Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Negotiating With The Right Intentions

from Pierre LeBrun of ESPN,

I honestly do not believe Fehr had any intention of trying to hammer out a deal this week in the face of Bettman’s Oct. 25 deadline. I think Fehr believes you can still have an 82-game season starting after Nov. 2, and I think his game plan this week, perhaps even next, is to make the NHL sweat it out a bit more. 

On the one hand, you can see how that could be a stroke of genius given how desperately most owners want to have an 82-game season -- aka 41 home dates in their coffers -- and have a deal in place ASAP. 

On the other hand, it could also lead to a nuclear war. Moderate owners who were pushing Bettman to get a deal done, pushing him to deliver that offer last week, might get so incensed with Fehr that the gloves come off and the hard-line owners will now get back in control of this ship. ...


I will say what I've said for more than a week: I do believe the league is willing to concede in some areas of the player contract demands it made. 

There are two ways to get out of this ridiculous logjam: either the league clarifies officially to the players that it does indeed have some flexibility when it comes to the rest of the framework of the deal, which I quoted Daly in my blog Tuesday saying as much; or the NHLPA drums up a new offer. 

more

Filed in: NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

Judging from the way the three NHLPA offers were received by the league last week (all dismissed within 10 minutes), why would the PA even feel it’s worth the time or effort to advance another one at this point?  Clearly the NHL demands that they get this deal made off one of their offers—so they need to be willing to negotiate off of their last offer and take it from there.

Posted by nosferatu from Albany, NY on 10/24/12 at 11:37 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Is Lebrun serious?  This is all Fehr’s tactic, to hold out and make them sweat.. foooor?  shits and giggles?  Daly and CLEARLY stated that the NHL is only willing to negotiate off of THEIR platform and have really only adjusted their offer from 43% for players to 50%.  They’ve also tried to lengthen the time before you become a free agent.  NHL hasn’t really brought anything to the table for the NHLPA to agree on.  None of us would agree on that in their shoes either.

I think the real factor isn’t trying to squeeze a full season in or making people sweat for fun.  It’s about owners honoring contracts already signed.  Players don’t want to play until that happens.  It’s not about the Fehr’s and they’re evil master plan to remove the salary cap one league at a time or their own diabolical satisfaction.. it’s about the employees wanting to get paid what the employers agreed to pay them and they aren’t going to agree on a new CBA that doesn’t garauntee these salaries.

Then you just have that pesky HRR to deal with and we’ll be set.  Of course, in the NHL’s spirit of trying to be like NBA and NFL.. maybe they should start sharing 100% of the pie and let the players share drop to 45%.. of course, if the breaks they were already getting were greater than the 10% decrease in the players half they’d have already done it.  But they want to keep those breaks of the whole pie and divide what’s left 50/50

No honor, no integrity

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/24/12 at 11:43 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

weren’t greater than the

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/24/12 at 11:46 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

HockeytownOverhaul do you have Any clue about Fehr & his Modus Operandi ?

Posted by Evilpens on 10/24/12 at 11:48 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Posted by Evilpens on 10/24/12 at 12:48 PM ET   It’s just conjecture, but I’m guessing it’s getting the players the best deal possible while making as little concessions as possible.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/24/12 at 11:53 AM ET

Avatar

I think both sides knew going into this that neither side was going to give them what they wanted without a work stoppage.

The players are dug in that they are going to get the same dollar amount they got last year.

The owners are dug in that they are not going to give the players the same dollar amount they got last year.

The primary difference is that by having a work stoppage the owners kind of get what they want anyway.  They aren’t paying the players.  And so the players get the absolute opposite of what they wanted, instead of 57% of HRR’s around 3ish B they get 100% of HRR’s equaling 0.

It bears repeating: every day that goes by hurts the NHLPA financially far, far more than it hurts the owners.  At least half of the teams lose money by playing, so not playing is actually a net positive for them.  Even the few teams that make a significant amount of money can make back the lost profits with a better CBA.

The players get nothing back, they’re going to lose more and more each day, and even if they are able to hold out for a whole year and the NHL slides up to 52 or 53% of HRR you can go right ahead and book the lockout of 2020 on your calendars right now.

None of this is going to stop until 50-50 of HRR is hit.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 12:38 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

At least half of the teams lose money by playing

Prove it.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/24/12 at 12:49 PM ET

Avatar

Prove it.

Disprove it.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 01:00 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120777206831802569.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Wall Street Journal: You still have a ways to go, right? Forbes Magazine said in November that the Caps are worth $145 million—28th out of the 30-team NHL.

