2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

I'm of a similar mind. Though a simplistic point of view (I really don't have the interest to develop anything at any level of detail), it's frustrating me that the ones who have somewhat made this situation are the ones crying that they can't afford it. Huge deals for players and failed expansion strategies are hurting revenue, yet to save it they're going to reduce their biggest expense, one which they've somewhat created?

Well, to be fair to some of the owners, I do think that a lot of them have a point that the way the league is constituted currently puts some teams in a really bad position in terms of being profitable. Giving up 57% percent of your revenues is a lot but the reality is that it's an artificial number. The Leafs, for instance, certainly don't pay their players 57% of their revenues whereas the Islanders or Coyotes almost certainly pay their players more.

That's the ridiculousness here. In MLB the Yankees pay their players a % of revenues that's actually roughly in line with the rest of the league but it obviously towers over everyone else because their revenues are so high and they can afford 180-200 million a year. The NHL, somehow, has decided to be locked to a system where the teams earning the most in revenue pay out the lowest percentages to their players.

 

[Kin]

Honestly though, in terms of what the fans have been through, the NHL is just trash.

To paraphrase a very good movie, it's a few work stoppages over the course of 20 years, not a Higgins boat on Omaha beach.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I tend to agree with the sentiment here: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2012-10-18/nhl-lockout-news-2012-cba-negotiations-gary-bettman-owners-5050-nhlpa-offer-hrr?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=jessespector

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Remember, it's the league arguing here that in a time of record revenues and a profitable league on the whole that the players need to accept not only significant cuts to their salaries but also to their individual negotiating rights.

Oh, I'm with you there. Especially considering how the deal went down last time. Naturally though, I'd just have like to have seen progression today.

I don't hold the same sentiment as I don't know what the players were offering before. Probably safe to guess it was somewhere between 52-57% with less contracting restrictions than the league offered on Tuesday.

If that's true, then they agreed to compromise by meeting the League's 50% gradually. If the league can't compromise (i.e.actually give the players something they want as opposed to offering something and saying "See. We offered them something better than before!!!") then this is still ultimately on their shoulders.

 

[Redleaf]

If we could get away with it, I would get both parties in a room, order them a large pizza, and see how they divvy that up first. Then I would lock the door and tell them they'll be let out when a deal is reached. I guarantee they'd have it figured out by sun up the next day.

 

[Frank E]

Crosby says they were shot down in 10 minutes.

Love that "negotiating."  Take my offer or nothing.

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Frankly, at first glance, all three PA offers are 50-50 for sure over time. Why ownership wouldn't negotiate off this, I don't know.

Wow.  How quick did Fehr shoot down the NHL offer on Tuesday?...like in how many minutes?

 

[Frank E]

Remember, it's the league arguing here that in a time of record revenues and a profitable league on the whole that the players need to accept not only significant cuts to their salaries but also to their individual negotiating rights.

Buzz Hargrove would be proud.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Crosby says they were shot down in 10 minutes.

Love that "negotiating."  Take my offer or nothing.

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Frankly, at first glance, all three PA offers are 50-50 for sure over time. Why ownership wouldn't negotiate off this, I don't know.

Wow.  How quick did Fehr shoot down the NHL offer on Tuesday?...like in how many minutes?

LOL! Frank you so funny!

I'm pretty sure Fehr said on Tuesday that he thought the NHL offer could be a good starting point for the negotiations and that they would need some more time to go over it before coming back to the NHL with their response to it.

 

[Kin]

Buzz Hargrove would be proud.

Zing!

 

[Frank E]

Crosby says they were shot down in 10 minutes.

Love that "negotiating."  Take my offer or nothing.

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Frankly, at first glance, all three PA offers are 50-50 for sure over time. Why ownership wouldn't negotiate off this, I don't know.

Wow.  How quick did Fehr shoot down the NHL offer on Tuesday?...like in how many minutes?

LOL! Frank you so funny!

I'm pretty sure Fehr said on Tuesday that he thought the NHL offer could be a good starting point for the negotiations and that they would need some more time to go over it before coming back to the NHL with their response to it.

He shot down the NHL offer immediately as well. 

