Wait a second. Is a person from chicago actually making an arson reference... Pot meet kettle.
- bloatedmosquito

Mrs. O'Leary's Cow doesn't count, that was an accident.

There's a reason it's caled an initial propsal. It's a negotiation, you never start with your best offer, otherwise there's no room to move on later in the process. It's normal to shoot for the moon in an opening proposal. Not really a big deal in my opinion. It's to be expected.
- Ogilthorpe2

Well duh! Lol. My point is, this is an insult. An overwhelming insult. Things seemed to be going well up to this point. Also if the owners were serious about starting the season on time, they would have made a legit offer. Why start the negotiation with this? Makes no sense.

If the league has officially brought this to the PA, doesn't that mean they've already supported it?
- pri$ey

Nope it needs to be ratified in order for it to pass ownership.

Nope it needs to be ratified in order for it to pass ownership.
- scorerstouch

Yes but the league is basically the owners. They are clearly okay with this or the proposal would be different. You never propose anything you would not ratify, that would be bargaining in bad faith. So...the owners, at least a majority, must have supported this as the initial offer.

Also, this offer makes perfect sense. Half of these negotiations are about public perception (see the NFL). Therefore, if they start out at 47% of revenues, then move to 50% they can say "Hey, look how much we have given up." Initial offer is always terrible. The media is making a bigger deal of this than anyone. They have to have something to write about this summer since nothing is happening in Free Agency.

Yes but the league is basically the owners. They are clearly okay with this or the proposal would be different. You never propose anything you would not ratify, that would be bargaining in bad faith. So...the owners, at least a majority, must have supported this as the initial offer.

Also, this offer makes perfect sense. Half of these negotiations are about public perception (see the NFL). Therefore, if they start out at 47% of revenues, then move to 50% they can say "Hey, look how much we have given up." Initial offer is always terrible. The media is making a bigger deal of this than anyone. They have to have something to write about this summer since nothing is happening in Free Agency.
- bejewell

Very few owners are liked and these negotiations wil not change that perception. In fact this low ball offer proves their bravado is to screw the people that make them their money. Seems to be a recurring theme.

Yes but the league is basically the owners. They are clearly okay with this or the proposal would be different. You never propose anything you would not ratify, that would be bargaining in bad faith. So...the owners, at least a majority, must have supported this as the initial offer.

Also, this offer makes perfect sense. Half of these negotiations are about public perception (see the NFL). Therefore, if they start out at 47% of revenues, then move to 50% they can say "Hey, look how much we have given up." Initial offer is always terrible. The media is making a bigger deal of this than anyone. They have to have something to write about this summer since nothing is happening in Free Agency.
- bejewell

The way I look at it is they'll probably settle for 1/2 of what they're asking for.

50-52% revenues
7 years to unrestricted FA
4 years on entry levels

I think they'll stick with 5 year max contracts. This keeps everybody in the game when it comes to signing people.

The big question is will the players accept another salary rollback.

There's also a mindset that the owners could care less if the season starts on time where the players do care. So this could ugly.

Don't forget, this is Bettman, the only ever NHL commish to lockout the players and he's done that twice.

Well duh! Lol. My point is, this is an insult. An overwhelming insult. Things seemed to be going well up to this point. Also if the owners were serious about starting the season on time, they would have made a legit offer. Why start the negotiation with this? Makes no sense.
- scorerstouch

Totally agree. This type of negotiating is outdated by about three decades imo.... and it's the reason the season will be delayed.

Totally agree. This type of negotiating is outdated by about three decades imo.... and it's the reason the season will be delayed.
- moylander

This doesn't surprise me given the "old boys" network still hanging around.

Very few owners are liked and these negotiations wil not change that perception. In fact this low ball offer proves their bravado is to screw the people that make them their money. Seems to be a recurring theme.
- scorerstouch

You have it backwards. The owners provide the players with an opportunity to play and make money. If your statement was true, the players wouldn't need the owners.

You have it backwards. The owners provide the players with an opportunity to play and make money. If your statement was true, the players wouldn't need the owners.
- Lido_Shuffle

What a paternalistic, plantation-owner concept. If YOUR statement were true the owners wouldn't need the players - they would just higher minimum wage unknowns every winter.

