Archived

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

-Vintage Canuck-

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

6,228 posts in this topic

I was watching this game before you were born. Its obvious you have no idea how it actually works. The players come and go. If they leave now, its just a matter of time before new ones take their place.

Regardless of whether there is a strike or not or there is a lock out or not.

You cite Sidney Crosby (who was out of the game for near 2 years and is one good hit away from permanent brain damage by the way) as the only way the NHL can make money.

The players are replaced. They have been replaced and will be replaced. The NHL will still be here.

Its irrelevant that YOU dont like it. The players cant start their own league so they can go play in the KHL and Swedish Leagues if they want.

The players have no RIGHT to play in the NHL . That expired September 15th. There is no salary cap. There is no bargaining agreement. The players only trump card is they have the best TALENT . But only right now. The fans will still watch the game without these stars.

The league survived and in fact thrived long before Crosby showed up here or Ovechkin or whomever the next fad is. The NHL can kick the players out and replace them .

Yes the owners suffer . But for what? 43% of their own money? Considering how many teams lose money, it aint a lot. There are 15 teams right now SAVING MONEY by not playing a single game.

Look, I dont know how much the league makes PROFIT after all loses are deducted and other expenses. But I will guarantee you it ain the 57% GUARANTEED profit the players get.

Now, lets get real. The owners are the ones who OWN the NHL. Not the players. If the players cannot accept a 50/50 split and 5 year max in contracts, then they are FIRED.

I can guarantee you there will be more than enough players EAGER to start another players union and accept a 50/50 deal. The NHL can play with those players until the draft replaces all the talent.

In the long run its way worth firing the entire NHLPA and invite new players to form another union.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406070

NHL AND NHLPA RESUMING CBA NEGOTIATIONS ON FRIDAY

TORONTO - The NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed to return to the bargaining table.

Deputy commissioner Bill Daly and NHL Players' Association special counsel Steve Fehr had a face-to-face meeting Tuesday in Toronto and scheduled a formal negotiating session between the sides for Friday in New York.

A location for the talks has yet to be determined.

The first collective bargaining negotiations since Sept. 12 are expected to focus on non-core economic issues, a departure from the approach taken in the final weeks before the lockout was enacted.

The sides were unable to make much progress on economics - they were $1 billion apart on their most recent proposals - and have instead decided to work on other issues that will make up the agreement.

Top officials from the NHL and NHLPA met Monday to review last season's economics and finalize escrow payments due to players. The CBA was not discussed.

After the session, Daly told reporters that the league was looking for some movement from the union because the NHL had tabled the most recent offer.

"Obviously, we've got to talk before you can get a deal, so I think it's important to get the talks going again," said Daly. "But you also have to have something to say. I think it's fair to say we feel like we need to hear from the players' association in a meaningful way because I don't think that they've really moved off their initial proposal, which was made more than a month ago now."

The NHL is currently engaged in its fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Since the lockout started a midnight on Sept. 15, a handful of players have expressed concern that it could last the entire season, with Detroit Red Wings forward Danny Cleary telling reporters Monday that he was "just trying to be realistic."

It took three months for the NHL and NHLPA to resume bargaining after the lockout began in 2004. That season was ultimately wiped out by the labour dispute.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to think it's counter intuitive to begin discussing non-economic matters when they can't even agree on the core issue. I mean if it becomes the case that both sides start disagreeing about the length of player contracts, RFA/UFA status etc. it will be more damaging to the discussions than not meeting at all.

Fingers crossed that things go well on Friday and that player contracts are status quo for the most part. Maybe Fehr can use contract issues as a bargaining chip towards economic matters, time will tell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh just get in a room and end this ridiculous pissing contest already...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

players have 8% or 8.5% coming to them depending on who you talk to in October so that brings them close to 10 games which means they won't be missing pay checks till Nov 15th. Then the players start losing money that they won't make up. The league already revenue shares and I don't thinks it's fair that 5 or 6 teams have to bail out the rest of the league. As much as I hate to say it but the Leafs make a cool $80M a year, they shouldn't have to give up $20 to $25M to other teams.

