Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Donald Fehr the best thing to end NHL Lock-outs? Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  11:09:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Both sides bent. One side pulled up stakes and walked away. The NHL and Bettman might work in a take it or leave it world but Fehr is a professional negotiator. You dont offer your best cash price on a car without a little bump available in the package.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

I don't see how that article supports that opinion at all Joshua. What I read was an incredibly unbiased comment that looked at pro's and con's in both strategies. I don't think the NHL is trying to smear Fehr at all?? I think they put another offer down reaching further across the table to the players and the players taking the offer and pulling their hands further to their own side of the table.

The NHL is drawing a line in the sand and the players keep stepping back from that line. Eventually the NHL will stop re-drawing that line. The players have to take a step forward and it has to be meaningful. That is the issue in my opinion.

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

Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  11:10:41  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The NHL is drawing a line in the sand and the players keep stepping back from that line. Eventually the NHL will stop re-drawing that line. The players have to take a step forward and it has to be meaningful. That is the issue in my opinion.

Where do you see the players stepping back? Didn't they accept the reduction of make whole by the same amount as the owners increased? Looks like they met them at that line.

Here is the players proposal that was rejected via voice mail (from ESPN):
- Eight years, with an opt out for the players after sixth year
Length of Players Contracts and Variability:
- Limited to eight years, with ability to add years mid-term provided maximum length going forward can never exceed eight seasons
- No change in current rules unless contract is seven years or longer
- For new contracts seven years or longer, current rules plus lowest year may not be less than 25 percent of highest year
- Cap Benefit Recapture per PA proposal from earlier in negotiations, except cap charge is spread over remaining years of contract (not twice remaining term as was previously proposed)

Pension:
- Establish defined benefit plan beginning with this season

-----

The pension is new but everything else darn similar to the owners proposal. Why not just continue and split the difference instead of rejecting it out right and taking a hissy fit? What is with the hard stance? I wonder if the players made any such ultimatum statements on their proposals? I can't find one.

The NHL didn't like Goodenow. They managed to get rid of him but it brought them head to head with Fehr. So where is the problem, is it the 2 different PA rep or the single NHL rep? you know what they say, better the devil you know.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  11:32:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Why is some assuming Fehr is the problem, but Bettman represents the interests of the owners. Fehr represents the players. Does anyone really think that a guy who only gets paid if this gets resolved is stalling negotiations possibly for a lost year because he will benefit in some way. He represents his union like Bettman represents the owners. The difference is when he takes the podium he looks poised and professional, yet disappointed, unlike the NHL heads which looks like a spoiled children stomping there feet saying it aint fair.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  12:02:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok, here is my perseption of the agreement:

NHL - Low ball offer, 43%, blah, blah, blah
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance!!
NHL - Lock out!!
PA - How about 56%???
NHL - You have to be joking?? Not a chance.
Both sides -Months of nothing
PA - If we get this money thing sorted out, we are good to go!
NHL - Ok, Make Whole provision, you pay!
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance
NHL - Ok, Make Whole, $182 million, we'll pay.
PA - How about $382 million???
NHL - How about $300 million, that is not the 50/50 we want but we want to get hockey going. We will catch up to 50/50 later.
PA - OK, BUT now we need to talk about contracts. Once we land on contracts then we will sign.
NHL - But you said if we agree on money you will sign??
PA - Yep, but we promise this time. Contracts are good then we will sign.
NHL - Ok, leaving FA and arbitation alone, max contract 5 yrs (7 yrs for teams on FA's), oh , and a 10 yr CBA with an outclause at 8 yrs.
PA - No, 8 yr max contract and 8 yr CBA with a 6 yr outclause.
NHL - You have to be joking??? Not a chance!!



Does this paint the picture pretty clearly??? I think it does. Frankly, I am sick of the owners bending on every issue and the players coming back to their same old demands but spun a different way.



Here is the scariest part: Both sides moved further without Bettman and Fehr in the room. Bettman stayed away and as soon as Fehr stepped back into the room things went south in a heartbeat. Take a look at these quotes from the owners who were involved in the negotiations:

Following Thursday night's dvelopments, Tanenbaum released a statement detailing how he thought the negotiations hit a road block on Wednesday after Tuesday's progress.

"I understand how important it is to have a strong league and 30 healthy teams," Tanenbaum said. "I must admit that I was shocked at how things have played out over the last 48 hours. The sessions on Tuesday felt cooperative with an air of goodwill. I was optimistic and conveyed my optimism to the Board of Governors at our Wednesday meeting. However, when we reconvened with the players on Wednesday afternoon, it was like someone had thrown a switch."

Chipman also weighed in with his thoughts.

"Regrettably, we have been unable to close the divide on some critical issues that we feel are essential to the immediate and long-term health of our game," Chipman said. "While I sense there are some members of the players association that understand our perspective on these issues, clearly there are many that don't."



I would be just as frustrated as Bettman in this case. I don't see the players as having comprimised on any one of their initial points from the summer. None of them. If I am wrong, I would love for anyone to share the points the players are comprimising on.

