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.
Lockout III: So close, and yet so far (Moderated: see post #295)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
__________________ "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."
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.
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.
