2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[crazyperfectdevil]

so was there talk of decertification during the last lockout?  if not, why not?

 

[Corn Flake]

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.

But Fehr has his own style that isn't a whole lot better. I think both men are equally arrogant and neither has a style that really lends to cooperation and the type of negotiating that can take place across a boardroom table. 

But in both cases I don't think ego is preventing this from getting done.  Negotiating style is slowing it to a dull drag, but it really is actually moving forward.  Both sides like the overly dramatic reaction to what the other side proposes - they like to both say the other side isn't negotiating at all, etc etc... but in reality they have come a lot closer than where they were a month or so ago.

The PA has "agreed" to the basic 50/50% revenue split at a very high level.. we weren't there a month ago.  They have of course loaded that split with caveats, the most goofball one being this guarantee that their share in $$ will never go below what it was the previous year.  I think the PA has those in there as negotiable items they will later pull out but are designed to get give back from the league elsewhere.  Normal stuff.

The make whole amounts are really just a number now - both sides get the concept as a premium on top of the revenue % split.  Just figure out how much it is going to be.

So to me all in all it's headed in the right direction and the two heads aren't stopping it - but their styles I think are slowing it to more of a drag than it needs to be, Fehr especially IMO.

 

[rdowdall]

They brought up some interesting points on the radio last night.  The players talk about how they are giving up more and more, but at the end of the day they assume no risk.  When the Senators went bankrupt, did any player miss a paycheque?  Has any player in Phoenix missed a cheque?  They talk about how they are being treated as pieces of meat, but what happens in the real world if the company you work for goes bankrupt?  How would they feel if the NHL said, sure we will accept your proposal on the condition that if the team your have a contract with goes bankrupt, your contract becomes null and void.

 

[Redleaf]

so was there talk of decertification during the last lockout?  if not, why not?

Of course this option is extremely remote, it is an option nonetheless...
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/11/22/kypreos_nhl_nhlpa_decertification_donald_fehr_gary_bettman/

 

[Corn Flake]

They brought up some interesting points on the radio last night.  The players talk about how they are giving up more and more, but at the end of the day they assume no risk.  When the Senators went bankrupt, did any player miss a paycheque?  Has any player in Phoenix missed a cheque?  They talk about how they are being treated as pieces of meat, but what happens in the real world if the company you work for goes bankrupt?  How would they feel if the NHL said, sure we will accept your proposal on the condition that if the team your have a contract with goes bankrupt, your contract becomes null and void.

I mentioned that a while ago and obviously agree.  The players risk is minimal. Their share of the pie... assumed to be 50%... incurs no expesnse other than union dues and having to be paitent with a portion held in escrow for a while.

They assume none of the operating expenses or the other challenges to running a franchise. They don't pay out of pocket for any equipment, they get hefty per diems while on the road, chartered flights.. the best hotels ... all of those things come out of the owner's share. 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

They brought up some interesting points on the radio last night.  The players talk about how they are giving up more and more, but at the end of the day they assume no risk.  When the Senators went bankrupt, did any player miss a paycheque?  Has any player in Phoenix missed a cheque?  They talk about how they are being treated as pieces of meat, but what happens in the real world if the company you work for goes bankrupt?  How would they feel if the NHL said, sure we will accept your proposal on the condition that if the team your have a contract with goes bankrupt, your contract becomes null and void.

Why would the NHL want that? Gary Bettman refuses letting teams disappear into the abyss. Therefore, he is constantly looking for new owners to replace the one's that are struggling to make ends meet.

So, in 2003, when the Senators filed for bankruptcy protection, do you feel the team was more attractive as a team with a building but no players, or a team that was doing fairly well in the standings with a team locked down with potential stars? I'd think the latter and I'd think the NHL would prefer a team have players signed to contracts to attract buyers as opposed to trying to sell a team that needs their entire warehouse staffed.

As for the risk argument...It's been used repeatedly and it's not incorrect in the true financial sense of the word...What about the physical sense? What about if Phil Kessel loses an edge and goes crashing into the boards head first and breaks his neck? Are the players not the ones at risk of physical damage to their bodies and their lives?

On the financial side of the coin, yes you are correct, the owners are the one's that take all the risk. They are also the one's that have madeand lost millions upon millions taking some of the very same risks in investments. The question is, why do the owners expect their staff to pay their bad investments for them?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

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.

