2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Frank E]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Okay, my mistake - the league says new proposal on variance would allow a contract to go from $10-million to $4-million over seven years.

I'm glad that clarification was made, the wording used in the Lebrun article suggested otherwise.

I think "no more than 10% variance from year to year" would have sufficed.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Chalk one up for Don Fehr...

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49123-Thanks-to-Donald-Fehr-NHL-negotiating-against-itselfand-losing.html

 

[bustaheims]

For those that screamed that the players will never get a better deal than the last one......How's the crow?

I don't know, I'd say some of us were pretty close:

I'd say, at best, there will be minor tweaks to what they were presented this week.

 

[Bates]

Not to mention the millions of dollars it cost everyone to get an offer with basicly a year longer possible on contracts and 5% variance.

 

[Bullfrog]

you know nothing, Jon Snow.

 

[bustaheims]

Not to mention the millions of dollars it cost everyone to get an offer with basicly a year longer possible on contracts and 5% variance.

And buyouts before the 13/14 season that count against the players' share.

 

[Stebro]

This is what happens when you let capitalism take full control over hockey.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Not to mention the millions of dollars it cost everyone to get an offer with basicly a year longer possible on contracts and 5% variance.

And buyouts before the 13/14 season that count against the players' share.

Well let's wait to see where the chips fall before people start patting themselves on the back.

That fact that the owners are changing the "hill we die on" may be a chance for the players to get a fair bit more movement on some of these proposals.

When it's all said and done I think this may be the frame-work, but certain things (like the players share bit, contract length and variance) will be altered somewhat (or a fair bit).

 

[bustaheims]

When it's all said and done I think this may be the frame-work, but certain things (like the players share bit, contract length and variance) will be altered somewhat (or a fair bit).

I doubt the buyouts will be changed at all. The league were against them initially, so, this is already meeting the PA in the middle. Contract length likely ends up at 7 years flat (meeting in the middle from where the two sides are now at), but I doubt variance changes much - maybe a little bump in percentage for increases, but doubtful for decreases, as anything much more than 10% per season allows for some of the silliness the league wants to eliminate (for instance, a 15% variance allows for a $10M contract to reach $1M in year 7). Where things are right now in these areas are awfully close to what they'll likely end up at.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

For those that screamed that the players will never get a better deal than the last one......How's the crow?

I don't know, I'd say some of us were pretty close:

I'd say, at best, there will be minor tweaks to what they were presented this week.

I didn't address you did I? I addressed those screaming the players were idiots as there was no way the deal would get better. They called Fehr an idiot for not caving. They said the 300 million make whole was gone for good. Heck, Bettman ranted like a 6 year old on National TV that it wouldn't get better. That this was the final offer. The best they could do...Then his pet monkey Daly said "This is the Hill we will die on"...............All this for about the 6th time in the 'negotiations'.....Yet here we are again, the owners asking for a little bit less than they did last time(yes they're not giving, they're simply asking for less).

And for those that say, what about the millions lost...Well, what about the millions lost by the owners as well? BTW, for those unfamiliar with a union...You don't negotiate for the next month..you negotiate for the future and what's best for your members today, and tomorrow.

 

[bustaheims]

And for those that say, what about the millions lost...Well, what about the millions lost by the owners as well? BTW, for those unfamiliar with a union...You don't negotiate for the next month..you negotiate for the future and what's best for your members today, and tomorrow.

Well, there's a major difference there - not a single one of the owners relies on their NHL teams for their main source of revenue, whereas, for virtually all the players, it is. On top of that, many of the individual owners aren't seeing significant differences to their bottom lines - they're losing around the same amount on their teams without a season as they would with one (or, in the case of Phoenix, they're possibly even losing less). There's really only a handful of teams who a missing out on serious income, but, those teams are also owned by some of the wealthiest owners in the league. For instance, Rogers and Bell make more profit per week than they would from their individual shares of the Leafs' profits for an entire season (based on Forbes' estimates). While I'm sure they're upset that they don't get to play with their new toy, so to speak, it's not exactly having that significant an impact on their bottom line. The impact of money the owners are missing out on pales in comparison to the impact it has had on the players.

