Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#2491 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,821 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:53 AM

No Canucks_4_Cup's point in replying was that there was more than just what you said about the make whole provision that separates them.

So he just used that article to show some of the other issue's the two sides are stuck on.


And I addressed that in saying the division of HHR and make whole provisions are the greatest obstacles towards a deal being signed, everything else is secondary.

Maybe you should stick to proposals, this is over your head.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2492 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:34 AM

From the ever-excellent Harrison Mooney at Puck Daddy (also Pass It To Bulis locally):


Did Donald Fehr’s memo intentionally misrepresent the NHL’s offer?

The NHL and the NHLPA met for the fourth consecutive day on Friday in their attempt to come to a new collective bargaining agreement. By most accounts it was a lot like Thursday: they got very little done. (You can be outraged by this, but I remind you that spending an entire Friday at the office while accomplishing next to nothing is pretty much an American tradition.)
But it's not as though we didn't hear from either side today. In the morning, a memo from Donald Fehr to the players somehow magically found its way into the hands of NHL broadcast partners NBC and TSN. In it, Fehr did not seem all that enthused by the direction of the meetings, mentioning "significant gaps".
Some in the hockey world felt that Fehr was being overly pessimistic. I would argue that he was beingconsciously pessimistic, if not just realistic. Considering the players are, by his own admission, a little frightened, the last thing you want to do is get their hopes up and then have to tell them that there's been a setback. Managing the emotional response of the 700-plus constituents on that mailing list is a large part of the gig.
But how did the NHL feel about Fehr's memo? Not great, and it wasn't the tone they disliked so much as the content.
They felt those 700-plus constituents were misled, because Fehr misrepresented their offer.
According to Mike Russo, the league has offered an immediate 50/50 split with contracts paid in full, just as the players wanted, and yet, for whatever reason, Fehr's memo left that out. From the Star Tribune:


The league has been under the impression that the majority of players are ready to get back onto the ice if revenues are split 50/50 and all contracts are honored in full. Several players have told the Star Tribune that in recent days.
That's exactly what the owners have offered the players, the sources say, something Fehr did not spell out in his memo.


The League's plan to deal with the salary reductions created by an immediate shift to a 50/50 revenue split is simple: lump-sum payments in the second and third years of the CBA.
According to Russo's source, "the league feels 'we're there' on revenue sharing", the big issue, and yet Fehr chose not to mention that to the players.
So what gives? Has Donald Fehr gone rogue like David from Prometheus and withheld valuable information to further some alternative agenda? Did he put alien goo in Manny Malhotra's drink? Did Fehr find the star map highlighting earth?!
Yeah, probably not.
It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Fehr has been accused of dishonesty. Three weeks ago, just prior to the NHL pulling the offer that would have saved the 82-game schedule, we learned that the league felt Fehr was being dishonest. Bill Daly said the players' 50/50 offer had been misrepresented.
Then there was this paragraph from Bruce Arthur of the National Post on October 18th:


The league has reached the point where it does not believe Fehr speaks for the players, and has hijacked the negotiations to suit his own ends. They believe they are dealing with the one person in this entire negotiation with nothing to lose, and since Fehr is the one guy in this mess who could walk away afterwards and never think about hockey again, they may even be right.


In short, Fehr's not thinking in the game's best interest because he doesn't care about the game. That's what the NHL was intimating on October 18th. Now, it would appear, after a week of negotiations that didn't make the progress they wanted, the league is beginning to intimate a little harder.
To that end, Russo -- and Larry Brooks -- also let us in on a new demand from the union via these sources, which is that the players, with no regard for a lockout-shortened season, want the same dollar amount of revenue that they got last year. Plus five per cent. According to Brooks, that would likely eat up around two-thirds of revenue in a 66-game season. Now that just sounds crazy unreasonable.
Also, Fehr kept Bettman and Daly waiting for six hours today for no reason.
Why, it seems like the only reason a deal wasn't struck this week is because Donald Fehr is a complete and utter megalo-- wait.
I do believe that Donald Fehr is being character-assassinated.
It's a good tactic, really, especially considering that confidence the players have in this union head as compared to his predecessors. Fehr has been adamant about strong communication with the players since day one, and numerous players have raved about his communication, but if the league can sell the notion that Fehr is shady and withholding, just like all of the union's other bad relationships, they're one step closer to getting the players to fold.
Will it work? Fehr categorically denied that he was withholding information after the talks. Craig Adams echoed this to Rob Rossi of the Pittsburgh Tribune. "If anybody is suggesting that Don's holding information back," he said, "that's totally untrue."
Also, you feel like one of the players that's been in the meetings with Fehr all week might have said something if he was. Unless Fehr got to them.
As for the league's proposal, Fehr said it didn't do what the League said it did. "With their make whole proposal, players won't be able to receive every dollar of their deal." And as for that crazy request for, like, all of this season's revenue, John Shannon was told it was the basis of a new system, not the player's revenue share in a shortened season.
In short, even if Fehr is dabbling in the dark arts of misinformation, he's hardly the only one. Does this shock you? It shouldn't.
All that said, if there was any optimism about this week's talks (and I expressed some myself yesterday), I'd say it's time to couch it again. This is a personal attack we're witnessing. While I'm no economist, I am a married man, and if there's one thing I know about heated discussions, it's this: the moment they devolve into personal attacks, things are going very, very badly.


