• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

2,459 posts in this topic

Not that the PA's offer was the be-all-end-all, but from the reporting it sounds like the League is sitting back waiting for the PA to come up with some kind of offer that will fix all the League's problems for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that the PA's offer was the be-all-end-all, but from the reporting it sounds like the League is sitting back waiting for the PA to come up with some kind of offer that will fix all the League's problems for them.

I think the league is sitting back because after their "3 up, 3 rejected" response within the course of an hour to the NHLPA's counteroffers in October, they'll look like absolute clowns if they reject this thing immediately again. Still, as this portion of Pierre LeBrun's article hints, I find it hard to believe this approach will gain a significant foothold for the NHLPA:

BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF HRR

For the first time, the NHLPA offered a framework based on the league’s preferred system of a percentage linked to hockey-related revenue, instead of a system based on guaranteed dollars. In this case, the NHLPA agrees to go to 50 percent of HRR right from Year 1. However, a key line in the proposal bears underlying: "There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season."

Essentially, it means the players are guaranteed to make no less in total dollars than the year before. The league won’t like that.

The NHL have to be nuts to guarantee the players that their share of revenue will not go down in subsequent years. What if the fans revolt and attendance is down? What if the world economy takes a massive dump and people just stop spending money on the NHL?

Let's say HRR is $3 billion next year (randomly selected #). In Year 1, you have a 50/50 split, so $1.5 billion each for owners and players. Let's say in Year 2, HRR drops to $2.2 billion for some reason. Under the NHLPA proposal, the players now have over 68 PERCENT of HRR b/c the CBA says that they can't make less than $1.5 billion.

Also, the language makes no sense to me. If Year 2 has to be as high as Year 1, then does Year 3 have to be as high as Year 2? In other words, it could never drop below whatever number it was in Year 1. However, it could go up. The NHLPA is basically proposing a unilaterally fixed MINIMUM for the players. No way in hell the league agrees to that, and I don't blame them in this instance.

roboginger likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the day the union puts forward a proposal with pretty significant concessions Bettman says this.

(per Dreger)

Bettman now in a discussion with a fan...cameras rolling. Tells fan the union hasn't been willing to negotiate.

Gotta love ol Gary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so basically fehr put forth a linked proposal that's not even linked. sounds like more pr bs like with the 50/50 stuff.

until the pa puts forth a proposal that is a true linked proposal, the nhl isn't going to give on the contracting issues. i think it's insane for the players to think that they should get the same amount of money, regardless if league revenue goes down in the following years. this clause is just as ridiculous as the nhl's demands on contracting issues.

"I am disgusted," Hamrlik said via a series of tweets from Jedlicka. "We have to push Fehr to the wall to get the deal. Time is against us. We lost a quarter of the season, it is $425 milliom. Who will give it back to us? Mr. Fehr? There should be voting between player. Four questions -- yes or no -- then count it. If half of players say lets play, then they should sign new CBA. If there is no season he should leave and we will find someone new. Time is our enemy."

the first signs of the union cracking?

http://www.sbnation....n-hamrlik-nhlpa

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the league is sitting back because after their "3 up, 3 rejected" response within the course of an hour to the NHLPA's counteroffers in October, they'll look like absolute clowns if they reject this thing immediately again. Still, as this portion of Pierre LeBrun's article hints, I find it hard to believe this approach will gain a significant foothold for the NHLPA:

BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF HRR

For the first time, the NHLPA offered a framework based on the league’s preferred system of a percentage linked to hockey-related revenue, instead of a system based on guaranteed dollars. In this case, the NHLPA agrees to go to 50 percent of HRR right from Year 1. However, a key line in the proposal bears underlying: "There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season."

Essentially, it means the players are guaranteed to make no less in total dollars than the year before. The league won’t like that.

The NHL have to be nuts to guarantee the players that their share of revenue will not go down in subsequent years. What if the fans revolt and attendance is down? What if the world economy takes a massive dump and people just stop spending money on the NHL?

Let's say HRR is $3 billion next year (randomly selected #). In Year 1, you have a 50/50 split, so $1.5 billion each for owners and players. Let's say in Year 2, HRR drops to $2.2 billion for some reason. Under the NHLPA proposal, the players now have over 68 PERCENT of HRR b/c the CBA says that they can't make less than $1.5 billion.

Also, the language makes no sense to me. If Year 2 has to be as high as Year 1, then does Year 3 have to be as high as Year 2? In other words, it could never drop below whatever number it was in Year 1. However, it could go up. The NHLPA is basically proposing a unilaterally fixed MINIMUM for the players. No way in hell the league agrees to that, and I don't blame them in this instance.