 

[Kin]

For instance, Rogers and Bell make more profit per week than they would from their individual shares of the Leafs' profits for an entire season (based on Forbes' estimates). While I'm sure they're upset that they don't get to play with their new toy, so to speak, it's not exactly having that significant an impact on their bottom line. The impact of money the owners are missing out on pales in comparison to the impact it has had on the players.

But Rogers and Bell(and for that matter James Dolan and Comcast in Philly) are feeling this on both ends as their financial interest in the NHL isn't limited to the operation of the clubs they own. I wouldn't be surprised if Sportsnet/TSN/MSG are significantly less profitable without NHL games to show.

 

[Kin]

The impact of money the owners are missing out on pales in comparison to the impact it has had on the players.

That's really only true if you A) think that not earning money is the same thing as losing money and B) look at the players as a vast, monolithic entity as opposed to 700 or so individuals. The reality is that there are teams right now who are losing money because of the lockout. Not a single player is losing money because of the lockout.

Likewise, and I know I've made this point before, but regardless of the lockout most guys in the NHLPA will be multi-millionaires when all is said and done. How much does this lockout financially affect Sid Crosby? Or Christian Ehrhoff? The difference between making 150 and 145 million for Crosby? Or 45 and 50 million dollars for Ehrhoff? Even a guy without a long term contract like Colby Armstrong is still going to end up with piles of Cash when his career ends. The reality is that for most NHLPA members this lockout will cost them a very small fraction of what they'll end up earning over their careers and most of  seem willing to make that sacrifice in order to get the improvements they've gotten on the owners offer since this thing began.

 

[Rebel_1812]

It's certainly the hill that they will die on..I know that much.



For those that screamed that the players will never get a better deal than the last one......How's the crow?

The crow that nested on the hill that was worth dying for. ;-)  Btw Billy Daly seems like a chrome domed prick to me.

 

[Kin]

When it's all said and done I think this may be the frame-work, but certain things (like the players share bit, contract length and variance) will be altered somewhat (or a fair bit).

I don't know how true that is as I've been wrong enough about predictions during this thing but if the reports going around about the owners thinking a cancelled season isn't an option then it certainly seems like Fehr isn't the one who'll be negotiating with his back to the wall.

 

[Rebel_1812]

And for those that say, what about the millions lost...Well, what about the millions lost by the owners as well? BTW, for those unfamiliar with a union...You don't negotiate for the next month..you negotiate for the future and what's best for your members today, and tomorrow.

Well, there's a major difference there - not a single one of the owners relies on their NHL teams for their main source of revenue, whereas, for virtually all the players, it is. On top of that, many of the individual owners aren't seeing significant differences to their bottom lines - they're losing around the same amount on their teams without a season as they would with one (or, in the case of Phoenix, they're possibly even losing less). There's really only a handful of teams who a missing out on serious income, but, those teams are also owned by some of the wealthiest owners in the league. For instance, Rogers and Bell make more profit per week than they would from their individual shares of the Leafs' profits for an entire season (based on Forbes' estimates). While I'm sure they're upset that they don't get to play with their new toy, so to speak, it's not exactly having that significant an impact on their bottom line. The impact of money the owners are missing out on pales in comparison to the impact it has had on the players.

Busta why are you such a strident supporter of the owners?  The last CBA was suppose to be everything the owners wanted to have the small markets thrive.  If those markets still aren't thriving then its not the players fault for running the business side of things poorly.  In fact no team will fold or suddenly turn their business around based on this cba.  Also its a little hard to trust these "crying poor" numbers of the owners when they don't open their books up to the public (or in the oilers case to the city of edmonton).  Furthermore, the league wide revenues have increased every year.  This lockout is just a cash grab by the owners no more, no less.

