Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Some Late Night CBA Talk

This from Adrain Dater via sulia,

NHLPA players told on conference call today that...

...while the talks were long yesterday, nobody can really say for sure if there was " real progress" or not until further talks are held and more specifics are discussed. Steve Fehr's and Bill Daly's talks yesterday were very general. While there IS an uptick in overall optimism, right now that can only be truly classified as slight until the details get more into the nitty-gritty.

And this from David Shoalts of the Globe and Mail,

The NHL owners and players may be back at the bargaining table, with the major issue of a 50-50 revenue split complete with fully paying existing contracts in sight, but trouble looms from a couple of surprising groups on each side of the labour divide.

At issue are two changes from the former collective agreement in what goes into the salary cap, in particular the payroll floor. In his last offer, before the previous round of talks broke off on Oct. 18, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said teams would no longer be allowed to count player bonus money on their payroll in order to get to the floor. He also proposed all player salaries above $105,000 (all currency U.S.), even those on a team’s minor-league roster, would now be included under the salary cap.

This alarmed two groups. One is a lot of NHL owners, many of whom were considered moderates, who are not happy that under this proposal they could no longer include on their payroll bonus money that would likely never be paid in order to get to the salary floor, which was $48.3-million in the 2011-12 season. This means they will have to pay real cash to get to the floor, a daunting prospect for clubs operating on razor-thin margins.

The other unhappy group is all of the players in the AHL, who would effectively see their salaries capped at $105,000 under Bettman’s offer.

continued

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

Comments

DrewBehr's avatar

Wait… Since when can Bettman control AHL contracts? As far as I know, they are still playing games right now.

This is getting, forgive my terminology, but absolutely retarded.

Posted by DrewBehr from The Mitten on 11/04/12 at 11:42 PM ET

Avatar

Well, he can’t technically control AHL contracts, but he can basically penalize owners for giving higher contracts to those players.  It’s some potentially shady business, and I’m curious as to how much this might bother the PA.

Posted by nosferatu from Albany, NY on 11/05/12 at 02:54 AM ET

Avatar

Call this the “Redden Rule’ if you will.  This rule prevents teams from stashing their wildly overpaid disasters on their AHL affiliate and dodging the cap hit.

I think going all the way down to 105k is a bit much, but I wouldn’t think dropping the number to 300-500k would be that big of a deal, really.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 06:11 AM ET

Avatar

Whoops.  Premature submitation.

Anyway, I’m not sure how the NHLPA would view this rule.  On the one hand it would protect their players from getting humiliated by being sent down to play in the AHL when they fail to meet their contract value.  It would, instead, make buyouts more popular and reasonable.

On the other hand, a team that dodges a cap hit by sending a guy down is doing so because they want to spend more money on somebody else.  So, theoretically, by forcing a team to keep an overpaid guy up this rule ‘reduces’ the amount an NHL team is able to spend on player salaries.

Given the escrow rule and how players share is calculated this doesn’t actually impact the amount of money players as a group receive, but also given how spectacularly stupid the NHLPA is regarding escrow it’s hard to anticipate whether their opinion on this related issue will be intelligent, or stupid beyond words like it is on the main one.

Lastly, I am still waiting to see the NHLPA offer to give up something.  Anything.  To date their strategy has been to propose a series of deals in which they continue to get everything they already have, just getting more in the future at a slower rate than they’ve gotten more in the past 6 years.

This has been moderately effective since the NHL has gone from a 43% initial offer to 50-50, to then eating some up front cash on the 50-50 to smooth salary losses in the short term.  At some point, though, the NHLPA should probably consider they’re going to have to negotiate on something.  Eventually.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 06:22 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

I am in agreement on counting players in the AHL (or anywhere they are being paid an NHL contract that is guaranteed) on one-way contracts. Not on two-way deals, though. That’s absurd.

Lastly, I am still waiting to see the NHLPA offer to give up something.  Anything.  To date their strategy has been to propose a series of deals in which they continue to get everything they already have, just getting more in the future at a slower rate than they’ve gotten more in the past 6 years.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 06:22 AM ET

The funny thing is, you want the PA to give up something more, but in reality, the offers to slow their rate are the only true concessions either side has offered in this. The owners locked out the players. The definition of “concession” comes from the previous standard, not some arbitrary perception that is based on your individual point of view. The NHL moving from wanting 57% to 50% is not a concession, when in the previous standard they had 43%. They are still the big winners. The players would be the ones making massive concessions to accept a 50% split.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/05/12 at 07:49 AM ET

Avatar

The funny thing is, you want the PA to give up something more, but in reality, the offers to slow their rate are the only true concessions either side has offered in this.

