Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 2012 CBA News and Comments Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 14

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/14/2012 :  14:21:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The first few meetings were far too friendly with both sides saying very good things about each other. Now the real dirty work begins.


The Sporting News is reporting the NHL side has tabled their stance on a number of items. This should get some fur flying:

- player revenue share drops from 57% to 46%
- a player must play 10 yrs before they would be eligible for unrestricted free agency
- a 5 year max on all contracts, including elimiating signing bonuses and all contract must have equal salaries in each year of the deal
- entry level deals move from 3 yrs to 5 yrs
- closing the gap between the cap floor and max
- no more salary arbitration

Larry Brooks from the NY Post tweeted, "NHL proposal amounts to a Declaration of War against the NHLPA."


Talk about asking for the world. I can't see the players taking any of these suggestions as they are. Granted, I think these things solve a number of issues. Firstly, I do think the owners should get more than 50% of the revenues. They have all the costs and should still be able to make money. Secondly, these dumb long contracts have to end. I also like the idea of a draft pick being with a team for an extended period and free agency taking longer for a player to achieve. I like all of the suggestions.

Discuss.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Edited by - Beans15 on 07/14/2012 14:32:37

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/14/2012 :  15:56:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I like all the suggestions as well, and while I don't think that 46% to the players is gonna fly, its a good opening volley. Clearly a lowball offer, I don't think anyone really expected the NHLPA to accept it.

I think sports in general should be a 50/50 thing, and I have no problem with the players getting 50% of the cut (which is still a far cry down from 57%). I think the owners would be happy with that as well.

A couple of things not discussed:

*amnesty clause - there was some speculation that owners would attempt to write in a one time "get out of jail free" card, that would allow them to get rid of one contract without a cap hit. Will see if that comes up.

*guaranteed contracts - lots of talk about owners trying to get rid of them, I believe the NHL is the last professional sports league to have 100% guaranteed contracts. Perhaps there is some compromise room there - players could have 55% of revenues but get rid of guaranteed contracts, or something like that.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/14/2012 :  16:01:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My things with owners getting a bit more than 50% has to do with cost and ownership. Think of the expense or travel ( air, hotel, food, etc), equipment, facilities, etc. That's huge. I suspect close to the payroll. Secondly, There are few, if any, companies that give 50% of their revenue to payroll. Not even close. The owner has a right to make a profit and paying 50% of the revenue to players(include things like tv deals and merch) is too much.

Sadly, even if the % was less, just fans won't see any reprieve on the costs of being a hockey fan.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/14/2012 :  20:07:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

My things with owners getting a bit more than 50% has to do with cost and ownership. Think of the expense or travel ( air, hotel, food, etc), equipment, facilities, etc. That's huge. I suspect close to the payroll. Secondly, There are few, if any, companies that give 50% of their revenue to payroll. Not even close. The owner has a right to make a profit and paying 50% of the revenue to players(include things like tv deals and merch) is too much.

Sadly, even if the % was less, just fans won't see any reprieve on the costs of being a hockey fan.



Team finances are kept private, however this article has some interesting data: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=27138. Granted its from a couple of years ago, but it gives you an idea of what your costs beyond player payroll might be.

As for comparing hockey teams to "real world" businesses... well, I don't think its particularly relevant. Owners who successfully own other businesses don't even seem to think its relevant either, judging by the health of some of the franchises - NHL teams are more expensive toys than business. Owned for a variety of reasons, but I don't think one of them is to make serious income on a year to year basis.

Edited by - nuxfan on 07/14/2012 20:07:50
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4603 Posts

Posted - 07/15/2012 :  07:17:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

My things with owners getting a bit more than 50% has to do with cost and ownership. Think of the expense or travel ( air, hotel, food, etc), equipment, facilities, etc. That's huge. I suspect close to the payroll. Secondly, There are few, if any, companies that give 50% of their revenue to payroll. Not even close. The owner has a right to make a profit and paying 50% of the revenue to players(include things like tv deals and merch) is too much.

Sadly, even if the % was less, just fans won't see any reprieve on the costs of being a hockey fan.



Team finances are kept private, however this article has some interesting data: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=27138. Granted its from a couple of years ago, but it gives you an idea of what your costs beyond player payroll might be.

As for comparing hockey teams to "real world" businesses... well, I don't think its particularly relevant. Owners who successfully own other businesses don't even seem to think its relevant either, judging by the health of some of the franchises - NHL teams are more expensive toys than business. Owned for a variety of reasons, but I don't think one of them is to make serious income on a year to year basis.




Agreed - NHL franchises are a badge of honour . . . it's an expensive toy that gives one prestige, fame, and recognition in the community. It's a legacy thing.

That being said, I think the owners should be making more than 50% . . . which is already quite low, IMHO. You want to engender a feeling that you can, in fact, make money here, and that it's not just a billionaire playtoy.

I agree with the shorter contract lengths, and again, I think it's merely a lowball offer. If they can get acceptance for 7 or 8 year limits . . . I am happy with that, much more reasonable. And, I think you should be able to lock up a franchise player for 7 years, but not much longer.

