2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[bustaheims]

So the NHL is cancelling the Winter classic on Monday apparently. Next step? Screw you PA, enjoy your year off. 

That is the current speculation, yeah.

Buccigross: NHL sources tell me the NHL will cancel Winter Classic and All Star Game. Announcement presently scheduled for Monday.

 

[Kin]

So the NHL is cancelling the Winter classic on Monday apparently. Next step? Screw you PA, enjoy your year off. 

That is the current speculation, yeah.

Buccigross: NHL sources tell me the NHL will cancel Winter Classic and All Star Game. Announcement presently scheduled for Monday.

Well, let's be fair, we knew it was doomed from the moment it was announced. Something nice for Leafs fans? Keep dreaming, says the universe.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

So the NHL is cancelling the Winter classic on Monday apparently. Next step? Screw you PA, enjoy your year off. 

That is the current speculation, yeah.

Buccigross: NHL sources tell me the NHL will cancel Winter Classic and All Star Game. Announcement presently scheduled for Monday.

Excuse my ignorance but once that happens isn't there much less incentive for the players to return to the table and negotiate?

There's a big chunk of change from that event for all players and teams no?

Looks as if the whole season may as well be canceled while they're at it. I really believe the players will hold strong on this one and that the deal the players end up getting will be better than what the NHL had on the table till last night.

If the players end up accepting less, or the same, they'll look like the ones who caused the lost games. Kind of a dicey situation moving forward with lots of hockey missed.

I still blame the NHL. The 50/50 plus all those ridiculous contract control issues was too much after originally requesting 57% for themselves. Had they said a 6 year CBA with the NHL getting what they want from year 4-6 and the players getting 50% + guaranteed monies from year 1-3, plus some (or all?) of the control the issues the league wanted, then there would've been room to negotiate.

The players would've had to think long and hard about turning that deal down, and the League would have 3 years of large potential earnings (New TV deal in Canada, Brooklyn relocation, expansion?) towards the end of the CBA.

Both sides get taken for 3 years of the CBA, nobody is the clear winner and the league gets to the point they want eventually.

Had the league really been interested in the fan base or a fair deal, one would be in place, however they are as greedy as they come (considering most of the teams are seen more like pieces of art as Nik stated than actual businesses).

 

[Kin]

Had the league really been interested in the fan base or a fair deal, one would be in place, however they are as greedy as they come (considering most of the teams are seen more like pieces of art as Nik stated than actual businesses).

Just if anyone's interested, that analogy is one I took from Malcolm Gladwell who wrote a couple of very good pieces about the NBA lockout at Grantland

The Nets and NBA Economics

"Psychic Benefits" and the NBA lockout

Worth a read, I think

 

[drummond]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2012/10/26/20309641.html

Steve Simmons offres an interesting angle. He demonstrates on the Leafs players how affected they were by the rollback of the last lock-out and how they ended up long term. Basically he says that they took 20% cut to get increase of 200-500% over next 5 years.

 

[Kin]

Steve Simmons offres an interesting angle. He demonstrates on the Leafs players how affected they were by the rollback of the last lock-out and how they ended up long term. Basically he says that they took 20% cut to get increase of 200-500% over next 5 years.

I think there's a fundamental flaw with his reasoning though. Almost all of the players he's comparing pre- and post lockout were guys who pre-lockout were in years of team control or on their entry level contracts. No rookies coming into the league get to negotiate based on their respective skills and abilities and so that Dion Phaneuf received a six-fold raise on his first post-lockout contract is basically just acknowledging that he was worth way, way more as a young player than he was being paid.

The Leafs are a young team so, yes, all of their big raises would have come in the last 7 years. It's a little bit like pointing out that people are more likely to grow in height between the ages of 14-18 than they are from 40-44.

 

[lamajama]

So the NHL is cancelling the Winter classic on Monday apparently. Next step? Screw you PA, enjoy your year off. 

That is the current speculation, yeah.