‘True concessions’ is a rather loaded term.  For example:

The NHL moving from wanting 57% to 50% is not a concession, when in the previous standard they had 43%.

The problem I have with your shaded definition of the term is that it makes the word ‘concession’ effectively meaningless.  I think it’s a concession when you start at one point and move to a point closer to the other side.  You are conceding ground previously desired.

Again, a previous agreement is often characterized as a starting point.  In general terms that’s accurate because it comprises a list of areas of common ground between the parties at some previous time.  In real terms, however, a former agreement is completely irrelevant with regards to what should be accepted as ‘givens’ in a current negotiation.

Everything is on the table and everything starts from zero.

Further, if going from 43 to 50+ isn’t a concession I have a hard time seeing how the same logical construct could allow one to conclude ‘getting more, but slower’ is.

They are still the big winners. The players would be the ones making massive concessions to accept a 50% split.

Massive?  We’re talking about a 10ish% decrease in the cap.  Massive overstates that by quite a bit.  At max contract level we’re looking at 11.8 mil instead of 12.4 mil.  At min contract level we’re looking at 770k instead of 850k.

And again, assuming even mediocre growth levels of 3-5% these ‘concessions’ disappear in real terms within 5 years at the absolute most.  A lost season is a significantly larger ‘concession’ with regards to player salary than even a flat and immediate 50-50 split for 6 years would be, and the NHLPA appears to have very little compunction to ‘concede’ that amount of revenue.

If 50-50 resulted in such a ‘massive’ impact I would assume that the NHLPA would hesitate to inflict upon themselves an even greater financial loss in the chase to avoid it.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 08:20 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I think it’s a concession when you start at one point and move to a point closer to the other side.  You are conceding ground previously desired.

When your starting point is as unrealistic as it is insulting, so as to be the original “set-point” by which you try to define serious bids as concessionary, you are not conceding any ground at all because it’s not realistic. If you start off a negotiation session for carrier rights with a whole set of realistic expectations and then throw in the “Oh and also I get one night with your wife”, then eliminating that demand from the final contract is not a true concession.

And again, assuming even mediocre growth levels of 3-5% these ‘concessions’ disappear in real terms within 5 years at the absolute most.

Oh, so the owners will be making less money after 5 years?

It’s a strange position in which the previous construct of the entire economic framework of the NHL somehow isn’t relevant to the discussion, a mildly favorable comparison to an unrealistic negotiating point (which should be called a “ploy” rather) is considered a concession, and an agreement to slow earnings over an agreed period of growth is not considered a concession.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/05/12 at 08:52 AM ET

Avatar

So in other words, if the NHLPA would have asked for 63% of revenue, then 57% would have been a concession.  Everything starts from zero except 43% which is arbitrary. Every other options laid out has reduced players ability to achieve free agency, lengthen the term and reduce the cost on entry level contracts etc.  Tell me one thing in the expired CBA that the owners have given up. Just one.  I hope I never understand this type of logic. I don’t even think the discussion is rational anymore.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 09:21 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Since everything in “real terms” starts from zero, I would like to commend the NHLPA for making the following concessions without even having to go through the first insulting step:

A salary cap
Player compensation (salary and benefits) tied to revenues in a cost-certainty model
Restricted free agency
Entry-level contracts
The Draft
The ability to trade contracts
Player assignment to alternate “development” leagues.
Supplemental discipline
Contract maximums
Less than 100% of revenues
Zero percent of revenues from owners’ other businesses which earn money based on showing their products.
The right to negotiate television deals for themselves.
The usage of their faces/names in promotions.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/05/12 at 09:29 AM ET

Avatar

When your starting point is as unrealistic as it is insulting, so as to be the original “set-point” by which you try to define serious bids as concessionary, you are not conceding any ground at all because it’s not realistic

Enh.  Their starting point was equidistant from 50-50 compared to the NHLPA’s starting position.  Characterizing one starting point as ‘unrealistic and insulting’ while shrugging at the other seems a bit inconsistent.

Oh, so the owners will be making less money after 5 years?

You may want to run that one past me again, JJ.

It’s a strange position in which the previous construct of the entire economic framework of the NHL somehow isn’t relevant to the discussion, a mildly favorable comparison to an unrealistic negotiating point (which should be called a “ploy” rather) is considered a concession, and an agreement to slow earnings over an agreed period of growth is not considered a concession.

You appear to have JJ’d again.  I have not said the NHL’s offer of a reduction of growth is not a concession.

So in other words, if the NHLPA would have asked for 63% of revenue, then 57% would have been a concession.  Everything starts from zero except 43% which is arbitrary. Every other options laid out has reduced players ability to achieve free agency, lengthen the term and reduce the cost on entry level contracts etc.  Tell me one thing in the expired CBA that the owners have given up. Just one.  I hope I never understand this type of logic. I don’t even think the discussion is rational anymore.