  • 0

#2493 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 05:34 AM

I'm seriously starting to think: At this point, just bag this season. I was very excited about the start of this season this past summer. This fighting between the league and the players just sucks the life out of NHL hockey. I'm starting not to care.
  • 2

#2494 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:24 AM

Now compare the NFL approach to the NHL’s revenue-sharing system. To start, national TV revenues for the NHL are low compared with what the other leagues get from their TV contracts. Although the numbers have not yet been officially announced, a new, 10-year contract with NBC and Versus will boost the league’s U.S. national TV revenues to $200 million annually in the 2011–12 season—up from $75 million last season. In Canada, the CBC pays the NHL about $100 million in broadcast fees annually, and TSN reportedly pays about $40 million a year in broadcast fees. With total national TV revenues of less than $350 million, the bulk of the revenue shared among NHL teams comes directly out of the wealthier teams’ pockets—a key difference.

The NHL’s complex revenue-sharing system is part of the collective bargaining agreement reached with the players. Under that system, a team is eligible for what the league calls “revenue-sharing subsidies” if its attendance is in the bottom half of the league and if its demographic market area has fewer than 2.5 million TV households. A team must also have average paid attendance of at least 14,000 per game to fully qualify for the revenue-sharing subsidies. In practice, the NHL’s revenue-sharing system means that most—if not all—of the six Canadian NHL franchises, plus the richer U.S. franchises, are subsidizing weaker franchises in places like Phoenix and Florida. (Some franchises have reportedly been buying up their own tickets in order to get to the minimum attendance level and thereby qualify for the subsidies.)

Why would the NHL provide subsidies to it weaker franchises? Protecting the current and future value of the stronger franchises is the principal reason. The bankruptcy of any franchise is not a good signal to send to prospective investors in other NHL franchises, and simply moving franchises between cities means there are no franchise expansion fees to share. (While the deal to move the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg does include a $60-million relocation fee, that amount is far less than what the league would receive from the owners of a new franchise. Only when the ongoing costs of subsidizing a struggling franchise become uncomfortably large does the relocation of a weak franchise become an attractive idea to the other franchise owners.) A secondary reason for the NHL to provide occasional subsidies to weaker franchises is to maintain its profile in prime television markets—a key to winning larger U.S. national TV contracts in future.

Overall, the NHL’s revenue-sharing and subsidy system is messy and creates conditions for divisiveness among franchises.


NHLPA what happens if the CDN dollar starts to tank. The bread and butter teams that are funding revenue sharing are going to be in some trouble. Does the NHLPA honestly see revenues growing next year when they play hockey after a lockout? 3.3B is going to down to 2. something B, lowering the salary cap giving the players less money for the future. I believe this time it's going to take a lot longer for revenues to reach 3.3B again after this is settled. But hey not going form 57% to 50% right off the bat was clearly worth it.
  • 0

#2495 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,811 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:32 AM

The longer this drags on, the less revenue both sides are going to get. The last lockout I saw fans desperate for hockey to come back. This time it's different. We're in more difficult times, the economy is not strong. I really think the NHL is in serious trouble because marking "welcome back fans" on the ice won't bring fans back this time. There will always be the diehards to come back.
But all the fans that buy merchandise, jerseys, I'm pretty sure even at 50% off there's going to be a lot of animosity this time.

The NHL is making a huge mistake. When you take your customers for granted, people will find other places to spend money.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#2496 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:42 AM

The longer this drags on, the less revenue both sides are going to get. The last lockout I saw fans desperate for hockey to come back. This time it's different. We're in more difficult times, the economy is not strong. I really think the NHL is in serious trouble because marking "welcome back fans" on the ice won't bring fans back this time. There will always be the diehards to come back.
But all the fans that buy merchandise, jerseys, I'm pretty sure even at 50% off there's going to be a lot of animosity this time.

