NHL offers 50-50 split to players

[Bo Knows NHL94 7]

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8512006/nhl-offers-players-50-50-split-hockey-related-revenue

Seems like a reasonable offer.... obviously we can't read everything but unless there's something crazy in there hopefully the players accept!! And an 82 game season still

[dcicon5148 4]

hopefully this will be the start of something real happening.

[jer_33 148]

Fehr gave an optimistic statement calling it "a good starting point", or something to that effect.

I still believe that the players will counter with one more proposal, but it will be the players that quickly cave to this 50/50 proposal.

[smozoma 337]

why's it reasonable, they gave up a lot last time

70+% -> 57% league income way up -> 50%

[halifax 272]

sign off....get er done!

[smozoma 337]

Some points... mostly based on rumours from "sources" presented in the article..

The offer also will allow teams to go over the salary cap in Year 1 of the deal -- a maximum of up to $70 million -- as part of the transition rules, according to the source.

So the offer seems to be constructed so players don't take a pay cut in the first year (not sure about after that... i guess the hope is that revenues increase and the new reduced salary cap reaches the old salary cap and there is no problem)

82 games

We lost at least a month (no way the schedule would start Nov 2). That's rough on the players, having to play more often to make up the lost time. Could cause more injuries.

Bettman said that in order to pull off the logistics of the schedule, each team would have one additional game every five weeks in order to get a full season in.

The players can't take the offer, the league will not start Nov 2nd. The real reason they are offering 50-50 and 82 games is for public relations, so the fans go "oh 50/50 is always a reasonable split, and we don't lose any games" and now the players look to be the ones taking games away from the fans.

The NHL has backed down from earlier proposals for some systemic changes to player contracts, league sources told ESPN.com. Tuesday's offer also reopened the possibility of salary arbitration and called for unrestricted free agents to have at least eight years' service time (or be 28 years old), according to the sources.

Net change would be holding onto a player an extra year into their prime, plus whatever other earlier proposals they didn't back down on.

The league maintained its stance on long-term contracts, wanting to cap deals at five years in length, sources told ESPN.com.

Why? Just get rid of the stupid front-loaded contracts by using a sliding-window or year-by-year salary cap hit system. Problem solved. You can offer risky long-term contracts if you want, but you don't need to because there isn't a big salary cap cheat advantage.

The league's revenue-sharing offer calls for about $200 million, up from about $150 million in the last CBA, the sources said.

From what I understood, the problem wasn't just the amount, but the way it was distributed was really confusing and hard to predict.

The offer also calls for entry-level contracts to be two years in length, as opposed to the stipulated three years in the expired CBA, according to sources.

Wow, that's actually a concession to the players.. i guess it's to make up for the 28-years-old free agency thing.

---

I bash the NHL side, but on the other hand, the NHLPA didn't want to talk until last season was over.

Move a team to Toronto. Instantly more money for everyone. You can drive and hit the arenas of the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils in an hour and 7 minutes, according to google maps, but we can't have 2 teams in Toronto?

[halifax 272]

We lost at least a month (no way the schedule would start Nov 2). That's rough on the players, having to play more often to make up the lost time. Could cause more injuries.

the proposal is to have a short training camp starting on Oct.26. the season starts nov.2 and schedule goes as normal until april 13, then they'll add the remaining games missed already after april 13th so the regular season will near the end of april. They also said they'll add in one extra game every 5 weeks to make up some lost time so the overall impact on the players should be minimal. the playoffs will end late june.

[Wittgenstein 3]

WHY THE NHLPA WILL LIKELY REJECT THIS OFFER & THE LOCKOUT WILL CONTINUE

http://www.thepensblog.com/2012-archives/october/why-the-nhlpa-will-likely-reject-this-offer-the-lockout-will-continue.html

As soon as rumblings about the lockout started to be heard, both the NHL and the NHLPA immediately started public relations efforts to make their side look better. Whether it was a"heartfelt" video from the players or an NHL focus group that ultimately determined that - shockingly - NHL fans want to watch NHL hockey, this lockout has seemingly been more about PR than it has been about actually negotiating.

The NHL's latest offer is no different.

It was designed to look good and fair to both sides. A 50/50 split? That sounds awesome, right? What's more fair than 50/50? And an 82-game schedule too!? That's what we all want! It makes perfect sense that the players should agree to this offer, right?

