There will be a strike

[Strangelove]

This is for you SL and Topper, or as one might suggest mini-Romney and mini-Ryan:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/09/08/1984 ... on-speech/

As for the owners, the dishonourable part is explained here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... le4548860/

But you already knew all that. You're like a mini version of Glen Beck. Let the sick die, right ol' chap?

With that being said, with each player that reports to an AHL or European team...well the pendulum swings the other way.

Mondi you are sick.

And so is your hero, the hack David Shoalts.

[Potatoe1]

What would you do if you were Fehr?

If I were Fehr I would continue stonewalling until the players are at risk of losing a paycheck. Once we get to that deadline I would make an offer that was close to what I ultimately was willing to settle for and hope negotiations go well.

I don't think the players have the stomach for a long lock out so he should make the best deal he can but right now there is no point in blinking.

If I were an owner I would kack the first 20-30 games of the season before making a good offer.

If you take out the Leafs, Rangers, Habs, and Canucks the league will likely make very similar over all profit on a 60 game sked as the do over 82 games.

[Hockey Widow]

If I were fehr...

I would offer 50-50

I would ask for 2-3 years earlier UFA

I would ask that the compensation for signing an RFA's to an offer sheet be lessened

I would tweak waivers so a player had a choice of being bought out and becoming UFA ( for some players, like the Redden types...time in the NHL and all of that)

I would demand no restrictions on contract lengths

I would broadened arbitration so more players more often could use it.

I would demand higher inflation on expiring RFA contracts to keep the rights.

I would ask that cap could be bought and sold and teams could retain cap in trades

I would make it possible for any player to demand a trade and they could submit a list of say 10 teams and if a trade was not worked out they could become UFA.

I would do anything to keep the players mobile, earlier, longer and with more options. I would be creative.

Now I doubt the league would go for these things as is but thats the point. I would be negotiating hard to retain rights and then use the media. Say look here. We have offered 50-50 but we want rights. The owners have refused.

[ukcanuck]

What would you do if you were Fehr?

If I were Fehr I would continue stonewalling until the players are at risk of losing a paycheck. Once we get to that deadline I would make an offer that was close to what I ultimately was willing to settle for and hope negotiations go well.

I don't think the players have the stomach for a long lock out so he should make the best deal he can but right now there is no point in blinking.

If I were an owner I would kack the first 20-30 games of the season before making a good offer.

If you take out the Leafs, Rangers, Habs, and Canucks the league will likely make very similar over all profit on a 60 game sked as the do over 82 games.

I think you are right about not blinking till the first paycheque, which is Oct 15th I think. If they go past there (PA,) I think we are in for a loong lock out. It doesn't make any sense to fold after losing what would amount to a roll back anyway.

As for the Robber barons, well a coup d'etat is what I would be hoping for, except for those clubs you mention, and if its even true they are bleeding money, the only thing the teams below the Mason Dixon can hang their hat on is franchise value which will be sinking steadily with the entire league with each game lost.

we may be back here in Canada, (what else is there to do on a cold winter night, specially with Doc's premature problems )
But would you want to make that gamble a second time down south?

[ukcanuck]

If I were fehr...

I would offer 50-50

I would ask for 2-3 years earlier UFA

I would ask that the compensation for signing an RFA's to an offer sheet be lessened

I would tweak waivers so a player had a choice of being bought out and becoming UFA ( for some players, like the Redden types...time in the NHL and all of that)

I would demand no restrictions on contract lengths

I would broadened arbitration so more players more often could use it.

I would demand higher inflation on expiring RFA contracts to keep the rights.

I would ask that cap could be bought and sold and teams could retain cap in trades

I would make it possible for any player to demand a trade and they could submit a list of say 10 teams and if a trade was not worked out they could become UFA.

I would do anything to keep the players mobile, earlier, longer and with more options. I would be creative.

Now I doubt the league would go for these things as is but thats the point. I would be negotiating hard to retain rights and then use the media. Say look here. We have offered 50-50 but we want rights. The owners have refused.

sounds great but if it were Bettman across from you he would chip away at the 50 percent till it's closer to 47 which makes you a ten percent loser before we've even started and get ready to be fleeced on each point on your proposal.

