2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[OldTimeHockey]

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

The comparison doesn't work. You can't compare an everyday schmoe like you and I to an NHL player. I work in the explosives industry and am in contact with a volatile product daily so companies can use the iron ore I blow up to make steel. Do I think I should make 1 million a year? Sure I do. Do I think that's realistic? Nope, not unless people want to start paying $70,000 for their cell phones.

People pay the $100-$300 ticket fees to go watch these millionaires. People buy the $14 draft at the game and eat the $7 hot dog. We can b*tch all we want about the money the NHLers make, but truth be told, we agreed to it by paying the ridiculous fees to watch them.

They are one in a hand full with the skill set to make a career out of this 'game'. I unfortunately am not. I can't hold their skills against them by saying "quit whining that your bosses want to take back $500 million from you, you're rich anyways".....

If my boss wanted to cut my wages from $35.00 an hour to $30.00 an hour because he made poor financial decisions, I'd have an issue with that as well.

 

[Bender]

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.

I didn't say they had a duty to the fans vs. students or that they were completely analogous, it's just the way its framed that I don't like. One is a much more extreme example but in the simple "It's for the fans" and "Its for the students" framing is where I'm annoyed because it really isn't for the people paying money, its for the people taking the money. I'm not saying I'm surprised that that's how it's framed, I'm just irked.

 

[Bender]

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

The comparison doesn't work. You can't compare an everyday schmoe like you and I to an NHL player. I work in the explosives industry and am in contact with a volatile product daily so companies can use the iron ore I blow up to make steel. Do I think I should make 1 million a year? Sure I do. Do I think that's realistic? Nope, not unless people want to start paying $70,000 for their cell phones.

People pay the $100-$300 ticket fees to go watch these millionaires. People buy the $14 draft at the game and eat the $7 hot dog. We can b*tch all we want about the money the NHLers make, but truth be told, we agreed to it by paying the ridiculous fees to watch them.

They are one in a hand full with the skill set to make a career out of this 'game'. I unfortunately am not. I can't hold their skills against them by saying "quit whining that your bosses want to take back $500 million from you, you're rich anyways".....

If my boss wanted to cut my wages from $35.00 an hour to $30.00 an hour because he made poor financial decisions, I'd have an issue with that as well.

Yeah but weren't they squabbling over something like $180m? And wasn't that money eventually going to be agreed upon? I'm not saying they shouldn't get a good deal, but like Hamrlik mentioned they've already lost $400m, which is more than what they would've lost if they either signed the deal, had a legitimate proposal in August or negotiated in good faith. I'm not saying that the NHL are negotiation saints but the last NHLPA proposal disregarded so many issues instead of opening a dialog about it.

 

[Kin]

Yeah but weren't they squabbling over something like $180m? And wasn't that money eventually going to be agreed upon? I'm not saying they shouldn't get a good deal, but like Hamrlik mentioned they've already lost $400m, which is more than what they would've lost if they either signed the deal, had a legitimate proposal in August or negotiated in good faith.

But as Cole said in response, it's not just about the players who are playing currently. Getting a better deal affects players in the future.

I'm not saying that the NHL are negotiation saints but the last NHLPA proposal disregarded so many issues instead of opening a dialog about it.

It didn't "disregard" them. It disagrees about them. The PA's position is that in return for the lower percentages of HRR at the very least their individual contracting rights should stay the same. Not get better. The same. "Opening a dialog" on them could have easily been the NHLPA saying that, actually, in return for the lower percentage of HRR they thought their individual rights should improve. That they should have UFA at 24 or whenever a rookie deal expires.

The problem now is that everything that the NHL wants to "address" are areas where they feel players should make more concessions on top of the existing economic ones. The NHL has never approached this negotiation with a give and take mentality outside of "We want 100% but we'll settle for 95".

 

[OldTimeHockey]

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

The comparison doesn't work. You can't compare an everyday schmoe like you and I to an NHL player. I work in the explosives industry and am in contact with a volatile product daily so companies can use the iron ore I blow up to make steel. Do I think I should make 1 million a year? Sure I do. Do I think that's realistic? Nope, not unless people want to start paying $70,000 for their cell phones.

People pay the $100-$300 ticket fees to go watch these millionaires. People buy the $14 draft at the game and eat the $7 hot dog. We can b*tch all we want about the money the NHLers make, but truth be told, we agreed to it by paying the ridiculous fees to watch them.

They are one in a hand full with the skill set to make a career out of this 'game'. I unfortunately am not. I can't hold their skills against them by saying "quit whining that your bosses want to take back $500 million from you, you're rich anyways".....

If my boss wanted to cut my wages from $35.00 an hour to $30.00 an hour because he made poor financial decisions, I'd have an issue with that as well.

Yeah but weren't they squabbling over something like $180m? And wasn't that money eventually going to be agreed upon? I'm not saying they shouldn't get a good deal, but like Hamrlik mentioned they've already lost $400m, which is more than what they would've lost if they either signed the deal, had a legitimate proposal in August or negotiated in good faith. I'm not saying that the NHL are negotiation saints but the last NHLPA proposal disregarded so many issues instead of opening a dialog about it.

