2458 replies to this topic

[frankgrimes]

How has Fehr been a failure? Players are all praising him for keeping them informed and not going to bow down like Godwell (spelling?) did.

I think both should meet at each other at a point but the NHL hasn't done that so far their last offer was a right now 50 50 and we are taking away further playerrights proposal, so basically the players would have given up two concessions but the owners none...that's not how it works.

To me if further things are lost it will be because of an undersized man and it really is a shame.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Edited by frankgrimes, 29 October 2012 - 10:19 PM.

[chances14]

well i've just been reading ove the q&a nhl exec article that i posted earlier

responses that i found interesting (and yes i was bored)

The NHLPA rejected realignment towards the end of last season for 1 reason, they wanted a bargaining chip. It is still on the table (they still have that chip)

Of course not. Each team has it's own expenses and needs. 75% of the problems come down to the fact that not every team controls its building and gets revenues from outside events. The defending Cup champs share a building with not 1, but 2 professional teams in the 2nd largest market in America, and that's why the NHL is hurting in a microcosm.

As I've answered earlier, every single player in the league knew there would be a renegotiation this year. That's why there were so many front-loaded contracts. What many people don't understand is, by anti-trust laws, the owners are legally bound to not consult each other when they work on contracts. Otherwise it would be collusion. The players have no such limitation, and as much as some don't like it, a lot of owners want to win.

We can NEVER scoff at TV revenue. But aside from the Sunday NBC games, there isn't a lot to pass around. Let me preface my answer by saying I grew up in the sport, played since I could walk, but until there is legitimate revenue-sharing, TV revenues mean little (except for the Winter Classic). Fan support means everything. Most teams that I've talked with are offering rewards for season ticket holders. The casual fan will take some work.

Contract fulfillment is a sticking point for every player, and while I understand that, don't for one second think that the players didn't know this was happening. After the lockout in 2004-05, there were incentives in place that completely blew up the model of the previous CBA. It want from a 47% share of revenues to a 57% share of revenues. That's unsustainable.

there is a thing called "primary tenancy" in any building. For example: At the Staples Center in LA, the NBA Lakers have primary tenancy. The LA Clippers have secondary, and at the bottom are the Stanley Cup champ NHL LA Kings. I don't know what the division of revenues for non-sport events are in LA, but I know that dividing that by 3, with all its concessions, etc dilutes revenue. And that's assuming all the concerts and suite revenue would be shared. Compare that with a Detroit. Great building, great team, primary tenant. They get ALL revenues for anything that happens there.

do you feel there is something to negotiate off of the players 3rd deal, or the one the NHL proposed?

Sorry that I missed this question. I can't say much more than the NHLPA's response went back to definitions about revenue and contract fulfillment.
I feel there's no chance any of the NHLPA's most recent proposals will be accepted. There are always things to negotiate, but when they went back to defining terms I knew the Oct 25 deadline was out of the picture.

My takeaway from the meeting after the NHLPA's counterproposal (and I did see it) was that Donald Fehr wanted to re-exert his authority over the union. They want back to definitions of revenue, which in previous negotiations were settled. It was a slap in the face. It boiled down to " Yeah, we'll take 50/50, if we can define where our %50 comes from".

I can answer that, Mike Ilitch has a LOT of power on the Board of Governors, 2nd only to Jacobs. The Wings, perennially, have the longest distance traveling schedule, The NHLPA will keep the realignment chip until it suits them to give it up.

How is it legal for the NHL to even suggest rollback on contracts signed under a previous agreement? A contract is a contract for a reason.

The CBA from '04-'05 had an escape clause that both sides could enact. The owners enacted once the percentage of revenue sharing got too high. It's all legal.

[Nightfall]

You appear to be starting from the premise that players have to give to the owners. Why? Should not players be getting something in return for reduced share? Yet NHL wanted to restrict their contracting rights as well at the same time.

I agree. Which adds into the greed on the owners side. Give the players earlier free agency. Make the first contract 2-3 years in limit, and then the RFA period for 4-5 years after that. For stars who are 19-20 years old, then they will be UFA as early as 26, in their prime.

As for why the players have to give to the owners, both sides should be at least 50/50. I could even see 52/48 in favor of the players, but I do feel the owners are entitled for more of a share just for the business risks they take. Plus, I look at it in terms of fairness. If one side was making 43% and the other side was making 57%, wouldn't you ask why? I would totally understand the players position if they were only making 43% of the share and went on strike.

