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.
Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)
MOD NOTE: We are hear to discuss the upcoming meeting and the people at the meeting, not their (alleged) personalities, shticks/quirks nor make any libelous or slanderous statements. Rather than arguing about such things, use the little triangle on the left to report the post.
If you have FACTS about an owner, including when they purchased their team or % of team owned, please include. If you have opinions about where the owner may lie on the scorched earth-PA/capitulate-to-PA spectrum, fine.
But no need to get beyond the BUSINESS modus operandi of any participant.
I just read that Daley and S. Fehr will be in the meeting. If that is the case I am not sure why they are bothering to call this an owners/players meeting. Then again, those two have continued to talk almost ever day even when Gary and Don haven't been talking so maybe it won't be that bad.
I just read that Daley and S. Fehr will be in the meeting. If that is the case I am not sure why they are bothering to call this an owners/players meeting. Then again, those two have continued to talk almost ever day even when Gary and Don haven't been talking so maybe it won't be that bad.
I'd rather let the good cops run this and get discussions towards a meeting then everyone pointing their finger at someone else making unproductive remarks.
I just read that Daley and S. Fehr will be in the meeting. If that is the case I am not sure why they are bothering to call this an owners/players meeting. Then again, those two have continued to talk almost ever day even when Gary and Don haven't been talking so maybe it won't be that bad.
If Daley and S. Fehr take part in the meeting, the optics are truly hilarious. This can be pretty much interpreted as Bettman saying "I believe that there is a deal to be made, but me and Donald are both too stubborn and polarizing figures to be able to make it happen. Thus, we have to remove ourselves from the picture in order to faciliate a deal."
That's pretty much what I expected. Part of why they're not likely to speak up (in addition to potential issues in the dressing room after the fact), is that once they start to show cracks in the ranks, they're truly screwed. So instead of voicing their opinion publicly like Hamerlik and Neuvirth, they keep it within the ranks, and hope for the best.
Remember, the 5 year contract cap only affects something like 12% of the PA (or rather that's the number of players who have/had contracts longer than 5 years). Lets be generous and say another 12% (of the current NHLPA) will be affected at some point over the next CBA. That's still only 24% of the PA that this could impact. And all of those are the top echelon players. The other 76% are getting screwed over by the minority... all in the name of protecting future players. What's worse, that minority can all almost certainly afford to go an extended period of time without a paycheque.
I wonder what would happen if the NHL made a few minor changes.
Left ELC, FA and arbitration alone, yet kept the demand for a 5 year contract limit, and agreed to meet in the middle (~300m) on the make whole?
My guess is they would be negotiating on the 5 year limit and we would see hockey soon. But those contracting issues that may seem minor are actually a really big deal to both sides in this.
That's pretty much what I expected. Part of why they're not likely to speak up (in addition to potential issues in the dressing room after the fact), is that once they start to show cracks in the ranks, they're truly screwed. So instead of voicing their opinion publicly like Hamerlik and Neuvirth, they keep it within the ranks, and hope for the best.
Remember, the 5 year contract cap only affects something like 12% of the PA (or rather that's the number of players who have/had contracts longer than 5 years). Lets be generous and say another 12% (of the current NHLPA) will be affected at some point over the next CBA. That's still only 24% of the PA that this could impact. And all of those are the top echelon players. The other 76% are getting screwed over by the minority... all in the name of protecting future players. What's worse, that minority can all almost certainly afford to go an extended period of time without a paycheque.
I wonder what would happen if the NHL made a few minor changes.
Left ELC, FA and arbitration alone, yet kept the demand for a 5 year contract limit, and agreed to meet in the middle (~300m) on the make whole?
There would be a deal and they'd be playing hockey. the players want the NHL to move abit, but Bettman wants to hit a homerun. i can understand this sentiment, but he damages the league's integrity in doing so.
a league that is so flippant to a season lost is not a serious league. regardless of which side wins this ridiculous battle, the league's integrity is lost for a generation.
in other leagues, PLAYING THE GAMES ACTUALLY MATTERS!!!!
The league needs an agreement that's longer than 5 years if they are to grow. They are trying to attract sponsors and make other long-term business deals. Those businesses want to make sure that hockey is played on the ice every year, not 5 years-then-off-for-a-year of bickering.
If Daley and S. Fehr take part in the meeting, the optics are truly hilarious. This can be pretty much interpreted as Bettman saying "I believe that there is a deal to be made, but me and Donald are both too stubborn and polarizing figures to be able to make it happen. Thus, we have to remove ourselves from the picture in order to faciliate a deal."
