• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bustaheims said:
OldTimeHockey said:
Ahhhhhh I see, only the NHL is allowed to tweak their offers...Not the PA...Makes sense :)

We're still waiting for the PA to put forth a complete proposal.

Also, where did I say anything that even insinuated the PA can't tweak their offers? They're absolutely allowed to. Not that it would make them more palatable to the owners, but, whatever.

Easy there busta. No need to jump up and down about my comment.

1. I applauded the owners latest tweak

2. My comment was directed towards the NHL whom took 10 minutes to throw out the NHLPA's 3 offers as they were tweaks of the PA's previous offers.
 
OldTimeHockey said:
2. My comment was directed towards the NHL whom took 10 minutes to throw out the NHLPA's 3 offers as they were tweaks of the PA's previous offers.

That's a bit of an over simplification of what happened. They threw out the first 2 because they were variations on a system the league had already informed the PA was a deal breaker and didn't include anything about the non-economic issues the league wanted to address (to the point that the PA refused to even discuss them), and the 3rd "proposal" even the PA admitted they hadn't thought out, didn't have a written presentation for and they hadn't run the numbers on. All they presented on it was a concept, and, before discussing it, both sides really needed to run the numbers.

As for what the league did with this latest tweak - the PA made it appear as though their biggest issue with the "Make Whole" provision was that it was players paying players. The league addressed that and eliminated that concern by making the "Make Whole" payments no longer part of the player's share. The league actually addressed the PA's concerns directly, something the PA didn't do with the league's concerns.
 
RedLeaf said:
I smell an agreement coming soon. My guess is next week sometime. Knock on wood......

I smell something too, and it's emanating from both sides, and is used to enhance the growing of crops.
 
Some stuff the league is offering the players that seems to get lost in most reports:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/177160641.html

Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don?t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).

Some other things that the players should like:

1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a ?standard of care? and ?primary allegiance? obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team?s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8.) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you?re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.
 
bustaheims said:
Some stuff the league is offering the players that seems to get lost in most reports:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/177160641.html

Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don?t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).

Some other things that the players should like:

1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a ?standard of care? and ?primary allegiance? obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team?s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8.) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you?re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.

These are all very good proposals and if I were a player I shall like them a lot. Especially when it comes to the area of travel, illness, hotel, expenses, etc.


 
For all the work the league has done to boost its presence south of the border, it seems oblivious to the fact it?s strangling the progress it has committed more than 20 years towards by arrogantly ruling with an iron fist. The majority of Canadian fans will always come back, but the league and its commissioner had to fight tooth and nail for its American audience. Now the league has embarrassed itself and shutdown again to involve itself in a series of negotiations that further undermine Bettman?s American aspirations the longer they drag on.

The owners care more about profits than growing the game, even though growing the game would lead to more profits.

The NHL is plagued by shortsighted leaders who preach growth but keep the game in the background so long as they safely end up in the black.


http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/48767-NHL-lockouts-undermine-efforts-to-grow-in-United-States.html
 
crazyperfectdevil said:
RedLeaf said:
Justin said:
Peter D. said:
Naturally the year the Leafs would be involved in the Winter Classic there is a lockout.  Sigh.
Forget the game itself, what I'm really pissed off about is no HBO 24/7. THAT would have been cool.

We'll have to wait a year. Not a big deal really. Hopefully we can ice a much better team by then and actually win the damn game.

was my thinking as well..didn't want to see more about how bad the leafs were

A good reason why the Winter Classic had to be cancelled and why it shouldn't be played this year...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/why-ok-nhl-cancelled-2013-winter-classic-222311285--nhl.html...

 
bustaheims said:
The league actually addressed the PA's concerns directly, something the PA didn't do with the league's concerns.

How so? The players are willing to work towards a 50/50 deal? Is that not working towards the concerns of the league?

And like I've said, the league's changes to the 'make whole' part of the CBA were a step in the right direction IMO.

I'm not going to stand up here and scream that the players, or the owners for that matter, are making the right moves to fix this. The 'make whole' tweak was a step in the right direction and for that I applaud the NHL..something I haven't been able to do very much in the last few months.

 
OldTimeHockey said:
How so? The players are willing to work towards a 50/50 deal? Is that not working towards the concerns of the league?

Not when all their proposal A) are either delinked from revenue (so they're never guaranteed to hit 50/50) and include caveats that also work to prevent them for actually getting to 50/50, B) have the owners setting aside 13% of salaries up front and then having remainder at 50/50 (which, fairly obviously, is not 50/50) and C) include raises in the absolute dollars of the players' share in the first season (and just about every subsequent season) when the owners have made it clear they feel they need to decrease their expenses immediately.
 
bustaheims said:
Not when all their proposal A) are either delinked from revenue (so they're never guaranteed to hit 50/50) and include caveats that also work to prevent them for actually getting to 50/50, B) have the owners setting aside 13% of salaries up front and then having remainder at 50/50 (which, fairly obviously, is not 50/50) and C) include raises in the absolute dollars of the players' share in the first season (and just about every subsequent season) when the owners have made it clear they feel they need to decrease their expenses immediately.

No, that's confusing "working towards" with "giving in to" again.
 
Nik V. Debs said:
No, that's confusing "working towards" with "giving in to" again.

As I've said a number of times in various forms, it's not "working towards" when you're actively trying to move away the other side's main position.
 
Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don?t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).

1. Is a legitimate offer, albeit one that benefits teams who are currently over the proposed cap as much as it does players.

2. I haven't heard a great player call for this and as it notes, is something that many teams want so can't really be categorized as something the league is offering players.

