Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: CBA Negotiations, Farm Report and European Games

I doubt the Fehrs let this die. They have solid labour relations backgrounds. They understand that their membership will not hold together unless they have the underlying hope that a worthy and just outcome is a viable condition of possibility.

If they shut it down now, they certainly lose the high ground of public opinion. They lose many of their own members. Most important, failure to go forward would enrage the doves among the ownership group. The Fehr's understand that the scorched earth agenda of the ownership Hawks will dominate if they do not nail down this opportunity.

I doubt the Fehrs let this die. They have solid labour relations backgrounds. They understand that their membership will not hold together unless they have the underlying hope that a worthy and just outcome is a viable condition of possibility.

If they shut it down now, they certainly lose the high ground of public opinion. They lose many of their own members. Most important, failure to go forward would enrage the doves among the ownership group. The Fehr's understand that the scorched earth agenda of the ownership Hawks will dominate if they do not nail down this opportunity.
- spatso

I don't think the Fehrs will let it die, either. My point is that is an actual start, but not nearly the end point yet.

I doubt the Fehrs let this die. They have solid labour relations backgrounds. They understand that their membership will not hold together unless they have the underlying hope that a worthy and just outcome is a viable condition of possibility.

If they shut it down now, they certainly lose the high ground of public opinion. They lose many of their own members. Most important, failure to go forward would enrage the doves among the ownership group. The Fehr's understand that the scorched earth agenda of the ownership Hawks will dominate if they do not nail down this opportunity.
- spatso

I am seriously hoping that the players don't come back with an offer that is out in left field and doesn't recognize that this is a very good startingpoint. However, from the comments I heard on TSN attributed to the players after their conf call, they are not really enthused by it. If they come back and look for tweaks here and there fine. As the panel on TSN explained last night, if the PA takes a hard line and this extends into say December or later and there is only time for a partial season at best, the players are going to lose more than the supposed 12 or so % that this deal woudl call for .

I am seriously hoping that the players don't come back with an offer that is out in left field and doesn't recognize that this is a very good startingpoint. However, from the comments I heard on TSN attributed to the players after their conf call, they are not really enthused by it. If they come back and look for tweaks here and there fine. As the panel on TSN explained last night, if the PA takes a hard line and this extends into say December or later and there is only time for a partial season at best, the players are going to lose more than the supposed 12 or so % that this deal woudl call for .
- Hextall271

It's a good starting point, but along the lines of revenue split, it's similar to the last NHLPA proposal.

There's a few items that seem like they're not good for the Flyers. The long term deal restrictions, counting AHLers against the cap & other items reported by Pierre Lebrun, Darren Dreger and others make me hope there's an amnesty of some sort.

If the players fight the 50/50 split, the owners will declare nuclear war. The players aren't going to get anything better than that. My understanding was that the definition of HRR hadn't changed; based on the article, that may not be correct. That's not to say there shouldn't be changes [IMO, there should be a few tweaks] but the NHLPA has already given away that card; they're not getting that one back on the table.

The players should absolutely fight limits on contract length and salary within a contract; this fixes nothing within the cap system. Implementing both will only make the salary cap system harder [which is bad for low-revenue teams, but also reduces flexibility in making roster moves for all teams involved] and cause teams to offer higher salaries on the new, shorter contracts [they'll virtually all be 5-year max deals], while failing to address the real problem with the ultra-long, front-loaded contracts: if the player quits playing in the NHL before the end of the contract [whether by retirement or assignment outside the NHL, or in the Tim Thomas scenario because he's suspended], "$ paid to the player while playing in the NHL" does not equal "$ incurred against the cap." In short: cap savings realized early in the deal [when salary > cap hit] do not have to be paid back, thus allowing teams to effectively [and permissibly, despite the language in Article 26] circumvent the cap.