[Buppy]

The issue I have with the PA proposals are two fold.

First, the NHLPA didn't negotiate in good faith by dragging their feet through this entire process. It took them until June to even come to the table, and then 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to actually propose something of their own. So Fehr dragging his feet is the first thing I blame the NHLPA for.

Secondly, the NHLPA and NHL are both being greedy and not willing to compromise anything. In addition, there is no willingness to work together. If you read the deals, there is a deal to be made. Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes. So why aren't either side willing to budge? Even worse, why are both sides just playing the media? The NHL says that they are willing to meet, but that the NHLPA doesn't want to talk their language. The same goes for the NHLPA. Lastly, there are no hard negotiation sessions happening.

So its a little bit of everything. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides in these negotiations. I believe that both sides should come to the middle a little bit in order to make that happen. I also believe that both sides are in the wrong by involving the media more and getting both sides to the table and negotiating less.

If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.

Finally, I do have an issue with people taking sides on this issue. The NHL and NHLPA have both sinned in these negotiations. To claim that one side is more deserving than the other is a fallacy. Both sides together have failed the sport of hockey and the fans. Bettman is just as at fault for the lockout as Fehr. Its time to kick both these guys in the ass and out of their respective positions.
...

I was asking specifically about your objections to the players' proposals. I get the other stuff, even though I don't necessarily agree.

Though it's curious that the "dragging their feet" criticism is reserved solely for the PA. The league claims they were ready to start in January, but didn't make any proposals; didn't to anyone's knowledge try to schedule any meetings, or even express any particular concern over the timetable. It took them two weeks from the time of the first meeting to actually make an offer, and another two weeks after that to deliver the full details. It took them two weeks again to make a new proposal after the PA finally made their first. Neither side made a proposal for a month after the start of the lockout. Seems if you want to criticize for this, you'd criticize both sides.

Personally, I don't see the timeline as an issue at all. Nor pandering to the media (I don't really see any of that, to be honest), nor the lack or negotiating sessions. I see the cause-effect relationship the other way I guess. I believe the lack of negotiation is the result of the separation between the proposals, not the other way around. Likewise, I believe the time it has taken thus far is the result of the separation, rather than the continuing separation being due to the lack of time spent. The way I see it even if either side had waited until 11:59PM on 9/15, kicked down the other guy's door, spit in his eye, called his mother a *****, then laid a fair offer on the table...we should be watching hockey right now. I happen to think the PA offers have been fair.

As to the actual proposals, of course the PA could give up a little more, but should they? They have already made plenty of concessions. Their first offer was a concession. Their second offer went further, and the third set went further still. You can say the same for the owners, but you have to remember that their "compromises" are only relative to the arbitrary figure from their first proposal. Much easier to give up something you never had (and likely never had any expectation to get anywhere close to) than give up something you do. Also, there has been speculation that the 50/50 deal the owners offered was what they wanted all along, and the other offers were just to give the illusion of compromise without really compromising. You could speculate the same regarding the PA, but that seems far less plausible. In all their proposals, the first three years are very similar, with almost all the movement coming in the final two years. You might interpret that as stubbornness, but it seems more likely that they just started off as low as they think should be in those years. One might wonder where the negotiations would be now if the owners hadn't started off with such a hostile first offer.

Furthermore, the owners have yet to actually offer anything to the players, or even to maintain the status quo on anything. They are taking on every point. The only thing that sort of goes in the players' favor is the 2-year ELC, but that only affects a very small number of players, and has its own drawbacks as well. The players haven't asked to be given anything. They're offering to lower their share, and all they ask in return is to limit how much and what else is taken from them. Again, one might wonder where we'd be if the owners offered something other than imaginary concessions.

As to firing Fehr, I think you're doing him a disservice. When he came in the PA was in disarray. Many players were unhappy with how much the players gave up in 2004-05. They had one director spying on their emails, replaced him with a guy who many felt was too conciliatory toward the league, seemingly more interested in avoiding a work stoppage than acting in the players' best interests. A couple interim directors that no one seemed to have any faith in. No due diligence in auditing league HRR accounting. You may think a weak union or weak leadership is a positive, and maybe it would make a work stoppage less likely, but the players would never be happy with it. It's really best for all sides to have strong leadership on both sides, so long as they are reasonable. Both Fehr and Bettman are strong. How reasonable they are is up for debate. But looking at their records, it's clear that Fehr has the much better resume.

