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
Notices

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.

Storm Clouds Brewing in NHLPA - Chris Chelios the Peacemaker???

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-08-2017, 10:19 AM
  #1
canuckfan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,025
vCash: 500
Storm Clouds Brewing in NHLPA - Chris Chelios the Peacemaker???

Warning signs continue to come forward. In fighting in the NHLPA over lots of issues.


They want to make Chelios the ombudsman.

Can you imagine Chelios and Bettman at the table working on a new CBA.


Can we have a lockout countdown till September 15, 2020. this is going to be a war

canuckfan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 10:56 AM
  #2
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Link:

http://www.tsn.ca/video/insider-trad...atanen~1141351

__________________
You pressed You, referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is You.
BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 11:42 AM
  #3
Tom ServoMST3K
Eff the DH
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,940
vCash: 949
It always amuses me when people IRL and on other forums talk about a potential lockout like it isn't all but guaranteed to happen.

Tom ServoMST3K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 12:24 PM
  #4
Daisy Jane
trust the vision
 
Daisy Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 55,585
vCash: 500
The thing is what leg do the players have to stand on?
They already have (to keep it very simple)

* Guaranteed Contracts up to 7 years (8 if you are owned by your team)
* 50 split revenue.

they're mad about escrow yet they keep rising the escalator, thus increasing the escrow.

they want (again to keep it simple)
* Olympic Participation (something that doesn't give them revenue + do ALL players want it?)
* No Escrow. (so i'm thinking more of a luxury tax/soft cap?

but how do you guarantee a 50/50 split without Escrow? (This was asked on the radio) and I have never heard about escrow complaining until the lockout in 2013.

like i'm sure there are other things the players aren't liking but i mean if they lock out over those two (no escrow/yes olympics) - i'm pretty darn sure the owners are going to retaliate with less guaranteed contracts OR less contract years. because THEY'D die on not having a soft cap/no luxury tax. (because rich teams can't have that advantage)

Daisy Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 12:35 PM
  #5
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,719
vCash: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy Jane View Post
The thing is what leg do the players have to stand on?
They already have (to keep it very simple)

* Guaranteed Contracts up to 7 years (8 if you are owned by your team)
* 50 split revenue.

they're mad about escrow yet they keep rising the escalator, thus increasing the escrow.

they want (again to keep it simple)
* Olympic Participation (something that doesn't give them revenue + do ALL players want it?)
* No Escrow. (so i'm thinking more of a luxury tax/soft cap?

but how do you guarantee a 50/50 split without Escrow? (This was asked on the radio) and I have never heard about escrow complaining until the lockout in 2013.

like i'm sure there are other things the players aren't liking but i mean if they lock out over those two (no escrow/yes olympics) - i'm pretty darn sure the owners are going to retaliate with less guaranteed contracts OR less contract years. because THEY'D die on not having a soft cap/no luxury tax. (because rich teams can't have that advantage)
The only way is to reverse the situation. Lower the salary cap to be 50% of revenue. Then all players would receive their full contracts. At year end the owners would have to kick in additional money to reach the 50% and players would get a year end bonus. In the end it would be the same thing but the players would get the value of what their contracts say and rather than paying escrow over the course of the season the owners would be paying the escrow if you will.

cheswick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 01:06 PM
  #6
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lord of HFBOARDS
Country: United Nations
Posts: 74,694
vCash: 9240
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckfan75 View Post
Warning signs continue to come forward. In fighting in the NHLPA over lots of issues.


They want to make Chelios the ombudsman.

Can you imagine Chelios and Bettman at the table working on a new CBA.


Can we have a lockout countdown till September 15, 2020. this is going to be a war
I am predicting no season that year

__________________
**Avatar approved by the powers that be***

I am the KING of Alternative Facts as any hockey fan is
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 01:35 PM
  #7
Daisy Jane
trust the vision
 
Daisy Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 55,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The only way is to reverse the situation. Lower the salary cap to be 50% of revenue. Then all players would receive their full contracts. At year end the owners would have to kick in additional money to reach the 50% and players would get a year end bonus. In the end it would be the same thing but the players would get the value of what their contracts say and rather than paying escrow over the course of the season the owners would be paying the escrow if you will.
hmmm.
that makes sense. what is it now? (like the cap isn't 50% of revenue, right?)
if i were an owner though, couldn't you just argue - DON'T use the artificial increase and that can also accomplish the same thing? same value and NO one has to pay?

