2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Joe S.]

They've put the full proposal online: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570&navid=DL|NHL|home

But I thought they NHL doesn't negotiate through the media?

 

[bustaheims]

At the same time, what would be the incentive for now for Vancouver to trade Luongo? Would it not be like selling your car and still having to insure, repair, and put gas in it? Does Luongo now become the 'old beater' that you just may as well keep and drive into the ground?

If these stipulations stand, they make the Luongo situation a lot more complicated for Vancouver. The fact that they can take on some salary helps his trade value, as does the fact that the team he's traded to won't be on the hook if/when he retires - but, both of those make trading Luongo less appealing for Vancouver, who need every penny of cap space they can get to keep their core together. The fact that the acquiring team wouldn't be able to get him off the cap by sending him to the AHL is also a significant hit to his value. These stipulations would make things awfully difficult for Vancouver to get value without feeling some pain themselves.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, after reading this, I'm not so hopeful anymore:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

 

[maplesyrup]

LeBrun with a little summary just now on twitter;

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
Means those deals would continue to count vs team cap even if said player is no longer playing.

3m Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
`` ... the Player is playing. '' Translation: hammer time on back-diving deals (Hossa/Luongo). .... cont

5m Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
``... of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team?s Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the ...'' cont

6m Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
Mentioned this last night in my blog but worth repeating. Within new NHL offer: `` All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess...'' cont

This reads like a telegraph from the turn of the last century...

You know the one about the telegrapher's daughter?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

They've put the full proposal online: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570&navid=DL|NHL|home

But I thought they NHL doesn't negotiate through the media?

Pretty sure Bettman said this yesterday:

"A lot of you know we don't negotiate publicly and I'm not going to break that habit because I don't think it's constructive."

 

[maplesyrup]

Another meeting tomorrow in Toronto.

Very positive news indeed but to soon to make an official counter proposal, no?

I think they could definitely counter tomorrow.

Well, I guess as a union guy, I'd want more time to review it myself and get back to the negotiating committee. At the same time, if I'm on the committee, I'd want more time to fear feedback from my group. I guess not all unions operate the same way and there's simply  just a lot of faith/trust there.   

 

[maplesyrup]

At the same time, what would be the incentive for now for Vancouver to trade Luongo? Would it not be like selling your car and still having to insure, repair, and put gas in it? Does Luongo now become the 'old beater' that you just may as well keep and drive into the ground?

If these stipulations stand, they make the Luongo situation a lot more complicated for Vancouver. The fact that they can take on some salary helps his trade value, as does the fact that the team he's traded to won't be on the hook if/when he retires - but, both of those make trading Luongo less appealing for Vancouver, who need every penny of cap space they can get to keep their core together. The fact that the acquiring team wouldn't be able to get him off the cap by sending him to the AHL is also a significant hit to his value. These stipulations would make things awfully difficult for Vancouver to get value without feeling some pain themselves.

That does help. It also takes some of the sting away on those mega deals which is a point I failed to recognize in my last exchange with Nik. I'm not sure that changes my mind but it's something I'll consider.

 

[L K]

They've put the full proposal online: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570&navid=DL|NHL|home

But I thought they NHL doesn't negotiate through the media?

Pretty sure Bettman said this yesterday:

"A lot of you know we don't negotiate publicly and I'm not going to break that habit because I don't think it's constructive."

THe NHL taking a page out of Mitt Romney's playbook.

 

[Champ Kind]

Well, after reading this, I'm not so hopeful anymore:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Posturing?

 

[bustaheims]

Well, after reading this, I'm not so hopeful anymore:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Posturing?

I sure hope so, but, a lot of it is pretty much what Fehr has been saying all along.

 

[lc9]

Well, after reading this, I'm not so hopeful anymore:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Posturing?

I just read this as well.  Seems like Fehr isn't all that optimistic.  I just want some dang hockey to be played. 

 

[Kin]

Well, after reading this, I'm not so hopeful anymore:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Posturing?

Well, at the very least they weren't going to just accept the NHL's proposal as is. I don't know how serious they are about it but if they feel very strongly about the contract stuff they could still be very far apart.

 

[Joe S.]

They've put the full proposal online: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570&navid=DL|NHL|home

But I thought they NHL doesn't negotiate through the media?

Pretty sure Bettman said this yesterday:

"A lot of you know we don't negotiate publicly and I'm not going to break that habit because I don't think it's constructive."

That's what I was talking about.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

They've put the full proposal online: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570&navid=DL|NHL|home

But I thought they NHL doesn't negotiate through the media?

Pretty sure Bettman said this yesterday:

"A lot of you know we don't negotiate publicly and I'm not going to break that habit because I don't think it's constructive."

That's what I was talking about.

I figured, but didn't know if you were referring to that quote specifically, or just in general, as he's said similar before.  But funny that he said it so recently.

 

[L K]

Well, after reading this, I'm not so hopeful anymore:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Posturing?

Possibly, although I think it answered my question on how the "protect your salary in year 1" thing was going to go.  It's basically just a one-year loan from the owners.  So while the NHL can say "look, no rollback", that's exactly what they offered them. 

The immediate 50/50 cut of revenue at least 250 million once you factor in some changes to HRR and things like making NHL contracts playing in the AHL cost more.

 

[bustaheims]

The immediate 50/50 cut of revenue at least 250 million once you factor in some changes to HRR and things like making NHL contracts playing in the AHL cost more.

Just a note on that - salaries of players playing in the AHL (or any other professional league) don't count as part of the players' share of HRR.

 

[jdh1]

If the players stall this out and don't try to seriously negotiate in the next few days,then it doesn't look good on them...It will look like the union head that they have chosen is now working against them.

 

[Kin]

Well, after reading this, I'm not so hopeful anymore:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

2. HRR Accounting:

? Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

Well, that's...vague.

 

[bustaheims]

2. HRR Accounting:

? Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

Well, that's...vague.

It is a little, but, it doesn't sound to me like they want to seriously renegotiate HRR, but, rather, that they want to sit down and discuss the current setup and codify it on a more detailed level. As to what results from that . . . well, that's the big question.

From the more detailed breakdown of the proposal:

We agree to retain the CBA's current HRR definitions. Further, we propose to formalize the various agreements the NHLPA and the NHL have reached, and lived under, during the course of the expired CBA, and to clarify mutually identified ambiguities in the CBA. Importantly, we do not believe any of our proposed clarifications should have any impact either on the amount of the Players' Share or the amount that any individual Player is entitled to receive. None of these clarifications for instance, would have had a material impact on the 2011/12 Actual HRR number. This proposal is all about certainty, clarity and speeding up our complex, end-of-year accounting process.

 

[Kin]

It is a little, but, it doesn't sound to me like they want to seriously renegotiate HRR, but, rather, that they want to sit down and discuss the current setup and codify it on a more detailed level. As to what results from that . . . well, that's the big question.

I guess. But if the meat of your offer is a split of HRR and you'd think you'd want those big questions answered and HRR nailed down.

I don't know, it could just be yammering but it sure doesn't sound they're speaking the same language yet. I wonder if the PA's next offer, whenever that comes, even revolves around a fixed %.