I can't see how that cutting out salary arbitration thing is gonna fly. I mean, it's the huge salary inflator in the whole process, I get that; but I cannot see them eliminating it. Good luck on that!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  09:33:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

I like all the suggestions as well, and while I don't think that 46% to the players is gonna fly, its a good opening volley. Clearly a lowball offer, I don't think anyone really expected the NHLPA to accept it.

I think sports in general should be a 50/50 thing, and I have no problem with the players getting 50% of the cut (which is still a far cry down from 57%). I think the owners would be happy with that as well.

A couple of things not discussed:

*amnesty clause - there was some speculation that owners would attempt to write in a one time "get out of jail free" card, that would allow them to get rid of one contract without a cap hit. Will see if that comes up.

*guaranteed contracts - lots of talk about owners trying to get rid of them, I believe the NHL is the last professional sports league to have 100% guaranteed contracts. Perhaps there is some compromise room there - players could have 55% of revenues but get rid of guaranteed contracts, or something like that.



I believe that football is the only pro sport that does not have guaranteed contracts. Baseball and basketball have the luxury tax system and buy outs do not count against their 'soft caps' but only against their luxury tax. It's give the illusion that the contracts are not guaranteed. At least this is how I understand them to work.

I would LOVE to see the NHL without guaranteed contracts, but that comes with it's own danger. It kind of renders the Cap a bit useless over multiple seasons. A team could go right to the cap one season then dump and rebuild the next as long as the had an owner with deep pockets who likes to spend money.

I think every GM in the NHL would love to see the amnesty clause. Guys like Gomez, Luongo, Horcoff, Komisarek, et al would be on the free agent market and their teams would be rid of a horrible contract.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  12:56:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't hate most of the Leagues proposals except the 10 year rfa term for a draftee.

Having amnesty on a player who played to potential for a contract and underperforms post signing is a huge issue for me. I think the level of hockey would come up if the contracts was null and void due to a substantial decrease in performance. I thought in the last round of CBA that the league won the rights to reverse arbitrate on this issue. Would be nice if a team could say to a player, hey Gomez you are performing at 1/3 of your signing performance, either we pay you less or your contract is null and void. Having a independant arbitrator having the final say would be perfect in my opinion.

The revenue issue I am certain will end up in the 50% mark as suggested by others. And why not. In the case of particular franchises currently running at a loss, this turns them to profit from a loss and would increase the overall value for the league. It would be like removing the junk status from a company on the stock exchange.

I don't particularly like locking up a rookie for 10 years. I thought the current Free Agency timetable was ample and an increase would reduce my off season fun of who's going where. I love free agency trade days and deadlines.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 07/16/2012 12:59:07
Go to Top of Page

Guest2346
( )

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  13:30:04  Reply with Quote
would anyone be able to briefly explain how guaranteed contracts work in the NHL and how exactly they function?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  14:00:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2346

would anyone be able to briefly explain how guaranteed contracts work in the NHL and how exactly they function?



In short, once an NHL player signs a contract, they are assured that money unless they decide to retire on their own. No team can release a player from their contract without buying them out. If they do buy the player out, a pretty large portion of the original cap hit stays on the team. I can't recall but it's either 1/3 the original deal for twice the duration of the remaining years. For example, the Oilers bought out Sheldon Souray with one year remaining on a $5ish million contract. His payout penalty was $1.5 million of a cap hit against the Oilers for 2 seasons.

Comparatively, the NFL does not have guaranteed contracts. A player can be signed today and be released tomorrow. However, most 'big name' players will negotiation guaranteed money in the contract. For example, Drew Brees just signed with the Saint for 5 yrs - $100 million with $60 million guaranteed. The good thing is that once a player is released, the contract does not go against the salary cap, even the guaranteed money. So even if the Saints were to release Brees and pay him the $60 million, none of it goes against the cap.


At least this is how I understand things to work.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  14:58:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans is correct, guaranteed contracts are just that, guaranteed. Players get the full amount regardless of whether they play in the NHL (1 way deals pay their full salary in the AHL, Europe, or elsewhere) or play at all (injured players still collect full pay). The only way a player contract can be terminated is:

- by player retirement
- team imposed suspension (a player does not get paid if under suspension)
- for cause - player gets arrested and sentenced to jail, or cannot perform to the contract for some other reason (I cannot think of a time when cause has nullified a contract).

Contracts are guaranteed, and count against the cap fully, unless a buyout has occurred. If a team buys out a player contract, the buy out is 2/3 of remaining contract amount, spread over double the years remaining on the deal.