I think this is going to be a long one, no deal til Nov 2013

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

players have 8% or 8.5% coming to them depending on who you talk to in October so that brings them close to 10 games which means they won't be missing pay checks till Nov 15th. Then the players start losing money that they won't make up. The league already revenue shares and I don't thinks it's fair that 5 or 6 teams have to bail out the rest of the league. As much as I hate to say it but the Leafs make a cool $80M a year, they shouldn't have to give up $20 to $25M to other teams.

I think this is going to be a long one, no deal til Nov 2013

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the players won't miss a pay day until October most to date lockout impact is neglible. If you think the only owners option would be hiring replacement players and that this would fail I might not agree. You are assuming NHLPA unity where I suspect a goodly number would abandon the cause. Maybe not thru lack of conviction but for simple economic reasons and career limitations.

Sorry but the NHL holds all the cards here no matter what Mr. Fehr tells them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's misleading to say the owners have less to lose. If players are out of work for a while, many guys who can't go down to the AHL or get a contract in the Swiss League or something will suffer. But what is their tolerance for not collecting their paychecks? It was pretty damn long last time. Meanwhile owners have less to complain about compared to last CBA. There are more teams making money, those in the black are making FAR more money, and a few are losing money. What is the tolerance of the majority of owners to stick it out until they get a deal that saves them a mil or a few hundred thousand a year in revenue sharing? When leveled against the cost of not running a season, my guess is that they actually will be less tolerant of Bettman's waiting game.

Players may have more to lose but they also seem far more willing to take the hit. That said, Fehr is reasonable. He isn't playing pissing contest with Bettman. If he was, we'd be waiting 3 months just for talks to restart like last lockout.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to think it's counter intuitive to begin discussing non-economic matters when they can't even agree on the core issue. I mean if it becomes the case that both sides start disagreeing about the length of player contracts, RFA/UFA status etc. it will be more damaging to the discussions than not meeting at all.

Fingers crossed that things go well on Friday and that player contracts are status quo for the most part. Maybe Fehr can use contract issues as a bargaining chip towards economic matters, time will tell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or... maybe getting some of the other issues out of the way, it will give them a little momentum to tackle the bigger issues?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or... maybe getting some of the other issues out of the way, it will give them a little momentum to tackle the bigger issues?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got the first part right, but it's actually more like 10 teams that are healthy and 8 of those teams paying a transfer payment towards the rest of the league at $15M annually. Revenue sharing would be more balanced if not for some of the money pits in the southern US. Nashville, Florida, Tampa Bay and Pheonix especially make losses annually because they can't seem to attract fans even with 20$ tickets. What the players propose makes sense, to take some of the revenue they are conceding and give it to the struggling markets. The rich stay rich and struggling markets get by.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said:

"So the owners lock out the players AND THE FANS from their buildings, even though the players say they are willing to continue to play under the terms of the expired agreement"

Of course the NHL isn't going to do that. They would be at risk of allowing a strike during the season, which would be worse for everyone. I'm not surprised at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What money is the NHLPA conceding? They have not wavered in sayin they would not give up any of the

$1.8B they were receiving under the old CBA. They made a case that revenues would grow at 7% per year over the next 7 years and that they would take less of that growth. The NHL was not prepared to take that gamble that revenue would continue to grow at that pace in a weak economy.

Where did you get the stat that 8 teams were paying $15M into a sharing pool? The Forbes article indicated there were only 4 teams making over a $20M profit. TO, Habs, NYR and the Canucks. The other 4 teams making money were all borderline. I do not know whether the profit figures were with the $15M you are talking about already removed. This is another reason why I think a 'return on investment (ROI)' expense line has to be included in the negociations. Successful teams also have to be able to have their profitability recognized by being able to keep more revenue. If your $15M figure is accurate a more equitable calculation for funding the 'sharing pool' might be a % of profit after a ROI recognition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In their last proposal that was quickly buried by an NHL counter proposal, the players offered to move to 54.5 for the first year and down to 52.5 over 4 years. The players have offered to make these revenue concessions on the basis that this revenue go to the struggling markets.

