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.

Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 11:04 AM
  #926
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
They're looking to protect their jobs and reputations. If this all gets resolved with the appearance of not needing them or being better off without them, then... well you know.
I don't know. I think the players eyes were opened up a bit when the sans-Bettman negotiating team complete with moderate owners is sticking pretty firm to the contract length and lack of back diving on the contracts. I think we'll also find they hold firm on full linkage. If so then it is clear that these things were set out to Bettman as his goals to achieve in the negotiation. Nothing has drastically changed from the owners side of the table without bettman there, which would be the case if the demands Bettman was relaying to the PA were representative of the path set out by the BOG.

It's why these meetings were, I think, more dangerous for Fehr and the PA. Fehr likely knew this but he also knew he couldn't stop the meeting without coming off as an unwilling negotiating partner. It was a Bettman/league suggestion they do this and Bettman doesn't make that suggestion or put people in the room who don't basically share the same goals they had been trying to achieve. Bettman knew that without him the position from his side of the table was unlikely to change. Bettman also knew from past negotiations that if you can get the PA membership away from the leadership and talk to them that you can drive a wedge through the union. It's how the last lockout was ended after all.

It seems that Bettman as the lightening rod and the owners in shining armor on white horses is simply the league strategy. Bettman plays his part very well and is why he has been rewarded handsomely and allowed to play that role for a third lockout.

So we'll see what happens this afternoon but it appears things are on a knife edge. Are the owners bluffing that they won't move much further or are they serious? If Fehr makes the wrong call it could cost the players a lot more money.

tantalum is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:06 AM
  #927
AUAIOMRN
Registered User
 
AUAIOMRN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The fact the Owners need to negotiate a contract length stipulation is ****ing stupid.

It's like an obese person mandating that supermarkets only permit them to buy 1 "unhealthy" thing a week. If you DON'T want to eat more than that then DON'T eat more than that. If you don't WANT to sign players to terms longer than FIVE years then don't OFFER longer than that.
That is not a good analogy.

It's important that the owners compete with each other as best they can. That means doing whatever you can within the rules to build a winning team. If a rule can be bent to get around the intended goal of the salary cap, then that rule should be fixed. They should not simply "hope" that everyone operates with the spirit of the salary cap in mind.

AUAIOMRN is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:13 AM
  #928
Schalkenullvier*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: tief im westen
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
I can tell you there's a hugely negative vibe emanating from both sides right now. Keeping this process on rails today will be challenging.
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...17342774423553

Schalkenullvier* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:14 AM
  #929
Coolburn
Registered User
 
Coolburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Florida
Country: Hungary
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Coolburn Send a message via MSN to Coolburn Send a message via Yahoo to Coolburn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schalkenullvier View Post
Well he followed that up with another tweet:

Quote:
Challenging, but not out of the question. It always comes back to this question: Are these differences worth losing a season or more?

Coolburn is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:19 AM
  #930
Pyro Kinesis
Cleveland for LIFE!
 
Pyro Kinesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Youngstown, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schalkenullvier View Post
It's always good to go into potential season-saving or season-ending negotiations with a negative attitude.

Pyro Kinesis is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:28 AM
  #931
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The fact the Owners need to negotiate a contract length stipulation is ****ing stupid.

It's like an obese person mandating that supermarkets only permit them to buy 1 "unhealthy" thing a week. If you DON'T want to eat more than that then DON'T eat more than that. If you don't WANT to sign players to terms longer than FIVE years then don't OFFER longer than that.
Thats a terrible analogy.

The issue is a handful of big markets drive the escalating contracts and salaries for the bigger name players. Mid to smaller sized markets have to pay those types of deals if they want to keep or acquire those types of players. Essentially they have no control over this. You can say then don't give out those contracts but then that team loses its better players and makes it tougher to be competitive.

My team, the Sabres, had a fiscally prudent ownership coming out of the lockout. They set budget parameters and stuck to them. One was refusing to give out contracts longer than 3 or 4 years. It led to the dismantling of our team in short order culminating with Briere/Drury leaving in the summer of 2007. After that they had to scramble and react to the realities on the ground or they would have lost another wave of players. It led to matching Vanek's offer sheet and giving longer term deals to Roy and Pominville than they would have wanted to hand out.