I completely agree that unions that hold out for 'the better deal' generally never get one. And truth be told, they are slowly conceding on some items. And yes it's true, that the money you lose in a strike/lockout will never be recovered.

As for opening a discussion, the NHL is just as guilty of saying we want this, this and this but we're not giving you that, that and that.

Let's remember, the only group in this negotiation that is conceding anything is the NHLPA. They aren't asking for a better deal on anything...They just want to get as close as possible to the current deal as they can....and to be honest, that's what I would want my union to get as well when faced with a situation where clearly getting a better deal is not possible.

 

[Corn Flake]

This was a pretty interseting read on how Fehr operates, from someone who has covered him for a very long time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/capitals/nhl-lockout-owners-shouldnt-underestimate-the-fehr-factor/2012/11/21/7529ec82-341b-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

 

[Bates]

The PA have not exactly lowered their salary $ in any of their offers.  They keep saying if this and this and this happen we are at 50%.  Well what if they don't happen?  They also want this years cap not below last year's and the cap can't go down in any other year.  Like I said in previous post if players offer 50% in real quick order then they may expect the owners to lower some of other demands.  If owners balk then screw themtoo.

 

[Kin]

The PA have not exactly lowered their salary $ in any of their offers.  They keep saying if this and this and this happen we are at 50%.  Well what if they don't happen?  They also want this years cap not below last year's and the cap can't go down in any other year.  Like I said in previous post if players offer 50% in real quick order then they may expect the owners to lower some of other demands.  If owners balk then screw themtoo.

That'd be a crazy way to negotiate. If I came to you in a negotiation with a list of 8 demands would you just agree to four of them in the hope that I may drop the other four? Or would you want me to say what you would get in return right up front? Remember, it's the league locking out the players. They're the ones who thought the last deal was a such a disaster. If that's the case, and they're willing to cancel a season rather than negotiated under it, it's incumbent on them to make a case to the players as to what's in it for them if there's economic compromise.

But every NHL offer hasn't done that. The closest they come to a concession is dropping a demand. That's only "negotiation" if there's a gun to someone's head.

 

[Kin]

This was a pretty interseting read on how Fehr operates, from someone who has covered him for a very long time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/capitals/nhl-lockout-owners-shouldnt-underestimate-the-fehr-factor/2012/11/21/7529ec82-341b-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

It is a good read. I especially liked this:

Also, his membership isn?t just backing him; it really is their deal. It took baseball owners 20 years to grasp that Fehr isn?t a puppeteer. He educates, he shapes, but he doesn?t decide. The players do. That?s what empowered the MLBPA and made it so tough. Fehr will reduce demands rather than negotiate without full support. That?s core. It?s not changing.

I think I may have before but anyone interested in learning about Fehr really should read Lords of the Realm by John Helyar, the definitive history of Baseball's labour issues. The idea that Fehr is some hot-head driven by ego or ideology just has no basis in reality.

 

[Bates]

You don't offer in the hope, you offer with the condition of. I would say in return for these demands being met in my favor we would be willing to go to 50% in the next 2 seasons.  How hard is that to put out there?  Or I guess they could both just posture in the media for months as millions slip away and not really make any offers to each other.  Which way is stupid again? 

The NHL has put forth proposals in the beginning that were totally in teams favor.  But what the players should have done is make counter-proposals based off these not put out vague offers with no real monetary guarantees. 

I could be wrong but I think the key owner's issues are HRR %, the so-called cap circumventing deals, and free agency.  If I were in the players union I would be pushing hard every day for other rights in my favor in return for giving into these 3 conditions being the way the league wants. Or at least try to minimize each one's effect on my contract.

 

[Deebo]

The problem now is that everything that the NHL wants to "address" are areas where they feel players should make more concessions on top of the existing economic ones. The NHL has never approached this negotiation with a give and take mentality outside of "We want 100% but we'll settle for 95".

I didn't follow the outcomes of the recent NBA and MLB agreements, did those players get anything in return for lowering their share? (did they even reduce their share?)

But so far it doesn't seem like they've really given up anything dollar wise, they only thing they seem to have done is hold steady for a few years and then resume growing after league revenues hit a certain amount. This weeks proposal was the first that even did that, the rest wanted guaranteed increases.

 

[Deebo]

So looks like we're starting to see some cracks in the players union.

After the report on Snider being unhappy last week, Roman Hamrlik had this to say:

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
I had an interesting phone conversation with Roman Hamrlik this morning. The following is a selection of quotes from him.

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
"I'm just frustrated, I've been in the league for 20 years and faced 3 lockouts.I believe I've earned the right to say what I think."

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
"I think time is against us and we need to find a solution. I think that it's a fight between 2 groups that have too much pride."

