Richard Cloutier: Fehr Playing/Losing Game of Russian Roulette
- Maxbone

Woke up this morning and read your priceless blog Sir Richard!!
Thank you!!

Maybe the fans should have petitioned the NHLPA to dump Fehr & then we would have had our game back.
Instead, it will sadly take another lost year to see him gone

That's ridiculous. Agreeing to go from 57% of revenue, down to 50% is certainly a concession. In fact it's a huge concession. Could be well over a Billion dollars.
- MJL

They don't accept reality of 50/50 there is no negotiations, it is not a concession it is where it ALL has to start.

7% is not well over a Billion dollars...total revenue is 3.3B...

100% == 3.3B
10% == 330M
1% == 33M
7% == <250M

Ya know FYI on the way math works.

The players don't act like they own the League. They act like a unified Union standing up for themselves. There hasn't been an agreement on how to get to 50/50. You cannot negotiate fairly by placing preconditions on the negotiations. This is a League that is nothing without the players. The players are far more then just employees.
- MJL

No league with out teams. Teams are businesses, players are those businesses employees. Just the most high profile ones.

The players didn't give a counter that is light years away. The real difference between the players proposal and the Owners is about 33M. The League is using numbers based on a what they think the possibility of lost revenue is going to be for this Season and future years. The players want to negotiate on a hypothetical full Season. The League is using the mirage of using the estimated percentage of lost revenue, to artificially inflate the difference between the two sides. And make it look bigger then it really is. But they use a 5% growth rate to come up with Make Whole.
- MJL

I am sorry you are silly. When the players give a proposal that sees them make more money in year one, when the league has been adamant that salaries need to be scaled back, then yeah...light years.

Yet again...players stating how the league needs to work...the league used 5% and it is moderate and realistic. The PA used 7+%. Better use the safer numbers. They didn't last time and we are at an insane 57% revenue share for players.

You can make all those comments you want. I laugh at it. Now on to content.

Both sides have to build trust. It's clear that neither side trusts the other. That's a real problem. And both sides have contributed to it.
- MJL

I will thanks for giving me permission.


And this is where the PA needs to just sit and work off the proposal that is/was on the table.

They don't accept reality of 50/50 there is no negotiations, it is not a concession it is where it ALL has to start.

7% is not well over a Billion dollars...total revenue is 3.3B...

100% == 3.3B
10% == 330M
1% == 33M
7% == <250M

Ya know FYI on the way math works.


- OilHorse

uhhh, its not just a 1 year deal.. 250M/year X 5 years = 1.25B


and unless revenues grows by more than 7% per year, that 250M will actually increase as the deal goes on



FYI on the way math works

MJL...

You're going to find out real soon just how good a deal Fehr gets for his players!!

Because the best deal has already come & gone & it's only going to get worse the longer the morons balk at wanting to get a deal done!!!

They don't accept reality of 50/50 there is no negotiations, it is not a concession it is where it ALL has to start.

7% is not well over a Billion dollars...total revenue is 3.3B...

100% == 3.3B
10% == 330M
1% == 33M
7% == <250M

Ya know FYI on the way math works.


- OilHorse

If you think it needs to start at 50/50, then you clearly don't understand these negotiations.

The statement is, could be worth over a billion dollars. When the PA is stating that, they are talking over the life of the CBA. Not in one year. Another sign that you don't understand the negotiations.

No league with out teams. Teams are businesses, players are those businesses employees. Just the most high profile ones.


- OilHorse

If you think this is a normal business with a normal employer/employee relationship, then you are badly mistaken. It far close to a partnership then it is that.

I am sorry you are silly. When the players give a proposal that sees them make more money in year one, when the league has been adamant that salaries need to be scaled back, then yeah...light years.


- OilHorse

33M is not light years. Again, you have to understand why the players countered with an offer that sees them make more in year 1.

Yet again...players stating how the league needs to work...the league used 5% and it is moderate and realistic. The PA used 7+%. Better use the safer numbers. They didn't last time and we are at an insane 57% revenue share for players.
- OilHorse

The NHLPA's latest proposal to the league was to take last season's $1.883B and step it up annually with a compounding rate of 1.75 per cent.

MJL...

You're going to find out real soon just how good a deal Fehr gets for his players!!
- newmy

newmy...


I agree, we are going to find out. But here's what you may not understand. First of all, Fehr was hired for one reason. To limit the damage to the players. It was known all along that the players were going to take a hit here. And secondly, both sides have already lost. League revenue has been lost. Player salary has been lost. And we'll see what the damage to the League overall will be going forward.

And newmy, I'm open to discuss the facts on this anytime you want.

Good perspective.

