2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[bustaheims]

Why would the players discuss the contract issues, or include them in talks when the NHL has maintained the stance that they will not concede any of those factors?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409129

In addition to their disagreement on the "make whole" provision, the sides are still grappling with proposed changes to rules governing contracts. The league hasn't backed off any of the demands made in its Oct. 18 proposal, according to sources, and the union continues to believe it shouldn't have to make concessions in those areas because it has committed to seeing the players' share in revenue decreased.

When something is clearly a significant issue for the other side in a negotiation, refusing to even address them - as the PA has so far - is hardly a sound bargaining tactic, now is it? And, how would the PA know whether or not the league isn't willing to move on them if they don't discuss them - especially when the league says their stance of those issues are open to negotiation:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/11/gloves-are-off-between-nhl-players-union.html

The NHL felt that was unfair, because it has proposed the first season would be a transition year, with a cap of $70 million to allow time for compliance. Also, the league believes it has said some of the contract issues (five-year terms, for example) are negotiable.

That certainly doesn't make it sound like the league is unwilling to concede on any of the contractual matters. Sure, some of them will be harder to move off of than others, but, until you actually discuss those matters, how do you know?

You forget that along with the strike, the Montreal Expos lost most of their stars as Walker, Grissom and Wetteland were dealt. They then returned to somewhat respectability in '96 but it was short lived as more stars were dealt in the off season. Then, after a fantastic season by Pedro Martinez, he was dealt away as well and the owner started threatening that he needed a new ball park as Olympic stadium was falling down, or the team would have to be moved.

I don't forget that at all. Nor do I forget that a major reason the team lost those players was that, after the strike, their attendance levels fell well past the levels of sustainability and they could no longer afford to put a competitive team on the field, even with government assistance for the desperately needed new building.

Following that, with a new owner(Loria), the optimism grew. That was shortlived as the owner pulled the team off of all English speaking media, and followed that up by letting the new building land lease expire. From there the attendance fell to 6,000 a game.

So yes, in essence, the strike may of started the ball rolling, but  there were many attributing factors in which Montreal saw their MLB team moved 10 years later.

It may have taken 10 years for it to finally happen, but, the process started long before that. The Expos were considered for contraction in the late 90s/early 2000s up until they were sold again - which was a factor is the league getting Loria a sweetheart deal for the Marlins.

I am in no way trying to portray Fehr as a saint. He is far from it. But he is a negotiator for the Union. He's not here for hockey. He's not here to make sure the fans are happy(that is the NHL's job)...He is here to get the Union the best deal possible. That is his job.

I recognize those are the responsibilities of his job, I just very much question his actions in his quest to do so. I don't think the actions he's taken will get the players the best deal possible, just the best deal remaining.

And yes, obviously, no offer is final...but it is drawing a line in the sand that states, either you come over to our side, or this is going to take a good long while. The players have been slowly doing so...but unless the owners are willing to make some concessions on the other parts of the offer, why should the players give the owners what they want completely? That's not negotiating..that's dictating.

And how exactly is not willing to come off of a delinked system any different than the league's insistence of a linked system? Fehr has drawn the same line, the difference being that the league hasn't spouted off the the media about it in the same way Fehr has about the league. He's attempting to dictate just as much as the league has, and that's why we are where we are. Neither side has negotiated here. Both are trying to dictate the situation. The difference being that the league has moved further from their initial position than the PA has.

 

[L K]

If they're offering a cap of 70M then it's not really a 50/50 split no? So the deal has to be 50/50 in the first year, except it doesn't.

The league is still using their last proposal, where this was included, as the basis for their side of the negotiations. The 70M cap would be artificial and based on last season's HRR, but the players would still only receive 50% of HRR (brought back through escrow, etc - which is where the Make Whole stuff comes in), but, instead of having players get bought out, the league felt this would make for a simpler transition. The players' share would immediate drop to 50%, but that cap wouldn't be impacted until year 2 of the agreement.

So essentially an offer that benefits bad GM management directly prior to the lockout, and something that has absolutely no benefit to the players.  How exactly is that something the players should be happy about?

 

[bustaheims]

So essentially an offer that benefits bad GM management directly prior to the lockout, and something that has absolutely no benefit to the players.  How exactly is that something the players should be happy about?