Let's hear it.

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

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  12:47:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Surely they knew which way the day was going to end from the moment they found out that the only representatives the league had deigned to send to hear their proposal were Bill Daly and the dreaded Dr. Death, lockout lawyer Bob Batterman."

This is another except from an article which I provided. Do you notice only 2 members of the NHL side met to review the players counter-proposal, which was declined in record time by the head of the side saying they are making all the consessions. Doesnt sound like the NHL was willing to consider anything but there prospective. There are always 2 sides to every story. Maybe these contracting rights which the players work for in previous CBA negotiations are "the hill they are willing to die on". Horrible reference by Daly by the way. Way to throw a grenade and dig in for cover. BTW I understand you think the owners are making consessions, by coming closure to the players offers, but these are not additional demands made by the players, the are rights they had in there last CBA in which the ownership group is trying to take away. The players are agreeing to there consessions on there previous rights. What the owners are doing is lowering there demands.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  13:10:07  Reply with Quote
NHL - Low ball offer, 43%, blah, blah, blah,
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance!!
NHL - Lock out!!
PA - How about 56%???
NHL - You have to be joking?? Not a chance.
Both sides -Months of nothing
PA - If we get this money thing sorted out, we are good to go! - More like let's work on this HRR stuff before we deal with the other stuff
NHL - Ok, Make Whole provision, you pay! Oh and some very restrictive players' rights that didn't exist before.
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance
NHL - Ok, Make Whole, $182 million, we'll pay. Still with the new restrictions.
PA - Like we said before. Let's work on the money firts. How about $382 million??? Oh and those restrictions yeah remove them.
NHL - How about $300 million, that is not the 50/50 we want but we want to get hockey going. We will catch up to 50/50 later. With those pesky restrictions.
PA - OK. Glad we settled the money thing we met in the middle hat's cool. BUT now we need to talk about contracts restrictions you put in place.
NHL - But you said if we agree on money you will sign??
PA - No we said let's work on the big item which is the money.
NHL - Ok, leaving FA and arbitation alone, max contract 5 yrs (7 yrs for teams on FA's), oh , and a 10 yr CBA with an outclause at 8 yrs.
PA - No, 8 yr max contract and 8 yr CBA with a 6 yr outclause.
NHL - We don't even speak the same language. I'm leaving and everything that was previously offered is no longer available.
PA - We were so close, but they just walked away.

Don't you see how close they were before the owners walked away? This will get done this year if this is all that is separating the two.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  13:11:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Rights??? What rights?? When a CBA expires, anything in the previous agreement is dead. One does not lead to the next. If there are provisions from expired agreements that are included in the next agreement, it has to be agreed upon. However, the CBA and everything that was included in it was dead on the day the agreement ended. These are new proposals. The old CBA is irrelevant. The new agreement started with the owners offer. From that point, the owners have bent and bent and bent. The players have not moved an inch from their initial offer. The hill they are dying on is that they are owed what they got last time.

As far as the "hill we are willing to die on," comment. I sure hope people are not so naive to think that message what not clearly provided to the players at the table. There is no way the conversation between Daly/Bettman and Fehr/Fehr or the owners and players did not include those conversations. There is no possible way the players did not know the value of the contract issues. That is why I believe Bettman was so fired up yesterday. The players know exactly where the owners stand and to not budge an inch. Not even a little bit.


The FACTS, agreed to by both parties, is the owners offered $300 million in the make whole, tossed out any changed to FA’s and arbitration, and want a 10 yr. CBA with 5 yr. max contracts. That is ½ way on the money, concessions in the players favor for FA’s and arbitration, and a more than reasonable term that shows they are serious about long term security against future labour disputes.

For the owners to toss the PA proposal in seconds and inform them via voicemail tells me the PA offer was insulting and nowhere near what the owners can work with. The player, by their own admission, offered 8 yr. CBA with an opt out in 6 yrs. and 8 yr. contact length. The owners meet the players ½ ways on the money the players wanted and the players come back with nowhere near ½ ways on the contracting issues and nowhere near the CBA length that shows they want long term security against future labour disputes.

That’s a complete joke.


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

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  13:18:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Surely they knew which way the day was going to end from the moment they found out that the only representatives the league had deigned to send to hear their proposal were Bill Daly and the dreaded Dr. Death, lockout lawyer Bob Batterman."

This is another except from an article which I provided. Do you notice only 2 members of the NHL side met to review the player’s counter-proposal, which was declined in record time by the head of the side saying they are making all the concessions? Doesn’t sound like the NHL was willing to consider anything but there prospective.



There are two sides. Do you not think maybe the NHL was taking the information from the owners who were in the sessions and assumed the players would make their proposal based on those meetings?? Remember, two owners as well as players were on record early in the week staying the sides were closing in on issues. How do you know that the owners were not expecting a different offer and when Fehr and the players laid pen to paper the deal changed??

