2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

So looks like we're starting to see some cracks in the players union.

After the report on Snider being unhappy last week, Roman Hamrlik had this to say:

Here's what Ray Whitney had to say:

"Obviously he?s frustrated, but I don?t think it?s fair for him to be making those comments from the other side of the ocean," Whitney said of Hamrlik. "He should be over here in the meetings if he wants to know what?s really happening.

"But I also know you?d hear comments like that from the other side too, from owners, if it wasn?t for the gag order. They?re equally frustrated. It?s frustrating for everybody."

Fact is, Whitney said, there?s no reason for any player not to have a firm grasp of the facts right now.

"Over my three lockouts, this is by far the most informed we?ve been as players and a union."

And then this is what Troy Brouwer, Hamrlik and Neuvirth's union rep had to say:

"Those are two guys that have never been on a conference call, never been to a meeting, never paid attention," Brouwer told The Post. "People are going to have their own opinions but when you're fighting for something with 700 other guys, all you're doing is just making it harder to make a deal and making it harder to accomplish the things we're fighting for.

It's important to remember that the media in this situation is going to be fundamentally biased. Not towards one side or the other necessarily but towards sensationalism and conflict. Hamrlik's comments are going to receive attention because "cracks in the union" is an exciting story. Ten guys saying what Whitney or Brouwer did won't because there's nothing new there.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

50% after expenses would mean there's be roughly $950M available to the players. That's a significantly bigger pay cut than the league is proposing. While that would certainly mean a healthier league in terms of finances, there's no way the players would even consider it nor would the owners offer something that insulting at this point.

That?s kind of the point, so far it looks like;
Players get half of the revenue straight up, no responsibly at all.
Owners get the other half, but pay for marketing, paying all the little guys managing the games, refs, heck even flying them to games, etc, etc, etc.
Where would the players play if the owners didn?t provide the venue?

Kinda reminds me of Alan Iverson from the NBA, ?I AM THE GAME?
Yeah, where are you now.

The NHLPA has the same poison flowing in their blood.

Sadly, I really hope they just cancel the whole season and just be done with it.

Do you pay a portion of the bills where you work? Do you pay the hydro? The heat? The Phone?

 

[Bates]

Oldtimehockey your point would be a really good one if the person got paid 50% of the revenue.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Oldtimehockey your point would be a really good one if the person got paid 50% of the revenue.

No single person gets paid 50% of the revenue in the NHL. The 700+ employees get paid 50% of the revenue. Some get 1%. Some get a bit more. Some get a bit less..but no one employee is getting 50%.

Saying that the players should take on the expenses of the league is ridiculous.

People act like the owners didn't know the deal when they bought the teams/franchise.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Let's say Crosby's salary average(can't take year by year because the annual hit is what counts) is 8.7 million. That works out to 0.29% of the Leagues revenue of 3 billion.

 

[bustaheims]

No single person gets paid 50% of the revenue in the NHL. The 700+ employees get paid 50% of the revenue. Some get 1%. Some get a bit more. Some get a bit less..but no one employee is getting 50%.

Saying that the players should take on the expenses of the league is ridiculous.

People act like the owners didn't know the deal when they bought the teams/franchise.

Well, it's not just about one person. In how many industries does the main part of the labour force (let's not forget that the salaries included in the player's share does not include all parts of the teams'/league's labour force) earn that significant a portion of revenues?

You can't really compare sports to other industries, because the relationship between players and owners is very different to that of employees and owners. In the majority of industries, you can overhaul the staff without seeing any real changes in to the quality of the product. In other words, the business can exist pretty much as is without its current group of employees. It doesn't work that way in the sports world - without the best players, the owners are no longer producing the best product. It works the other way, as well. Without the owners, the players don't have a place to play where they can earn the kind of money they've grown accustomed to. The relationship between players and owners in the sports world needs to be more of a partnership type relationship than an employee/employer relationship if both parties are going to thrive, and, well, in a partnership, you do split the expenses. Not that I'm suggesting the league propose that or that the players accept it, but it is something both sides need to be mindful of in these negotiations.

 

[Kin]

You can't really compare sports to other industries, because the relationship between players and owners is very different to that of employees and owners. In the majority of industries, you can overhaul the staff without seeing any real changes in to the quality of the product. In other words, the business can exist pretty much as is without its current group of employees. It doesn't work that way in the sports world - without the best players, the owners are no longer producing the best product. It works the other way, as well. Without the owners, the players don't have a place to play where they can earn the kind of money they've grown accustomed to. The relationship between players and owners in the sports world needs to be more of a partnership type relationship than an employee/employer relationship if both parties are going to thrive, and, well, in a partnership, you do split the expenses. Not that I'm suggesting the league propose that or that the players accept it, but it is something both sides need to be mindful of in these negotiations.

