2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

Maybe I'm being naive but why not 50/50?  Owners get the "share" reduced from 57%, and they are equal partners.

If where you worked your bosses came to you and said that they were reducing their company wide expenditures so that they were only paying employees 50% of their total revenues and, as a result, you'd be taking a 20% pay cut would you think it was fair? Would you consider yourself an equal partner?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Maybe I'm being naive but why not 50/50?  Owners get the "share" reduced from 57%, and they are equal partners.

50/50 sounds and looks nice because it looks even.  But its not.
On one side, the owners have all the expenses.  And as we know, not all owners generate as much gate receipts and have different expenses and arrangements.  They are probably trying to get it to where the lesser earning teams can still hit the cap floor and be viable.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for the owners, but still, they take the all the business risk and deserve to take the lion's share.

Is taking a business risk not part of being an owner of any company?

The players are their asset that makes them money. Without the players, there is no money to be made.

Like it's been said, I'm not taking a 20% cut in pay, just so my owner can make 60 million instead of 45.

 

[bustaheims]

Is taking a business risk not part of being an owner of any company?

The players are their asset that makes them money. Without the players, there is no money to be made.

Like it's been said, I'm not taking a 20% cut in pay, just so my owner can make 60 million instead of 45.

Sure, but in a lot of cases, we're not talking about teams looking to make more in profit - we're looking at teams trying to find a place where they don't lose money or cut their losses to a manageable level. I mean, I understand not wanting to take a pay cut so your boss can earn more, but, if it was the difference between having a job or the losing it because your employer went out of business? My guess is you'd take the pay cut until you could find another job.

 

[Kin]

Sure, but in a lot of cases, we're not talking about teams looking to make more in profit - we're looking at teams trying to find a place where they don't lose money or cut their losses to a manageable level. I mean, I understand not wanting to take a pay cut so your boss can earn more, but, if it was the difference between having a job or the losing it because your employer went out of business? My guess is you'd take the pay cut until you could find another job.

But that's the problem in trying to have a CBA that mandates a salary level for all teams regardless of their individual revenues. That wasn't the players idea. The players were all for a system that continued to let individual teams set their own payrolls. We're also talking about a situation where, unlike your hypothetical, the players involved can't just "look for another job" because of the nature of the business.

But mainly the problem here is just trying to equate NHL players to any other average type of employee. They're not simply the rank and file on an assembly line. They're the product.

 

[Kin]

I have a hunch, no information behind it at all, that what the NHLPA offers is going to be one that comes with a drop in their percentage of revenues but also removes the hard cap in favour of a NBA-like model with a soft cap, punitive luxury tax and revenue sharing in the form of the tax money going to the lower revenue teams.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Is taking a business risk not part of being an owner of any company?

The players are their asset that makes them money. Without the players, there is no money to be made.

Like it's been said, I'm not taking a 20% cut in pay, just so my owner can make 60 million instead of 45.

Sure, but in a lot of cases, we're not talking about teams looking to make more in profit - we're looking at teams trying to find a place where they don't lose money or cut their losses to a manageable level. I mean, I understand not wanting to take a pay cut so your boss can earn more, but, if it was the difference between having a job or the losing it because your employer went out of business? My guess is you'd take the pay cut until you could find another job.

Well, with the NHL owners, continuing to hand out ridiculous salaries and the salary cap floor continuing to rise, said teams that are trying find a place where they don't lose money have essentially placed themselves in a place where they lose money.

If businesses make bad business decisions, they go out of business. That's true whether your a mom and pop company running out of your basement, or you're a large corporation investing in ridiculous items that never pay you back.
If teams like Carolina can continue to hand out ridiculous contracts despite being on food stamps, why should the players give more of their salary to help them? Why should players on Montreal, give even more money to make sure the NHL can afford to pay Pheonix's salaries? Why should players in Toronto pay for the Devils to hand out 10 million a year contracts?

As for players looking for new jobs, many can, and 99% of them would land on their feet. The way I look at it, about 10% aren't skilled enough to be in the NHL anyways(see Colton Orr).

Like it's also been said, there's about 4 - 6 teams to many in this league. That equals out to 80 - 120 players looking for work. C'est la vie IMHO.

 

[Champ Kind]

Ok, I see your point.  I just think ascribing responsibility to the fans - or consumers - in this case is wrong.  I mean, when I think of labour negotiations, I think of it between management and labour.  If GM locks out its workers and the next year posts an operating profit, would you 'blame' its consumers who continue to buy GM's vehicles?  I would call this understanding the market, not saying the consumers are responsible for the strike.

I would "blame" them for not providing a disincentive for GM to lockout their employees again, sure, but only because that's true. The reason it doesn't work as an analogy though is because people tend to be fairly rational when it comes to buying cars. I've never heard someone say "If GM locks out their employees I'm never buying another GM car" or getting mad about GM labour issues unless they're directly affected.

