BTW, this has all the hallmarks of every prior negotiation Fehr has been involved in: take a position, watch the other side negotiate its offer up, then say "well, that's nice but it's just not good enough" and refuse to offer anything of substantive value back while sitting back to wait and see if the other side continues to offer up more. Repeat until the other side finally gives you what your original offer has been all along.

The question is whether it works this time. I wouldn't bet the house on it - but I also wouldn't bet the house on the NHL getting substantially all of its latest offer, either.

BTW, this has all the hallmarks of every prior negotiation Fehr has been involved in: take a position, watch the other side negotiate its offer up, then say "well, that's nice but it's just not good enough" and refuse to offer anything of substantive value back while sitting back to wait and see if the other side continues to offer up more. Repeat until the other side finally gives you what your original offer has been all along.

The question is whether it works this time. I wouldn't bet the house on it - but I also wouldn't bet the house on the NHL getting substantially all of its latest offer, either.
- Irish Blues

Has the League made any concessions? The players have.

Has the League made any concessions? The players have.
- burn

The owners started with 46% of new HRR [which is less than currently-defined HRR], period, lots of limits on contracts, 24% rollback on salaries, no more salary arbitration, and no changes to revenue sharing. They currently sit at 49% of HRR to start, going down to 47% at some point [not sure if that's new HRR or current HRR] and additional revenue sharing. Not a huge, massive concession [unless they're talking current HRR, in which case it's a massive step toward the players since at least they're finally talking the same language] - but yes, they've softened [a little bit] from their original position.

The players started with "we'll take 50% of current HRR in Year 1, we get the full 57% of any additional revenues generated in Years 2 and 3, you put all of that money we're giving back toward revenue sharing, and it's our option to go back to the current status quo in the 4th year. No other changes to the CBA." What exactly have they given up from that point beyond perhaps small [and I mean small] changes to how much the owners should kick in to revenue sharing?

The owners started with 46% of new HRR
- Irish Blues[which is less than currently-defined HRR], period, lots of limits on contracts, 24% rollback on salaries, no more salary arbitration, and no changes to revenue sharing. They currently sit at 49% of HRR to start, going down to 47% at some point [not sure if that's new HRR or current HRR] and additional revenue sharing. Not a huge, massive concession [unless they're talking current HRR, in which case it's a massive step toward the players since at least they're finally talking the same language] - but yes, they've softened [a little bit] from their original position.

The players started with "we'll take 50% of current HRR in Year 1, we get the full 57% of any additional revenues generated in Years 2 and 3, you put all of that money we're giving back toward revenue sharing, and it's our option to go back to the current status quo in the 4th year. No other changes to the CBA." What exactly have they given up from that point beyond perhaps small [and I mean small] changes to how much the owners should kick in to revenue sharing?

So yeah..

I also forgot to mention: the players suggested "limited" trading of cap space and awarding of extra draft picks to teams in financial trouble [including the potential of awarding the #1 overall pick on that basis]. If they handed back that part, it would simply represent abandoning a farcical idea that had no substance at all [save perhaps the discussion of trading cap space].

So again, I'm trying to figure out what exactly the players have handed back that is meaningful.

I also forgot to mention: the players suggested "limited" trading of cap space and awarding of extra draft picks to teams in financial trouble
- Irish Blues[including the potential of awarding the #1 overall pick on that basis]. If they handed back that part, it would simply represent abandoning a farcical idea that had no substance at all [save perhaps the discussion of trading cap space].

So again, I'm trying to figure out what exactly the players have handed back that is meaningful.

What have the owners?? I believe the reports were that the players proposals would give back somewhere around 300mil a year. The owners proposals take a significantly larger portion. The players have give and give and the owners want more.

If there is going to be hockey, the owners better get moving.

BTW, this has all the hallmarks of every prior negotiation Fehr has been involved in: take a position, watch the other side negotiate its offer up, then say "well, that's nice but it's just not good enough" and refuse to offer anything of substantive value back while sitting back to wait and see if the other side continues to offer up more. Repeat until the other side finally gives you what your original offer has been all along.