Mr. Leonsis: The Forbes numbers are the biggest [expletive] joke I’ve ever seen, But we bring it upon ourselves because we don’t publish our numbers. A banker who did our numbers, based on comparables, said our value would be $225 million to $250 million.

Those numbers were calculated the exact same way back then as they are now when Ted Leonsis claimed that his team was worth $80-105M more than Forbes came up with because the numbers aren’t accurate.

Burden of proof on the person making the claim “at least half the teams lose money” is on you, pal.  Show me the books.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/24/12 at 01:11 PM ET

Avatar

Those numbers were calculated the exact same way back then as they are now when Ted Leonsis claimed that his team was worth $80-105M more than Forbes came up with because the numbers aren’t accurate.

Odd.  You may want to check what Forbes has the current value of the Caps at, then. wink

Burden of proof on the person making the claim “at least half the teams lose money” is on you, pal.  Show me the books.

That’s your problem, though.  You have a preposterously high standard for information when someone else provides it, and an incredibly low standard for information when you provide it.

The only thing you’ll believe is the actual books from the actual teams.  Heck, I bet you’d disbelieve that if what you saw there didn’t support your position.

And that’s totally fine, of course.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 01:39 PM ET

TreKronor's avatar

Prove it.
Disprove it.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 02:00 PM ET

Alright guys.  Somebody give and provide us with some hard data, compliments of Wikipedia. wink

Posted by TreKronor on 10/24/12 at 02:06 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Odd.  You may want to check what Forbes has the current value of the Caps at, then. wink

And that tells me what, exactly?  Has Ted Leonsis come around to saying that they’re accurate? Has he released the information he said he withholds which prevents them from being more accurate?

That’s your problem, though.  You have a preposterously high standard for information when someone else provides it, and an incredibly low standard for information when you provide it.

Yes, my “preposterously high standard” for burden of proof that half the NHL loses money is that you actually either bring in a shred of credible evidence or at least bring in evidence which in any way supports your claim to the existing data’s credibility.

What outrageous claims am I making that don’t meet that?  The thing about luxury boxes yesterday? I was very forthcoming with the limitations on that data. 

Heck, I bet you’d disbelieve that if what you saw there didn’t support your position.

Boy, you’re fired up today, huh?  Usually when you get flustered you simply try to insult my intelligence. The integrity thing is a fun shot though.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/24/12 at 02:27 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Gary Bettman’s a transgendered power-bottom.. burden of proof that I’m wrong is on you.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/24/12 at 02:28 PM ET

Avatar

And that tells me what, exactly? 

I have no idea.  You process information in an uneven manner that is difficult for me to forecast.

Yes, my “preposterously high standard” for burden of proof that half the NHL loses money is that you actually either bring in a shred of credible evidence

And the issue is, of course, your changing standards for what is ‘credible’.  What an econ professor says is credible.  The study done by a publication which specializes in business analysis done by a guy with an MBA is not.

-shrug-

Boy, you’re fired up today, huh?  Usually when you get flustered you simply try to insult my intelligence.

I’m curious.  What do you think is the most insulting thing I’ve said to you?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 04:52 PM ET

Avatar

Gary Bettman’s a transgendered power-bottom.. burden of proof that I’m wrong is on you.

I have no real reason to dispute your command and expertise of the subject, so I’ll let your claim stand unopposed.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 04:53 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I have no idea.  You process information in an uneven manner that is difficult for me to forecast.

So you brought it up for no purpose other than to waste time. Interesting.

And the issue is, of course, your changing standards for what is ‘credible’.  What an econ professor says is credible.  The study done by a publication which specializes in business analysis done by a guy with an MBA is not.

Listen, if you want to use the Forbes numbers as a jumping-off point for discussion, then that’s fine. I’ve constantly said that they’re the best of the incomplete information, but the part about how they’re incomplete leads to extreme confidence issues with saying things like half the league is losing money.  Do you honestly believe the Washington Capitals lose more than all but 7 teams?

As far as the econ professor thing, please get over that. It’s petty.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/24/12 at 05:13 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

I have no real reason to dispute your command and expertise of the subject, so I’ll let your claim stand unopposed.
   
    Posted by
     
    HockeyinHD
     
      on 10/24/12 at 05:53 PM ET


classic HDing.. instead of grasping how ridiculous a statement is that, you have to prove my WAG’s wrong.  IF it’s wrong, it’s YOUR problem.  That’s hilarious.

