Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

CBA Negotiations: We are getting close to the edge of darkness, yet we are not scared


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2321 replies to this topic

#1 FL4WL3SS


  • Mrs. Dennis Wideman


  • 6,173 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:56 AM

Figured this could use it's own thread

FWIW, Haggs was on T&R this morning and said he thought the CBA negotiations would be drawn out and eat part of the season, but somehow the cap would go up to almost 70m. I've heard the opposite from other connected people about the CBA talks, but I would not put past the Bruins that they believe the most sensible thing to do is to tie up all their existing players to preserve their known assets and then respond on the fly to the terms of a new CBA on the trade market. The UFA market is OK for forwards and it seems like they still have a bit of space to do something there with maybe one ancillary move to create cap space if they go for a bigger ticket item.


Anybody hear any other news? I would be VERY surprised if they missed any games. That would be epically stupid.

Edited by FL4WL3SS, 04 January 2013 - 09:49 AM.


#2 TheRealness


  • Don't make him go all Lucic on your ash


  • 8,251 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:00 PM

Posted Image

This guy doesn't care about missing games. This guy scares the fucking shit out of me.

I hope they don't miss anything, but the NHL is in a really good financial position right now, and both sides are going into this knowing that. I hope they don't fuck it up. I really do. But this guy is an asshole and an idiot, and brazen about both. I'm a-scared.

#3 Spaulding Smails


  • Worth a thousand words


  • 2,658 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:03 PM

It took them about 5 years to really recover from the last lockout and with the great TV deal they have now it would be idiotic to miss any games. I'm with Realness though, Fehr scares the hell out of me.

#4 FL4WL3SS


  • Mrs. Dennis Wideman


  • 6,173 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:09 PM

Does anybody even know what the talking points for this negotiation are? I'm not sure I even know what the hot button issues are this time.

#5 Spaulding Smails


  • Worth a thousand words


  • 2,658 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:13 PM

Does anybody even know what the talking points for this negotiation are? I'm not sure I even know what the hot button issues are this time.


My guesses would be player safety issues and the fact that the players accepted that 24% rollback from the last CBA. Fehr won't let that happen again.

NHLPA got their asses handed to them the last time with the hard cap and the rollback, I just hope the NHL doesn't try to go to the well too often with this group now.

Edited by Spaulding Smails, 12 June 2012 - 12:16 PM.


#6 steveluck7

  • 1,137 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:15 PM

Haggs was saying that under this CBA, players are getting 57% of the hockey related income and the owners want that more in the 50% range. Sound familiar?

#7 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,590 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:22 PM

Does anybody even know what the talking points for this negotiation are? I'm not sure I even know what the hot button issues are this time.


http://sportsillustr...sues/index.html

There's a decent rundown of some of the financial issues in the article above. Basically, the players get 57% of revenues now, and the owners are going to ask them to cut that down. I doubt Fehr budges.

Some of the minor issues are the realignment plan the owners approved and Fehr whacked, as well as players playing on the Olympics. The players want to go to Sochi, the owners would prefer they stay put.


#8 Spaulding Smails


  • Worth a thousand words


  • 2,658 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:32 PM

So......uh.......this doesn't sound promising, the NHL is trying to bury the players with this proposal.

Renaud P Lavoie@RenLavoieRDS

NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA. 3-contracts limits to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.



#9 Titoschew

  • 2,891 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:45 PM

Damn. I look forward to a 51 game season based on that proposal. Though the entry level contract "demand" should happen. The three year window is junk.

#10 The Napkin


  • wise ass al kaprielian


  • 13,631 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:48 PM

puck daddy story

"The moment the proposal was presented, every player in the room knew Gary had just written off 1st 3 months of the season." - an NHL agent
Adam Proteau (@Proteautype) July 14, 2012

So. Yeah.

#11 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 11,047 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:52 PM

God I hate the NHL sometimes. This is depressing.

#12 TheRealness


  • Don't make him go all Lucic on your ash


  • 8,251 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:53 PM

Oh fucking fuck

#13 mikeford


  • woolwich!


  • 17,453 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:57 PM

Man, you guys really thought we were gonna have a normal season? This league is run by David Stern's Grima Wormtongue, gimme a break.

