Lockout

[Sarcastic]

There has not been a single portion of any proposal in this whole process that has given the players anything.

NHL gave up an extra $100 million, unrestricted free agency, salary arbitration, entry level system. I'm watching the Daly briefing now. What you have is Fehr telling players like Upshall that, if they only wait until January, they'll get more. Fehr doesn't want to make a deal. He wants to obliterate his opposition.

And why is it so important for players to have contracts longer than 5 years (NHL gave in on that too allowing re-signs of 7 years). Only a small percentage of players have contracts longer than that. It is as if a few of the top stars are holding things from going forward for the rest of the players who sign 2 or 3 or 4 year deals. Time for the small guys to speak out.

Maybe NHL can give an extra year to 6, but if the PA wouldn't sign that then I say kick them all out of the league and start fresh.

[no name]

I think everyone has to realize this is how negotiations are done, its not always pretty and to the point. This is hugh business and a scale of money we can't phatom. Both sides are doing very well in establishing their wants and needs out of this. Ok it seems over the top and out of line at times but this is how the battle is won or in this case how a fair agreement is dished out.

The players are doing nothing wrong with asking for these contrating rights to be open. The owners are doing nothgn wrong by trying to close them, its finding middle ground on this issue. Or one side giving in on this concession but opening up another concession.

But this is normal, the players asking for a little more, and the owners saying the door is shut. Befor you kow it Burkle will be talking with the players again and they will inch closer, inch closer til a deal is done.

[Idoit40fans]

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

What is important to the players has been ever consistent and very clear. They are looking to mitigate losses. They are giving up in every area no matter what, theyre trying to give as little as possible.

Whenthe league "gives" on something, they are simplay asking that the plYers give them less. That is indisputable fact. The make whole is accounting for contracts that are signed. Its not giving to the players, its damages for breaching previously signed agreements

[Sarcastic]

I just watched both the Bettman and Daly statements from last night as well as the Q&A that followed and I don't think I disagreed with either of them even once. The events of the week as well as the league's reasons for withdrawing from the negotiations were extremely well articulated by both men.

Neither did I.

[joopen]

The players are doing nothing wrong with asking for these contrating rights to be open. The owners are doing nothgn wrong by trying to close them, its finding middle ground on this issue. Or one side giving in on this concession but opening up another concession.

You mean like adding more money to the make whole and leaving other contracting areas alone(UFA, arbitration, ect)? Yea that didn't work.

[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

What is important to the players has been ever consistent and very clear. They are looking to mitigate losses. They are giving up in every area no matter what, theyre trying to give as little as possible.

I know that. That's big picture though. I'm talking about how every time the NHL tries to discuss a certain theme with Fehr, he changes his tune to a different theme.

[MRandall25]

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?

The owners have said "Oh, we can't go anymore than that" 3 times over the course of this lockout.

I don't blame the players for not falling for it.

[tfrizz]

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.

The PA responded in proper fashion with a proposal based off those factors. They moved from no contract limit to an 8 year maximum; they modified the back-dive/variance request, which included following the NHL's request as is for contracts of 7 or 8 years (ie: the ones most likely to involve back-diving); and they moved on CBA term from 5 to 8 years. The NHL's response was "they weren't supposed to counter that offer, it was take it or leave it".

They also, as I mentioned above, agreed to fund the $50-million(+) player pension plan completely instead of a co-op between the NHL and NHLPA.


As Nick Kypreos put it, the players were asked to make HUGE financial concessions in the last lockout and, in return, were rewarded with a ton of contracting rights. Now, the owners are asking them to make another fairly substantial financial concession AND reduce the contracting rights they previously won. They view it as a complete failure if they can't manage to keep most of those rights as they were.

[Mr. Colby]

Whenthe league "gives" on something, they are simplay asking that the plYers give them less. That is indisputable fact. The make whole is accounting for contracts that are signed. Its not giving to the players, its damages for breaching previously signed agreements

No one is disputing that. But considering 50/50 is going to be reached no matter what, it's a foregone conclusion that all money required to go from 57% to 50% is already gone. And for good reason.

Under that mindset, or "reality", anything the players get above that 50% mark should be viewed as the owners giving.

There is no "breach" of previous agreements, not when the entity operates under a CBA.

[no name]

SO is this cap circumvention or the new players proposal workable. Contract over 8 years, the lowest year can only be worth 25% as the highest.

So a 8 yr 78 million contract can be paid out like so: 9.75 cap hit.

12
12
12
12
12
12
3
3

is that cap circumvention? seems like a player can retire after 6 years and still make out 72 million. I don;'t like it.

[MRandall25]

SO is this cap circumvention or the new players proposal workable. Contract over 8 years, the lowest year can only be worth 25% as the highest.

So a 8 yr 78 million contract can be paid out like so: 9.75 cap hit.

12
12
12
12
12
12
3
3

is that cap circumvention? seems like a player can retire after 6 years and still make out 72 million. I don;'t like it.

