NHL Transactions, Injuries & Rumours

[armandtanzarian]

I have nothing to add to this but, grrrrrr.......

[Tony]

I have nothing to add to this but, grrrrrr.......

[MSP4LYFE]

No it's a delay in pay, not as mirtle suggests a decrease in share.

That is only part of the proposal, if you read it all you will note that these "deferred payments" are made possible by reducing the salaries of players in future years. In essence, players would be made whole by other players, and not the owners.

This is not from Mirtle, but straight from the proposal published by the owners...

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=6435 ... L|NHL|home

[MSP4LYFE]

Allan Walsh:

Recap: The NHL was rocked by revelations it hired right wing political consultant Frank Luntz to run focus groups on messaging to fans. (1)
The next day, Bettman and the owners propose a 6 year CBA with a 12.3% salary cut in the 1st year, a sketchy "make whole" provision, going (2)
towards 50/50. A meeting is set up between NHL/NHLPA with 4 leading owners, 18 NHL players. The players propose 3 separate options under (3)
the premise, "honor our contracts and we'll go to 50/50". What happens? The owners and Bettman walk out in 10 minutes. They don't (4)
negotiate, they don't counter propose, they don't look for more common ground. They walk out. All the decision makers are in the room (5)
sitting across from each other, the NHL owners walked out. Who wants to play, who doesn't? And Bettman is doing all this...for the fans.(6)

[MSP4LYFE]

DarrenDreger

NHL is expected to cancel games thru Nov 1 only. Still hoping to have resolution and reg season back on track Nov 2.

[Shoalzie]

If players want to lose part of the season, they better win (get their deal) this time around...although they ended up winning this last CBA when it looked like they caved to make the deal. There's no reason to be this stubborn if you don't have something you clearly want to accomplish with this deal. If this is just going to turn into a dick-swinging contest...have fun with that.

[MSP4LYFE]

If players want to lose part of the season, they better win (get their deal) this time around...although they ended up winning this last CBA when it looked like they caved to make the deal. There's no reason to be this stubborn if you don't have something you clearly want to accomplish with this deal. If this is just going to turn into a dick-swinging contest...have fun with that.

I think it's pretty evident that the players want the money that was promised to them. This is in no way a "dick swinging contest", whatever that is...

[MSP4LYFE]

From Cox's article:

On Thursday, he walked into a significant meeting with several NHL owners 90 minutes late, plopped down two single sheets of paper, each with a different skeleton proposal to the owners that didn’t include any ideas on systemic issues, then verbally delivered a third proposal with no accompanying paperwork. For all three proposals, he acknowledged to the owners he hadn’t actually “run the numbers.”

[KapG]

I assume "he" is referring to Fehr?

[bills09]

From Cox's article:

On Thursday, he walked into a significant meeting with several NHL owners 90 minutes late, plopped down two single sheets of paper, each with a different skeleton proposal to the owners that didn’t include any ideas on systemic issues, then verbally delivered a third proposal with no accompanying paperwork. For all three proposals, he acknowledged to the owners he hadn’t actually “run the numbers.”

and the players wonder why Bettman walked out and dismissed this in 10 minutes.

[MSP4LYFE]

I assume "he" is referring to Fehr?

Yeah

[MSP4LYFE]

To be totally clear here, the only thing Donald Fehr was brought in to do for the NHLPA was make sure the amputation wasn't as bad as the owners would have liked it to have been. Everyone involved, and even most who aren't, has always known that this deal, like the last CBA the players were bullied into signing, would end with the players losing money. Fehr's goal — and boy is it ever a crazy one — is to make sure the paycut they eventually take doesn't cost them anything that's already guaranteed in their current contracts. What a jerk. What a monster.

Yeah, 50-50 revenue splits in the NHL's deal sound super-fair, and so does increased revenue sharing (and, OK, so it's only like 80 percent of what the players wanted, but it's something). But when the owners are dictating what does and doesn't count as revenue that gets split, and oh by the way you guys have to pay for the "make-whole" issue yourselves because we're not getting involved in that … well, anyone with half a functioning brain can see that this in no way constitutes a good-faith offer.

Donald Fehr called it "borderline unfair" yesterday, and that sounds like a nice way of putting it.