#14 PedroSpecialK


  • Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL salary cap


  • 16,954 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 11:47 PM

Every proposed alteration is asinine, with #3 being the only one based in any sort of reality. Going from 57% to 46% with no new jobs created for players is hysterically unattainable. Forcing the average player to wait until age 33 to hit UFA doesn't merit words. Trying to instill an MLB-style labor agreement for a league where careers can be ended in the blink of an eye is so stupid that I don't know where to begin.

I'm shocked that the NHL would be so foolhardy only months off signing the most lucrative TV deal in league history.

Oh wait, no I'm not.

edit: Fehr is going to have a field day with this one and will play the jilted girlfriend act all the way til mid-October and beyond.

Edited by PedroSpecialK, 13 July 2012 - 11:48 PM.


#15 Greg29fan


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,050 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 11:55 PM

Larry Brooks is a couple steps above Eklund usually but I think he's got some additional info here -

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

Post has learned proposal would eliminate signing bonuses and mandate same salary in each season with 5-yr term limit


Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

Post has learned proposal calls for ceiling to be set $4M above midpoint, floor $8M under


Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

Post has learned proposal not only would reduce share to 46% of HRR as per @RenLavoieRDS but would redfine HRR to dramatically reduce gross


Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie

NHL proposal amounts to Declaration of War against NHLPA


HRR is hockey related revenue - so not only do they want to reduce the players cut, but they want to reduce what HRR is. I think you guys are being optimistic with the 51 game season. I've thought all along this is another whole season lost; I haven't changed my opinion on that.

#16 MiracleOfO2704


  • not AWOL


  • 2,747 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:50 AM

RIP NHL 1917-2012.

I swear, Bettman is actively trying to eliminate hockey as anything beyond a very niche sport in the US. In 10 years, the Original Six, Minnesota, and the Pennsylvania and Canadian teams will still exist, but what few teams aren't completely bankrupted by the 2012-15 lockout/SCOTUS case will be relocated to Halifax, Quebec City, Markham, Saskatoon, Fort McMurray, and Victoria. The new league will run on shoestring budgets comparable to MLS, while the KHL rises to become the gold standard league.

Славься, Отечество наше свободное, indeed.

#17 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 7,248 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:54 AM

Will Charles Wang still be on the hook for Yashin and DiPietro in this new NHL?

#18 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,590 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:32 AM

Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
NHL's Bill Daly and PA's Steve Fehr will discuss league proposal between now and Monday. Full group returns to table Wed-Fri in New York.


Atleast they're still going to talk. That's a ridiculous proposal from the owners, and I expect Fehr to not move an inch, but I'm somewhat encouraged that they're continuing the negotiations.

It's amusing that the owners throw this proposal out a week after a small market team shelled out nearly $200 million for 2 players.

Edited by cshea, 14 July 2012 - 07:34 AM.


#19 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,490 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:22 AM

Well, saying that, the only reason the Wild are a small market team is because they suck. Get a contender and it's the biggest hockey market in the US, or the biggest after Detroit.

I am going to enjoy seeing if Fehr can pick the lock of separating the big market teams from the small market ones. Some teams are cash cows, and no hockey means less profits.

#20 LogansDad


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,537 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:44 PM

Wonderful, looks like I should call DirecTV and cancel my Center Ice package... I was so excited for this season, too.

#21 IowzDAHchiefs

  • 90 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:59 PM

It is a starting point and that is all it is. Those are the areas the owners are going after and they are the ones that were expected.

#22 MoGator71

  • 4,966 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 01:50 AM

Well, saying that, the only reason the Wild are a small market team is because they suck. Get a contender and it's the biggest hockey market in the US, or the biggest after Detroit.

I am going to enjoy seeing if Fehr can pick the lock of separating the big market teams from the small market ones. Some teams are cash cows, and no hockey means less profits.


I really think that's the key. Last time things really were a little crazy, and the owners were pretty much unified. Now they're generally doing alright; hopefully enough owners will realize it's maybe not the best idea to kill the golden goose.

