2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

Sure, but those are highly specialized, very specific examples that represent the minority of jobs out there and doesn't negate my point in the slightest. In the majority of industries, the labour force is pretty interchangeable. There will always be individuals who stand out, but, as a whole, there won't be much change.

But I think the point being made there is that you can compare sports to the various, albeit limited, industries that have some employees who are highly specialized and not interchangeable.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

50% after expenses would mean there's be roughly $950M available to the players. That's a significantly bigger pay cut than the league is proposing. While that would certainly mean a healthier league in terms of finances, there's no way the players would even consider it nor would the owners offer something that insulting at this point.

That?s kind of the point, so far it looks like;
Players get half of the revenue straight up, no responsibly at all.
Owners get the other half, but pay for marketing, paying all the little guys managing the games, refs, heck even flying them to games, etc, etc, etc.
Where would the players play if the owners didn?t provide the venue?

Kinda reminds me of Alan Iverson from the NBA, ?I AM THE GAME?
Yeah, where are you now.

The NHLPA has the same poison flowing in their blood.

Sadly, I really hope they just cancel the whole season and just be done with it.

Do you pay a portion of the bills where you work? Do you pay the hydro? The heat? The Phone?

No, I get payed after expenses. I think this point has went way over your head.

I don't think so. You get paid despite expenses. When expenses become to high, lay offs happen(teams fold) or they go out of business(teams fold). Your pay does not go down when hydro goes up or when they have a slightly higher phone bill.

People start business knowing full well that they'll have to pay bills. Just as the owners went into business as hockey team owners knowing full well they'd have to pay the bills. It's part of doing business.

I personally would love to start my own restaurant....Now if only I could find a way to have my staff pay the heating and hydro bills....Now that's a realistic business model.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I disagree. Perhaps in a grocery store or a Tim Hortons, this may be true, but if you're in any field that requires any sort of specialists in said field, overhauling is not as simple as you suggest. You can't go into a hospital and say, "Hey we have a staff of the best brain surgeons in the world, but we can get the 2nd or 3rd best for a little less money...let's do it, the result will be the same."

Or, Ferrari can't go into their design centre and say, you're all fired, we've hired the guys from Lada to make our $250,000 sports cars"

Sure, but those are highly specialized, very specific examples that represent the minority of jobs out there and doesn't negate my point in the slightest. In the majority of industries, the labour force is pretty interchangeable. There will always be individuals who stand out, but, as a whole, there won't be much change.

Let me rephrase it then...In order to run the best, top business, you need the best there is(or as close to it as possible) at the specific job being performed. Whether you're a chef, a mechanic, a lawyer, a butcher...etc;

Now that's not to say that someone can't come in and do the same job..I'm just of the opinion that they can't do as good of a job.

So we agree that the players can't be interchanged..I just disagree that everyone one of us in our current jobs can be interchanged...well unless we're slackers that are p*ss poor at our jobs much like the players in the NHL that are interchangeable 4th liners.

 

[bustaheims]

So we agree that the players can't be interchanged..I just disagree that everyone one of us in our current jobs can be interchanged...well unless we're slackers that are p*ss poor at our jobs much like the players in the NHL that are interchangeable 4th liners.

I'm talking macro, not micro.

 

[princedpw]

While it's easy to say the players should give in when we're standing on the outside looking in(and I'm generally of that opinion when it comes to unions), the proposals from the NHL, have only gotten better as time has gone on in this, so really, the PA has been gaining back some of what the NHL wanted to take away.

Have they gained?  Suppose the players immediately said they would give the league 50-50 across the board, no caveats, before the season started, and they started the season on time.  They would have gained hundreds of millions in additional revenues from 3-4 extra months of hockey plus winter classic, allstar game, etc.

Suppose league revenue is 3.3 billion for a season (that was last year, right?).  1/2 of that being players side.  So they have 1.7 billion.  Suppose approximately 1/2 the revenues of the season are lost from the lockout.  Rounding down, that is $800 million that the players are looking at losing.  Perhaps you are more optimistic and think only a 1/3 of revenues have been lost so far -- that the teams can make 2/3 of what they would have made without a lockout (and the lockout won't affect future growth at all).  That's still $566 million lost.  The players aren't going to make that up in the final agreement they make with the owners.

So, the players' strategy is already a losing one.  Upping the percentage they get from the owners by a small amount isn't worth the massive shrink in the overall size of the pie.  It's unfortunate that the emphasis has always been on "beating the owners" as opposed getting the most money for themselves.  Everyone would have been better off.  Too late now.

 

[Bates]

While the top players in the NHL may be able to be easily replaced I would argue that the bottom half or more players on most teams ca
n easily be replicated by getting players from any of the top leagues in Europe. The 3rd and 4th liners on most teams really are not that good.

