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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 03:59 AM
  #1
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA

The CBA that was eventually agreed to is very similar to the offer the owners made on October 16th to save an 82 game season.

The "big" issues seem to be largely unchanged.

Oct 17th offer:

$200 million in revenue sharing (same as current cba)
50/50 share in revenue (same as current cba)
6 years in length (actually closer to players position)
$200 million revenue sharing (same as current cba)
$210 million "make whole" ($90 million less than current cba)
$70 million cap ceiling first season of cba (same as current cba)
$60 million ceiling year 2 of cba ($4.3 million less than current cba)

Aren't those all of the "big" issues?
The only real difference on ANY of them is make whole increase to $300 million. But that's still less than what the players lost by missing almost half of a season.

I realize there are quite a few other tweaks and changes (mostly contractual) addressed in the current cba... but my point is that all of the "big" issues seemed already settled. Why didn't the nhlpa negotiate off of the Oct 16th offer instead of responding with 3 new proposals?
Did the nhlpa make a mistake by not negotiating off of that offer?

Why did we miss 4 months of hockey when things were so close to the current cba in mid October?


Last edited by Disgruntled Observer*: 01-07-2013 at 05:15 AM.
Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:04 AM
  #2
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,022
vCash: 500
Pretty much. I think we could have had basically a very similar deal by mid/late November if the PA hadn't been so stubborn. Oh well.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:08 AM
  #3
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,880
vCash: 500
I think everybody missed the bigger sticking point. It was contract length and pension that stopped any settlement. Also 90 million is one hell of a change. For a long time the owners wanted the players to pay for most of the make whole thing. The devil is in the details.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:25 AM
  #4
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
I think everybody missed the bigger sticking point. It was contract length and pension that stopped any settlement. Also 90 million is one hell of a change. For a long time the owners wanted the players to pay for most of the make whole thing. The devil is in the details.
90M is 5.4% of the salaries players would have gotten THIS SEASON if there had been a full season. Players will lose more than 10 times of that during the duration of this CBA because of missed games & lower revenues.

I'm waiting for the first mainstream journalist to actually take this issue to public. What the NHLPA gained in the last 3 months is minimal to what they lost.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:54 AM
  #5
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,226
vCash: 50
Based upon what I have been told that we need to look at stuff like the pension the players get now to get an idea of things that got moved

__________________
"If the Detroit Red Wings are defying gravity" by consistently contending without the benefit of high draft picks, "the Edmonton Oilers are defying lift.

Welcome to Edmonton Connor McDavid--the rest of you HA HA HA HA HA HA
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 05:08 AM
  #6
Fa Ci La
Registered User
 
Fa Ci La's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post

The "big" issues seem to be largely unchanged.

$70 million cap ceiling first season of cba (same as current cba)

uh it was the cap for the 2nd season that was an issue. was anyone really fighting about the figure for the 1st season

Fa Ci La is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 05:14 AM
  #7
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fa Ci La View Post
uh it was the cap for the 2nd season that was an issue. was anyone really fighting about the figure for the 1st season
But it only increased from $60 million to $64.3 million.
Again... small tweaks.
But I'll add it to the OP.

Why couldn't these little things be negotiated 3 months ago?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 05:54 AM
  #8
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
But it only increased from $60 million to $64.3 million.
Again... small tweaks.
But I'll add it to the OP.

Why couldn't these little things be negotiated 3 months ago?
And that cap has basicly zero effect on what the players get because it's balanced through escrow.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 05:57 AM
  #9
PRMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
You forgot the max contract length from 5 years to 7/8 years and the difference between years going from 5%(?) to 35%. Those are big issues for the players long-term. Also the ELC second year contract limits being reduced.

PRMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:17 AM
  #10
pepty
Let's win it all
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,488
vCash: 395
The players might have gotten all that they did had they chosen to negotiate directly on this offer but they didn't. After the owners made this offer, Fehr offered instead 3 half baked delinked proposals.

The season was going to be back on when Fehr chose to negotiate based on an NHL offer and he didn't do that until this last proposal.

Though Fehr kept the players in line by telling them that the owners wouldn't really negotiate until the last minute, it was actually Fehr himself who was working on his own deadline and chose to drag things out as long as possible for whatever purpose.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:33 AM
  #11
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,398
vCash: 408
[QUOTE=Disgruntled Observer;57228407]But it only increased from $60 million to $64.3 million.
Again... small tweaks.
But I'll add it to the OP.