Yeah, this is bulls***. Not to say there there wasn't equally backhanded b.s. in the owners previous proposals, but for the union to say they've made significant concessions and then throw this out there should attest to the fact that each side is trying to take the money and run, all the while saying they're ok with a 50/50 split.

If the players don't give a legit concession on the HRR, the owners don't concede on the "make whole" component of the contracts and we don't see any hockey. It's really that simple.

But shame on anyone who says the players came down to 50/50. Absolutely not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I see it:

They (players) are looking for a new 5 year deal. (This is completly BS - they should more look at 10 years).

According to Fehr (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409972), the gap is about $180 millions.

Now, let's divide the gap ($180 mil.) with 5 (years new deal) it's a differential of $36 millions per year.

There are approx. 700 players in NHL, let's divide $36 millions by 700, we have a differential of $51 428,00 per player/per year.

Average salary in NHL is about $2.4 millions (http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863) so I guess that $51 428,00 (a little bit more than 2% of their respective salary) is not that big deal... but then again, I'm just a hockey fan... who cares about hockey fans today?

Z Winged Dangler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“We made a proposal (in October) to save an 82-game season and frankly we’re all mystified as to why we’re not playing in light of that offer and in light of the fact that the players are losing as a group between $8 million and $10 million a day”.

i seem to remember that the Players made a proposal in September on how to save an eighty-two game season.

However, that wasn't Uncle Gary's idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone please kick the effin midget out, so the players actually agreed to his stupid 50/50 and thats still not enough? If I were Fehr I'd ask them for acceptance of going nuclear and put this little undersized idiot to nuclear war, by proposing either accept the deal or create a luxury tax instead of the stupid cap system.

Also I couldn't care less what people like Spector think.

And all that crap because some very questionable teams are "losing money", rather have a 15 teams league without a lockout every 5 years and an antihockey guy ruining the show for everyone else.

Z Winged Dangler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Spector is hilarious. At least once a week he comes out with a new article demonizing a different party in the lockout. His journalistic perspective shifts with whichever way the wind is blowing.

As fot the contracting issues, I think the league needs to go longer than 5 years for contracts. Everything in this deal is worse for the players, the NHL could at least give a little more job security with longer contracts. Go 7 or 8 and have a solid back-diving provision.

It's hard to sift through all the different proposals and variables but in spite of the rhetoric it sure seems like the two sides aren't incredibly far apart.

And I don't really follow the NBA but didn't they just go to 50/50? I know they have a more flexible cap system with a luxury tax and all, but I'm wondering how they handle existing contracts. Because I thought I read somewhere that it's only the NHL where not paying existing contracts in full is even up for negotiation.

Can't remember where I saw it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Spector is hilarious. At least once a week he comes out with a new article demonizing a different party in the lockout. His journalistic perspective shifts with whichever way the wind is blowing.

As fot the contracting issues, I think the league needs to go longer than 5 years for contracts. Everything in this deal is worse for the players, the NHL could at least give a little more job security with longer contracts. Go 7 or 8 and have a solid back-diving provision.

It's hard to sift through all the different proposals and variables but in spite of the rhetoric it sure seems like the two sides aren't incredibly far apart.

And I don't really follow the NBA but didn't they just go to 50/50? I know they have a more flexible cap system with a luxury tax and all, but I'm wondering how they handle existing contracts. Because I thought I read somewhere that it's only the NHL where not paying existing contracts in full is even up for negotiation.

Can't remember where I saw it though.

i agree about the contract length limit but i have a feeling that if the nhlpa presents an actual linkage proposal i think you will see the nhl give on the contract issues.

but i do know that until the nhlpa backs off the ridiculous notion that the players share never falls throughout the cba, even if revenues do, we are never going to see a deal get done.

on the positive side, both daly and fehr agreed that they are only $182m apart on the make whole. at least they agree on at least one number. that's at least progress lol

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree about the contract length limit but i have a feeling that if the nhlpa presents an actual linkage proposal i think you will see the nhl give on the contract issues.

but i do know that until the nhlpa backs off the ridiculous notion that the players share never falls throughout the cba, even if revenues do, we are never going to see a deal get done.

on the positive side, both daly and fehr agreed that they are only $182m apart on the make whole. at least they agree on at least one number. that's at least progress lol

yeah, that built in failsafe for the NHLPA is unrealistic. I don't know if that's in there so they have something else to negotiate off of or what, but it's ridiculous if they think they'd ever get that at this stage of the game.