Of course, that's not all the offer includes.

It also includes (via TSN) " four-year deals on entry-level contracts, unrestricted free agency for players at age 28 or eight years of NHL service, a five-year limit on non-entry level contracts and revenue sharing at or near $200 million."

And that's why the NHLPA won't agree to it. The NHL is using this offer as a PR move, just like pretty much every move that both sides have made during this entire process. Right now all of the headlines are "NHL offers 50/50 Split" and the other details of the offer are located down in the story where some people may gloss over them. This is exactly what the NHL wants. They look like the good guys now. Both sides in this have portrayed themselves as the side that just wants to play hockey for the fans. This is just the NHL doing that exact thing again.

Now, if the NHLPA rejects this offer, many fans will think "Man, those players just rejected a perfectly fair 50/50 split, they really are greedy!"

Mission Accomplished.

The NHL has been losing the PR battle up until this point and it seems like most fans agree with the players/dislike Gary Bettman. The NHL obviously wants to counter that because, for some reason, winning a PR battle is more important to both sides than actually coming to terms on a deal.

Sadly, this latest offer isn't the turning point that will save the season, but it could be the turning point that will vilify the players.

Our friends at Pension Plan Puppets did a great job explaining this:

On top of leaving 7% of revenues on the table (a 14% paycut) the players would also be under team cost control longer, losing even more money.

The NHL's inclusion of "games could start November 2nd and we'd play all 82" is ridiculous. It's October 16th. If the NHL wanted a two week training camp the deal would have to be signed by Thursday.

This does not seem like a genuine attempt to end the lockout. This seems like NHL owners are trying to win the PR war so they can wage an extended lockout and force NHLers into their terms. The NHL's offer was designed to get people excited about a season happening in much the same way that Luntz' coining of "death panels" was designed to get people to dismiss health care reform in the US.

The sad thing is that it's working.

Perhaps the only good news here is that the NHLPA can't outright reject this offer without looking terrible, so they'll have to come back with an offer that looks even more fair. Maybe this is how the actual negotiations will start....

Sorry, but it still doesn't look like this is going to end anytime soon.

[smozoma 337]

the proposal is to have a short training camp starting on Oct.26. the season starts nov.2 and schedule goes as normal until april 13, then they'll add the remaining games missed already after april 13th so the regular season will near the end of april. They also said they'll add in one extra game every 5 weeks to make up some lost time so the overall impact on the players should be minimal. the playoffs will end late june.

Yeah, I got to that part later, and an extra game every month isn't bad, but I didn't go back and change it. But as Witt's article points out (and I had read the PPP article it quotes at the end), the NHL doesn't expect there to be an 82-game season, they just want to get that number out there so the players have to reject it and look like the bad guys.

[smozoma 337]

NHL released the full offer on nhl.com:

http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643570

puck daddy take: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/read-full-nhl-cba-proposal-players-including-end-141912185--nhl.html

pension plan puppets take: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2012/10/16/3513642/what-should-the-pa-counter-offer-look-like

They do in fact fix the salary cap cheat

Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

So best (or worst!) you can do is go 10M, 9.5M, 9.0M, etc.

[halifax 272]

Donald Fehr's latest take:

"Twenty-four hours after the latest breakdown in talks between the NHL and the players union, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr explained to QMI Agency why it might be a long lockout.

He wasn't surprised the owners turned down all three of the proposals the players made Thursday and, during a exclusive one-on-one interview late Friday, he maintained NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners won't be happy until the players fork over more money.

Here is an edited transcript of Fehr's discussion:

QMI: Were you very disappointed in what happened Thursday and the way the meeting transpired?

FEHR: "I try to not get excited and not get disappointed. I've learned from long experience that all that does is burn my hormones. You sort of have to ride every day, take it where it is. If works out good, that's a good day. If it doesn't work out so good, that's a day that isn't so good and you try to figure out a way to do a better one tomorrow. That's what I try to do. It's clear the players are really disappointed. Here we are after massive concessions (in 2004-05) in the billions of dollars, followed by revenue growth that Gary and the owners have taken a lot of credit for, that the response is to say, 'We should have another round of concessionary bargaining and you should give us back more billions of dollars.' That oversimplifies the negotiations a little bit but not very much. The fact the players are willing to negotiate something in which they take a lower share going forward was a major move in the owners' direction and the owners have only moved away from the players. It's a disappointing set of circumstances. I don't go in for the very dramatic 'I am very disappointed' press conferences that other people engage in."

