2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[maplesyrup]

Seems today was not good at all. In fact, some saying it went backwards sharply.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Now the NHL is going after Fehr in the media.

See ya.

 

[maplesyrup]

I'm still trying to sort out what's going on but has Fehr completely lost his mind? I guess we'll soon hear what he has to say.

 

[maplesyrup]

Mark Spector Sports ‏@SportsnetSpec
So League is accusing Fehr of withholding info from players. Now hearing NHLPA wants last yr's revs + 5% - and a whole 82 games worth?

If true, yeah, Fehr's (well the players are) nucking futs.

 

[caver]

I hear that the "make whole" issue is a bone of contention in these talks. I probably don't understand the different proposals that are being discussed but I certainly think that if the Minnesota Wild agreed to contracts with Suter and Parise only 4 months ago then they should have to stand by their words.

 

[bustaheims]

Mark Spector Sports ‏@SportsnetSpec
So League is accusing Fehr of withholding info from players. Now hearing NHLPA wants last yr's revs + 5% - and a whole 82 games worth?

If true, yeah, Fehr's (well the players are) nucking futs.

Honestly, I believe the biggest reason they're so apart right now is Donald Fehr, and, while I don't believe he's holding information back from the players, I'm almost positive he's putting a very specific spin on it and not being entirely forthright about everything. And, yeah, if the last part of that tweet is true, then I'd say he's not all that interested in actually getting a deal done.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm almost positive he's putting a very specific spin on it and not being entirely forthright about everything.

Based on what?

 

[bustaheims]

I'm almost positive he's putting a very specific spin on it and not being entirely forthright about everything.

Based on what?

Based on what some of the players have been tweeting after conference calls, etc, that don't really line up 100% with what's been reported elsewhere. Or like, the whole "take it or leave it" thing, which only seemed to come from Fehr, and didn't line up with what Daly said around the same time. It's not that the information they have is completely wrong, it just feels like it's incomplete or out of context.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I'm almost positive he's putting a very specific spin on it and not being entirely forthright about everything.

Based on what?

Based on what some of the players have been tweeting after conference calls, etc, that don't really line up 100% with what's been reported elsewhere. Or like, the whole "take it or leave it" thing, which only seemed to come from Fehr, and didn't line up with what Daly said around the same time. It's not that the information they have is completely wrong, it just feels like it's incomplete or out of context.

Or that, not so surprisingly, Daly has his own agenda and is saying things to try and get a deal done to the NHL's liking.

Fehr is looking to represent his constituency and get the best deal for them. Nothing I've seen points to him trying to do anything but that.

 

[bustaheims]

Or that, not so surprisingly, Daly has his own agenda and is saying things to try and get a deal done to the NHL's liking.

Fehr is looking to represent his constituency and get the best deal for them. Nothing I've seen points to him trying to do anything but that.

Well, of course, Daly has his own agenda, but when Fehr says the NHL presented a "take or leave it" offer and Daly says the league was willing to negotiate any and all components of it, one of them is obviously not being honest, and given their respective histories, I'm inclined to trust Daly more than Fehr.

 

[bustaheims]

LeBrun has a pretty good blog about some of the information coming out about these recent meetings.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/20186/stalemate-returns-to-cba-negotiations

I found this part to be particularly amusing:

Sources on both sides confirmed to ESPN.com that the league?s Make Whole offer -- an attempt to honor players? existing contracts -- amounts to $211 million of guaranteed money ($149 million in Year 1 and $62 million in Year 2, both deferred in payment by one year and payable with interest). The league?s belief is that by Year 3 of the deal, revenues will have likely grown enough that at 50 percent of HRR the players shouldn?t face much if any salary erosion in escrow. At which one NHLPA source countered, what if the revenues don?t grow that much? Then what? The union says in that case players aren?t made whole on their contracts.

In light of the fact that just about every one of the PA's recent proposals was based on getting to a near split 50/50 using the same or similar levels of revenue growth, I can't see that as being anything but hypocritical.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Or that, not so surprisingly, Daly has his own agenda and is saying things to try and get a deal done to the NHL's liking.

Fehr is looking to represent his constituency and get the best deal for them. Nothing I've seen points to him trying to do anything but that.

