Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

SamJamIam Canucks Star

SamJamIam

Posted
Posted

Ironically, given what the NHL has said about Fehr, I think Bettman is actually the one who has nothing left to lose. He's been commissioner for a while and is definitely smart enough to know that this will be the last labour dispute of his career. But I can't think of anyone who benefits from his approach to this lockout. I am very interested to hear what others think his goal is because I can't see one.

He is, for all intents and purposes, not negotiating. It is as though he wants negotiations to fail. Every time he gives on an issue, he takes on another one. Each offer really contains no movement from the NHL. Now he's launching attacks at Fehr. One wonders how long Bettman can keep all his ducks in a row. Even owners who have sided with Bettman from the beginning are likely questioning whether he is capable of getting a deal done. Previously I thought a CBA would be signed when sponsors, NBC and owners pressure Bettman into a deal. But he doesn't seem to care. I think this lockout only ends now when Bettman loses his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drybone Canucks Prospect

Drybone

Posted
Posted

I think the union has to give up some concessions to get the level salary cap and the 50% revenue in 3 years . They need to limit future contracts to 5 years, allow it to be easier to send guys down to the minors without exposure. They need to lower the secondary salaries by increasing the RFA compensation.

I think if they give up these issues and some revenue sharing issues, the NHL then needs to keep the cap at the same level and just work on the revenues rising for the next three years to meet the 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poetica Canucks First-Line

poetica

Posted
Posted

Didn't see this one posted yet....

NHL lockout: Labour talks turn sour after latest meeting

NEW YORK — A fourth straight day of NHL labour talks failed to bring the league and its locked-out players any closer to a deal that would put hockey back on the ice and save the season.

In fact, the gap between the fighting factions might have gotten even wider on a failed Friday.

After three consecutive seemingly positive days of talks this week, discussions turned a bit sour when negotiations ended for the night. The union was under the impression the numbers suggested they were nearer to an agreement with the league. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman disagreed.

“Gary made a comment [Thursday] that there is still a lot of work to do. I think, given today’s session, there is still a lot of work to do,” Fehr said. “We looked at some of the numbers on the various proposals and we thought we were much closer together on the structure of a deal than the suggestions were. They came back to us and said, ’No, we are very very far apart on the structure of the deal.”’

There were vocal disagreements at the end of the session, and the union team went back to its office to hold a conference call with the executive board and other players. The union is beginning to feel that the NHL isn’t ready to make a deal now, even if the players were suddenly willing to accept the league’s offer in full — which they are not.

“We talked back and forth a little bit, and at one point the question was asked: ’If the players would agree to everything that’s in your financial proposal, what you’re saying is you still won’t make an agreement unless the players give up everything in all of the player-contracting rights in your proposal? The answer was, ’Yes, because that’s what we want,”’ Fehr said. “One wonders if that’s really the case. How do you get there from here?

“Given where we are, we’re going to reconvene internally [saturday] morning and we’ll come to grips with where we are and try to figure out what we’ll do next. I don’t know what will happen next.”

Bettman declined to reveal what was discussed or where the disagreements lie. He also wouldn’t characterize the mood of the talks.

“I am not going into the details of what takes place in the room,” he said. “I really apologize but I do not think it would be constructive to the process. I don’t want to either raise or lower expectations. I won’t be happy until we get to the end result and that means we’re playing again.”

Fehr said he expects the sides will get back together Saturday, but there is no way to gauge what the feeling in the room will be when they get there.

The union also fought to put out internal fires on Friday after a memo to players summarizing Thursday’s negotiations was leaked to the media. That led to suggestions that the players’ association didn’t fully convey the owners’ most recent proposal to its membership accurately or completely.

Fehr sternly shot down the report as false, if for no other reason that there were players present at the negotiations when the offer was put forward.

“Their proposal is made in front of players in the room who hear it,” Fehr said. “It’s made in front of staff who hear it, it’s made in front of former players who hear it. They’re on the phone talking to everybody on an ongoing basis afterward.