Why couldn't these little things be negotiated 3 months ago?[/QUOTE]

because the NHLPA hired a man named Donald Fehr.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:54 AM
  #12
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,398
vCash: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRMan View Post
You forgot the max contract length from 5 years to 7/8 years and the difference between years going from 5%(?) to 35%. Those are big issues for the players long-term. Also the ELC second year contract limits being reduced.
the 7/8 years only applies to maybe 30 players and they are all stars that get their money anyway, so that is a minor gain. 35% difference doesn't increase the contract total, so it is not more money... and a contract's lowest year must be at least half of its highest year, so 35% can only happen once in the duration of the contract... again, minor.

the players lost more than they gained, especially in lost respect and goodwill.

the one thing the players may have achieved, and this is important, is they showed the owners that they can not just lock them out without it hurting themselves aswell.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:16 AM
  #13
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 21,394
vCash: 50
The big point for the PA was not accepting the 5 year contract length. You can say they lost money in the short term through lost games, and that is true, but the long term health of their union is more dependant on contract length, plus the pension. The current players lost a little money so that the future would remain better younger/future players. That's what unions do.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:24 AM
  #14
Retail1LO
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,753
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
The big point for the PA was not accepting the 5 year contract length. You can say they lost money in the short term through lost games, and that is true, but the long term health of their union is more dependant on contract length, plus the pension. The current players lost a little money so that the future would remain better younger/future players. That's what unions do.
Yeah...they ensured that 20-30 players will have the opportunity for 7-8 year contracts. lol Good on them. Yay. So glad we lost half a season for 30 players. Regarding the pension, that could have been hammered out in far less than half a season. They lost. Period. For next to nothing. Again.

Retail1LO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:26 AM
  #15
Falconone
Registered User
 
Falconone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Suburb of Boston MA
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
maybe more

I think the issues you refer to as "BIG" issues were never the stumbling blocks. EVER ! Back in the earlier versions of the NHL offers there were substantial player contract rights 'give backs' the NHL wanted from the PA.

Among those were ELC length and value, free agency, salary arb as well as the previously referred to issues around yr. to yr. variance of contract value and contract length. Remember the "hill we will die on"?

If anyone thinks the above issues are minor they need to consult the capologists on here who can figure out the substance of the difference in $ values.

I said back then that the sticking points were going to be player contract rights. And they were.

It took this long and both the uncertainty of the court involvement (which IMHO was a dead loser for the NHL) and perhaps pressure from the sponsors/TV contract people to move the NHL off their positions on contract rights. Pensions were ALWAYS part of the issues and are not inconsequential. Especially the change to a defined benefit plan. When you start adding up the dollars from each section of contention and then multiply it times the proposed length of the CBA you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars if not a billion or more.

So until pressure was brought on by the courtroom and sponsor/TV deals the NHL was going to say NO to any proposal that didn't get them what they wanted in player contracting issues.

But hey, IJMHO nothing more, nothing less. LOL

Falconone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:31 AM
  #16
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,327
vCash: 500
I guess we can add cba’s to sausages and American laws as things that you don’t want to see how they are made - it’s ugly.

Some present it as if the owners were just a bunch of nice guys looking to negotiate and make a deal. But if that were the case why would they send out the toxic Bettman again and instruct him to make an opening move of poking the players in the eye, call them cattle, threaten the entire season, and then condescendingly present final offer after final offer, refusing to negotiate off them, saying take it or leave it, not even listening to player counter offers but rather dismissing them and presenting a new offer already typed up 5 mins later? Why didn’t Bettman offer this deal then with charm and a spirit of cooperation and trust?

What was the purposes of Bettman’s little temper tantrum in December when he insisted they weren’t as close as Fehr said and that all his offers were off the table, that’s the hill they are dieing on, and it’s take it or leave it, only to eventually have to negotiate and make the concessions for a deal?

And the owners and players have split on a revenue fund to help poor markets? Where did I hear that before? The players, like last time, were being asked to make huge concessions a revenues and profits were increasing. And they agreed to it. Their opening offers agreed to it each time. And yet Bettman still manages to make that such a toxic environment they need mediators to get them to talk.

Why would the owners make any concessions in October when they figure that the PA will eventually break? What saved the season is they realized that the players under Fehr had re-achieved solidarity and strength as a union and were willing to decertify if need be and so they had to finally actually negotiate.