 

[Frank E]

That?s kind of the point, so far it looks like;
Players get half of the revenue straight up, no responsibly at all.
Owners get the other half, but pay for marketing, paying all the little guys managing the games, refs, heck even flying them to games, etc, etc, etc.

And yet it's the players who would argue that their compensation shouldn't be a fixed percentage of revenues. They'd argue that teams should be able to pay their employees whatever % of their revenues they'd like.

If you think the percentage split doesn't make sense, your beef is not with the players.

You're arguing two different points here. 

The players are suggesting that 50% of the revenues is not enough...that's what DK2 is referring to as being questionable.

The players are not asking for teams to pay players whatever they want.  They're asking for a bigger % than 50% and fixed $ guarantees.

 

[Kin]

You're arguing two different points here. 

The players are suggesting that 50% of the revenues is not enough...that's what DK2 is referring to as being questionable.

And I'm saying that's disingenuous without acknowledging that the players would prefer their salaries not be tied to revenues at all.

 

[Frank E]

why don't they just do 50-50 after expenses? that would be fair wouldn't it?

50% after expenses would mean there's be roughly $950M available to the players. That's a significantly bigger pay cut than the league is proposing. While that would certainly mean a healthier league in terms of finances, there's no way the players would even consider it nor would the owners offer something that insulting at this point.

That?s kind of the point, so far it looks like;
Players get half of the revenue straight up, no responsibly at all.
Owners get the other half, but pay for marketing, paying all the little guys managing the games, refs, heck even flying them to games, etc, etc, etc.
Where would the players play if the owners didn?t provide the venue?

Kinda reminds me of Alan Iverson from the NBA, ?I AM THE GAME?
Yeah, where are you now.

The NHLPA has the same poison flowing in their blood.

Sadly, I really hope they just cancel the whole season and just be done with it.

Do you pay a portion of the bills where you work? Do you pay the hydro? The heat? The Phone?

No, I get payed after expenses. I think this point has went way over your head.

I don't think so. You get paid despite expenses. When expenses become to high, lay offs happen(teams fold) or they go out of business(teams fold). Your pay does not go down when hydro goes up or when they have a slightly higher phone bill.

People start business knowing full well that they'll have to pay bills. Just as the owners went into business as hockey team owners knowing full well they'd have to pay the bills. It's part of doing business.

I personally would love to start my own restaurant....Now if only I could find a way to have my staff pay the heating and hydro bills....Now that's a realistic business model.

Just so you're aware, many positions - including mine - pay a percentage of net as part of a salary package.  Many more include company shares as compensation packages.  These shares have values reflective of company profitability, future dividend payouts, and overall asset valuation.

And another thing, the NHL is doing exactly what you suggest businesses do, which is get their expenses proper in order to get properly profitable. 

The NHL may be that Ferrari that you're talking about...did you know Ferrari is not really sustainable on its own, and that without the financial backing of parent Fiat, likely would be amongst the many now-defunct exotic car manufacturers?

The NHL sure does take care of their players, fancy hotels, chartered jets, the whole nine yards, and is the highest paying league in the world where these guys can ply their trade...the highest paying league in the world even at the current deal in front of the players.

The players want to talk about the deal they singed 7 years ago and what they "gave up"?  It's really irrelevant what happened 7 years ago, and the financial reality of a post 2008 financial crisis has had dramatic changes to many industries around the globe.

For those defending the players side of this argument, I'm going to tell you something...this isn't about a fair amount of money from their side.  It certainly is about money from the ownership side, but the players - they want to "win" something here...the guys like Hamrlik are the ones that are all about money.  These guys will never get back what they've lost so far. 

At least the owners are using logical facts with respect to pointing at the accounting and the losses.  All the players have to point at is something that happened in a different business climate 7 years ago, and some vague ridiculous notion of "fairness". 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

While it's easy to say the players should give in when we're standing on the outside looking in(and I'm generally of that opinion when it comes to unions), the proposals from the NHL, have only gotten better as time has gone on in this, so really, the PA has been gaining back some of what the NHL wanted to take away.

Have they gained?  Suppose the players immediately said they would give the league 50-50 across the board, no caveats, before the season started, and they started the season on time.  They would have gained hundreds of millions in additional revenues from 3-4 extra months of hockey plus winter classic, allstar game, etc.