Its easy to say a team should just be fiscally prudent and not give in to the economic pressures of the league. But the reality is it will have a sizable impact on your ability to ice and keep a successful team.

joshjull is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:33 AM
  #932
Schalkenullvier*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: tief im westen
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolburn View Post
Well he followed that up with another tweet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyro Kinesis View Post
It's always good to go into potential season-saving or season-ending negotiations with a negative attitude.
another one:

Quote:
All I can tell you is there's a really bizarre dynamic right now and so many mixed signals coming from both sides.
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...24367990333440

not sure what to think of this

Schalkenullvier* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:42 AM
  #933
Freudian
Deja vu again?
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 31,356
vCash: 0
I don't think bringing Fehr in will make too much a difference, other than it may increase tension in the room. I can guarantee the players ran pretty much everything through him yesterday anyway.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:45 AM
  #934
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schalkenullvier View Post
another one:



https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...24367990333440

not sure what to think of this
It means he or anyone else doesnt know.

Elever is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:45 AM
  #935
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schalkenullvier View Post
another one:



https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...24367990333440

not sure what to think of this
Both sides went from the negs saying "that was great" to the response of the rest of the NHL/NHLPA groups saying "you did what??? What were you thinking??"

The positives got washed out a bit-now, as Bob says, that have to ask themselves whatever the issues are-are they worth losing a season for.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:46 AM
  #936
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycrackcorn View Post
Appears that Bettman and Fehr will be joining the party today. Glad I didn't get my hopes up.

With these two egos in the room, this thing is doomed to fail
I disagree with this interpretation.

The Commissioner and the NHLPA Executive Director have to be involved. They were willing to reduce their visibility yesterday in order for things to not seem personal. However, they hung around the hotel all day yesterday and they were implicated in some way. There is no way that six owners were given a mandate to do a deal. Bettman and Fehr being back in the room today suggests to me that a deal is closer than it was yesterday.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:49 AM
  #937
blamebettman*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
All I have to say is thank goodness Bill Wirtz is rotting in hell and Allan Cohen sold the Panthers back in 2009...otherwise there would be no negotiations going on right now

blamebettman* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:51 AM
  #938
WSS11
Registered User
 
WSS11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
Renaud Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
NHL and NHLPA are in contact this morning but no indication that CBA talks could resume today.


are things so tense from yesterday that they really might not resume talks today?!

WSS11 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
  #939
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,729
vCash: 500
Christ, offer seven year max contract with ten percent variance, 300 mil make whole and an 8 year cba with the player's option to extend it 2 years at expiry. Just get it done.

Timmy is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
  #940
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25,167
vCash: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Yes, because not having those limits costs the owners, and takes away from parity. Philly can afford to take a chance on Weber's contract (even if it's paying ridiculous amounts in year 13) because they're rich. They can afford to take the chance that years 6 to 14 are not insured because they're rich. Nashville is taking that chance, but they can't really afford to have it back fire on them. It's not just the insurance costs (Crosby's 5 years is 400k a year), but the fact that it's only the first 5 years that are insured. The rest the team would have to cover.
Weber's deal doesn't exist without the massive signing bonuses and variance of $1-14 million years. Or it does but it doesn't have the poison pill of $56 million over the first four years, which is precisely what makes it a huge hinderance financially for the Nashvilles of the world.

I would like to see real numbers on insurance costs to know whether its a real concern or a red herring. Especially since it only affects a small percentage of contracts.

NJDevs26 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:54 AM
  #941
Flamingo
Registered User
 
Flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I disagree with this interpretation.

The Commissioner and the NHLPA Executive Director have to be involved. They were willing to reduce their visibility yesterday in order for things to not seem personal. However, they hung around the hotel all day yesterday and they were implicated in some way. There is no way that six owners were given a mandate to do a deal. Bettman and Fehr being back in the room today suggests to me that a deal is closer than it was yesterday.
I agree. (edit: with you, Crease, not the object of your disagreement)

Bettman and Fehr present -- this is serious, down to brass tacks.
Good will vibe phasing out -- same as above. Neither side wants to make concessions, this means they're down to the nitty gritty.
Kicking media out -- thank you!

That's not to say they're going to reach a deal. It's just that a deal necessarily would go through a final stage like this.

I'm surprised how obstinate the NHL is about term limits. I would think YOY variation and back-diving would be enough, and likely to get agreement from the players. Are they frustrated with long-term contracts with no movement clauses? Heatley and Nash trade fiascos? It's the only topic on which I've disagreed with the owners through this whole process.