Let's think about that 50-50 split critically, okay? The current split is 57-43 in favor of the players. We all know this. So the league is essentially asking for that 7 percent back — and in reality, it's a little more than 12 percent of what the players actually make — with what concessions going the other way. Did you guess, "Almost none?" Good job. No intention to honor contracts as currently written, no givebacks on free agency rights. Just suspension appeals going to someone other than Gary Bettman. Whoopie.

The point of the NHL's offer this week was to turn the conversation from, "Hahaha look at this stupid focus group garbage," to, "Aren't the players a bunch of jerks for trying to rob you of an 82-game season by not accepting our slightly-less-insulting-than-the-original offer? We sure think so."

To some extent, it worked. That's why they negotiated in public and put the whole thing, more or less, on its website , complete with a handy-dandy explanation of all the nice and cool things the NHL was offering. Not that there weren't some good things in there (some of which helped the teams that conformed to the league's war against cap-circumventing contracts in an entertaining and largely-acceptable way), but there certainly weren't enough that the players should have considered entertaining it for more than a minute.

But again, it was a PR move, and so the NHLPA fought back in the only way it knew how, offering three proposals with all different terms, but two of them with revenue shares based on growth, rather than just flatly dropping to 50-50 as the NHL's does. The other, which they had to know the league would never accept under any circumstance, sure doesn't make Bettman look good. Basically, it said, "We'll go to 50-50 today if you give us the money you owe us on the current deals up front."

Oof. That last part really has to sting Bettman. The players were ready to capitulate to your 50-50 demands right away, as long as the owners you represent in all this gave them the money contractually owed them.

Instead you pitched a fit to the media and considered it to be in a different language than what you were asking.

This is, in the NHL's mind, not acceptable. Reason enough for Bettman to storm out of a Toronto office building after talking about how deeply disappointing all this non-capitulation is — and to be sure, that's the only thing he's upset about — then get in a hired car and take the first flight back to New York City. Second time in a row that's happened. All the PR spin in the world can't change the fact that it's the league, not the PA, that refuses to negotiate.

"There was nothing to talk about," Gary? Sounds to me like that's only because the things to talk about weren't exactly what you wanted to hear. Next time try holding your breath until your face turns blue. That'll show everyone that you and aren't being inflexible at all.

Don Fehr, the players, and the fans (one of whom you directly lied to less than two hours before your press conference) will know you mean business.

[Nick]

Who is that from?


People are still crazy confounded about the idea that all previous deals (in both term and amount) were agreed to under the previous CBA - and by no means, law or practice is the next negotiation required to be what was done before - especially if its not working for one side, which the NHL first alluded to the PA in 2009 - wanting to negotiate a new deal. The framework for the next deal is not agreed upon at all.

So "in good faith" - refers to the honesty of the offers and numbers. When the owners say, "18 teams have not averaged profit over the current CBA", if that's a lie = not in good faith, if the PA doesn't believe it = not in good faith.

If the players were not being fairly compensated for their labour it would be a separate labour discussion - from the basis of a union negotiation - but that's not what this is.

This is one side saying they aren't making money - and another side saying those that are, have done so at the cost of the others. And this should continue.


Which it will until the other stop existing, at which point the league will contract, profits will decrease, and PA members will also lose money as well as comrades. Amazing how often the symbiotic nature of the relationship is forgotten. The players SHOULD want the Owners to make good money - not because the fans care, not because they understand what it is the owners do to warrant the money, but rather for the simple stupid reason that if the owners don't make money, they won't have a place to earn their awesome salary.

So, as soon as the season misses 23 games, the players are actually losing money beyond the 7% loss as result of a true 100% 50-50 agreement.

Now right here you could say isn't that true for the owners? And it would be, of te majority of them were making money. So for the big 6 (Toronto, nyr, Habs, hawks, flyers and bruins) it sucks very bad missing any games. And for the 6 in good economic state ( iirc Vancouver, minny, cgy, Pitt, wsh & det) its no fun. But for 18 team they are actually losing less. Now the numbers for last year are not as gloom as the CbA average, LAk are a prime example , huge profit!

I believe bobby Mac suggested the players would require a 7.2% escrow in order for the pay back to work as per the owners latest offer- or roughly exactly what they paid last year and are currently getting paid out.


If each team decided to negotiate with their players independently, which is actually a legal possibility, (although impossible I believe under a salary cap league structure) and very common throughout other industries (ignoring other sports) you'd have places that make money, a preferred location to work, as those locations are more likely to have easy negotiations - both sides can win, no one is losing money. Opposite is true for the sites (actually independent operating companies competing in the same market place) wherein the teams not making money, would be regularly having a give/take/stay alive relationship with their players - and according to the NHL that would be over half the teams ( and likewise over half the players).


