take? You realize the average career is 6 years and this plan will probably take longer, so guys have lost all their lifetime income with no education for this prayer. Other staff will find new jobs? Tell them that, I know several around the Pittsburgh area that are unemployed until this ends. I'm sure the 8% unemployment will not be a factor.

What does "keeps going" mean? If you mean multi-years then I guess it's likely someone could try and pick up the hockey mantle stateside. But that is premature and naive to expect that anytime soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
I just leave it there because somehow Paint made it black and white by accident, which makes it beyond awesome.
I remember when you first came to show it off. I couldn't tell what it was at first, I recall RG being super duper impressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Estrada View Post
The NHL should at least take some limited creative license on the NBA script. Maybe, try to change the wording? Or the timing?
They follow the same playbook so I'm ok with it. NBA's lockout ended so that's good?

CerebralGenesis is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:31 PM
  #643
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Here's the canary in the coal mine: if the PA really believed that revenues were going to continue growing at that rate, there would be absolutely no reason for them to insist on delinkage. If it doesn't mean anything, why bother with it? The fact is, neither side (smartly) believes that the NHL can continue growing at its recent pace indefinitely. And anyone who sees infinite growth as a given isn't a very prudent prognosticator.
Excellent point that gets to the heart of the matter. If either side believed that revenues are certain to grow at the high rate they did before this lockout, the linkage/delinkage would not be the main sticking point in negotiations that are threatening the season.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:34 PM
  #644
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Maybe but in the real world, NHL revenues grew all 7 years of the last CBA. I guess you can choose to ignore that and say the players didn't agree to anything.
Oh, that must mean they are always gonna grow, especially above 5%.

How much money have you made in the stock market with the 'its gone up for awhile, so its a sure bet to keep going up in the future' model of yours? Buy any investment real estate in early 2008? I heard around then that real estate never went down!

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:34 PM
  #645
Alesle
Registered User
 
Alesle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Maybe but in the real world, NHL revenues grew all 7 years of the last CBA. I guess you can choose to ignore that and say the players didn't agree to anything.
Yes the league revenues grew each year, and the player salaries grew with them (at a higher rate mind you, as it went from 54 % to 57 % in favor of the players). That only tells us what's happened in the past though. Sure we can use the numbers to make predictions about the future, but the numbers will be just that, predictions.

Alesle is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:39 PM
  #646
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
I've never heard the terms "take it or leave it" with PA proposals.
Really? I hope you don't really believe that because that's an incredibly weak defense. You don't have to use the words to be guilty of such a tactic. If I'm negotiating a deal for a car and don't want to pay more then $10,000 - do I have to say $10,000 is my take it or leave it offer or do you think the salesman will figure it out himself when every price he gives me I counter with $10,000? My guess is that he'll figure it out without me having to spell it out for him.

By the way, hit rebuttal is made even weaker by the fact that you rely on semantics when a PA member himself likened his own side to playing the take it or leave it game. And even further to that, the league has NEVER said take it or leave it. It's Don Fehr that relays their proposals as such. Even saying minor tweaks are allowed IS NOT a take it or leave it threat.

Quote:
And i said when you use it, it's DETRIMENTAL to the process of negotiating.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787
I'd prefer to define whats unfair
An example being during a negotiation, one side says this is "take it or leave it"

How is that considered negotiating at all infact?
.

Nice try there buddy. If you're going to be a hypocrite about it, at least own it.


Last edited by Ari91: 11-15-2012 at 03:44 PM.
Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:40 PM
  #647
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
SIDthekid8787


in considering the actuality that the NHLPA has no agreement in place, removing the old CBA as an argument what in the NHL's most recent offer is not fair to the players?

5 year cap on term? give the player more flexibility in where he wants to play more times over his career.

2 year ELC, less time making lower money than RFA status contract ?

5 -10 % variance year to year so the front or back loaded contracts don't circumvent the cap?

Waht are you saying is unfair to the players?
It's not a question of fair but what these items do when combined with the arbitration changes is keep the players making less money while they are young. That is why the league wants them. They are trying to bring back the second contract where players dont make very much by reducing almost all of their leverage. Players wont be UFA until they are older and teams wont be able to buy a huge chunk of those free agency years because of these restrictions. Players wont be getting their money until they are closing on 30. It's a huge change to the young stars of the game who right now can be making 6-7 million when they are 24-25 but wont be getting that in the future.

