NHL CBA Talk

That's why you hear The Fehr say "47% is more like 43%" as he's comparing it to how much it would be under current HRR rules vs the proposed HRR rules. Which is a fair statement as it gives a better comparison.

wprager wrote:
It's not the same because the difference between, say, getting $57K annual salary and $49K is a significant percentage of the basic amount you need to live comfortably. The difference between $2.4M and $2.06M is kind of moot because the amount you need to live comfortably is covered 10-fold already.

Yes but you're still giving up money. No one likes to give up money. They gave up 24% last time, now they have to give up a few percent, a few years from now it'll be the same.

I think Fehr is just fighting on principle here, the players just aren't giving up any more of their money, it doesn't matter how much.

Last time the league was bleeding money and the players still wouldn't cave in.

shabbs wrote:That's why you hear The Fehr say "47% is more like 43%" as he's comparing it to how much it would be under current HRR rules vs the proposed HRR rules. Which is a fair statement as it gives a better comparison.

Yes but then he says the PA proposal could net the owners almost $900M, when he decides to include a generous 7% NHL revenue increase each year, but omits it when he talks about how much money the players will lose under Bettman's proposal.

Yep. They spin it so that their own version always looks better.

Red Wings Senior VP cuts loose:

http://islandsportsnews.net/component/content/article/1-hockey/3443-one-on-one-with-jim-devellano-detroit-red-wings-senior-vp

"Each owner / team has a decision as to how they want to pay their players, as long as they are under the cap. Now Donald Fehr would have you believe by getting rid of the cap, the owners would make more money and that the sky is the limit, but trust me Scott, the owners would lose their *****. We've tried that. It doesn't work. There is just too much cost involved in running and owning a team."
"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this: The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."

Wow

Players are cattle. Well paid cattle.

Heh heh.

Mooooo!

Not an elegant portrayal... but not that far off...

But I don't want my hamburger -- or my fry cook -- telling me when I can eat.

Is the Winter Classic really a factor?

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/09/22/winter-classic-conundrum-for-nhl-players

Some people think it is a "leverage" piece for the NHLPA. Not so sure about that. Others suggest the NHL doesn't care. It'll happen next season and still sell out. If they did want to get the Classic done, work would have to start at the beginning of December.

We shall see...

shabbs wrote:That's why you hear The Fehr say "47% is more like 43%" as he's comparing it to how much it would be under current HRR rules vs the proposed HRR rules. Which is a fair statement as it gives a better comparison.

I thought I read that the NHL had offered.. in their last offer.. that HRR will remain the same as it has been.

Also read that the NHL could cancel the Winter Classic as early as November. Now November 23rd is the first broadcast for NBC. The league worked hard to get that 200M from NBC to broadcast the games... could NBC be the pressure point to get this done?

Hoags wrote:Red Wings Senior VP cuts loose:

http://islandsportsnews.net/component/content/article/1-hockey/3443-one-on-one-with-jim-devellano-detroit-red-wings-senior-vp

"Each owner / team has a decision as to how they want to pay their players, as long as they are under the cap. Now Donald Fehr would have you believe by getting rid of the cap, the owners would make more money and that the sky is the limit, but trust me Scott, the owners would lose their *****. We've tried that. It doesn't work. There is just too much cost involved in running and owning a team."
"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this: The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."

Wow

Good. The players are under the mass delusion that it's not only their right to play in the NHL, but that they should be able to dictate how the "boss" spends the business' income. If I was an owner, there isn't a chance in hell I would be letting the players tell me how to spend my money, who by the way, aren't nearly qualified to do so. This isn't to say that I am on the owners side, but I am most certainly not on the players side, since they are out to lunch.

I don't trust what the owner say about HRR and such, but I do think that without some sort of program that allows the have-nots of the league to benefit from higher league-wide revenue, there will continue to be an increasing gap between the rich and poor teams. The current system will eventually kill teams; plain and simple.

The cap floor needs to be lowered if not eliminated. Teams will spend, or find a way to be competitive on the cheap. If they don't, teams won't survive. The cap should only be in place to prevent the big spenders from getting too far away salary wise from the bottom feeders.

No one in their entire lives tells these owners what to do besides lawyers and wives, even then they don't listen.

NEELY wrote:No one in their entire lives tells these owners what to do besides lawyers and wives, even then they don't listen.

Exactly. This is why the owners will win this. They have the luxury of time that the players don't. Whether or not the new CBA ends up being a "win" for the owners remains to be seen, but like last time, coming out of the lockout the CBA will initially seems like a victory for the owners. They'll get what they want, or close to it.

sandysensfan wrote:

shabbs wrote:That's why you hear The Fehr say "47% is more like 43%" as he's comparing it to how much it would be under current HRR rules vs the proposed HRR rules. Which is a fair statement as it gives a better comparison.