It has very little to do with bad GM management, just the reality of the situation - without rollbacks, dropping to cap to where it would be at 50/50 would mean 16 teams would already be exceeding the ceiling, with a number of high profile RFAs still to be signed (Subban, O'Reilly, Benn, etc). It's just not feasible to drop the cap immediately. It benefits the players in that there is no actual rollback in the absolute value of their contracts. They may not get all of their money immediately, but, with the Make Whole, they'll get it before their contracts expire. It also means no amnesty buyouts would be required, which means there wouldn't suddenly be a bunch of players finding themselves without jobs.

 

[dappleganger]

Leave the salary cap at 72 million until revenues reach 50% then go from there. Should only take a couple seasons.

Problem solved.

 

[jdh1]

I'm just hoping that after this is all settled that the Leafs have some advantage in the fact that they did not over spend themselves in free agency.

And will be able to take advantage somehow having hopefully some cap space to sign or be able to trade for a couple of top tier players from other teams who are over the limit or something...@ least that's what I'm looking forward to...the new CBA may be the best and quickest way to upgrade the team.

 

[Redleaf]

I hope the frustration and anguish both parties in this dispute are feeling right now is extremely excruciating. Its time to pay the piper now for holding the season and hockey fans hostage, and for playing chicken with each other instead of starting this process months ago. Hopefully ulcers are running rampant among these so called 'negotiators'.

Count me among those who wish a scenario arises out of this that bites both the NHL and NHLPA in their collective asses for the mess they've caused with their stubbornness and selfishness throughout this whole process.

 

[Bullfrog]

Leave the salary cap at 72 million until revenues reach 50% then go from there. Should only take a couple seasons.

Problem solved.

I like that idea, and it seems simple in principle. However, it puts the risk 100% on the Owners, who claim that they can't continue as things are. They've essentially rejected this proposal already.

 

[Redleaf]

Any more meetings scheduled?

You have to think if this thing goes another round or two of meetings: something gets done.

After 24hrs of face to face discussions, they have to know each other's positions and priorities by now.

I honestly don't see either side throwing out any mysterious demands last minute, although I guess you never know with these clowns.

Lets hope we see the whole group together tomorrow or Monday and they wrap this thing up with a pretty bow....soon!

 

[Kin]

He hardly saved baseball from oblivion. In fact, he's the guy that put the league on the brink of oblivion in the first place.

Yeah, no. Even if you want to engage in the pretty ridiculous hypebole that the '94 strike put baseball "on the edge of oblivion" Donald Fehr didn't invent it out of whole cloth. The MLBPA is run by the players and the players were the ones who led the action.

It's unfair to categorize Fehr as being responsible for the decisions of the PA's he's been in charge of just like it's unfair to blame Bettman for the decisions of the BoG. They might be the public faces of their respective organizations but they're not out on the front, carving their own paths.

 

[Kin]

The PA have refused to discuss the contract issues, not the league. In fact, they've completely refused to address them at all in any of their proposals as well.

But I think that one of the things that you've failed to acknowledge is that the PA's hasn't been asking for anything either, with the exception of the delinked system. You've made frequent reference to how the NHL has "moved off" their initial position more than the players have but that assumes that initial offers reflect initial positions. If the player's initial offer had been going back to the system that existed between 1995-2004 and they'd gradually come to where they are now then their "movement" would have dwarfed the movement that the NHL has made. But by tempering their initial offer by what they thought could get a deal done as opposed to simply what they wanted as if they were writing a letter to Santa.

I think the same applies to the contract issues. I think the players would love to be discussing contract issues in the context of a give and take but right now it seems as though the "discussions" that the NHL wants to have on the subject matter is starting off of their wish list and the PA negotiating downwards.

 

[Kin]

Also, just as a general statement, I think it's pretty important for people to remember that at this point in a contentious negotiation you probably shouldn't pay too much attention to what one side says about the other. Especially not when it's done under the guise of unnamed sources.

I know the standards of journalism have fallen to the point where people ascribe some credibility to "sources" but unless you as a person have the chance to know who that person is and where they stand on the issue and why they're saying it then it could be nothing more than pure propaganda. We know the NHL has been working with creeps like Frank Luntz to try and effectively position their message and I'm sure the NHLPA is doing the same.

The bottom line is that we don't know what's going on in the negotiation room. We don't know what goes on when players talk to each other and we don't know what happens with the BoG. Everything that comes out of it, especially if it's from someone who refuses to say who they are, is fundamentally suspect and a really lousy thing to base an opinion on.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Leave the salary cap at 72 million until revenues reach 50% then go from there. Should only take a couple seasons.

Problem solved.