QMI: The players know they're going to take concessions, do you think the owners realize that?

FEHR: "I have no idea. You'd have to talk to individual owners about that. The reason I say that is the following: We have a rule that any player who wants to can come to a negotiating meetings and more than 100 have so far. We have calls right before meetings to clear positions and we have 100 players on the phone. There's no piece of paper in this office that the players can't go see. The second thing is, if you want to make a deal, it's pretty hard, I think, to come in and say, 'What we want is, very significant salary concessions.' (Talking) lots and lots and lots of money, and at the same time the things which are very valuable to players in terms of their individual contracting: Free agency, restricted free agency, salary arbitration, how you structure contracts -- which were the tradeoff last time for the billions of dollars in concessions that were made. 'We want that to.' I would just ask you, and you can ask your readers, what is the articulated reason for seeking these massive concessions that anybody knows about other than, 'We want them, 'cause we want them, and because basketball got them.' It's one thing to say it's because Franchise X has had some financial issues. Everybody knows about Phoenix. It's quite something else to say part of the deal is we should be lowering the salary costs of the Maple Leafs. Yet, that's their proposal. How do you deal with that?"

QMI: Is that what you're trying to figure out?

FEHR: "Well you get up every day and try to find an agreement that will get you there, but I'm just trying to give you a sense of the atmosphere as best I can.'

QMI: Did Gary Bettman tell you the last offer Tuesday was take-it-or-leave-it?

FEHR: "All I can tell you is that my sense in the meeting (Thursday): They reviewed our proposals. It took them 12 or 15 minutes, said they rejected them, said their offer on Tuesday was their very best offer and that outside of what he called 'minor tweaks' that was it. He said this in front of 19 players. When I said, 'So, a tweak means something small and insubstantial' or words to that effect, he said 'Yes.' That's sort of the way it ends. Except Gary said at the end of the meeting if the players were prepared to accept their offer in its entirety, minor tweaks, I could call him about the 'make whole' provision which has players paying players for the reduced salaries in the first two years. I just have to go on the basis of what I heard."

QMI: Were you upset the league took your proposals, looked at them for 12-to-15 minutes and dismissed them?

FEHR: "I don't get upset. I don't get excited. It's just another indication that this is going to be fairly long road."

QMI: The players who were in the room got a fairly good look at where the bargaining stands didn't they? It's a glimpse for them to see the difficulties you're having.

FEHR: "As I said before, all our meetings are open to players, happy to have them there, encourage them to be there, fly them at union expense. It's their contract, their union, their life and their future. Of course they have a right to be there, encourage them to be there and I hope they get as involved as they can."

QMI: Did you give any thought to bargaining off their latest proposal?

FEHR: "We thought we were, apparently not."

QMI: So you have a different position of what you presented than what Bettman characterized?

FEHR: "Given what their position was it was clear that at least for purposes of (Thursday's) proceedings, we either say, 'Gary, we agree or we don't.' "

QMI: If the NHL doesn't move off its past offer and threatens to cancel the season, what are your options?

FEHR: "There are a number of things that if the players became persuaded ... would be taken into consideration and evaluated. But, those are things I hope that I don't have to consider."

QMI: At the end of the day what are you hoping you will be able to achieve once this is over?

FEHR: "I don't think about this being over. What I think about is trying to get this finished and trying to get an agreement that the players are satisfied with, they can be proud of, that can stabilize the industry and allow us to move forward. I don't believe, the players don't believe, and I don't think most of the world believes that everything is perfect in hockey except the players get paid too much. We were trying to address a bunch of those things with revenue-sharing and elsewhere. Hopefully, there will eventually be an agreement done and when that's done, and I'm sure it will be because I know the resolve of the players, that it will be one that they think is fair, appropriate and balances the equation. The point is to get it done and get the season started."

QMI: There has to be something fair and equitable here that can satisfy both sides.

FEHR: "I would have thought so. I have my own views of fair and equitable. Somebody who was knowledgeable would like more accord in our views than theirs'. But so far the owners position seems to be: Players get paid too much because they get paid too much because they get paid too much. If you say it often enough, it's sort of there and that nothing else comes into the equation."