Bettman has now been party to three lockouts in three chances, resulting in two shortened seasons (presuming it's true we can no longer save a full season now) and one completely lost. His big victory last time really solved nothing, and we're locked out again. Fehr was party to a devastating strike, but his big victory in 94-95 helped broker a deal that left both sides healthy and happy enough that it hasn't been changed much in what has now been three straight CBA negotiations without a work stoppage. Baseball has flourished, and owners know they have to be accountable so spending on players is controlled without any need for a cap. Fehr helped accomplish that in an environment that was far more hostile, with a counterpart in Selig who was in part responsible for that hostility (Selig, as an owner, was one of those involved in the late-80's collusion). I think Fehr deserves a chance. Bettman has had his three strikes (or lockouts if you prefer), he should be out.

TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.

[number9]

giving the owners more money may actually expand hockey hypothetically (to phx and atl lol)....giving the players more money will make players richer

Edited by number9, 30 October 2012 - 04:35 AM.

[Johnz96]

I was asking specifically about your objections to the players' proposals. I get the other stuff, even though I don't necessarily agree.

Though it's curious that the "dragging their feet" criticism is reserved solely for the PA. The league claims they were ready to start in January, but didn't make any proposals; didn't to anyone's knowledge try to schedule any meetings, or even express any particular concern over the timetable. It took them two weeks from the time of the first meeting to actually make an offer, and another two weeks after that to deliver the full details. It took them two weeks again to make a new proposal after the PA finally made their first. Neither side made a proposal for a month after the start of the lockout. Seems if you want to criticize for this, you'd criticize both sides.

Personally, I don't see the timeline as an issue at all. Nor pandering to the media (I don't really see any of that, to be honest), nor the lack or negotiating sessions. I see the cause-effect relationship the other way I guess. I believe the lack of negotiation is the result of the separation between the proposals, not the other way around. Likewise, I believe the time it has taken thus far is the result of the separation, rather than the continuing separation being due to the lack of time spent. The way I see it even if either side had waited until 11:59PM on 9/15, kicked down the other guy's door, spit in his eye, called his mother a *****, then laid a fair offer on the table...we should be watching hockey right now. I happen to think the PA offers have been fair.

As to the actual proposals, of course the PA could give up a little more, but should they? They have already made plenty of concessions. Their first offer was a concession. Their second offer went further, and the third set went further still. You can say the same for the owners, but you have to remember that their "compromises" are only relative to the arbitrary figure from their first proposal. Much easier to give up something you never had (and likely never had any expectation to get anywhere close to) than give up something you do. Also, there has been speculation that the 50/50 deal the owners offered was what they wanted all along, and the other offers were just to give the illusion of compromise without really compromising. You could speculate the same regarding the PA, but that seems far less plausible. In all their proposals, the first three years are very similar, with almost all the movement coming in the final two years. You might interpret that as stubbornness, but it seems more likely that they just started off as low as they think should be in those years. One might wonder where the negotiations would be now if the owners hadn't started off with such a hostile first offer.

Furthermore, the owners have yet to actually offer anything to the players, or even to maintain the status quo on anything. They are taking on every point. The only thing that sort of goes in the players' favor is the 2-year ELC, but that only affects a very small number of players, and has its own drawbacks as well. The players haven't asked to be given anything. They're offering to lower their share, and all they ask in return is to limit how much and what else is taken from them. Again, one might wonder where we'd be if the owners offered something other than imaginary concessions.

As to firing Fehr, I think you're doing him a disservice. When he came in the PA was in disarray. Many players were unhappy with how much the players gave up in 2004-05. They had one director spying on their emails, replaced him with a guy who many felt was too conciliatory toward the league, seemingly more interested in avoiding a work stoppage than acting in the players' best interests. A couple interim directors that no one seemed to have any faith in. No due diligence in auditing league HRR accounting. You may think a weak union or weak leadership is a positive, and maybe it would make a work stoppage less likely, but the players would never be happy with it. It's really best for all sides to have strong leadership on both sides, so long as they are reasonable. Both Fehr and Bettman are strong. How reasonable they are is up for debate. But looking at their records, it's clear that Fehr has the much better resume.