I had originally thought that the NHL was the only guaranteed contract sport, however Beans is correct, it seems other sports have guaranteed contracts to varying degrees, or in the case of the NFL, the ability to negotiate a portion that is guaranteed.
Go to Top of Page

Guest2346
( )

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  15:41:15  Reply with Quote
so why wouldn't teams just suspend a player if they dont need to use them (komisarek, luongo, etc.)
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  15:42:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
One does have to wonder why such an incredible lowball offer from the league. When you consider the concessions the players took in the last contract and the 13 billion dollar increase in revenue you have to wonder what the NHL is thinking. The way Bettman was talking I thought there was going to be something more realistic to a good starting offer. Of course we do not know the real issues until the offers are made.
There are several ways of negotiation and low ball, screw you type of initial offers always set of poor tone for negotiations. What does it say to the players when the NHL says we want it all.
Good negotiations always maxmize the needs of both parties, good negotiations do not start with a slap in the face, thats the old school way of doing things. Good negotiations should start with common issues and a willingness on both sides to get as close to each others goals as possible. Ask the CAW how asking for the moon or low ball offers worked out for them, they switched tactics and saved several thousand canadian auto jobs. Had they not, GM would not be producing a single vehicle in Canada.
What the NHL has done is pathetic, it all but ensures a lockout. Shows that Bettman is not realistic. I like how Donald Fehr has replied though, hes calm and shows the desire to take the issues and reach agreement.
The Players should be insulted and push for a lockout. Because of poor leadership last time they ended up with a contract the was huge in concessions. This time they should stand pat. I can't wait to hear what their counter offer will be.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  23:05:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2346

so why wouldn't teams just suspend a player if they dont need to use them (komisarek, luongo, etc.)



You can't suspend a player just because you want to. The player has to commit a suspend able offense. Like reporting to camp out of shape, or not reporting at all (BOS is almost certainly going to suspend Thomas when he doesn't report this fall).
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5800 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2012 :  23:26:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15


- player revenue share drops from 57% to 46%
- a player must play 10 yrs before they would be eligible for unrestricted free agency
- a 5 year max on all contracts, including elimiating signing bonuses and all contract must have equal salaries in each year of the deal
- entry level deals move from 3 yrs to 5 yrs
- closing the gap between the cap floor and max
- no more salary arbitration





I too agree with most of these, though a tweek here and there may be needed. Much like the NBA, my guess is that the league is aiming high on their revenue share in hopes of getting a 50/50 split. I love the entry level to 5 years proposal. So many guys are held back due to that first year of eligibility and though you may still see some of that, i think it'd improve that.

Ultimately the owners OWN the team and should make money as the owner! In my perfect world, no player would make over 5 million per and no one less than 1 million and ticket prices would be much more affordable as a result. Yup, dream on, i know....
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  07:03:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
[Ultimately the owners OWN the team and should make money as the owner! In my perfect world, no player would make over 5 million per and no one less than 1 million and ticket prices would be much more affordable as a result. Yup, dream on, i know....



Your right, they do own the team, but if the players don't play they won't make a cent. The players have options should they need to play, whats the owner going to do with his team when no revenue comes in.
Bottom line whether you side with the players or the owners, its a two party system, one side cannot continually ask the other side to keep giving and not get anything in return like they did their last contract.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  07:21:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The NHL is not asking for anything more than any other pro sports league already has. Even the might NFL and their $9 billion per year league does not give 57% of their revenues to the players. That is rediculous. Plain and simple.

And before we get all deep into this argument, this is not Bettman's decision. He is given a mandate by the owners on what they want in the deal. And don't think for a second that Donald Fuhr is calling all the shots either. There is a reason that each team has a rep and some of them are actually at the table during negotiations.

Bottom line, the owners have the right to protect their investments. It is theirs, not the players. I get all that without the players crap but it is still the owners team and the owners money. Forget all this one side gets everything crap, because it really is crap. Take a look at the 20+ owners a year that lose money and name me a single NHL player who could record a loss on their income tax statement......

The current agreement is still tilted in favour of the players.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5800 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  07:47:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73

quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
[Ultimately the owners OWN the team and should make money as the owner! In my perfect world, no player would make over 5 million per and no one less than 1 million and ticket prices would be much more affordable as a result. Yup, dream on, i know....



Your right, they do own the team, but if the players don't play they won't make a cent. The players have options should they need to play, whats the owner going to do with his team when no revenue comes in.
Bottom line whether you side with the players or the owners, its a two party system, one side cannot continually ask the other side to keep giving and not get anything in return like they did their last contract.



Sort of i guess? The entire thing is somewhat of a joke as 20 or so owner lose money on a yearly basis (as Beans pointed out). Is this just simply a tax write off for the zillions they make elsewhere? A hobby?

Either way PC, the owners could ALWAYS get new/more players. If the Parise's, Suter's, Weber's, etc of the world refused to play for less than their 7M per year, they can take a hike over to the KHL and make it there, but the owner here will ALWAYS find new players to take over.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  08:15:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I thought I would chime in on the sad story of 20 failing franchises. Dont feel sorry for the majority of the owners. The part where 20+ owners are losing money is a result of what I like to think of as maintainence cost on an investment. Owning an NHL team is not likely to result in a yearly profit on a ledger unless your in a can't fail market like Toronto. However, much like a good investment the value of the Franchise continues to grow. This isn't a 100% rule, but the rule is your yearly loss offsets you continued value increase in the product or collateral.

