2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[OldTimeHockey]

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.

Rate of pay generally are not guaranteed from CBA to CBA......But they're signed to a contract...

Irregardless...St. Louis doesn't complain at all about salaries being rolled back. He complains that the players always have to pick up the slack of the irresponsible owners.

 

[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.

Rate of pay generally are not guaranteed from CBA to CBA......But they're signed to a contract...

Irregardless...St. Louis doesn't complain at all about salaries being rolled back. He complains that the players always have to pick up the slack of the irresponsible owners.

You make a valid point..but the players used every advantage that they could during every CBA to enhance their positions regarding pay scale..some have gotten several hundred % increases including Mr.St.Louis from the very owners who he is alluding to...Now that it is bargaining time he has a question about concessions it appears.

 

[hockeyfan1]

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.

I like what he says, namely that:

Hall of Fame goaltender Ken Dryden says there are no noble principles at stake in the current NHL players and owners must look past their own goals for the betterment of all.

?They have to understand this is not make-or-break,? said ?This is not survival ? real or imagined ? on either side of it. Both are doing well enough. Both are doing well enough in a context where a lot of people around ? meaning their fans ? are not doing so well. In 2004, arguably, the owners had a big principle to fight for,? said Dryden...

?They could not find a way of restraining themselves without a salary cap. So they were going to fight for that, even if it meant losing a season.

?That?s not what this is, at all. There?s no fundamental question. It?s (about) a little more or a little less."

"....if there is no season, there is no victory".

 

[jdh1]

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.

You are right...however as someone has mentioned Mr. St.Louis signed a contract subject to collective bargaining. The next term of contract bargaining is in negotiation at the present.If he needs any assistance taking his millions to the bank after they settle,he could call me if the cheques are too heavy.

 

[TML fan]

St. Louis is living in a dream world if he doesn't think the players have any responsibility in this mess. How else are these teams supposed to stop losing money? They can't just not pay. They have to to keep their teams competitive. A non competitive team is in just as bad a shape financially as one that spends too much on players. I don't pretend to know the first thing about this process, or even care in the slightest, but the worst part of this for me is how the players seemingly act like innocent victims. The only real losers are the fans, and neither side seems to give a crap.

 

[Kin]

You are right...however as someone has mentioned Mr. St.Louis signed a contract subject to collective bargaining.

That's fine. It's just disingenuous to try and pretend that by expecting his contract to be honored he's living in some sort of fantasy land.

 

[hockeyfan1]

November 20th cut-off date?

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2012/10/19/3527370/winter-classic-2013-cancellation-date-nhl-lockout?

 

[Kin]

St. Louis is living in a dream world if he doesn't think the players have any responsibility in this mess. How else are these teams supposed to stop losing money? They can't just not pay. They have to to keep their teams competitive. A non competitive team is in just as bad a shape financially as one that spends too much on players.

But how much responsibility for the current system do the players have? The last CBA was one written on their union's battered corpse. They didn't want a system where teams were contractually obligated to give them a percentage of revenues or where the low-revenue generating teams had to pay nearly as much in salary as teams that generated way more revenue.

Baseball, the sport that has the CBA that I'd bet the PA would most like to emulate, has established not only that teams can compete with drastically lower payrolls but also that non-competitive teams can be profitable given revenue sharing.

 

[TML fan]

St. Louis is living in a dream world if he doesn't think the players have any responsibility in this mess. How else are these teams supposed to stop losing money? They can't just not pay. They have to to keep their teams competitive. A non competitive team is in just as bad a shape financially as one that spends too much on players.

But how much responsibility for the current system do the players have? The last CBA was one written on their union's battered corpse. They didn't want a system where teams were contractually obligated to give them a percentage of revenues or where the low-revenue generating teams had to pay nearly as much in salary as teams that generated way more revenue.

Baseball, the sport that has the CBA that I'd bet the PA would most like to emulate, has established not only that teams can compete with drastically lower payrolls but also that non-competitive teams can be profitable given revenue sharing.

I'd be in favour of a similar system. In fact, I think it's the only viable solution.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

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.

Rate of pay generally are not guaranteed from CBA to CBA......But they're signed to a contract...

Irregardless...St. Louis doesn't complain at all about salaries being rolled back. He complains that the players always have to pick up the slack of the irresponsible owners.

You make a valid point..but the players used every advantage that they could during every CBA to enhance their positions regarding pay scale..some have gotten several hundred % increases including Mr.St.Louis from the very owners who he is alluding to...Now that it is bargaining time he has a question about concessions it appears.

Said players took a large kick in the nuts the last CBA(to start with). Is it the fault of the players that the owners left more loopholes than a bowl of Fruit Loops? Btw, those very holes were exposed by the very owners that are crying poor....not by the players...


TampaBay Owner/GM "Hey Martin St. Louis, I found a way to give you 6 million a year for the next 10 years."

M. St. Louis:"You know what boss, just pay me 4 million a year for the next 3 years. I don't want to screw over the owners"

 

[OldTimeHockey]

St. Louis is living in a dream world if he doesn't think the players have any responsibility in this mess. How else are these teams supposed to stop losing money? They can't just not pay. They have to to keep their teams competitive. A non competitive team is in just as bad a shape financially as one that spends too much on players. I don't pretend to know the first thing about this process, or even care in the slightest, but the worst part of this for me is how the players seemingly act like innocent victims.

I don't see where the players are acting like innocent victims. The players are willing to make concessions. St. Louis just says he doesn't get why they have to take all of the responsibility of rebuilding this 'mess'.