That's like saying perhaps the NHL should concede on some of their contract issues so the players will come down to 'their' version of 50/50.

 

[Corn Flake]

As for the risk argument...It's been used repeatedly and it's not incorrect in the true financial sense of the word...What about the physical sense? What about if Phil Kessel loses an edge and goes crashing into the boards head first and breaks his neck? Are the players not the ones at risk of physical damage to their bodies and their lives?

I don't really think the phsycial dangers of the game can be mashed in with the financial discussion, but to one point in that, the guaranteed contract means the player gets paid if he gets hurt during the game.  Soo there's that.  Players I believe also seek out their own insurance for coverage but I could be wrong on that. 

Yes players are under the assumed risk that they could get injured tomorrow and be unable to play hockey and earn a livelihood playing sport, but there isn't anything in a CBA that can reduce the risk. (rules are worked on separately) Does an additional 1-2% more pay make it okay when it wasn't before? To me that doesn't fly.

 

[Bender]

This reminds of the strike at York University when I was attending a few years ago as an undergrad.

Support us, the union, because we like our students!
No, support us, the administration, because we want whats best for our students!

Neither could give a shit about the undergrads that they were using as collateral damage. Same thing goes here except it's towards the fans of the game. I am so tired of this.

 

[Bender]

They brought up some interesting points on the radio last night.  The players talk about how they are giving up more and more, but at the end of the day they assume no risk.  When the Senators went bankrupt, did any player miss a paycheque?  Has any player in Phoenix missed a cheque?  They talk about how they are being treated as pieces of meat, but what happens in the real world if the company you work for goes bankrupt?  How would they feel if the NHL said, sure we will accept your proposal on the condition that if the team your have a contract with goes bankrupt, your contract becomes null and void.

I mentioned that a while ago and obviously agree.  The players risk is minimal. Their share of the pie... assumed to be 50%... incurs no expesnse other than union dues and having to be paitent with a portion held in escrow for a while.

They assume none of the operating expenses or the other challenges to running a franchise. They don't pay out of pocket for any equipment, they get hefty per diems while on the road, chartered flights.. the best hotels ... all of those things come out of the owner's share.

And apparently it's the owners fault for signing crazy deals, but it's a bit of a catch-22. Nobody wants to pay money to see a mediocre franchise (save the Leafs) so you can't not spend money. But spending money doesn't guarantee fans either and could mean the franchise loses money in both cases. I can't see why anyone would want to own an NHL franchise after this!

 

[Bender]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410028

Don't know if this was posted here. Hamrlik basically saying they should sign and get going. Funny how he's right: They lost $400m+ squabbling over half that amount. GOOD JOB GUYS!

 

[Kin]

How would they feel if the NHL said, sure we will accept your proposal on the condition that if the team your have a contract with goes bankrupt, your contract becomes null and void.

Are you kidding? They'd love it. Free Agency is the best thing players have. If Shane Doan's contract with the Coyotes had been rendered null and void in 2008 would he have been upset or would he have signed a more lucrative deal elsewhere?

The reason that's not the case is because player contracts, in this case, are largely viewed as club assets. It's a lot harder to sell the Coyotes if all of their players get released after their bankruptcy.

 

[Bender]

As for the risk argument...It's been used repeatedly and it's not incorrect in the true financial sense of the word...What about the physical sense? What about if Phil Kessel loses an edge and goes crashing into the boards head first and breaks his neck? Are the players not the ones at risk of physical damage to their bodies and their lives?

I don't really think the phsycial dangers of the game can be mashed in with the financial discussion, but to one point in that, the guaranteed contract means the player gets paid if he gets hurt during the game.  Soo there's that.  Players I believe also seek out their own insurance for coverage but I could be wrong on that. 

Yes players are under the assumed risk that they could get injured tomorrow and be unable to play hockey and earn a livelihood playing sport, but there isn't anything in a CBA that can reduce the risk. (rules are worked on separately) Does an additional 1-2% more pay make it okay when it wasn't before? To me that doesn't fly.

The pay is commensurate with ability and risk. There are far riskier jobs out there than a job as a hockey player, and those people are paid far, far less NOT to play a game but to keep our general lives running, like those guys that climb to the top of telephone towers so our phone systems can work.

Hockey too risky to be paid millions of dollars? Go get a regular job and be paid 1%-10% of what you normally would.