#23 Dummy Hoy


  • Angry Pissbum


  • 2,928 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:06 PM

Well, saying that, the only reason the Wild are a small market team is because they suck. Get a contender and it's the biggest hockey market in the US, or the biggest after Detroit.

I am going to enjoy seeing if Fehr can pick the lock of separating the big market teams from the small market ones. Some teams are cash cows, and no hockey means less profits.


What does this mean? Biggest as in most people? Biggest as in highest percentage of locals who watch the team? Biggest as in you're just going to make some shit up?

I just talked to an acquaintance I know who bounces between the A and the League, and he mentioned that most of the connected players were saying there's going to be a lock-out for sure, and that was before the NHL gave the dual middle fingers to the players.

#24 PBDWake

  • 2,763 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:38 AM

Ugh. If the reports at PHT are to be believed, it's even worse than initially expected. Here's the Rotoworld summation, under the Headline of: "Industry insider: We won't play in 2012-13"

An industry insider with knowledge of the players’ side of the CBA negotiation is predicting that there won't be a 2012-13 season.
The NHL initial proposal was reportedly leaked a couple days ago and it included demands like the players share of the revenues being reduced from 57% to 46%. "Last time around, the NHL made its salary cap proposal and barely moved off it," the source said, speaking under the condition of anonymity. "This is not an initial proposal. The league is shutting down and it’s ‘come back when you’re ready to accept.’ This is exactly what happened last time. You heard it here first, we will not play next year." Of course, it's still too early to panic. The economics of the NHL are different now than they were during the last lockout and the players remember what happened to them the last time they tried to hold out for an entire season. We might end up seeing a lot of these kinds of predictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes right down to it, that both sides will follow through on their threats instead of compromising.


Here's the link to the full PHT article: http://prohockeytalk...play-next-year/

#25 Spaulding Smails


  • Worth a thousand words


  • 2,658 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:00 AM

FWIW, CC was on Comcast last night and said he thought the lockout could be averted IF the players don't insist on trying to get rid of the cap but all bets are off if they do.

#26 FL4WL3SS


  • Mrs. Dennis Wideman


  • 6,173 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:08 AM

If they lose another season, I may not watch the NHL until Bettman is gone. This is just ridiculous.

They are setting a dangerous precedent - I guess it's now OK to lose a season every 5 or 6 years.

#27 lexrageorge

  • 3,063 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:38 AM

I'm sure the owners saw the general success of the NFL and NBA owners getting some of what they wanted in terms of revenue rollbacks, and feel they can get the same. Armageddon was predicted in both cases but never came to pass in either. Also, in 2004 the NHL owners were essentially saying they were ready for a season long lockout the minute after the Lightning hoisted the Cup. I can't recall hearing quite that level of invective this time around.

If Fehr does try to get the cap removed, however, then the players will deserve the season of lost salary just for sheer stupidity.

#28 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 7,248 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 02:27 PM

It's negotiating strategy. Both low-balled the other party on the initial bid and someone leaked the owners bid to the media, which isn't very difficult because the media is generally pro-player since they likely have more contacts in the locker rooms than they do the front offices. I'll be more concerned if it's a couple weeks before the deadline and they're still at this deadlock but I imagine both sides will back down as they talk more and more.

Edited by kenneycb, 16 July 2012 - 02:27 PM.


#29 MoGator71

  • 4,966 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:20 PM

If they lose another season, I may not watch the NHL until Bettman is gone. This is just ridiculous.

They are setting a dangerous precedent - I guess it's now OK to lose a season every 5 or 6 years.


I couldn't do it. Shit, they took my whole friggin' team and I still watched. The NHL kind of sucks sometimes but hockey is too awesome to give up.

#30 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,490 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:32 AM

What does this mean? Biggest as in most people? Biggest as in highest percentage of locals who watch the team? Biggest as in you're just going to make some shit up?

I just talked to an acquaintance I know who bounces between the A and the League, and he mentioned that most of the connected players were saying there's going to be a lock-out for sure, and that was before the NHL gave the dual middle fingers to the players.

Highest percentage of locals who watch the team. The Rangers will always make more money but Minnesota would go crazy for a good team given the state's hockey history.

