Here are couple other things players can offer to the league. - Make the cap number to equal actual salary (kill the front-loaded contracts) - Remove players option for the 5% cap inflator
That first one I think is a great way to make things more equitable between the big and smaller franchises besides reducing player salary (which doesn't actually achieve that). Right now the rich franchises can extend massive contracts that nearly cripple the small ones (a la Shea Weber) and essentially circumvent the cap with long term.
I didn't realize the players even had an option for inflating the cap. It's definitely something else they could negotiate off of. Even if not eliminating, they could reduce it.
I finally get it. frankgrimes is Jim Balsille. One of the 3 people left on earth who use a blackberry, and has a total hate hard on for Bettman and the owners to the exclusion of everything else. Still mad they wouldn't let you buy the Pens or Predators, or circumvent everything for the Coyotes?
Seriously, we get it. The owners should be forced to give 99% of the revenue to the players, pay for all other costs out of their own pockets, and let the players pick what nights they play and who their teammates are. Hell, lets dismantle the front offices, and let the players have a multibillion dollar beer league. Screw the owners who pay for the buildings, staff, insurance costs, medical, etc.
Has anyone in this thread put together a reasonable argument for the owner's side without resorting to a straw man or some other fallacy?
Everyone is just accepting that players need to reduce their share of revenue (including myself), but why exactly? The most common argument I hear involves comparing it to the NFL or NBA, which has little relevance to hockey.
Yes yes, the Forbes report where it lists 18 teams as having negative income. Forbes lists the Coyotes as dead last with -24.4 mill operating income. Their payroll was a very reasonable $55 million last season. They made it to the conference finals. I'm pretty sure the Forbes report was before the playoffs but assuming they didn't have a positive income (using the Forbes standard) if a team can't turn a profit with that payroll and a conference finals finish, the problem is not players salaries.
Obviously that's just one example, but my point is it's not as easy as saying they need this reduction because the league is in trouble. This isn't 2004. The NHL overall is profitable.
With a combination of contract limits, revenue sharing AND a reasonable reduction in player salary, the league could help the smaller markets succeed. Or at least give them the opportunity to succeed if they have any idea what they're doing. Instead they are asking for massive reduction in player's salary, with little compelling evidence as to why exactly other than they're willing to hold hockey hostage until the players cave. And at the same time they want to re-define what even constitutes the Hockey Related Revenue before they even give players less of it.
As Fehr pointed out, what's in it for the players in any of these offers from the NHL? The concessions the union is mainly asking for is a less insane reduction from the league. They're not asking to get rid of the cap. The league is so fixated on ratcheting down players salary that it seems like they haven't even discussed things like contract length. And that's where I think the union can do some giving. Length of CBA. Length of player contracts.
Instead, Bettman uses the nuclear option again and we as fans lose more hockey.
No offense, but only a fool would say that more time is bad when it comes to a negotiation. You are right, no one knows what would have happened, but when the league was ready to negotiate and the NHLPA didn't step up to the table, that went largely unnoticed. To not at least say that it was a bad move by the NHLPA to not start negotiating early and wait until June is telling.
I pretty clearly spelled out why extra time doesn't matter. But I'll try and put it more simply. We're three days away and both sides are deadlocked. Yet you're saying starting 6 months earlier would've somehow helped? As if back then with little real threat of losing a season, they somehow would've started making concessions?
I didn't say it was a bad or good move. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Lack of time is not the issue.
And you say no offense, then call me a fool?
I'm tired of the insults built into your arguments and the constant misrepresentations of what I've said. Your mind seems made up and you're constantly responding to some idea of what you think I believe, instead of what I've actually stated I believe.
Carry on your merry way, but I'm done discussing this with you.
Not really an ultimatum. Hell, at the end of every CBA, all deals go out the window anyway.
No they don't. The current CBA of course officially expires, but there is nothing that says any proposal being made by either side also goes out the window.
When you make a counter proposal and say the union has until the 15th to accept or the deal will be removed, that is an ultimatum.
