CBA Negotiations--2012

[SouthernHockeyChick]

I don't think we have a thread for this and, it's definitely coming.

Found this column interesting.

[LostTexan]

Last time around the owners wanted a new system (salary cap) and it took a long fight to get it implemented.

This time around the owners want a larger percent of the revenue so it's more of negotiating a percentage as apposed to an entirely new system which should be a lot easier. Sure there are other items as well: hiding salary's in the AHL, the Olympics, contract buyouts, division re-alignment, ect but they are all secondary.

I have to believe they will be able to get this done without missing any games. Neither side would really be that stupid would they?

[IceSun]

Originally Posted by LostTexan

Neither side would really be that stupid would they?

One would hope not, but...???

[SoCalcaniac]

Originally Posted by LostTexan

I have to believe they will be able to get this done without missing any games. Neither side would really be that stupid would they?

We thought they wouldn't be stupid and lose a whole season too.

I've tried to avoid anything related to this topic, the last go round was sooooo painful. I don't even know if I ever recovered.

I agree with all here, they're going to have to find a way. They're in too good a position as a league to screw things around here.

[ultrablue55]

Surprised this thread isn't getting more traffic. As a devout baseball fan for years, I have learned to dislike Fehr...terribly so. He comes across as a pr***k to me, an a**hole on some days...never have liked the guy. I agree with anyone else that would say that the two sides have to recognize that this deal can't go down the same road it did in 2004-2005. I still have a hard time believing that really happened. June 19, 2006 can erase a lot of bad issues.

My take, they will get something done. I'd like to think the sooner the better. I think it will be interesting to see how much sway Fehr holds over the players if something big comes to a vote after the last episode.

[nccanes]

Is there anything that's been released by either side in regard to "news"?

[LostTexan]

I think I heard the commish within the last couple weeks (maybe on the NHL Hour show?) say that they were waiting on the union. I think he said the NHL is ready to present a proposal but that the union isn't ready to begin negotiations yet.

[ultrablue55]

Interesting article that makes a lot of very good points...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...medium=twitter

Roy McGregor piece for the Globe and Mail

[KaniacFever]

I read over on HF that when Forslund was on with David Glenn he said he expects there to be a 1-2 month lockout.

There better not be any lockout. They can't afford it, not even for a month. I'll be highly pissed and agitated if they don't get this **** figured out prior to Oct. 11th.

[ultrablue55]

Originally Posted by KaniacFever

I read over on HF that when Forslund was on with David Glenn he said he expects there to be a 1-2 month lockout.

There better not be any lockout. They can't afford it, not even for a month. I'll be highly pissed and agitated if they don't get this **** figured out prior to Oct. 11th.

The owners took the union to the woodshed seven years ago. Donald Fehr is the difference this time around. I would be surprised if there isn't a delayed start at the minimum.

[Convert]

Can't wait to hear the Wild owner argue for limits on contract lengths, bonuses, and/or contract structures.

The one thing you can say is the owners are definitely not opening themselves up to a collusion suit around their practices this summer.

I would hope this simplifies negotiations (wishful thinking), which in my mind should center around 3 things:

* Revenue Sharing and Escrow (players and owners)
* cap minimum calculations (go back to % of cap number v. 16M range)
* Revenue Sharing within the clubs


But the bottom line is there is no way owners can argue that the game is fundamentally broken when smaller market teams are dishing out contracts like the Wild, and for that matter the Canes with JStaal.

[superdave]

How are any of the teams that were backing up the Brinks truck for Parise and Suter going to yell for relief with the new CBA? I heard one of the talking heads saying the other day that the union should just agree to whatever it took for the deal to get done because the owners always find a way to spend more money.

[caveman]

Sure they can try to argue that it's broken: "See, we have to spend this much to remain competitive, but we can't afford it, therefore it's broken."

[superdave]

Originally Posted by caveman

Sure they can try to argue that it's broken: "See, we have to spend this much to remain competitive, but we can't afford it, therefore it's broken."

It worked out so well for NJ with Kovi. They signed him to that huge deal and are now about to fold.