#31 Dummy Hoy


  • Angry Pissbum


  • 2,928 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:42 AM

Highest percentage of locals who watch the team. The Rangers will always make more money but Minnesota would go crazy for a good team given the state's hockey history.


Clearly. Although I do think it is worth noting that Minnesota has always been a college/high school hockey crowd. No doubt the Wild making a Cup run would capture their imagination, but I'm not sure it would ever be their number one team. Imagine putting an NFL team in Nebraska...at what point would they be more popular than the 'Huskers? How long (if ever) would it take for the Kansas City Hornets to get highers ratings than the Jayhawks?

Regardless it's be nice to see a good NHL team in MN. The 3 M's have long carried US hockey, and while hockey talent has become wonderfully dispersed throughout the country, it's always good seeing quality hockey out of those states.

#32 The Napkin


  • wise ass al kaprielian


  • 13,631 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:23 PM

Despite an ominous picture being cast by the media in response to that offer, Recchi is hopeful that an agreement will be reached by the Sept. 15 deadline and the 2012-13 season will begin on time.

#33 FL4WL3SS


  • Mrs. Dennis Wideman


  • 6,173 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:17 AM

Any news on the CBA front? I haven't found a word about it.

#34 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 11,047 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:32 AM

First place I checked (although this is really just saying there's nothing to say right now).

The players’ union hasn’t presented a counteroffer to the NHL’s three-week old initial proposal. The current CBA is set to expire on Sept. 15, but according to an AP report via CSN Bay Area, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr doesn’t have a timetable for when the players will respond with their own offer.

Still, Fehr thinks there’s still time to get something done. The key, he feels, is for both sides to stick with the negotiations not do anything that might short-circuit the process.
In the past, Fehr has suggested that Sept. 15 doesn’t have to be a “magic date.”

“There’s nothing that happens on Sept. 15 if we don’t have an agreement, provided nobody says we’re going to go on strike or says we’re going to lock the doors,” Fehr previously stated.

The two sides are expected to meet on Tuesday for the first of four days worth of CBA talks.


There's no way they get this done by Sept 15th. It sounds like the players are willing to keep playing as is while they negotiate, but the real question is if the owners will be short sighted enough to lock them out. I really really hope not, but I've learned to never underestimate the stupidity of the NHL owners and leadership.

#35 SidelineCameras

  • 915 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:41 AM

Paille doesn't expect to miss any games: http://bigbadblog.we...a-negotiations/

#36 Greg29fan


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,050 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:04 PM

another meeting today, lasted less than 2 hours...Fehr says a "meaningful gulf" and Bettman says a "wide gap" exists between the side's revenue sharing ideas.

Edited by Greg29fan, 09 August 2012 - 01:05 PM.


#37 The Napkin


  • wise ass al kaprielian


  • 13,631 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:06 PM

Katie Strang seems to be worth a twitter follow if you aren't already doing so

#38 PedroSpecialK


  • Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL salary cap


  • 16,954 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:15 PM

Also from KStrang:

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA NHL commissioner Gary Bettman just spoke. Made it very clear the league intends to lock out if no deal is reached by Sept 15


Great.

#39 Sinistas

  • 989 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:12 PM

I know being in Boston makes a difference, but the NHL actually feels relevant for a change, and they're in a rush to lock out. How do the owners have any faith in this schmuck?

#40 PedroSpecialK


  • Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL salary cap


  • 16,954 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:26 PM

I know being in Boston makes a difference, but the NHL actually feels relevant for a change, and they're in a rush to lock out. How do the owners have any faith in this schmuck?

This time, the owners have a 10 year, $2 billion TV deal on a major network in their back pockets. The league has cost certainty by way of the hard salary cap (really, the only true hard cap among the big four sports) instead of the Rangers spending 5x more than the Panthers (for instance). He may even make them a profit on the Phoenix calamity. I can see why the owners trust him.

#41 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,590 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:26 PM

Because last time around he got the owners exactly what they wanted.

The owners need to be willing to budge this time around. The players aren't going to give up more money, nor should they. Small market Nashville just committed nearly $30 million in a calendar year to Shea Weber. The league is making money, and that'll only grow with the new TV deal. Bettman can't allow another lockout. That would be the ultimate failure.