The NHL is making a huge mistake. When you take your customers for granted, people will find other places to spend money.

People are stupid sheep, they'll be back. Alls that the NHL will have to do is hire someone good st subliminal messaging and a spin doctor.....oh wait, they already have :)
  • 0

#2497 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:45 AM

Are you saying that you aren't going to be back, or are you also a sheep?

I'll be back watching the NHL. I don't feel so baaaaaaaaad.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#2498 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:34 AM

NHL must negotiate with Fehr, not attack him


12:10PM EST November 10. 2012 - At best, an unidentified NHL official exercised poor judgment in accusing NHL Players Association executive director Donald Fehr of not fully informing his constituents of the NHL's offer.
At worst, owners are embracing a misguided, counter-productive strategy
Anyone who believes owners can bring about peace with players by trying to discredit their leader has not been watching how Fehr has managed this organization.
STORY: What happened in Friday's talks
All you need to do is talk to Fehr for 10 minutes and you realize that he's a union man the way Derek Jeter is a Yankee and Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stone. Transparency. Inclusiveness. Getting more people involved. Fehr doesn't just talk about those ideas. It's clear he believes in them. He has said continually that every player is welcome at every bargaining session.
One of the constant quotes you get from players, often unsolicited, is how well-informed everyone is about the issues.
The targeting of Fehr resulted from his Thursday night memo in which he didn't go into elaborate detail about the owners' proposal. Owners want to reduce players' share of the revenue from 57% to 50% and players say they will only accept a 50-50 split that includes a gradual walk-down that assures the preservation of their already-signed contract values. In response to that request, owners say they will commit $211 million back to players over the first two seasons.
Under the drop from 57% to 50%, players would lose more than $461 million over two years, not counting revenue growth. Hence, owners, through their proposal, are offering to return roughly 45% of player losses for those two years.
About the owners' "make whole" offer, Fehr wrote: "While a small step forward, a significant gap remains."
This memo came after players had the opportunity to climb aboard a conference call to hear about the offers in detail. If a player doesn't know what's happening in the bargaining session, it isn't Fehr's fault.
BLOG: Support flows in for Fehr
Fehr is often vilified by fans because he represented major league baseball players when a 1994 strike cost the sport its postseason, but the truth is Fehr is always respected and lionized by those he represents. He's an impressive guy, and his guys will stand up for him.
An NHLPA spokesman offered a one-word expletive as his unofficial response to the Fehr targeting, and it seemed like a perfect response. Players clearly viewed the Fehr attack as pure malarkey.
Owners aren't going to get this deal by trying to tug on Superman's cape. There is no kryptonite that will bring down Fehr. This is not 2004-05.
This battle with players has been about the money from the beginning, and it will only be settled when the money is right. By dropping players from 57% to 50%, owners are trying to gain about $1.6 billion over a six-year period.
In the make whole offer, owners are reducing that take by about $211 million. That's not enough to protect the value of contracts already signed. They will reduce their percentage, but they are adamant about protecting their signed contracts.
How much does the make whole pool have to grow to get players to agree? Some say it is another $370 million, plus the league agreeing to back off on the vast majority of their demands for changes to free agency, arbitration and contract lengths.
Would you consider the sides too far apart to get a deal done? That's an average of more than $12 million per team over the course of six years. Could a deal get done if the NHL added another $100 million to the make-whole pool. Would owners do that? How about $150 million?
The answer is that we don't know. The only way we are going to know if the two sides continue to talk every day without the distractions of finger-pointing, name-calling or personal attacks. Regardless of whether you like Fehr, talking to him in this situation is a more effective strategy than talking about him.


  • 0

#2499 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 69,210 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:10 PM

@TEAM1040
Still no word on whether or not any #CBA meetings are scheduled for later today. Both sides touched base this morning to discuss.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2500 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 69,210 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:23 PM

@RenLavoieRDS
JS Giguère:"We are well inform with the PA. We know what's going on and we are 100% behind Don Fehr and his staff....

@RenLavoieRDS
...We made concession of 1 billion dollar + and we have nothing in return. This is unacceptable. "
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2501 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:49 PM

And I addressed that in saying the division of HHR and make whole provisions are the greatest obstacles towards a deal being signed, everything else is secondary.

Maybe you should stick to proposals, this is over your head.


