There will be a strike

[rats19]

However, without the billionaires, the millionaires might not be millionaires...

Without the fans forking over the money to the middlemen/billionaires.

Both groups can just fuck off - wake me when it's over. Lincoln Stars start their exhibition season next week.

dont leave me hangin on like a yo yo.....hahahahaha

that otta fuck a few up...

[tantalum]

The PA's deal has two central issues important to the PA

1. No immediate reduction in salary
2. Not losing out on potential significant growth in the next 4-5 years.

I won't argue point for point but...

1. that was basically given in the offer last week or whenever it was. There was no rollback and if revenue growth was good with a bit of negotiation they wouldn't suffer any loss to the total salary pool. Heck they could ask for that at the table and likely get it. now I understand they don't want to because then they might have to give something else and that certainly works to a point and is negotiation. But at some point it also ends up leading you off a cliff by not asking for it. To me if the players miss even one pay cheque they are leading themselves off the cliff as a very large proportion of the membership will not make that money back.

2. I think it's obvious that the current framework which is the framework the NHL is offering does not have the players miss out on future growth. They've done very well under this framework and will continue to see salary growth as revenues grow in a linkage system.

On the second issue, the game is growing, the Canadian TV rights are coming up, and there's the possibility we're going to have 1-2 poor US markets moving to Canada in the next 2-5 years, which means a significant rise in revenues. By offering a 4 year plus an-option deal, the players are setting themselves up to renegotiate their likely give-backs at a time when the game might be booming economically, and with the option year hanging in the balance, they can begin earnestly renegotiating a new CBA before the option year is taken, and thus avoiding a potential lockout after that option year. If the players share is down to 50-50 by the time the option is looming, the players might be able get a small uptick in their share, instead of facing a lockout and having to take another reduction.

Perhaps I will go point for point....yes there is the possibility of revenue growth thanks to new TV contracts etc. However, a very very very large chunk of the revenue growth under the current CBA was thanks to a strong canadian dollar. If that dollar wasn't strong the league would be in a whole world of hurt with even less healthy teams (likely NYR, leaves, Habs, Canucks as the only truly profitable one). Do I think that a dollar drop will wipe out everything? no I think TV contracts new revenues etc would off set it somewhat, but what you and I the league and players think will happen doesn't matter. The league can not and I would argue SHOULD not negotiate off a starting point that does not link salaries to a percentage of HRR. You need that safety net just in case something doesn't go according to plan. It's the insurance.

Now the players might not get the option year they're wanting, but they definitely want to keep the money they have, and they don't want to move bellows $1.87B in total salaries at any point over the life of the new CBA. To me, this is not at all an unreasonable end game for the PA, and IMO, they're not doing anything extreme to get themselves there. It's the owners, based on the line in the sand they've drawn, that HAVE to make significant, albeit imaginary, concessions to meet at the middle ground.

I've shown the calcs. That's a very easy endgame to get to if you go to the negotiating table, but the PA hasn't done. And again i understand that they want the NHL to offer that up first but at some point if THEY offer to negotiate off of the owners system then they might be able to expect a give back.

But as I think Pot may have mentioned it has less to do with the eventual system for the players and far more to do with trying to preserve any imbalance they can. They want to not have the risk of a paycut if revenues drop. They want to be able to sign a contract that pays them $27 mil the first year so teams can fight amongst themselves etc. All this other stuff is just a smokescreen.

And to be fair the NHL is similar and has been forthright with their goals for the last decade if you look at Bettman's comments. They want to idiot proof the CBA and put a box around the owners so they can't blow there brains out. That box only amounts to something if the economic system is the correct one. There is no point having limited term contracts without front loading if the teams can blow their brains out on a cap or player salary pool that is too high. That's why the league will not move off their deal and hard linkage (that and the whole if revenues tank thing...IMO at least). The PA is just trying to maintain as many loopholes as possible and IMO they can retain more of those loopholes and create some unexpected ones by getting to the table sooner.



I don't blame any side, per se. I just think the PA is being stupid at this point. If they miss a paycheque they will be beyond stupid.

[vic]

The owners are psychos, they are still signing players to contracts that would likely violate a new CBA. And, they are attempting to circumvent deals which they have already signed.

+1

[coco_canuck]

But at some point it also ends up leading you off a cliff by not asking for it. To me if the players miss even one pay cheque they are leading themselves off the cliff as a very large proportion of the membership will not make that money back.

But you're making a big assumption that it won't be asked for by midnight Saturday.

As you've said yourself, the offers in these types of negotiations don't get serious until the last 48 hours or so.

