2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Frank E]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here, but does that suggest that the operating income of an NHL team, stricktly on average, is $3.81 million?

I really need to read the Forbes thing.

If I'm reading it correctly (and Nik's numbers are accurate), it would also mean that the bottom 25 earners average close to $4M in operating loss per season.

Well then this is easy math...there's no way the league can feasibly support the current expense structure, even if you split the revenue around evenly...there just isn't enough OI to support the investment required to run an average NHL team.

 

[Rebel_1812]

"Listen, nobody wants to make a deal and play hockey more than I do, OK," the NHL commissioner told a news conference...

Actions speak louder then words buddy.  He has had 3 lockouts during his reign of terror.  He has shown no ability to compromise and negotiate either.  He even turned a pro-hockey billion into a lifelong enemy for his radical idea that a troubled hockey team should move north.

 

[bustaheims]

He even turned a pro-hockey billion into a lifelong enemy for his radical idea that a troubled hockey team should move north.

No, he turned a former billionaire into someone he (and the rest of the league's BoG) wouldn't enter into a business arrangement, because that former billionaire refuse to abide by the league rules, honour the stipulations of contracts he agreed to sign, and turned an already troubled franchise into a very public mess through an unnecessary and ill-fated legal process the said former billionaire hoped would get him into through backdoor, that would have simultaneously created a massive headache for the entire professional sports world. Balsillie created an enemy out of Bettman, not the other way around.

 

[Rebel_1812]

He even turned a pro-hockey billion into a lifelong enemy for his radical idea that a troubled hockey team should move north.

No, he turned a former billionaire into someone he (and the rest of the league's BoG) wouldn't enter into a business arrangement, because that former billionaire refuse to abide by the league rules, honour the stipulations of contracts he agreed to sign, and turned an already troubled franchise into a very public mess through an unnecessary and ill-fated legal process the said former billionaire hoped would get him into through backdoor, that would have simultaneously created a massive headache for the entire professional sports world. Balsillie created an enemy out of Bettman, not the other way around.

No he tried 3 times 3 different ways to achieve the same goal.  Bettman didn't like it when he played by the rules and was on good terms with Pitts situation.  In response to the NHL's claim that there was no proven market he sold out season tickets with the Nashville situation.  Finally he went to war with Bettmen, which is the only way to deal with this man over Phoenix.  Considering the potential deals that have fallen through in Phoenix due to *legal issues*, it would seem Bettman is the gangster criminal type that plays by his own rules.

 

[bustaheims]

No he tried 3 times 3 different ways to achieve the same goal.  Bettman didn't like it when he played by the rules and was on good terms with Pitts situation.

Except that he didn't really play by the rules there. Standard NHL ownership transfer agreements include a 7 year period in which the team can not be moved (barring exceptional circumstances, as we saw with Atlanta/Winnipeg). Balsillie refused to sign the agreement if it contained that clause. He didn't want to have to abide by that rule, so, the deal fell apart.

  In response to the NHL's claim that there was no proven market he sold out season tickets with the Nashville situation.

A move which caused Leipold, the guy who owned the Preds, to tell the league not to pursue the deal, which caused the deal to fall apart. It also ignored the 7 year clause that caused issues with the Pittsburgh deal. It was an ill-conceived, cocky move that came way too early in the process. He shot himself in the foot with that one.

Finally he went to war with Bettmen, which is the only way to deal with this man over Phoenix.  Considering the potential deals that have fallen through in Phoenix due to *legal issues*, it would seem Bettman is the gangster criminal type that plays by his own rules.

If by went to war, you mean he conspired to take the team into bankruptcy (illegally, mind you, as the NHL legally had control of the team at the time) to try to backdoor his way into the league or force them into an antitrust situation, which could have created major issues for every professional sports league in North America. That had nothing to do with Balsillie vs Bettman. No one else on the league Board of Governors wanted to work with Balsillie at that point. Bettman is just their public face. Balsillie created the adversarial relationship here. He's the one playing by his own rules. When it came to the negotiations with Balsillie, Bettman very much followed the rules set out by the league and its Board of Governors.