I dont buy that 2/3 of the franchises are truly losing money. I know there are a few owners in precarious situations, but lots of successful business's choose to show a balanced ledger or a loss for there own purposes, rather than show profits to the taxman. I don't think 20 owners are saying, hey, lets run a 5-10 million deficit this year. There may be a few owners who can afford it and do not care, but 2/3rds of the league?

Either way I do agree with the NHL Owners that the players are making too great a share of the revenue and think they will find middle ground this cba.
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  09:06:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Two things - I am not concentrating on just revenue sharing. Take a close look at the other reported proposals. They all take away any control a player has for himself.
No salary arbitration. You've got to be kidding. That means an owner could low ball a player and basically force them out of the league. Arbitration should always been an option for any type of labour dispute.
How about 10 years til UFA - sorry but your stuck here with no chance of making more money. And we took that extra money you made with the revenue sharing too!
5 Year Entry deal is not so bad but still limiting the players options.
All options take aways from the player yet the NHL increased revenue to 13 billion. That alone is a huge slap in the face to the players. Without the best players on earth playing the NHL they do not make their money. Bottom line.
I never mentioned these were all Bettmans decisions alone but as the owners representative he could have tried to be more reasonable. Like most news reports on the NHL's offer state, its like a declaration of war against the NHLPA.
The next thing, sure Alex the NHL could go and get "other" players. But they are not going to get Crosby, Ovechkin, and every other NHL star. They will have to lower ticket prices, which lowers revenue, even TO will not draw sell out crowds, merchandise sales will fall to nothing (face it nobody wants a Beans jersery ). You get the point.
If I am the players, I stand pat, I force a lockout. If there is truly 20 franshises in legitimate trouble, the NHL will comeback pretty quick to save the entire league. If its only a couple of franchises then the NHL can take their 13 billion and float the owners for a period of time. By the sounds of it, these owners of the troubled franchises have made a very poor decision. Hence Bettman should have made better decisions for them.
I also must add that if you think that Donald Fehr is not running the show for the players you would be kidding yourself. The players got cleaned last time because they did not have a clear and undisputed leader. They won't let that happen again. If they do, then shame on them. Last time I checked the 30 player reps were hockey players not arbitrators or lawyers. They rely on their leader Mr. Fehr. The reps bring the issues from the players to the NHLPA, the issues are then discussed and weeded out to only the important ones, the issues are negotiated then the reps feed the info back to the rest of the players for voting. That my friend is the role of the player rep. If you have ever worked in a real unionized environment you would know that there are people hired and selected to do your negotiating.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  09:08:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Your right, they do own the team, but if the players don't play they won't make a cent. The players have options should they need to play, whats the owner going to do with his team when no revenue comes in.
Bottom line whether you side with the players or the owners, its a two party system, one side cannot continually ask the other side to keep giving and not get anything in return like they did their last contract.



The owners can always get new players, but can the players find new owners to setup a league and fund them at the rate they're used to? A few could go to the KHL I suppose, but most of the players need the current NHL system, with the only other option being to setup another league.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  09:15:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73

Two things - I am not concentrating on just revenue sharing. Take a close look at the other reported proposals. They all take away any control a player has for himself.
No salary arbitration. You've got to be kidding. That means an owner could low ball a player and basically force them out of the league. Arbitration should always been an option for any type of labour dispute.



As long as offer sheets to RFA's are still allowed, there will always be an avenue for the market to dictate rates. You don't need arbitration for this - arbitration is used more as a rights protector than anything else under the CBA.

quote:

How about 10 years til UFA - sorry but your stuck here with no chance of making more money. And we took that extra money you made with the revenue sharing too! 5 Year Entry deal is not so bad but still limiting the players options.



See offer sheets above. Also, players do not have to actually sign 5 year deals when they are offered. A player never has to sign a contract.

quote:

If I am the players, I stand pat, I force a lockout. If there is truly 20 franshises in legitimate trouble, the NHL will comeback pretty quick to save the entire league. If its only a couple of franchises then the NHL can take their 13 billion and float the owners for a period of time. By the sounds of it, these owners of the troubled franchises have made a very poor decision. Hence Bettman should have made better decisions for them.
I also must add that if you think that Donald Fehr is not running the show for the players you would be kidding yourself. The players got cleaned last time because they did not have a clear and undisputed leader. They won't let that happen again. If they do, then shame on them. Last time I checked the 30 player reps were hockey players not arbitrators or lawyers. They rely on their leader Mr. Fehr. The reps bring the issues from the players to the NHLPA, the issues are then discussed and weeded out to only the important ones, the issues are negotiated then the reps feed the info back to the rest of the players for voting. That my friend is the role of the player rep. If you have ever worked in a real unionized environment you would know that there are people hired and selected to do your negotiating.



The players may go the lockout route, but I don't think they will - they're quite happy playing under the existing CBA if no new deal can be reached. If anything, I think the NHL may lockout players.
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  10:02:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
[As long as offer sheets to RFA's are still allowed, there will always be an avenue for the market to dictate rates. You don't need arbitration for this - arbitration is used more as a rights protector than anything else under the CBA.