2. I think it's obvious that the current framework which is the framework the NHL is offering does not have the players miss out on future growth. They've done very well under this framework and will continue to see salary growth as revenues grow in a linkage system.

The growth they're missing out on is all relative to their current share of HRR.

If they're back at 50/50 by 2015, and league revenues are over $4B, they are missing out on the growth they otherwise would have gotten if their current share of the HRR remained.

That's not to say they should be entitled to that, but when an offer has you down at 46% by the end of the CBA, that's amounts to 20% less potential revenue for the PA than what they would get at 57%. To me, that's missing out on future growth.

Also, if the players accept 49%, revenues would have to be excellent for them to not lose money to escrow. While the PA's estimates are overly optimistic, Bettman today said he doesn't see revenues growing much next year. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps I will go point for point....yes there is the possibility of revenue growth thanks to new TV contracts etc. However, a very very very large chunk of the revenue growth under the current CBA was thanks to a strong canadian dollar. If that dollar wasn't strong the league would be in a whole world of hurt with even less healthy teams (likely NYR, leaves, Habs, Canucks as the only truly profitable one). Do I think that a dollar drop will wipe out everything? no I think TV contracts new revenues etc would off set it somewhat, but what you and I the league and players think will happen doesn't matter. The league can not and I would argue SHOULD not negotiate off a starting point that does not link salaries to a percentage of HRR. You need that safety net just in case something doesn't go according to plan. It's the insurance.

It doesn't matter if the growth has in large part been due to the Canadian dollar, the current economic climate remains favourable to the NHL's overall revenue, and is likely to remain that way in terms of the Canadian dollar for the next 5-6 years unless we see a significant change in the currency trend. In other words, while the Canadian dollar may falter a bit over the next 5-6 years, it's unlikely to fall to the crippling lows we saw over a decade ago.

Every business can be susceptible to cyclical economic and currency trends, but currently, the leagues' revenues and short-term outlook are positive, and should remain that way, with at least incremental growth, for the next 6 years. But if the economic climate changes drastically, that will be taken in consideration over the next round of CBA debates, but currently, there isn't much reason to point at the Canadian dollar to justify a large reduction in the players' HRR share.

But as I think Pot may have mentioned it has less to do with the eventual system for the players and far more to do with trying to preserve any imbalance they can. They want to not have the risk of a paycut if revenues drop. They want to be able to sign a contract that pays them $27 mil the first year so teams can fight amongst themselves etc. All this other stuff is just a smokescreen.

Like I said, both sides are looking for any edge they can get in the new CBA, but the larger point is that the players are expected to give back in these negotiations, and they've conceded that they will in some form. The PA's worry, and it's a justifiable one, is that the NHL will use it's leverage with the cap to ask for concessions in every round of CBA negotiations, and the NHL's first offer symbolized that belief to a tee.

That's why they've taken a completely different position, and will not move off it unless they get something they want, whether that's more guarantees, loopholes, more UFA years etc. is remained to be seen.

But I really don't see that the PA has been all that stupid in their tactics, considering that the NHL has moved off it's own line on two occasions without directly negotiating the same framework.

If this lockout goes long, and the players lose a lot of money, and get a worse deal, then I'll concede that you've been right, but I think it's too early to assume that's going to be the case.

[Boston Canucker]

The owners are psychos, they are still signing players to contracts that would likely violate a new CBA. And, they are attempting to circumvent deals which they have already signed.

If there is one thing I know about good business, it is that you honour commitments and obligations.

If I were a player I couldn't take any owner seriously who signed a player to a contract this summer. That doesn't begin to engage the issue of reneging on duly negotiation contracts.

It may be technically stupid of the players to miss a pay cheque, but someone has to say on the record that the owners are being entirely unreasonable. A point has to be made.

yep, true dat.

[tantalum]

That's not to say they should be entitled to that, but when an offer has you down at 46% by the end of the CBA, that's amounts to 20% less potential revenue for the PA than what they would get at 57%. To me, that's missing out on future growth.

OK I think I misunderstood what you said. I agree they miss out on more growth. No disagreement that's math. Doesn't mean they are entitled to all that growth of course.

Also, if the players accept 49%, revenues would have to be excellent for them to not lose money to escrow. While the PA's estimates are overly optimistic, Bettman today said he doesn't see revenues growing much next year. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Well it depends on when that percentage is reached and how it is stepped down. If the PA truly only cares about the 1.87B never dropping while it is implemented it isn't actually that much growth. Bettman is essentially throwing back the numbers the PA used to sugar coat their offers back at them to tell you the truth.