I like that idea, and it seems simple in principle. However, it puts the risk 100% on the Owners, who claim that they can't continue as things are. They've essentially rejected this proposal already.

One of the things I was hoping for the lower income teams is that the hard '$16 Million' spread between the cap and the floor become a percentage instead.  The NHL felt that with a $39 MIL cap then the manageable floor for lower income teams would be $23 MIL which is 59%. If that percentage replaced the hard $16 MIL spread it would also be better for the lower income teams.

The 50% revenue share down from the 57% creates a new cap of $61.6 MIL as we all know.  If they used the % of the original spread then the new floor would be $36.3.  Remove all bonuses counting against the cap and the lower income teams could still ice a team.  If the cap got back up to $70.2 then the new floor would still only be $41.4 MIL.  With a more practical system to share revenue (for the high grossing team as well as the needy teams), this would be easy to maintain.

The players might not like it in principle but in reality it is already happening anyway since lower income/spending teams are using bonuses to hit the floor anyway which are rarely earned by the players.  I am sure the NHLPA could understand that fact.

I would also like to discourage the hiding of NHL salaries in other leagues including the AHL and Europe (yes, I am looking at situations like Redden, Huet, etc). $0.105 MIL is to low to to be fair to veteran AHL players in my books.  I think the most logical amount to use is the league average salary on the day the rosters are declared at the beginning of each season. Any player contract signed to an NHL team that isn't on the roster but is at the average salary or higher must be included in the salary cap calculation for that team.

So if the NHL and NHLPA could look at my first points and then also agree on an immediate 50/50 split with 3 years of make whole covered by the owners, a maximum contract length of five years, unrestricted free agency to come into effect at age 28 or after eight years of service -- one year later than the last CBA -- and keep entry-level deals at three years, we could see a deal.

...I think they need me...... 

 

[brothert]

I am so sick of the details of thess negotiations.  I wish there was a site that had a dial like a forest fire warning indicating the likelihood of a season in the near future.

 

[maplesyrup]

I am so sick of the details of thess negotiations.  I wish there was a site that had a dial like a forest fire warning indicating the likelihood of a season in the near future.

I like that idea. Would have made a great app.

 

[Justin]

I am so sick of the details of thess negotiations.  I wish there was a site that had a dial like a forest fire warning indicating the likelihood of a season in the near future.

hockeybuzz.com

 

[bustaheims]

I am so sick of the details of thess negotiations.  I wish there was a site that had a dial like a forest fire warning indicating the likelihood of a season in the near future.

hockeybuzz.com

I imagine he meant a reliable site.

 

[caver]

I am so sick of the details of thess negotiations.  I wish there was a site that had a dial like a forest fire warning indicating the likelihood of a season in the near future.

hockeybuzz.com

I imagine he meant a reliable site.

;D ;D

 

[Kin]

The players might not like it in principle but in reality it is already happening anyway since lower income/spending teams are using bonuses to hit the floor anyway which are rarely earned by the players.  I am sure the NHLPA could understand that fact.

I don't think the opposition to expanding the cap's range would come from the PA. Their share stays where it is regardless of how it's distributed throughout the league. The opposition would come from the league whose desire for parity is the reason that gap is so narrow in the first place. 

So if the NHL and NHLPA could look at my first points and then also agree on...

I don't think that the PA would be amenable to most of what you suggest.

 

[lamajama]

I am so sick of the details of thess negotiations.  I wish there was a site that had a dial like a forest fire warning indicating the likelihood of a season in the near future.

x1000.... I wish (because I know the Canadian sports media needs to comment) that said media would say this - "As for the NHL, no CBA has been agreed upon" and then change completely to other non-NHL news.

Plus - a meda/reporter freeze-out. No reporters breathlessly camped out in the lobby etc. Just leave them alone. Not one person.

I think that might shake both of them up.

 

[Justin]

I am so sick of the details of thess negotiations.  I wish there was a site that had a dial like a forest fire warning indicating the likelihood of a season in the near future.

x1000.... I wish (because I know the Canadian sports media needs to comment) that said media would say this - "As for the NHL, no CBA has been agreed upon" and then change completely to other non-NHL news.

Plus - a meda/reporter freeze-out. No reporters breathlessly camped out in the lobby etc. Just leave them alone. Not one person.

I think that might shake both of them up.

You know what's crazy? TSN and Sportsnet both sent people to New York this week to cover the CBA meetings that we're being held at a SECRET location. There was no media availability whatsoever except for Friday. What's the point of doing hits from NYC then?