The other areas the players should fight are how discipline is handled, scheduling [eliminating the compressed scheduling and limiting 3-in-4s and eliminating 5-in-7s] , and so on. They should also work to eliminate the "pro seasons" requirement to qualify for RFA, since there can be occasions where a player's ELC ends and he's not RFA [see Erik Johnson and Jack Johnson for examples]. There's other areas they can hammer out in short order ... if they're really interested. [They should have already done much of this, instead of standing around in a great circle-jerk.] If they don't, you have to start openly asking hard questions of one side.

If the players fight the 50/50 split, the owners will declare nuclear war. The players aren't going to get anything better than that. My understanding was that the definition of HRR hadn't changed; based on the article, that may not be correct. That's not to say there shouldn't be changes
- Irish Blues[IMO, there should be a few tweaks] but the NHLPA has already given away that card; they're not getting that one back on the table.

The players should absolutely fight limits on contract length and salary within a contract; this fixes nothing within the cap system. Implementing both will only make the salary cap system harder [which is bad for low-revenue teams, but also reduces flexibility in making roster moves for all teams involved] and cause teams to offer higher salaries on the new, shorter contracts [they'll virtually all be 5-year max deals], while failing to address the real problem with the ultra-long, front-loaded contracts: if the player quits playing in the NHL before the end of the contract [whether by retirement or assignment outside the NHL, or in the Tim Thomas scenario because he's suspended], "$ paid to the player while playing in the NHL" does not equal "$ incurred against the cap." In short: cap savings realized early in the deal [when salary > cap hit] do not have to be paid back, thus allowing teams to effectively [and permissibly, despite the language in Article 26] circumvent the cap.

The other areas the players should fight are how discipline is handled, scheduling [eliminating the compressed scheduling and limiting 3-in-4s and eliminating 5-in-7s] , and so on. They should also work to eliminate the "pro seasons" requirement to qualify for RFA, since there can be occasions where a player's ELC ends and he's not RFA [see Erik Johnson and Jack Johnson for examples]. There's other areas they can hammer out in short order ... if they're really interested. [They should have already done much of this, instead of standing around in a great circle-jerk.] If they don't, you have to start openly asking hard questions of one side.

Considering the players already offered a proposal that ended up with the revenue split being 50-50, I doubt that's an issue.

One huge stumbling block is the definition of HRR. The NHL had been trying to "redefine" that to make the overall pot that was to be split smaller. Hearing that the HRR stays the same is a giant step towards getting a deal hammered out.

The other areas are minor compared to the HRR question. I'm sure the PA will not be eager to limit contract length or to implement the restrictions the owners propose on existing front loaded long term deals.

That said, my main trouble was that the NHL owners had been making demands and offering few concessions throughout the process. This proposal goes a lot further than any previous proposal from the owners' side to bridge the gap-and that could extend back to the last lockout, too. It's not ideal, but it should be a good start point to facilitate an agreement.

Based on the details that LeBrun wrote about, it seems like the league is really taking up arms for the poorer teams against the richer clubs. A lot of provisions in this deal, if passed, would seem to hurt the Flyers. Some almost seem specifically targeted toward the Flyers way of doing business. I wonder if Snider is losing his influence with the league.

http://www.broadstreethoc...-cba-flyers-paul-holmgren

Well....I hope this is something being misinterpreted.

http://www.broadstreethoc...-cba-flyers-paul-holmgren

Well....I hope this is something being misinterpreted.
- MBFlyerfan

Wow...I wasn't even thinking about the Richards and Carter deals. But as I said in my previous post, I completely agree with this point.

If I were Snider, and this passes, I'd really stick it to the league. I would slash ticket prices drastically so that the Flyers revenue comes in at #11. Hell, they'd probably break even if they didn't have to give back any money to the poorer teams.

Considering the players already offered a proposal that ended up with the revenue split being 50-50, I doubt that's an issue.
- Jsaquella

I thought the players last offer was more along the lines of 52/48 for the players. If they really did offer 50/50, I'll stand corrected - but I don't recall that having been the case. Otherwise, I would have expected more commentary from the media along the lines of "OK, the players are at 50/50 - c'mon NHL, let's get there."