Bettman has now been party to three lockouts in three chances, resulting in two shortened seasons (presuming it's true we can no longer save a full season now) and one completely lost. His big victory last time really solved nothing, and we're locked out again. Fehr was party to a devastating strike, but his big victory in 94-95 helped broker a deal that left both sides healthy and happy enough that it hasn't been changed much in what has now been three straight CBA negotiations without a work stoppage. Baseball has flourished, and owners know they have to be accountable so spending on players is controlled without any need for a cap. Fehr helped accomplish that in an environment that was far more hostile, with a counterpart in Selig who was in part responsible for that hostility (Selig, as an owner, was one of those involved in the late-80's collusion). I think Fehr deserves a chance. Bettman has had his three strikes (or lockouts if you prefer), he should be out.

TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.

Anyone fighting Bettman is fighting for us. They/we can't just let him lock us out every time the CBA expires to get what he wants for the new one, in this case it is to cheat players out of money they have agreed to pay them and offered in the first place. I don't understand how anyone can possibly blame the NHLPA for any of this. They are already helping by agreeing to drop their percentage of revenues to 50/50, they just want what is contractually due to them
The players are doing their part
When he finally unlocks the doors let's do ours.
He gives us empty arenas
Let's give him empty arenas
No More Lockouts
No Bettman!

Edited by Johnz96, 30 October 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[cusimano_brothers]

From Ottawa Citizen:

The NHL Players' Association and the National Hockey League are scheduled to square off again in December at Quebec's labour relations board.

The Commission des relations du travail rejected a request in September from the NHLPA and 16 Montreal Canadiens players for a provisional order to prevent the league and the team from locking out the Habs.

But Judge Andree St-Georges also stated the parties would be called to a hearing on the merits of the question.

The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 6 and 7.

"The NHL tried to delay it into January and February and we tried to get earlier dates for our sort of obvious reasons," said Alexandra Dagg, the NHLPA's director of operations, who added the board sets the dates.

"At every opportunity we have continued to state that we are ready to meet and willing to discuss all open issues, including the owners' last offer," Fehr wrote.


"Nonetheless, to date, their group has declined to commit to a meeting unless it can dictate what the agenda is. We will update you further as soon as there is anything more to report. Regards, Don."

[haroldsnepsts]

From Ottawa Citizen:

I really don't understand spending all this energy and resources on the Quebec labor relations angle, other than as an F-You to Bettman.

Even if they win, then what? The Canadiens are awarded the Stanley Cup because every other team has to forfeit?

[Buppy]

well i've just been reading ove the q&a nhl exec article that i posted earlier

responses that i found interesting (and yes i was bored)

....

I don't believe that person is really an NHL exec, or at least not one with any actual knowledge of what's going on. At best he's probably some 24 yo kid fresh out of college whose dad got him a job with an official sounding title, like 'Assistant Director of Corporate Partnership'. Some of the answers are factually wrong, some implausible, and some suggest a general lack of any real knowledge. I wouldn't put much stock in anything from there.

[kylee]

Absolute No sense of urgency from the nhlpa to get a deal done. NHL on the verge of cancelling the winter classic. No scheduled talks. Yeah, I'd say a few more weeks of this and the entire season will get canceled

[drwscc]

"At every opportunity we have continued to state that we are ready to meet and willing to discuss all open issues, including the owners' last offer," Fehr wrote.


"Nonetheless, to date, their group has declined to commit to a meeting unless it can dictate what the agenda is. We will update you further as soon as there is anything more to report. Regards, Don."

What does that even mean? What other agenda is there aside from "Let's Make a Deal?" Sounds like more PR garbage, and lack of urgency.

[Nightfall]

TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.

The NHLPA could and should give up something. How much is really up in the air. Yes, they made concessions during the last lockout. The current deal favors the players by far. So for all the concessions they made last time, they have seen great prosperity since the last lockout. The salary of the average NHL player has almost doubled since the players returned to work after the last stoppage. As I have said before I think a 52-48 split is reasonable, but 50/50 would seem to be what the market dictates being as that the NFL and NBA both negotiated successfully last year at that rate. Like it or not, the negotiations of other sports typically do dictate what the NHL is going to do.

Most pro NHLPA fans don't see the timeline as an issue. I do and always will. Nothing is set in stone. No one is able to say for sure if a deal would have been reached or not. To say with all certainty one way or the other is really supposition. My point is simply this.....if more time were given to the negotiations then we may have possibly avoided the lockout. To rob the negotiations of that time doesn't excuse the NHLPA.