At this point, that's just acknowledging a reality. Anyone who's paying even a little bit of attention to this topic knows that the leadership on both sides is entrenched beyond the point of being rational about the situation.
I wonder if perhaps Daley and Fehr might serve as moderators or advisors to each side, in order to cut off what they perceive to be propaganda or misleading statements from the other side of the table. It's understandable why the PA in particular would want to have a business professional present as a B.S. filter.
My guess is they would be negotiating on the 5 year limit and we would see hockey soon. But those contracting issues that may seem minor are actually a really big deal to both sides in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustE
There would be a deal and they'd be playing hockey. the players want the NHL to move abit, but Bettman wants to hit a homerun.
Yes the league wants a different ELC, longer FA and less arbitration rights. However if they could get those 3 OR contract limits, which is more important (to both the league and players), and which will aid the clubs, and hurt the players less?
I think the league would take the 5 year limits (and be firm on 5 years as there's other issues (insurance for one) aside from stopping the long deals). And I think the players would agree to that as this only impact's a small group of players, where as FA, ELC and arbitration affects a large group (specifically FA).
I'm not sure about a homerun... the league has moved quite far when you look at their last offer vs their first offer (and has done so with every offer). The PA on the other hand has only really moved with their last offer (going from fixed amounts to 50%+$).
I think there's some specific things Bettman was looking to get this CBA, and a 50% split was only one of them. If he can put an end to the long term contracts, then I think I'd consider that a win for the NHL (where as a CBA that just has the split reduced and most other aspects remain the same would be a win for the NHLPA).
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
How much can you solve in an afternoon what you were unable to solve over five months ?
They should just make a vote among ALL the owners and ALL the players about the last offer.
The PA might come close to accepting the NHL's offer (I would suspect that 30%+ would likely take it). However the NHL would not accept the PA's offer as it's written.
With some changes to the PA's (make whole, buyouts, long term deals, fact that cap can never drop, etc) I could see it being more acceptable. However the same could be said for the NHL's. Drop a couple of the issues, and the PA would likely sign it tomorrow.
As for what I think this meeting could do? Get new people in there and try to get both sides to understand where the other is coming from. Specifically what the league is trying to accomplish with what they've proposed (am thinking contractual issues), and if there's any common ground (players think they could get PA to sign off on a max contract length, if the rest is dropped, etc).
Or it could be a complete waste of time. However it can't be any worse than where things are at currently.
Yes the league wants a different ELC, longer FA and less arbitration rights. However if they could get those 3 OR contract limits, which is more important (to both the league and players), and which will aid the clubs, and hurt the players less?
I think the league would take the 5 year limits (and be firm on 5 years as there's other issues (insurance for one) aside from stopping the long deals). And I think the players would agree to that as this only impact's a small group of players, where as FA, ELC and arbitration affects a large group (specifically FA).
I'm not sure about a homerun... the league has moved quite far when you look at their last offer vs their first offer (and has done so with every offer). The PA on the other hand has only really moved with their last offer (going from fixed amounts to 50%+$).
I think there's some specific things Bettman was looking to get this CBA, and a 50% split was only one of them. If he can put an end to the long term contracts, then I think I'd consider that a win for the NHL (where as a CBA that just has the split reduced and most other aspects remain the same would be a win for the NHLPA).
Something to keep in mind on this point.
The players have actually conceded rights they had in the old CBA - that defines a true concession
The owners have conceded ground from their first opening proposal (which was ridiculous) and now are making concessions from that. These concessions they are making are not concessions but merely reductions in what they intend to take.
As to the second point - I believe the PA is willing to go with the allowance that contracts can only vary x % between years, this will essentially get rid of the cap circumvention aspect of long term contracts. The PA is also knocking on the door of 50/50, the difference is very minor and is short term. If that is all the NHL needs to get their win, then they pretty much have it. They want the home-run.
However it can't be any worse than where things are at currently.
Probably not, but I would imagine at sometime during the meeting the words "Over my dead body!" are going to be said by one of the owners at the meeting. I'll leave it up to you to guess which one.
As to the second point - I believe the PA is willing to go with the allowance that contracts can only vary x % between years, this will essentially get rid of the cap circumvention aspect of long term contracts. The PA is also knocking on the door of 50/50, the difference is very minor and is short term. If that is all the NHL needs to get their win, then they pretty much have it. They want the home-run.
As for you're thoughts on concessions, then there's almost no concession that the NHL can make. And while the NHL's offer might have been a tad outrageous, the players was just as bad.
