2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Corn Flake]

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.

The problem here is that the posturing over each other's offers is preventing them from actually talking these things through. Instead of being sneering at one point in an offer and using that as your rejection of it outright, flush out the details and get them to define it. If Fehr doesn't like how they have defined it then propose a change in the definition of HRR or any other point.. aka: NEGOTIATE!!!

 

[Corn Flake]

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).

And those owners are fighting over money with players who throw out the victim card after several in their membership have signed career-long deals in excess of $100 million guaranteed dollars.

Seems more like we have Monopoly man vs. Richie Rich... hard to see why either side gets a sympathy card from the fans.

 

[Kin]

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.

I think it's a little early in the negotiation cycle for you guys to be acting like their positions are either outside the norm or unexpected. All summer we heard about a resolution in November. 

 

[Frank E]

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?

Well, I don't think so.  I don't think Fehr went home on Tuesday and whipped up 3 different proposals in 2 days - all the while consulting with the people that he represents.  I think the three proposals were already complete.  Bettman has to consult with about 30 guys, Fehr's consultations with his group is a little more time intensive.

I think Fehr's offer was the players' offensive, and really had nothing to do with what the NHL offer contained.  I think Fehr had planned on tabling these offers this week, and I tend to think that the league beat Fehr to the punch by making the 50/50 proposal, perhaps thanks to the PR firm advice.  Now the league is the one looking "fair", and they even went so far as to post it publicly. 

The fact that the PA is moving, although very minor movement, on their share of HRR is only because they also want to play hockey and start earning paychecks, and they recognize that they're going to have to move off of their number.

The PA is trying to use the "we're at 50/50 too" line, except everyone can see that it's only that way well into the agreement 4 years down the line.

I really think Bettman got the best of Fehr this week, in terms of public opinion.

 

[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.

I think it's a little early in the negotiation cycle for you guys to be acting like their positions are either outside the norm or unexpected. All summer we heard about a resolution in November.

I don't. These sort of exchanges while "normal" really should have been made weeks (or even months) ago.

 

[Kin]

Well, I don't think so.  I don't think Fehr went home on Tuesday and whipped up 3 different proposals in 2 days - all the while consulting with the people that he represents.  I think the three proposals were already complete.  Bettman has to consult with about 30 guys, Fehr's consultations with his group is a little more time intensive.

Not necessarily. Fehr, especially during negotiations and with players scattered, is largely going to be dealing with player reps and a handful of agents. It's probably something like 30-40 guys on his end too.

But even still, you act like these offers required a bunch of nights hunched over a desk and an adding machine when they're really just the same offers the PA had made previously with different numbers. That's a pretty easy process.

I really think Bettman got the best of Fehr this week, in terms of public opinion.

Do you? Hold on, let me get my box of 64 crayola. I'm pretty sure "shocked" is in there somewhere, near the burnt sienna.

 

[Kin]

I don't. These sort of exchanges while "normal" really should have been made weeks (or even months) ago.

That's like saying that any peace process is easy provided everyone agrees to meet in the middle.

 

[maplesyrup]

I don't. These sort of exchanges while "normal" really should have been made weeks (or even months) ago.

That's like saying that any peace process is easy provided everyone agrees to meet in the middle.

It's really not. They really needed to just meet earlier (much earlier.) 

 

[Corn Flake]

I don't. These sort of exchanges while "normal" really should have been made weeks (or even months) ago.

That's like saying that any peace process is easy provided everyone agrees to meet in the middle.

It's really not. They really needed to just meet earlier (much earlier.)

or just agree to talk vs. throwing binders over a wall.

 

[Kin]

It's really not.

It is because you're ignoring the actual factors that go into why a league or a union will make changes to their position. The league is dealing with the reality of canceled games, the PA is about to have their first missed paycheck. That's what is sparking the movement off of previous positions. Those things aren't happening if they meet earlier(much earlier) and there's not realistically going to be anything other than dirty looks across a table.

I mean, seriously, we've been hearing for at least a year that the NHL was planning to use a lockout as a negotiating ploy.

 

[maplesyrup]

I don't. These sort of exchanges while "normal" really should have been made weeks (or even months) ago.

That's like saying that any peace process is easy provided everyone agrees to meet in the middle.

It's really not. They really needed to just meet earlier (much earlier.)

or just agree to talk vs. throwing binders over a wall.