Daisy Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 03:44 PM
  #8
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 2,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckfan75 View Post
Warning signs continue to come forward. In fighting in the NHLPA over lots of issues.


They want to make Chelios the ombudsman.

Can you imagine Chelios and Bettman at the table working on a new CBA.


Can we have a lockout countdown till September 15, 2020. this is going to be a war
The NHLPA ombudsman isn't going to be at the negotiating table. The Ombudsman's role is to try and help resolve disputes between members and the PA.

Yukon Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 03:45 PM
  #9
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 2,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy Jane View Post
The thing is what leg do the players have to stand on?
They already have (to keep it very simple)

* Guaranteed Contracts up to 7 years (8 if you are owned by your team)
* 50 split revenue.

they're mad about escrow yet they keep rising the escalator, thus increasing the escrow.
The last two work stoppages have been lockouts by the owners. It wasn't because of demands of the players. They were both because of demands by the owners. The question is what are the owners going to be looking for in the next CBA.

Yukon Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 03:57 PM
  #10
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
The last two work stoppages have been lockouts by the owners. It wasn't because of demands of the players. They were both because of demands by the owners. The question is what are the owners going to be looking for in the next CBA.
This is exactly the reality. Look at the reasons Bettman gave for the last one....Essentially, "We are paying too much to the players, and so our franchises are in a bad spot."

Now, on this board we all know that the problem is that there is WAY (like 2 or 3 times or more) more local revenue in Toronto than in Carolina or Arizona. So, that guarantees that the owners will pull the same argument. And, to make that worse, the winds are blowing that national broadcast revenue will be LESS next time, because of cord cutters. Which simply, percentage wise, makes the problem worse.

The question is: How low will the owners try to go?

And, how far will the PA push back with proposals that require greater revenue redistribution?

Interesting times on the BoH....

MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 04:59 PM
  #11
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 24,667
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy Jane View Post
hmmm.
that makes sense. what is it now? (like the cap isn't 50% of revenue, right?)
if i were an owner though, couldn't you just argue - DON'T use the artificial increase and that can also accomplish the same thing? same value and NO one has to pay?
50% is the midpoint. The problem is that the vast majority of teams are going well over the midpoint, spending to the cap ceiling (how about that, most teams want to win and will spend what they're allowed?)

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 05:25 PM
  #12
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Get off my obstacle!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 3,219
vCash: 500
Well, Cheli has experience in this (See Paul Kelly - Ian Penny, Ron Pink, Buzz Hargrove fiasco in 2009)

Edit/Add: Here is the link the op references from Bobbie Mack

http://www.tsn.ca/video/insider-trad...eberle~1138391


Last edited by Major4Boarding: 06-08-2017 at 05:49 PM.
Major4Boarding is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 05:43 PM
  #13
Legionnaire11
#2 Draft Pick
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 4,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
The last two work stoppages have been lockouts by the owners. It wasn't because of demands of the players. They were both because of demands by the owners. The question is what are the owners going to be looking for in the next CBA.
That's a bit shortsighted and simplistic. Yes the owners demands are the base of the issue, but the players refusal to face reality and negotiate in good faith is equally to blame. Look back at the full season and if the players hadn't been so stubborn and accepted an offer any earlier, they would have been better off financially and saved the season.

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 05:48 PM
  #14
Daisy Jane
trust the vision
 
Daisy Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 55,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
This is exactly the reality. Look at the reasons Bettman gave for the last one....Essentially, "We are paying too much to the players, and so our franchises are in a bad spot."

Now, on this board we all know that the problem is that there is WAY (like 2 or 3 times or more) more local revenue in Toronto than in Carolina or Arizona. So, that guarantees that the owners will pull the same argument. And, to make that worse, the winds are blowing that national broadcast revenue will be LESS next time, because of cord cutters. Which simply, percentage wise, makes the problem worse.

The question is: How low will the owners try to go?

And, how far will the PA push back with proposals that require greater revenue redistribution?

Interesting times on the BoH....
it doesn't help the Canadian dollar is the value of a potato.
i wonder if the "C" word will happen eventually.