The question is whether it works this time. I wouldn't bet the house on it - but I also wouldn't bet the house on the NHL getting substantially all of its latest offer, either.
- Irish Blues

you assume the PA has more power in these negotiations than it really does.
the one thing they (the players) have goin for them is; the owners have to know some damage to the growth they've experienced since the last lockout could really affect the bottom line if they dont start on time. (upset fans not returning etc etc)

but just the fact that we know no matter how this plays out, the players will end up with less of a percentage of revenues than they did coming in. that in itself should say it all.
not to mention the fact that this 'smaller piece' or 'new deal' is from what the owners wanted to give them before!!!

the nhl lowballed the hell outta of em with that first offer, but thats how these things work. they knew the PA wasnt gonna accept it.
the PA getting a better deal than that original offer is just how it works.
hardly a victory to end up with 7 percent less (at best) though.

the one thing that the players can and should remember is; 50% of 3 billion is better than the 57% of 2 billion they agreed to last time.
regardless if theyve been getting that share of the inflated revenue for a few years now.

I also forgot to mention: the players suggested "limited" trading of cap space and awarding of extra draft picks to teams in financial trouble
- Irish Blues[including the potential of awarding the #1 overall pick on that basis]. If they handed back that part, it would simply represent abandoning a farcical idea that had no substance at all [save perhaps the discussion of trading cap space].

So again, I'm trying to figure out what exactly the players have handed back that is meaningful.

The players gave into a salary cap.

the players gave into 57% HHR

the payers gave back 25% rollback

The players give into Escrow each year that would go back to the owners if they don't meet the magical HHR plateau

Now the owners want them to give back another 10%. The players moved off their spot, when will the owners move? When do the owners take responsibility for their actions. The owners give out these contracts and then say we can't continue like this, then do it all again. If they can't continue as is why are they doing business like that?

Has the League made any concessions? The players have.
- burn

certainly.

no change to what they currently consider HRR. which they first proposed.
and 49%-47% (over time) share instead of the originally proposed 43%.

regardless if its just "the game" to come in that low intitially, they have in fact made concessions.

i think the players should think very hard about this offer...maybe 1 or 2 percent one way or another. but i doubt it'll end up much different than this current offer.

certainly.

no change to what they currently consider HRR. which they first proposed.
and 49%-47% (over time) share instead of the originally proposed 43%.

regardless if its just "the game" to come in that low intitially, they have in fact made concessions.

i think the players should think very hard about this offer...maybe 1 or 2 percent one way or another. but i doubt it'll end up much different than this current offer.
- hugefemale dog77

It's a terrible deal. The players have made all concession, time for the owners to take responsibility. It's not up to the players to take the all the hits to "fix" the system. see how that worked out last time.... the system is still broken.

certainly.

no change to what they currently consider HRR. which they first proposed.
and 49%-47% (over time) share instead of the originally proposed 43%.

regardless if its just "the game" to come in that low intitially, they have in fact made concessions.

i think the players should think very hard about this offer...maybe 1 or 2 percent one way or another. but i doubt it'll end up much different than this current offer.
- hugefemale dog77

So take away 10% VS what the players have conceded and people think the owners are making concessions?

The players gave into a salary cap.

the players gave into 57% HHR

the payers gave back 25% rollback

The players give into Escrow each year that would go back to the owners if they don't meet the magical HHR plateau

Now the owners want them to give back another 10%. The players moved off their spot, when will the owners move? When do the owners take responsibility for their actions. The owners give out these contracts and then say we can't continue like this, then do it all again. If they can't continue as is why are they doing business like that?
- burn

Because they can. Most of them have the money. Remember< a lot of these owners have other revenue streams than just their NHL franchise....which is probably their primary source of income which is what enabled them to purchase an NHL franchise to begin with. The players don't have that luxury and therefore, most likely will always concede more than the owners will in any labour negotiation.

It's a terrible deal. The players have made all concession, time for the owners to take responsibility. It's not up to the players to take the all the hits to "fix" the system. see how that worked out last time.... the system is still broken.
- burn

it really is though. just how much is the argument. make no mistake, the players will end up with 'less' than they have now. (at this moment anyway. the 50% of 3 billion is better than the 57% of 2 billion they agreed to last time)

thats the point. the owners are unwilling to do continue doing business under these circumstances.
its not about whats fair, its about who holds the cards.

its not like the players are threatening to 'not play" unless thay get their deal. the owners actually dont want them to unless they get theirs

if the players can get it to 50%, or even rising to 50% over time (revenues will grow, so that isnt terrible) they should take it

So take away 10% VS what the players have conceded and people think the owners are making concessions?