Well, of course, Daly has his own agenda, but when Fehr says the NHL presented a "take or leave it" offer and Daly says the league was willing to negotiate any and all components of it, one of them is obviously not being honest, and given their respective histories, I'm inclined to trust Daly more than Fehr.

The NHL were the ones who stopped a meeting 10 minutes into the NHLPA's proposals. No discussion, nothing. The players themselves were there. The NHL also withdrew their offer as it was "no longer on the table" beyond a certain "artificial" timeline in Fehr's words.

Listen, Fehr may have a history but Bettman and Daly (maybe only twice) have presided over 3 lockouts. Not strikes. Bettman does business in an all or nothing manner, as has been proven over his time as NHL commissioner. That he's finally met a worthy adversary in Fehr doesn't mean Fehr is lying, withholding the truth, becoming a spin-master etc.

If the NHL truly wants a season as they claim, and the number of $250 million or so over the life of the CBA is all that's in the way, it's a lot smaller of a number to billionaire/multi millionaire owners than it is to players.

Simply put: If the NHL is committed to the fans/game/networks/advertisers/stadium employees then $250 over 5 years, with multi-billion dollar revenues being made, shouldn't be standing in the way.

Especially if their the ones that got themselves into this mess. Look at it as their own "buyout clause" fee.

They screwed up (signing stupid length deals for stupid money), and the cost for learning their lesson (we'll see about that!) is $250-300M collectively over 5 years. Poor Owners!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Based on what some of the players have been tweeting after conference calls, etc, that don't really line up 100% with what's been reported elsewhere. Or like, the whole "take it or leave it" thing, which only seemed to come from Fehr, and didn't line up with what Daly said around the same time. It's not that the information they have is completely wrong, it just feels like it's incomplete or out of context.

To me it just seems like the NHL is trying to sow discontent among the players by character-assassinating Fehr.  This isn't the first time the league has accused Fehr of these things.

I mean, there have been NHL players involved in these most recent talks no?  I don't see how or why he would deliberately withhold anything when there are members of the people he is representing in the meetings with them.  If Fehr was misrepresenting things, why wouldn't one of the players who was there pipe up to his fellow players?

Craig Adams said this:

    Q: Can you describe the method for communication this week between NHLPA executives and the players?

    A: Sometimes there would be a conference call or a memo would go out to everybody. Some days, because meetings have started early and ended late, there have been memos. It depends on the length of a meeting and the situation, but there is always either a call or memo ? and on every player can get on one of those calls. It wasn?t just the 30 reps.

    Q: Is there any reason to believe information has been kept from players?

    A: Certainly, Don didn?t relay every detail of every meeting in the (Wednesday) memo. That would be pretty long memo. If anybody is suggesting that Don?s holding information back, that?s totally untrue.

    Q: Do details that are surfacing about the latest NHL offers sound like what you were told on either a call or in a memo?

    A: They didn?t inform us of that (50/50 and contracts honored plus interest) because that?s not true. Owners aren?t willing to make whole every cent plus interest. That?s not true. There are other players in the room when the league makes proposals. I?m not going into specifics of what was said on our call (Friday night), but I can tell you that?s not true. That wasn?t the offer.

http://blog.triblive.com/chipped-ice/2012/11/09/labor-log-adams-if-anybody-is-suggesting-that-don%E2%80%99s-holding-information-back-that%E2%80%99s-totally-untrue/

EDIT: Just read this too:

Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl

According to multiple player sources,"the notion that players don't know what's in CBA proposal is a complete fabrication".Today's meeting

Aaron Ward Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl

was described as 'heated'.One observation,"they couldn't have tried harder to push us away".Sensing huge frustration with the league

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Or that, not so surprisingly, Daly has his own agenda and is saying things to try and get a deal done to the NHL's liking.

Fehr is looking to represent his constituency and get the best deal for them. Nothing I've seen points to him trying to do anything but that.

Well, of course, Daly has his own agenda, but when Fehr says the NHL presented a "take or leave it" offer and Daly says the league was willing to negotiate any and all components of it, one of them is obviously not being honest, and given their respective histories, I'm inclined to trust Daly more than Fehr.

1) How is the NHL willing to negotiate any component of it when they're refusing to discuss the contract situation(Free Agency, Entry Level etc

2) How do you trust the guy that has been involved in the NHL losing a complete season more than you trust the guy that saved baseball from oblivion and who's model has had MLB running like a well oiled machine for almost 20 years?