There are about 10 teams that would benefit tremendously from losing a full year of play. Florida, Minnesota, St. Louis, Ottawa, Brooklyn, Tampa and, especially Edmonton are loaded with great young talent who are currently playing in the AHL, junior or Europe. The face of these teams would be dramatically altered if a full year is missed.

Teams that are older and without strong player development could get ripped pretty badly. Detroit, Vancouver, Calgary and San Jose would be toast.

Rangers, Flyers and Kings would be in pretty good shape. Not sure which side of the profile some other teams would fall. Leafs might be okay, worry they just don't have enough development depth.

No doubt Oilers would be pretty potent force.
- spatso

Uhhh... What?

Because the best deal has already come & gone & it's only going to get worse the longer the morons balk at wanting to get a deal done!!!
- newmy

How then do you explain that the last Offer the Owners gave the players, was a better offer then the previous one the League gave the players?

Well let me give u a little bit of information MJL...

There is no next offer coming from the NHL, they are quite frankly fed up with same garbage the NHLPA is sending their way, the same proposal for 3 straight times, only worded differently.

The NHL isn't stupid but it's sure looking the way from the union's side because as i mentioned, the players are going to find out real quick just how bad the next proposal will be coming from the NHL.

Taking 2 weeks off is the best thing the NHL could do because without a willing partner, without the genius Fehr, who's simply lied thru this teeth from day one & with idiots like Ian White cutting down the commissioner with very bright words, you will soon find out and the NHLPA will soon find out just who's going to win this battle!!

And MJL, it isn't going to look good for the NHLPA!!

Well let me give u a little bit of information MJL...

There is no next offer coming from the NHL, they are quite frankly fed up with same garbage the NHLPA is sending their way, the same proposal for 3 straight times, only worded differently.

The NHL isn't stupid but it's sure looking the way from the union's side because as i mentioned, the players are going to find out real quick just how bad the next proposal will be coming from the NHL.

Taking 2 weeks off is the best thing the NHL could do because without a willing partner, without the genius Fehr, who's simply lied thru this teeth from day one & with idiots like Ian White cutting down the commissioner with very bright words, you will soon find out and the NHLPA will soon find out just who's going to win this battle!!

And MJL, it isn't going to look good for the NHLPA!!

Well let me give u a little bit of information MJL...

There is no next offer coming from the NHL, they are quite frankly fed up with same garbage the NHLPA is sending their way, the same proposal for 3 straight times, only worded differently.

The NHL isn't stupid but it's sure looking the way from the union's side because as i mentioned, the players are going to find out real quick just how bad the next proposal will be coming from the NHL.

Taking 2 weeks off is the best thing the NHL could do because without a willing partner, without the genius Fehr, who's simply lied thru this teeth from day one & with idiots like Ian White cutting down the commissioner with very bright words, you will soon find out and the NHLPA will soon find out just who's going to win this battle!!

And MJL, it isn't going to look good for the NHLPA!!
- newmy

Let me give you a little bit of information newby

There absolutely will be a next offer from the NHL. They have no choice or there won't be a deal. I'm not reading any facts from you, and certainly no real information. Only your opinions. Which you are certainly entitled to give.
I agree, Ian White did act like an idiot and he should retract his statement and apologize. And some leadership from the PA should get a hold of him and make him do so.

And newby, it remains to be seen what it looks like for the NHLPA in the future. Right now, it doesn't look good for anyone.

And I'll reiterate. I'm willing to discuss the facts with you at any time. And if were both just going to spout off our general opinions, I don't see the need to continue the conversation further.

Holdouts and demands? What holdouts are you referring to? And your forgetting that the teams have one simple thing that they can do, and that's say no. Nobody held a gun to their heads and forced them to sign those contracts. Players didn't drive up anything. That was all the teams doing. Not the players.
- MJL

This statement is just plain wrong. The old CBA drove up contracts. Something like 1/3rd of the league is within a couple million of the cap floor, forced there by the old CBA. There are other teams near the cap realistically forced to be spending to the cap in order to justify high ticket prices to their fan base. The idea that if owners wanted to be giving players less money, they could, is untrue. The old CBA drove up contracts, and players are trying to continue that.

If you think this is a normal business with a normal employer/employee relationship, then you are badly mistaken. It far close to a partnership then it is that.
- MJL

This perception is why we are losing hockey games. No, players are not close to being partners in this league. They may be highly sought after, and well compensated employees, but they are still just employees. If a quarter of the players leave, the league would go on just fine without them. The same cannot be said of the owners.

