2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

The problem continues to be that there's two brickwalls trying to be bigger and tougher than the other one. Yes I realize that's how you negotiate, but the public BS has to stop as both sides are far too pigheaded to sweep a backhanded comment under the rug.

I think you're probably giving too much weight to things like this. The "problem" isn't anything that is said publicly, it's the distance between their actual positions.

At some point, if this gets done, the owners are actually going to have to make some actual concessions. Fehr acknowledging that publicly doesn't fundamentally change anything even if you don't like hearing it.

 

[Bender]

DarrenDreger: Close on rev sharing, but no contract concessions and league remains firm on $211 mil Make Whole. Talks will continue, but may not meet Thur

No real surprises there. What the PA proposed for contracts does not address NHL's concerns in any meaningful way. Make Whole could probably be negotiated if/when other issues (guaranteed minimum share, etc) are addressed.

It's getting pretty ridiculous how far both sides are spinning the issue. NHLPA: We made meaningful steps! Reality: Few meaningful steps were actually made.

It's getting to the point where both sides think they can fleece the other, and even following the talks very lightly you can get the sense that neither is offering a deal the other could come close to thinking is fair.

Negotiations:
"Come on, leave town."
"No"
"I'll be your friend!"
"No"
"You're mean!"

 

[pnjunction]

My problem with the leagues insistence on this is that it means that contracts like Parise, Suter and Weber were essentially signed in bad faith.

Well, the league's position is that they violate the spirit of the cap and, in some cases, they may have been negotiated in bad faith on the part of the players - in that they have no intention of fulfilling the entirety of the contract.

The teams are the ones hoping the players don't play to the end.  You think this type of front-loading was the players' idea?

2012-13: $10 million signing bonus, $2 million base salary
2013-14: $10 million signing bonus, $2 million base salary
2014-15: $5 million signing bonus, $6 million base salary
2015-16: $9 million base salary
2016-17: $9 million base salary
2017-18: $9 million base salary
2018-19: $9 million base salary
2019-20: $9 million base salary
2020-21: $8 million base salary
2021-22: $6 million base salary
2022-23: $2 million base salary
2023-24: $1 million base salary
2024-25: $1 million base salary

Cap hit 7.53

Pretty sure the players and teams are colluding on these.  Nothing was ever this front-loaded until it brought salary cap benefits to the teams.  I suppose the players are also at fault for wanting more money, but it's the teams who stepped up and crafted these monstrosities. 

By the way did the NHL not bother disputing these because the CBA was coming anyways?

 

[bustaheims]

On the bright side, the PA's current proposal is much closer to something the NHL will feel they can work with to come to a deal than anything else the players have brought to the table, so, some progress has definitely been made. The issue now is whether both sides are will to compromise in areas and really negotiate, or if one or both sides become more entrenched. My guess is, if the PA had come with this proposal back in October, we'd be watching NHL hockey by now.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The problem continues to be that there's two brickwalls trying to be bigger and tougher than the other one. Yes I realize that's how you negotiate, but the public BS has to stop as both sides are far too pigheaded to sweep a backhanded comment under the rug.

I think you're probably giving too much weight to things like this. The "problem" isn't anything that is said publicly, it's the distance between their actual positions.

At some point, if this gets done, the owners are actually going to have to make some actual concessions. Fehr acknowledging that publicly doesn't fundamentally change anything even if you don't like hearing it.

Oh I completely agree that the numbers are what truly determine the final outcome, but why battle it out in public.

In the end, it benefits the NHLPA and the NHL to have the public supporting them...Not as individuals, but as one business.

 

[bustaheims]

The teams are the ones hoping the players don't play to the end.  You think this type of front-loading was the players' idea?

The reports were that Parise was demanding those kinds of signing bonuses with every team he was negotiating with, so, yeah, I do think the players/agents had a very significant part to play in the structure of those deals - to the point that it may have been them that suggested the general aspects of it and negotiated the final numbers.

Pretty sure the players and teams are colluding on these.  Nothing was ever this front-loaded until it brought salary cap benefits to the teams.  I suppose the players are also at fault for wanting more money, but it's the teams who stepped up and crafted these monstrosities. 

The teams aren't blameless in them, but, the reality is, once the first of these deals was signed, Pandora's Box was opened - and we don't know who came up with this structure in the first place. Once it was out there, teams had to start considering them as options just to compete in the marketplace and retain/acquire talent.

By the way did the NHL not bother disputing these because the CBA was coming anyways?

The league didn't dispute them because, by the letter of the CBA, they are no illegal. They had no legitimate evidence they could use to reject them. Their hands were essentially tied.

 

[Kin]

Oh I completely agree that the numbers are what truly determine the final outcome, but why battle it out in public.

In the end, it benefits the NHLPA and the NHL to have the public supporting them...Not as individuals, but as one business.

But again, that's lending far more weight to something like that then it actually deserves. The extent to which fans come back after this lockout isn't going to have much to do with things said in press conferences.