Buccigross: NHL sources tell me the NHL will cancel Winter Classic and All Star Game. Announcement presently scheduled for Monday.

Well, let's be fair, we knew it was doomed from the moment it was announced. Something nice for Leafs fans? Keep dreaming, says the universe.

Ain't it the truth. Ain't it the truth... :-\  :'(

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

i have to say..i'm happy the winter classic is next on the block... obviously just pessimistic leaf fan logic here..but i didn't really want to see the team get spanked in front of such a large audience   for the same reason i'm quite happy there won't be the hbo series this year either.  Like i'm sure the leafs will be worthy of being in the spotlight at some point in the future...it just didn't seem likely that this year was going to be the one

 

[bustaheims]

Excuse my ignorance but once that happens isn't there much less incentive for the players to return to the table and negotiate?

There's a big chunk of change from that event for all players and teams no?

Well, there's been some speculation that Fehr may have believed the owners were unwilling to lose such a high profile event and that they would be more willing to come closer to his proposals when it was threatened. Cancelling it would obviously debunk that theory and could make Fehr understand that the owners are more willing to sacrifice another season than he believed.

I still blame the NHL. The 50/50 plus all those ridiculous contract control issues was too much after originally requesting 57% for themselves. Had they said a 6 year CBA with the NHL getting what they want from year 4-6 and the players getting 50% + guaranteed monies from year 1-3, plus some (or all?) of the control the issues the league wanted, then there would've been room to negotiate.

I think the owners were hoping the PA would come back with a proposal that would lead to that. If they had proposed that outright, the PA would have likely pushed for more (a pretty standard negotiating tactic at that point), but, if they got to the point where they could propose this type of deal as a compromise between the two proposals, it would have been hard for the PA to turn down and both sides would have come out better in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, the PA didn't present proposals that allowed for that - to the point where they refused to even discuss the non-economic issues.

 

[jdh1]

I've got to believe a settlement is coming fairly soon.The fact that the two sides are at the 50/50 split level,it's just a matter of time now.The players will have to except the lowering of their contracts that exist to 50/50 if not the 1st year surely by year two of the agreement...Congratulations to both sides for realizing this now rather than cancelling the season.

 

[Kin]

I still blame the NHL. The 50/50 plus all those ridiculous contract control issues was too much after originally requesting 57% for themselves. Had they said a 6 year CBA with the NHL getting what they want from year 4-6 and the players getting 50% + guaranteed monies from year 1-3, plus some (or all?) of the control the issues the league wanted, then there would've been room to negotiate.

I still think the problem with that scenario is that there's not anything in particular there that the PA gets that they can point to as what they're getting out of the deal. The NFLPA got the reduced schedule, the NBAPA got to largely keep the system they liked intact. If the PA is starting out with the assumed cut in their percentage then I think they're going to need some sort of victory elsewhere.

 

[Hampreacher]

Ryan Miller is right the current problem with the labor impass is EGO. Players took the heat and last last time and do not want to lose again. Owners think players will cave again. When owners dismissed players plan in ten minutes they were disrespected. If owners had taken time to study it even if they had rejected the offer later they plan was considered. The owners need to work  with players so both can be seen as winning something and saving face. Bettmans strong arm tactics 5 years ago is coming back to bite them. When putting forth a contract and negotiating you need to remember there will be a next time to negotiate. Owners did not think of that last time and both need to think about that this time. So Owners Players put aside EGO's and get a settlement.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

But the players "won" in that they still have a NHL to play in because the system they had was not financially sustainable. And all of the players who appeared in the NHL between 2006 and 2012 made more money under that deal than half the NHL teams they played for. And their salaries have risen decently from a $39 mil cap to maybe a $60-70 mil cap.

Is it not true though, that the NHL owners had the opportunity to lock in a hard cap at 46.5 million in '05, yet insisted on getting to the 43 million starting point. In order to get there, the owners agreed to the fluctuating cap based on revenues.

