Lockout

[tfrizz]

Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.

Those rights actually do have an impact on year to year dollar and that is why they are being fought over. Being able to have a 75% difference in a contract's pay over 6 years is huge. For instance, a 6 year contract that starts at $4million can only go down to $2.94million with the 5%, whereas the players want that to be able to back-dive to $1million. That difference gets bigger as the contract values get higher. It's real dollars and cents. It eliminates Philly from front-loading an offer sheet to Weber. It makes all the franchises healthier and able to, ya know, exist so that the players can have jobs.

Right, but having both a 5 year maximum length and 5% variance clause is redundant. They'd have to drop yearly values quite drastically to have a real impact on the AAV of a 5 year deal, so one or the other would be more than enough to effectively end the current cap circumvention techniques.

[Gaucho]

Players being disrespected?!?!?! Are you freaking serious? The players having the audacity to ask for concessions from these owners is extremely disrespectful. The players will come and go. Even the big players in the room are an injury away from being gone. Just some stats for the annals of history. The owners are responsible for making sure the league lasts forever. The players do not deserve 'respect', the get a 'job' thanks to the league's survival.

Is this satire?

Nope. I'm an economist. The answer to the question "why do businesses exist?' is not "to create jobs", it is "to return value to their shareholders". Jobs are a by-product of that and the conditions of work (pay, benefits...the things the players are bargaining for) are a by-product of having jobs. If you remember that approach, you will not only understand why this lockout is doing what it is doing but every other decision that any business makes.

So it is satire?

Meh, never mind.

[joopen]

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
A bit more from last night and how the NHL and NHLPA got to where they are right now...
Owners clearly told players they had to have 10-year CBA, 5-7 yr max on contracts, no compliance issues (i.e. buyouts, limits on escrow).
So, NHL only wanted yes or no answer on those 3 requirements, that's it. What they got instead was a new proposal they didn't ask for.
That proposal changed the terms of the owners' 3 requirements for a deal. Owners were clear they had to have those to continue negotiating.

Right, so what I have figured all along is being proven. Don Fehr doesn't really listen to anyone but himself.

Im somewhat amused by the consensus that because the NHL made those demands, the players should agree to them. And because Don Fehr didnt agree to exactly what the NHL demanded, he is the problem.

I dont see why so many people think the players should be willing to accept the 5 year limit. Its ridiculous. The owners are asking the players to protect the owners from themselves...and the players are getting screwed. Why shouldnt a star player be able to lock himself up for 10 years like he can do in every other sport??

If this is SO important to these owners, then dont sign deals longer than you are comfortable with signing. What a concept.

Thats like going to buy a house and the seller saying I won't sell for less than $250,000 will you accept that offer? If not then we should part ways. You say let me think about it, then come back and say $225,000 and they walk away from you and YOU get pissed.

The only reason they re-crafted an offer was so the blow-hard could get in front of a microphone and spout on about how the players agree to the money part (ya know except for the part on how the player get PAID). Ask the NFL how their guaranteed contracts are... Wait, whats that? They don't have guaranteed contracts? Well la di da. That's a minor detail to leave out when talking about those "10 years". The NBA has contract restrictions and the NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts. You can't have it both ways unless you want this to become MLB. The owners would be slapped with a collusion law suit if they just don't go above "x" years. You will also have the Toronto, NYR, Philly, ect. not caring that other teams can't do it. We will be right back where we started in 2004. The owners are trying to protect the long term health of the league. They don't want to have to continue to re-locate or, even worse, contract teams. I'm sure the NHLPA would love to lose 50 jobs when Phoenix and Florida pack it in.

[Mr. Colby]

Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.

The thing that Daly and Bettman articulated was that the money and the contracting rights and everything was all part of one big package. It's not something where they can negotiate make whole dollars, then when that settles negotiate contract length, then when that settles negotiate escrow and compliance buyouts, then when that settles negotiate CBA length.

It's "OK we will give you 300 million dollars above your 50/50 share (effectively making it 55/45 for the first year - which wrongly assumes no financial hit), but you've got to give us our 3 three key points."

So the union might say they agree on the money, but the money doesn't exist as its own entity, but rather a part of the package.

So, in other words, the owners have no interest in negotiating a CBA - just putting out proposals that suit them and saying "non-negotiable, take it or leave it".

How is adding an additional 300 million dollars to the table as part of a package not negotiating? Please, explain it to me.

[joopen]

Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.

The thing that Daly and Bettman articulated was that the money and the contracting rights and everything was all part of one big package. It's not something where they can negotiate make whole dollars, then when that settles negotiate contract length, then when that settles negotiate escrow and compliance buyouts, then when that settles negotiate CBA length.

It's "OK we will give you 300 million dollars above your 50/50 share (effectively making it 55/45 for the first year - which wrongly assumes no financial hit), but you've got to give us our 3 three key points."

So the union might say they agree on the money, but the money doesn't exist as its own entity, but rather a part of the package.