QMI: You wish they had made that 50-50 offer in July. Did the first offer galvanize the players?

FEHR: "The first offer, in our judgment and the players, was so over the top, so backward and so in your face, if you're asking me, 'Did that create a mood?' Sure. Of course it did. Couldn't be avoided. And, the movement away from it has been slow and grudging. In all of the important matters, whether it's players' share, contracting rights or any of that stuff, the owners still want very large concessions. When I say to them or anybody else, 'What is in this contract proposal for the players? What is it that they are willing to do that is of any magnitude?' and I get no answers. That's not because somebody is hiding an answer, it's because there isn't one."

QMI: How long are you willing to wait to get a deal done? Are you willing to wait a whole season if that's what it takes?

FEHR: "Players will make all of those decisions and I never speculate about stuff like that. I have never my entire career. I think it's counter-productive ... You can judge the level of the resolve just by talking to the players and listening to them. I'm not concerned about the unity and resolve of the players."

QMI: Why does the league not want to honour the deals that were signed?

FEHR: "They want to pay less money. That's all. It's really very simple: 'We've agreed to pay to the dollar all the contracts we've signed.' We've now decided that's more money than we'd like to pay.' The reason we made the last proposal the way we did was simply because they want to move toward 50-50. The players have already indicated they are willing to do that over time. The question is: Should you agree to honour the contracts you signed between now and then? Players think that's a straight-forward thing to do and not an unusual thing to do. It's sort of the way everybody does business."

QMI: What's your message to fans who have spent the past couple of days calling players "greedy" after the 50-50 offer from the league?

FEHR: "It's pretty hard to treat seriously the notion that the athletes, who are the only people who anybody comes to watch, that they would be greedy in the face of a 24% reduction in their pay last time; billions of dollars went to the owners, not the players; seven years of record revenues that was more than anybody thought. The result of all that success is for the owners to say, 'OK, now we want to renegotiate all the contracts again and we want to lower them.' My message to the fans is: I don't think that characterization hits the facts very well. Hockey players are pretty down-to-earth people. That's why fans like and identify with them. They want to do the right thing. The right thing here happens to be proceeding in a way which is not merely, 'Oh the owners asked for billions of dollars I guess we have to give it to them because who are we? Hockey players.' "

QMI: Do you remain hopeful the sides will be able to sit down and hammer out an agreement?

FEHR: "We're available at anytime. Where the commissioner left it was: (Don't call) unless you're prepared to tell me you'll accept everything that's on the table ... (or) if you want you can call me about that 'make whole' provision. There's no point. What am I supposed to do if I believe him?"

bruce.garrioch@sunmedia.ca"

[Sicarius 1]

I think there is no way the players go for a deal like what was offered. The owners are saying that all the players have to redo (take less money) on existing contracts. IMO the nhl owners have to be among the biggest business idiots as a collective unit there is in the world. Time and time again the owners overpay for mediocre talent and then b***h and complain about salaries.

As a fan I hate the fact there is no hockey. As a fan it seems like this is the worst possible thing that could happen to the sport. Our sport is the least attractive for TV revenue among all of the major sports. It's not quite as bad as the WNBA but it's not good.

I hate to say it but if I was a player I'd be more inclined to force the owners into taking a worse deal than 50/50. I know some of the offers are grandstanding and for show. If the players were smart they would as a collective unit ask the owners to immediately replace Bettman. That would be the #1 stipulation. This is the 3rd NHL standstill under this idiot's tenure. That's 3 times too many. I think it would be genius if the players started speaking out to the media in an effort to get Bettman canned.

[kingraph 538]

I think it would be genius if the players started speaking out to the media in an effort to get Bettman canned.

Brilliant

[da94wookiee 0]

Report: NHL to cancel Winter Classic and All-Star Game

http://www.thescore.com/home/articles/367551-report-nhl-to-cancel-winter-classic-and-all-star-game-monday

[PRoBob38 0]

Well here we go. The league didn't get exactly what they asked for, they refused to negotiate, and their answer is to cancel an entire month of games. Continuing to try to get the PA to collapse and give in.

If they're serious about cancelling the All-Star Game and Winter Classic next week (possible bluffs?), I think you can just about give up any hope of there being a season. Gotta think the Winter Classic would be the last thing to go.