They also need to make the CBA for a longer term than 5 years so we get more seasons of hockey in before Bettman locks them out again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, that built in failsafe for the NHLPA is unrealistic. I don't know if that's in there so they have something else to negotiate off of or what, but it's ridiculous if they think they'd ever get that at this stage of the game.

They also need to make the CBA for a longer term than 5 years so we get more seasons of hockey in before Bettman locks them out again.

According to Lebrun's article on ESPN, the league wants 6 or 7 years on the deal. The NHLPA only wants five. So if your reasoning holds true, the players are apparently looking forward to another showdown with the owners more than the owners are.

http://espn.go.com/b...r-what-it-means

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Lebrun's article on ESPN, the league wants 6 or 7 years on the deal. The NHLPA only wants five. So if your reasoning holds true, the players are apparently looking forward to another showdown with the owners more than the owners are.

http://espn.go.com/b...r-what-it-means

Honestly I don't know what their thinking is on the term. The players may feel that if the economics of this deal end up really screwing them they can get out of it sooner, but that's based on the likely bad assumption that the next CBA negotiation would go any better for them.

Either way, if this deal is only 5 to 7 years I'm afraid were just going to do this all over again then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't know what their thinking is on the term. The players may feel that if the economics of this deal end up really screwing them they can get out of it sooner, but that's based on the likely bad assumption that the next CBA negotiation would go any better for them.

Either way, if this deal is only 5 to 7 years I'm afraid were just going to do this all over again then.

Definitely a possibility the longer this thing goes. If either side feels like they were forced to accept a deal they didn't like, just to get back to work, then the threat is there for next time. All the more reason why each side needs to eventually make concessions without all these little caveats this time around. Real concessions are hard to swallow, but leave you in a better position to negotiate a little easier the next time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bettman manages the league in a manner that can be most accurately described as Machiavellian.

The goalie equipment is much bigger now than before Bettman became commisiioner. He allowed all the equipment to get bigger and bigger. He allowed so much obstruction before the last lockout rendering hockey almost unwatchable. He has done it to restrict talent and skill for the sake of parity to give weaker teams a better chance of winning. When fans and media were complaining about the lack of scoring, bigger goalie equipment and obstruction, he would start a crackdown on obstruction at the beginning of seasons only to give it up a few weeks later making it look like he was addressing the problem while actually never wanting to in the first place. He shrunk the goalie pads twice before seasons (making it look like he was addressing the problem) but they are still slightly bigger than when he became the commissioner(he allowed them to grow in the first place and people say he has nothing to do with such decisions, you obviously don't knw Bettman, he is a control freak and it was never allowed before he became commissioner and it went along with his goal of parity. Coincidence? I think not especially considering how duplicitously he handled addressing the situation) but it is the chest protector, shoulder pads jerseys, gloves... that are much so bigger even the helmets are designed to flare out to cover more net.

The goalie equipment is made so much bigger not to protect the goalie but the net.

Bettman drastically changed the game (restricting talent and skill) to help this new expansion teams in bad hockey markets become more successful. Major offensive records will never be broken. He has implemented all kinds of stupid rules (like the trapezoid rule stating goalies beat everyone to the puck when it's dumped and they just shoot it out of their zone, if their equipment was as small as it was before Bettman, there would be no need) to look like they are trying to increase the scoring when actually he really doesn't want to. Hockey is less exciting than it would be if it were less defensive (and it would be if there was more net to shoot at) and those teams aren't fairing any better, that's why they are reneging on contracts to help subsidize these franchises.

There should be an asterisk on statistics for players that played while Bettman was commissioner. He has caused them to miss so many games with lockouts and restricted talent, skill and scoring for the sake of parity as well as having locked us out 3 times, that most of them don't have a chance of being all-time scoring leaders had that played most of their careers while Bettman was commissioner.

Boycott spending money on the NHL until they have no choice but to fire Bettman, he is the worst thing to ever happen to the game of hockey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is painfully obvious who is responsible for all the lockouts, (I think the main reason anyone can blame someone else is because they are envious that they are not the best in the world at something that is very lucrative (when you are the best at anything it is usually very lucrative and are blinded by their own envy). Only a handful of around 700 current players were even around the first time (which would have ended up in a lost season without a Champion engraved on the Cup if it was up to Bettman which it was the last time and this time), Fehr wasn't here the previous times and neither were some of the owners. We heard all the same arguments from some people about Goodenow being at fault, well he certainly isn't this time.

During Bettman's reign as commissioner of the NHL, the NHL has lost a lot more games than any other league (not even including the current lockout) due to work stoppages. Surely NHL athletes aren't so different from athletes in other leagues.