The cost of signing an RFA is extremely high, especially for the super talented players, making this a poor option. Hence the not to many RFA signings happening every year. Perhaps the 10 year UFA will force more RFA signings, which would probably force players salaries even higher because of inflated RFA offers being made so they couldn't be matched by the original teams. Interesting? That should really make the owners happy that they can't keep their stars because the deep pocket teams are now forced to do RFA offers and steal them from the other teams.

But you mention one more very important thing in the part I quoted above. The word "rights". It is so important to maintain employee rights, or in this case players rights. When you start to mess with players rights, you start playing a very bad game. You are right, Arbitration is something to protect players rights and with owners that try are trying to reduce your income and remove your rights with every contract, arbitration is a very important piece to keep.
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  10:14:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Your right, they do own the team, but if the players don't play they won't make a cent. The players have options should they need to play, whats the owner going to do with his team when no revenue comes in.
Bottom line whether you side with the players or the owners, its a two party system, one side cannot continually ask the other side to keep giving and not get anything in return like they did their last contract.


The owners can always get new players, but can the players find new owners to setup a league and fund them at the rate they're used to? A few could go to the KHL I suppose, but most of the players need the current NHL system, with the only other option being to setup another league.




Again I say sure they can but consider what I already posted above in reply to Alex
"The next thing, sure Alex the NHL could go and get "other" players. But they are not going to get Crosby, Ovechkin, and every other NHL star. They will have to lower ticket prices, which lowers revenue, even TO will not draw sell out crowds, merchandise sales will fall to nothing (face it nobody wants a Beans jersery ). You get the point."
Nobody wants to see career ECHL players as the top draw in the NHL.
The KHL would love to have only half the NHL stars come play for them even for year. First, they can prove that the NHLers accept the KHL as the first alternative to the NHL and second it would draw immense revenue for them or for the Russian Mafia, whomever is running the show over there. And the players would recieve ridiculous money to play there.
Point is that I believe the price is a lot steeper to the owners then the players. If a franchise like New Jersey is really in that big of financial trouble, then they certainly would not survive a year of lost revenue due to a lockout.


Edited by - Porkchop73 on 07/17/2012 10:16:42
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  10:26:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73

quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
[As long as offer sheets to RFA's are still allowed, there will always be an avenue for the market to dictate rates. You don't need arbitration for this - arbitration is used more as a rights protector than anything else under the CBA.



The cost of signing an RFA is extremely high, especially for the super talented players, making this a poor option. Hence the not to many RFA signings happening every year. Perhaps the 10 year UFA will force more RFA signings, which would probably force players salaries even higher because of inflated RFA offers being made so they couldn't be matched by the original teams. Interesting? That should really make the owners happy that they can't keep their stars because the deep pocket teams are now forced to do RFA offers and steal them from the other teams.

But you mention one more very important thing in the part I quoted above. The word "rights". It is so important to maintain employee rights, or in this case players rights. When you start to mess with players rights, you start playing a very bad game. You are right, Arbitration is something to protect players rights and with owners that try are trying to reduce your income and remove your rights with every contract, arbitration is a very important piece to keep.



It is a poor option under existing rules - but aren't we negotiating a new deal right now?

For example, as a negotiating tactic, tell owners "ok, we'll have 10 year restrictions on movement, but we also want to remove all compensation for RFA offer sheets below 6M a year", which would make it easier for teams to float unsolicited offer sheets. Teams can still match, and teams still have rights to sign players that they own the rights to, but it keeps the market fresh.
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  10:48:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Nuxfan, you are bang on with your idea of negotiating, all I am saying is the NHL should have included such an idea in the their proposal, it makes it easier to swallow, and the NHLPA doesn't feel there backs are against a wall if the NHL at leasts says we want to do this, we realize its a bit harsh, but we are willing to make it easier to do this other thing. Now that is good starting point for the negotiations, not an offer where it is all take and no give. It gives the other party something to work on and makes it easier to reach a mutual point that maximizes both parties interests, not just the interests of one party.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  10:51:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think Nux is doing a fine job of the argument and I agree with mostly everything he is saying so I won't repeat. A couple of things:

Arbitration - I get that there needs to be a system for ensuring a player is paid equitably, but I don't like the current system. It is normally a non-hockey guy making a ruling and that hold a gun to a teams head. Look at Chicago and Anti Niemi. They gave him a very reasonably offer and lost him because an arbitrator ruled that he was worth some big amount of money. He leaves and becomes free agent and takes less money per year with San Jose. How is that fair that another team can give him less money for a long term deal than the team that has his rights?? Dumb.

Teams draft players to build a team. Losing them in 3-5 years does not give them a chance to build that team without overpaying on long term contracts. Player should have an avenue to dispute contract offers but not after 3 years and not to the control the players have.