3. I'm not entirely sure that benefits players, especially not when it's connected to counting any NHL contracts in the minors against the salary cap anyway. Again, this is something that would benefit teams.

4. I think this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the PA's position. The PA doesn't want revenue sharing for revenue sharing's sake. They want revenue sharing so that some of the burden of creating a system where the lower end teams are in less trouble falls on the shoulders of the wealthier clubs as opposed to entirely on the players in terms of a reduction in their share of revenue. Asking for the same cut of revenue along with the promise of revenue sharing is not something "for the players". At that point it's for the benefit of
the small market teams.

5. Is something they should have, that anyone should have, regardless. 

Some other things that the players should like:

1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a ?standard of care? and ?primary allegiance? obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team?s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8.) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you?re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.

1-4 are, again, things that should not be framed as concessions within the context of a CBA negotiation. The establishment of a standard of care for injured players should exist at a bare minimum. #6 is, quite frankly, a joke as being something "for the players" and #10, an "agreement to consider" something is not a tangible thing.
 
bustaheims said:
As I've said a number of times in various forms, it's not "working towards" when you're actively trying to move away the other side's main position.

And as I've responded, when the league categorizes five or six different things as their "main position" that any player proposal cannot look to change and still be considered then they're fundamentally making "Working towards" their position an impossibility without capitulation on several major points.

The player's most recent proposals are ones that do, indeed, look to reduce the player's shares both over time and from their previous offers. If that doesn't count as "working towards" the owner's position then it's because of the inherent inflexibility of the owner's position.
 
bustaheims said:
Not when all their proposal A) are either delinked from revenue (so they're never guaranteed to hit 50/50) and include caveats that also work to prevent them for actually getting to 50/50, B) have the owners setting aside 13% of salaries up front and then having remainder at 50/50 (which, fairly obviously, is not 50/50) and C) include raises in the absolute dollars of the players' share in the first season (and just about every subsequent season) when the owners have made it clear they feel they need to decrease their expenses immediately.

Which is all offers of what the players considered to be starting points. If the owners expect the players to only use their original model of an offer, why can't the players expect the owners to only bargain off the players original offer?
 
OldTimeHockey said:
So I suppose in your eyes the players should of given exactly what the owners wanted? How is that negotiating? Here's a hand full of things that are absolute must haves(btw, they're at the very heart of what the CBA is built around) that you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT CHANGE...That's not bargaining in good faith sir.

No, but they should at least try to speak the same language and find somewhere to meet in the middle, instead of moving the other way by giving themselves a raise over each of the next couple seasons when the owners are telling them they need to cut expenses immediately.
 
bustaheims said:
OldTimeHockey said:
So I suppose in your eyes the players should of given exactly what the owners wanted? How is that negotiating? Here's a hand full of things that are absolute must haves(btw, they're at the very heart of what the CBA is built around) that you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT CHANGE...That's not bargaining in good faith sir.

No, but they should at least try to speak the same language and find somewhere to meet in the middle, instead of moving the other way by giving themselves a raise over each of the next couple seasons when the owners are telling them they need to cut expenses immediately.

I don't disagree with that at all. And your point of them needing to speak the same language goes both ways does it not?
 
OldTimeHockey said:
I don't disagree with that at all. And your point of them needing to speak the same language goes both ways does it not?

Sure, but, the owners are speaking the same language that the players have been working and profiting under for 7 seasons. The players are trying to get them to speak a language the owners refused to work with in the last lockout, and has already cost the league a season.
 
bustaheims said:
No, but they should at least try to speak the same language and find somewhere to meet in the middle,

But when you say "speak the same language" what you're using it as a metaphor for is "Agreeing on the basic framework" when the two sides don't agree on what the basic framework should be, especially not in the context where significant cuts to the player's share of revenue is a given. Essentially you're saying the players should start from a position of a massive capitulation and work from there.

Remember when people kept saying that the players were acting as if 57% of revenues were something they were entitled to just because it's what they got last time. Your argument is essentially that everything the owners won during the last round of is something they're entitled to by virtue of them getting it last time and that any proposal that the players make that touch on them is something that gives the league carte blanche to knock the table over and say that it's not a legitimate offer.

What you're essentially saying is that the only thing the players should be allowed to address in terms of working out an agreement is negotiating just how much of a paycut they get. That's not legitimate negotiating. If the problems are so significant that the league is willing to miss a season over then nothing should be off the table so that a solution can be creatively found. A negotation like this should start with a blank piece of paper, not fill in the blanks.
 
The NHL and the NHLPA need to find 'common ground', and by that I don't mean any capitulation to a large extent, but a willingness to go over every query & solution to address both the needs of the league, owners, and players alike.  Until the interested parties can come to a rational understanding and solution, as a starting point never mind, only then and only then will a forging of the minds echo proper conclusion to the problems presented.
 
Nik V. Debs said:
If the problems are so significant that the league is willing to miss a season over then nothing should be off the table so that a solution can be creatively found. A negotation like this should start with a blank piece of paper, not fill in the blanks.

Sure, but, when the PA has been told repeatedly that the owners don't believe a certain framework isn't going to work, they shouldn't keep coming back with the same framework just with different numbers. They should be coming back with a different framework - whether it's one that's fully linked, partially linked or something we haven't seen at all. We know the owners would prefer a linked framework, so, just flat out ignoring that isn't going to get a deal done either. The PA has to work with the owners just as much as the owners have to work with the PA. Right now, neither side is doing a great job of that. Quite frankly, I don't care who capitulates to whom or whether they both find a completely different way of solving it. All I know is that constantly proposing variations on the same delinked model isn't going to get the PA anywhere, just like constantly proposing similarly restrictive contractual limitations isn't going to get the owners anywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top