Suppose league revenue is 3.3 billion for a season (that was last year, right?).  1/2 of that being players side.  So they have 1.7 billion.  Suppose approximately 1/2 the revenues of the season are lost from the lockout.  Rounding down, that is $800 million that the players are looking at losing.  Perhaps you are more optimistic and think only a 1/3 of revenues have been lost so far -- that the teams can make 2/3 of what they would have made without a lockout (and the lockout won't affect future growth at all).  That's still $566 million lost.  The players aren't going to make that up in the final agreement they make with the owners.

So, the players' strategy is already a losing one.  Upping the percentage they get from the owners by a small amount isn't worth the massive shrink in the overall size of the pie.  It's unfortunate that the emphasis has always been on "beating the owners" as opposed getting the most money for themselves.  Everyone would have been better off.  Too late now.

Like I've said, it's easy to look from the outside in and say they're bleeding money and should of settled months ago. And yes, it is true that they have lost a boatload of money.

I guess the only way to look at it is they're looking at this for themselves as well for players of the future, instead of just being worried about the next 3 years.

I'm not stating which way I'd go when faced with the same situation, and there's probably a large group of players that feel like Hamrlik and wish it would of ended 2 months ago. Unfortunately, there's apparently a large group of players that are looking to the future of the league and the union, or at least giving the impression of looking that way.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Just so you're aware, many positions - including mine - pay a percentage of net as part of a salary package.  Many more include company shares as compensation packages.  These shares have values reflective of company profitability, future dividend payouts, and overall asset valuation.

I realize that there are many positions similar to yours. I never said there wasn't. Are you unionized?

And another thing, the NHL is doing exactly what you suggest businesses do, which is get their expenses proper in order to get properly profitable.

If you're going to consider the NHL as the business(which it is), they reported their largest profits ever in 2011/2012.

The NHL may be that Ferrari that you're talking about...did you know Ferrari is not really sustainable on its own, and that without the financial backing of parent Fiat, likely would be amongst the many now-defunct exotic car manufacturers?

??Confused here??

The NHL sure does take care of their players, fancy hotels, chartered jets, the whole nine yards, and is the highest paying league in the world where these guys can ply their trade...the highest paying league in the world even at the current deal in front of the players.

No kidding. Again, confused at what you're getting at.

The players want to talk about the deal they singed 7 years ago and what they "gave up"?  It's really irrelevant what happened 7 years ago, and the financial reality of a post 2008 financial crisis has had dramatic changes to many industries around the globe.

It hasn't had dramatic changes to the NHL's financial status. They're claiming their highest revenues ever.

For those defending the players side of this argument, I'm going to tell you something...this isn't about a fair amount of money from their side.  It certainly is about money from the ownership side, but the players - they want to "win" something here...the guys like Hamrlik are the ones that are all about money.  These guys will never get back what they've lost so far. 

What exactly do they want to win? Instead of giving up 7% of their monies, plus a tonne of their contracting rights, they want to give up 7% of their monies and only a little of their contracting rights? That's not winning...that's lessening the blow.

And let's be honest, it's all about money...from both sides.

At least the owners are using logical facts with respect to pointing at the accounting and the losses.  All the players have to point at is something that happened in a different business climate 7 years ago, and some vague ridiculous notion of "fairness".

That different business climate has produced the most successful years in the business'(The NHL) history.

 

[Kin]

[quote author=Frank E =topic=716.msg92164#msg92164 date=1353874685]
And another thing, the NHL is doing exactly what you suggest businesses do, which is get their expenses proper in order to get properly profitable.[/quote]

Except they're not really, because they're still not addressing the fundamental differences in revenues between the clubs. A deal that sees the player's share drop from 57 to 50 doesn't address that fundamental imbalance which is the real issue and the reason that despite the league being profitable as a whole there are some teams who aren't doing well. 

[quote author=Frank E =topic=716.msg92164#msg92164 date=1353874685]
The NHL sure does take care of their players, fancy hotels, chartered jets, the whole nine yards, and is the highest paying league in the world where these guys can ply their trade...the highest paying league in the world even at the current deal in front of the players.[/quote]

As mentioned above trying to present this as some sort of "gift" given to the players is just absolute hogwash. The players create the value here.

[quote author=Frank E =topic=716.msg92164#msg92164 date=1353874685]
The players want to talk about the deal they singed 7 years ago and what they "gave up"?  It's really irrelevant what happened 7 years ago, and the financial reality of a post 2008 financial crisis has had dramatic changes to many industries around the globe.[/quote]

Except the NHL views everything they won in the last negotiations as being iron-clad locks to be in the next negotiations so clearly they're working off of the results 7 years ago. If what happened seven years ago was "irrelevant" to the current proceedings the players would be going after the hard cap. They're not.