Although it does have to be said that this is only really true in a situation where a league has no real competition. In high level soccer, for instance, players are still earning gigantic %'s of a team's revenue and teams are largely seen as independent operators.

 

[bustaheims]

Although it does have to be said that this is only really true in a situation where a league has no real competition. In high level soccer, for instance, players are still earning gigantic %'s of a team's revenue and teams are largely seen as independent operators.

Sure, but of all the major team sports around the world, the only one where that's really true is soccer. In every sport, there's either one league where the pay scale is significantly higher than all others, or there aren't leagues where the pay scale is particularly high.

 

[Kin]

Sure, but of all the major team sports around the world, the only one where that's really true is soccer. In every sport, there's either one league where the pay scale is significantly higher than all others, or there aren't leagues where the pay scale is particularly high.

Well, leaving the truth of that aside(is it true in Rugby?), I think we've also seen in all of the major NA sports leagues that when competing leagues exist a league's relationship with their players changes in an instant to mirror that of high level soccer.

 

[Kin]

That?s kind of the point, so far it looks like;
Players get half of the revenue straight up, no responsibly at all.
Owners get the other half, but pay for marketing, paying all the little guys managing the games, refs, heck even flying them to games, etc, etc, etc.

And yet it's the players who would argue that their compensation shouldn't be a fixed percentage of revenues. They'd argue that teams should be able to pay their employees whatever % of their revenues they'd like.

If you think the percentage split doesn't make sense, your beef is not with the players.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, leaving the truth of that aside(is it true in Rugby?), I think we've also seen in all of the major NA sports leagues that when competing leagues exist a league's relationship with their players changes in an instant to mirror that of high level soccer.

I don't know how true that is any more, since, really, none of the major NA sports leagues have seen that kind of competition since the WHA folded more than 30 years ago.

 

[Kin]

I don't know how true that is any more, since, really, none of the major NA sports leagues have seen that kind of competition since the WHA folded more than 30 years ago.

Well, even if you're not inclined to go with the numerous and repeated examples of that happening historically it's just common sense. If there's another league out there offering similar or better money they're going to be able to sign players. That's what the example of European soccer shows.

Also, I'd argue that the most recent example is probably the USFL, not the WHA. A league that signed all sorts of Hall of Famers.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Well, it's not just about one person. In how many industries does the main part of the labour force (let's not forget that the salaries included in the player's share does not include all parts of the teams'/league's labour force) earn that significant a portion of revenues?

I never made it about one person, I was simply responding. And I never stated that any regular joe makes that large a percentage of the revenue. I simply stated that we don't pay simple things like the phone bills at our jobs, why should the players be responsible to pay the hotel bills? At my work I don't pay my hotel stays, my company truck, my gas bills etc; and I shouldn't have to. It's the cost of doing business.

You can't really compare sports to other industries, because the relationship between players and owners is very different to that of employees and owners. In the majority of industries, you can overhaul the staff without seeing any real changes in to the quality of the product. In other words, the business can exist pretty much as is without its current group of employees.

I disagree. Perhaps in a grocery store or a Tim Hortons, this may be true, but if you're in any field that requires any sort of specialists in said field, overhauling is not as simple as you suggest. You can't go into a hospital and say, "Hey we have a staff of the best brain surgeons in the world, but we can get the 2nd or 3rd best for a little less money...let's do it, the result will be the same."

Or, Ferrari can't go into their design centre and say, you're all fired, we've hired the guys from Lada to make our $250,000 sports cars"

The relationship between players and owners in the sports world needs to be more of a partnership type relationship than an employee/employer relationship if both parties are going to thrive, and, well, in a partnership, you do split the expenses. Not that I'm suggesting the league propose that or that the players accept it, but it is something both sides need to be mindful of in these negotiations.

I agree that it's a special relationship between the players and the owners. It needs to be.

And although it's something the players may need to be aware of(and I'm sure they are), it's not something that I feel they should be fearful of, or feel sympathy about. The owners knew full well going into these purchases/investments what they were getting themselves into when they purchased the franchise in the chain known as the NHL. They knew the costs. They knew the risks.

My only point was people can't continue to hold these costs/risks over the players heads and say "you're lucky they're paying these things for you."....because it does happen in every one of our jobs..across the board.

 

[Kin]

And although it's something the players may need to be aware of(and I'm sure they are), it's not something that I feel they should be fearful of, or feel sympathy about. The owners knew full well going into these purchases/investments what they were getting themselves into when they purchased the franchise in the chain known as the NHL. They knew the costs. They knew the risks.