#42 FL4WL3SS


  • Mrs. Dennis Wideman


  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:09 PM

I don't think Bettman is to blame here as much as the owners are.

#43 j44thor

  • 4,207 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:42 PM

This time, the owners have a 10 year, $2 billion TV deal on a major network in their back pockets. The league has cost certainty by way of the hard salary cap (really, the only true hard cap among the big four sports) instead of the Rangers spending 5x more than the Panthers (for instance). He may even make them a profit on the Phoenix calamity. I can see why the owners trust him.


Do we know if there are any Lockout clauses built into the TV deal? That could give them incentive to get something done.

#44 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,700 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:28 AM

For what it is worth, I think the drop dead date for the season is whatever the drop dead date for the NHL Winter Classic is. There's going to be strong motiviation for the league to come to an agreement in time for the most watched, higest revenue game of the season. Once that date passes, the league motivation to agree this season decreases.

#45 Scoops Bolling

  • 2,873 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:43 AM

This time, the owners have a 10 year, $2 billion TV deal on a major network in their back pockets. The league has cost certainty by way of the hard salary cap (really, the only true hard cap among the big four sports) instead of the Rangers spending 5x more than the Panthers (for instance). He may even make them a profit on the Phoenix calamity. I can see why the owners trust him.

Some quick research yielded no definitive answers, but it looks like the NHL probably pays its players the highest percentage of league revenues of any of the big four. After their latest negotiations, the other sports seem to be around 50-52% of revenues compared to 57% in the NHL. It is entirely understandable why the owners would want to cut down that figure to one closer to that achieved by the others.

#46 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,590 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 03:18 PM

Apparently the PA will finally make a counter proposal tomorrow. According to Fehr, it's an "alternative view of how the players see the world." We'll see how this goes.

#47 Blacken


  • Paddy Tanniger the Caddy Manager


  • 8,348 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 03:23 PM

The players are getting outright pissed on Twitter. It's pretty funny.

#48 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,490 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:42 PM

Clearly. Although I do think it is worth noting that Minnesota has always been a college/high school hockey crowd. No doubt the Wild making a Cup run would capture their imagination, but I'm not sure it would ever be their number one team. Imagine putting an NFL team in Nebraska...at what point would they be more popular than the 'Huskers? How long (if ever) would it take for the Kansas City Hornets to get highers ratings than the Jayhawks?

Regardless it's be nice to see a good NHL team in MN. The 3 M's have long carried US hockey, and while hockey talent has become wonderfully dispersed throughout the country, it's always good seeing quality hockey out of those states.


Sorry, I only saw this now.

Minnesota has never really had a top class NHL team, the North Stars/Wild only gotten over 95 points three times in 40 years and all three teams got bounced pretty early in the playoffs. I consider Minnesota to be until further notice more like New England in that people used to think that New England just wasn't interested in football until BC and the Pats got their act together. Add to that 100 years of hockey history and I think Minnesota would go nuts for a really good Wild team. It's notable that the Wild sell out nearly all of their games, for example. Boston and Detroit weren't doing that when they stank.

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 13 August 2012 - 09:43 PM.


#49 Greg29fan


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,050 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:07 AM

The North Stars did get to the Cup Finals 2x though, losing to the dynasty Islanders and to the 91 Penguins. While just getting there may not seem like much, there are teams like Buffalo, St. Louis, even LA before this year that hadn't been there more than once or twice in their existence. St Louis hasn't been in the finals since the early expansion years.

Edited by Greg29fan, 14 August 2012 - 02:12 AM.


#50 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,590 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:27 PM

PA just countered. Bettman says they will review the proposal, and "respond accordingly." They are slated to meet again tomorrow.

1 cause for optimism is that the players are apparently fine with the salary cap. Apparently that's a key piece towards playing this season.

Edit: Aaron Ward just tweeted (and I'm paraphrasing because I can't link the tweet from my work) that the sense is, from the NHL's standpoint, the proposal was better than what they expected. No details yet, but this sounds encouraging. Also, Wardo is a pretty good follow for the CBA stuff.

Edited by cshea, 14 August 2012 - 01:04 PM.





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users