So, in other words, the owners have no interest in negotiating a CBA - just putting out proposals that suit them and saying "non-negotiable, take it or leave it".

I don't get it? The players said no roll backs. The owners said yes roll backs. Players said no again. Owners said OK how about this nice chunk of $300 million so as to not roll back salary. In exchange for that we want your help with x, y, and z. Players say no rollbacks and no x, y, and z either. Owners say bye!

[MRandall25]

Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.

The thing that Daly and Bettman articulated was that the money and the contracting rights and everything was all part of one big package. It's not something where they can negotiate make whole dollars, then when that settles negotiate contract length, then when that settles negotiate escrow and compliance buyouts, then when that settles negotiate CBA length.

It's "OK we will give you 300 million dollars above your 50/50 share (effectively making it 55/45 for the first year - which wrongly assumes no financial hit), but you've got to give us our 3 three key points."

So the union might say they agree on the money, but the money doesn't exist as its own entity, but rather a part of the package.

So, in other words, the owners have no interest in negotiating a CBA - just putting out proposals that suit them and saying "non-negotiable, take it or leave it".

I don't get it? The players said no roll backs. The owners said yes roll backs. Players said no again. Owners said OK how about this nice chunk of $300 million so as to not roll back salary. In exchange for that we want your help with x, y, and z. Players say no rollbacks and no x, y, and z either. Owners say bye!

The owners wanted x, y, z. The players gave them r, s, t.

They're not that far apart on those issues. It can be worked out without the theatrics.

[the riddler]

Aren't the players conceding that there is a problem with back-driven contracts? They want contract limits, only 8 years instead of 5. The owners proposed a 10 year CBA term, with either side having the option to opt out after 8 years. The PA told Daly that they wanted an 8 year limit with a 6 year opt out. I'm not sure about the other issue of the no compliance buyouts, but this is definitely "cherry picking" as Bill Daly pointed out. Now I don't think the players should agree to everything the owners want, but when you acknowledge that there is a problem with contracts but aren't sympathetic or somewhat open to what the NHL has to say then that isn't negotiating either. I don't care about how long the CBA term ends up, but after watching this, who in their right mind would want this to happen again in a shorter term?

[joopen]

Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.

The thing that Daly and Bettman articulated was that the money and the contracting rights and everything was all part of one big package. It's not something where they can negotiate make whole dollars, then when that settles negotiate contract length, then when that settles negotiate escrow and compliance buyouts, then when that settles negotiate CBA length.

It's "OK we will give you 300 million dollars above your 50/50 share (effectively making it 55/45 for the first year - which wrongly assumes no financial hit), but you've got to give us our 3 three key points."

So the union might say they agree on the money, but the money doesn't exist as its own entity, but rather a part of the package.

So, in other words, the owners have no interest in negotiating a CBA - just putting out proposals that suit them and saying "non-negotiable, take it or leave it".

I don't get it? The players said no roll backs. The owners said yes roll backs. Players said no again. Owners said OK how about this nice chunk of $300 million so as to not roll back salary. In exchange for that we want your help with x, y, and z. Players say no rollbacks and no x, y, and z either. Owners say bye!

The owners wanted x, y, z. The players gave them r, s, t.

They're not that far apart on those issues. It can be worked out without the theatrics.

They weren't asking for r, s, or t. They didn't even offer one of x, y, or z. Fehr had the theatrics. His little "we agree on the money" shtick was for the cameras. He knew he was asked to give a yes or no. He chose not to do either. The NHL wanted to make sure people know how it happened since Fehr decides to lie.

[darkstar57]

i think the biggest problem and you can hear it in bettman's voice is the owners in the room basically said look, with everything we have on the table we need these three things. The players came back with a new proposal. It wasn't the players coming back and going ok with what we got on the table we need to have these things. It was a holy new proposal. Through the entire process every time the NHL has given in, the PA comes back with a new proposal, they have been unwilling to work off the NHL proposal.

Dollars, contract lengths, etc.. its all the same at the end of the day they are all part of this deal. this whole process has been like playings poker, except when you reach the time to show your hand, the PA comes back and goes, lets leave the chips on the table but reshuffle all the cards.

Eventually the two sides have to work off the same proposal. and say this is what i need this is what you need lets negoiate. The owners have reached that point hte players havn't

I think thats also why the NHL didn't want fehr in the room, i think the players where reaching that point where as fehr is still holding out for more from teh owners

[Idoit40fans]

Theyre both posturing, lets not be naive. The players were under no obligation to any nhl terms, thats why this is a negotiation. Its not the pa's fault that the NHL made it anyes/no question. Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

[tfrizz]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

[joopen]

Theyre both posturing, lets not be naive. The players were under no obligation to any nhl terms, thats why this is a negotiation. Its not the pa's fault that the NHL made it anyes/no question. Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

Right, there has been no negotiating. That's why the NHL upped its offer on the Make Whole but said in order for this to work we need that. How is that not negotiating?