So at the time, that cap was viewed as a loss for the players as I don't think the NHL, the NHLPA or the media thought that revenues would grow to the point of almost doubling that cap ceiling.

I'm not absolutely sure. I don't recall that.

The first cap in '05-06 was $39 mil which maybe throws a wrench into the $43 mil number you cite - and the $46 mil number because that would represent about 63% of revenues out the gate when the league needed help the most.

As well, what the cap is doesn't matter a heck of a lot. It could have been $1 and not made a difference to the players because the players are paid based on league revenues and the salaries prorated from that.

The Bettman theme of "cost certainty" from those negotiations was consistently sought after and they seemed intent on tying that to revenue very early on so that it would be fair and certain for both parties as revenues went up (or down). I think they were at 76% of revenues wanting 24% off that and settled for 22% off that - something like that.

This is true. I was going off a previous article I had read which could of been complete BS.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Ryan Miller is right the current problem with the labor impass is EGO. Players took the heat and last last time and do not want to lose again. Owners think players will cave again. When owners dismissed players plan in ten minutes they were disrespected. If owners had taken time to study it even if they had rejected the offer later they plan was considered. The owners need to work  with players so both can be seen as winning something and saving face. Bettmans strong arm tactics 5 years ago is coming back to bite them. When putting forth a contract and negotiating you need to remember there will be a next time to negotiate. Owners did not think of that last time and both need to think about that this time. So Owners Players put aside EGO's and get a settlement.

Stubbornness, pride, and ego all rolled into one.

 

[hockeyfan1]

One angry (veteran) NHLer...


"I?m shaking my head every time I wake up," he said. "We?re telling everybody we?re going to go to 50 percent, let?s share responsibility to get there. They don?t want that. Again, they want to hit us. It?s us, 24 percent last time and now 12 percent, and doing that when the game has grown the most, it?s tough to take."

Added St. Louis: "Nobody is crying poor here, and I think it?s hard for the fans to understand that. But it?s about when there?s a problem we have to fix it all the time and they don?t want to take responsibility,"...

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/lightning/content/strong-stuff-tampa-bay-lightning-w-marty-st-louis-cancellation-november-games."...

 

[Frank E]

That said, Dryden doesn?t believe it?s time for a mediator to step into the fray, although he?d be a perfect candidate.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/News/2012/10/26/20311736.html

I think a mediator, at this point anyway, may be the only way that both sides can save face while finding a more immediate solution to save a full season.

 

[jdh1]

One angry (veteran) NHLer...


"I?m shaking my head every time I wake up," he said. "We?re telling everybody we?re going to go to 50 percent, let?s share responsibility to get there. They don?t want that. Again, they want to hit us. It?s us, 24 percent last time and now 12 percent, and doing that when the game has grown the most, it?s tough to take."

Added St. Louis: "Nobody is crying poor here, and I think it?s hard for the fans to understand that. But it?s about when there?s a problem we have to fix it all the time and they don?t want to take responsibility,"...

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/lightning/content/strong-stuff-tampa-bay-lightning-w-marty-st-louis-cancellation-november-games."...

I wonder why Mr. St.Louis doesn't understand that his contract is only as good as the next CBA? His contract is not a entitlement.Welcome to the real world.

 

[Kin]

I wonder why Mr. St.Louis doesn't understand that his contract is only as good as the next CBA? His contract is not a entitlement.Welcome to the real world.

I don't know about what "real world" you live in but in mine, contracts are usually followed to the letter.

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't know about what "real world" you live in but in mine, contracts are usually followed to the letter.

Unless you're outvoted in a collective bargaining arrangement, in which case certain terms of your contract can be changed without your agreement.

 

[Kin]

Unless you're outvoted in a collective bargaining arrangement, in which case certain terms of your contract can be changed without your agreement.

Sure, but how many contracts in the real world are both subject to collective bargaining but are also going to vary wildly from individual to individual within the union.