 

[Tigger]

So I had a look and it seems team valuations, according to Forbes numbers, have gone up a total of about 1.8 billion since the last lockout. There were only 3 negative results, Dallas, Colorado and unsurprisingly Phoenix.

Some were a bit shocking, Calgary went up 85 m for example. Some weren't, recent cup winners like Boston ( 90 m ) Pittsburgh ( 131 m ) Chicago ( 138 m )

The big winner... Montreal, up 215 m....

Anywho, that's a fair amount of cake that isn't getting a lot of press.

 

[bustaheims]

Anywho, that's a fair amount of cake that isn't getting a lot of press.

Well, that's because those numbers are largely meaningless until a team is put up for sale, and, even then, it only has so much impact. The value increases are largely the result of league-wide revenue increases - something that has been beaten to death over the course of these negotiations.

 

[Kin]

Said players took a large kick in the nuts the last CBA(to start with). Is it the fault of the players that the owners left more loopholes than a bowl of Fruit Loops? Btw, those very holes were exposed by the very owners that are crying poor....not by the players...

But for all the talk about "loopholes" the reality is that none of the frontloaded contracts affected in anyway the total amount of compensation that players received. It shifted it from player to player and team to team, sure, but the total percentage of revenues that players got paid was carved in stone. Closing those loopholes would have done nothing to change the financial situation the league is in.

 

[Kin]

Well, that's because those numbers are largely meaningless until a team is put up for sale, and, even then, it only has so much impact.

I'm sorry but the value of the teams is not largely meaningless if we're talking about the business of the NHL. That increase in equity can provide real and significant financial benefits to clubs without selling their teams. If a team, like the Penguins, reports a 200,000 operating loss but their value increases by millions that's a trade that a lot of people will take and provides an incentive to keep operating the club.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm sorry but the value of the teams is not largely meaningless if we're talking about the business of the NHL. That increase in equity can provide real and significant financial benefits to clubs without selling their teams. If a team, like the Penguins, reports a 200,000 operating loss but their value increases by millions that's a trade that a lot of people will take and provides an incentive to keep operating the club.

And yet, you provide a pretty solid example of how individual club valuations can have very little to do with their financial realities. There's very little a team can do with their estimated values to improve their financial situation, other than shifting financial burdens from one institution to another. Solid values help them with the bank, but not with their bottom line.

 

[Tigger]

Anywho, that's a fair amount of cake that isn't getting a lot of press.

Well, that's because those numbers are largely meaningless until a team is put up for sale, and, even then, it only has so much impact. The value increases are largely the result of league-wide revenue increases - something that has been beaten to death over the course of these negotiations.

Maybe this is too simplistic but when I see someone claim they're not profiting, yet what they own is increasing in value substantially as a result of their business, I have a time accepting that as an outright hardship when, if what you say is true, the increase in revenue has had a direct impact on the value of the individual teams and the league.

I know there's more to the whole picture but it seems worthy of some consideration generally and, from the players pov, something that would give me pause before swallowing a paycut and a loss of contractual power.

 

[bustaheims]

Maybe this is too simplistic but when I see someone claim they're not profiting, yet what they own is increasing in value substantially as a result of their business, I have a time accepting that as an outright hardship when, if what you say is true, the increase in revenue has had a direct impact on the value of the individual teams and the league.

I know there's more to the whole picture but it seems worthy of some consideration generally and, from the players pov, something that would give me pause before swallowing a paycut and a loss of contractual power.

Well, you have to remember the crux of the issue for both sides is their individual bottom lines, and team valuations don't help there. They don't increase revenue and they don't decrease expenses. As Nik showed with his Pittsburgh example, team valuations don't necessary rise in line with profitability.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Said players took a large kick in the nuts the last CBA(to start with). Is it the fault of the players that the owners left more loopholes than a bowl of Fruit Loops? Btw, those very holes were exposed by the very owners that are crying poor....not by the players...

But for all the talk about "loopholes" the reality is that none of the frontloaded contracts affected in anyway the total amount of compensation that players received. It shifted it from player to player and team to team, sure, but the total percentage of revenues that players got paid was carved in stone. Closing those loopholes would have done nothing to change the financial situation the league is in.

While I completely agree, I was just commenting on people saying the players have to accept part of the blame with the financial situation the league is in.

If a Tim Horton's goes belly up because of poor sales, is it the employees pay grade that caused the issues? Now, it could be the employees poor performance, poor cleaning habits, poor customer skills, etc;, but it's not likely that the employees pay grade.

People will point and say that poor team performances lead to poor revenues which lead to losses. If that's the case, are poor teams the fault of the players as a whole, or the fault of the GM/Management/Coaching doing a poor job of icing a good team?

 

[Kin]

And yet, you provide a pretty solid example of how individual club valuations can have very little to do with their financial realities.

Well, no, I provide an example where Forbes' various estimates of the financial realities of NHL clubs seem at odds. That 200,000 figure is just an estimate of Pittsburgh's bottom line just like the value increase is an estimate.

There's very little a team can do with their estimated values to improve their financial situation, other than shifting financial burdens from one institution to another. Solid values help them with the bank, but not with their bottom line.

That just fails on the face of it. Ask yourself a simple question. If Pittsburgh is losing money on a year to year basis, why would their franchise value increase? Do values of things typically increase when they lose money or decrease? You say that Pittsburgh's value is increasing because of "leaguewide revenues" but why would that impact a team's individual value if they're not turning a profit? Are investors more likely to buy the Penguins because the Maple Leafs are generating value?

Give your head a shake. You're arguing that the value of the property increasing dramatically doesn't play a role in it's strength as an investment.