Oh and btw, when someone says...."This is our Final Offer"....well that's kind of a synonym of "Take it or Leave it"

 

[bustaheims]

1) How is the NHL willing to negotiate any component of it when they're refusing to discuss the contract situation(Free Agency, Entry Level etc

The PA have refused to discuss the contract issues, not the league. In fact, they've completely refused to address them at all in any of their proposals as well.

2) How do you trust the guy that has been involved in the NHL losing a complete season more than you trust the guy that saved baseball from oblivion and who's model has had MLB running like a well oiled machine for almost 20 years?

He hardly saved baseball from oblivion. In fact, he's the guy that put the league on the brink of oblivion in the first place. Let's not forget, the 1994 strike is a big part of why the Expos are now the Nationals. With Fehr, we're talking about a guy that has been involved in no less than 6 labour disputes that resulted in strikes or lockouts.

Oh and btw, when someone says...."This is our Final Offer"....well that's kind of a synonym of "Take it or Leave it"

As I've pointed out before, in these types of situations, final isn't absolute. And, it certainly doesn't mean it's not negotiable. It just means the other side shouldn't expect another proposal for a significant period if no traction is gained from this proposal.

 

[Corn Flake]

Oh and btw, when someone says...."This is our Final Offer"....well that's kind of a synonym of "Take it or Leave it"

As I've pointed out before, in these types of situations, final isn't absolute. And, it certainly doesn't mean it's not negotiable. It just means the other side shouldn't expect another proposal for a significant period if no traction is gained from this proposal.

The NHL has had 3 "final offers" so far now.

Anyone who has been in a negotiation or two knows that a "final offer" is anything but.

 

[bustaheims]

To me it just seems like the NHL is trying to sow discontent among the players by character-assassinating Fehr.  This isn't the first time the league has accused Fehr of these things.

I mean, there have been NHL players involved in these most recent talks no?  I don't see how or why he would deliberately withhold anything when there are members of the people he is representing in the meetings with them.  If Fehr was misrepresenting things, why wouldn't one of the players who was there pipe up to his fellow players?

Well, from the other side, there's this:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/11/gloves-are-off-between-nhl-players-union.html

One of the issues is that the NHL feels it has made a significant offer to take ownership of the "make-whole" provision, the most critical step in getting the revenue share to a 50/50 split. Several other reports pegged the amount at $211 million US plus interest.

That specific fact was not included in Fehr's note to the membership. One player and one agent said the omission was because of a belief the memo would be leaked; the NHLPA did not want to be responsible for an NHL proposal being made public.

Another source said the league had a problem with another section: "Moreover, at the same time we were told that the owners want an 'immediate reset' to 50/50 (which would significantly reduce the salary cap) and that their proposals to restrict crucial individual contracting rights must be agreed to."

The NHL felt that was unfair, because it has proposed the first season would be a transition year, with a cap of $70 million to allow time for compliance. Also, the league believes it has said some of the contract issues (five-year terms, for example) are negotiable.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

To me it just seems like the NHL is trying to sow discontent among the players by character-assassinating Fehr.  This isn't the first time the league has accused Fehr of these things.

I mean, there have been NHL players involved in these most recent talks no?  I don't see how or why he would deliberately withhold anything when there are members of the people he is representing in the meetings with them.  If Fehr was misrepresenting things, why wouldn't one of the players who was there pipe up to his fellow players?

Well, from the other side, there's this:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/11/gloves-are-off-between-nhl-players-union.html

One of the issues is that the NHL feels it has made a significant offer to take ownership of the "make-whole" provision, the most critical step in getting the revenue share to a 50/50 split. Several other reports pegged the amount at $211 million US plus interest.

That specific fact was not included in Fehr's note to the membership. One player and one agent said the omission was because of a belief the memo would be leaked; the NHLPA did not want to be responsible for an NHL proposal being made public.

Another source said the league had a problem with another section: "Moreover, at the same time we were told that the owners want an 'immediate reset' to 50/50 (which would significantly reduce the salary cap) and that their proposals to restrict crucial individual contracting rights must be agreed to."

The NHL felt that was unfair, because it has proposed the first season would be a transition year, with a cap of $70 million to allow time for compliance. Also, the league believes it has said some of the contract issues (five-year terms, for example) are negotiable.