You think his proposals had anything to do with the NHL offer?

 

[Kin]

You think his proposals had anything to do with the NHL offer?

Well, yeah. They were three proposals, all of which aimed for an eventual split of 50/50 for HRR, coming after the NHL made an offer built around a 50/50 split of HRR. Why in the world would the PA reduce the % of HRR they were looking for if not in response to the NHL's offer?

 

[ZBBM]

Nik, I like your latest handle. You Socialist you. If only Gene were running in this one.....

 

[Kin]

Nik, I like your latest handle. You Socialist you.

Thanks, although I'm well aware of the problem of using his name to advocate so strongly for the supremacy of the market.

 

[Brian Glennie]

Nik, I like your latest handle. You Socialist you.

Thanks, although I'm well aware of the problem of using his name to advocate so strongly for the supremacy of the market.

I was a big fan of the stuff you posted as Nik The Orange, for what it's worth.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I'm of a similar mind. Though a simplistic point of view (I really don't have the interest to develop anything at any level of detail), it's frustrating me that the ones who have somewhat made this situation are the ones crying that they can't afford it. Huge deals for players and failed expansion strategies are hurting revenue, yet to save it they're going to reduce their biggest expense, one which they've somewhat created?

Well, to be fair to some of the owners, I do think that a lot of them have a point that the way the league is constituted currently puts some teams in a really bad position in terms of being profitable. Giving up 57% percent of your revenues is a lot but the reality is that it's an artificial number. The Leafs, for instance, certainly don't pay their players 57% of their revenues whereas the Islanders or Coyotes almost certainly pay their players more.

That's the ridiculousness here. In MLB the Yankees pay their players a % of revenues that's actually roughly in line with the rest of the league but it obviously towers over everyone else because their revenues are so high and they can afford 180-200 million a year. The NHL, somehow, has decided to be locked to a system where the teams earning the most in revenue pay out the lowest percentages to their players.

the highest revenue team paying the lowest percentage of revenue would have been exaggerated in a fixed cap system.  The cap changing with revenue was a League idea in case revenues fall the cap would fall too.  Plus it makes sense the players should share in revenue growth since a player like Crosby is promoting the game more then an owner like Jeremy Jacobs.  Also the cap floor was necessary due to ensure both sides get the right percentages of total revenue.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Remember, it's the league arguing here that in a time of record revenues and a profitable league on the whole that the players need to accept not only significant cuts to their salaries but also to their individual negotiating rights.

Buzz Hargrove would be proud.

Well consider the insanity of the owners.  They are crying poor so much it makes you wonder how they got the money to buy the teams in the first place(or why they would want to buy money losing teams). 

 

[Redleaf]

I think there is enough commonality in the proposals from both sides regarding the revenue sharing to move this thing forward. What's concerning are the things like contract term limits, free agency, etc., where both sides appear entrenched.

 

[Corn Flake]

It seems like the biggest obstacle at the moment is both sides stopping this "no we will negotiate of OUR proposal.. no off OUR proposal because yours is a hunk of junk!" crap and start working on the same page. 

Their latest offers, well at least the 3rd of 3 from the PA yesterday, aren't exactly 500 miles apart on the core revenue split... just stop fighting whether the deal gets worked out on pink or canary stationary and move along, quickly.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I think there is enough commonality in the proposals from both sides regarding the revenue sharing to move this thing forward. What's concerning are the things like contract term limits, free agency, etc., where both sides appear entrenched.

Not to mention, and this is no small hurdle, that the NHL's 50/50 proposal didn't even define what HRR would be.

If you take a look at the Sportsnet Fehr memo I linked, Fehr seems rather skeptical as to whether the offer was even a genuine one due to, among other things, that very fact.

 

[maplesyrup]

It seems like the biggest obstacle at the moment is both sides stopping this "no we will negotiate of OUR proposal.. no off OUR proposal because yours is a hunk of junk!" crap and start working on the same page. 

Their latest offers, well at least the 3rd of 3 from the PA yesterday, aren't exactly 500 miles apart on the core revenue split... just stop fighting whether the deal gets worked out on pink or canary stationary and move along, quickly.

I agree. It's all just so insane.