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 III: So close, and yet so far (Moderated: see post #295)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 01:14 PM
  #1
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Lockout III: So close, and yet so far (Moderated: see post #295)

Continue.

Link to Lockout II: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1#post56301755

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:21 PM
  #2
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,165
vCash: 50
I'm not sure what mediators would accomplish at this stage. Neither side seems to have any problems communicating what they want and mediation wasn't effective before.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:22 PM
  #3
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,047
vCash: 500
Tactics and optics-wise, asking for Fed mediators by the PA is a good move I think-nothing to lose by it.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:22 PM
  #4
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,681
vCash: 500
The players will kill this season, this I am sure of.

The Toews' and Miller's of the union will kill the season and destroy the NHLPA.

The League will come back in the Summer and offer them 48 or 47% of HRR..or at least they should.

FakeKidPoker* is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:24 PM
  #5
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
Tactics and optics-wise, asking for Fed mediators by the PA is a good move I think-nothing to lose by it.
Really? I would think it would viewed more as a time-waster than anything else.

patty59 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:24 PM
  #6
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I'm not sure what mediators would accomplish at this stage. Neither side seems to have any problems communicating what they want and mediation wasn't effective before.
My thought process (again thinking from a tactics POV), is that if the mediators come and still don't help, the PA can cite (again OPTICS) that the NHL is being stubborn and not playing ball.

I think this is tactics and optics. I think if mediators worked without Bettman/Fehr, they might make traction-but with them in the room again I think this doesn't go far.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:25 PM
  #7
flyingpig
Pay the Troll Toll
 
flyingpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pay the troll toll
Posts: 1,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I'm not sure what mediators would accomplish at this stage. Neither side seems to have any problems communicating what they want and mediation wasn't effective before.
Mediation stopped because the chasm was too wide between the two sides. If the parties agee, and mediators agree, it is likely because they are substantially closer together and need someone to push the buttons of both sides in a give and take on various issues to bridge the small gap.

flyingpig is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:26 PM
  #8
wingfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401
vCash: 50
Bringing back the mediators tells me one of two things. A) The PA believes that they have made adequate concessions and needs a mediator to tell the NHL they've gotta move, or B) A deal is close but solid numbers can't be agreed upon.

If I werea betting man I'd go with A personally.

wingfan is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:32 PM
  #9
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
The players will kill this season, this I am sure of.

The Toews' and Miller's of the union will kill the season and destroy the NHLPA.

The League will come back in the Summer and offer them 48 or 47% of HRR..or at least they should.

The owners will kill this season, this I am sure of.

The Jacobs and Leipolds of the NHL will kill the season and the destroy the NHL.

... never mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Really? I would think it would viewed more as a time-waster than anything else.

Squeezing in 60 games can be good motivation.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:35 PM
  #10
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
Fehr is loosing big time and he knows it. He wants top cover his sorry ass... I hope ALL the players would have a chance to vote on the last owner's offer. I am pretty sure 75% would accept it. THIS is democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
No, this is Fehr. He doesn't want to go so early, he wants to blow up the league like he did with the MLB. Fehr is not ready to go yet.

Maybe you guys are forgetting this the business board. Can you try to make cogent business cases instead of littering this board with what passes for posts on the NHL Talk board?

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:37 PM
  #11
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The owners will kill this season, this I am sure of.

The Jacobs and Leipolds of the NHL will kill the season and the destroy the NHL.

... never mind.




Squeezing in 60 games can be good motivation.
They won't get 60 games, I would assume the owners know this. So they can kiss their 100% sponsorships good-bye.

Also, any leverage that the PA thinks they hold with this is all but gone, they get 75% of the cash if the play more than 41 games. So, create a 42 game schedule, get 75% of the sponsorships and pay 50% of the salaries.

Enough is enough with this **** show. It's time for both sides to swallow some pride and get things done.

patty59 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:38 PM
  #12
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
The players will kill this season, this I am sure of.

The Toews' and Miller's of the union will kill the season and destroy the NHLPA.

The League will come back in the Summer and offer them 48 or 47% of HRR..or at least they should.
Actually I don't think the league will be thinking of HRR if this goes to summer- they'll be thinking of how to fight anti-trust suits after PA decertification.

moosehead81 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:42 PM
  #13
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
They won't get 60 games, I would assume the owners know this. So they can kiss their 100% sponsorships good-bye.

Also, any leverage that the PA thinks they hold with this is all but gone, they get 75% of the cash if the play more than 41 games. So, create a 42 game schedule, get 75% of the sponsorships and pay 50% of the salaries.

Enough is enough with this **** show. It's time for both sides to swallow some pride and get things done.
Probably accurate, but this is the downside to brinksmanship as the strategy of choice for negotiations.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:45 PM
  #14
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Re-posting from the links thread to get some meat into this discussion:

Friedman:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...intensify.html
Nerves frayed as NHL negotiations intensify
Quote:
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."
There had been reports of a vent session by Miller about the owners' approach, iirc.