The other areas are minor compared to the HRR question. I'm sure the PA will not be eager to limit contract length or to implement the restrictions the owners propose on existing front loaded long term deals.

That said, my main trouble was that the NHL owners had been making demands and offering few concessions throughout the process. This proposal goes a lot further than any previous proposal from the owners' side to bridge the gap-and that could extend back to the last lockout, too. It's not ideal, but it should be a good start point to facilitate an agreement.
- Jsaquella

Depends on how you define "concessions." If you base it off the initial offer made, the owners have moved significantly; if you base it off of the prior CBA, the owners are still taking significant swaths away from the players.

Start here and hammer out the details. For me.it has always been about cutting the pie in half and reaching a middle ground. Easier said then done of course but as I was always hoping, hockey begins much sooner then later. Do not lose the Winter Classic or another Stanley Cup.

Based on the details that LeBrun wrote about, it seems like the league is really taking up arms for the poorer teams against the richer clubs. A lot of provisions in this deal, if passed, would seem to hurt the Flyers. Some almost seem specifically targeted toward the Flyers way of doing business. I wonder if Snider is losing his influence with the league.
- TheGreat28

I saw the comments from Dreger and McKenzie on what the new deal had. Three thoughts jumped out immediately:

1. This fixes nothing,
2. This is another "save us from ourselves" ploy that, if adopted, will blow up in the faces of the owners before the proposed CBA expires, and
3. This is probably going to be so mired in legalese that it will either be difficult to interpret [likely] or have glaring loopholes that the NHL hasn't thought through [incredibly likely].

The idea of forcing cap hits to apply when the player is not in the NHL is terrible; it goes way too far in ensuring that "$ paid to the player while in the NHL" = "$ incurred against the cap" and is likely to ensure that the owners have to cut checks to the players every year. Having cap hits for players in the AHL count against the cap is just as bad. The easiest [and most fair way] to handle this is to say "if the player isn't in the NHL, he counts at the difference between his cap hit and his salary for that year." That's still punitive in that it forces cap savings realized early on to be paid back, but not overly punitive and unfair toward teams. It's also not far-fetched to picture a scenario where multiple teams are cap-constrained and have no way of icing a 20-man roster because no one else has sufficient cap space to take on contracts.

The "no change in salary by year of more than 5%" idea is just asinine. It's a fan-based solution that fixes nothing and is much more likely to drive up salaries, which does nothing to fix the [non-]problem of the higher values of the "2nd contract". If anything, it will push those contracts up even higher - and, with the change in the length of ELC's and age for UFA, will either encourage players to take a 1-year deal post-ELC and then a 5-year deal, or vice-versa. Either way, it will be more likely that players hit UFA at age 28 because that will be the next chance to get big dollars.

The NHLPA should absolutely reject this offer, and counter with "we'll take the 50/50 on revenues and the 3rd party for discipline, but no limits on contract length and salary change by year." Movement on lengths of ELC's and age for UFA are not that critical, but they should also be fighting for better scheduling and a few other items.

http://www.broadstreethoc...-cba-flyers-paul-holmgren

Well....I hope this is something being misinterpreted.
- MBFlyerfan

I fear it's not being misinterpreted, those are Bob McKenzie's understanding. Do not like.

Bill,

I appreciate all the work you do here, especially in the current situation. You must be working 10 times as hard to follow our guys all across the world.

I would ask one favor though: Please do not mention THAT! season. 2006 is the hockey year that never was. It didn't happen, it doesn't exist. I never need to read, hear or see anything about that season.

Thanks again for all you do for us. Have a great day.
Charlie

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: CBA Negotiations, Farm Report and European Games
- bmeltzer

I was at the 9-1 2006 game in Buffalo, by far the worst game i've ever been to

say hello to receiving a mediocre product on the ice and paying higher ticket prices than anyone else. This CBA will destroy the flyers and in a sense is not fair. If they want all teams to be on equal footing than they should make ticket prices across the league the same. I pay more money to go see a better product from my club out there.....Not to feed Bettmans bastards. League parity can kiss my ass. . If it weren for the top 8 the bottom 8 would cease to exist. they should consider themselves lucky we throw them our revenues.