Flamingo is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:55 AM
  #942
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,987
vCash: 500
Elliotte Friedman:

Quote:
n this Twitter-obsessed, instant-analysis world, all of us need to know what's happening RIGHT NOW. This isn't that simple. There are positive signs, as, before the board get-together, one governor said: "This meeting is going to be completely different than many of us expected," due to Tuesday's lengthy bargaining sessions.

But just because the "new" owners inside the room and their counterparts across the table are more willing to find common ground doesn't mean it's going to be easy.

There was an animated conversation in a hallway between Daly and Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs witnessed by reporters. Daly reportedly talked Jacobs out of leaving the meetings following a verbal confrontation with Buffalo Sabres goaltender Ryan Miller.

Miller, reached by email, said: "Really? I don't have any recollection of that or why [Jacobs'] opinion would be that."
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...intensify.html

santiclaws is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:58 AM
  #943
mpp9
Registered User
 
mpp9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 18,682
vCash: 500
If the players are really willing to lose a season over such minor differences, **** 'em. They can say "what's in it for them" while they lose a billion dollars in salary this season.

mpp9 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:02 PM
  #944
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 19,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Owners compete for players. Players have agents playing teams against each other. That drives up contract length.

Ken Holland offered Suter and Parise shorter contracts. He was responsible. Didn't do much good, did it?
He offered 13 years to both of them per Anser Khan, Wings beat writer. Just not the same money, especially on Parise.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:03 PM
  #945
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,156
vCash: 500
The negativity is not a good thing, obviously.


I find it interesting that there are groups on both sides that approve and disapprove of the proposals being bandied about. This leads me to believe that things are getting close to what would be considered "fair" by all involved. In a negotiation like this, neither side is going to be truly happy with the end product. It's all about getting a deal that you can live with for a long period. In a deal like that, you are going to have some lovers and haters on each side, and that at least gives me some optimism.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:04 PM
  #946
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The fact the Owners need to negotiate a contract length stipulation is ****ing stupid.

It's like an obese person mandating that supermarkets only permit them to buy 1 "unhealthy" thing a week. If you DON'T want to eat more than that then DON'T eat more than that. If you don't WANT to sign players to terms longer than FIVE years then don't OFFER longer than that.
Except that only a few (8-10) of the 30 supermarkets in your town can really afford to risk lawsuits if someone gets sick from buying too many unhealthy things in a week, while others end up taking the chance because they have to to remain competitive in the market place, but can't really afford to take the chance.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:07 PM
  #947
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
Christ, offer seven year max contract with ten percent variance, 300 mil make whole and an 8 year cba with the player's option to extend it 2 years at expiry. Just get it done.
The proposal of a 5 year max (7 years for own UFAs) with a 5% variance but dropping other contracting issues is an interesting dilemma for the NHLPA. That makes the contract rights issue really only about the big ticket guys. The majority of players don't get 5+year deals nor do they get huge front loaded contracts.

Interested to hear Miller's take on this since it would reduce the amount of money tied up by the big ticket guys thus protecting the "middle class" of players he said he was concerned about.

joshjull is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:08 PM
  #948
Hanklite*
Bettman's Bro
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: TO
Country: Canada
Posts: 996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
Christ, offer seven year max contract with ten percent variance, 300 mil make whole and an 8 year cba with the player's option to extend it 2 years at expiry. Just get it done.
Has the NHLPA even offered anything like that? We dont know.

For all we know, thats what the NHL will take but the NHLPA just keeps wanting no Cap length and no Variance.

Hanklite* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:21 PM
  #949
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
The owners moved.

The players and Fehr didn't move at all.

End of story.

ThePhoenixx is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:25 PM
  #950
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
Weber's deal doesn't exist without the massive signing bonuses and variance of $1-14 million years. Or it does but it doesn't have the poison pill of $56 million over the first four years, which is precisely what makes it a huge hinderance financially for the Nashvilles of the world.

I would like to see real numbers on insurance costs to know whether its a real concern or a red herring. Especially since it only affects a small percentage of contracts.
It affects everyone, as it applies to the top 5 contracts on every team, and only covers the first 5 years of said contracts. Meaning that every contract longer than 5 years is not insured, and all the risk is on the owners dime. It was Crosby that said that when he looked into insurance to play overseas it was around $400,000 a month [source]. Now his is obviously higher due to the value (100m) and his concussion history. But I don't think the issue is just the insurance costs, but the fact that it's only 5 years that's covered by insurance, while the entire contract is guaranteed... meaning the owners are on the hook for the rest.


Last edited by Riptide: 12-06-2012 at 12:37 PM.
Riptide is online now  
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 08:41 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.