 

[Kin]

If I'm reading it correctly (and Nik's numbers are accurate), it would also mean that the bottom 25 earners average close to $4M in operating loss per season.

Well, two things. First, the bottom five clubs are almost as big of a drag as the top five are a boost. I'm working from memory but of that -127.1 the bottom five accounted for something like 65-68 of it. Phoenix alone accounted for about a fifth of the red ink. Secondly the issue isn't really my numbers, although I may have made a mistake or two, but Forbes'. A lot of their numbers are estimates and can't be taken as definitive.

 

[Kin]

Which really should come as a surprise to no one. The League has been adamant about having salaries tied to revenues since before the last lockout, and, after getting that in the last CBA, why would the union think they'd be willing to give it up?

It doesn't come as a surprise but, I mean, the players proposal had to have something for the players, right? I mean if the league is adamant about having a fixed link between player costs and revenues and they're adamant about significantly reducing the player's percentage and they're adamant about getting rid of the long term deals with shifting yearly salaries and they're adamant about longer rookie deals with more service time until free agency and they're adamant about not capping their other costs then why are the players even in the room?

 

[bustaheims]

It doesn't come as a surprise but, I mean, the players proposal had to have something for the players, right? I mean if the league is adamant about having a fixed link between player costs and revenues and they're adamant about significantly reducing the player's percentage and they're adamant about getting rid of the long term deals with shifting yearly salaries and they're adamant about longer rookie deals with more service time until free agency and they're adamant about not capping their other costs then why are the players even in the room?

Well, I don't think they're adamant about all those things. Having salaries tied to revenue and having the percentage lowered to 50% or less are probably the only things that I'd say are non-negotiable. I think the other things are very much negotiable.

 

[Kin]

Well, I don't think they're adamant about all those things. Having salaries tied to revenue and having the percentage lowered to 50% or less are probably the only things that I'd say are non-negotiable. I think the other things are very much negotiable.

I would say that's not all that indicative of what's been in the owner's offers. Just about every comment from the players and Fehr have been that there have been nothing in the owner's offers that are in any way better for the players under the new deal and that addressing their other expenses has also been a complete non-starter.

 

[bustaheims]

I would say that's not all that indicative of what's been in the owner's offers. Just about every comment from the players and Fehr have been that there have been nothing in the owner's offers that are in any way better for the players under the new deal.

Well, we can't really know for sure, but, given the state of the negotiations, I'd be expecting to hear that kind of rhetoric from the players regardless of what has been in the various proposals, and I'd expect the same rhetoric from the league as well. I wouldn't say there's much of value to be gleaned from the comments made to the media at this point.

And, to be fair, if I was the league, trying to use the CBA to influence things like front office spending - employees that are not included as part of the CBA (and, in the majority of cases, aren't included in these negotiations on any meaningful level) - would be a non-starter for me as well.

 

[Kin]

Well, we can't really know for sure, but, given the state of the negotiations, I'd be expecting to hear that kind of rhetoric from the players regardless of what has been in the various proposals, and I'd expect the same rhetoric from the league as well. I wouldn't say there's much of value to be gleaned from the comments made to the media at this point.

But it's not just rhetoric. We've gotten details of the various proposals. Have you heard of even one reported concession the Owners have put on the table in order to get the financial terms they want? Meanwhile it's widely acknowledged that the player's proposal is one that trades one thing they have, the 57% figure, for a guaranteed dollar amount that they want.

I mean, if this is going to boil down mainly to money and the owners are adamant that on both major financial questions they get what they want, what room for negotiation is there?

And, to be fair, if I was the league, trying to use the CBA to influence things like front office spending - employees that are not included as part of the CBA (and, in the majority of cases, aren't included in these negotiations on any meaningful level) - would be a non-starter for me as well.

Well, but isn't that the essence of negotiation? If I were a player the idea of a hard cap would be a non-starter for me but it can't all be about what I want.

 

[bustaheims]

But it's not just rhetoric. We've gotten details of the various proposals. Have you heard of even one reported concession the Owners have put on the table in order to get the financial terms they want? Meanwhile it's widely acknowledged that the player's proposal is one that trades one thing they have, the 57% figure, for a guaranteed dollar amount that they want.