Secondly, to Mr Chop. If you are a player and saying "suck it owners" and going on strike, I say fine. I play the owner side and say have fun in Russia. I might not get the Crosby's and Ovechkin's today but the crop of young talent coming up is always solid. I might not make as much money but my costs are also in line. So enjoy Moscow Comrade. Where do you think all the talented Russian kids playing the KHL are going to go when Sid Crosby takes their job?? And when you are ready to sit down and work things out in a way that will be reasonable for both side, we can talk.

It's not about what the players are 'losing' as much as it is about reality. If there was no agreement before hand and this was the first deal, what would the perception be if the players asked for 57% of the revenues??



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  11:41:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73

Nuxfan, you are bang on with your idea of negotiating, all I am saying is the NHL should have included such an idea in the their proposal, it makes it easier to swallow, and the NHLPA doesn't feel there backs are against a wall if the NHL at leasts says we want to do this, we realize its a bit harsh, but we are willing to make it easier to do this other thing. Now that is good starting point for the negotiations, not an offer where it is all take and no give. It gives the other party something to work on and makes it easier to reach a mutual point that maximizes both parties interests, not just the interests of one party.




Why would the NHL put forth something that it doesn't actually want? Its up to the NHLPA to put forward something like that as a return volley. The NHL is not going to negotiate with itself or give ground it doesn't have to. Nor will the NHLPA when it comes to it.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5800 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  12:29:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here's a "what if" for y'all....

WHAT IF.....

All the owners got together and regardless of the cap, agreed in private to not pay ANY player more than 5M per year? Sure, some might choose to bolt to the KHL, but i highly doubt most of them would. Does Sid the kid make more money on his salary or on endorsements? Would he make those same dollars in endorsements playing in Russia? Would he enjoy those nice safe flights like that Lokomotiv team was subject to? I can tell you this much, i'd take 5 million to play here over 8 million to play in a country like Russia, but that's just me. My point is, you would have plenty of players to choose from and i'll concede, the quality may take a bit of a hit, but i honestly don't think it'd be an ECHL-like change.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  13:07:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The problem with your what if is that it will never happen. The thing that people seem to miss in a CBA is it's not only an agreement between the players and the owners but it's also an agreement between the owners and the owners. It ensures that some cowboy can't go and do what ever he wants when is comes to how players are treated and paid.

I would love to see that happen Alex, but in the real world there will always be at least one meatball messing it up for everyone.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  13:17:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

Here's a "what if" for y'all....

WHAT IF.....

All the owners got together and regardless of the cap, agreed in private to not pay ANY player more than 5M per year? Sure, some might choose to bolt to the KHL, but i highly doubt most of them would. Does Sid the kid make more money on his salary or on endorsements? Would he make those same dollars in endorsements playing in Russia? Would he enjoy those nice safe flights like that Lokomotiv team was subject to? I can tell you this much, i'd take 5 million to play here over 8 million to play in a country like Russia, but that's just me. My point is, you would have plenty of players to choose from and i'll concede, the quality may take a bit of a hit, but i honestly don't think it'd be an ECHL-like change.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

This is normally not allowed in any collective agreement like this. I would not be surprised to find wording in the CBA that expressly forbids this.

Edited by - nuxfan on 07/17/2012 13:20:53
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  13:17:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73

Nuxfan, you are bang on with your idea of negotiating, all I am saying is the NHL should have included such an idea in the their proposal, it makes it easier to swallow, and the NHLPA doesn't feel there backs are against a wall if the NHL at leasts says we want to do this, we realize its a bit harsh, but we are willing to make it easier to do this other thing. Now that is good starting point for the negotiations, not an offer where it is all take and no give. It gives the other party something to work on and makes it easier to reach a mutual point that maximizes both parties interests, not just the interests of one party.




Why would the NHL put forth something that it doesn't actually want? Its up to the NHLPA to put forward something like that as a return volley. The NHL is not going to negotiate with itself or give ground it doesn't have to. Nor will the NHLPA when it comes to it.


The idea is to not slap the other side in the face. I guess I struggle with why ask for that much when you have something that is very obviously working for both sides. Both the league and players are profiting from the current CBA. Why slap the one side in the back of the head the way the NHL did.
Nuxfan, negotiations do not have to start with just a list of rock bottom demands. They can include some common ground of give and take in the intial offers. In fact it is a proven way of successful negotiations. Its call interest focused negotiations. Both sides concentrate on the interests of both parties and try to find a way to get the most out each others interest. You put the right information on the table for both sides to review and come up with the best scenerio for both parties. In other words you start your negotiations going for a win-win situation not the win-lose situation that the NHL is obviously going for. Its old school and has brought alot of problems for a lot of companies who have that mentality. Its still not easy negotiations and it takes a lot of hard to work to get the win-win but it has been proven to provide sustainablility and profitability to companies and unions that utilize it.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  13:28:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73

quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73

Nuxfan, you are bang on with your idea of negotiating, all I am saying is the NHL should have included such an idea in the their proposal, it makes it easier to swallow, and the NHLPA doesn't feel there backs are against a wall if the NHL at leasts says we want to do this, we realize its a bit harsh, but we are willing to make it easier to do this other thing. Now that is good starting point for the negotiations, not an offer where it is all take and no give. It gives the other party something to work on and makes it easier to reach a mutual point that maximizes both parties interests, not just the interests of one party.




