2458 replies to this topic

[chances14]

why do the players keep proposing such short cba's? i really don't want to have to deal with this in 5 years. should be at least 10 years

[Jedi]

Aaron Ward.

Source,NHLPA proposal took NHL structure,50/50,no guarantee.Only difference,took $211M (make whole) to $393M over 4 yrs.This $393M works out to an added 1.2M per team,per year over 5 yrs of the deal.Player contracting-back diving-provides a measure that determines the added advantage gained if player retires early.Penalizes team going forward based on benefit obtained.No need for term limits or variation.

Bob McKenzie breaks it down in a little simpler terms...

So, to review, NHLPA is prepared to go to 50-50 immediately, but wants $393M over four years as part of so-called "Make Whole." Only system issue addressed is back-diving contracts (cap hit penalties for retired players) but not 5 per cent variance rule or term limits.

Thanks for the updates Jedi. Even though I'm sick of reading about the lockout in general.

Same here. Hoping that the new proposal today paves the way to real negotiations. A deal is so close, get it done boys!

why do the players keep proposing such short cba's? i really don't want to have to deal with this in 5 years. should be at least 10 years

Because 10 years out is far too long for the players and owners to agree to in this economy and under the current NHL economic system. Neither side wants to get screwed if the revenue either increases or decreases dramatically in 4 years, so they won't sign for such a long deal.

And yes, I realize that the NFL just signed a 10 year CBA. But how many times have people said it's not fair to use other leagues as models? The NFL is a money making machine of GARGANTUAN proportions, so both sides there can afford to sign longer term deals.

[kipwinger]

Aaron Ward.


Bob McKenzie breaks it down in a little simpler terms...

This sounds fairly legit, though in every instance so far the initial reports tend to make any proposal (by either side) seem a little bit more rosy than they were in actuality.

[chances14]

nhlpa kept variance and term limits out of their proposal. the nhl is going to want one of those things in the next cba.

i don't really see how punishing teams 5-10 years in the future is going to deter them from signing these long term ridiculous deals to circumvent the cap.

[cusimano_brothers]

I haven't said this in a while, so... Bob McKenzie is a hockey genius!

[Jedi]

This sounds fairly legit, though in every instance so far the initial reports tend to make any proposal (by either side) seem a little bit more rosy than they were in actuality.

That's certainly a fair point. However, most of these proposals will have some fairly intricate details that will take awhile to come out. The CBA that just expired was 454 pages long, but the gist of it could be boiled down to about 3 or 4 paragraphs. Most of these proposals can be over-generalized in much the same way.

[chances14]

Because 10 years out is far too long for the players and owners to agree to in this economy and under the current NHL economic system. Neither side wants to get screwed if the revenue either increases or decreases dramatically in 4 years, so they won't sign for such a long deal.

yes but i think if the nhl wants to get sponsors back, they will want long term security. 5 years is nothing. if i recall, that was one of the sticking points very early on in negotiations. players wanted a short cba and the league wanted a longer term cba.

after the damage this lockout is going to cause to the league, i think it would be in both sides best interest to get long term security and stability for the league. the reason why the league will suffer a decrease in revenue is because of these lockouts.

[kipwinger]

That's certainly a fair point. However, most of these proposals will have some fairly intricate details that will take awhile to come out. The CBA that just expired was 454 pages long, but the gist of it could be boiled down to about 3 or 4 paragraphs. Most of these proposals can be over-generalized in much the same way.

I totally agree, that was all I was saying really, is that something which seems good superficially might end up not being acceptable to one side or the other because of an accumulation of all the little details. Let's hope that isn't the case this time. I REALLY need to see some hockey soon.

[cusimano_brothers]

I see Uncle Gary got Ed Snider to "recant".

[Jedi]

yes but i think if the nhl wants to get sponsors back, they will want long term security. 5 years is nothing. if i recall, that was one of the sticking points very early on in negotiations. players wanted a short cba and the league wanted a longer term cba.

after the damage this lockout is going to cause to the league, i think it would be in both sides best interest to get long term security and stability for the league. the reason why the league will suffer a decrease in revenue is because of these lockouts.

Bob McKenzie thinks that the final CBA will probably be no less than 6 years, and most likely 8-10 with an "opt-out" around 6 years.

[chances14]

Bob McKenzie thinks that the final CBA will probably be no less than 6 years, and most likely 8-10 with an "opt-out" around 6 years.

hopefully that is true.

[hillbillywingsfan]

wow.Props to Crosby for at least keeping it Professional and not calling anyone poo poo heads.

[chances14]

Nick Cotsonika ‏@cotsonika
If revenues go down, the players' percentage will go up in the future, under this proposal.

don't think owners will be fond of this


Here's an interesting tidbit from the offer

Chris Nichols ‏@Nichols_NHLPool
Part of #NHLPA proposal is inclusion of a free agency interview period. That, IMO, would be significant benefit to both teams and players.

[chances14]

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
I lied. I'm back. Good catch by @KatieStrangESPN on this: In yrs 2 thru 5, players’ share in dollars may not be less than previous yr.

NHL will find this problematic. Goes back towards "guaranteeing" dollars. In a linked-to-revenue system, those guarantees have not existed.

Nick Cotsonika ‏@cotsonika
PA proposal doesn't just hurt owners for a bad year. It hurts them for a GOOD year. If revenues spike one year, it costs them the next.

Do players want a team in Quebec City? Say NHL goes there and revs spike temporarily. Now owners have to keep it up.

If this proposal became CBA, owners might work to smooth out revenues year to year, hurting growth and both sides.

devil is always in the details

[haroldsnepsts]

And any sense of optimism quickly dissipating.

Dreger:

Players won't be happy with how the league is responding to proposal. No meaningful give-backs according to PA source."Disappointing day."

Close on rev sharing, but no contract concessions and league remains firm on $211 mil Make Whole. Talks will continue, but may not meet Thur.

There will be a PA conference call tonight. Expected players will unite and dig in based on NHL's response. Need to hear NHL's position now.

Aaron Ward:

Source, major move by NHLPA not well received by NHL. Player conference call later this evening and likely not positive. #TSN

NHLPA feels they've gone as far as coming off the structure of PA proposal and have gone to NHL proposal structure and are nowhere still.

Dan Rosen:

Don Fehr says the NHL did not move off its original stance and said he did not know when the sides would meet again.

Daly to speak shortly (if he isn't already).

I'm sure part of this is posturing but it's still frustrating that the meeting is over so quickly.

[rrasco]

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.

[StormJH1]

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.

[haroldsnepsts]

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.

[chances14]

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, 21 November 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[kipwinger]

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.