It doesn't matter if the growth has in large part been due to the Canadian dollar, the current economic climate remains favourable to the NHL's overall revenue, and is likely to remain that way in terms of the Canadian dollar for the next 5-6 years unless we see a significant change in the currency trend. In other words, while the Canadian dollar may falter a bit over the next 5-6 years, it's unlikely to fall to the crippling lows we saw over a decade ago.

You never know. You absolutely never know. currencies are volatile and the canadian dollar certainly is. SInce 2004 the USD/CAD has ranged from 1.38 to 0.96. 2009 it was 1.27. It isn't so long ago that it was pretty damn low and it can return there pretty quickly. It has been strong against the USD mainly because of the additional problems in the US during the recession. That isn't going to last forever as the largest economy in the world will at some point really start ticking again.

Every business can be susceptible to cyclical economic and currency trends, but currently, the leagues' revenues and short-term outlook are positive, and should remain that way, with at least incremental growth, for the next 6 years. But if the economic climate changes drastically, that will be taken in consideration over the next round of CBA debates, but currently, there isn't much reason to point at the Canadian dollar to justify a large reduction in the players' HRR share.

Sure the outlook seems fine but it MAY not be fine. As a result there must be a mechanism to address that possibility even if it isn't an eventuality. Hence the linkage. THe league of course also doesn;t want to remove the linkage because if things are no longer so rosy next negotiation they may not get it back.

Like I said, both sides are looking for any edge they can get in the new CBA, but the larger point is that the players are expected to give back in these negotiations, and they've conceded that they will in some form. The PA's worry, and it's a justifiable one, is that the NHL will use it's leverage with the cap to ask for concessions in every round of CBA negotiations, and the NHL's first offer symbolized that belief to a tee.

This I disagree with. That is the PR twist they are putting on and hey Fehr may even sell that to the PA to keep solidarity stronger but Fehr knows this is not the case. If next negotiation the bulk of the league is healthy the teams are not going to be looking for yet more concessions. As the number of teams that are healthy increases the risk of a lockout to the teams becomes larger than the risk of not getting more concessions. That's when the table turns so to speak. Has nothing to do with how many times in a row they gave in. It has to do with how the numbers line up and nothing more. Right now and in the last round they line up in a way that suggests the players are going to need to give back and not get much of anything.

But I really don't see that the PA has been all that stupid in their tactics, considering that the NHL has moved off it's own line on two occasions without directly negotiating the same framework.

If this lockout goes long, and the players lose a lot of money, and get a worse deal, then I'll concede that you've been right, but I think it's too early to assume that's going to be the case.

I don't think they;ve moved off their own line at all to tell you the truth. I think the first offer is one that was simply a signal to the PA that these are the things we have concerns with and we are making it extra harsh because we are somewhat pissed you are delaying things. The other two offers they haven't really moved that much but presented a couple of different ways to get to the end point. One stepped things down with an artificially low cap but reduced burden on escrow. The other brought it down right away but ultimately results in a bit more money going to the PA over the term of the deal (if revenue growth estimates are brought in). It was sort of "we can step you down and offer you X amount" or "you can take a bigger up front hit but over the term get a bit more overall". I don't interpret it as the NHL giving but the NHL attempting to signal they are open to ways to bridge the gap. I'm also not so foolish to think that it is for out of pure intentions the league is signalling these things. It is purely in order to get the non-vocal majority of the PA to listen and consider.


Can we atleast agree that players that have career earnings well over $50 mil shouldn't be saying things like the owners are bullies and guys like Ryan Miller shouldn't be saying things like they are better informed on the issues than the owners?

[coco_canuck]

Sure the outlook seems fine but it MAY not be fine. As a result there must be a mechanism to address that possibility even if it isn't an eventuality. Hence the linkage. THe league of course also doesn;t want to remove the linkage because if things are no longer so rosy next negotiation they may not get it back.

I just want to clear something up, I don't like the players offer to delink the cap from HRR, and I didn't attribute much significance to it because it has no chance in hell of flying.

As for the economics, they can change, but typically unknown economic trends do not typically play too large a role in CBA negotiations over shorter term deals i.e. 5-6 years, especially when the players pay into escrow.

As the number of teams that are healthy increases the risk of a lockout to the teams becomes larger than the risk of not getting more concessions. That's when the table turns so to speak. Has nothing to do with how many times in a row they gave in. It has to do with how the numbers line up and nothing more. Right now and in the last round they line up in a way that suggests the players are going to need to give back and not get much of anything.