I thought I read that the NHL had offered.. in their last offer.. that HRR will remain the same as it has been.

Also read that the NHL could cancel the Winter Classic as early as November. Now November 23rd is the first broadcast for NBC. The league worked hard to get that 200M from NBC to broadcast the games... could NBC be the pressure point to get this done?

The amended offer is off the table as of midnight on the 15th. The $200M from NBC is in the bank whether they play any games or not (but the deal will just be extended if they don't play this season). The Winter Classic is a nice chunk of change but it would still be a nice chunk next year as well.

Hoags wrote:Red Wings Senior VP cuts loose:

http://islandsportsnews.net/component/content/article/1-hockey/3443-one-on-one-with-jim-devellano-detroit-red-wings-senior-vp

"Each owner / team has a decision as to how they want to pay their players, as long as they are under the cap. Now Donald Fehr would have you believe by getting rid of the cap, the owners would make more money and that the sky is the limit, but trust me Scott, the owners would lose their *****. We've tried that. It doesn't work. There is just too much cost involved in running and owning a team."
"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this: The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."

Wow

Not surprisingly, he's been fined for that.

hemlock wrote:

NEELY wrote:No one in their entire lives tells these owners what to do besides lawyers and wives, even then they don't listen.

Exactly. This is why the owners will win this. They have the luxury of time that the players don't. Whether or not the new CBA ends up being a "win" for the owners remains to be seen, but like last time, coming out of the lockout the CBA will initially seems like a victory for the owners. They'll get what they want, or close to it.

They also know how to do an effective cost benefit analysis. They know when it's time to cut a deal and I assure you that timeline is far from indefinite.

I'm not sure there's a deal to be had.

When the NHL made the 1st offer, instead of a counterproposal arguing the points, Fehr came up with an offer that gives the players guaranteed raises while the owners might get something if the league revenues continue at 7%. It was nothing short of a partial rollback to the pre-lockout days and an attempt to divide the owners. Except for a few minor changes, he's entrenched in that viewpoint, much like the NHL won't let a union dictate how to run their business.

Fehr is like Goodenow, he's an idealist that believes unions should have a lot of power. He's not here to negotiate a deal, he's here for payback after the players lost the last round bigtime and I think he's filled the player's heads with enough water that if they hold out long enough and stay united they'll get what they want.

Unless Fehr gets removed, we might not see any compromise from the players, hence why the NHL is willing to cancel the WC and the season early on. They're just dragging things out, hoping for a split in the ownership.

hemlock wrote:

Hoags wrote:Red Wings Senior VP cuts loose:

http://islandsportsnews.net/component/content/article/1-hockey/3443-one-on-one-with-jim-devellano-detroit-red-wings-senior-vp

"Each owner / team has a decision as to how they want to pay their players, as long as they are under the cap. Now Donald Fehr would have you believe by getting rid of the cap, the owners would make more money and that the sky is the limit, but trust me Scott, the owners would lose their *****. We've tried that. It doesn't work. There is just too much cost involved in running and owning a team."
"It's very complicated and way too much for the average Joe to understand, but having said that, I will tell you this: The owners can basically be viewed as the Ranch, and the players, and me included, are the cattle. The owners own the Ranch and allow the players to eat there. That's the way its always been and that the way it will be forever. And the owners simply aren't going to let a union push them around. It's not going to happen."

Wow

Good. The players are under the mass delusion that it's not only their right to play in the NHL, but that they should be able to dictate how the "boss" spends the business' income. If I was an owner, there isn't a chance in hell I would be letting the players tell me how to spend my money, who by the way, aren't nearly qualified to do so. This isn't to say that I am on the owners side, but I am most certainly not on the players side, since they are out to lunch.

I don't trust what the owner say about HRR and such, but I do think that without some sort of program that allows the have-nots of the league to benefit from higher league-wide revenue, there will continue to be an increasing gap between the rich and poor teams. The current system will eventually kill teams; plain and simple.

The cap floor needs to be lowered if not eliminated. Teams will spend, or find a way to be competitive on the cheap. If they don't, teams won't survive. The cap should only be in place to prevent the big spenders from getting too far away salary wise from the bottom feeders.

I don't go to an NHL game to see an owner. This is not like your average business where an employee is a dime a dozen. I don't think the players should dictate this situation so don't get me wrong.

I go (when I do, which is rare) to cheer for my team. I'll be around long after Alfie and Spezza are gone. I'll still be watching when Kid Karlsson retires. My kids will be around even longer than that.