 

[bustaheims]

Busta why are you such a strident supporter of the owners?  The last CBA was suppose to be everything the owners wanted to have the small markets thrive.  If those markets still aren't thriving then its not the players fault for running the business side of things poorly.  In fact no team will fold or suddenly turn their business around based on this cba.  Also its a little hard to trust these "crying poor" numbers of the owners when they don't open their books up to the public (or in the oilers case to the city of edmonton).  Furthermore, the league wide revenues have increased every year.  This lockout is just a cash grab by the owners no more, no less.

It's not a matter of supporting one side or the other. Quite frankly, I think they've both been stupid about this whole thing. It's a matter of supporting facts and logic, instead of the rhetoric you like to spout. And, quite frankly, given their relative positions in terms of leverage, financial impact, etc, I find the owners' position and bargaining strategy to much more in line with what should be expected than what I've seen from the players. The players should have displayed a much more significant sense of urgency to get a deal done here, because their livelihoods are at stake (yes, Nik, not the high-end players, but, for the rank-and-file guys that make up the majority of the PA, it absolutely is). I mean, who knows how much further along we'd be if the PA hadn't refused to begin negotiations when the league approached them in November 2011 or where things would be if the PA hadn't ousted Paul Kelly under questionable circumstances in order to bring in Don Fehr?

As for opening their books to public, why should they? These are privately held businesses, not publicly traded entities or government owned organizations. They don't care whether or not you believe them. As long as you're buying tickets and merchandise, they're happy. If you're not, then really, you don't matter to them. Why should they let you or anyone else who isn't making serious investments in the team? And, by serious investments, I'm talking about multi-million dollar purchases of stakes in ownership. The owners, the PA and the IRS/CRA are the only people who have any right to see the financial statements, and all of those parties have been given all the access they require. If you don't trust them, that's fine for you, but the people involved in the negotiations have all seen the numbers and, in case you haven't noticed, they haven't disputed the fact that there are teams that are struggling to manage financially. Yes, revenues have increased, but, expenses have also increased at a similar rate. I mean, we're not talking about a league that makes millions in profits here - we're talking about a league that reportedly experienced a record profit of $250M this past season (according to Forbes) or roughly 8% of revenues, and almost all of that profit was split between 3 teams.

On top of that, no one is saying it's the players' fault teams are struggling, but, being that player salaries are the teams' biggest single expense, the most obvious way to help manage the financial issue to decrease the size of that expense. That's what the owners are trying to do here (as long with close a couple loopholes from the last CBA). There's no "cash grab" here. Most teams in the league still won't be consistently profitable at a 50/50 split, but they will, for the most part, be no longer operating at a loss as frequently as they have been - something you pretty much acknowledge yourself. With that being true, how on earth could this be considered a "cash grab"?

 

[Frank E]

The impact of money the owners are missing out on pales in comparison to the impact it has had on the players.

That's really only true if you A) think that not earning money is the same thing as losing money and B) look at the players as a vast, monolithic entity as opposed to 700 or so individuals. The reality is that there are teams right now who are losing money because of the lockout. Not a single player is losing money because of the lockout.

Likewise, and I know I've made this point before, but regardless of the lockout most guys in the NHLPA will be multi-millionaires when all is said and done. How much does this lockout financially affect Sid Crosby? Or Christian Ehrhoff? The difference between making 150 and 145 million for Crosby? Or 45 and 50 million dollars for Ehrhoff? Even a guy without a long term contract like Colby Armstrong is still going to end up with piles of Cash when his career ends. The reality is that for most NHLPA members this lockout will cost them a very small fraction of what they'll end up earning over their careers and most of  seem willing to make that sacrifice in order to get the improvements they've gotten on the owners offer since this thing began.

We were discussing the average NHL career of 5 years, and average dough of $2.4 mil per season.