“Owners can’t come to meetings when they want to hear stuff directly, but every single player can at the union’s expense. Come hear it for himself, make the judgments, and all the rest of it.”

Ron Hainsey, the player representative for the Winnipeg Jets, backed up Fehr’s assertion in full.

“Every player is welcome in every meeting,” the defenceman said. “Every player has the ability to get in touch with Don via phone, via email, or get in touch with me or any member of the negotiating committee via phone, via email. This notion that something was hidden over the past 24 or 48 hours is totally inaccurate. We feel that this should put this issue to rest.

“Obviously there aren’t 30 owners in the room, there aren’t 700 players, but we make sure everyone who wants to know exactly what’s going on … we’re taking calls every night. It was a memo to summarize as quick as possible for players. At the end of that memo I believe it says if you want exact details of the offer, call us or email us.”

Players made a pair of proposals Wednesday, and the NHL responded with one Thursday. No new official offers were exchanged Friday, but there was give and take during discussions throughout the day. The last of three sessions centred on the core economic issues keeping the sides apart, and it broke up after about two hours.

Bettman said the league is ready to continue talking as soon as the union wants.

“Whatever it takes. We’re available,” Bettman said. “It’s always better to be together and talk when there is something to talk about. I am not getting into the specifics. When you’re in a process like this, you’re really not watching the calendar. I’m not sure I can tell you what day it is.”

That could change soon if a deal isn’t struck.

The 55-day-old lockout has already caused the league to call off 327 regular-season games, including the New Year’s Day Winter Classic in Michigan, and the NHL has said a full season won’t be played. The league is in danger of having a lockout wipe out a full season for the second time in seven years.

Bettman is scheduled to attend Hockey Hall of Fame inductions Monday night in Toronto, but developments in negotiations could prevent that.

“That’s my plan (to attend), but if there is a reason to be doing something else, as much as I enjoy the Hall of Fame inductions, if there is something else that is pending, that would take precedence,” he said.

The lockout began Sept. 16 after the collective bargaining agreement expired, and both sides rejected proposals Oct. 18. The players’ association has agreed to a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenues, but that division wouldn’t kick in until the third year of the deal.

During a second consecutive day of marathon negotiations Wednesday, the players’ association made an offer on revenue sharing in which richer teams would help out poorer organizations, and another proposal regarding the “make-whole” provision that would guarantee full payment of all existing multiyear player contracts.

Revenue sharing and the make-whole provision are major hurdles. Both sides have made proposals that included a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenues. The NHL has moved toward the players’ side on the “make-whole” provision and whose share of the economic pie that money will come from.

The NHLPA estimates that about $590-million is needed to guarantee the amount left to be paid to players on the “make-whole” provision, but so far the league is only offering $211-million.

Along with the split of hockey-related revenue and other core economic issues, the sides must also agree on contract lengths, arbitration and free agency.

The union accepted a salary cap in the previous labour pact, which wasn’t reached until after the entire 2004-05 season was cancelled because of a lockout. The union doesn’t want to absorb the majority of concessions this time after the NHL had record revenue that exceeded $3-billion last season.

Players believe that dropping their share of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 50% is already a major concession on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SamJamIam Canucks Star

SamJamIam

Posted
Posted

I think the union has to give up some concessions to get the level salary cap and the 50% revenue in 3 years . They need to limit future contracts to 5 years, allow it to be easier to send guys down to the minors without exposure. They need to lower the secondary salaries by increasing the RFA compensation.

I think if they give up these issues and some revenue sharing issues, the NHL then needs to keep the cap at the same level and just work on the revenues rising for the next three years to meet the 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Bookie Canucks Second-Line

The Bookie

Posted
Posted

The final hurdles in NHL talks

Now that everyone's cooled down with a double Macallan 18 (neat, of course), it's a little easier to try and determine where things actually stand in CBA Standoff 2012. Obviously, I'm not in the room, so this involves guesswork.

