2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[GhostofPotvin29]

Mathieu Schneider courtesy of @Proteautype:

"It was a new cast of characters, but it was the same old story. It was a take-it-or-leave it offer and they walked out of the room. We had a counter-proposal ready for them, the owners wouldn?t even come and listen to it. They sent Bob Batterman and Bill Daly.....(t)hey essentially said they were not going to accept our proposal in the morning before they even knew what we were going to say." "

"The new owners wanted to come in and say, ?you know, we are where we are, let?s get this done, let?s forget how we got here.  1 of the (PA) guys in the meeting said, ?Well, let?s not forget how we got here...we have over $1 billion of concessions on the table."

"It?s just been a moving target. If you think back a couple weeks ago when we had the secret meetings at Proskauer, we went in there and we said, 'We?re $182 million apart, guys, we should be able to get in a room and figure this out tonight.' ? They came back in with this ridiculous set of numbers and said, ?No, we?re actually over $900 million apart.  I can not for the life of me understand why they want to be further apart each time. The CBA contract length is a perfect example. Their first offer was five years. We were at three & an option. We moved up to 5 years, they moved to six. In this last negotiation this past week, we moved up to six, they moved up to 10. There?s no rhyme or reason for it.

"The conclusion I keep coming to is somehow the owners do not want to deal with Don. That was obvious this past week, but I think it?s been the case throughout the negotiations. They come in with a take-it-or-leave it, walk away, they try to pressure the guys. They have other people, they have owners, GMs, coaches, calling guys, meeting them in the dressing room, telling them, 'You better take.this offer, it?s not going to get any better?."

"Ron Hainsey said to Bill Daly and Murray Edwards, essentially, 'We?re not deal-closers, we can?t finish this off. We?re very close let?s get in a room and work it out, but we?ve got to have Don and Steve & Mathieu & all of our staff in there, but we?re right here And (owners) essentially said, ?If Don?s in the room, it?s a deal-breaker?. And I don?t know what you do with that.  I don?t know how you work with that. They can not tell us who should represent us. It?s like you?re buying a house, and the seller says, ?I?m not going to sell you the house if you don?t hire this realtor. That?s essentially what they?re saying.

"Guys are angry, but they also understand that we?ve done everything that we can, every step of the way.  One thing I will that I will tell you is if the players give in now, that?s going to guarantee another lockout when this deal is up.

 

[Bates]

I wish they would all stop the stupid rhetoric. Schnieder knows very well why the NHL keeps asking for a longer deal each time. It corresponds with the increase in "make whole" payments that are offered. Bettman has made it clear that many owners don't want make whole money on the table. By getting a longer time frame to look after this make whole money he was able to get owners to support these payments.

 

[bustaheims]

I wish they would all stop the stupid rhetoric. Schnieder knows very well why the NHL keeps asking for a longer deal each time. It corresponds with the increase in "make whole" payments that are offered. Bettman has made it clear that many owners don't want make whole money on the table. By getting a longer time frame to look after this make whole money he was able to get owners to support these payments.

I'm not so sure it's about the Make Whole as much it is in relation to the amount of damage done by the lockout and the increasing need for stability in labour relations going forward. The 5 year offer was made before they missed any games and before the lockout was officially enacted. 6 years when they could still get in an 82 game season, so the damage would have been minimal. Now, 10 years, after the lockout has cost 2 months of the season and the damage has grown, fans are upset and sponsors are getting really antsy.

 

[Bates]

Just relaying what has been widely reported all week. All day today again players have been tweeting about how much they have moved on all the issues. I know they obviously moved plenty on money to 50/50 plus the Make Whole but I can't seem to recall what other issues they have really given anything up on. Can anyone remind me what issues they have given so much on?  And no I am not being a smartass, I just can't seem to remember.

 

[bustaheims]

Just relaying what has been widely reported all week. All day today again players have been tweeting about how much they have moved on all the issues. I know they obviously moved plenty on money to 50/50 plus the Make Whole but I can't seem to recall what other issues they have really given anything up on. Can anyone remind me what issues they have given so much on?  And no I am not being a smartass, I just can't seem to remember.

Well, in their most recent proposal, they agreed to the principle of limits of contract length.

 

[Kin]

Mathieu Schneider courtesy of @Proteautype:

"Guys are angry, but they also understand that we?ve done everything that we can, every step of the way.  One thing I will that I will tell you is if the players give in now, that?s going to guarantee another lockout when this deal is up.

I think that's a really underrated point that is sort of the bedrock behind a lot of what's going on here. It's a point I've hammered on often but I really think the biggest mistake the league has made is that they haven't given the PA a single thing that they can hang their hat on and say "Well, we lost X but we gained Y".