Fehr didn't call Bettman a moron, he said something that's fundamentally true. The NHL has yet to make a move of any significance in the players direction. That's not "battling it out in public". It's the PA director being honest with the public.

 

[Kin]

The league didn't dispute them because, by the letter of the CBA, they are no illegal. They had no legitimate evidence they could use to reject them. Their hands were essentially tied.

Think Ilya Kovalchuk agrees?

 

[Redleaf]

Mirtle
This is the difference between the two offers: NHL: 55.5%-51.5-50-50-50. NHLPA: 56.3%-53.8-52-50-50. It's absurd how small it is.

 

[bustaheims]

Think Ilya Kovalchuk agrees?

Kovalchuk's original contract was too extreme, and an independent arbiter found it violated the spirit of the CBA enough to be considered to be in violation of the agreement itself. I mean, the contract took him past the age where even Chris Chelios retired. You can't really say the same about contracts like Parise's, Suter's, etc.

 

[Kin]

Think Ilya Kovalchuk agrees?

Kovalchuk's original contract was too extreme, and an independent arbiter found it violated the spirit of the CBA enough to be considered to be in violation of the agreement itself. I mean, the contract took him past the age where even Chris Chelios retired. You can't really say the same about contracts like Parise's, Suter's, etc.

I see, I see. So the NHL did have recourse when they felt a contract violated the spirit of the agreement "enough".

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Oh I completely agree that the numbers are what truly determine the final outcome, but why battle it out in public.

In the end, it benefits the NHLPA and the NHL to have the public supporting them...Not as individuals, but as one business.

But again, that's lending far more weight to something like that then it actually deserves. The extent to which fans come back after this lockout isn't going to have much to do with things said in press conferences.

Fehr didn't call Bettman a moron, he said something that's fundamentally true. The NHL has yet to make a move of any significance in the players direction. That's not "battling it out in public". It's the PA director being honest with the public.

I suppose you're correct..perhaps it's just my frustration with the entire process.

 

[bustaheims]

I see, I see. So the NHL did have recourse when they felt a contract violated the spirit of the agreement "enough".

When it went above and beyond what could be considered a reasonable extension of the agreement, yes. The league has begrudgingly accepted the others with the understanding that they'd address them more to their liking in future CBAs.

 

[bustaheims]

ChrisBottaNHL: Bettman: "We're still far apart. But hopefully there's some momentum so we can bring this to a conclusion."

DarrenDreger: Bettman says business is losing $18-20 mil per day. Says players are losing between $8-10 mil per day.

RenLavoieRDS: Gary Bettman:"their was some movement in our direction and it was appreciated."

 

[Kin]

When it went above and beyond what could be considered a reasonable extension of the agreement, yes. The league has begrudgingly accepted the others with the understanding that they'd address them more to their liking in future CBAs.

Which is why it's eminently reasonable to suggest that any change going forward isn't retroactive.

 

[bustaheims]

Which is why it's eminently reasonable to suggest that any change going forward isn't retroactive.

Well, to be fair, the league hasn't proposed anything to alter the structure of the existing deals. They just want to create a situation where, if they're not fulfilled as negotiated, the parties involved suffer more significant consequences.

 

[Kin]

Well, to be fair, the league hasn't proposed anything to alter the structure of the existing deals. They just want to create a situation where, if they're not fulfilled as negotiated, the parties involved suffer more significant consequences.

I'm just relating it to what the PA proposed today. Making alterations going forward is fine but it shouldn't affect contracts that were signed under previous deals in good faith.

The difference right now is really about whether or not the league thinks that teams should be allowed to offer deals like this.

 

[bustaheims]

I suppose you're correct..perhaps it's just my frustration with the entire process.

ian_mendes: Bettman also said the PR and rhetoric is pointless; he did not appreciate Fehr speaking to media this AM -- before NHL responded to offer.

 

[Tigger]

A couple questions from the last nhlpa proposal if any folks know...

What's the nhlpa proposal on no trade/no move clauses?

Retained salary transactions ( cap trading ) was offered at 15% of the upper limit, not sure how this is supposed to work.... if I use the 'can't fall below number' proposed of 67.25 mil, does that mean teams can literally trade for up to 10 mil in cap space? Are the limits on what can be traded for that space?... or am I in the wrong park...

 

[bustaheims]

A couple questions from the last nhlpa proposal if any folks know...

What's the nhlpa proposal on no trade/no move clauses?

The PA wanted to make sure stuff like what happened to Richards and Carter doesn't happen again, so, I imagine that's what this is about. I don't know the specifics, though.

Retained salary transactions ( cap trading ) was offered at 15% of the upper limit, not sure how this is supposed to work.... if I use the 'can't fall below number' proposed of 67.25 mil, does that mean teams can literally trade for up to 10 mil in cap space? Are the limits on what can be traded for that space?... or am I in the wrong park...

No limits were specified in what has been released to the media, though, I imagine there were some in the more detailed proposal they said they were presenting to the league. My guess is there were limits per transaction or percentage of player contract that can be moved and such. The league is unlikely to go for 15%, though.