Exactly. Like I said last night, it's as if neither guy has done this before. For me, that's the ridiculous and frustrating part.

 

[maplesyrup]

I mean, seriously, we've been hearing for at least a year that the NHL was planning to use a lockout as a negotiating ploy.

It always has been and always will be. That's nothing new.

 

[Kin]

It always has been and always will be. That's nothing new.

...right so if the NHL was always planning on using the lockout to gain leverage in the negotiations what would have been the point in meeting much earlier? I mean, unless the PA was going to crumble and give the league everything they wanted, the league was, all together now, going to wait until the lockout date to gain leverage.

 

[maplesyrup]

...right so if the NHL was always planning on using the lockout to gain leverage in the negotiations what would have been the point in meeting much earlier?

I'm sorry, I thought we were trying to arrive at a Collective Bargaining Agreement without a work stoppage. The point of meeting earlier would be so it didn't get to this. Employers will always have the right to lockout and unions will always have the right to strike and that's always a consideration in any negotiation. Like I said, that's nothing new.     

 

[Bullfrog]

It's really not. They really needed to just meet earlier (much earlier.)

And students should start their homework as soon as it's assigned. It's just human nature.

 

[Kin]

I'm sorry, I thought we were trying to arrive at a Collective Bargaining Agreement without a work stoppage.

Well, that's why I used my analogy. Everything is easily negotiated if everyone is looking to make a deal.

 

[maplesyrup]

It's really not. They really needed to just meet earlier (much earlier.)

And students should start their homework as soon as it's assigned. It's just human nature.

To procrastinate? Yes it is. Too bad there isn't people in charge who are paid good money to not let that happen.  :-\

 

[Andy007]

It always has been and always will be. That's nothing new.

...right so if the NHL was always planning on using the lockout to gain leverage in the negotiations what would have been the point in meeting much earlier? I mean, unless the PA was going to crumble and give the league everything they wanted, the league was, all together now, going to wait until the lockout date to gain leverage.

Which is illustrated in Bettman's immediate disclosure to the media that the league offered "50-50" and would be able to institute a full season, despite previous interviews where he states that the league would never negotiate through the media.

This is merely the league trying to manipulate public perception. I mean really, the PA's offer was, essentially, "hey, we'll meet with you on a 50-50 split, but you have to first honour the contracts you signed." Is that unfair? Is that really a stipulation that should have caused such disappointment, frustration, and immediate disregard from the other side?

 

[bustaheims]

The PA is trying to use the "we're at 50/50 too" line, except everyone can see that it's only that way well into the agreement 4 years down the line.

I honestly don't believe that's the biggest issue here. The problems with the PA's proposal is that there's no guarantee in them that they will in fact ever 50/50, as, once again, they involved absolute dollar numbers that were not linked to revenue, but based on estimates of growth. Their proposals include stipulations that increase their share if growth is larger than they estimate, but, none of the reports I've found have them including clauses that would reduce their share if revenues drop - a very real and highly likely scenario for this season (if it ever happens), which would throw all their numbers out of whack.

The problem we have is still the same problem we've had all along - they're still not speaking the same language. The league wants to maintain linkage, and are talking in real percentages with estimated dollars. The players want to do away with linkage and are talking in real dollars with estimated percentages. Never mind the fact the PA refused to discuss the contractual issues yesterday, if the two sides can't get past this barrier, there's very little to be discussed in negotiations.

 

[bustaheims]

This is merely the league trying to manipulate public perception. I mean really, the PA's offer was, essentially, "hey, we'll meet with you on a 50-50 split, but you have to first honour the contracts you signed." Is that unfair? Is that really a stipulation that should have caused such disappointment, frustration, and immediate disregard from the other side?

There's a couple issues with the 3rd proposal, and they all stem from the fact that the PA didn't run the numbers on it, nor did they even commit that particular proposal to paper. It was an idea they came up with earlier in the day and didn't take the time to examine it fully. Player salaries for this upcoming season already exceed 50% of projected revenues. So, by honouring those contracts, the players would already receive more than the share they say they'd be willing to settle on. It also, according to what I've read, only had the 50/50 split impact new contracts signed after a new CBA was agreed upon, which would work out to the deal never reaching the point where the players share fell to 50%.

The 3rd proposal was more of a shot at the "make whole" provisions in the league's offer than a real, workable solution.