From the beginning they've completely the abandoned the idea that anyone is going to look at the result as a win-win and, to their credit, it's largely worked. At this point the players entire negotiating stance is minimizing what they lose. But while that can be profitable, I think all it's going to do is maintain the current lousy climate between the players and the owners. So I can completely understand if the instinct on the player's side is to look for that shorter CBA because it's always the loser who is clamoring for the rematch.

 

[Kin]

I know they obviously moved plenty on money to 50/50 plus the Make Whole but I can't seem to recall what other issues they have really given anything up on.

I think the players would say that "the money" isn't really one issue but is instead lots of issues that include things like the fixed link, the percentage of HRR, the make whole, revenue sharing and on and on.

 

[Bates]

That makes sense Nik. Still seems to me that both sides spend more time spinning the rhetoric than actually "giving in" on anything. I still don't understand how they can be seemingly so close yet have now blown up again. Maybe cooler heads prevail next week and they finish with a little compromise??

 

[Kin]

That makes sense Nik. Still seems to me that both sides spend more time spinning the rhetoric than actually "giving in" on anything. I still don't understand how they can be seemingly so close yet have now blown up again. Maybe cooler heads prevail next week and they finish with a little compromise??

Well, the thing I'd keep saying, maybe out of pragmatism or maybe some sense of hope, is that people in this thread are paying way, way too much attention to the circus and not realizing that it's being done for our benefit. What plays out in front of the cameras or gets leaked to the press is all part of the game.  We hear some variation on "Sources say things are close" and it feeds the twitter beast and it gets jumped on it as "news" but it's meaningless. So are insults and jabs and strong declarative statements that paint Fehr or Bettman as jerks or whatever.

To this point I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is anything other than a very tough negotiation being conducted by two very good negotiators. The people who don't like the public aspect of it should either recognize what it is and enjoy it as theatre or take a break from it.

 

[Deebo]

I think that's a really underrated point that is sort of the bedrock behind a lot of what's going on here. It's a point I've hammered on often but I really think the biggest mistake the league has made is that they haven't given the PA a single thing that they can hang their hat on and say "Well, we lost X but we gained Y".

I don't know the specifics, but Bettman did say he was handed a bunch of requests by the union and the NHL agreed to a bunch of them.

From the beginning they've completely the abandoned the idea that anyone is going to look at the result as a win-win and, to their credit, it's largely worked. At this point the players entire negotiating stance is minimizing what they lose. But while that can be profitable, I think all it's going to do is maintain the current lousy climate between the players and the owners. So I can completely understand if the instinct on the player's side is to look for that shorter CBA because it's always the loser who is clamoring for the rematch.

I hear the players say is that if they concede too much now then the owners will come for more next time and they also talk about how they've conceded everything.

If they really believe both of these statements are true, wouldn't they want as long a CBA as possible?

I'm not sure they really care all that much if it's 8 or 10 years, I think may just be using it as a bargaining chip, the owners want a long one so we want a short one.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Just relaying what has been widely reported all week. All day today again players have been tweeting about how much they have moved on all the issues. I know they obviously moved plenty on money to 50/50 plus the Make Whole but I can't seem to recall what other issues they have really given anything up on. Can anyone remind me what issues they have given so much on?  And no I am not being a smartass, I just can't seem to remember.

Off the top of my head, the players moved to 50/50 (or thereabouts), from a 3 year CBA to and 8 year CBA, from no contract limits to 7 or 8 years.

Those are 3 very large points from the players perspective (I'm probably still missing a few).

I mean outside of the 300M in "make whole" what have the owners actually moved on? Considering they caused the lockout in the first place, that's not really a humongous concession in bargaining.

That Schneider quote which you think is spin is IMO pretty bang on.

Brian Leetch offers another strong opinion: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/12/07/hockey_hearsay/

The guy has no horse in the race, but I'm guessing you think he's also part of the rhetoric right? Outside of Mark Recchi (who let's face it, is an owner and probably has aspirations at the NHL level at some point) and Don Cherry (who's a senile old coot), there aren't a large number of supporters of the owners. I think there's a reason for that...

 

[bustaheims]

I don't know the specifics, but Bettman did say he was handed a bunch of requests by the union and the NHL agreed to a bunch of them.

I posted them in here a few weeks ago. They were things like individual hotel rooms, third party arbitration on discipline, teams paying for 2nd medical opinions, etc. The owners have also moved significantly in the players' direction on revenue sharing.

 

[Deebo]

That makes sense Nik. Still seems to me that both sides spend more time spinning the rhetoric than actually "giving in" on anything. I still don't understand how they can be seemingly so close yet have now blown up again. Maybe cooler heads prevail next week and they finish with a little compromise??