Just the fact that you are also willing to pardon Fehr's delays while bashing Bettman's horrible first lowball proposal also shows bias. IMHO, you can't excuse one while bashing the other in good conscience. Which is why I bash them both.

Sorry, but in my opinion both leaders should be canned for the reasons I gave. A new fresh start has to be initiated in order to start a new era of labor peace. Keeping one or both of these guys around will do nothing positive. I would prefer two leaders who have an interest in working together. People who favor one side or the other look at this conflict like a political party system. These aren't Republicans or Democrats we are talking about here. These are two sides that are in need of labor peace. The two sides have to work together, and that takes two uniters. There are no uniters in Fehr and Bettman. If Bettman is fired, the cycle will repeat again in another 6 years or whenever the new CBA hits.

Nice of you to mention Bettman's lockouts, but not mention Fehr's tubing of the World Series. So far, the game of hockey and the MLB have one thing in common, both have lost a championship series due to the morons in command of the players and the league. Is this the type of leadership you want from your leaders in the NHL?

You favor the NHLPA all the way. I am fine with that, but don't defend the actions of the NHLPA like they haven't done anything wrong over the course of the last 6 months. Their actions resulted in where we are today. Just as the NHL actions have also contributed to where we are now.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree then. Course, I disagree with most people who are proudly standing on the side of the NHL or NHLPA. My disdain for both sides has really drove me away from the NHL. Pardon my French, but both sides can go f*** themselves.

[Buppy]

"At every opportunity we have continued to state that we are ready to meet and willing to discuss all open issues, including the owners' last offer," Fehr wrote.


"Nonetheless, to date, their group has declined to commit to a meeting unless it can dictate what the agenda is. We will update you further as soon as there is anything more to report. Regards, Don."

What does that even mean? What other agenda is there aside from "Let's Make a Deal?" Sounds like more PR garbage, and lack of urgency.

Fehr is saying the league refuses to meet unless the PA basically agrees to their proposal. From what Fehr said before, the league is only willing to discuss the "make whole" provision, and that only on the condition that the PA accept all the owners' other terms.

True nor not, who can say. I'd expect believability is proportional to your level of support for the PA.

[Nightfall]

"At every opportunity we have continued to state that we are ready to meet and willing to discuss all open issues, including the owners' last offer," Fehr wrote.


"Nonetheless, to date, their group has declined to commit to a meeting unless it can dictate what the agenda is. We will update you further as soon as there is anything more to report. Regards, Don."

What does that even mean? What other agenda is there aside from "Let's Make a Deal?" Sounds like more PR garbage, and lack of urgency.

The NHL and NHLPA are saying the same thing. They want to negotiate, but only on what each of them propose. Its PR garbage.

[chances14]

the writing was on the wall 3 years ago

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=4435098

[Nightfall]

the writing was on the wall 3 years ago

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=4435098

Personally, I thought Kelly was a great hire. He was fresh blood who was all about working with everyone. The NHLPA saw this as a problem and voted him out. The NHLPA obviously wanted a shark and they got one in Fehr.

[haroldsnepsts]

the writing was on the wall 3 years ago

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=4435098

The writing has been on the wall since 1995. Bettman = lockout.

[Nightfall]

The writing has been on the wall since 1995. Bettman = lockout.

In the meantime, Fehr was nice enough to rob MLB of a World Series in 1995.

Great to see both sides with leaders who have both led efforts to lockout the other side and eliminate a championship in the sports they represented.

[vladdy16]

Fehr - 1
Bettman - 3

AND the players offered to start the season WITHOUT a CBA; owners said no. The preponderance of fault lies with the owners on this one.

[haroldsnepsts]

In the meantime, Fehr was nice enough to rob MLB of a World Series in 1995.

Great to see both sides with leaders who have both led efforts to lockout the other side and eliminate a championship in the sports they represented.

You forgot to mention they've had labor peace since that strike. Including new CBA's in 2002 and 2006. Want to guess who was head of the union for those?

Prior to the 1994-5 strike every negotiation had resulted with a work stoppage. 8 times since 1972.

I don't really follow baseball anymore but aside from the obvious problem of equating two very different situations in two very different sports, Fehr played a major role in successfully busting the owners for collusion three times. And since the 1995 strike, MLB has not lost a game. Not exactly the same situation.