Listening to Bettman talk in the press conference, in between all his cheap shots at the union, he does sound like there may be the possibility of further negotiation before the deadline. But it's hard to know if that's sincere since his main purpose seemed to be spinning things that the union hadn't conceded anything, the league had "meaningful movement" and tried to make it sound as if the union is the hold up in further negotiations. All that after Bettman said "negotiating publicly doesn't help the process."
The difference in professionalism and tone of the press conferences held by Bettman and Fehr is amazing.
After any CBA expiration, all deals are typically off the table. I thought that Bettman said "Sign this, or else we will ask for a 60-40 split in revenues" or something along those lines.
Again, that is false. The CBA expires, but that has no effect on proposals unless Bettman and the owners link the two, which they've done.
And the implication of pulling any offer off the table is obviously that later offers will be even less favorable. By giving an expiration date on a deadline, there is the implicit threat that things will get worse later.
It certainly would be nice to hear about the details of these proposals.
From the way it sounds.....both sides are proposing "my way or the highway" with no concessions. Not really a way to bargain.
It's beyond me that someone could watch Bettman's press conference and think this is equally both sides fault.
He takes several shots at the union, then later lectures about "not negotiating publicly." And even goes back to blame the players for the lost season in 2004.
When asked directly if it was a final offer, Bettman refused to answer and once again fell back on his "not negotiating publicly" dodge. He also said repeatedly revenue sharing is not the issue.
Concessions go far beyond money. The percentage the players are getting is just one portion.
Why not offer the NHLPA expanded revenue sharing along with the final $5 million dollars in the cap system a luxury tax? Why not offer the NHLPA arbitration, signing bonuses, and no cap on salaries?
Those are just a couple examples, but so far, they haven't offered any concessions.
Just as the NHLPA hasn't offered any real concessions either.
Why not offer the NHL a 52-48 hard linkage in favor of the players? Why not offer the NHL a entry level contract cap to 3-4 years? Why not offer the NHL a cap on over contract length to 7 or 8 years?
From the way it looks, both sides are demanding. The owners are demanding that the players take the salary cuts, the contract limits, no arbitration, and so on. That is wrong. The players are demanding that things stay the same or the hard linkage goes down to 53% for year one and moves back up to 57% in year 3 with a 4th year player option at the same level. How does a temporary change fix this problem? It doesn't. While the player offer was less draconian, its still not the solution.
Whats worse is that both sides are posturing and being inflexible.
As a fan, I find it disgusting. Just get in the room and work on the deal.
I will be doing this when the lockout is announced on Saturday.
Relative to what the owners first proposal was, the union's first proposal should have been the elimination of a salary cap. Their first offer already was a large concession.
It boggles the mind that in spite of making over a billion dollars more revenue in 7years, that ownership thinks this is the solution to the league's issues. Revenue has increased 50% in seven years! How many industries see that kind of growth??
While the union's proposal certainly isn't an end point for the CBA, it's based on the idea that the league will continue to make money, increase revenue and be successful, which is what Gary has been telling us for 7 years and what has happened for 7 years. What ownership is trying to sell fans on is that in spite of a 50% increase in revenue in 7 years, the players need to make massive concessions on salaries and contracts in order for franchises to be successful. That's bulls***.
Yeah, I know that every person that states they'll cancel won't do it, but I feel like a good portion will. There have been several petitions signed to not go to games or buy merchandise in the event of a lockout. One of the petitions I saw online yesterday had 20,000 signatures. Of that, I'd say at least 10,000 are serious about it. The dollars lost adds up quick.
I think more than an online petition, if you want to be heard it's probably more effective to write to the Red Wings organization directly and spell out all the money you've spent in the past and all the money you will no longer be spending on the NHL. You could copy the NHL on it, if they have any sort of address where they can actually hear from fans.
It's still mostly of a symbolic gesture, but I think is more likely to be heard and taken seriously than an online petition. Then the key of course is for everyone to follow up on it and cancel tickets and not spend the money.
Those of you who believe that the Wings should have signed Roszival are almost certainly thinking about the Roszival of three or five years ago. The Roszival of today is a shadow of his former self so far as hockey is concerned. He is a liability in his own end and poor in the offensive zone.