How can anybody possibly blame anybody else???

Edited by Kronstantinov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is obvious who is responsible for all the lockouts. Only a handful of around 700 current players were even around the first time (which would have ended up in a lost season without a Champion engraved on the Cup if it was up to Bettman which it was the last time and this time), Fehr wasn't here the previous times and neither were some of the owners.

How can anybody blame anybody else???

because both sides have not negotiated in good faith during this process.

off the top of my head

players refused to negotiate in january when the owners wanted to and then they dragged their feet on putting forth proposals after their original offer in august. plus, you have don fehr showing up hours late to cba meetings and witholding/misleading information from the players regarding nhl proposals

on the owners side they put forth an insulting lowball offer to start these negotiations with no concessions from the owners. They have at several times throughout this process refused to meet without preconditions. The nhl complained that the pa wasn't coming up with a proposal but when the pa finally did come up with a proposal, the nhl only took 10 minutes to reject all of them.

hillbillywingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because both sides have not negotiated in good faith during this process.

off the top of my head

players refused to negotiate in january when the owners wanted to and then they dragged their feet on putting forth proposals after their original offer in august. plus, you have don fehr showing up hours late to cba meetings and witholding/misleading information from the players regarding nhl proposals

on the owners side they put forth an insulting lowball offer to start these negotiations with no concessions from the owners. They have at several times throughout this process refused to meet without preconditions. The nhl complained that the pa wasn't coming up with a proposal but when the pa finally did come up with a proposal, the nhl only took 10 minutes to reject all of them.

If it wasn't for Bettman and his overzelous and unrealistic plan of expansion and growing the league and refusing to admit when he is wrong to proceed to solve problems, there wouldn't be a need for a lockout.

If he didn't use the lockout (depriving the league's source of revenues it's product) as a negotiating tactic to trying force the players to submit to his demands, we wouldn't have lockouts every time the CBA expired.

If Bettman was willing to compromise at all, progress at negotiations could be made. If it was up Bettman 2004-05 would heve been another entire season lost, this time it is and that's why I doubt that we will have a season this year unless something drastic happens about Bettman's power over the NHL.

If the fans return once again in full force when he unlocks the door, there will be another one after the new CBA expires, I know it sounds ridiculous and it did to most after I told them in 05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Sportsnet:

Corporate frustration with lost revenues due to the NHL lockout first bubbled to the surface earlier this month.

"There will be some redress for us as a result of this. I can't quantify that and I don't know because I don't know the scale of how long the lockout is going to last," Molson Coors chief executive Peter Swinburn told The Canadian Press.

But on Monday we discovered that the first major sponsor of the 2012-13 NHL season had diverted its marketing dollars elsewhere.

A longtime top-six partner of the NHL and NHLPA, Kraft Canada cancelled its popular Hockeyville program.

And although Hockeyville will repopulate in 2014, as per Kraft's deal with the league, it is a temporary ghost town… and Canada's minor hockey associations will benefit.

This is bad news for the League; hopefully, more will follow suit. On a culinary side-note, nothing compares to Kraft Dinner.

From National Post:

It’s Canada’s official winter sport and has even been described as a national religion. If that’s true, then a clear majority of Canadians — about 61% of the adult population — haven’t set foot in any of the country’s cathedrals of hockey for at least five years.

Let me see, five years ago from now was...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appears that players are starting to seriously consider the idea of union decertification ( http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410081 ).

If they manage to get it done it would be interesting to see league with its anti-trust exemptions gone. No cap, no draft, every player for himself.

We would dominate

We would dominate

even more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We would dominate

even more

I appears that players are starting to seriously consider the idea of union decertification ( http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410081 ).

If they manage to get it done it would be interesting to see league with its anti-trust exemptions gone. No cap, no draft, every player for himself.

Go do it, this should teach the undersized idiot and his stupid BOG not to eff around with Fehr and the NHLPA. We would be absolutely unstoppable in a free market, finally having worthwhile playoffs again.

God I'd kill for a team like 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decertification is certainly an option for the players to put pressure on the owners.

However it is brings a huge risk with it...either the owners will cave and offer something better or they will fight in court, which means the season is gone.

The question is...will the players want to go that road over $180M over the next 5 years?

I also think that decertification opens the ability for the owners to bring in replacement players...although I am not sure of it.

If that is good thing...is another discussion.

Also wondering if someone who currently has a contract with the NHL (via the expired CBA) can sign a contract with the NHL as a 'replacement' player???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.