• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
It has been reported all week that both sides put forward their "die on hill" issues for a new CBA.  The players put make whole and pensions as things they absolutely needed.  The owners had contract length and CBA length.  As a compromise to the owners who want no part of the make whole provision the moderate owners offered the make whole increase to the players on a condition that cba length be 10 years.  The make whole would be paid out over the life of this CBA.  It is a lot easier to bring back to owners against make whole an agreement to payout $30 million per year for 10 years as opposed to $60 million per for 5 years.  The 5 year contract length I really don't get why either side would be willing to can season over??  Just meet somewhere in middle and move on.
 
It's a little too simple to say that the owners caused this lockout and should pay for it.  The owners refused to keep doing business under a system that did not work for them.  Of course the players were willing to continue, the system was working fine for them and they knew the next CBA was unlikely to keep this advantage. 
 
Potentially very sad if any truth to it.

But, something has gone very wrong between Hainsey and and the league's negotiating teams. It is believed one of the reasons Mark Chipman was added to the mix -- in addition to his moderate nature -- is that it was hoped the defenceman would be more "in line" with his owner present.

I stress I've never heard it on- or off-the-record from any owner, general manager or negotiator -- but there is a rumbling going around that Hainsey will never again get an NHL contract. (He is an unrestricted free agent next summer.)

When I brought it up to him on Friday morning, he nodded in anticipation of the question. Clearly, he's heard the rumours.

"Do you worry that, after your contract is completed, you'll never play in the NHL again?"

"My wife and I have talked about it," he said.  "If I play the way I'm capable of, everything will work out."

...


It's difficult to pin down exactly what that means, because there aren't specific examples. The confrontation between Jacobs and Ryan Miller got a lot of attention Wednesday night, but word was Hainsey said something, too. (An NHL source said that, on Thursday morning, they expected him to tell the league the players were walking away.)

Hainsey admitted he didn't like when the NHL resisted Fehr's return, telling Gord Stellick and Ron MacLean on Hockey Night in Canada Radio, "They attempted to argue it. This was not a debatable decision. We do not tell them who to bring in and obviously they can't tell us. It was told to me directly [Fehr coming back in] could be a deal-breaker.

He added, "We're chasing a moving target here."

In our conversation, Hainsey explained that he thought the two sides were moving close to agreeing on a length for the new CBA (six years plus an option), one which would allow for a re-opener clause if revenues hit $4 billion.

"Many of (the players) thought we were really close to getting (the entire CBA) done...But it's difficult to finish it without a professional."

It was at that point things became heated, with the league threatening to walk and passion exploding on both sides. Hainsey agrees he was part of it, and was emotionally invested because he was responsible for presenting the offer. But he doesn't think he crossed the line in the way he called for Fehr.

"If that's impolite, I don't know what to do. I don't know how we can close this without using anyone trained to do it on our behalf."
Click to expand...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/12/ron-hainsey-the-nhlpas-bad-cop.html
 
Bates said:
It's a little too simple to say that the owners caused this lockout and should pay for it.  The owners refused to keep doing business under a system that did not work for them.  Of course the players were willing to continue, the system was working fine for them and they knew the next CBA was unlikely to keep this advantage.
Click to expand...

I'll be simple: owners pushed for the last CBA deal, it was their agreement, they screwed the pooch on it, their fault.
 
I thought they negotiated last CBA so in fact both did it.  It is not working and is over.  No CBA. No play. 
 
Bates said:
I thought they negotiated last CBA so in fact both did it.  It is not working and is over.  No CBA. No play.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you if you think they came to an equal agreement last time that each side was happy with.  The outcome was overwhelmingly what the owners wanted.
 
There is never equal agreement but they did both agree to last CBA. It looked at first to be very much skewed in owner's favor but we all know in the end it was a very player friendly CBA.
 
Bates said:
There is never equal agreement but they did both agree to last CBA. It looked at first to be very much skewed in owner's favor but we all know in the end it was a very player friendly CBA.
Click to expand...

No matter how this deal shakes down, the owners will be the winners and it will not be a player friendly CBA. Bettman has gotten it figured out this time. Fehr is now fighting for any remaining crumbs that are still on the table.
 

"This is clearly their boldest move they've made. And to think that if everything's off the table and everything that was done since June or the first time we met is all gone, it is insane to me."
    - Anaheim's Daniel Winnik in response to Thursday's CBA negotiation breakdown.

Source: THN
 
Bates said:
There is never equal agreement but they did both agree to last CBA. It looked at first to be very much skewed in owner's favor but we all know in the end it was a very player friendly CBA.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.  All I'm saying is that it was largely the CBA the owners wanted as opposed to the one the player's wanted, hence they should shoulder more of the blame in my opinion.  Not that I need to assign blame, but was just saying so in the context of the above posts.

Also why I don't necessarily have much faith in the owners "fixing" the economics of the league with this CBA.
 
I agree Potvin.  Personally I thought if the owners could get an immediate 50/50 they would have only needed a varience rule on cintracts and that would be enough.  Seems I was wrong on that?
 