We don't see this the same way.

I look at the NFL, the wealthiest sports league in North America, and they were seeking concessions from the players last summer.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the owners seeking the best deals for their side, and I don't begrudge the NFL or the NHL.

For the players, who I also do not begrudge, they will absolutely be staring down concessions much more regularly than possible gains in future CBA negotiations.

Can we atleast agree that players that have career earnings well over $50 mil shouldn't be saying things like the owners are bullies and guys like Ryan Miller shouldn't be saying things like they are better informed on the issues than the owners?

Absolutely, the PA has been spewing propaganda the entire time, taking a page out of the NHL's book from last time around.

I really don't care if Henrik Sedin gets 6M or 5M, I don't feel sorry for him, I'm just looking at the situation from the outside, and trying to understand each position in their own context. It's either the players making more money, or the owners making more money. None of it comes back to the fans anyways, other than a better product if the league continues to grow and evolve.

[tantalum]

I just want to clear something up, I don't like the players offer to delink the cap from HRR, and I didn't attribute much significance to it because it has no chance in hell of flying.

As for the economics, they can change, but typically unknown economic trends do not typically play too large a role in CBA negotiations over shorter term deals i.e. 5-6 years, especially when the players pay into escrow.

Well then we should stop arguing about it!

We don't see this the same way.

I look at the NFL, the wealthiest sports league in North America, and they were seeking concessions from the players last summer.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the owners seeking the best deals for their side, and I don't begrudge the NFL or the NHL.

For the players, who I also do not begrudge, they will absolutely be staring down concessions much more regularly than possible gains in future CBA negotiations.

I understand other things are at play other than franchise health. And this is where I think the PAs "play" in all of this is. They want some display of solidarity so they are willing to risk some things, but ultimately I don;t believe it's nearly the factor as the numbers are. The NFLPA is a joke and has been a joke forever. They have no solidarity and never have.

I get that from the PAs point of view. I do think that solidarity can be shown in different ways though that won't cost many guys money that they do need. I don't care if the Crosby's, Alfredsson's and Iginla's are willing to sit for a season or two. They can afford to do so. But what about a Volpatti? He will likely never be an NHL regular and if a year ticks off he may also never get a chance to solidify himself as a NHLer (12/13th forward for instance) as some young buck manages to makes and impression next camp to take that chance away. I don't think missing paycheques helps solidarity that much. We'll wait and see I suppose but to me sitting down and negotiating a fair deal from a fair framework in good time without delay and incorporating the players in those negotiations goes fruther to showing solidarity than what the PA is doing right now. My opinion of course.

Or as is often the case with unions you have a few militant members who essentially call the shots because quite frankly the bulk of the membership doesn't much care.

[Potatoe1]

I don't blame any side, per se. I just think the PA is being stupid at this point. If they miss a paycheque they will be beyond stupid.

That is the most true part of this whole thing.

The players are balking at the 25% roll back but they lose that automatically by sitting for 20 games.....

They lose 10% by sitting for 8 games....

This is why the players will never actually win, the best they can hope is to break even.

[okcanuck]

I don't blame any side, per se. I just think the PA is being stupid at this point. If they miss a paycheque they will be beyond stupid.

That is the most true part of this whole thing.

The players are balking at the 25% roll back but they lose that automatically by sitting for 20 games.....

They lose 10% by sitting for 8 games....

This is why the players will never actually win, the best they can hope is to break even.

or,sitting for twenty games sets it up for future players . Just maybe Pot the players are fighting for principals rather than worrying about a 25% loss.

[ClamRussel]

I don't blame any side, per se. I just think the PA is being stupid at this point. If they miss a paycheque they will be beyond stupid.

That is the most true part of this whole thing.

The players are balking at the 25% roll back but they lose that automatically by sitting for 20 games.....

They lose 10% by sitting for 8 games....

This is why the players will never actually win, the best they can hope is to break even.

Big picture. They lose it this season if they hold their ground, and win. They lose it for multiple seasons if they cave. If there's a lockout then they lose salary, rollback or no rollback.
Everyone loses if they don't resolve this. The games will not be made up and thats lost revenue all around. Look at it that way, thats mega-bucks the owners are losing and won't recoup.

