Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by Bogey

Regardless, the existing contracts would have been paid, so there would be no rollbacks as they keep talking about.

The PA could have negotiated off of the NHL offer to split the costs of covering the contracts.
Wouldn't that have been a good compromise, IF they really wanted to play, as they say they do?

The NHLPA declined to do that because they don't like all the other provisions either. The owners told them the "make whole" section was negotiable.

Originally Posted by D0wntime

if the NHL would say OK, we'll pay for a diminishing amount of the salaries over 50% over the next few years to get to that 50/50 split, the players would fall over themselves to sign, even if that percentage is less than the one the NHLPA proposed.

Nope. The Fehr said no to all the other stipulations also, so no signing regardless.

I think the most important part of any CBA agreement would have to be the owners being protected from each other.
We can all pretty much agree that the last CBA started off as an almost 100% win for the owners as a whole. The crafty GMs funded by owners who want to be better than 'competitive' figured out ways around the restrictions (as they most likely always will).

In my eyes these lockouts and work stoppages always seem to be the bottom half of the league going to war with 'the power pack' as someone else termed them.
We as fans are the ones that suffer.

Usually being a positive thinker, I've now come to the conclusion that I just don't give a damned what they do. This childish bickering has gone on too long. I've finally come to the sad conclusion that we won't be seeing hockey this season. Some felt that a little lay-off time would be good for the Kings, as they went so long into the playoffs. Guess those who flew the coop for other teams aren't so rested now.
Whole mess is pure BS and I'm hating them all.

Originally Posted by aragorn

The NHLPA declined to do that because they don't like all the other provisions either. The owners told them the "make whole" section was negotiable.

Everything is negotiable, and if you're Fehr the great negotiator, you know this and accept the challenge.

But, nope, Fehr is really just Goodenow Sr., stall, say the other guys is stalling, playing his games, destroying his clients careers, etc.

We've seen it all before.

Originally Posted by jt

Don't get me wrong because I agree with you in principle. But the owners want to pay less to players currently under contract for 12-13. They want to reduce it from 57% to 50% (or 52 or 54 or whatever). The players would risk getting "their own money" from 12-13 back over the next 7 (or 6 or 5 or whatever) years and it seems likely they would in fact get it back. But they might not...so that's the risk.

Call it whatever you want but going from getting paid 100% of 57% to getting paid 100% of 50%...or 88% of 57% is a rollback. If they get it back (with interest?), fine they're "made whole"...but TODAY it's a rollback.

It indeed is a rollback and the players should just suck it up and start playing already. They are getting MUCH more than when the CBA was signed AND they can basically stop playing and still get the millions.

This is basically the only chance the owners can give players pay cuts. Since the last CBA was flawed because no one could predict what would happen, they need to fix it. Balance things out. And the players need to live with it. My mother had her pay cut twice already by the government, but she's happy she still has a job AND a solid pay in these times. She isn't happy but she definitely prefers working over bitching.

Originally Posted by VF

I feel the NHLPA offer #3 was very much a negotiated derivative of the the NHL offer, and a reasonable counter offer. Obviously it had flaws as well (total elimination of escrow), but in my opinion not an offensive offer. The NHL just decided that their offer was not to be negotiated.

Maybe that was the NHL's "Last offer"...maybe this is what they are prepared to accept and nothing else (it seems like it to me). THEY are the ones running the league and THEY are the ones able to lock out the season. I'm sure this gives them the advantage to have the "last offer". And it's completely reasonable.

Anyone else find it funny how the NHL keeps tabulating the amount of "lost revenue" as they cancel games even though their argument appears to be that they are saving money by not playing which is why they need a better deal?

Originally Posted by jammer06

Anyone else find it funny how the NHL keeps tabulating the amount of "lost revenue" as they cancel games even though their argument appears to be that they are saving money by not playing which is why they need a better deal?

Well...the lost revenue goes hand in hand with saved expenses. While the teams don't have ticket revenue and other sources of revenue coming in the door (actually, they do have SOME ticket revenue but just can't book it yet), they also aren't paying player salaries and many other expenses that they otherwise would have to pay. If your revenue is $200M and your expenses are $250M, then you're losing $50M. If, by reducing your revenue to $0, you can also reduce your expenses to anything under $50M, then you're saving money even though you're losing revenue.

Originally Posted by jammer06

Anyone else find it funny how the NHL keeps tabulating the amount of "lost revenue" as they cancel games even though their argument appears to be that they are saving money by not playing which is why they need a better deal?

Yeah, last count was, what, $720M?
The players could have had $360M of that if they had just signed on the line that's dotted, as Blake (Alec Baldwin's character) from Glengarry Glen Ross said.
Instead, they get whatever lovely Europe and the AHL bring them.
Hope they're diggin' it.