[joopen]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

Right, there has been no negotiating. That's why the NHL upped its offer on the Make Whole but said in order for this to work we need that. How is that not negotiating?

[darkstar57]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

Sorry but a negoitation you reach the point where you go, ok i need this and i need this, and i can't go any more on that. The owners reached that point, we know the their three keys areas are. Tell me, what are teh three key areas the players wont give in on? can you name them?

[Idoit40fans]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

:thumb:

Right, there has been no negotiating. That's why the NHL upped its offer on the Make Whole but said in order for this to work we need that. How is that not negotiating?

And the pa came back with another proposal working off the league's deal. This is how bargaining works any time a negotiation takes place. It doesnt go "here im willing to give this to get that, agree or im pulling it."

[darkstar57]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

Sorry but a negoitation you reach the point where you go, ok i need this and i need this, and i can't go any more on that. The owners reached that point, we know the their three keys areas are. Tell me, what are teh three key areas the players wont give in on? can you name them?

sorry adding more, every time the owners think they are coming to common ground on what is needed the PA flips the script, first it was the make it whole, then it was the pension, its keeps changing from the players.

[Mr. Colby]

Negotiation - Bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict.

So offering 0 dollars then 211 million dollars then 300 million dollars - wouldn't that be GIVE

And asking for 5-year term limits, 5% variance, 10-year length - wouldn't that be TAKE

Give and Take - isn't that bargaining?

Bargaining? Wait - no it can't be - oh maybe it is - NEGOTIATION

[joopen]

The owners left the UFA terms and arbitration in favor of the players in this last proposal. They asked for nothing to change on that front. They upped the make-whole provision so the players don't have their salary rolled back. In order to do that they asked to players to concede 3 things. They want a contract limit. They want no ability to back-dive (5%). They want a LONGER cba so this doesn't have to happen again. That sounds like negotiating to me. Here you have these things for you and we need these things for us.

[darkstar57]

on a side note, i watched fehr's press conference, i think Fehr might be losing crosby's support. with all teh report crosby was working to bring the owners and the players together and get this deal done. I think Fehr came in and said nope. You can see it in crosby body language

[joopen]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

Right, there has been no negotiating. That's why the NHL upped its offer on the Make Whole but said in order for this to work we need that. How is that not negotiating?

And the pa came back with another proposal working off the league's deal. This is how bargaining works any time a negotiation takes place. It doesnt go "here im willing to give this to get that, agree or im pulling it."

If you are at your limit then you walk away.

[Mr. Colby]

And the pa came back with another proposal working off the league's deal. This is how bargaining works any time a negotiation takes place. It doesnt go "here im willing to give this to get that, agree or im pulling it."

The 300 million dollars was conditional.

"If you accept A, we'll give you B". That, i'm certain, is negotiating.

So if they don't accept A, why would you give them B?

Fehr, though, says "hey, thank's for B. I'm still not accepting A though."

[tfrizz]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

Sorry but a negoitation you reach the point where you go, ok i need this and i need this, and i can't go any more on that. The owners reached that point, we know the their three keys areas are. Tell me, what are teh three key areas the players wont give in on? can you name them?

There are no key areas the players won't give in on because they're currently giving in on everything. Even in the proposal they put out yesterday, the pension plan was now set to be funded in whole out of the players' share of HRR as opposed to the previous 50/50 split between the NHL and NHLPA.

That's at least $50-million more out of the players' share (almost $75,000 per player) and the cost of that is likely going to continue to rise as as expansion-era players at or approaching age 45.

[Mr. Colby]

sorry adding more, every time the owners think they are coming to common ground on what is needed the PA flips the script, first it was the make it whole, then it was the pension, its keeps changing from the players.

This was very well articulated by Bill Daly in the presser. Fehr has them running in circles. They can't get a straight answer as to what's important to the union, as it's ever-changing

[joopen]

sorry adding more, every time the owners think they are coming to common ground on what is needed the PA flips the script, first it was the make it whole, then it was the pension, its keeps changing from the players.

This was very well articulated by Bill Daly in the presser. Fehr has them running in circles. They can't get a straight answer as to what's important to the union, as it's ever-changing

Because Fehr is a liar

[darkstar57]

Theyre trying to make it a transaction rather than a negotiation.

Sorry but a negoitation you reach the point where you go, ok i need this and i need this, and i can't go any more on that. The owners reached that point, we know the their three keys areas are. Tell me, what are teh three key areas the players wont give in on? can you name them?

There are no key areas the players won't give in on because they're currently giving in on everything. Even in the proposal they put out yesterday, the pension plan was now set to be funded in whole out of the players' share of HRR as opposed to the previous 50/50 split between the NHL and NHLPA.

That's at least $50-million more out of the players' share (almost $75,000 per player) and the cost of that is likely going to continue to rise as as expansion-era players at or approaching age 45.

You keep talking money, theyre is more to this then money, the NHL backed off on alot of the contract changes they wanted, could that be an area the players didn't want to cave and didnt? see what i am getting at.