I guess it depends exactly what the NHLs issue is with long term contracts. If it's the fact that they want to eliminate high insurance costs (which the PA should like, as it's money coming out of their share, but goes to neither party), and the fact that insurance will only cover the first 5 years, then limiting these to 5-7 years could understandably be a big issue for the NHL. If it's that they're trying to level the playing field between rich and poor/average clubs (where a rich club can afford to take a risk on a 10-15 yr deal with no insurance to protect themselves) then no, just limiting the variance does nothing to solve the issue.
Question: Does anyone think that these players are expecting the owners attending the meeting to not be on board with the current position of the NHL in this negotiating process?
I’ve got the feeling that some of these day-dreaming players seem to think (based on some interviews I've heard lately) that Bettman is acting more or less on his own and may not have the support of the owners.
If so, the players will be awfully disappointed tomorrow... When this is over, the owners WILL get what they want. The players WILL NOT. Reality bites.
Question: Does anyone think that these players are expecting the owners attending the meeting to not be on board with the current position of the NHL in this negotiating process?
I’ve got the feeling that some of these day-dreaming players seem to think (based on some interviews I've heard lately) that Bettman is acting more or less on his own and may not have the support of the owners.
If so, the players will be awfully disappointed tomorrow... When this is over, the owners WILL get what they want. The players WILL NOT. Reality bites.
Those aren't the only two outcomes. You could see all players permanently consider europe for employment. You could also see endless amounts of anti-trust litigation which would fold a large amount of teams in the league. You could see decertification and players individually contracted to teams, which again eventually leads to teams folding.
My opinion still stands that the owners don't budge and we miss the season. However, they quite literally only need to move an inch to make it work, and we have seen two negotiations in the last year progress the same way and come to an agreement.
Question: Does anyone think that these players are expecting the owners attending the meeting to not be on board with the current position of the NHL in this negotiating process?
I’ve got the feeling that some of these day-dreaming players seem to think (based on some interviews I've heard lately) that Bettman is acting more or less on his own and may not have the support of the owners.
If so, the players will be awfully disappointed tomorrow... When this is over, the owners WILL get what they want. The players WILL NOT. Reality bites.
It's funny because the league seems to be under the same delusions in thinking Fehr has brainwashed all the players and a conversation with the owners will enlighten them.
The cognitive dissonance on this board can be remarkable at times.
However, they quite literally only need to move an inch to make it work, and we have seen two negotiations in the last year progress the same way and come to an agreement.
From the reports I've hard lately - they're much further than an inch apart - more like a few miles.
I'm curious, how do you figure they are this close?
As for you're thoughts on concessions, then there's almost no concession that the NHL can make. And while the NHL's offer might have been a tad outrageous, the players was just as bad.
I guess it depends exactly what the NHLs issue is with long term contracts. If it's the fact that they want to eliminate high insurance costs (which the PA should like, as it's money coming out of their share, but goes to neither party), and the fact that insurance will only cover the first 5 years, then limiting these to 5-7 years could understandably be a big issue for the NHL. If it's that they're trying to level the playing field between rich and poor/average clubs (where a rich club can afford to take a risk on a 10-15 yr deal with no insurance to protect themselves) then no, just limiting the variance does nothing to solve the issue.
There is insurance for the players contained in the non-salary benefits totals, but I doubt very much the 5-7 year contract insurance comes out of the player share in benefits. That insurance pays the owners, not the players.
There is insurance for the players contained in the non-salary benefits totals, but I doubt very much the 5-7 year contract insurance comes out of the player share in benefits. That insurance pays the owners, not the players.
I was fairly certain that insurance premiums count against the player share. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say though.
Those aren't the only two outcomes. You could see all players permanently consider europe for employment. You could also see endless amounts of anti-trust litigation which would fold a large amount of teams in the league. You could see decertification and players individually contracted to teams, which again eventually leads to teams folding.
At some point Europe isn't a viable option. Clubs there only have so many open positions and so much money. And then all they're doing is pushing the current players off the team (not that I think this would be a concern for anyone other than the guys at the bottom). I could see at most 50-60% of NHLers playing in other leagues (Russia, Europe, AHL/ECHL).
And then there's personal issues to consider. Does everyone want to move to Europe and deal with living in a foreign country, dealing with a language issue, as well as the local culture and customs? I could see some ppl going, but most will not.
NHL expects these owners to be in meeting: Ron Burkle, Mark Chipman, Murray Edwards, Jeremy Jacobs, Larry Tanenbaum and Jeff Vinik.
How was it decided that these were the owners to attend?
I understand the NYR owner Dolan wanted to come but was denied.
With regards to the NHL not wanting the mediators there. I wonder why not? They could sit quietly and observe only. If that is what they were instructed to do. How you hear and understand things is based on prior experience. How many of the players have prior experience in discussing labour issues?