Daisy Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 05:50 PM
  #15
Daisy Jane
trust the vision
 
Daisy Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 55,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
50% is the midpoint. The problem is that the vast majority of teams are going well over the midpoint, spending to the cap ceiling (how about that, most teams want to win and will spend what they're allowed?)
thanks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
That's a bit shortsighted and simplistic. Yes the owners demands are the base of the issue, but the players refusal to face reality and negotiate in good faith is equally to blame. Look back at the full season and if the players hadn't been so stubborn and accepted an offer any earlier, they would have been better off financially and saved the season.
yah. like anytime you hear players talk about the Great Lockout, they were like that was one of the stupidest things the players could have done - but a lot of elder-statemen were like "shut up what do you know."

Daisy Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 05:53 PM
  #16
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 640
vCash: 50
If I remember correctly, Chelios (and others) tried to sue the NHLPA to fire Ted Saskin. The case was eventually kicked out of court for bad venue. The players brought it in US Court, but the Court ruled that it should have been brought in Toronto, where the NHLPA was located.

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 05:54 PM
  #17
Kimi
Registered User
 
Kimi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Country: England
Posts: 7,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy Jane View Post
* Olympic Participation (something that doesn't give them revenue + do ALL players want it?)
I don't see how there would be anyone against it. The players who want to play (and are good enough to make the team) get to play, and the players who don't get a two week holiday. Seems a win all round.

Kimi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 06:05 PM
  #18
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Get off my obstacle!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 3,219
vCash: 500
Short Summary

Some "general unrest" between a group of agents and the players they rep and Fehr.

Ritch Winter (The Sports Corporation), Anton Thun (MFIVE Sports), and Kurt Overhardt (KO Sports). As a group, they're huddling up to address concerns regarding:

HRR, Olympics, profits from World Cup, Escrow and CBA reopen window.

Hope this amounts to just nervousness because, for the love of Mike, the PA just can't seem to get out of its own way. I swear to God.

Major4Boarding is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 08:11 PM
  #19
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy Jane View Post
it doesn't help the Canadian dollar is the value of a potato.
i wonder if the "C" word will happen eventually.
Owners won't pay for contraction. It's not like you get to waive a magic wand and make teams disappear. The owners would have to buy those teams and pay any penalties to exit their contracts/leases/etc.

In short it's not gonna happen.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 08:15 PM
  #20
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimi View Post
I don't see how there would be anyone against it. The players who want to play (and are good enough to make the team) get to play, and the players who don't get a two week holiday. Seems a win all round.
The NHL wants some sort of concession from the PA to participate in the Olympics. It's possible the players who get a two week vacation might view that concession as not worth it.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 08:35 PM
  #21
Daisy Jane
trust the vision
 
Daisy Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 55,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimi View Post
I don't see how there would be anyone against it. The players who want to play (and are good enough to make the team) get to play, and the players who don't get a two week holiday. Seems a win all round.
some players stated when the NHL decided no go that they actually approved the decision. so maybe it's not that supported as we seem.

Daisy Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 08:43 PM
  #22
BaccusDrunk
Registered User
 
BaccusDrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
I think publicly most players would say they want to go to the Olympics even if they aren't players that would make the teams, however you have to give credit to Bettman/NHL in turning this into a bargaining chip for the next CBA.

Granted they may have used it as a chip in the last CBA since the previous Olympics were written in I believe. But now it may serve as something to get a concession.

Honestly outside the Olympics, I wonder how bad the next CBA negotiations will actually be, the owners seemed happy enough to extend it to include the Olympics this year. I understand the player unhappiness with escrow, but I haven't seen any proposal/argument dealing with escrow that don't exhibit a basic misunderstanding of how the Cap currently works. So barring a reworking of the Cap system that would still end up in something similar to the current HRR split, what are the real fights going to be over? Olympics vs more pro owner HRR split?

I don't put anything past the owners greed levels, but don't see anything much that equals a lost season either.

BaccusDrunk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2017, 09:08 PM
  #23
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaccusDrunk View Post
I think publicly most players would say they want to go to the Olympics even if they aren't players that would make the teams, however you have to give credit to Bettman/NHL in turning this into a bargaining chip for the next CBA.

Granted they may have used it as a chip in the last CBA since the previous Olympics were written in I believe. But now it may serve as something to get a concession.