The article from which I got my information: http://www.examiner.com/article/nhl-cba-revenue-sharing-part-1-of-2-1 this was close to a month ago. Under the paragraph team/team it names the 8 teams paying the transfer payment to the struggling markets.

The situation is not nearly as dire as only 4 teams making an annual profit. Once again I do not understand the support for the owners, they have other investments. The Forbes numbers did not include concession sales or use of the building for other purposes, monster truck shows, concerts, motorcross, conventions etc. which many of the owners of NHL teams also own the building from which they further profit.

"According to the 2011-2012 individual team reported revenue, this highest earning teams were the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, Canucks, Red Wings, Bruins, Blackhawks, Flyers, Penguins and Flames). For their economic success they get taxed an average of $15 million each, which will then be split, based on certain factors, to the following teams: Coyotes (League-owned which creates problems, too), Winnipeg Jets (formerly Atlanta Thrashers), Blues, Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Avalanche, Lightning, Sabres, Capitals, Oilers, Wild. It’s also important to note that the Islanders, who grossed the least amount of money (63M, barely covering salary floor), is excluded from the benefits as the Dallas Stars (90M) and Anaheim Ducks (84M) because of the large market provision."

My point from which you built your argument, was that the notion that revenue given up by the players would ideally go to the struggling markets. This would also help the successful teams as they might take less of a transfer payment. It is in the players interest to keep the teams instead of folding them as the teams employ 22 regulars and up to 50 total contracts. Both sides want to keep a 30 team league, the players just want to see poorer teams looked after.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation is not nearly as dire as only 4 teams making an annual profit. Once again I do not understand the support for the owners, they have other investments. The Forbes numbers did not include concession sales or use of the building for other purposes, monster truck shows, concerts, motorcross, conventions etc. which many of the owners of NHL teams also own the building from which they further profit.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In their last proposal that was quickly buried by an NHL counter proposal, the players offered to move to 54.5 for the first year and down to 52.5 over 4 years. The players have offered to make these revenue concessions on the basis that this revenue go to the struggling markets.

The article from which I got my information: http://www.examiner....g-part-1-of-2-1 this was close to a month ago. Under the paragraph team/team it names the 8 teams paying the transfer payment to the struggling markets.

The situation is not nearly as dire as only 4 teams making an annual profit. Once again I do not understand the support for the owners, they have other investments. The Forbes numbers did not include concession sales or use of the building for other purposes, monster truck shows, concerts, motorcross, conventions etc. which many of the owners of NHL teams also own the building from which they further profit.

"According to the 2011-2012 individual team reported revenue, this highest earning teams were the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, Canucks, Red Wings, Bruins, Blackhawks, Flyers, Penguins and Flames). For their economic success they get taxed an average of $15 million each, which will then be split, based on certain factors, to the following teams: Coyotes (League-owned which creates problems, too), Winnipeg Jets (formerly Atlanta Thrashers), Blues, Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Avalanche, Lightning, Sabres, Capitals, Oilers, Wild. It’s also important to note that the Islanders, who grossed the least amount of money (63M, barely covering salary floor), is excluded from the benefits as the Dallas Stars (90M) and Anaheim Ducks (84M) because of the large market provision."

My point from which you built your argument, was that the notion that revenue given up by the players would ideally go to the struggling markets. This would also help the successful teams as they might take less of a transfer payment. It is in the players interest to keep the teams instead of folding them as the teams employ 22 regulars and up to 50 total contracts. Both sides want to keep a 30 team league, the players just want to see poorer teams looked after.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.