Also, the Daly has publically stated what hill they are dying on. Making that statement publically tells me the the players also new that.

The CBA length is 10 yrs with an opt out at 8
Player contracts are 5 yrs in length.

Anything else will be denied.

Considering the NHL has gone past their original 50/50 with the make whole as well as FA's and arbitration, I think they are more than reasonable to make some demands on the players.


It doesn't take more than 2 people to know if the offer it what they expected or not. Clearly it wasn't and it has fired up the NHL.

Finally, can people not see the bias in an article referring to someone by the name of "the dreaded Dr. Death, lockout lawyer Bob Batterman."

Can you imagine if the media referred to Fehr as the "Sport Destroyer??"


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

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  13:22:08  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

NHL - Low ball offer, 43%, blah, blah, blah,
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance!!
NHL - Lock out!!
PA - How about 56%???
NHL - You have to be joking?? Not a chance.
Both sides -Months of nothing
PA - If we get this money thing sorted out, we are good to go! - More like let's work on this HRR stuff before we deal with the other stuff
NHL - Ok, Make Whole provision, you pay! Oh and some very restrictive players' rights that didn't exist before.
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance
NHL - Ok, Make Whole, $182 million, we'll pay. Still with the new restrictions.
PA - Like we said before. Let's work on the money firts. How about $382 million??? Oh and those restrictions yeah remove them.
NHL - How about $300 million, that is not the 50/50 we want but we want to get hockey going. We will catch up to 50/50 later. With those pesky restrictions.
PA - OK. Glad we settled the money thing we met in the middle hat's cool. BUT now we need to talk about contracts restrictions you put in place.
NHL - But you said if we agree on money you will sign??
PA - No we said let's work on the big item which is the money.
NHL - Ok, leaving FA and arbitation alone, max contract 5 yrs (7 yrs for teams on FA's), oh , and a 10 yr CBA with an outclause at 8 yrs.
PA - No, 8 yr max contract and 8 yr CBA with a 6 yr outclause.
NHL - We don't even speak the same language. I'm leaving and everything that was previously offered is no longer available.
PA - We were so close, but they just walked away.

Don't you see how close they were before the owners walked away? This will get done this year if this is all that is separating the two.


Let's look at those players concessions that some people don't see:

57% to 50% HRR with make whole provisions cause you can't just walk away from those big contracts you signed this summer.

Make whole where owner paid for everything to a shared cost where the owners only need to put up $300M and the players take the hit on the rest to make whole.

8 yr max contract where none existed.

So what exactly did the owners give up in relation to the previous CBA? Looks like the players gave up more than they gained based on the previous CBA. What exactly did the players gain from this proposed CBA from the last? Nothing.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  13:23:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

NHL - Low ball offer, 43%, blah, blah, blah,
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance!!
NHL - Lock out!!
PA - How about 56%???
NHL - You have to be joking?? Not a chance.
Both sides -Months of nothing
PA - If we get this money thing sorted out, we are good to go! - More like let's work on this HRR stuff before we deal with the other stuff
NHL - Ok, Make Whole provision, you pay! Oh and some very restrictive players' rights that didn't exist before.
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance
NHL - Ok, Make Whole, $182 million, we'll pay. Still with the new restrictions.
PA - Like we said before. Let's work on the money firts. How about $382 million??? Oh and those restrictions yeah remove them.
NHL - How about $300 million, that is not the 50/50 we want but we want to get hockey going. We will catch up to 50/50 later. With those pesky restrictions.
PA - OK. Glad we settled the money thing we met in the middle hat's cool. BUT now we need to talk about contracts restrictions you put in place.
NHL - But you said if we agree on money you will sign??
PA - No we said let's work on the big item which is the money.
NHL - Ok, leaving FA and arbitation alone, max contract 5 yrs (7 yrs for teams on FA's), oh , and a 10 yr CBA with an outclause at 8 yrs.
PA - No, 8 yr max contract and 8 yr CBA with a 6 yr outclause.
NHL - We don't even speak the same language. I'm leaving and everything that was previously offered is no longer available.
PA - We were so close, but they just walked away.

Don't you see how close they were before the owners walked away? This will get done this year if this is all that is separating the two.



Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I strongly disagree with your opinion of how things have gone at the point of where the money match what the players were looking for, but the player then asked for more...Regardless, your account still shows the owners continuously making offers to the player's demands and the players continuously making their own demands without making offers to the owner’s demands.

It’s the same thing at the end of the day, the NHL gives and the PA wants more. Then the PA calls foul when the NHL stops them and says, “we are not giving up any more.”


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

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  13:47:27  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Regardless, your account still shows the owners continuously making offers to the player's demands and the players continuously making their own demands without making offers to the owner’s demands.

It’s the same thing at the end of the day, the NHL gives and the PA wants more. Then the PA calls foul when the NHL stops them and says, “we are not giving up any more.”

Wow talk about biased. I see how you view that the owners have been giving as they continuously increased the amount in their proposal. But look at it from the players perspective just once.