[wa10]

Originally Posted by Convert

But the bottom line is there is no way owners can argue that the game is fundamentally broken when smaller market teams are dishing out contracts like the Wild, and for that matter the Canes with JStaal.

One could argue that this is the only way for the smaller market team to compete. The bigger markets drive up the price and the smaller markets have to match or lose out.

For the smaller market teams, I think it's more of an investment. Minnesota hopes that they'll be selling more tickets and getting more playoff revenue (as we would have had we landed both Parise and Suter). Detroit and NYR already have the revenue to support this kind of contract. I don't think Minnesota (or we) currently do. Personally I think that's where the discrepancy is.

Then again, I may have no idea what I'm talking about.

[superdave]

There needs to be more of a revenue sharing. I know that the "haves" don't want to share with the "have nots", but the "haves" have to have somebody to play hockey against or it will be back to the original 6 again.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by superdave

It worked out so well for NJ with Kovi. They signed him to that huge deal and are now about to fold.

Exactly. It's back to the "we can't help ourselves" issue. Meanwhile, on the cap floor thing, I don't see how a pretty big (and growing) number of markets can support the cap floor in salary. Including us. Yet without keeping the cap floor closer to the cap ceiling, we'd see the big markets spending and the smaller markets not, and face competitiveness issues again. (With the occasional exception.)

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Originally Posted by wa10

One could argue that this is the only way for the smaller market team to compete. The bigger markets drive up the price and the smaller markets have to match or lose out.

I think that's largely correct.

I also think everyone need to remember, when the sh*t hits the fan, that this fact is not the players' fault. As SD days, the owners have to give this time with revenue sharing.

[wa10]

Originally Posted by superdave

There needs to be more of a revenue sharing. I know that the "haves" don't want to share with the "have nots", but the "haves" have to have somebody to play hockey against or it will be back to the original 6 again.

But why would the "haves" want the "have nots" to be competitive? Other than staying in business so they can beat them up throughout the regular season. I guess that's another part of the conflict? The "have nots" desperately want to be competitive so they spend regardless of being able to afford it and hope that the "haves" bail them out*? If you were in a "have" market, wouldn't you prefer realistically having a 1 in 15 chance of winning the Stanley Cup every year rather than 1 in 30?

*Obviously, I'm on the "have nots" side being a fan of the Hurricanes

[superdave]

Originally Posted by wa10

But why would the "haves" want the "have nots" to be competitive? Other than staying in business so they can beat them up throughout the regular season. I guess that's another part of the conflict? The "have nots" desperately want to be competitive so they spend regardless of being able to afford it and hope that the "haves" bail them out*? If you were in a "have" market, wouldn't you prefer realistically having a 1 in 15 chance of winning the Stanley Cup every year rather than 1 in 30?

*Obviously, I'm on the "have nots" side being a fan of the Hurricanes

I said the same thing. The "haves" aren't going to want to support the "have nots". That doesn't change the reality that revenue sharing would help the league as a whole. It seems to work in the NFL.

[Convert]

Wonder if this will be a topic, since either through owner/GM collusion-like approaches (though that may not be provable) or the high compensation levels, there has been very little RFA activities.

Another thing I think the players will fight for in return for adjustments in revenue sharing levels.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Well, the owners first proposal certainly indicates they'd like another lockout. Expectedly ridiculous starting point.

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 limited to 5 years

4-no more salary arbitration.

5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.

[SouthernHockeyChick]

Per Larry Brooks:

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

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

Seems like there's going to be a large gulf between the two sides. They better get to it!

[nccanes]

So, if there's another work stoppage, I wonder who will be eligible to play in CLT as Staal and Ward played in Lowell during the last one. I feel stupid to ask this, but how much did they get paid during the lockout to play in the AHL?

I guess CLT would love to have Skinner, Faulk, and Murphy?

[SouthernHockeyChick]

A little more detail about what that proposal would look like. It's Larry Brooks so, there is drama. Still, some valid points.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...3ctsOZ3siejtMI