Well I don't know about that, I haven't been following it as closely lately since they started talking day after day because I hate having the up and down thoughts and optimism.

But before about this week maybe a bit longer. I was just as involved and watching just as closely as you are.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2502 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,116 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:17 PM

People are stupid sheep, they'll be back. Alls that the NHL will have to do is hire someone good st subliminal messaging and a spin doctor.....oh wait, they already have :)

Naw. A couple of nice looking chicks in bikinis to clean the ice will do it. I mean it would for me. They have to be lookers as I have high standards. None of those bar fly chicks with big bellies. No way. They lose me if they try that stunt!
  • 0

#2503 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

Pierre LeBrun@Real_ESPNLeBrun
NHLPA says "A small PA/League informal lunch meeting is taking place". Both sides will determine out of that the next step

soooo theyre having a meeting to decide if they want to have a meeting? these guys are hilarious.
  • 1

#2504 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,335 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

Pierre LeBrun@Real_ESPNLeBrun
NHLPA says "A small PA/League informal lunch meeting is taking place". Both sides will determine out of that the next step

soooo theyre having a meeting to decide if they want to have a meeting? these guys are hilarious.

Good old fashioned food fight.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#2505 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:24 PM

Good old fashioned food fight.


i would pay to see someone chuck a plate of spaghetti at bettman and fehr. Maybe we can close the gap on makewhole with a video for 10$ a view of them getting a plate in the face? i know id watch it 4 or 5 times.
  • 0

#2506 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,719 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:35 PM

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.
  • 0

#2507 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:11 PM

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%.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2508 lukekim

lukekim

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:20 PM

I'm getting tired to watch the terrible and horrible both side, NHL & NHLPA. If you guys are care of innocent fans, do not choke each other. Just do hockey now !! As******le.
  • 0

#2509 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:20 PM

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.


Source: http://sports.nation...latest-meeting/
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2510 Trebreh

Trebreh

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,903 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:26 PM

sigh... just cancel the damn season already.. the meetings gave us fans a false sense of hope, they are just playing with our emotions now.

Screw the NHL, Euro trip here i come!
  • 0

#2511 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,758 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:40 PM

Pierre LeBrun@Real_ESPNLeBrun
NHLPA says "A small PA/League informal lunch meeting is taking place". Both sides will determine out of that the next step

soooo theyre having a meeting to decide if they want to have a meeting? these guys are hilarious.


Just maxing out the NHL's expense cards I see.

Do you really need to have a meeting to plan a meeting? What's the point? They know they're in a stalemate, otherwise they would have gotten something done over the weekend.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2512 gmen81

gmen81

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,804 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 07

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:40 PM

Lp
  • 0
Posted Image

#2513 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,719 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:44 PM

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%.


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.
  • 1

#2514 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:07 PM

Pierre LeBrun@Real_ESPNLeBrun
NHLPA says "A small PA/League informal lunch meeting is taking place". Both sides will determine out of that the next step


Was the bill split 50/50 or 57/43?
  • 2

#2515 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:14 PM

Was the bill split 50/50 or 57/43?


When they were ordering the owners said they would split the bill 57/43 but after the bill actually arrived they said they would only pay 50% and demanded to call their reduction in how much they paid a "gratuity."
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2516 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:15 PM

Was the bill split 50/50 or 57/43?


im hearing from sources it was a dine & dash, they couldnt figure out how to split it so they figured just screw the waitress,
  • 3

#2517 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:07 PM

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.


  • 0

#2518 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,713 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

Fehr kept the league waiting 6 hours last time they had a meeting...
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2519 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:39 PM

Fehr kept the league waiting 6 hours last time they had a meeting...


Source?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2520 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,713 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:53 PM

Source?

Source?


http://www.startribu...s/57299562.html



As ESPN.com's Katie Strang reported Friday night and I have since confirmed through multiple avenues, last night’s meeting did end heatedly with an animated exchange between some of the players and owners. Tension is high now. Fans are ticked. Sponsors are ticked. Players and owners are ticked, and both sides are feeling the pressure to end the lockout and get back to the ice.


Yesterday just started on bad footing when the league and union were supposed to meet at 10 a.m. The union kept the league waiting until 4 p.m., something the Fehrs have done a handful of times throughout this lockout.


Then, instead of responding to the NHL’s proposals on revenue sharing and split of revenues, Don Fehr tried to demonstrate on paper how the two sides mathematically were “much closer together” than the league thought. The league disagreed, and things were off to a bad start and almost instantaneously went into private caucuses.

  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.