Why would the NHL put forth something that it doesn't actually want? Its up to the NHLPA to put forward something like that as a return volley. The NHL is not going to negotiate with itself or give ground it doesn't have to. Nor will the NHLPA when it comes to it.


The idea is to not slap the other side in the face. I guess I struggle with why ask for that much when you have something that is very obviously working for both sides. Both the league and players are profiting from the current CBA. Why slap the one side in the back of the head the way the NHL did.
Nuxfan, negotiations do not have to start with just a list of rock bottom demands. They can include some common ground of give and take in the intial offers. In fact it is a proven way of successful negotiations. Its call interest focused negotiations. Both sides concentrate on the interests of both parties and try to find a way to get the most out each others interest. You put the right information on the table for both sides to review and come up with the best scenerio for both parties. In other words you start your negotiations going for a win-win situation not the win-lose situation that the NHL is obviously going for. Its old school and has brought alot of problems for a lot of companies who have that mentality. Its still not easy negotiations and it takes a lot of hard to work to get the win-win but it has been proven to provide sustainablility and profitability to companies and unions that utilize it.



If this was working for both sides, there would be no risk of a labour stoppage.

Porkchop - truthfully, no one really knows where negotiations began, or when they began - all we know is that the owners have thrown out a proposal that got reported on, someone has to start somewhere. Perhaps they started nice and quickly got antagonistic. Perhaps the players pissed the owners off with something and this is what came of it. Perhaps the owners are being d!icks with their first offer, as you say. I don't know.

The fact that the players seem to be taking the offer in stride leads me to think that this sort of offer was expected, or at least anticipated. Its all part of the game, I'm curious to see what the PA volleys back.
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  13:42:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This is my analogy about what the NHL wants by giving its intial offer.

Beans is has been working for the last 3 yrs contracted to work for Company A. His contract is nearing its end and one day at the company meeting the boss announces huge profits and states the company is producing record revenue. He says Beans has been a major contributer to these successes and is in the prime of his career. However, its not enough for the boss. He needs more. He says to Beans, Hey you keep doing the things you have been doing that have brought me these record amount of riches, but I am not going to give you anything more for it, in fact I am going to reduce your income, I am going to lock you into doing this for ten years because I know you can go to Company B and make more money, plus I am going to lock up any new talented employee at rock bottom wages longer so I can make even more money. You will not be able to argue in court that I am under paying you comparitive to fellow workers in the same field because I will not give you arbitration rights. Beans now gets to sit in his windowless office only imagining what he could have gotten at company B while still in his prime. How happy do you think Beans is in his position. How happy do you think an new employee is not have any ability to make gains for 5 yrs. Heck you advance faster working for McDonalds.
Someone said to be realistic, but honestly how realistic is the NHLs proposal.
That is why the players need a union, to protect themselves from the greed of the owners, to be able to keep their rights as players in the NHL and not have them stripped by the owners.

Edited by - Porkchop73 on 07/17/2012 16:14:10
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  14:51:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Two quick things as I don't have time to dig deeper.

Firstly, this is a completely Pro-Union view to this situation. I will provide a similar analogy to from the Pro-NHL side of this coin when I have time.

Secondly Chop, you say realistic? We are talking about a group of about 690 player who are currently sharing in a pool of $1.82 BILLION dollars in their salary pile (That's an average of $2.6 million per player). The league is looking to bring that down to a pool of $1.47 BILLION dollars or an average of $2.13 million per player.

The median family income in Canada is currently $69,860. We are talking about players who average a yearly salary what the average Canadian family will have to work more than 30 years to make.

These guys often pay more money in income tax in a paycheck than most Canadian make in a year. We are talking about unfair to the players??? Not only that, in the 'real world' people are not negotiating 50%+ revenue as salary pools. Not even close. Most places that are running a sound business have their salaries at 5-10% of their total revenues. The value of most employees to their companies are generally 10 fold their income.

Realistic??? We can't talk realistic in the case of pro-sports and players salary. It's just not reasonable.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  15:32:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think our good pal Beans is on to me, it was really hot today, I was doing daddy duty and got bored. Why not start some good debate on PUH forums.
Anyways, yes Beans I am taking a very pro Union stance for this issue. I like most was somewhat taken aback from the NHLs offer, the NHL CBA is regarded as one of the most fair pro sports CBA to both players and owners. Hence why the NHLs offer was a surprise to most people in the hockey world or in the sports labour world. There will be some who say it should have been suspected but it truly was a surprise to most. I think Donald Fehr is doing a marvelous job keeping his reps cool and calm, perhaps even playing the media a bit with someone slipping the NHLs offer to a member of the media. All the while showing no signs of stress from the offer. Its brilliant really.