[Hockey Widow]

The funny thing is if they close the gap closer to 50% and do not roll back salaries then the existing players won't be the losers in this. They will keep their contracts albeit more in escrow but with gaining more mobility they gain in the long run.

[vic]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between escrow and a roll-back?

[ukcanuck]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between escrow and a roll-back?

AS I understand it:
The money owed to a player under contract is paid out in monthly paycheques, which begin and end on the first and last day of the season. A portion (24% I think.. ) of that pay is held back and placed in escrow, (like when you buy a house and the money is placed in safe keeping in neither the seller's or buyer's possession and not released until all subjects to the sale are removed)
Once the season is completed and all the hockey related Income for the league is calculated, the total amount paid to all players may not exceed 57% under the recently expired CBA. If the total amount paid out to all players in the league exceeds 57% of the HRR, the league gets what is in the escrow account.

So under the new proposal Bettman wants that number 57% of HRR to be lowered to 42% or 47% (negotiable)
This would result in a defacto rollback of wages since what a player signed the contract for and what he actually receives is less.

However I could be wrong so don't quote me.

If you sympathise with the players and think that the owners in general and Bettman in particular would sell their grandmother for a buck. You have to question the term HRR because you can drive a bus through that potential loophole.

When you buy a jersey with Schneider on the back for 300 dollars is the profit returning to the Canucks franchise hockey related? What about the revenue from concerts held in Roger's Arena that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Canucks and the players that we all pay to watch?

Also its been said that if one in ten New Yorkers buy a NYR hat that's a lot of hats, does that belong to the Rangers exclusively or does it belong to the entire league? if it belongs to the NHL and I believe if you look a your Canucks hat right now there is a NHL products hologram on it. so profit on the money you paid for oit HRR or not?

whether you think all of this is bullshit, at the very least it ought to be plain as the beady little snake eyes on Bettman's face that the NHL has a boat load of New York Lawyers working on hiding every penny they have from the likes of you and me, if not the taxman, so really at the end of the day, its not public knowledge what the owners are pulling in, but every one know exactly what Parise and Suter signed for this summer and its a simple thing to go look 'hockey players make too much money for playing a game so fuck em" ...my grandmother can figure that much out and she's dead.

[dbr]

Where are you going with this Fred, is this supposed to arrive at "nobody has any rights so the players should just shut up and accept whatever the owners want to pay them"?

When you start stating that nobody has the right, you can't be selective. You say nobody and then start adding addendums

Indeed. It sounds like you're arguing (if you are arguing.. ) against what you think I think.

[Topper]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between escrow and a roll-back?

AS I understand it:

However I could be wrong so don't quote me.

lol

You have to question the term HRR because you can drive a bus through that potential loophole.

HRR was defined in Article 50 of the recently expired CBA. A definition signed onto by both the league and the NHLPA.

[tantalum]

Escrow for the first quarter or so a season is set based on the previous seasons revenues, some early prognostication of revenue increases (i.e. known ones such as increasing TC contracts) and the amount due players. This tends to be a higher than normal amount. As the season progresses and they get a better read on what revenues are going to do the escrow percentage is adjusted accordingly. For this past CBA that means that as the season progressed escrow holdings from paycheques likely dropped (as revenues increased).

One thing fans need to keep in mind when listening to the union about the league funding revenue sharing off the players back (i.e. escrow) is that just because the paper contract says $X that isn't what wholly matters. The other piece is fixed percentage of HRR they get (57% this past year, no more and no less). What that means is IF money goes back to the owners/league from escrow at the end of the season it is because THAT MONEY NEVER BELONGED TO THE PLAYER IN THE FIRST PLACE. The players ratified the CBA that said as much and profited greatly over the course of the CBA...it has nothing to do with fair or not it has to do with that's what it is. But really the last CBA was more than fair for the players.

The players actually do their brethren a bit of a disservice when they sign big front loaded deals with huge signing bonuses as the HRR %age is calculated based on what is actually paid (not salary cap).