Tired and drifted way off topic, probably should edit and/or delete, but I don't believe the players side has as much to stand on given their blame of owners for existing contracts an understanding how the previous CBA dictated those deals and no longer stands.

[kyuss]

whoever is writing this is obviously biased.

Yeah, 50-50 revenue splits in the NHL's deal sound super-fair, and so does increased revenue sharing (and, OK, so it's only like 80 percent of what the players wanted, but it's something). But when the owners are dictating what does and doesn't count as revenue that gets split

that is false as for the last NHL offer, that's maybe the main reason the NHL put their offer on their site, to show everyone what Fehr and players were claiming was false.

, and oh by the way you guys have to pay for the "make-whole" issue yourselves because we're not getting involved in that … well, anyone with half a functioning brain can see that this in no way constitutes a good-faith offer.

agree, absolutely.
However, apparently it was made clear that thing was negotiable. Interestingly enough, Fehr chose not to (so far, i guess he will later on).

Let's think about that 50-50 split critically, okay? The current split is 57-43 in favor of the players. We all know this. So the league is essentially asking for that 7 percent back — and in reality, it's a little more than 12 percent of what the players actually make — with what concessions going the other way. Did you guess, "Almost none?" Good job. No intention to honor contracts as currently written, no givebacks on free agency rights.

almost none, but not eactly none like Fehr proclaimed once more in front of bending reporters.
How would you call the fact that bonuses would not count anymore towards reaching the salary floor?

The point is, players should realistically compare the offer they got to the best offer they think they will get, not against the deal they had before. Doing the latter is (hopefully) just more PR propaganda.

To some extent, it worked. That's why they negotiated in public and put the whole thing, more or less, on its website , complete with a handy-dandy explanation of all the nice and cool things the NHL was offering.

and?
the reason was not letting the other side twist the proposal while reporting it, and more importantly, not letting Fehr twist it without any official reference for the players to turn to.
Maybe the NHLPA should do the same?
Bettman says their proposal never actually came close to approach 50-50, they say the opposite.. why not showing the truth to everyone then. Or maybe you didn't run the #s?

This thing that public negotiation hurts the process is more BS each side have been hiding behind.
One thing is performing the negotiation privately, which is obviously right, another one is hiding their BS behing the untold, the undefinied, the unreported, etc

But again, it was a PR move, and so the NHLPA fought back in the only way it knew how, offering three proposals with all different terms, but two of them with revenue shares based on growth, rather than just flatly dropping to 50-50 as the NHL's does. The other, which they had to know the league would never accept under any circumstance, sure doesn't make Bettman look good. Basically, it said, "We'll go to 50-50 today if you give us the money you owe us on the current deals up front."

Oof. That last part really has to sting Bettman. The players were ready to capitulate to your 50-50 demands right away, as long as the owners you represent in all this gave them the money contractually owed them.

50-50 right away?
getting now the money contractually owed actually means not going down to 50-50 for a while.
Also, the money in those contracts was not guaranteed 100%, no matter how they like to ignore the fact and expect people to do the same.
Now, if we are talking about getting the money that would eventually result under previous CBA rules i agree that would be the fair thing.
That doesn't necessarily mean 100% of the numbers signed on those contracts, unless i'm mistaken.

So what should happen is players getting those contracts fulfilled (whatever the outcome would be under previous CBA rules) via deferred payments as soon as exceeding revenues (% exceeding an established threshold) will make that easy for the league.. it's not rocket science really.
Why is Fehr not going for this (yet) ? because apparently he only wants to delay the process.

Instead you pitched a fit to the media and considered it to be in a different language than what you were asking.

This is, in the NHL's mind, not acceptable. Reason enough for Bettman to storm out of a Toronto office building after talking about how deeply disappointing all this non-capitulation is — and to be sure, that's the only thing he's upset about — then get in a hired car and take the first flight back to New York City. Second time in a row that's happened. All the PR spin in the world can't change the fact that it's the league, not the PA, that refuses to negotiate.

LOL what?

The NHLPA refused to start talking about the new CBA for something like 8 months?
and when they finally made themselves available for meeting, they were actually only willing to waste more time.

