2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Deebo]

A couple questions from the last nhlpa proposal if any folks know...

What's the nhlpa proposal on no trade/no move clauses?

Retained salary transactions ( cap trading ) was offered at 15% of the upper limit, not sure how this is supposed to work.... if I use the 'can't fall below number' proposed of 67.25 mil, does that mean teams can literally trade for up to 10 mil in cap space? Are the limits on what can be traded for that space?... or am I in the wrong park...

I understood the trading part to mean teams were allowed to retain part of a cap hit in a trade and the total amount allowed to be retained has a cap. As in the total amount of cap space that could be taken up by players traded to other clubs is limited.

You couldn't trade for cap space, but you could trade for a player and only take on part of the cap hit and the rest would stay with the original team.

Similar to what happened when a player was claimed on re-entry, where half the salary remained on the cap of the original team. 

 

[Tigger]

Ok, that makes a bit more sense overall now, thanks guys.

 

[Tigger]

One more question ( yeah, sure ), the suggestion of a 'not below point' for the upper limit, have they disentangled that from % of HRR somehow? I don't see much there past an averaging of the last two years.

 

[bustaheims]

One more question ( yeah, sure ), the suggestion of a 'not below point' for the upper limit, have they disentangled that from % of HRR somehow? I don't see much there past an averaging of the last two years.

Sort of. The PA's proposal called for a minimum cap ceiling of $67.5M, regardless of of HRR. It would still increase as HRR increase, but wouldn't decrease if HRR decreased. They also did the same with their share of HRR - the PA's proposal creates a minimum players' share equal to their share from the previous season.

 

[Tigger]

One more question ( yeah, sure ), the suggestion of a 'not below point' for the upper limit, have they disentangled that from % of HRR somehow? I don't see much there past an averaging of the last two years.

Sort of. The PA's proposal called for a minimum cap ceiling of $67.5M, regardless of of HRR. It would still increase as HRR increase, but wouldn't decrease if HRR decreased. They also did the same with their share of HRR - the PA's proposal creates a minimum players' share equal to their share from the previous season.

That could make for some wacky escrow fun?

 

[bustaheims]

That could make for some wacky escrow fun?

It could create a whole variety of wackiness, depending on how well the league recovers from this lockout.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Unfortunately the latest proposal doesn't completely capitulate and give the owners everything they want.  Silly NHLPA.

 

[Joe S.]

I suppose you're correct..perhaps it's just my frustration with the entire process.

ian_mendes: Bettman also said the PR and rhetoric is pointless; he did not appreciate Fehr speaking to media this AM -- before NHL responded to offer.

As opposed to Bettman addressing the media and making their proposal public back in October before the nhlpa could respond because that was completely different.

 

[bustaheims]

As opposed to Bettman addressing the media and making their proposal public back in October before the nhlpa could respond because that was completely different.

The NHL posted their proposal after the PA responded, and after Fehr had met with the media about it.

 

[Tigger]

As opposed to Bettman addressing the media and making their proposal public back in October before the nhlpa could respond because that was completely different.

The NHL posted their proposal after the PA responded, and after Fehr had met with the media about it.

Well, ok but I think it was pretty obvious that it was a PR move.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, ok but I think it was pretty obvious that it was a PR move.

Of course, it was. At the very least, they did it to combat what they perceived as misinformation from the PA's side.

 

[Tigger]

Well, ok but I think it was pretty obvious that it was a PR move.

Of course, it was. At the very least, they did it to combat what they perceived as misinformation from the PA's side.

Sure, just parsing the rhetoric over PR rhetoric.

 

[Bates]

I find myself caring less about each side every day that this crap continues.  But I do find it hard to read from the players how they are giving the 50% and it's still not enough.  That's just crap as their proposal has almost $400 million to pay for present contracts and cap that can not go below $67 million and cannot decrease over the 5 year term.  The players could end up with a higher percentage of revenue in every year of the deal than they presently have.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Mirtle has a good recap of the proposal, if you can get around the paywall.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/the-nhlpa-proposal-by-the-numbers/article5530468/

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I find myself caring less about each side every day that this crap continues.  But I do find it hard to read from the players how they are giving the 50% and it's still not enough.  That's just crap as their proposal has almost $400 million to pay for present contracts and cap that can not go below $67 million and cannot decrease over the 5 year term.  The players could end up with a higher percentage of revenue in every year of the deal than they presently have.

Then maybe the owners should make some real concessions so that the players don't feel that they have to go to these lengths to protect themselves.  Maybe if they do that then the players will be able to back off on some of that.

Nick Costonika characterized it as this:

But it is disappointing that the NHL did not at least counter on the make-whole money. It is especially disappointing the NHL did not relent more on the contracting issues, especially on the additional years for arbitration and free agency eligibility ? especially when there have been hints that the owners would bend on that if the players would bend on economics.

That confirms the players' fear ? that if they make another concession, the owners will just pocket it and ask for more. Bettman said: "There was some movement on some issues by the players' association, and that was appreciated." Yet it wasn't enough, of course. Fehr characterized the league's response like this: "Thanks, but you have to agree with what we said."

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl--nhl--nhlpa-inch-closer-toward-cba-resolution--but-big-gap-remains-and-time-s-ticking-032102007.html

 

[Justin]

Mirtle has a good recap of the proposal, if you can get around the paywall.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/the-nhlpa-proposal-by-the-numbers/article5530468/

Getting around the paywall is a joke. Just go into incognito mode on Google Chrome. No more paywall 8)

 

[Hampreacher]

I get the distinct impression that neither side really are or know what negotiating means, especially Bettman. He dictates! To negotiate means you take the proposal and line by line work out a deal. Here one side proposes  x on one point. I cannot accept X but how about Z. Conter how about y. Ok. You move on to the next item. I do not like this but if you give us x in the previous we can live with that. It is nonsense to look at proposals and reject the whole thing sometimes in 10 minutes. Settle guys. Set aside ego's several teams are doomed and several more could be damaged beyond repair. The league could be ruined if you don't get this done now.

 

[Redleaf]

Decertification?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhlpas-hard-liners-hint-at-decertification-after-latest-offer-rejected/article5545211/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

 

[Bates]

Potvin maybe if the players actually conceded to the 50/50 they could then ask for some concessions from the league on the other issues.  Not to continue to tout the 50/50 fact that just isn't real doesn't really have them conceding on anything either.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the players offer of 50/50 on a 5 year agreement may not get to 50/50 in any year of the pact and may in fact give the players more than the 57% they had in last agreement.  Both players and NHL should stop the rhetoric and actually try to offer something that's real and likeable to the other side.

 

[Tigger]

Decertification?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhlpas-hard-liners-hint-at-decertification-after-latest-offer-rejected/article5545211/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

Most likely that's a quiet hammer you keep in the tool box, doubt it comes to that.