 

[Kin]

Neither could give a crap about the undergrads that they were using as collateral damage. Same thing goes here except it's towards the fans of the game. I am so tired of this.

With all due respect, that strikes me as more than a little naive. The NHL is a league of multi-million dollar businesses selling an entertainment product. They're not a school. They're not a hospital. They're existence is not critical to the greater good of society.

Saying "the NHL doesn't care about fans" is like saying "Coca-Cola doesn't really care about soda drinkers". I mean, yeah. They care about you to the end that they want you drinking as much Coke as possible but why would you think they should "care" about you otherwise? They're not in this for the love. We're consumers and clients. I mean, does it really surprise anyone that these businesses prioritize the way they do?

 

[Bates]

While I agree that players generally like free agency and all that it brings the opportunity to be a free agent because of bankruptcy might look like a win for players like Doan it would also have the opposite effect on a Coyote player like Rozsival who had a $5 million average in his last deal and simply would not have gotten a contract near that as his new $2 deal with Chicago shows.  I can't see how the players can't offer a quick 50/50 split and the owners give up some of the unneeded contract restraints to make a deal happen??  But then again it ain't my business or my salary.  But it sure is starting to look like the risk to both is getting substantial.

 

[Kin]

The pay is commensurate with ability and risk.

I think that's where a lot of people would disagree. A hockey player's pay is artificially lowered because the NHL exists virtually without competition and has bargained a number of controls on players individual bargaining rights(the draft, RFA years) that limit a player's ability to sell his services within the league.

Sid Crosby, for instance, just signed a deal with a 8.7 AAV. How much do you think he would have commanded as a UFA? What about Stamkos? Twice that? Three times?

 

[Bender]

Neither could give a crap about the undergrads that they were using as collateral damage. Same thing goes here except it's towards the fans of the game. I am so tired of this.

With all due respect, that strikes me as more than a little naive. The NHL is a league of multi-million dollar businesses selling an entertainment product. They're not a school. They're not a hospital. They're existence is not critical to the greater good of society.

Saying "the NHL doesn't care about fans" is like saying "Coca-Cola doesn't really care about soda drinkers". I mean, yeah. They care about you to the end that they want you drinking as much Coke as possible but why would you think they should "care" about you otherwise? They're not in this for the love. We're consumers and clients. I mean, does it really surprise anyone that these businesses prioritize the way they do?

Its a simple comparison that still stands though. The narrative is fans should understand, we're in it to make the game better and in a roundabout way, this is for the fans, because a fair and healthy league is a better league for everyone.

University is a private institution as well generally looking for money also. Education, like it or not, is commoditized and is an industry now, it's not really about this students, but this is a whole other can of worms.

 

[Bender]

The pay is commensurate with ability and risk.

I think that's where a lot of people would disagree. A hockey player's pay is artificially lowered because the NHL exists virtually without competition and has bargained a number of controls on players individual bargaining rights(the draft, RFA years) that limit a player's ability to sell his services within the league.

Sid Crosby, for instance, just signed a deal with a 8.7 AAV. How much do you think he would have commanded as a UFA? What about Stamkos? Twice that? Three times?

I understand there are restrictions, but are you saying that unless it's completely laissez faire economics that they are not paid in an equitable way in comparison to skill level?

 

[Kin]

Its a simple comparison that still stands though.

It really doesn't. Again, you're talking about an entertainment product vs. a University education.

University is a private institution as well generally looking for money also. Education, like it or not, is commoditized and is an industry now, it's not really about this students, but this is a whole other can of worms.

Well, just on it's face, that's not true. York is not a private institution. I could be wrong about this but I don't think Ontario has any private universities.

But on a more specific level it doesn't hold. If you're a York student and York shuts down classes because of a labour shortage, it's not like you can start going to McMaster or Ryerson for a couple of weeks. A hockey fan, even the most ardent, probably has other things in his or her life that can enterain him or her. Even if York were a private institution they do not have a comparable level of responsibility to clients/students.

 

[Kin]

I understand there are restrictions, but are you saying that unless it's completely laissez faire economics that they are not paid in an equitable way in comparison to skill level?

There can still be tiers of prices within a artificially constrained market, sure. But in this specific case where the market is as artificially restricted as it is then the primary determination of a player's salary are those restrictions.

Again, as per my Sid Crosby example, we're not talking about him signing for 9 when he could command 10. We're talking about two and three times.