OT: NHL Lockout News
Two news stories are out about the NHL labor situation today. First, the NHL has released the full text of its offer to the players on NHL.com. This is pretty much what was reported yesterday, although the issue of Hockey Related Revenue is as murky as ever, with the proposal saying it is "subject to mutual clarification", which has been a sticking point since day one.
Second, Donald Fehr has written a letter to NHLPA members, and parts of it were posted online via TSN. Some interesting quotes from that letter:
They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries.
And part of the close:
We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question.
October 17th, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^
October 17th, 2012 at 8:23 PM ^
Thanks for your contribution to this NHL thread, I guess.
October 17th, 2012 at 8:30 PM ^
October 17th, 2012 at 8:37 PM ^
/Couldn't care less if the NHL disappeared.
October 17th, 2012 at 10:51 PM ^
October 17th, 2012 at 8:35 PM ^
All of the analysts and commentators were talking about how this proposal was such a significant step and how they could see this leading to the lockout ending. However, after hearing those comments from Fehr, it doesn't seem nearly as promising. Hopefully they can all realize how much damage they are doing to the game and get something done that they can at least deal with for the next 6 years.
October 17th, 2012 at 8:41 PM ^
I hope this is just a bit of posturing for a better deal with HRR. It seems like the NHLPA had a problem agreeing on an offer to submit and allowed the owners to dictate the terms of the current discussion.
I agree with the people saying this proposal switches the onus from the owners to the players to get a deal done, at least in part.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:07 AM ^
October 17th, 2012 at 8:43 PM ^
Based on the figures I can find, the immediate cut in hockey-related revenue would be something around $230 million, which even if revenue didn't grow, is still well over $1 billion over the six years (option offered aside) of the proposed deal.
I didn't see anything clear about their position on the "salary floor" other than the mention of a lower limit, so I wonder if that went off the table as a concession by management. The talk I had heard was that the owners wanted this reduced significantly, even abolished.
What is interesting is that, by my figuring, the current cancellation of two weeks or so represents about 7% of the average players' salary, so the NHL seems to be going for the gold in the PR department with the offer of a full schedule.
October 17th, 2012 at 8:51 PM ^
The proposal states that there would be a floor of $43.9m, cap of $59.9m with a projected midpoint of $51.9m.
Edit: It kind of was. I accidentally linked to the "detailed explination" instead of the "full text".
October 17th, 2012 at 8:49 PM ^
As a person who really doesnt care much for the NHL, I'd rather watch college hockey, they are blowing their chance at being a major market sport again. I really thought with a strong year and they could pass the NBA as the third biggest sport in the country.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:06 AM ^
Wait, you were serious? The NHL will NEVER pass the NBA in popularity.
October 17th, 2012 at 9:21 PM ^
so from a semi-outsiders perspective, the NHL is already a semi-major league that's a good step behind the MLB/NFL/NBA and after missing a season a few years back, dropping off ESPN and onto NBC Sports Net or whatever, and now postponing another season, they're positively shooting themselves in the foot. This seems terrible for the prospects of growing the leagues popularity. They look like a step-down from the other leagues on many levels
October 17th, 2012 at 9:55 PM ^
October 18th, 2012 at 1:38 AM ^
October 18th, 2012 at 8:53 AM ^
It's a take-all, give-none proposal and a great PR move. Players are lamenting that this wasn't the owners' initial offer, because there is stuff in there to work with. But:
No contract clawbacks - players signed contracts that are to pay them for the next X number of years. Owners originally wanted those numbers cut with the new money split. Now they are saying "you'll get all your money that you signed contracts for!" but in their proposal that money doesn't come from owners, it comes from other players' future contracts. So the players as a group are still giving up more. The players see this and know that it's crap. They have signed contracts.
"Management included a provision to ensure players receive all money promised in existing contracts, but the union is concerned with what management termed the "make-whole provision." If the players' share falls short of their $1.883 billion in 2011-12, up to $149 million in the first year of a new deal and up to $62 million in the second would be repaid to players as deferred compensation. However, the union believes that money would be counted against the players' share in later years."
The owners also want the AHL salaries to count against the cap, they want existing deals longer than 5 years to count against the signing team's cap no matter what the player does, http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8515941/donald-fehr-questions-nhl-offer-letter-players.
It seems to me the NHL is trying to get it's own house in order and it's screwing over the players on the side. I understand the loophole filled deals like those for Hossa, Parise, etc. aren't legit, but you're protecting GMs and Owners from their own stupidity at the players expense.
October 18th, 2012 at 9:21 AM ^
The owners initially wanted the players to take cuts down to 43% of revenue instead of 57%. 50% is right in the middle; some of the details you can claim are slanted in the league's direction but I think you're overzealous calling it a "take-all give-nothing proposal". A couple of weeks back I kept reading about how the owners wanted the NHLPA to make a proposal and they didn't. Maybe they should have made the first move.
The players seem to think that if they give ground and let the owners have more revenue that the owners must give up something in return. And I think that misses the point of contention for this lockout: the players feel entitled to a larger piece of the pie than the owners feel they should have.
October 18th, 2012 at 10:09 AM ^
See, I wanted you to give me 14%. Now I'm only asking you to give me 7%. That's still all extra going to me.
The other thing the owners are doing is saying "50%" but they want to redefine what 100% is, by changing the definition of Hockey Related Revenue. So it's not just going from 57% to 50%. It's going from 57% of "old HRR" to 50% of "new HHR", which could be way more than a 7% drop in actual dollars.
If the players are giving up $$, they should get other things back. That's what these labor relations do. The NFL got safer (ish) practice schedules, etc. as a concession for the money they aren't getting. The NHL players shouldn't give up everything unilaterally. If the owners want something, they should give something up - like raise the salary floor, or raise contract lengths, or honor all the contracts that they've already signed without retroactively stealing money from other players.
October 18th, 2012 at 5:45 PM ^
So by your argument, if a group of workers goes on strike asking for a 15% pay raise, they should have to give concessions, otherwise all extra is going to them. So, let's raise their pay 7%. What concessions are you going to ask them do give? Work longer hours? Dock their other benefits? That kinda defeats the entire purpose. It's also the reason why the players wanted to continue under the current CBA - when the situation is advantageous to one side, they obviously will want to continue the status quo. They will also have to give more ground.
As far as this particular situation, the only concessions the players want are related to money, so your comparison to the NFL is moot.
HRR redefinition is just another way the owners are trying to use to keep the salaries down. I agree that it makes the 50% number not 50%, but they're also now at least open to 'mutual agreement' on what HRR is. If, say, a major point of contention for HRR was including minor league salaries; I feel the players could at least have *tried* to bargain and work with the proposal.
October 18th, 2012 at 4:00 PM ^
Meetings over, shit's hitting the fan, this season is fucked. NHLPA came back with 3 proposals, all said to be variants of their first proposal back in August (delinking the cap from HRR I believe). Sounds like it couldn't have gone worse today as both sides are still pushing completely different cap systems.