[quote author=Frank E =topic=716.msg92164#msg92164 date=1353874685]
For those defending the players side of this argument, I'm going to tell you something...this isn't about a fair amount of money from their side.  It certainly is about money from the ownership side, but the players - they want to "win" something here...the guys like Hamrlik are the ones that are all about money.  These guys will never get back what they've lost so far.[/quote]

I'm certainly not labouring under the assumption that this has anything to do with "fairness". I just think that the players are fundamentally correct when they say that the market should dictate what they earn.

[quote author=Frank E =topic=716.msg92164#msg92164 date=1353874685]
At least the owners are using logical facts with respect to pointing at the accounting and the losses.  All the players have to point at is something that happened in a different business climate 7 years ago, and some vague ridiculous notion of "fairness".
[/quote]

Ah, good ol' logical facts.

The players feel that the owners have a responsibility to negotiate with them on the basis of good faith and with the acknowledgment that they're sacrificing their right to let the marketplace dictate what they earn. The owners crying about how they're too stupid to be able to run their business absent players allowing owners to idiot proof their league is not a logical argument because no one is entitled to profitability. They're running their league poorly, they're losing money. The player's argument is that that's on them and that maybe, for once, they should take some personal responsibility for their own bad decisions.

The players have already agreed to a lowering of the percentage they'll take going forward. All they're really asking right now is that the owners be men and live up to the agreements that they've already signed.

 

[Hampreacher]

My feeling is unless an agreement is reached this week. The season is history and we can sing the Na-nanana hey, hey good bye to Colmbus, Nashville, Florida, Tampa Bay and others. Maybe even the NHL. Guys settle for the Good of the Game. Winning isn't the main thing at stake here. It's the game.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The game isn't at stake...The NHL isn't the game...Besides, I highly doubt the NHL is at risk.

 

[Kin]

Have they gained?  Suppose the players immediately said they would give the league 50-50 across the board, no caveats, before the season started, and they started the season on time.  They would have gained hundreds of millions in additional revenues from 3-4 extra months of hockey plus winter classic, allstar game, etc.

Suppose league revenue is 3.3 billion for a season (that was last year, right?).  1/2 of that being players side.  So they have 1.7 billion.  Suppose approximately 1/2 the revenues of the season are lost from the lockout.  Rounding down, that is $800 million that the players are looking at losing.  Perhaps you are more optimistic and think only a 1/3 of revenues have been lost so far -- that the teams can make 2/3 of what they would have made without a lockout (and the lockout won't affect future growth at all).  That's still $566 million lost.  The players aren't going to make that up in the final agreement they make with the owners.

So, the players' strategy is already a losing one.  Upping the percentage they get from the owners by a small amount isn't worth the massive shrink in the overall size of the pie.  It's unfortunate that the emphasis has always been on "beating the owners" as opposed getting the most money for themselves.  Everyone would have been better off.  Too late now.

The problem with looking at this that way, however, is that nobody in the NHLPA, no members anyway, is going to be motivated or look at it in the context of the collective wages of the membership. Donald Fehr could be argued to have some sort of responsibility to take that into account but he doesn't set the direction.

Every player instead is going to look at this individually and the reality is that for everyone but the most transitional of players in the NHL the difference involved in losing half a season is the difference between being rich and...being slightly richer. Missing half of this season means 3.75 million to Sidney Crosby, who's probably going to make around 150 million just in salary in his career. Or 500K to Colby Armstrong who'll make at least 15 or so million. That's not to suggest it's not a sacrifice but nobody's back is getting broken.

And on the flip side of that if the players eventually get something resembling their latest offer then there are a lot of guys who'll do better, and more who think that it's a possibility that they'll do better, under that proposed deal then they would under what the owners want. Especially if they hold the line on long term front loaded contracts.

If I throw away a nickel every day I'll be 18 bucks and change poorer at the end of the year. If everyone else in the city of Toronto does it with me we'll be down a cumulative 47 million bucks or so. Together it's a lot of money, individually it's not enough to sway any decisions I make.

 

[Deebo]

I can't believe the NHL still has a 5 year term limit on the table.

 

[bustaheims]

Real_ESPNLeBrun: Federal mediator now involved in NHL/NHLPA labor talks. More to come.

 

[Fanatic]

Bob McKenzie‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

NHL and NHLPA have agreed to allow U.S. federal mediators to get involved in the labor dispute.

Deputy Director Scot L. Beckenbaugh, Director of Mediation Services John Sweeney, and Commissioner Guy Serota to serve as the mediators.

 

[bustaheims]

TSNBobMcKenzie: Mediation is not binding. It's just an objective third party trying to help process get on track. Mediators were, IIRC, used in 2004-05.

Bolded for emphasis, just in case anyone was unaware.

 

[Deebo]

That's like an all-star team of mediation.