Owners and players need each other, and the fans need both - I never went to the Stadium hoping to see a Wirtz - I went to see a Hull, a Mikita, (at the UC) a Toews and/or a Hossa.

Owners need name players to draw the fans; players need the league to provide the structure and continuity to make the games mean something.

Totally agree. This type of negotiating is outdated by about three decades imo.... and it's the reason the season will be delayed.
- moylander

Apparently where you live labor negotiating is all hearts and rainbows, everyone joins hands and sings kumbya and !poof! New CBA.

Outdated? If anything is outdated it's the very existance of unions in general. This is the way labor negotiations always have been, and the way they always will be. I read something earlier somewhere on this site that hits the nail on the head...if the players were even the slightest bit tempted to take the owners first offer, then the owners would have been mad at Bettman for not trying to get more. It's just the nature of labor contract negotiating. Nothing more, nothing less. If the season is delayed/cancelled, both the owners and players will share the blame.

If the season is delayed/cancelled, both the owners and players will share the blame.
- Ogilthorpe2

Agreed.

Apparently where you live labor negotiating is all hearts and rainbows, everyone joins hands and sings kumbya and !poof! New CBA.

Outdated? If anything is outdated it's the very existance of unions in general. This is the way labor negotiations always have been, and the way they always will be. I read something earlier somewhere on this site that hits the nail on the head...if the players were even the slightest bit tempted to take the owners first offer, then the owners would have been mad at Bettman for not trying to get more. It's just the nature of labor contract negotiating. Nothing more, nothing less. If the season is delayed/cancelled, both the owners and players will share the blame.
- Ogilthorpe2

Precisely. This is how labor unions negotiate and it's outdated, just like labor unions themselves. They walk in a room and say 5, the other side says 1, and when it's all over both sides settle for 3. What they should be doing is working together to 'create' mutual options that work for both sides and improve the game.

Right but I thought he had to cause he was flunking out of school. Not sure why he couldnt go to Jrs..........read that somewhere..........could have been at the UC on the bathroon wall......not sure
- blkhwkfn

Yes he was ineligibe to play in college is what I heard and I think the only real choice at that time of year was to go to the AHL.....Took up a roster spot sooner than they thought too.

Precisely. This is how labor unions negotiate and it's outdated, just like labor unions themselves. They walk in a room and say 5, the other side says 1, and when it's all over both sides settle for 3. What they should be doing is working together to 'create' mutual options that work for both sides and improve the game.
- moylander

But it's also how management negotiates - are they outdated like unions are?

I wasn't comparing Bernier or Crawford to either LeClaire or Mason so they have no bearing on this. Comparing Benier & Crawford however clearly shows as of right now who the better goalie is. As for the contracts go Bernier has a cap hit of 1.25 and with such a small sample size (NHL level) unless he just completely lights things up wherever he ends up playing this season the cap hit for his next contract will still be pretty reasonable. Now if he does light it up this season his cap hit would still be pretty manageable and should really go no higher than 4 per at the absolute maximum. I am aware that Bernier hasn't played a half season in the NHL and that was why I compared their career stats.
- Tuke17

I am aware that Bernier hasn't played a half season in the NHL and that was why I compared their career stats.

...And that's why they I can't compare the two, games played matters a lot.

But it's also how management negotiates - are they outdated like unions are?
- StLBravesFan

Yes. I assume you mean 'NHL' management.

What a paternalistic, plantation-owner concept. If YOUR statement were true the owners wouldn't need the players - they would just higher minimum wage unknowns every winter.

Owners and players need each other, and the fans need both - I never went to the Stadium hoping to see a Wirtz - I went to see a Hull, a Mikita, (at the UC) a Toews and/or a Hossa.

Owners need name players to draw the fans; players need the league to provide the structure and continuity to make the games mean something.
- StLBravesFan

Owners need unions for one important thing: so they can carry out monopolistic practices through collective bargaining without running afoul of anti-trust laws - salary caps, territorial rights, the draft (saying where a player must play), franchise control - as all (or most) of these things wind up being subject to collective bargaining, the courts stay away.