It's not a perfect average, but just going with that would suggest that a player would lose 1.2 (half a season) out of 12 million...10% of his career earnings.  I think that's substantial, and certainly more of an impact than it would have on a given NHL owner, given the deal's effect on the asset value of the enterprise...I'd argue that most of the owners (if not all) will come out of this better off than when they went into it.

 

[Kin]

We were discussing the average NHL career of 5 years, and average dough of $2.4 mil per season.

It's not a perfect average, but just going with that would suggest that a player would lose 1.2 (half a season) out of 12 million...10% of his career earnings.  I think that's substantial, and certainly more of an impact than it would have on a given NHL owner, given the deal's effect on the asset value of the enterprise...I'd argue that most of the owners (if not all) will come out of this better off than when they went into it.

It's not just imperfect it contains a glaring and obvious flaw that makes any conclusions drawn from it pointless. It certainly doesn't represent where the midpoint is for the NHLPA.

Also, you're ignoring the differences between the deal the players have in front of them now and where they were before the lockout. The 300 million dollar makewhole, for instance, on average works out to more than 400,000 dollars per player(based on a 728 member PA). So already you're down to 6.7 percent of that average. Plus the extra year of free agency, plus the longer contract lengths + bigger variance, plus the more years of arbitration eligibility...when you add it all up the impact on an individual player is probably going to be next to nothing.

 

[Kin]

The players should have displayed a much more significant sense of urgency to get a deal done here, because their livelihoods are at stake (yes, Nik, not the high-end players, but, for the rank-and-file guys that make up the majority of the PA, it absolutely is).

Again, the idea that a majority of the NHLPA are rank and file guys and not multi-millionaires in their own right is based on a pretty bad understanding of how averages and medians work. The majority of NHLPA members, by simple arithmetic, are going to be one of a top 9 forward, top 4 defenseman or #1 goalie. Look at the Leafs. The vast majority(17 of 20) of guys the Leafs have under NHL contract are making more than a million dollars a year and the guys who aren't are mostly younger guys who will be soon. 11 of those 17 are making more than 2 million a year. Each team will employ 8-10 AHL'ers a year who throw those averages off but those guys aren't NHLPA members. The disclaimer of interest vote got 728 votes or 24 a team. NHLPA membership clearly doesn't apply to anyone who plays a single game in the league.

I mean, we're not talking about a league that makes millions in profits here - we're talking about a league that reportedly experienced a record profit of $250M this past season

What, are you trying to break a robot with this sentence?

and almost all of that profit was split between 3 teams.

That's pretty misleading. According to Forbes 16 of 30 teams were profitable. The league, again according to Forbes, almost doubled in profitability from two years ago to last year and the Rangers/Leafs/Habs were responsible for only 33% of that gain(and the Rangers were responsible for about 90% of that).

On top of that, no one is saying it's the players' fault teams are struggling, but, being that player salaries are the teams' biggest single expense, the most obvious way to help manage the financial issue to decrease the size of that expense.

Which is why it was ridiculous for the owners, the last time they locked the players out for a season, to demand a system that wouldn't let individual teams pay players according to the realities of their market and appropriately decrease their payroll independent outside of a long and protracted CBA negotiation. By clinging like madmen to their notions of the league needing rigidly enforced parity in salary but not in revenues the league created this problem. Their solution doesn't address that. It just asks for more money.

Most teams in the league still won't be consistently profitable at a 50/50 split, but they will, for the most part, be no longer operating at a loss as frequently as they have been - something you pretty much acknowledge yourself. With that being true, how on earth could this be considered a "cash grab"?

Because the NHL has never approached this CBA from the standpoint of "Here are the teams that are in trouble, let's come up with a solution that addresses their needs" because they can't sell that to the teams that aren't in trouble. The NHL's plan has always been to come up with something that gives just as much if not more of a break to the Leafs/Rangers/Habs as it does to the Coyotes/Panthers/Blue Jackets. The Leafs/Rangers/Habs are voting to lock the players out and there is absolutely no financial justification for them to do so.