If it weren for the top 8 the bottom 8 would cease to exist.
- Philly1980

Have to say I agree. We pay a premium price for a premium product (talk to the folks in Toronto, who pay premium for junk). I don't like or need to help franchises stay afloat.

I'm okay with helping new franchises, but your long term plan shouldn't be to get money from me. If you can't survive where you are then move.

Sorry to the fans of those franchises, it is not nice and easy, but life isn't

Have to say I agree. We pay a premium price for a premium product (talk to the folks in Toronto, who pay premium for junk). I don't like or need to help franchises stay afloat.

I'm okay with helping new franchises, but your long term plan shouldn't be to get money from me. If you can't survive where you are then move.

Sorry to the fans of those franchises, it is not nice and easy, but life isn't
- brubacca

i agree they should have a cap @ 50/50 that is fair, but telling a team how to set up contracts is ridiculous. 5 year contracts are way to short....if my team wants to lock up giroux than they should damn well have the right to do so for the next 15 years if they wish at a reasonable cap hit. i shouldnt pay double the price to see the same product that poop fanbases pay to see.


Lets face it revenues for the bottom 8 are never going to go up no matter how competitive they are.....their fanbases suck and show minimal support no matter how successful their clubs are.

say hello to receiving a mediocre product on the ice and paying higher ticket prices than anyone else. This CBA will destroy the flyers and in a sense is not fair. If they want all teams to be on equal footing than they should make ticket prices across the league the same. I pay more money to go see a better product from my club out there.....Not to feed Bettmans bastards. League parity can kiss my ass. . If it weren for the top 8 the bottom 8 would cease to exist. they should consider themselves lucky we throw them our revenues.
- Philly1980

This!

Check out average ticket price from last year. Then compare to last 10 cup winners or so.

http://hookedonhockeymaga...ces-for-2011-2012-season/

I would be really pissed if I was Snider.

i agree they should have a cap @ 50/50 that is fair, but telling a team how to set up contracts is ridiculous. 5 year contracts are way to short....if my team wants to lock up giroux than they should damn well have the right to do so for the next 15 years if they wish at a reasonable cap hit. i shouldnt pay double the price to see the same product that poop fanbases pay to see.


Lets face it revenues for the bottom 8 are never going to go up no matter how competitive they are.....their fanbases suck and show minimal support no matter how successful their clubs are.
- Philly1980

The owners are the ones seeking a limit on contract years, so I don't think they share your displeasure on the matter.

The owners are the ones seeking a limit on contract years, so I don't think they share your displeasure on the matter.
- BulliesPhan87

Somehow i dont think all owners are for this. thats a bragaining chip thrown in their by the owners knowing very well the players wont accept it. So in the end the owners can say look we sacrificed also.

Somehow i dont think all owners are for this.
- Philly1980

I don't foresee owner solidarity breaking over the contract limit thing. It was in their initial offer, it's in their latest offer, the league is actively going to seek something like it in these negotiations. I don't have a problem with it, either.

Now, that whole 'if a player retires the signing team is stuck with the cap hit' thing, that doesn't sit well with me at all.

This!

Check out average ticket price from last year. Then compare to last 10 cup winners or so.

http://hookedonhockeymaga...ces-for-2011-2012-season/

I would be really pissed if I was Snider.
- TheGreat28

ouuch feel bad for toronto...

I don't foresee owner solidarity breaking over the contract limit thing. It was in their initial offer, it's in their latest offer, the league is actively going to seek something like it in these negotiations. I don't have a problem with it, either.

Now, that whole 'if a player retires the signing team is stuck with the cap hit' thing, that doesn't sit well with me at all.
- BulliesPhan87

i just think its on of those things they threw in there to have the players strike it down. Then they will be able to say they made concessions as well. if they didnt want those contracts than what the hell was last summer lol . I just think five years is to short. 10 years should be the max.