And in the spirit of my expertise, tell your mothe.. whatever.. I said hello

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/24/12 at 05:51 PM ET

Avatar

So you brought it up for no purpose other than to waste time. Interesting.

As I said, I can’t possibly anticipate what information penetrates and what you choose to ignore.  All I can do is mention things now and then and see which synapses fire and which ones stay dark.

Listen, if you want to use the Forbes numbers as a jumping-off point for discussion, then that’s fine. I’ve constantly said that they’re the best of the incomplete information,

Could you do me a favor and point out a single time you’ve actually said that?  I am not recalling one off the top of my head.

As far as the econ professor thing, please get over that. It’s petty.

What strikes you as petty about it, exactly?  I’m merely citing a couple recent examples where you’ve chosen to give one source far more credence than another.  I have no idea why you did that (although I suspect the degree to which either source agreed with your predispositions played a not-insignificant role), but it did, in fact, happen.

instead of grasping how ridiculous a statement is that, you have to prove my WAG’s wrong.  IF it’s wrong, it’s YOUR problem.  That’s hilarious.

I’m not entirely certain that comment actually translates into English.  Could you take another run at saying… whatever it is you think you’re saying?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 07:59 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I am not recalling one off the top of my head.

I said it earlier today.

I’m merely citing a couple recent examples where you’ve chosen to give one source far more credence than another.

For one, those were drastically different conversations. For two, it’s absolutely no different than you calling him an idiot while putting absolute faith in numbers that nobody will sign off on.

So the reality is just that I disagree with you.  The difference (again) is that I’m not making absolute claims one way or another based on these discussions and you are.  Your continued insistence that the only thing which gives a person a right to cynicism in the face of what you want to believe and the rhetoric you want to present is knowing the absolute truth is as silly as when you said it’s not “strictly speaking” a lockout, despite what’s going on fitting the strictest possible definition of what that word means.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/24/12 at 09:09 PM ET

Avatar

I said it earlier today.

Uh-huh.  Did you have a thread or a post in mind?  I’m guessing that we’re going to discover “I’ve constantly said that they’re the best of the incomplete information,” with regards to Forbes means you may have may one kinda-sorta lean in that direction at some point.

After giving the information no weight at all for days and days.

For one, those were drastically different conversations.

Oh good grief, JJ.  Really?

For two, it’s absolutely no different than you calling him an idiot while putting absolute faith in numbers that nobody will sign off on.

You’re JJ-ing again.  Actually, since you’re doing a triple JJ this is a bit new, but it’s still the same old tactic.  1) I don’t believe I called the guy an idiot.  2) I’m absolutely sure I’ve never said I have absolute faith in the Forbes numbers.  3) I’m sure at least one guy with an MBA will sign off on them.  Like, the guy who wrote the story.

The difference (again) is that I’m not making absolute claims one way or another based on these discussions and you are.

Sure you are.  You absolutely dismiss the Forbes information as meaningless because it is incomplete.  And because it disagrees with your position.  You absolutely support the opinion of an econ professor from Alberta despite the incompleteness of his opinion.  Because it agrees with your position.

Your continued insistence that the only thing which gives a person a right to cynicism in the face of what you want to believe and the rhetoric you want to present is knowing the absolute truth

That’s an odd assertion from the guy who disbelieves things which aren’t gold star certified.  Well, some things anyway.

As I have said before, it’s completely fine to be biased or to choose what one wishes to believe or not.  Happens every day.  I certainly have no expectations that the majority of posters here who see the NHLPA as an abused spouse are ever going to change their minds about it.

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/25/12 at 04:48 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Sure you are.  You absolutely dismiss the Forbes information as meaningless because it is incomplete.

Where did I say meaningless?  Where did I absolutely dismiss them?  I absolutely dismissed your claim about half the NHL losing money. You’re arguing against something I’m not doing.

Here you are doing it again.

You absolutely support the opinion of an econ professor from Alberta

I was absolutely not supporting your position in that argument, but that doesn’t mean I absolutely supported his.  You’re making things much more black-and-white than they need to be to sow more drama into the situation than there is. Like I said, petty.

That’s an odd assertion from the guy who disbelieves things which aren’t gold star certified.  Well, some things anyway.

Argue against the point by using the same argument. The assertion is right on.

As I have said before, it’s completely fine to be biased or to choose what one wishes to believe or not

As long as people’s biases follow the same ones that you hold and their beliefs follow the same as yours, you’re completely fine. When somebody chooses differently, it’s still objectively completely fine, just not with you.

Again, do you really believe that the Capitals lose more than all but 7 teams?

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/25/12 at 07:06 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com