I'm not high on Rozsival, but that's pretty much your standard response for everyone the Wings don't sign.
More than anything he likely would've been a middle of the pack defenseman, which isn't what the Wings really need as much as they do a top pairing guy and a cheap depth d-man.
Where are the fans being mentioned in these negotiations? Nowhere? Oh, ok. At least the last lockout we could entertain the idea that with the new agreement would come lower ticket prices. At least throwing out empty promises showed that the fans were on their minds for half a second.
That's not true. In spite of having to put up with yet another lockout, Bettman said we'd come crawling back again because we're the worlds greatest fans, remember?
I think its equally telling just how much NHLPA ass you are willing to kiss by only focusing on the faults of the owners while ignoring the faults of the NHLPA. I don't think I need to keep repeating over and over again how much the owners proposal sucked a big one. Just like I don't need you to keep reiterating over and over again about how much the league could bend a bit more. I mean, we had this discussion back about 15 pages ago. You had some constructive comments to give to the NHLPA, and I have been saying all along that the owners proposal sucked a big one. I don't think we need to drag each side through the mud anymore than they already have.
Do we really need to hear each other say the negative things about each side in order to agree that both sides really have not budged very much?
I haven't done either of those, but keep trying. The difference is one side has not budged much from its insane proposal, while the other has not budged much from its pretty rational starting point for negotiating.
The reason this is more the fault of the owners and Bettman is very simple. Revenue is up 50% in the 7 years under the CBA. The league has over a billion dollars more in revenue than it did at the start of the CBA. A BILLION DOLLARS. The problem is that rich have gotten richer while other franchises struggle. The biggest problem facing the league is clearly the financial disparity among franchises, not player salaries.
The owners solution to that problem is to take more money from the players. That is no long term solution. It is an uncompromising money grabbing strategy that relies on the players union crumbling once again and conceding virtually everything. For that strategy to be effective requires a lockout to break the players will.
In other words, the league's strategy from day one was built on implementing a lockout.
So while they players haven't come far off their stance, there's still the underlying issue of ownership not even acknowledging that their assessment and proposed solution for the league is a fantasy. That's where Bettman should come in as the voice of reason, diplomat, and steward of the league. He isn't. I don't know if it's his strategy or if he's just parroting what ownership wants, but he seems more intent on breaking the union than on preserving hockey and the long term health of the league.
We all can pretty much agree on what the general solution is, plus or minus a few details. The players salary does need to come down a few percentage points, the league needs to increase revenue sharing to struggling franchises, and add some limits to contract lengths and how they're calculated against the cap. Those will all help the smaller franchises compete with the ones flush with cash.
The NHLPA's proposal was a starting point in that world. The NHL and Bettman in particular, however, have not joined the rest of us in the real world.
That was not the point of the original post. Owners do not appear to be willing to make any concessions. The league of a whole is profitable but profits go to a small number of teams. So when when owners want to fix non profitable teams strictly at players expense (rather than revenue sharing) I understand why NHLPA would be unwilling to budge.
One interesting issue with the lockout. Profitable teams actually stand to lose money when there are no games (unlike Phoenix for example, or the last time around when everybody cried poor). So I wonder if there would be some push from "rich" teams to have season start on schedule.
This is an old article from The Globe And Mail, but I think it covers issues quite well.
“I know other leagues have meaningful revenue sharing,” one agent said this week of the NHL’s revenue gap dilemma. “The NHL hopes that the media and fans ignore that fact. Owners would rather try to pound on players than pound on each other.”
The league is trying the same strategy as last time, but this time it's not true. Player's salaries are not the biggest issue in franchise profitability.
So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?
Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down.
So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address.
The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.
Sure, the people who kill puppies and punch babies think it's an equal split of responsibility for the looming lockout. The ones who have looked at the issues are incredibly smart and realize like me that the league and Bettman are more responsible.
Did I do it right? I'm still learning how this built-in insult on anyone who disagrees works.