- burn

concessions on exactly what they'd like...yes

This is not good news. It's the same old crap. We've all known this for some time now, but a lockout is a certainty. Screw 'em all!

The players gave into a salary cap.
- burn

That was the prior CBA.

the players gave into 57% HHR
- burn

Also the prior CBA.

the payers gave back 25% rollback
- burn

Also the prior CBA.

The players give into Escrow each year that would go back to the owners if they don't meet the magical HHR plateau
- burn

Also the prior CBA. [The players also get a check from the owners if they get underpaid; they've had that happen twice.]

Now the owners want them to give back another 10%. The players moved off their spot, when will the owners move? When do the owners take responsibility for their actions. The owners give out these contracts and then say we can't continue like this, then do it all again. If they can't continue as is why are they doing business like that?
- burn

I'm not saying the owners are perfect little angels here - they're not. However, that's not what I was discussing in the post that started this: I was discussing Fehr's tactic in negotiations. Fehr didn't negotiate the prior CBA, so talking about what the players gave up last time is irrelevant here. He's said "this is our position" and held to it the entire time - just like he's done in every other CBA negotiation he's been involved in.

So again, I ask [and this time with additional clarity so that we're on the same page]: what have the players given up in this round of negotiations from their original offer?

That was the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.
- Irish Blues[The players also get a check from the owners if they get underpaid; they've had that happen twice.]


I'm not saying the owners are perfect little angels here - they're not. However, that's not what I was discussing in the post that started this: I was discussing Fehr's tactic in negotiations. Fehr didn't negotiate the prior CBA, so talking about what the players gave up last time is irrelevant here. He's said "this is our position" and held to it the entire time - just like he's done in every other CBA negotiation he's been involved in.

So again, I ask [and this time with additional clarity so that we're on the same page]: what have the players given up in this round of negotiations from their original offer?

this.

and the answer is apparently nothing.

and unless they do, their is going to be a lockout

you assume the PA has more power in these negotiations than it really does.
- hugefemale dog77

Not at all; I never even addressed that point [though I wouldn't disagree with your statement]. I simply pointed out how Fehr has engaged in talks in every prior instance.

the one thing they (the players) have goin for them is; the owners have to know some damage to the growth they've experienced since the last lockout could really affect the bottom line if they dont start on time. (upset fans not returning etc etc)

but just the fact that we know no matter how this plays out, the players will end up with less of a percentage of revenues than they did coming in. that in itself should say it all.
- hugefemale dog77

I agree, more than likely that's how it's going to end. The question is whether Fehr takes a step toward the owners - something he's never done in any substantive measure in the past - or whether the owners hold out and try to break the players.

the one thing that the players can and should remember is; 50% of 3 billion is better than the 57% of 2 billion they agreed to last time.
regardless if theyve been getting that share of the inflated revenue for a few years now.
- hugefemale dog77

While that's accurate [it was really 54%, but what's a few million between friends?] it's also accurate that they were getting 57% of $3 billion last year. That's the better comparison to look at. Otherwise, you could compare their 50% of $3 billion to 35-40 years ago when they maybe got 10% of $750 million and someone would see it and say "geez, you guys are so much better off, shut up already and get back to playing!"

Because they can. Most of them have the money. Remember< a lot of these owners have other revenue streams than just their NHL franchise....which is probably their primary source of income which is what enabled them to purchase an NHL franchise to begin with. The players don't have that luxury and therefore, most likely will always concede more than the owners will in any labour negotiation.
- Phenom

exactly. great post.

in fact, for alot of these billionaires its the only venture that they dont make that much in. and even lose money sometimes.
but just because they can swallow it, doesnt mean they have to.
they hold all the cards pretty much.

Not at all; I never even addressed that point
- Irish Blues[though I wouldn't disagree with your statement]. I simply pointed out how Fehr has engaged in talks in every prior instance.



