Well, since thus is going to start filling the sports news, I figured let's have a CBA thread.

Good article here: http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/0 ... -to-floor/

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/20 ... 86141.html


Looks like it is about to get nasty.

makes sense.

Fehr's tactic of play then strike before the play offs can't be used if the owners lock out at the start of the year.

It's also going to put an abrupt halt to Fehr's stalling tactic of saying there are no deadlines we'll play under the current CBA.

I don't like this. What Bettman's saying has the sickly scent of me having to watch poker for 9 months.

Or soccer. Might switch to soccer.

Bettmen realisticly has no choice, Fehr used this ploy in MLB and then led the players into a strike just before the playoffs started. He had to kill that negotiating tactic straight off the hop.

Alan-NottsUK wrote:Bettmen realisticly has no choice, Fehr used this ploy in MLB and then led the players into a strike just before the playoffs started. He had to kill that negotiating tactic straight off the hop.

Pretty much. And hemmerlady, I too do not want to watch any more poker. That was a rough year.

From what I can gather on twitter

NHLPA proposal.

Cap stays set as it is for the next 3 years (so it will be 70.2m for the next 3 seasons)

Option for players to revert to old CBA in 4th year, (back to 57%)

Up to maybe more than $250m in revenue sharing per year, gained from the players not getting a cap increase for 3 years & stronger teams to help smaller teams.

Hard Cap with small exceptions, not a luxury tax though.

No changes to contract rules.

The way I see this going from here is as follows:

HRR %:
NHL offer 46%
NHLPA offer to hold cap as it is even if revenue increases, then return to 57% in 4th year.
Realistic compromise, cap freezes untill it is around 50-52%. 'NHLPA concession'

Contracts:
NHL wants 5 year max length, players want no limit.
Realistic compromise, anywhere between 8-10 years 'NHLPA concession'

NHL wants 5 year ELC, players didn't mention it.
Realisticly won't change 'NHL concession'

NHL wants arbitration gone, players haven't mentioned it
realisticly won't change 'NHL concession'

Revenue Sharing:
NHL don't want to change revenue sharing, players willing to freeze cap to increase it over 3 years. 'NHLPA concession'

-------------------

Things not mentioned but which will probably be involed in the deal at some point

Olympics:
League want compensation for players to play before allowing it, players just want to play.
NHL should allow it 'NHL concession'

Re-alignment:
Proposal as it was before, with the prospect of 2 expansion teams most likely Quebec and Seattle.
Realisticy won't happen unless expansion is confirmed.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/20 ... 07041.html

The Horcoff speaks. Clearly Horcoff has always been all about the fans and not collecting outrageous paycheques....

I get the feeling neither side wants the bad PR from losing games, but I think we still are very far apart.

I think Horc raises some good points though.

Really, as much as I hate to side with any people making more in a year or two than most of us will see in our lifetime (players or owners), the players are what bring in the money, and they definitely deserve the biggest cut of the share. I agree with Horcoff that the league threw out the lowball offer.. we all know that. I can see how they were insulted. I wish that the players would act on this shit a lot faster. But when you're talking about > War And Peace sized documentation going back and forth, it's going to be slow. This would have been better had the league / NHLPA started these discussions more seriously and earlier. I think they'll work this out, but at this point it's more a race against the clock and all about the process of negotiations (in my opinion) than it is about one side making ridiculous demands and sticking to their guns. I at least believe that the NHLPA just wants to make things work for both sides and come to a reasonable agreement.

If the players take 50% they are still receiving the biggest cut, opperating costs would have to be taken out of the remaining 50%, so even if they were as low as say 10% that's a split of 50-10-40.

And as a media guy pointed out, MSG has just undergone a $1b renovation, none of that came out of the players pockets, but they will benefit from increased revenue from it.

Katz is spending $250m on a new arena, how much is Horcoff kicking in?

And when you actually look at the details of the NHLPA proposal it's pretty much the same thing as the current CBA which isn't working, neither side made a realistic first proposal, the PA sugarcoated theirs very well in order to get fan/media support.

/devil's advocate.

Alan-NottsUK wrote:If the players take 50% they are still receiving the biggest cut, opperating costs would have to be taken out of the remaining 50%, so even if they were as low as say 10% that's a split of 50-10-40.

And as a media guy pointed out, MSG has just undergone a $1b renovation, none of that came out of the players pockets, but they will benefit from increased revenue from it.

Katz is spending $250m on a new arena, how much is Horcoff kicking in?

And when you actually look at the details of the NHLPA proposal it's pretty much the same thing as the current CBA which isn't working, neither side made a realistic first proposal, the PA sugarcoated theirs very well in order to get fan/media support.

/devil's advocate.

Agreed.

Also, the players gave think it would be okay for teams to share revenue to support small market teams. How generous of them.

I personally don't think to highly of either side, to be honest. But I will ask you Alan, when was the last time you bought your employers building?

Sports are different to everything else.

the renovations at MSG will greatly benefit the players, but theoreticly if the Rangers decided to they could manipulate the revenue figures to show a massive loss from renovation costs/loan which would cause HRR to drop and therefor cause the players to lose a lot of money.

I think both sides are taking the piss with proposals.

I posted what I would view as fair a little futher up. I just hope the season starts on time, I'm hoping to be over in YEG late October, and it would be good to see some hockey.

I'm now betting that the season doesn't start on time. Not because they are that far apart, per se, but because there just isn't a tonne of time to work things out. The whole process is pretty slow as is, and it will take a bunch of documents going back and forth before an agreement is made. The process to read over a proposal, reject it, and draft a counter proposal isn't exactly a speedy one. I'm wondering if we'll see a repeat of 94/95.

I still think it could start on time, 4 weeks until the CBA expires and a lockout begins.

I think Pre-season is pretty much done, the one thing I'm pretty annoyed about is that tickets are going onsale next week, even though the owners have announced they will lock the players out on Sept 15th.

They should not be allowed to put tickets on sale until there is a new CBA in place, or until they are certain the season will start on time.

The flip side of that is I should be able to get decent seats for the game against the Bolts if it happens when scheduled

Alan-NottsUK wrote:I still think it could start on time, 4 weeks until the CBA expires and a lockout begins.

I think Pre-season is pretty much done, the one thing I'm pretty annoyed about is that tickets are going onsale next week, even though the owners have announced they will lock the players out on Sept 15th.

They should not be allowed to put tickets on sale until there is a new CBA in place, or until they are certain the season will start on time.

The flip side of that is I should be able to get decent seats for the game against the Bolts if it happens when scheduled

I hope it does. The fans will be mad if it does not. There is no sympathy for either side it seems. The longer it goes, the worse off both sides are IMO.

Players are offering 54% share of revenue and NHL at 46% - obvious area of compromise

https://twitter.com/EricOnSportsLaw/sta ... 5065387008

looks like things are starting to move in the right direction if this is true, players offer 3% less than their original offer. Hopefully the NHL counter with something around 48% for the players 52% for the league

Uh oh. Not looking good. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404230

Please for the love of god, I need to see some hockey soon. I'm particularly keen to see the Yak on the big stage.

This past Saturday, Vygur (a poster here, although he doesn't post much at all) was told by an NHLer that the players were "preparing to strike"... so who knows.. they might be close to doing that now. But it's hard to say.. that doesn't necessarily mean they WILL strike. It would be pretty crappy if they did though. Like HL said, we need to see some Yak!