What was the point of the last 2 lockouts? Did it fix everything like a magic pill? Nope, here we are facing a 3rd lockout. The players will always want more loot, the owners will always pay to get who they want. The owners will always cry poor and we will inevitably have a 4th lockout after this one is settled. Think of all the lost revenue in the last 2 lockouts and now here we are again. Who circumvents the CBA each time? Who tries the find loopholes around it to gain advantage? The GMs via the owners thats who. Look at al the teams scrambling to lock up their players longterm before the game changes. Totally hypocritical as we head towards a lockout to prevent this kind of activity, owners undermining owners & then pointing the finger at the players by asking Bettman to fix this. Its all about greed and power, nothing more.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Thirsty Thursday at the Mckenzie house...........wifey is ANGRY !!!!!!!!!!!!

I could be out of commission for a while .

[wienerdog]

Its all about greed and power, nothing more.

I disagree.

As I see it, it's actually a whole lot more complicated than that, especially because of the role the GM's play in this.

They are representatives of the owners, and they pull the organization's purse-strings. But they are also charged to win at any cost, and they are as cut-throat and cunning as it gets.

IMO, all the CBA circumventions and rule-bendings have nothing to do with greed, nor with power. It's simple human competitveness, and it's only natural that the GM's will do anything they can - exploit every loophole they can find - in their effort to one-up one another.

And we, as fans, actually love that shit.

Of course, all of this "gaining of competitive edges" results in some pretty serious dollars being spent because of it.

The owners simply want a "game" in which the rules are agreed to by everyone, but those rules need be such that they prevent the "game" from getting out of hand. It's no different than when 7 year old kids do this shit in a playground - they spontaneously make up a game, they make up rules to go with it, and then they modify those rules on the fly to balance the game out as they play it.

The owners don't need "protection from themselves", per se. Once the "game" is underway, they are going to compete as hard as they fucking can with one another - and we don't want it any other way. We just need a "game" whose rules won't bankrupt a third of the League in the next half decade or so while they play it.

People are constantly slagging the owner's hypocrisy, but I seriously doubt anyone would be complaining (much) about the Parise / Suter deals if this wasn't a lockout year. And although Leipold looks like a class-A asshole for talking out of both sides of his mouth, he's only doing what any owner needs to do to keep his team competitive. Any fan that understands the system understands that, and if I were a Wild fan, I'd be pissed if it were any different.

Even as a Nucks fan, I respect the competitive intentions. From the owner's point of view, the system is broken, but until it's fixed, you compete under the current set of rules, and you sure as hell don't let opportunities like that slide by. Play to the whistle, as it were.

I still think that the tough thing to wrap one's head around is that while the League cries poor and asks for concessions so that the Islanders or the Panthers can keep their heads above water, the Laffs and the Rags and the Nucks will make truly obscene amounts of money. With concessions in place, it'll be more obscene amounts.

But hey, that's the imbalance that inherently exists in ownership in this League, and that's why it's fucking retarded, IMO, to keep hammering on this issue of "League-wide revenues". All that matters is franchise-specific scenarios, as that's the battlefield upon which this war is waged.

Some teams will always struggle, while others will wipe their ass with stacks of Benny Franks. It's the three-trunked glowing radioactive green elephant in the room that neither side wants to talk about.

FFS™, get over it, address THAT key issue already and adopt a system that works for everyone. That's the way through this.

[tantalum]

or,sitting for twenty games sets it up for future players . Just maybe Pot the players are fighting for principals rather than worrying about a 25% loss.

That would honestly be a first for major league sports PAs. I don't believe it in a second. It's always about the here and now and if they have to sell out the future players in the league they will do so.

[ukcanuck]

or,sitting for twenty games sets it up for future players . Just maybe Pot the players are fighting for principals rather than worrying about a 25% loss.

That would honestly be a first for major league sports PAs. I don't believe it in a second. It's always about the here and now and if they have to sell out the future players in the league they will do so.

wow so we should pencil you in as a realistic pessimist then?
Doesn't make sense though, if it is solely about here and now take the lesser loss. Fehr and the players can do the math as well you and I can. It really only makes sense viewed in the context of history going back through two lockouts and Ted Lindsey and the days when the players were nothing more than a commodity to be used and discarded. Who was that player who died penniless in Toronto? By Bailey? (not a leaf fan here)
anyway the real point is that the player caved in the last CBA and Prickman and the owners smell blood, they know that at each one of these CBA negotiations they have the hammer and can win concession after concession, until the players are once again nothing more than a commodity to be used and discarded.
fuck how anyone who is a realist ever deny that if the owners could copy Walmart and reduce labour costs to about the same as the shelving in their stores that they wouldnt do it in a new york minute?
the players realistically have no choice but to draw a line in the sand, take the lumps now and hold the line for themselves and their future union brothers.