Players have no right to anything beyond their current contract. They only have one employer willing to compensate them at a level near where they want. They need to realize they are lucky to be getting the sort of money they are. It's ridiculous players seem to think that they, individually, deserve to make more money than a large portion of the partners who've invested massive amounts of money. And it's equally ridiculous the players believe they deserve a higher percentage of league revenue than received by other professional athletes.

uhhh, its not just a 1 year deal.. 250M/year X 5 years = 1.25B


and unless revenues grows by more than 7% per year, that 250M will actually increase as the deal goes on



FYI on the way math works
- conor_smythe

Essentially what you're saying is you feel they are giving up money by not getting huge raises. We all know the money to give huge raises isn't there. So how are they giving up money that a) they don't have, and b) isn't really there for them to take?

I just don't get how people can look at not getting big yearly guaranteed raises in line with revenue growth from an employer that hasn't really been making more money, to the tune of 5 to 7%, as giving up big money. As far as I'm concerned, unless there is as rollback, the players as rent giving up a red cent. If the cap stays at the same dollar amount for the next five years, and that, with revenue growth, brought it down to 50%, what have they really "given up?". Its a wage freeze, from an employer that is struggling to make a profit, nothing more. And given the slice of the pie the players are taking home, that's not unreasonable at all.

newmy...


I agree, we are going to find out. But here's what you may not understand. First of all, Fehr was hired for one reason. To limit the damage to the players. It was known all along that the players were going to take a hit here. And secondly, both sides have already lost. League revenue has been lost. Player salary has been lost. And we'll see what the damage to the League overall will be going forward.

And newmy, I'm open to discuss the facts on this anytime you want.
- MJL

Most teams weren't making much profit, so they're not really losing much.

This statement is just plain wrong. The old CBA drove up contracts. Something like 1/3rd of the league is within a couple million of the cap floor, forced there by the old CBA. There are other teams near the cap realistically forced to be spending to the cap in order to justify high ticket prices to their fan base. The idea that if owners wanted to be giving players less money, they could, is untrue. The old CBA drove up contracts, and players are trying to continue that.




This perception is why we are losing hockey games. No, players are not close to being partners in this league. They may be highly sought after, and well compensated employees, but they are still just employees. If a quarter of the players leave, the league would go on just fine without them. The same cannot be said of the owners.

Players have no right to anything beyond their current contract. They only have one employer willing to compensate them at a level near where they want. They need to realize they are lucky to be getting the sort of money they are. It's ridiculous players seem to think that they, individually, deserve to make more money than a large portion of the partners who've invested massive amounts of money. And it's equally ridiculous the players believe they deserve a higher percentage of league revenue than received by other professional athletes.
- Antilles

Kudos, I fail to understand how an employee with no financial interest other than drawing a salary can have the gall to try and dictate to their ownership how they should run the business and how much of the revenue they receive and that is before you factor in the other major leages check in at 46-51%.

It is ludicrous and rather rich of the players to expect that even before you consider 90+% of them have less business sense and related education than the worst of the NHL owners. It's flabbergasting.

This statement is just plain wrong. The old CBA drove up contracts. Something like 1/3rd of the league is within a couple million of the cap floor, forced there by the old CBA. There are other teams near the cap realistically forced to be spending to the cap in order to justify high ticket prices to their fan base. The idea that if owners wanted to be giving players less money, they could, is untrue. The old CBA drove up contracts, and players are trying to continue that.


- Antilles

No it's not wrong at all. While I certainly agree that the Cap certainly did have an effect on driving up salaries. As the Cap floor forced some teams to pay more out to players. But it still doesn't account for the ridiculous spending by some teams and the overpaying for players. Certainly they could give less money to top players. It is not untrue at all. Take Parise and Suter. Neither is a 100M player in my opinion. That is a classic example of how teams bidding against one another drove up their worth. And by the way, whose system was it that linked the Cap to revenue? Another example that put's the blame for escalating salaries in the Owners corner.

This perception is why we are losing hockey games. No, players are not close to being partners in this league. They may be highly sought after, and well compensated employees, but they are still just employees. If a quarter of the players leave, the league would go on just fine without them. The same cannot be said of the owners.


- Antilles

No they aren't just employees in the normal employee/employer sense. They are people that possess a unique skill set that generates billions of dollars in revenue for the teams they play for. It is true that they are not partners in the truest sense. They are closer to that then they are employees in my opinion. Which is why were losing Hockey games. If they were just normal employees, we wouldn't be in this lockout this long.