I think it's largely a semantic difference between what we're saying. If I'm saying "blame" and you're saying it's a condition of the market, I think you'd have to agree that because fans create that market that they're in part responsible for its conditions. The market the fans have created is such that there is no real disincentive not to lockout the players.

Yes, I would agree.  My issue was with the word blame, which carries with it a different connotation than, say, the word 'responsible' would. 

 

[Kin]

Yes, I would agree.  My issue was with the word blame, which carries with it a different connotation than, say, the word 'responsible' would.

It's only a meaningful difference if you think that there being a lack of incentive to not lock out the players or even a greater chance of a lockout is a positive or neutral thing. I'm pretty comfortable calling that a bad thing and at that point the difference in connotations between "blame" and "responsible for something negative" doesn't strike me as all that great.

 

[Deebo]

Some seemingly positive news from the meetings today

Aaron Ward‏@aaronward_nhl

First impression of NHLPA proposal was that it was not a 'counter attack' in response to the League's July 13th proposal. #TSN


Aaron Ward‏@aaronward_nhl

Second impression was that it possessed economic elements that were 'interesting' to the League. #TSN

 

[maplesyrup]

Speculation is that the PA didn't challenge the hard cap.

 

[Kin]

TSN is reporting that Fehr said their offer included a reduction in player revenue for three years, no change to the hard cap and that "no changes be made in regards to player contracting rules" whatever that means.

 

[Omallley]

...and that "no changes be made in regards to player contracting rules" whatever that means.

All encompassing? So, 3-year entry level contracts, no limit on number of years for a contract, no curbing retirement deals, etc.

 

[Erndog]

TSN is reporting that Fehr said their offer included a reduction in player revenue for three years, no change to the hard cap and that "no changes be made in regards to player contracting rules" whatever that means.

I'm guessing that mean the length of the contracts and length of entry level deals, etc but who knows.

 

[maplesyrup]

I guess we'll see. Shannon is saying "for the most part";

John Shannon ‏@JSportsnet

Two notes about players offer: SURPRISE: hard cap would stay(for the most part). NOT SURPRISED: more comprehensive revenue sharing.

... Whatever that means. 

 

[Erndog]

David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod
The NHLPA's proposal is a 3-year CBA with an option for a 4th year. Sam Gagner explained to me that it's a transitional agreement.



Doesn't this seem more of a stop-gap measure than any sort of longer-term solution?  Sort of like, "ok, the last CBA worked out better than we anticipated.  We'll concede to give a little back the next 3 years, but then we're full bore straight ahead again."

 

[Kin]

TSN is reporting that Fehr said their offer included a reduction in player revenue for three years, no change to the hard cap and that "no changes be made in regards to player contracting rules" whatever that means.

I'm guessing that mean the length of the contracts and length of entry level deals, etc but who knows.

That's my guess too but there are about a hundred better ways to write that sentence so I couldn't say for sure.

Anyways, I think it's a reasonable strategy for the NHLPA to make the NHL choose between the economics and the control.

 

[maplesyrup]

Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange
nutshell #CBA: players get $1.89B for 3 yrs; owners keep bulk of rev growth from that period. Revenue sharing up; hard cap stays #NHL

Seems a lot closer this time around. Good news I suppose.

 

[Kin]

Doesn't this seem more of a stop-gap measure than any sort of longer-term solution?  Sort of like, "ok, the last CBA worked out better than we anticipated.  We'll concede to give a little back the next 3 years, but then we're full bore straight ahead again."

That seems what it's intended to be though. I mean, ideally, if you have a good relationship between PA and the League you don't want to sign a 8 or 9 year CBA. You'd prefer a series of shorter ones that would allow for more immediate addressing of issues that pop up. I'm pretty sure Baseball has signed deals like that of late.

 

[Kin]

So I watched the PA's press conference and my immediate reaction is that people who are going to say that this means that the PA and the owners are closer than we thought are slightly wrong. I think they're right in the sense that we may have a better chance of avoiding a lockout than thought but there's something about the way that Fehr talked about future negotations that made me think that there's a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes a stable and workable structure for the NHL.

 

[dappleganger]

David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod
The NHLPA's proposal is a 3-year CBA with an option for a 4th year. Sam Gagner explained to me that it's a transitional agreement.



Doesn't this seem more of a stop-gap measure than any sort of longer-term solution?  Sort of like, "ok, the last CBA worked out better than we anticipated.  We'll concede to give a little back the next 3 years, but then we're full bore straight ahead again."

Hard to say. I would have said the last CBA was a long term solution for the league but is now unacceptable for the owners.

I want to see contract limits, maybe 7 years max. I don't think it makes any sense going from 14 million in year one down to 1 million in year ten.