Potvin29 said:
I don't know what to tell you if you think they came to an equal agreement last time that each side was happy with.  The outcome was overwhelmingly what the owners wanted.
Click to expand...

On the economics, sure, but, the players got a lot of contracting rights very much in their favour last time - UFA at 27 or 7 seasons, earlier arbitration (4 seasons instead of 5), NMCs, etc.
 
Chev-boyar-sky said:
2-3 years in contract length and 2 years difference in CBA length shouldn't cause the owners to break off talks and for Bettman to act like a little girl in front of the cameras for 30 mins.
Click to expand...

Well, it was more than that. The owners' proposal was a 10 CBA with mutual out clauses after 8. The PA presented 8 years with them having an out clause after 6, but not the owners. The owners wanted a variance of 5%, the PA proposed a system where the cheapest season of a contract can't be less than 25% of the richest on contracts 7 years or longer, which pretty much ignores the reason the league wanted the variance - to do away with back-diving contracts. The PA also proposed a cap on escrow, which, depending on what level they proposed setting the cap at, could potentially defeat the purpose of escrow in the first place - which was to ensure each side received no more or no less than what the CBA guarantees them. The PA included buyouts that the league was against. Boiling things down the way you did is oversimplifying the situation. Did the owners overreact? Sure, probably, but, the issues are bigger than you're presenting them.
 
bustaheims said:
Well, it was more than that. The owners' proposal was a 10 CBA with mutual out clauses after 8. The PA presented 8 years with them having an out clause after 6, but not the owners.
Click to expand...

But that's a meaningless distinction if the owners own proposal doesn't give them an out clause until after 8 years. If both sides are happy with the agreement there's nothing that would stop them from having the easiest negotiations in 8 years time in the world to extend the deal. The only real practical difference between what the owners proposed and what the players proposed is what the next 8 years look like if the players are unhappy.

bustaheims said:
The owners wanted a variance of 5%, the PA proposed a system where the cheapest season of a contract can't be less than 25% of the richest on contracts 7 years or longer, which pretty much ignores the reason the league wanted the variance - to do away with back-diving contracts.
Click to expand...

It doesn't pretty much ignore it at all unless by "back-diving" it means a contract that has any meaningful variance in how much a player gets per year. Under the PA's proposal, because it was combined with an 8 year maximum contract length, you couldn't sign a contract that had a bunch of years on the end that didn't contain a meaningful percentage of the deal's total worth. It eliminates the Hossa/Kovalchuk/Luongo deals. 25% doesn't sound like a lot but if you try to actually work deals out under the system the reality is that to construct long term deals that comply with the 8 year/25% rule that contain significant upfront money you really have to have the variance be significantly less than that to get it to work.
 
Nik V. Debs said:
bustaheims said:
Well, it was more than that. The owners' proposal was a 10 CBA with mutual out clauses after 8. The PA presented 8 years with them having an out clause after 6, but not the owners.
Click to expand...

But that's a meaningless distinction if the owners own proposal doesn't give them an out clause until after 8 years. If both sides are happy with the agreement there's nothing that would stop them from having the easiest negotiations in 8 years time in the world to extend the deal. The only real practical difference between what the owners proposed and what the players proposed is what the next 8 years look like if the players are unhappy.

bustaheims said:
The owners wanted a variance of 5%, the PA proposed a system where the cheapest season of a contract can't be less than 25% of the richest on contracts 7 years or longer, which pretty much ignores the reason the league wanted the variance - to do away with back-diving contracts.
Click to expand...

It doesn't pretty much ignore it at all unless by "back-diving" it means a contract that has any meaningful variance in how much a player gets per year. Under the PA's proposal, because it was combined with an 8 year maximum contract length, you couldn't sign a contract that had a bunch of years on the end that didn't contain a meaningful percentage of the deal's total worth. It eliminates the Hossa/Kovalchuk/Luongo deals. 25% doesn't sound like a lot but if you try to actually work deals out under the system the reality is that to construct long term deals that comply with the 8 year/25% rule that contain significant upfront money you really have to have the variance be significantly less than that to get it to work.
Click to expand...

Does this work with the players' proposal?

8 year $64 mil deal.

yr1- 10mil
2-10
3-10
4-10
5-10
6-8.8
7-2.6
8-2.6
 
Frank E said:
Does this work with the players' proposal?

8 year $64 mil deal.

yr1- 10mil
2-10
3-10
4-10
5-10
6-8.8
7-2.6
8-2.6
Click to expand...

Sure. So that's a deal with only two years substantially lower than the AAV and where the most it exceeds the AAV is by 2 million.
 
An interesting read.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/12/07/nhl-players-starting-to-ask-uncomfortable-questions-of-fehrs-leadership-peter-adler-reports/

The fact is that Donald Fehr?s message to the troops after the Thursday night bloodbath has been along the same lines: just don?t you worry, guys, we know what we?re doing.

The fact is, too, that the number of players who are getting more and more sceptical with each of their leader?s pronouncements has been growing constantly.

I?ve talked to more than a dozen such players with growing concerns of one kind or another about the union?s direction. Some of them have begun talking to their colleagues, not only their teammates but to other players from other teams, too, comparing notes and coming up with interesting conclusions.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top