Players have no right to anything beyond their current contract. They only have one employer willing to compensate them at a level near where they want. They need to realize they are lucky to be getting the sort of money they are. It's ridiculous players seem to think that they, individually, deserve to make more money than a large portion of the partners who've invested massive amounts of money. And it's equally ridiculous the players believe they deserve a higher percentage of league revenue than received by other professional athletes.
- Antilles

This is a really poor perception. In a number of ways. They aren't lucky to be getting the sort of money they are. They've earned that money due to the skills they possess. They don't think they should earn more money then anybody. They just think they should get what you even state they have a right to. Their current contracts. The players have agreed in principal to a 50/50 revenue share. Again, under whose system was it that the players got 57%?

Essentially what you're saying is you feel they are giving up money by not getting huge raises. We all know the money to give huge raises isn't there. So how are they giving up money that a) they don't have, and b) isn't really there for them to take?

I just don't get how people can look at not getting big yearly guaranteed raises in line with revenue growth from an employer that hasn't really been making more money, to the tune of 5 to 7%, as giving up big money. As far as I'm concerned, unless there is as rollback, the players as rent giving up a red cent. If the cap stays at the same dollar amount for the next five years, and that, with revenue growth, brought it down to 50%, what have they really "given up?". Its a wage freeze, from an employer that is struggling to make a profit, nothing more. And given the slice of the pie the players are taking home, that's not unreasonable at all.
- prock

The players are agreeing that 50% is reasonable. So if the players don't wind up having their current contract honored, how would they not be giving anything up there? If the players don't get a raise, and the split is immediately taken to 50%, the players have to take a pay cut to do so.

Let me give you a little bit of information newby

There absolutely will be a next offer from the NHL. They have no choice or there won't be a deal. I'm not reading any facts from you, and certainly no real information. Only your opinions. Which you are certainly entitled to give.
I agree, Ian White did act like an idiot and he should retract his statement and apologize. And some leadership from the PA should get a hold of him and make him do so.

And newby, it remains to be seen what it looks like for the NHLPA in the future. Right now, it doesn't look good for anyone.

And I'll reiterate. I'm willing to discuss the facts with you at any time. And if were both just going to spout off our general opinions, I don't see the need to continue the conversation further.
- MJL

What is your source for the highlighted part above?

No it's not wrong at all. While I certainly agree that the Cap certainly did have an effect on driving up salaries. As the Cap floor forced some teams to pay more out to players. But it still doesn't account for the ridiculous spending by some teams and the overpaying for players. Certainly they could give less money to top players. It is not untrue at all. Take Parise and Suter. Neither is a 100M player in my opinion. That is a classic example of how teams bidding against one another drove up their worth. And by the way, whose system was it that linked the Cap to revenue? Another example that put's the blame for escalating salaries in the Owners corner.




No they aren't just employees in the normal employee/employer sense. They are people that possess a unique skill set that generates billions of dollars in revenue for the teams they play for. It is true that they are not partners in the truest sense. They are closer to that then they are employees in my opinion. Which is why were losing Hockey games. If they were just normal employees, we wouldn't be in this lockout this long.



This is a really poor perception. In a number of ways. They aren't lucky to be getting the sort of money they are. They've earned that money due to the skills they possess. They don't think they should earn more money then anybody. They just think they should get what you even state they have a right to. Their current contracts. The players have agreed in principal to a 50/50 revenue share. Again, under whose system was it that the players got 57%?
- MJL

The system where the players get 57% doesn't exist anymore and it never will.

Right now they've chosen to take 0% instead of a new system that would offer 50%

What is your source for the highlighted part above?
- Aetherial

I don't have or need a source. It is my opinion. I believe if there isn't another offer from the League. Whether that comes before or after an offer from the PA, then there isn't going to be a deal. And I believe the NHL feels it needs to have a Season. Again, so there is no misunderstanding, this is all my opinion.

Kudos, I fail to understand how an employee with no financial interest other than drawing a salary can have the gall to try and dictate to their ownership how they should run the business and how much of the revenue they receive and that is before you factor in the other major leages check in at 46-51%.

It is ludicrous and rather rich of the players to expect that even before you consider 90+% of them have less business sense and related education than the worst of the NHL owners. It's flabbergasting.
- tboog6

The players aren't trying to dictate to their ownership how they should run the business. They are negotiating a CBA agreement and negotiating how to dived up League revenue.

I don't have or need a source. It is my opinion. I believe if there isn't another offer from the League. Whether that comes before or after an offer from the PA, then there isn't going to be a deal. And I believe the NHL feels it needs to have a Season. Again, so there is no misunderstanding, this is all my opinion.
- MJL

The owners can and will outlast the players. They can recover losses.


Players can't.

The system where the players get 57% doesn't exist anymore and it never will.

Right now they've chosen to take 0% instead of a new system that would offer 50%
- robin_steele264

I agree, the players probably won't get 57%. Nor should they. And the players are in agreement that they need to take a lesser share going forward. it's just a question of agreeing how to get there.