I mean, if this is going to boil down mainly to money and the owners are adamant that on both major financial questions they get what they want, what room for negotiation is there?

But, that's just the thing - we haven't heard anything about the other factors of the proposals. Both sides are stuck on the financial issues. As for the other issues . . . well, absence of evidence of compromise there is not evidence of absence. Until it's settled, the focus will be almost entirely on the financial issue, and, considering how far apart they are there, where they're at on the other issues is essentially a non-story right now. We really have absolutely no idea where the two sides are on anything other than gross salaries.

 

[Kin]

But, that's just the thing - we haven't heard anything about the other factors of the proposals. Both sides are stuck on the financial issues. As for the other issues . . . well, absence of evidence of compromise there is not evidence of absence. Until it's settled, the focus will be almost entirely on the financial issue, and, considering how far apart they are there, where they're at on the other issues is essentially a non-story right now. We really have absolutely no idea where the two sides are on anything other than gross salaries.

Well, that's not really true. We did see the main points of the owners initial proposal and, as mentioned, it didn't contain a single concession. Likewise we have heard from reporters who have said pretty plainly that the league is just as adamant about getting rid of the long term deals and not accepting a non-player cap.

And if I were the league and I was putting something real on the table? I'd damn sure put it out there even if it wasn't related to the main financial issues. I don't want the perception to be that my "concessions" are agreeing to only take 90% of what I want.

 

[Hampreacher]

Why do  they not try mediation? Another option would looking at the 50-50 share option. Thenthe cap remain at 70 million and given the growth it remain fixed until it is 50-50 and then move up. Even if the 70 million is hard cap and say the soft cap was 54 this season and the 52 next with teams over paying a 10% luxury tax. Given growth average we would be looking at 70 million plus in a few years anyways.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Dan Lewicki, an NHL "pioneer", at a time when there were no unions back in those days, when players hardly had any rights to begin with.

Lewicki is quoted as saying go the extent that today's players should be reminded that they need to thank those who made the sacrifices in the 40's, 50's and 60's for the money they make and the salaries they have.

He also describes then Leaf owner Conn Smythe as a "tyrant".

Click to see the video here:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/thenational/video/#id=2279549911

 

[L K]

Good thing those poor owners are not signing a bunch of guys to bloated contracts right before the lockout.  Because you know that they are poor and can't afford to pay guys.  Since the 14th, they have signed 114+ million dollars in contracts.

 

[Kaberle15]

Good thing those poor owners are not signing a bunch of guys to bloated contracts right before the lockout.  Because you know that they are poor and can't afford to pay guys.  Since the 14th, they have signed 114+ million dollars in contracts.

Exactlly my point a couple of pages ago.

Owners gave up tons of money to circunvent the cap, now are complaining about it and asking for the players to do a rollback (with another name) of x%.

Let the players % go down in the next 7 years, 1% drop per year until is 50-50. Work on the other issues and let the 50-50 for a few years and see what you have, sign a long term CBA (10 years) on those conditions and work out the so called minor details, like prevent that low marketing teams bankrupt or move then to more profitables markets.

Don't let the fans suffer every 4 years! And figure this: the players do the show on the ice, the owners only care about money (see all "tentatives" of negotiate a new CBA from the NHL side, they simply just care about money), so split the F****** money and move on to training camps!

 

[Frank E]

Good thing those poor owners are not signing a bunch of guys to bloated contracts right before the lockout.  Because you know that they are poor and can't afford to pay guys.  Since the 14th, they have signed 114+ million dollars in contracts.

Why would they stop signing their players?

Say the owner get their way, we're still looking at a cap of $58 million (47%).

 

[Frank E]

How does the current CBA process the circumstance of all the teams getting together and enacting an artificial cap of say $50 million last year, since they're guaranteed 57% of revenues?

 

[bustaheims]

How does the current CBA process the circumstance of all the teams getting together and enacting an artificial cap of say $50 million last year, since they're guaranteed 57% of revenues?

The owners would have to pay the difference into escrow.