I'll repeat the questions:
1. So what exactly did the owners give up in this CBA in relation to the previous CBA?
Answer: Nothing.
2. What exactly did the players gain from this proposed CBA from the last?
Awnser: Nothing.
3. What did the owners give the players in this CBA compared to the previous CBA?
Answer: Nothing.
4. How can someone say that the owners gave in on everything in this CBA?
Answer: Biased owner coloured glasses.
Go to Top of Page

Guest6517
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  13:54:01  Reply with Quote
Can you even read beans? Or did you just accidentally reverse nhl with nhlpa? Name one thing the owners have given up? And you say the owners make offer after offer then the players just ask for more? Seems to me the owners were only talking about their 50/50 split early on and now that they get it they say contracts are the hill they will die on. Which side keeps shutting down negociations? And why do you think it's okay for the owners to continue to make offers based on they want but not the players? You are so ridiculously bias its absurd.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  14:13:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The part you seem to miss is the players, when not negotiating the split on HRR, were negotiating the contractual rights and Arbitration rights. These were the non core issue meetings that Bettman refused to sit in on last month which apparently were more important issues than what Bettman and the BOG thought. The players have had as hard a stance on these issues as the split on HRR. This did not just happen thursday. Both sides bent, but one side wants the other to break and if the other doesnt break, the owners act like a little kid, get mad stomp there feet and take there toys home. If you think the owners conveyed the hill they were willing to die on, dont you think the union present the same make or break issues to the league. The PA made movement towards the NHL's demands which they thought were enough to earn a deal and the BOG said nah, we dont need to play hockey, we can live without it for a little while longer.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

NHL - Low ball offer, 43%, blah, blah, blah,
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance!!
NHL - Lock out!!
PA - How about 56%???
NHL - You have to be joking?? Not a chance.
Both sides -Months of nothing
PA - If we get this money thing sorted out, we are good to go! - More like let's work on this HRR stuff before we deal with the other stuff
NHL - Ok, Make Whole provision, you pay! Oh and some very restrictive players' rights that didn't exist before.
PA - You have to be joking?? Not a chance
NHL - Ok, Make Whole, $182 million, we'll pay. Still with the new restrictions.
PA - Like we said before. Let's work on the money firts. How about $382 million??? Oh and those restrictions yeah remove them.
NHL - How about $300 million, that is not the 50/50 we want but we want to get hockey going. We will catch up to 50/50 later. With those pesky restrictions.
PA - OK. Glad we settled the money thing we met in the middle hat's cool. BUT now we need to talk about contracts restrictions you put in place.
NHL - But you said if we agree on money you will sign??
PA - No we said let's work on the big item which is the money.
NHL - Ok, leaving FA and arbitation alone, max contract 5 yrs (7 yrs for teams on FA's), oh , and a 10 yr CBA with an outclause at 8 yrs.
PA - No, 8 yr max contract and 8 yr CBA with a 6 yr outclause.
NHL - We don't even speak the same language. I'm leaving and everything that was previously offered is no longer available.
PA - We were so close, but they just walked away.

Don't you see how close they were before the owners walked away? This will get done this year if this is all that is separating the two.



Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I strongly disagree with your opinion of how things have gone at the point of where the money match what the players were looking for, but the player then asked for more...Regardless, your account still shows the owners continuously making offers to the player's demands and the players continuously making their own demands without making offers to the owner’s demands.

It’s the same thing at the end of the day, the NHL gives and the PA wants more. Then the PA calls foul when the NHL stops them and says, “we are not giving up any more.”


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


Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 12/07/2012 14:53:22
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  14:51:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411173

Finally I found an article which shows my last point of view of the players trying to convey there make or break issues. The owners seemed upset with how the PA concerns were being expressed or conveyed. The PA wished to bring in there legal advisor (Fehr) to explain the important parts and to have a full explaination from there legal advisor team (Fehr brothers and Company) of how the owners make or break issue would affect them. The owners present at that time objected to Fehr being present and talks broke down. The players did not feel comfortable, or up to the task with negotiating all the legal details, as these are not there strengths and that is why they hired Fehr in the first place. Its clear the NHL does not want Fehr at the Head of the Union and the Union clearly wants Fehr at the head.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  18:27:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Regardless, your account still shows the owners continuously making offers to the player's demands and the players continuously making their own demands without making offers to the owner’s demands.

It’s the same thing at the end of the day, the NHL gives and the PA wants more. Then the PA calls foul when the NHL stops them and says, “we are not giving up any more.”

Wow talk about biased. I see how you view that the owners have been giving as they continuously increased the amount in their proposal. But look at it from the players perspective just once.

I'll repeat the questions:
1. So what exactly did the owners give up in this CBA in relation to the previous CBA?
Answer: Nothing.
2. What exactly did the players gain from this proposed CBA from the last?
Awnser: Nothing.
3. What did the owners give the players in this CBA compared to the previous CBA?
Answer: Nothing.
4. How can someone say that the owners gave in on everything in this CBA?
Answer: Biased owner coloured glasses.