I don’t think there’s any big surprise here, Bettman and the owners are responsible for the toxic labour negotiation environment they have created. There is no trust, as exemplified by that little ‘oh the dog must have ate that page of the cba as I was printing it that included penalties for lying about HRR.’ The players said from day 1 that they don’t think they will see the owners best offer until January when the season is on the line. And quel surprise. Why did we have to wait until now? Well maybe if Paul Kelly took Bettmans job next time, we could get these done faster.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:47 AM
  #17
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 21,394
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO View Post
Yeah...they ensured that 20-30 players will have the opportunity for 7-8 year contracts. lol Good on them. Yay. So glad we lost half a season for 30 players. Regarding the pension, that could have been hammered out in far less than half a season. They lost. Period. For next to nothing. Again.
I agree, it's pretty stupid. It's WAYYYY more than 20-30 players over a 10 year span, though. There's 42 guys currently on 7+ year deals.

http://capgeek.com/leaders/?type=LEN...on=-1&limit=50

Over a 10 year span, say we're looking at 200 guys, that's a pretty significant number.


Last edited by IU Hawks fan: 01-07-2013 at 08:15 AM.
IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:51 AM
  #18
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,792
vCash: 500
7 year contracts don't change what the PA makes, though. They should be a net neutral to the PA.

Also, I'd love to see a link on where they got $211 million in make whole money in the October offer. IIRC, all $300M was eked out later. Which still means it pales in comparison to the ~$750M they lost for it.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:01 AM
  #19
Freudian
Slightly overpaid
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 34,243
vCash: 50
Fehr's big mistake was to not even negotiate off that offer and get a 82 game season in. He could have gotten some contracting concessions and the players would have been better off.

Instead, now the players have to act as if pensions were the win for them because having a fight for the sake of a fight can't be the only reason why the season starts in late January, right?

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:08 AM
  #20
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Fehr's big mistake was to not even negotiate off that offer and get a 82 game season in. He could have gotten some contracting concessions and the players would have been better off.

Instead, now the players have to act as if pensions were the win for them because having a fight for the sake of a fight can't be the only reason why the season starts in late January, right?
The way I recall October through early December, player pensions were barely on the radar. That emerged late in December & into January as the new PA "must have" issue, possibly as a face-saver.

On every other item, the PA managed only to squeeze a bit out of the owners - 5 years term to 7, 5% y-o-y variance to 35%, $211M make-whole to $300M. Were those really worth it? For either side?

And we'll do this all again in 8 years. Take it to the bank. These two sides still can't stand each other, and one side or the other will find something grievously wrong with this deal in about 7 years. Unless the two sides really start building trust with each other during this CBA, labor strife will continue to be the norm. How we get there from here, I've no idea.

optimus2861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:18 AM
  #21
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,739
vCash: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post

Why did we miss 4 months of hockey when things were so close to the current cba in mid October?
Because the owners were still making money by not playing

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:18 AM
  #22
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
7 year contracts don't change what the PA makes, though. They should be a net neutral to the PA.

Also, I'd love to see a link on where they got $211 million in make whole money in the October offer. IIRC, all $300M was eked out later. Which still means it pales in comparison to the ~$750M they lost for it.
12 year contracts dont change what the NHL makes.

We get that if a bully threatens to punch you and take your lunch money, you will always fork it over right away to avoid getting punched. What i dont get is why you expect hockey players to take that attitude. The players knew they were going to come out of this negotiation taking less. Again. And they knew with Bettmans style, they would have to wait until now to get the best deal.

Maybe there are other ideas out there to prevent that in the future other than whining about why the players always put up a fight when the owners go on strike for a raise.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:18 AM
  #23
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
The way I recall October through early December, player pensions were barely on the radar. That emerged late in December & into January as the new PA "must have" issue, possibly as a face-saver.

On every other item, the PA managed only to squeeze a bit out of the owners - 5 years term to 7, 5% y-o-y variance to 35%, $211M make-whole to $300M. Were those really worth it? For either side?

And we'll do this all again in 8 years. Take it to the bank. These two sides still can't stand each other, and one side or the other will find something grievously wrong with this deal in about 7 years. Unless the two sides really start building trust with each other during this CBA, labor strife will continue to be the norm. How we get there from here, I've no idea.


You're right, pensions were never really any kind of an issue until recently.


Fehr should have maybe brought that up in august.

Shwag33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:21 AM
  #24
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,327
vCash: 500
Pensions were in the players original offer. The media and HFboards perhaps only focused on them recently, and still dont fully understand what was done there it seems.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 08:45 AM
  #25
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Pensions were in the players original offer. The media and HFboards perhaps only focused on them recently, and still dont fully understand what was done there it seems.
Yes they most likely became a "big deal" because other aspects of the CBA were agreed upon more or less. Bettman and Daly made a big fuss about how "once we agree on one thing, Fehr moves the goalposts and says now pensions are the big issue!" well yeah, once you've got some things taken care of, other things become more important.

Once the players started negotiating under the 50-50 split and agreed to a lot of other stuff, plus got the new contract rules dropped, things like pensions came to the forefront as the important issues to be negotiated

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.