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
"I'm a little bit disappointed in what he(Eric Cole) said, he has 3 years left on his contract and I'm sure he got a nice signing bonus...

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
"..this summer, so I don't think he didn't have to sacrifice anything, so good for him, good agent."

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
"I'm just sending a message to Fehr, trying to push him a little bit, you know the older guys, we dont have much time, "

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
"..remember what happened in 2004, we then signed the same deal that was waiting for us right now on the table

Gino Reda ‏@GinoRedaTSN
"you think players are going to come back next summer and say no were not playing, i dont think so, were going to sign the deal anyways

Michael Neuvirth agreed:

Roman Jedlicka ‏@jedli
Roman Hamrlik is not alone w/ his opinion. #Caps goalie Michal Neuvirth just said for our TV NOVA Sport: "I agree 100% with Hammer. This (1)

Roman Jedlicka ‏@jedli
lockout is not about majority of players, i think. It is about several superstars with big contracts.? (2)

 

[Kin]

You don't offer in the hope, you offer with the condition of. I would say in return for these demands being met in my favor we would be willing to go to 50% in the next 2 seasons.  How hard is that to put out there?  Or I guess they could both just posture in the media for months as millions slip away and not really make any offers to each other.  Which way is stupid again?

Well, you say that like the HRR split isn't the biggest issue on both sides. It shouldn't be incumbent on one side to give in on the biggest issue of the negotiations just for the other side to even start mentioning what's in it for the other side. 

The NHL has put forth proposals in the beginning that were totally in teams favor.  But what the players should have done is make counter-proposals based off these not put out vague offers with no real monetary guarantees.

So the players should have made their proposals based off ones that were totally in the team's favour? Why?

And the objection the owners had to earlier players proposals is that they were guaranteed numbers instead of a fixed percentage. You've got that backwards.

I could be wrong but I think the key owner's issues are HRR %, the so-called cap circumventing deals, and free agency.  If I were in the players union I would be pushing hard every day for other rights in my favor in return for giving into these 3 conditions being the way the league wants. Or at least try to minimize each one's effect on my contract.

So if you were in the player's union you'd capitulate on the three biggest issues in the negotiation for what? Trying to get a break on entry level contracts and AHL salaries? No offense, but I wouldn't expect to be hearing from them any time soon for consulting work.

 

[Bates]

Nik if I was an NHL player and had my present level of intelligence I would look at the big picture and realize that I will never recover the income I am losing in one year of a lock-out.  And like the rest of the players, despite their words, I would not gives a rat's a** what players in 10 years make just as they have shown not to give one about previous players.

 

[Kin]

I didn't follow the outcomes of the recent NBA and MLB agreements, did those players get anything in return for lowering their share? (did they even reduce their share?)

MLB doesn't operate on a fixed % for their players. The NBA players got a higher cap floor and the rule that allows for higher salaries for exceptional players on second contracts.

 

[Kin]

Nik if I was an NHL player and had my present level of intelligence I would look at the big picture and realize that I will never recover the income I am losing in one year of a lock-out.  And like the rest of the players, despite their words, I would not gives a rat's a** what players in 10 years make just as they have shown not to give one about previous players.

I do not share your cynicism regarding the players' intent. I think the fact that they've taken the stance they have is indicative that they do care about more than just maximizing their own individual net worth.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Like I said in previous post if players offer 50% in real quick order then they may expect the owners to lower some of other demands.  If owners balk then screw themtoo.

So why doesn't the NHL lower their other demands in order to get to 50%? It's a two way street.

 

[Corn Flake]

Like I said in previous post if players offer 50% in real quick order then they may expect the owners to lower some of other demands.  If owners balk then screw themtoo.

So why doesn't the NHL lower their other demands in order to get to 50%? It's a two way street.

I think this is a matter of who lowers first, plus the players are already at 50% anyway.. just with a bunch of caveats the league will never agree to (and the PA knows it).. at least as they are written right now.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Roman Jedlicka ‏@jedli
Roman Hamrlik is not alone w/ his opinion. #Caps goalie Michal Neuvirth just said for our TV NOVA Sport: "I agree 100% with Hammer. This (1)

Roman Jedlicka ‏@jedli
lockout is not about majority of players, i think. It is about several superstars with big contracts.? (2)

I think we're going to start to hear a lot more from guys like this, marginal players, rightly or wrongly it does seem like it's been the star players leading the player contingent in talks.

 

[Kin]

I think we're going to start to hear a lot more from guys like this, marginal players, rightly or wrongly it does seem like it's been the star players leading the player contingent in talks.

This is from Scott Burnside's most recent article:

Eight years ago, the NHLPA had a player president, Trevor Linden, and a smaller executive committee that took in all of the meetings. Now dozens of players have taken in at least some of the bargaining sessions. Recently, players such as Johan Hedberg, Ron Hainsey, Kevin Westgarth and Martin Biron have been regulars, although players not on the negotiating committee have also taken in some meetings (such as Brad Richards last week and Sidney Crosby before that).

An all-star team it ain't.