If it's above a 6 year deal (meaning 7 or 8), the owner's proposed 5% overrides the 25% thing proposed by the players.

[Idoit40fans]

There is no cba so the pa has every right to expect compensation if the new cba intends to reduce those contract values. No obligation to just accept the league's offer.

[joopen]

There is no cba so the pa has every right to expect compensation if the new cba intends to reduce those contract values. No obligation to just accept the league's offer.

That's different than saying they "breached" the contract. Every contract has wording written into it that they are subject to a new CBA.

[the riddler]

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.

The PA responded in proper fashion with a proposal based off those factors. They moved from no contract limit to an 8 year maximum; they modified the back-dive/variance request, which included following the NHL's request as is for contracts of 7 or 8 years (ie: the ones most likely to involve back-diving); and they moved on CBA term from 5 to 8 years. The NHL's response was "they weren't supposed to counter that offer, it was take it or leave it".

They also, as I mentioned above, agreed to fund the $50-million(+) player pension plan completely instead of a co-op between the NHL and NHLPA.


As Nick Kypreos put it, the players were asked to make HUGE financial concessions in the last lockout and, in return, were rewarded with a ton of contracting rights. Now, the owners are asking them to make another fairly substantial financial concession AND reduce the contracting rights they previously won. They view it as a complete failure if they can't manage to keep most of those rights as they were.

But why are they acknowledging something needs to be done with contract limits? It almost feels like since the NHL proposed it, then the PA won't accept it because that is some sign of weakness, even though it's a legitimate problem both sides acknowledge. I always felt that the contract limits was maybe the most important issue that Bettman, maybe not even the owners, wanted fixed out of this lockout, and it's going to be "the hill they die on".

[tfrizz]

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.

The PA responded in proper fashion with a proposal based off those factors. They moved from no contract limit to an 8 year maximum; they modified the back-dive/variance request, which included following the NHL's request as is for contracts of 7 or 8 years (ie: the ones most likely to involve back-diving); and they moved on CBA term from 5 to 8 years. The NHL's response was "they weren't supposed to counter that offer, it was take it or leave it".

They also, as I mentioned above, agreed to fund the $50-million(+) player pension plan completely instead of a co-op between the NHL and NHLPA.


As Nick Kypreos put it, the players were asked to make HUGE financial concessions in the last lockout and, in return, were rewarded with a ton of contracting rights. Now, the owners are asking them to make another fairly substantial financial concession AND reduce the contracting rights they previously won. They view it as a complete failure if they can't manage to keep most of those rights as they were.

But why are they acknowledging something needs to be done with contract limits? It almost feels like since the NHL proposed it, then the PA won't accept it because that is some sign of weakness, even though it's a legitimate problem both sides acknowledge. I always felt that the contract limits was maybe the most important issue that Bettman, maybe not even the owners, wanted fixed out of this lockout, and it's going to be "the hill they die on".

They aren't so much acknowledging that there is a problem with contract limits, just that teams have taken advantage of extra-long-term contracts to circumvent the salary cap. They've tried a couple of different "back-diving" or "cap recovery" proposals, as they've referred to them, but the owners have rejected each of them. Adding in their own max contract length of 8 years is a compromise on the NHLPA's part to try to get things moving.

[shmenguin]

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

...and never land a big free agent ever again. that's not good for anyone.

[tfrizz]

Bettman, Fehr piloting sinking ship of fools in NHL dispute

For those of you who have not been keeping abreast of such things, let's give you an admittedly simplistic overview of the current dilemma. Coming off a season in which the league generated a record $3.3 billion in revenue, NHL owners sought to cut the players' share of revenue upon the expiration of the last bargaining agreement. Citing losses for several teams, the teams proposed to cut the player revenue from 57 percent to -- get this -- 43 percent. For the players, that represented a pay reduction of roughly 25 percent, which seems like a rather illogical amount for a business that was, relatively speaking, booming.

Of course, the NHL made no mention of the fact that, according to people like former NHLPA director Paul Kelly, the Toronto Maple Leafs turned an annual profit of somewhere near $125 million. (The Bruins, according to a recent Globe story, made $14.1 million.) Further, the NHL has done little to publicize the fact that, according to the Globe, league owners share only an estimated 11 percent of revenue as compared to roughly 30 percent in the NBA.

Understand? The successful NHL teams are making plenty and the failing ones are losing. And rather than increasing revenue sharing to the levels of the most similar league -- that is to say, tripling it -- NHL owners opened negotiations by putting almost the entire burden on the players, sending a message from the very start that has set the tone for these entire negotiations.

Basically, as I mentioned before, the move fro 57/43 to 50/50 will do nothing more than make the rich richer - the poor will still be poor.

[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.

The PA responded in proper fashion with a proposal based off those factors. They moved from no contract limit to an 8 year maximum; they modified the back-dive/variance request, which included following the NHL's request as is for contracts of 7 or 8 years (ie: the ones most likely to involve back-diving); and they moved on CBA term from 5 to 8 years. The NHL's response was "they weren't supposed to counter that offer, it was take it or leave it".