If this is indeed true, all the League needs to do is release the exact details of the deal (or give a copy of it) to the media, as was done with the original "final offer" of 50/50.

All the players in the NHLPA can read this online and take up the dishonesty/withholding information from his constituents with Fehr. It possibly leads to unrest or revolt within the PA.

However I doubt that what's being portrayed is actually true. The NHL is back to playing its games. First they didn't negotiate through the media, then released their offer in the media. Next their "best offer" was off the table, and then offer a better deal with "make whole" coming out of their piece of the pie.

If they're offering a cap of 70M then it's not really a 50/50 split no? So the deal has to be 50/50 in the first year, except it doesn't.

Fehr will break the Bettman and the owners. I'm more certain of that with each passing day.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The PA have refused to discuss the contract issues, not the league. In fact, they've completely refused to address them at all in any of their proposals as well.

Why would the players discuss the contract issues, or include them in talks when the NHL has maintained the stance that they will not concede any of those factors?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409129

In addition to their disagreement on the "make whole" provision, the sides are still grappling with proposed changes to rules governing contracts. The league hasn't backed off any of the demands made in its Oct. 18 proposal, according to sources, and the union continues to believe it shouldn't have to make concessions in those areas because it has committed to seeing the players' share in revenue decreased.

He hardly saved baseball from oblivion. In fact, he's the guy that put the league on the brink of oblivion in the first place. Let's not forget, the 1994 strike is a big part of why the Expos are now the Nationals. With Fehr, we're talking about a guy that has been involved in no less than 6 labour disputes that resulted in strikes or lockouts.

You forget that along with the strike, the Montreal Expos lost most of their stars as Walker, Grissom and Wetteland were dealt. They then returned to somewhat respectability in '96 but it was short lived as more stars were dealt in the off season. Then, after a fantastic season by Pedro Martinez, he was dealt away as well and the owner started threatening that he needed a new ball park as Olympic stadium was falling down, or the team would have to be moved.

Later, the Quebec government offered to pay $100 million to help foot the bill of the new building yet the ownership wanted the entire thing paid for.

Following that, with a new owner(Loria), the optimism grew. That was shortlived as the owner pulled the team off of all English speaking media, and followed that up by letting the new building land lease expire. From there the attendance fell to 6,000 a game.

So yes, in essence, the strike may of started the ball rolling, but  there were many attributing factors in which Montreal saw their MLB team moved 10 years later.

I am in no way trying to portray Fehr as a saint. He is far from it. But he is a negotiator for the Union. He's not here for hockey. He's not here to make sure the fans are happy(that is the NHL's job)...He is here to get the Union the best deal possible. That is his job.

As I've pointed out before, in these types of situations, final isn't absolute. And, it certainly doesn't mean it's not negotiable. It just means the other side shouldn't expect another proposal for a significant period if no traction is gained from this proposal.

And yes, obviously, no offer is final...but it is drawing a line in the sand that states, either you come over to our side, or this is going to take a good long while. The players have been slowly doing so...but unless the owners are willing to make some concessions on the other parts of the offer, why should the players give the owners what they want completely? That's not negotiating..that's dictating.

 

[bustaheims]

If they're offering a cap of 70M then it's not really a 50/50 split no? So the deal has to be 50/50 in the first year, except it doesn't.

The league is still using their last proposal, where this was included, as the basis for their side of the negotiations. The 70M cap would be artificial and based on last season's HRR, but the players would still only receive 50% of HRR (brought back through escrow, etc - which is where the Make Whole stuff comes in), but, instead of having players get bought out, the league felt this would make for a simpler transition. The players' share would immediate drop to 50%, but that cap wouldn't be impacted until year 2 of the agreement.

Fehr will break the Bettman and the owners. I'm more certain of that with each passing day.

I don't buy that for a second. The longer this goes, the more the players will see their bank balances dropping, and the more unrest there will be in the PA. The league's recent moves should not be taken as signs of weakness. The owners have a lot less to lose here and they know it. Any damage to the league impacts the players' finances much more significantly than the owners'. The Make Whole concession was an olive branch, but, after seeing how it has been received, I wouldn't expect any more of those. The hardliners on the BoG will be pretty firmly in control now, with Jeremy Jacobs, the most intransigent of the hardliners and chairman of the BoG, running the show.