My only point was people can't continue to hold these costs/risks over the players heads and say "you're lucky they're paying these things for you."....because it does happen in every one of our jobs..across the board.

Not to mention that the reason a lot of these "perks" came into existence was a response to the demands being put on players. Travelling in relative comfort was seen as a way for a team to give it's players advantages when they're flying two or three nights in a row. Same with nice hotel rooms. Some teams didn't accommodate their players as well and as a result the teams that treated their players better did better in attracting and retaining talent. So because teams, as they're inclined to do, wanted to minimize other teams competitive advantages those conditions standardized.

So, yeah, five star hotels and chartered jets seem like the high life to most but let's not pretend they're the result of the owner's largesse.

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

okay guys, the high school teachers and the school board in our area have settled.

how about you!?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Will the PA try decertification anytime soon, just saw something on Tsn about it, sorry if its been discussed already.

 

[Wendel's Fist]

I don't see the point of players acting as if they have something to stand on.

I'm not for either side but billionaire owners have income from other endeavours during a lockout while 3rd and 4th line hockey players don't. So what's the point of the big song and dance every single time? The players will cave.

Just sign a deal before it gets worse. Kind of like when there was no way the NHLPA was going to accept a cap in 2004. Nick Kypreos wouldn't shut up about how the players would never go for that.

A season of lost pay later, you had Jeremy Roenick fuming over giving in but...........oh well.

I agree with others in this thread that said that more and more players will start griping to end things. Not everyone's signed a new deal or making too much to play the game like Crosby or others that speak for themselves.

Actually, they're all making too much money to play a game but some make an insane amount of too much.

A lot of the billionaires lose money on their teams anyway....what's the rush for them to end things?

30 owners that don't need money at all against over 700 players that don't all need money, but a lot definitely do.

I wonder who's going to win.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I don't see the point of players acting as if they have something to stand on.

I'm not for either side but billionaire owners have income from other endeavours during a lockout while 3rd and 4th line hockey players don't. So what's the point of the big song and dance every single time? The players will cave.

Just sign a deal before it gets worse. Kind of like when there was no way the NHLPA was going to accept a cap in 2004. Nick Kypreos wouldn't shut up about how the players would never go for that.

A season of lost pay later, you had Jeremy Roenick fuming over giving in but...........oh well.

I agree with others in this thread that said that more and more players will start griping to end things. Not everyone's signed a new deal or making too much to play the game like Crosby or others that speak for themselves.

Actually, they're all making too much money to play a game but some make an insane amount of too much.

A lot of the billionaires lose money on their teams anyway....what's the rush for them to end things?

30 owners that don't need money at all against over 700 players that don't all need money, but a lot definitely do.

I wonder who's going to win.

While it's easy to say the players should give in when we're standing on the outside looking in(and I'm generally of that opinion when it comes to unions), the proposals from the NHL, have only gotten better as time has gone on in this, so really, the PA has been gaining back some of what the NHL wanted to take away.

 

[DK2]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

50% after expenses would mean there's be roughly $950M available to the players. That's a significantly bigger pay cut than the league is proposing. While that would certainly mean a healthier league in terms of finances, there's no way the players would even consider it nor would the owners offer something that insulting at this point.

That?s kind of the point, so far it looks like;
Players get half of the revenue straight up, no responsibly at all.
Owners get the other half, but pay for marketing, paying all the little guys managing the games, refs, heck even flying them to games, etc, etc, etc.
Where would the players play if the owners didn?t provide the venue?

Kinda reminds me of Alan Iverson from the NBA, ?I AM THE GAME?
Yeah, where are you now.

The NHLPA has the same poison flowing in their blood.

Sadly, I really hope they just cancel the whole season and just be done with it.

Do you pay a portion of the bills where you work? Do you pay the hydro? The heat? The Phone?

No, I get payed after expenses. I think this point has went way over your head.

 

[bustaheims]

I disagree. Perhaps in a grocery store or a Tim Hortons, this may be true, but if you're in any field that requires any sort of specialists in said field, overhauling is not as simple as you suggest. You can't go into a hospital and say, "Hey we have a staff of the best brain surgeons in the world, but we can get the 2nd or 3rd best for a little less money...let's do it, the result will be the same."

Or, Ferrari can't go into their design centre and say, you're all fired, we've hired the guys from Lada to make our $250,000 sports cars"

Sure, but those are highly specialized, very specific examples that represent the minority of jobs out there and doesn't negate my point in the slightest. In the majority of industries, the labour force is pretty interchangeable. There will always be individuals who stand out, but, as a whole, there won't be much change.