Honestly outside the Olympics, I wonder how bad the next CBA negotiations will actually be, the owners seemed happy enough to extend it to include the Olympics this year. I understand the player unhappiness with escrow, but I haven't seen any proposal/argument dealing with escrow that don't exhibit a basic misunderstanding of how the Cap currently works. So barring a reworking of the Cap system that would still end up in something similar to the current HRR split, what are the real fights going to be over? Olympics vs more pro owner HRR split?

I don't put anything past the owners greed levels, but don't see anything much that equals a lost season either.
I see your point on the surface, BD.

I wonder, and this is not really a prediction as much as a "hhmmm, maybe.....", if the following things might be ip for grabs:

1- Definition of HRR. Perhaps included would be revenue from the World Cup. I assume the owners will want all of that.
2- Owner fear of the possibility of a reduced national media contract. We hear rumblings that the current Canadian contract is an overpay. And, with cord-cutting, I could see NBC or whoever not wanting to pay as much for the US contract as well. That's not bad in and of itself, but couple it with....
3- Arizona and Carolina situations, as well as Florida coming near then end of their lease at that time. These franchises struggle now. Decrease the national broadcast revenue, and they struggle even more......
4- What's happening with the concussion lawsuit? Again, money the owners are going to lose.
Both 2) and 3) and potentially 4) might lead owners to wanting to keep more than 50% of HRR.

In response to that, I suspect the players will suggest that the owners increase the revenue sharing, rather than their share of HRR to make up the difference.

Then, escrow. I believe the players feel they are cheated with the escrow system, because, with most of the teams spending near the cap, rather than the midpoint, the total salary is an overspend on the part of the owners, so the players lose in escrow. There are ways to deal with that, for example.....

Reduce the midpoint to 48% of HRR, and automatically reduce all contracts by 4%. What that does is reduces the cap, and thus the amount placed in escrow. Of course, like others have said, all that's happening is a cosmetic change to make it FEEL better for the players. If I were the owners, I would do whatever made the players feel good. 50% of HRR out of my pocket is the same no matter how the PA wants it calculated.

Anyway, that's all my 2 cents.

MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2017, 12:02 AM
  #24
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,210
vCash: 500
Whatever the issues are....whatever the disagreements....that guy is the wrong person to have in ANY form of responsibility for the PA.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2017, 10:31 AM
  #25
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
The last two work stoppages have been lockouts by the owners. It wasn't because of demands of the players. They were both because of demands by the owners. The question is what are the owners going to be looking for in the next CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
That's a bit shortsighted and simplistic. Yes the owners demands are the base of the issue, but the players refusal to face reality and negotiate in good faith is equally to blame. Look back at the full season and if the players hadn't been so stubborn and accepted an offer any earlier, they would have been better off financially and saved the season.
It's not shortsighted nor simplistic, but accurate, save for the last two work stoppages have been lockouts by the owners - it's the last three stoppages, which I title Lockout I (the 1994-95 lockout cancelling the first half of the season), Lockout II (which lost the entire 2004-05 season) and Lockout III (2012-13, removing almost half a season).

Lockout I was a win to the players, to the detriment of Gary Bettman, as many of the league's stronger financial teams couldn't stomach losing a season for cost-containment. Those teams were able to get a proposal hammered out and saved the 1995 season. The end result, however, was that the weaker-financed teams were sold and relocated - one reason why Lockout I was initiated.

Therefore, the players were steadfast in resolve during Lockout II because they were able to outlast the owners during Lockout I ten years earlier. Instead, the owners and league cancelled the season and were able to extract a 24 percent rollback in salaries during the summer of 2005.

Fast-forward to 2012, and Lockout III began with the cancellation of the CBA by the League followed by a first proposal that contained a rollback in salaries by 24 percent, in a reduction of the salary cap from 57 to 43 percent, and concurrent rollbacks in maximum contract term and RFA/UFA status. Later, it was stated that an updated proposal by the owners was "non-negotiable" - so much for bargaining in good faith.

So that's where I have a problem with the description that "the players refusal to face reality and negotiate in good faith is equally to blame". It's more based on the fact that players should take whatever crumbs are given to them, instead of actual negotiation by the owners, more so than the players.

I mean, for once we get the owners side to agree to extend the current CBA in exchange for participation in the 2018 Olympics - and no other apparent changes. But it appears the players have more they wish to discuss, so that's been rejected.

Grudy0 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 11:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.