Ugh, where to start. Might as well be here:

1. The last CBA has nothing to do with this one. The old one is dead. By the way, during the last CBA the player got nothing but double the salaries they started with in 2004.

2. The player gain the ability to earn 50% of a $3+ billion industry. By not signing the CBA they get zero.

3. See answers one and two.

4. Not only did I explain this in the fact that the old CBA is dead and the owners have given in on every offer since that death, but the owners have also give approx $20 billion to the players over the life of the old CBA while the owners put less than $2 billion in their own pocket. The players have been out earning the owners tenfold. All the owners want is a more even split.

I guess that's too much to ask............

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

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  18:33:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411173

Finally I found an article which shows my last point of view of the players trying to convey there make or break issues. The owners seemed upset with how the PA concerns were being expressed or conveyed. The PA wished to bring in there legal advisor (Fehr) to explain the important parts and to have a full explaination from there legal advisor team (Fehr brothers and Company) of how the owners make or break issue would affect them. The owners present at that time objected to Fehr being present and talks broke down. The players did not feel comfortable, or up to the task with negotiating all the legal details, as these are not there strengths and that is why they hired Fehr in the first place. Its clear the NHL does not want Fehr at the Head of the Union and the Union clearly wants Fehr at the head.



I read this article too. Hainsey is a smart guy and well worded. The issue I have is that Fehr did not have to be at the table to achieve what Hainsey and his brethren wanted. No offer is going to the members without the approval of the union head. But he doesn't have to be at the table for that to happen.

The owners were very clear in their intentions when the initiated the players/owners meeting. Steve Fehr and Daly were in the room at the start. That was when the most positive ground was made and the players did have legal reps in the room as did the NHL. The owners were very clear that the players wanted to break down that dynamic they would stop being involved in the meetings.

I don't get how that is trying to keep Fehr out. He still has the opportunity to give his direction to his group before any deal is even voted on let alone signed.





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

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  18:39:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All this crap about from the last CBA to this one is exactly that, crap.

Facts stated the owners were barely breaking even while the players salaries increased by more than double. There was never a chance the players would be able to gain on the last CBA. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply daft.

The owners not making money and players salaries climbing exponentially. And you think the players should gain more from that deal?????????

I think it's fabulous that every time I bring up the bending the owners have done since their initial offer the masses bring up this stuff about a CBA that is now dead.

Someone, anyone, give me one example of something the players have bent on since their initial offer in this round of negotiations and I will not make another post until the CBA is signed.


And before some meatball tosses out the 50/50 crap, don't forget the make whole provision turns 50/50 into 56/44



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

Guest0649
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  22:16:36  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
1. The last CBA has nothing to do with this one. The old one is dead. By the way, during the last CBA the player got nothing but double the salaries they started with in 2004.

2. The player gain the ability to earn 50% of a $3+ billion industry. By not signing the CBA they get zero.

3. See answers one and two.

4. Not only did I explain this in the fact that the old CBA is dead and the owners have given in on every offer since that death, but the owners have also give approx $20 billion to the players over the life of the old CBA while the owners put less than $2 billion in their own pocket. The players have been out earning the owners tenfold. All the owners want is a more even split.


I'm not sure Beans if you are able to see the union's point of view like that of the guest. This is a long post to only address one item in your logic. I'll let 4350 deal with the remainder.

2. No, the players got 57% last time not 0. So the owners didn't just give the players 50% of the revenue, they took 7% away. Then to adjust for the 7% reduction in revenue sharing they wanted to reduce the players salary to match even when the owners rushed to sign many players to many contracts before the 2004 CBA expired knowing that they will demand a salary roll back. That's dirty.

Seems to me that the owners didn't think the last CBA is dead. They negotiated from that CBA and took away from the players 14%, then "gave back" by taking only 7% away. But the players called them a bunch of cheats for signing contracts knowingly with the expectations of demanding a roll back. So the owners came up with the make whole plan. The make whole is not a player proposal, it is the owners realizing they got caught and tried to make up for it by first having the players pay for all of it. Then they realized, yeah they really f'ed up and fessed up 300M to save themselves from paying the full amount.

In another post somewhere you said you were a union guy. Did you start your CBA from scratch or from a blank slate when the previous one expired? All union to owner negotiation started from the old CBA if there was one that just expired. Recently the federal government took away the retirement payout in return they gave something to the union, immediate one time buy out at a reduced cost from future payout - sounds like that make whole thing.

The NHL owners just took away things from the old CBA and gave up nothing for it. That isn't negotiating, that is dictating.

I think somewhere a pro-owner member posted that the old CBA was good and it only needed tweaking to make it work. Now you want to toss it in the garbage and start over from scratch. Really? OK, starting from scratch, we the players don't agree to a salary cap. If you would like a salary cap, what are you giving us for it? Kiss the next 2 seasons good-bye.