Well, the thing I'd keep saying, maybe out of pragmatism or maybe some sense of hope, is that people in this thread are paying way, way too much attention to the circus and not realizing that it's being done for our benefit. What plays out in front of the cameras or gets leaked to the press is all part of the game.  We hear some variation on "Sources say things are close" and it feeds the twitter beast and it gets jumped on it as "news" but it's meaningless. So are insults and jabs and strong declarative statements that paint Fehr or Bettman as jerks or whatever.

To this point I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is anything other than a very tough negotiation being conducted by two very good negotiators. The people who don't like the public aspect of it should either recognize what it is and enjoy it as theatre or take a break from it.

Well said, this is exactly how I feel.

What might be adding fuel to this, is that the media covering this have a vested interest in whether this gets sorted out or not. Having to cover this instead of of actual hockey news must be killing them and as a result I think some of them them are letting their emotions effect their reporting.

 

[Kin]

I don't know the specifics, but Bettman did say he was handed a bunch of requests by the union and the NHL agreed to a bunch of them.

But in a world where the NHL is framing reducing what they want the players to give up as a "concession" that's a largely meaningless statement absent the specifics.

I hear the players say is that if they concede too much now then the owners will come for more next time and they also talk about how they've conceded everything.

If they really believe both of these statements are true, wouldn't they want as long a CBA as possible?

I haven't heard it framed that way. I've heard players say that if they didn't go to the wall right now that owners wouldn't be hesitant to just ask for more next time but that's always been in the context of explaining why the players have fought this well into December or whenever.

But just as a general rule, no, I think that the general consensus is going to be that if one side is agreeing to a deal with a bunch of concessions based on economic necessity then they're going to want to re-open it as soon as possible so that they have the opportunity to get a little back if the business grows.

 

[bustaheims]

cotsonika: Bettman and Fehr are made for each other. Both move targets. Both pocket concessions and ask for more. Both are good at this -- too good.

 

[Bates]

Chev I am not sure who you follow or read but in my world I have seen very few who are behind the players this week. I think most think the players have seen the best deal and should have signed the last offer.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

For everyone that is saying Fehr is putting his ego above the process or whatever, this is from the MLB deal in 2006:

The lack of acrimony in the talks also signaled what both sides said is a new era in labor peace. The agreement was completed two months before the Dec. 19 deadline and was marked by a virtual news blackout as the sides negotiated in private, and without rancor.

"What was really different this time was that the approach to bargaining, while it had its difficult moments, was very workmanlike, very pragmatic, very day‑by‑day," Fehr said. "There was a shared desire to see if we could resolve this well ahead of time and if we could get it done by about the time of the World Series, before the free agency declaration period began."

..

"They were without the usual rancor. They were without the usual dueling press conferences. They were without the usual leaks," Selig said. "In other words, these negotiations were conducted professionally, with dignity and with results. These negotiations were emblematic of the new spirit of cooperation and trust that now exists between the clubs and the players." 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061024&content_id=1722211&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Perhaps we are seeing in the NHL negotiations how Don Fehr acts when he is not treated respectfully and professionally, as opposed to a Don Fehr that baseball eventually came to respect and treat as one for the betterment of the game.

 

[hockeyfan1]

If there isn't a resolution soon, Sidney Crosby appears ready to find a place to play elsewhere.

The Pittsburgh Penguins star wants to get back to work. He said Friday the prospect of lacing up his skates in Europe is growing more appealing as the lockout nears the three-month mark. The breakdown in negotiations left Crosby "disappointed" and considering other opportunities.

"I just want to play hockey," Crosby told reporters after an informal workout with some of his teammates on Friday morning. "As far as whatever option is best there, I'll start thinking of it a lot more because this stuff is getting ridiculous."

Source: CBC

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

David Backes comments on what happened.  Similar to what's been said, but at least you know this is someone who was directly involved in the most recent negotiations.

Link

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Chev I am not sure who you follow or read but in my world I have seen very few who are behind the players this week. I think most think the players have seen the best deal and should have signed the last offer.

I'm not sure why one would think the players should have signed the last offer and not think the same of the owners with the deal the players proposed before they went through the roof.

2-3 years in contract length and 2 years difference in CBA length shouldn't cause the owners to break off talks and for Bettman to act like a little girl in front of the cameras for 30 mins.

I don't understand the attitude of "the players should accept any deal in front of them" which is the attitude many have had with each passing deal. Every time people have said "the deal won't get better" and it has.

On the other hand, few (on these boards) have taken issue with the NHL's point of view. With the last player offer they got close with CBA length and close with contract length.

Heck, if contract length being 5 years is "the hill we'll die on", then let the players have 53% (or something more) and they may bite.

What the owners are actually doing are saying "50/50, 5 year contracts AND a 10 year CBA are the hills we'll die on. Take it or leave it. If you take it we'll give you $300M for the lockout we caused. If not we'll take that away"

With that stance, the owners will never get what they want and hockey will not resume for a good while.