All Fehr has been doing is delaying the process: first by saying they weren't ready to talk (there is plenty of time... lol), then discussing secondary issues, then taking like forever to (not) make counter proposals, and when he is forced to actually make a counter short time, he replies with more PR stuff and avoid negotiating on the opportunities on the table.

Of course I agree that Bettman and his crew should be called out for cutting the meeting short, but they have even been forced to negotiate against themselves (not that it was difficult considering the BS they have been offering till Tuesday) by Fehr stalling the process. Saying the NHLPA is victim of missing negotiations is hilarious.

"There was nothing to talk about," Gary? Sounds to me like that's only because the things to talk about weren't exactly what you wanted to hear. Next time try holding your breath until your face turns blue. That'll show everyone that you and aren't being inflexible at all.

Don Fehr, the players, and the fans (one of whom you directly lied to less than two hours before your press conference) will know you mean business.

yeah, and apparently Fehr decided a long time ago that won't happen till closer to the Winter Classic.
Looks like he estimated that the best time to get a deal for them is just before the WC would be canceled and is apparently sure this time around the owners are not ready to lose a full season, so all he has been doing is 'working' to get there. He better be right.

I call out the journalists again... Fehr has been doing this from the start (2011) and no one has been putting pressure on them.
I find irritating that they are just begging for their press conference antics instead of calling out each side's BS. The sooner each side is called out on its BS the sooner that should be taken away from proposals, getting them closer to a deal.

[MSP4LYFE]

This is one side saying they aren't making money - and another side saying those that are, have done so at the cost of the others. And this should continue.

This is just blatantly false.

At no point have the players said that the system as is, is sustainable, and should continue. On the contrary, the players agree that the system needs to change, and have agreed to reduce their shares to 50%, in addition to partnering with the owners to create a more aggressive revenue sharing stream for the teams in need. The players only condition is that they ease their way down to 50% so as to protect salaries negotiated in good faith.

[MSP4LYFE]

whoever is writing this is obviously biased.

I find it funny when I read comments that are blatantly pro PA or NHL. Do people not see that both sides are very much to blame for the predicament we are in? These labour negotiations have been one PR stunt after another, with each side posturing and taking shots at the other. They can both fuck off as far I am concerned.

[thom54]

whoever is writing this is obviously biased.

I find it funny when I read comments that are blatantly pro PA or NHL. Do people not see that both sides are very much to blame for the predicament we are in? These labour negotiations have been one PR stunt after another, with each side posturing and taking shots at the other. They can both fuck off as far I am concerned.

+1

[Nick]

I never said the make whole plan was different from deferred, but it's not at all outside what they have been happy with in the past 7 years. As I said in the summer, temporary reduction in pay to be made whole is a totally common and acceptable scenario.

From almost everything the players association has said, suggests they don't truly believe in the finical hardships of the NHL. Including wanting those teams that do make money to share more ( then 10million per) or shifting blame to management of the team. Without realizing that 43% of team revenue, with so many set costs, is actually a predictable loss; given the increased cap floor due to extreme growth in the big markets.

Not saying punish the players - they've been a fantastic 'product', but they are very well treated, and one year of deferred 5-8% is still making money! That is not true for the other side (majority) of negotiating table at this point in time.

Especially with their salaries still being tied in with growth, plus protection for non-growth. That's just a great situation for 95% of the players, and one that is simply not found in most other industries.

[MSP4LYFE]

I never said the make whole plan was different from deferred, but it's not at all outside what they have been happy with in the past 7 years. As I said in the summer, temporary reduction in pay to be made whole is a totally common and acceptable scenario.

Nor did I, I said that it's a payment plan that takes money from players future contracts to compensate them for their existing contracts. Until the owners agree to pay for at least part of it, the PA won't bite, IMO.

[Nick]

It's 50-50 split over term for the CBA. What don't you understand about that?

Their current contracts project around 53% of next years revenue. That equates to about 6% salary deferred, or less then the escrow they paid last year (7.8%). It is also worth noting that players have twice received over 100% of their agreed upon contracts (102% & 104% iirc). This existing CBA was amazing for the players - bigger salary growth then they have ever experienced, more members then they have ever had, etc.

So, the players refuse to lose any actual dollars - and you want the owners to pay more then 50% of REVENUE at some point to make sure that happens? Despite a majority of clubs not making profit?

Just an amazing lack of 'partnership' shown by the PA IMO.