He expands on the pension aspect:

Quote:
With "make-whole," there were reports last night (one of them mine) that the NHL upped its offer from $211 million to $300 million. That's closer to the NHLPA's last known request of $393 million. But later, there was a catch -- that $50 million of it would be for pension funding. That's a tricky one and sure to annoy the players. Here's why:

Due to differing pension laws in the United States and Canada, players based in the U.S. can receive approximately $20,000 more per year in tax-free contributions from their clubs. It's a nice little selling point for the American squads because if you play north of the 49th, you lose a good chunk of that difference to taxes.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:50 PM
  #15
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
I think it is time for NHLPA members to call their union reps and ask for a vote on the latest proposal from the owners.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:54 PM
  #16
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie I have been told that's a significant factor, yes. @brianlawton9

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
NHL firm stance on 5 yr term limit reflects ownership belief that long term deals on books are liability regarding franchise sales

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Heres question confronting PA: Can players get better deal in 3,4 weeks if this falls thru and would it compensate for loss of further gms?


Also mentions that transition issues have yet to be discussed.

Longterm contracts on books lower franchise values, per Brooksie's tweet/source. I suppose that is only an issue if you plan on selling the franchise over that term.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:56 PM
  #17
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I think it is time for NHLPA members to call their union reps and ask for a vote on the latest proposal from the owners.

I was under the impression that players have been calling in to the internal PA meeting this entire day.

Quote:
@Real_ESPNLeBrun Players from around the league have called into internal NHLPA meetings all day long... Crunch time. Big decisions being made on next step

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:58 PM
  #18
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,103
vCash: 256
Friedman on CBC believes that there are enough players wanting to vote on the NHL proposal to force the PA into action should the PA leadership fail to grab the opportunity to cut their losses.
The moderates usually outweigh the hardliners.


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...ough-spot.html


Last edited by Fugu: 12-06-2012 at 02:29 PM. Reason: added link, noting he does not quantify how many
Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:00 PM
  #19
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Maybe you guys are forgetting this the business board. Can you try to make cogent business cases instead of littering this board with what passes for posts on the NHL Talk board?
He's pointing out that the players lost on the major issue they're fighting over when they rejected the October 26th offer. They're never going to see that much money again. Fehr should have to run from his membership on that count.

It would be one thing if the players were demanding 57% indefinitely, or 60%, because even if they didn't get it, they would be asking for something more than they lose by fighting. As soon as your request is smaller than the cost of negotiating, only a fool keeps negotiating.

And because I hear this every damn time, recall that owners make less than players by a factor of 10, so this doesn't apply the same to them.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:01 PM
  #20
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Whatever happens, NHLPA members should be able to have a full vote on the latest offer on the table.

Let's hope that militatants like Miller and Toews won't derail the entire process.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:02 PM
  #21
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Friedman on CBC believes that there are enough players wanting to vote on the NHL proposal to force the PA into action should the PA leadership fail to grab the opportunity to cut their losses.
The moderates usually outweigh the hardliners.
I would think so too. If you shake off the ghost of CBAs past and look at what is currently proposed it probably better than the CBAs of the other leagues and a ten year CBA will hopefully grow the game enough to purge the constant need for conflict.

I think if the players had a vote today, the owners proposal would pass.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:05 PM
  #22
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I was under the impression that players have been calling in to the internal PA meeting this entire day.
...and they should put what is on the table to a vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I would think so too. If you shake off the ghost of CBAs past and look at what is currently proposed it probably better than the CBAs of the other leagues and a ten year CBA will hopefully grow the game enough to purge the constant need for conflict.

I think if the players had a vote today, the owners proposal would pass.
I think it would pass and there would be a new 10-year CBA. I am sure the majority of the NHLPA isn't ready to go to war over the 5-year contract limit and the 5% variance issue. Seems like most of the splitting of the revenue and make-whole provisions have been hashed out.

Time to get back to work.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:07 PM
  #23
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Also mentions that transition issues have yet to be discussed.

Longterm contracts on books lower franchise values, per Brooksie's tweet/source. I suppose that is only an issue if you plan on selling the franchise over that term.
Who knows exactly what will happen over 14 years. Things change, people change. Teams have every reason to get rid of these contracts. However unless it's in the CBA, they're going to get hit with collusion charges.

Get the term limits, and drop the variance (or increase it to 25-30%). On a 5 or 7 yr deal it's not that much of an issue.

__________________
"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 offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:11 PM
  #24
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Other than stalling, what is the purpose of bringing back non-binding mediation?

If they are really that close, they should be able to get a deal done without them. I don't see the owners changing their minds on anything significant because of a mediator.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:12 PM
  #25
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I would think so too. If you shake off the ghost of CBAs past and look at what is currently proposed it probably better than the CBAs of the other leagues and a ten year CBA will hopefully grow the game enough to purge the constant need for conflict.

I think if the players had a vote today, the owners proposal would pass.
I think a vote on the October 26th offer would've passed. The bottom half of every roster is never going to see a long, front-loaded contract or work a FA bidding war. More than half the players in the league will have careers of six years or less. They know they're getting ****ed a lot more by not playing than a 12% rollback could ever do.

There's no doubt in my mind that a vote would pass.

haseoke39 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 01:05 AM.

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.