Are you so biased that you can't even see the player's union point of view? C'mon other pro-owner posters tell me, are we pro-players posters so wrong or is Beans so set in his way he won't look at this any other way?
Go to Top of Page

Guest0649
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  22:22:16  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Someone, anyone, give me one example of something the players have bent on since their initial offer in this round of negotiations and I will not make another post until the CBA is signed.


I'm sure you'll say that the old CBA is dead so the players are lucky to even get this.

But the limits on length of contract is something the players bent on. There was none. The owners wanted a limit of 5 (or 7 for re-signing own FA), the players conceded by asking for a 8 yr limit. Looks like the players by giving no limit to an 8 yr limit.

BTW to address the other parts of your post would take too long. I'm sure someone else will point it out to you in a much more succinct way than I.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8176 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  23:16:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Again, there is nothing in the former CBA that discusses anything about continuous collective bargaining. Hence, the former CBA may or be not be used in future CBA's. there is nothing forcing either side to include anything from the old CBA in the new one and neither side has to use the old CBA as the 'starting point' for the new agreement. That is not my bias opinion, that is fact. If anyone chooses to think of it any other way, I can't change that. But before anyone starts saying how things work, they should really do a little research on static vs continuously collective bargaining as well as the collective bargaining process.

Secondly, I believe many people see the 8 yrs vs unlimited contracts as a bend by the players. I might be wrong on this, but I don't believe the players initial proposal during these negotiations included anything on the contracts. 8 yrs is their first offer, not a bend from anything. But again, I might be wrong.


Finally, for all those folks that say I can't see the union side, I have two things:

I see the union side as clear as day. They have every right to do and say everything they are doing and saying. I get the point of the small group of owners signing players to agreements in bad faith this summer. I get the amount of money they are losing and will lose in the future compared to their most recent CBA. I get all of it, I just don't agree with them. I also believe the players are not attempting to get a deal done. I see the point of the owners not wanting to continue to talk when it appears the players are not talking the same language. I do think I see both sides. I just don't agree with the actions, behaviours, and thought process of the players. Just because I am on the owners side I think is rediculous to say I don't see the players side. From the start of this entire situation I have made comments about the NHL needing a fundamental overhaul from the BoG to some other system that will hold the owners more accountable to the process and punish those owners who do not follow the spirit of the agreement. I guess people selectively choose to forget when I make those comments. Maybe it's because my point has also been the 50/50 is a minimum starting point for the NHL to be able to fix the issue of those maverick owners. The key is building a sustainable NHL from a cost perspective. Then change the structure and process of how the league internally operates.

More importantly, if I can't see the players side, does that also mean that the pro-player group can't see the owners side? If am showing such a bias towards the owners and against the players, what does that say about those who are so ferociously debating the player's side?

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

Guest8346
( )

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  07:34:25  Reply with Quote
ok so we agree that the owners new sticking point that was not a "core issue" before as bettman didn't feel it was important for him to be present during the talks about contracts and such: is now a 5 year cap the owners want to put on all contracts. Ok i get that from an owners perspective, the players disagree yup get that from a players prespective aswell. Simple answer, owners sign the proposal the players presented with a 8 year cap on contracts and simply do not offer contracts over a 5 year term to players. If that is the "Hill the we die on" then it must mean a whole heck of a lot to the owners so they just have to not offer contracts over 5 years.

It may be tough fot their ring leader though Jacobs who delt out 2 contracts for more than 5 years a couple hours before the lock out began.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  07:59:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To me I wouldn't unilaterally sign what the players last offer was. I would have countered with 9 year CBA with a mutual walk away clause after 7, right down the middle. I would have offered 6 year contracts with 7 max on renewing, right down the middle. I think the pension points brought by the owners was a little harder as I don't know the positions they are in, but I would have trimmed a little of the millions earmarked for the pension, to move towards the player proposal and got a deal done. Really this isnt all that difficult and I truly wish I was in the room. Standard negotiating procedure if both parties want to make a deal. To walk away after they are so close to a deal is assinine.

quote:
Originally posted by Guest8346

ok so we agree that the owners new sticking point that was not a "core issue" before as bettman didn't feel it was important for him to be present during the talks about contracts and such: is now a 5 year cap the owners want to put on all contracts. Ok i get that from an owners perspective, the players disagree yup get that from a players prespective aswell. Simple answer, owners sign the proposal the players presented with a 8 year cap on contracts and simply do not offer contracts over a 5 year term to players. If that is the "Hill the we die on" then it must mean a whole heck of a lot to the owners so they just have to not offer contracts over 5 years.

It may be tough fot their ring leader though Jacobs who delt out 2 contracts for more than 5 years a couple hours before the lock out began.

Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  08:07:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Of course just cause Bettman isn't sitting at a table negotiating doesnt mean the Union couldn't put this proposal in front of them. Actually I wouldn't even have Donald deliver it. I dont understand why but Steve seems to be allowed to sit in the room when the older Fehr can't.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  09:37:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/ray-ratto/nhl-labor-dispute-about-nothing-more-jacobs-vs-fehr?awid=8205779091953272754-766

Best article I have read yet on the impass on the CBA. The moderate owners need to read this article. I dont know why people cant see this is a power trip by the most powerful owners in the NHL and who its hurting the most is the fans, players and the small market teams. Funny part is with a lockout the teams that make money when hockey is played are losing the most money now.

Fehr might not be welcome in the room, but he is the one who is keeping the rout from becoming epic.
Go to Top of Page

Guest8136
( )

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  09:49:51  Reply with Quote
Thanks for yet another heavily biased article towards the players and against the owners.

Take a look at this article. Tell me this doesn't paint both side both good and bad and see the reality of the future of the league.

The key point in this article is:

"Gary, are you concerned that franchises will be in peril if there is no hockey this season?"

The answer was just a simple, yet had much more meaning: "My bigger concern is if we make the wrong deal we'll have more franchises in jeopardy."

And that, in a nut shell, is why there was no agreement in New York City this week. It is a message that the NHL really has not trumpeted enough during this lock out. As wealthy as some teams are there are other in this league riddled with debt. And before you jump up and yell, that the teams are in the wrong locales, stop it! This isn't a public trust, it's a private club. A business where the owners decide where the teams play. If you don't like that, tough! It's a private business, with economic issues that need to be addressed. And the players and the owners both bear the responsibility of addressing those issues.





http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/12/08/shannon_nhl_lockout_franchises_in_jeopardy/
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  10:54:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I read that article and have a few points to add. The columnist say by not playing now and extending this lockout the players lose an additional 20% of this years pay. Hopefully what they receive in compensation is equal or greater for holding out. Here is 1 of there holdouts which could pay them back that much and much more. 5 years is what the owners want instituted and if 7-8 years is the final number a player contract ends up being, the player could reap the benifits by as much as 60% over the term of the contract, should he sign the longest term and his player worth falter in later years. Would you lose 20% this year for 60% overall on future contract length and value.

Later in the article he says that 18 teams are losing money this year, but the last proposal by the league and PA would bring most of these teams to profit the moment the puck is dropped. The only remaining struggling franchises are in locations which cannot generate the income to sustain an NHL team. The fix is in profit sharing between franchises. In the article Bettman say he has been fighting at length for profit sharing in excess of the $300 million proposed by the union in the players proposal, but with all the power Bettman has he has yet to institute sufficient revenue sharing, in the amount required to help the 18 teams currently losing money, which is why the BOG is looking to the union for a break in salary for the fix.

Its not a totally inaccurate article, but he has left many issues the responsibility of the union, which in the last proposals have been addressed. The other issues need the owners to work with the other owners for solutions. Thats the biggest threat facing the NHL right now, the have's do not want to help the have nots.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 12/08/2012 12:59:39
Go to Top of Page

Guest8136
( )

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  11:36:15  Reply with Quote
Wow. What a perfect example of completely missing the point. The writer is pretty clear in the message that both sides have responsibility in fixing the mess. No where in the article does it infer or implicitly state the union has to fix anything at all. The point of the article is clear. The NHL financial model is broken. The NHL has areas they have to fix themselves and there are also fixes required with the CBA. Without fixing the CBA, it's pointless to make the other fixes.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  12:54:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ditto, and thanks for completely missing my points. Did I not outline what in the article he proposed needing fixing and what has already been proposed, with what problem would remain after the fixes he suggested. I also pointed out his statement of what the players could gain by losing another 20% of there income over the next month, if one of the sticking points currently holding up a signed negotiation. I have more points which the players feel will more than make up the difference of signing now or waiting out a better deal, but I was making a point you clearly didnt understand.

quote:
Originally posted by Guest8136

Wow. What a perfect example of completely missing the point. The writer is pretty clear in the message that both sides have responsibility in fixing the mess. No where in the article does it infer or implicitly state the union has to fix anything at all. The point of the article is clear. The NHL financial model is broken. The NHL has areas they have to fix themselves and there are also fixes required with the CBA. Without fixing the CBA, it's pointless to make the other fixes.


Go to Top of Page

Guest0649
( )

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  15:55:19  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8136

The writer is pretty clear in the message that both sides have responsibility in fixing the mess. No where in the article does it infer or implicitly state the union has to fix anything at all. The point of the article is clear. The NHL financial model is broken. The NHL has areas they have to fix themselves and there are also fixes required with the CBA. Without fixing the CBA, it's pointless to make the other fixes.

Umm Beans I think you mean fix to the 2004 CBA. Which then means that the 2004 CBA was a starting point of negotiations. Which means that in comparing the 2004 CBA, with what is proposed by the owners, the owners got everything and gave up nothing.