To your point of the average canadian families income and relevance to sport. It can't really apply. Heres why. When negotiating with the national grocers unions you deal within certain wage category, likewise for different trades unions. Its also the same for unions dealing with Walmarts or big Oil companies. You negotiate a wage that suits the category. A retail worker might negotiate a 30,000 dollar wage. An Oil refinery worker might negotiate in 80,000 to 90,000 dollar area. A consultant engineer might be in the 100,000 to 200,000 rage. An NHL player is in the millions. Monies can't be compared, situations can be, thats why in my analogy earlier I didn't put a dollar figure on Beans wage. I compared situations.
So I say to you, take the dollar amounts out of the picture, whether you negotiate for 10 dollars or 50 million dollars, nobody likes to have things taken away from them when they were the ones helping the company be so successful to begin with.
I honestly don't thing the revenue sharing will be a big sticking point anyways, I think a 50/50 arrangement is coming, very similar to the NBA. I think any contract issue limiting player movement (ie 10 yr UFA) is more a problem to the players. They will lose more money by not being able to sign bigger contracts in their prime of the career.
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  16:13:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Also Beans the analogy I gave earlier of Beans working for Company A could easily be a non-unionized worker as well. So it may not be all a pro union point of view.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  17:09:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
the NHL CBA is regarded as one of the most fair pro sports CBA to both players and owners



who regards it this way?

If the CBA were so fair and equal for both sides, why does it get reopened every time its up for renewal? A fair agreement that benefited both sides should just require a rubber stamp renewal, no?

The fact that the owners came at negotiations in this fashion should indicate that the owners, for the most part, are not happy with the CBA. I do believe that the players, for the most part, are happy with the CBA, for obvious reasons.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5800 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  17:35:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

The problem with your what if is that it will never happen. The thing that people seem to miss in a CBA is it's not only an agreement between the players and the owners but it's also an agreement between the owners and the owners. It ensures that some cowboy can't go and do what ever he wants when is comes to how players are treated and paid.

I would love to see that happen Alex, but in the real world there will always be at least one meatball messing it up for everyone.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!



I couldn't agree more Beans, and i was being somewhat facetious to prove a point because it is "possible" that it "could" happen. You're right, it won't, but it actually could. Hypothetically, let's say Bill Gates decided to buy all 30 teams? Again, "WHAT IF" he refused to pay those amounts?

My whole point is, the league may lose some players but there are many who would prefer to play in North America for a share of what they'd make in Russia. There are even more who would gladly step in an make 6+ figures for those who decided on elsewhere and the league would live on. What i'm getting at is, imo, the owners deserve FAR more than the players. They own the team afterall and the employees, who in this case make ridiculous amounts of money, want more and more of the pie.

I can only imagine the oldtimers who made a small fraction of what these guys make today think!!!
Go to Top of Page

Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro



640 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  17:36:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
the NHL CBA is regarded as one of the most fair pro sports CBA to both players and owners



who regards it this way?

If the CBA were so fair and equal for both sides, why does it get reopened every time its up for renewal? A fair agreement that benefited both sides should just require a rubber stamp renewal, no?

The fact that the owners came at negotiations in this fashion should indicate that the owners, for the most part, are not happy with the CBA. I do believe that the players, for the most part, are happy with the CBA, for obvious reasons.



Really Nuxfan - a contract that doubled the profits for the league and still increased in average player salaries is not benefitial to both- tell me someone who doesn't think it benefits both in a major way.


Heres a good article breaking down the major reasons why the owners want what they asked for. Tell me how you would feel if you were asked to take 22% pay cut.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/a-closer-look-at-the-nhls-new-cba-wish-list/article4420118/?service=mobile

You might have to copy and paste into your browser
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  19:13:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Really Nuxfan - a contract that doubled the profits for the league and still increased in average player salaries is not benefitial to both- tell me someone who doesn't think it benefits both in a major way.



THE OWNERS. Otherwise, we would not be going through this drama. If there was such a huge benefit to both sides, and both sides were peachy with how things were, then this would be a simple rubber stamp extension to the existing CBA. Hell, there was even a provision in the CBA that said if neither team requested it be reopened (I think a year before expiry), that it would just roll over and continue on.

The owners are risking labour strife and the possibility that they'll have to lockout players in September. Does this sound like a happy participant in a contract?

quote:

Tell me how you would feel if you were asked to take 22% pay cut



It is relative. If I'm taking a paycut from 100K to 78K, that sucks and I don't like it because its a significant chunk of money and deeply affects my standard of living. If I'm taking a pay cut from 5M to 3.9M, thats an inconvenience and I may need to wait another year to get that new summer cottage in Muskoka, but guess what, I'll still find a way to survive.

Players are not money grubbing idiots, they understand that they're extremely privileged to earn as much as they do playing hockey. They'll bitch and complain about taking a pay cut, but in the end they'll do it because earning millions a year in North America playing a sport is better than nearly any other alternative.

Edited by - nuxfan on 07/17/2012 19:20:33
Go to Top of Page

@valanche
Rookie



Canada
240 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2012 :  20:08:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
How does revenue sharing work for players?
If the league makes X amount of dollars and the players have a 57 percent of all revenue then...
each player in the league makes equal amounts of the players share of the revenue?

66 is > than 99
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 14 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page