I can see why players dont want this to happen, it pushes their paydays back into their later years and makes them take on a lot of the risk if they get injured at an early age. I also see why the league wants to implement it cause it will allow teams to be competitive for longer if they pick up some good young players.

Halibut is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:49 PM
  #648
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yog S'loth View Post
The most upsetting thing to me is the word "fair". I hear it used by players and by posters, and I cannot understand it at all.

This is a business negotiation. Two sides, both with their own (and with mutual) interests, using the leverage they have available to them, are attempting to negotiate a deal most favorable to their own positions. "Fair" is a word totally devoid of meaning. How could you ever define fair? Who would define it? Is getting everything you want fair? 50% of what you want? And how do you measure that?

Fair is a word generally used by people simply to mean getting what they want. Anything less than what they want is not fair... in which case, no deal could ever be fair to anybody.

The league's negotiating strategy is unfair? Again, what does that mean? It appears to only mean that the league is offering a deal closer to their own position than that of the players... which is negotiating. "Take it or leave it", which has never been said by the league by the way, is a perfectly valid negotiating tactic. Why wouldn't it be? "Here is what I can offer; I can afford no more." What's wrong with that? If the deal is unacceptable to the other party, there will be no deal. That's just business. The NHL is prepared for there to be no deal. It's literally the first rule of negotiating: Be prepared to walk away. If there is no deal to be made, then there is no deal to be made... and both parties are free to pursue other options.

Fairness has zero... ZERO... to do with a negotiation. The side with the most leverage will generally see a negotiated result closer to their own position than the other party's position. That's just how the real world works. The more players get caught up in what they perceive to be or not be fair... the only thing that happens is no deal is struck at all. They will destroy themselves, their finances, their families, their careers, and their legacy all in pursuit of an inapplicable concept.
Couldn't agree more. Great summary of my thoughts as well. I don't agree with anyone who thinks that players should sign a deal simply because it's the best they can get. I believe that the players are throwing practicality out the window because they're so caught up with what they perceive as fair, hence their whole 'principle' stance.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:55 PM
  #649
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,107
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Couldn't agree more. Great summary of my thoughts as well. I don't agree with anyone who thinks that players should sign a deal simply because it's the best they can get. I believe that the players are throwing practicality out the window because they're so caught up with what they perceive as fair, hence their whole 'principle' stance.
But but... they're being bullied!

Freudian is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:00 PM
  #650
DaAnimal
Registered User
 
DaAnimal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pasadena
Country: United States
Posts: 1,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yog S'loth View Post
The most upsetting thing to me is the word "fair". I hear it used by players and by posters, and I cannot understand it at all.

This is a business negotiation. Two sides, both with their own (and with mutual) interests, using the leverage they have available to them, are attempting to negotiate a deal most favorable to their own positions. "Fair" is a word totally devoid of meaning. How could you ever define fair? Who would define it? Is getting everything you want fair? 50% of what you want? And how do you measure that?

Fair is a word generally used by people simply to mean getting what they want. Anything less than what they want is not fair... in which case, no deal could ever be fair to anybody.

The league's negotiating strategy is unfair? Again, what does that mean? It appears to only mean that the league is offering a deal closer to their own position than that of the players... which is negotiating. "Take it or leave it", which has never been said by the league by the way, is a perfectly valid negotiating tactic. Why wouldn't it be? "Here is what I can offer; I can afford no more." What's wrong with that? If the deal is unacceptable to the other party, there will be no deal. That's just business. The NHL is prepared for there to be no deal. It's literally the first rule of negotiating: Be prepared to walk away. If there is no deal to be made, then there is no deal to be made... and both parties are free to pursue other options.

Fairness has zero... ZERO... to do with a negotiation. The side with the most leverage will generally see a negotiated result closer to their own position than the other party's position. That's just how the real world works. The more players get caught up in what they perceive to be or not be fair... the only thing that happens is no deal is struck at all. They will destroy themselves, their finances, their families, their careers, and their legacy all in pursuit of an inapplicable concept.
Wow I can't agree with you more. Well written and thought out.

Honestly, the PA is just wasting A LOT of time. People need to get back to work and I need to find an excuse to dodge my crazy gf after work. Come on people, my life is so painful right now

DaAnimal 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 10:38 PM.

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.