BTW way to stick to your word - your promise means nothing as you show little honour. Before you deny that you are not Beans, see top post of page 11 of other thread.
Go to Top of Page

Guest8346
( )

Posted - 12/09/2012 :  04:52:13  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0649

quote:
Originally posted by Guest8136

The writer is pretty clear in the message that both sides have responsibility in fixing the mess. No where in the article does it infer or implicitly state the union has to fix anything at all. The point of the article is clear. The NHL financial model is broken. The NHL has areas they have to fix themselves and there are also fixes required with the CBA. Without fixing the CBA, it's pointless to make the other fixes.

Umm Beans I think you mean fix to the 2004 CBA. Which then means that the 2004 CBA was a starting point of negotiations. Which means that in comparing the 2004 CBA, with what is proposed by the owners, the owners got everything and gave up nothing.

BTW way to stick to your word - your promise means nothing as you show little honour. Before you deny that you are not Beans, see top post of page 11 of other thread.



no but you see the old CBA is dead, dead and gone, it's a ghost it never existed, they should be starting from scratch which means the players are giving up nothing and the owners are the only ones trying to strike a new deal and make concessions,

it would be pretty bloody ignorant if this were my actual opinion, I don't understand how any rational un bias human being could post such nonsense then contradict himself less than 24 hours later!
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/10/2012 :  07:30:46  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

1. The last CBA has nothing to do with this one. The old one is dead. By the way, during the last CBA the player got nothing but double the salaries they started with in 2004.


No the 2004 CBA didn't give the players double their salary. It actually took away 24% of it, then restricted some free agency stuff oh and don't forget about limits to rookie contracts.

The owners demanded these changes. Got exactly what they wanted. Screwed each other over signing multiple 10+ contracts for nearly $100M to the players then complain the players are making to much because of the salary cap. It is because of the cap that they owners don't hand out even more ridiculous contracts and lose money.

The salary cap and it is the single reason the owners don't lose money but coming from the owner's view you aren't able to see that. All you see is the money the owners did not make rather than the money the owners did not lose.

As for your other points, it is as full of holes as this statement but of course you won't see it that way.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/10/2012 :  14:34:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I read an article on the weekend where the BOG, who thought they won hands down the last CBA believe in the end they lost. The did not forsee the long term front loaded contracts and the increase in revenue's. They did not forsee the expense increase outside of salary and that the floor being set so close to the cap would force small market teams into poverty. The economy in the States played a large role in teams losing huge amounts of money, less so than player expenses.

The owners are convinced this round they need to feel like winners. It funny because they clearly won last time and chewed off there own arms to get out of the trap they set. The players may have been the recepient of good fortune but they lost huge last time and feel the losing ends now.
Go to Top of Page

Guest0649
( )

Posted - 12/15/2012 :  06:47:54  Reply with Quote
It is reaching ludirous levels of silliness now.

Owners: You bring Fehr back and we have no deal. This is the hill we die on.
Players: Forget you clowns, Fehr represents us. We need him on this. That's why we paid him ridiculous millions.
Owners: See ya and I'm taking my puck with me.
Players: We will start proceedings to decertify. Meaning you won't have Fehr to be there to represent us.
Owners: Judge the players are not bargaining in good faith.
Judge: What the F? You don't want Fehr to negotiate the players. Then when the players give you that opportunity you complain? That's called having your cake and eating it too.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4377
( )

Posted - 12/15/2012 :  11:24:38  Reply with Quote
It hasn't quite reached the ludicrous level yet. That comes when this lockout finally ends, and despite months of fans commenting that they're frustrated and angry, and will never come back, they're there in full force supporting the game (the owners and players really) same as before, when this lockout ends, and the players return to the ice.

It happened after both previous lockouts, and especially after the 2004-2005 lockout, and does anyone really think it will be different this time?

And perhaps that's why the players and owners are being so stubborn. If they thought the $3.2 splitting of the pie was going to be a smaller pie, that would be more important than getting 48%, 50% or 52% of the pie, or other features of a new CBA.

But they must actually believe fan support will not be diminished by this dispute. I hope they're wrong, because it would be great to see them suffer (to whatever extent a millionaire or billionaire could "suffer") splitting decreased revenues, which when combined with losing half or a full season, would put them way behind whatever is gained by a new CBA.

But as ludicrous as it sounds, the fans will be back. There will be no boycotting of games. One fan movement is promoting that fans sit out a game for each and every game cancelled after December 21st. It's not going to happen. I don't think threats from fans to boycott the NHL even registers with the players or owners. It's almost like they don't care about their fans, but that would be ludicrous!
Go to Top of Page

Guest4377
( )

Posted - 12/15/2012 :  16:44:29  Reply with Quote
That's a $3.2 billion pie to split. If there were no lockout this season, it's likely that league revenues would have continued their upward trend. What do people project for league revenues for the next full season? Will the lockout cause league revenues to decrease, or will league revenues go up (and up and up) just like they did after the 2004-2005 lockout season?
Go to Top of Page

Guest4377
( )

Posted - 12/18/2012 :  19:54:16  Reply with Quote
Best article yet:
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/12/18/nhl-lockout-negotiation-tactics-hurting-more-than-league-union/
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page