Also the league's last offers for %HRR have been around the 49% mark for the first year let's not exaggerate and say 42 or 47%. And yes it makes a difference as if revenues grow in the first year the next drop down to 47% may not be a drop at all. Heck that 49% may not even be a drop to the total salary pool. And of course those were not tak eit or leave it numbers to begin with.

Note: I talked to a friend in the Flames organization and his belief based on what the ownership group is saying privately is that this will be a long lockout as the PA has decided to play games instead of look at reality. From another board I was reminded that one person who Goodenow relied on for advice in 2004 was Fehr who suggested the owners would never shut down the season. It'll be interesting to see if Goodenow can keep 700 players in line for longer than a quarter of the season. I don't think he can as the bulk of players know that this type of CBA is not some sort of abuse.

[Potatoe1]

I think you are right about not blinking till the first paycheque, which is Oct 15th I think. If they go past there (PA,) I think we are in for a loong lock out. It doesn't make any sense to fold after losing what would amount to a roll back anyway.

Truth is "holding out" doesn't make any sense "at all" for the players, that's the whole problem.

By missing just 20 games they end up taking the the full 24% roll back that the owners asked for in their first offer.

The owners don't make any money over the first 20 games anyway (other then NYR, Van, Tor, and MTL).

I do think the owners will make their best offer after around 20 games but it will still be an offer that sees the players share reduced over time.

So lose 25% of your salary just to get a deal you aren't particularly happy with.....

Kind of a crappy situation for the players, it would be far better to try and get something similar by mid October so they don't lose any pay.

[Potatoe1]

What about the revenue from concerts held in Roger's Arena that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Canucks and the players that we all pay to watch?

You are off your rocker if you think revenue from a concert at GM place should count as hockey related revenue.

Not sure what your point is on branded hats and shirts, of course all of that counts.

As for Betman and his Lawyers "hiding money", given the PA has full audit rights, I would suggest that your statement is highly speculative.

[Topper]

What that means is IF money goes back to the owners/league from escrow at the end of the season it is because THAT MONEY NEVER BELONGED TO THE PLAYER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Tant, thanks for posting that so clearly. It is a point that many don't get and one the PA tries to exploit in their PR.

[tantalum]

Tant, thanks for posting that so clearly. It is a point that many don't get and one the PA tries to exploit in their PR.

Really I'm guessing they do it the way they do simply to reduce some accounting load and unnecessary movement of money. It's money the teams have already paid out (to the escrow fund) there is no reason to return the money to each individual team, then ask for the revenue sharing tithe, and then distribute that revenue sharing money. Just use the fund to send the appropriate amounts of money where they need to go....30 transactions instead of, well, many more than 30.

The "optics" (i struggle to call it optics...) of the other way are better, but hey that would be an unnecessary expense which in the end would hurt the PAs position if it were done that way.


I'm beginning to think that some of the media that are speculating that the goal of the PA members that are really leading the charge really is Bettman's head on a platter (as the league got Goodenow's last time). I DON'T think that is Fehr's goal as I don't think he cares one way or the other. His goal is to read the union and owner solidarity and use it to as much of his advantage as he can to get the best deal and ultimately take his direction from the players. He can't lose sight of his responsibility though and let that drive for Bettman's head among members of the PA cloud over what may be the best deal they are going to get. He has to be able to recommend what might be an unpopular deal. i don't believe the league is after Fehr's head despite his behind the scenes stuff last time around....but I think that may very well change if the PA continues to get more militant. Note that as I mentioned before I don't believe there is a personal Fehr vs Bettman element in this like there was Goodenow vs Bettman. Due to that the drive of certain factions to end Bettman or Fehr can be curbed signigifacntly.


Kepp in mind this ideologically bankrupt person has fully supported unions in the past. When the Yale service workers went on strike in 2003 while I was working there I supported them. It made little sense in my mind why Yale with the multi multi multi billion dollar endowment was being so militant over a marginal hourly wage increase and bringing pensions of 20+ year employees up over the poverty line. However, I didn't quite support the numbers the union was looking for (70+% increase if I recall. Yale had offered 10% or so increase on pensions (I honestly can't remember what the settlement was).