I agree, more than likely that's how it's going to end. The question is whether Fehr takes a step toward the owners - something he's never done in any substantive measure in the past - or whether the owners hold out and try to break the players.


While that's accurate [it was really 54%, but what's a few million between friends?] it's also accurate that they were getting 57% of $3 billion last year. That's the better comparison to look at. Otherwise, you could compare their 50% of $3 billion to 35-40 years ago when they maybe got 10% of $750 million and someone would see it and say "geez, you guys are so much better off, shut up already and get back to playing!"

my bad. i just assumed that as u mentioned u thought there was a reasonable chance the owners didnt get exactly what they came for.
my guess is they didnt expect that first offer to be ratified. it was just round 1.
and imo, whatever they end up agreeing on will be very close to what they hoped for from the start.
the same cant be said for the players.


as for your last comment; i never said it was fair.
but remaining realistic with the situation is the key for the players imo.
get as much as u can while knowing your going to end up with less.
dont redo 04-05.
sticking to your guns with big promises and then end up getting way less anyway after the seasons been cancelled.
just reality really.

in all intents and purposes its not fair.
the owners have increased revenue, but want the players to take a cut from the deal they bargained for in the first place?? ridiculous!
and this is basically the PA's platform. and i get it. unions need to stand up to this.
by doing so, their will probably be no hockey

i didnt say it was fair. but to remain realistic with the situation is the key for the players imo. get as much as u can while knowing your going to end up with less.
just reality really.

in all intents and purposes its not fair. the owners have increased revenue, but want the players to take a cut?? ridiculous. this is basically the PA's platform. and i get it. and unions need to stand up to this.
by doing so, their will probably be no hockey
- hugefemale dog77

If the owners want the players to take a cut, fine. I'm OK with the ever-popular 50/50 split of revenues [but I see no reason to re-define HRR unless someone can give me a great argument why - and I can probably open up a can of worms once someone says add/delete something]. However, the players should be asking the owners to bear part [my idea, 50%] of the brunt of overspending that 50/50 threshold. As things stand now, if the owners overspend, the players have to give all the excess back via escrow; since the owners are the ones squawking about the need to rein in spending, and since it's more likely the owners overspend than they underspend, why shouldn't they bear some of that responsibility when they overspend?

I don't want none of your weevily wheat, I don't want none of your barley.* I want fine flour in half an hour. To bake a cake for Charlie

If the owners want the players to take a cut, fine. I'm OK with the ever-popular 50/50 split of revenues
- Irish Blues[but I see no reason to re-define HRR unless someone can give me a great argument why - and I can probably open up a can of worms once someone says add/delete something]. However, the players should be asking the owners to bear part [my idea, 50%] of the brunt of overspending that 50/50 threshold. As things stand now, if the owners overspend, the players have to give all the excess back via escrow; since the owners are the ones squawking about the need to rein in spending, and since it's more likely the owners overspend than they underspend, why shouldn't they bear some of that responsibility when they overspend?

sounds like the owners capitulated on the HRR in their latest offer. big move.

as for the 2nd part, i couldnt agree more. and i believe if the players agree to a lesser share of the revenue, (which really is the biggest issue it seems) the owners may throw them a few bones that we didnt expect. (just a guess of course)

it really is though. just how much is the argument. make no mistake, the players will end up with 'less' than they have now. (at this moment anyway. the 50% of 3 billion is better than the 57% of 2 billion they agreed to last time)

thats the point. the owners are unwilling to do continue doing business under these circumstances.
its not about whats fair, its about who holds the cards.

its not like the players are threatening to 'not play" unless thay get their deal. the owners actually dont want them to unless they get theirs

if the players can get it to 50%, or even rising to 50% over time (revenues will grow, so that isnt terrible) they should take it
- hugefemale dog77

No it's not. the owners keep giving out 100mil deal and then crying poor. That isn't the players fault.

The League has never been more profitable, or seen more viewership. They just signed a mega TV deal, but we gotta claw back on the deal we signed? BS.

concessions on exactly what they'd like...yes
- hugefemale dog77

None have been made. It's all on the player backs.