Bill Daly and Steve Fehr met for an "informal lunch" on Saturday. While guzzling down their Hot N' Juicy combos, they probably discussed what appear to be the two significant hurdles between them and the finish line.

Don't know which one to write about first, so I'm flipping a coin. Heads we go with systemic contract issues. Tails is the first year of the new CBA.

Ready?

It's heads.

You've heard about the league proposals: Contracts no longer than five years; unrestricted free agency moved back to age 28 or eight years of service (meaning it could still happen as young as 26); salary arbitration eligibility moved back from four seasons to five; a maximum salary change of five per cent from year-to-year.

There is some discrepancy about what's been conveyed between the parties. The NHL has stated that there is room to negotiate, the NHLPA claims no such offer has ever been made. I'm not in the room, so I don't know. One player said Saturday he's under the impression the latter is accurate.

Whatever the case, I admit one thing: I underestimated how important some of these issues were to individual players. I believed that if the NHL came at the players with a legitimate "make-whole" offer, the rest of this would fall into place.

In retrospect, it's a dumb mistake, but it happens when you're looking at the big picture as opposed to sweating the small stuff. Sixty per cent of players are under contract for next season, but the number drops as the calendar turns. Those who aren't on long-term deals aren't thrilled some of their brethren will make out better than they do. They want the ability to max their bargaining position on a case-by-case basis. The tighter the restrictions, the harder that will be.

As one source said Saturday: "We're accepting 50/50. Our slice of the pie is going to get smaller. Why should it matter to the NHL how that money is divided?"

The answer to that question is the league has had enough with the Suter/Parise front-loaded contracts. That's why it's my belief that "the five per-cent rule" is going to be the NHL's cornerstone "want," but that opinion doesn't do anyone any good until this discussion begins.

There is one good reason for the majority of the NHLPA to agree with the NHL on this. While those front-loaded deals are cap-friendly for the teams, they are murder on player escrow.

The second problem

There were many conflicting reports Friday night. The NHL agreed to take ownership of $211 million US for the "make-whole" provision over the next two years. The PA responded that simply didn't make everyone whole.

Meanwhile, Larry Brooks of The New York Post tweeted the NHLPA asked for a revenue guarantee that "would likely eat 65-67 pct of revenue in 66-68 game season."

That was immediately disputed. Here's the problem:

From what I understand, the NHLPA's proposal is based on an 82-game season. That sounds preposterous, and looking for an explanation, I was told, "We decided to work on the overall framework first, and adjust for a shortened season after."

The NHL's position includes provisions for a loss in overall revenue for 2012-13.

"We're not looking at a $3.3 billion business anymore," one governor said to me, referring to the effect of a compressed schedule.

And, if fans follow through on their threats to stay away in droves, the damage will be severe. There are different projections -- 10 per cent less, 17 per cent, etc.

So what we've got here are two different approaches. This becomes the critical part of the process. Now that an 82-game season sits with the dodo bird, New Coke and ColecoVision, there are going to be losses.

Who's going to pay for it? That's your Final Jeopardy question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drybone Canucks Prospect

Drybone

Posted
Posted

You know, the funny thing about your pro-owner stance is that when actually pressed on what you think the PA should offer, you're clearly on their side as far as what you think is reasonable. I agree; the PA should either allow their share to drop down to 50% as soon as is possible while honouring contracts, or they should give up max contract lengths and time until free agency. Either or is perfectly reasonable (although I suspect the PA will choose a loss of HRR share every time, rather than member rights). But the owners are asking for both. 50/50 plus "make whole" which actually means less than 50% for players and slashed member rights. What you just described is actually more pro-players than the PA's stance has been for months. They are willing to take a pay cut and their only demand is that revenue sharing increase so the teams don't feel the need to screw players over next CBA and so PA members won't lose jobs through teams shutting down. That deal would mean more money to the owners than even you suggested. I think you should read my post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...