They also, as I mentioned above, agreed to fund the $50-million(+) player pension plan completely instead of a co-op between the NHL and NHLPA.


As Nick Kypreos put it, the players were asked to make HUGE financial concessions in the last lockout and, in return, were rewarded with a ton of contracting rights. Now, the owners are asking them to make another fairly substantial financial concession AND reduce the contracting rights they previously won. They view it as a complete failure if they can't manage to keep most of those rights as they were.

Well I'm going to go ahead and guess the NHL wasn't as vague about what they needed as I am being. The NHL offered the make whole and the unmolested portions of contracting rights to get something back. Not a superficial 8 year CBA that can be voided after 5 or 6 years so we can do this all over again.

I feel like this is Passover: "Why is this night different from all other nights?" "Why is this professional sports league different from all other professional sports leagues?"

[meecrofilm]

#lockoutproblems

Just scan it over for player posts. Pathetic, really.

[the riddler]

I'm not sure if either side knows what the effects of having contract limits would entail. We know what it would eliminate, but I think you could make the case that both sides might benefit from a limit. Whether it's 5 or 8 years, it seems like an arbitrary number.

[tfrizz]

"Why is this professional sports league different from all other professional sports leagues?"

IMO it's because the owners expect to see profits on par with the NFL, MLB, and/or NBA; and the players expect to be compensated appropriately for their part in the grand scheme of things, but the reality is... there isn't enough money to go around, and if we're going to see work stoppages every time a CBA expires then there never will be.

[interstorm]

I think at this point I am hoping for replacement players in the NHL and for the NHLPA to somehow find another north american league to play in (like somehow voiding their contracts and all signing in the AHL). I know this is totally fantasy land stuff, but the way I see it, one of 3 things would happen:
* fans / sponsors mostly follow NHL teams and players come crawling back
* fans / sponsors mostly follow NHLPA players and owners realize just how (un)important they really are
* fans / sponsors split and neither side really is profitable. Owner franchise values and player contracts plummet. All parties realize they must work together in good faith to mutually profit

...can't think of a more american way to settle this. It would be like a sports league thunderdome.

(And yes, to reiterate, i do know this will never happen. I just wish it would)

[Kaizer]

its over for me.

[shmenguin]

Bettman, Fehr piloting sinking ship of fools in NHL dispute

For those of you who have not been keeping abreast of such things, let's give you an admittedly simplistic overview of the current dilemma. Coming off a season in which the league generated a record $3.3 billion in revenue, NHL owners sought to cut the players' share of revenue upon the expiration of the last bargaining agreement. Citing losses for several teams, the teams proposed to cut the player revenue from 57 percent to -- get this -- 43 percent. For the players, that represented a pay reduction of roughly 25 percent, which seems like a rather illogical amount for a business that was, relatively speaking, booming.

Of course, the NHL made no mention of the fact that, according to people like former NHLPA director Paul Kelly, the Toronto Maple Leafs turned an annual profit of somewhere near $125 million. (The Bruins, according to a recent Globe story, made $14.1 million.) Further, the NHL has done little to publicize the fact that, according to the Globe, league owners share only an estimated 11 percent of revenue as compared to roughly 30 percent in the NBA.

Understand? The successful NHL teams are making plenty and the failing ones are losing. And rather than increasing revenue sharing to the levels of the most similar league -- that is to say, tripling it -- NHL owners opened negotiations by putting almost the entire burden on the players, sending a message from the very start that has set the tone for these entire negotiations.

Basically, as I mentioned before, the move fro 57/43 to 50/50 will do nothing more than make the rich richer - the poor will still be poor.

eh. a lot of the "middle class" teams will be able to use that money to go from the red to the black. the poor teams will stay poor, but that's a minority of the league. it's the penguins of the league that are the ones driving the bus.

and that's a predictably ****ty point he's making about profit sharing. i don't think there's a comparable league out there where 3-5 teams are the only ones who would significantly contribute to profit sharing, yet have no competitive advantage with their amount of revenue. at least in baseball, you can buy a world series with that money that you're giving everyone else. the rags, habs and leafs will be funding the NHL and will still be bound by the same financial constraints as small market teams.

[tfrizz]

I think at this point I am hoping for replacement players in the NHL and for the NHLPA to somehow find another north american league to play in (like somehow voiding their contracts and all signing in the AHL). I know this is totally fantasy land stuff, but the way I see it, one of 3 things would happen:
* fans / sponsors mostly follow NHL teams and players come crawling back
* fans / sponsors mostly follow NHLPA players and owners realize just how (un)important they really are
* fans / sponsors split and neither side really is profitable. Owner franchise values and player contracts plummet. All parties realize they must work together in good faith to mutually profit

...can't think of a more american way to settle this. It would be like a sports league thunderdome.

(And yes, to reiterate, i do know this will never happen. I just wish it would)

Fans will always follow the players in that instance because it's where the best product is.