Yes. I assume you mean 'NHL' management.
- moylander

No - as you didn't limit unions to NHLPA, I don't limit my question to NHL.

No - as you didn't limit unions to NHLPA, I don't limit my question to NHL.
- StLBravesFan

Then yes. All management that negotiates that way are outdated.



Here is an example of creating a mutual option. Company A wants to acquire a competitor, Company B. Company B wants let's say $2,000,000. Company A thinks that's too much.

Now they start working together to find out what both sides 'really' want out of this transaction...

Company A doesn't have that kind of cash readily available but really wants to acquire company B. Company B really wants to sell the company because the owners would like to retire. Working together they agree upon $500,000 cash upfront and 30% of the 1st year profits. In addition the retiring owners will stay on part time to help transition their current customer base over to the new ownership to increase retention. That's a win for both sides and the customers.


The nhlpa and the owners have common ground to work with..... like player safety.... which can improve the game. Instead they will leverage safety to get the most concessions from the owners as possible.... and visa versa the owners to the players union. Fans be damned.

Jmo.

Then yes. All management that negotiates that way are outdated.
- moylander

I do agree that we could use more co-operation between management and unions, but that's not the American way: competing interests run the engine, with both sides believing they are caught in a zero-sum game.

It isn't - and, as you say, time for negotiations to recognize that.

You forgot arson.
- Ogilthorpe2

Plus:

Criminal damage to public property
Criminal damange to private property
Aggravated assault of a peace officer (being nice, could go for attempted homicide)

This from TSN as the NHl tables its platform for the new CBA:

The National Hockey League has reportedly made its initial proposal to the NHL Players Association as the two sides attempt to reach a new collective bargaining agreement.

According to Renaud Lavoie of RDS.ca, the league's initial proposal features a few key changes to the current CBA, as agreed upon in 2005.

Many key changes to player contracts are reportedly featured in the initial agreement including a maximum five-year duration to all future NHL contracts as well as a lengthening of the current entry-level contract from a three-year deal to a five-year contract length.

The league has also reportedly sought change to unrestricted free agency, proposing that players have 10 years NHL service before they are eligible for unrestricted free agency as opposed to the current system that allows for players to be eligible after seven years in the league or at the age of 27 as well as an end to salary arbitration.

In terms of hockey related revenues, the league is reportedly looking for a reduction to the players' share, dropping them to 46 per cent, down from their current level of 57 per cent.

Larry Brooks of the New York Post has also reported via Twitter that the NHL's proposal would also eliminate signing bonuses on future contracts and mandate that all future deals must have an equal value for every year of the contract.




Good luck with that one Bettman. Stanley may have a year to make his squad better if this is what the BOG wants in a new deal.
- djd

Right on par. That should help push the players percentage back to the 51-52 mark, put UFA at 8 years instead of 7, change some arb parameters and push the UFA age rule from 27 to 28.

They have to shoot a lot higher knowing of the counter offers. Besides if they play their cards right (big if), the real bad guy that can come out of this is the same bad guy from 1994.

Mrs. O'Leary's Cow doesn't count, that was an accident.
- Ogilthorpe2

Doesn't matter anyway. Mrs. O'Leary's cow did not start the fire.n That's BS folklore just like the way the city's "windy" nickname.

Apparently where you live labor negotiating is all hearts and rainbows, everyone joins hands and sings kumbya and !poof! New CBA.

Outdated? If anything is outdated it's the very existance of unions in general. This is the way labor negotiations always have been, and the way they always will be. I read something earlier somewhere on this site that hits the nail on the head...if the players were even the slightest bit tempted to take the owners first offer, then the owners would have been mad at Bettman for not trying to get more. It's just the nature of labor contract negotiating. Nothing more, nothing less. If the season is delayed/cancelled, both the owners and players will share the blame.
- Ogilthorpe2

It was sorely needed many decades ago, specically during the war when my Mom did hard labour supporting the war effort: Not finishing HS, supporting the family and working 75 hrs a week in unpleasant conditions. The last 40 years unions have been less valuable. In the private sector, I can see some value. Public? No, NO and NOOO !! Look at any state that's going broke, including this one.