The NHLPA would have been perfectly justified in asking for whatever they wanted to ask for.  As was the NHL.  That’s how negotiations work in the real world.  Buy a house, buy a used car… heck, buy a new car.  There are people who just pay the sticker and stumble off, and there are people who press for the best deal possible.  You always want to make your first offer low enough so that you’re fairly sure there’s no way they’d take it.  That’s how you make sure you aren’t leaving money on the table by negotiating against yourself.

As an aside, I’m not disagreeing with the idea that the NHL’s initial offer was bombastic, to say the least.  What I’m saying is that offers like that are SOP in big money negotiations.  Where the NHLPA screwed up (and where they are continually screwing up) is in allowing stuff like that to piss them off and make the whole deal personal.  Now they appear to be negotiating as much out of a need to stroke their grudge against Bettman as they are trying to get a fair deal.

Since everything in “real terms” starts from zero, I would like to commend the NHLPA for making the following concessions without even having to go through the first insulting step:

Eyeroll.

“Again, a previous agreement is often characterized as a starting point.  In general terms that’s accurate because it comprises a list of areas of common ground between the parties at some previous time.  In real terms, however, a former agreement is completely irrelevant with regards to what should be accepted as ‘givens’ in a current negotiation.”

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 10:07 AM ET

Avatar

a previous agreement is often characterized as a starting point

So the owners are asking the players to concede from 57% to 50%. This is NOT an owner concession.

I have not said the NHL’s offer of a reduction of growth is not a concession

Double negatives aside, are you conceding that the owners have NOT conceded anything either?

Where the NHLPA screwed up (and where they are continually screwing up) is in allowing stuff like that to piss them off and make the whole deal personal.

Please site one instance where Donal Fehr has made this personal or appears pissed off?  Players mouth off, owners are under order of million dollar fines to not speak. And if Bettman’s head is shaking harder than a Chihuahua bobblehead in the back of an El Camino isn’t a sign that he’s taking it personnal, then ask Jimmy “the Rancher” Devellano who’s teet he’s milking this morning.

however, a former agreement is completely irrelevant with regards to what should be accepted as ‘givens’ in a current negotiation.”

And therefore as stated previously all of the following should now be on the table from the player perspective:

Entry-level contracts
The Draft
The ability to trade contracts
Player assignment to alternate “development” leagues.
Supplemental discipline
Contract maximums
Less than 100% of revenues
Zero percent of revenues from owners’ other businesses which earn money based on showing their products.
The right to negotiate television deals for themselves.
The usage of their faces/names in promotions

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 10:14 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Characterizing one starting point as ‘unrealistic and insulting’ while shrugging at the other seems a bit inconsistent.

Except one starting point (the one based on the last CBA) is actually realistic because it happened.  Reality is my consistent.

You may want to run that one past me again, JJ.

The player concessions have not disappeared. The owners have made significantly more “real” dollars in those five years and will continue to make more “real” dollars than off the players’ starting point.

  Where the NHLPA screwed up (and where they are continually screwing up) is in allowing stuff like that to piss them off and make the whole deal personal.

Please site one instance where Donal Fehr has made this personal or appears pissed off?  Players mouth off, owners are under order of million dollar fines to not speak. And if Bettman’s head is shaking harder than a Chihuahua bobblehead in the back of an El Camino isn’t a sign that he’s taking it personnal, then ask Jimmy “the Rancher” Devellano who’s teet he’s milking this morning.

I just wanted to repeat this for agreement.

There is not a single thing the league has offered which makes things better for the players than they had it with the last CBA (the one that it took a year of lost hockey to get which created a cost-certainty system that the NHL championed as the best-possible solution).

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/05/12 at 10:31 AM ET

Avatar

What I’m saying is that offers like that are SOP in big money negotiations.

If you don’t want the deal to get done. If I go into a teaming agreement negoatiation and offer someone 1% workshare and they are supposed to provide full BD share for the proposal, then that negotiation ends on the spot. Both sides go looking for a new partner since there is no need to waste each other’s time.  If it is the SOP and both sides know it, then they are wasting each other’s time. Bettman and Fehr have done this before, neither is going to be rushed into submission.

This is a little different since they have no other partners, but when you know who you HAVE to make a deal with, it is even more preposterous to take such a hard line stance. You make a pitch like that if only to ensure a deal is not going to happen any time soon and no other reason.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 11:15 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

H1919, nailed it.

HD, actually agreed with your first point even though some good points were made int he opening comments here.

Whoops.  Premature submitation.

You’re just gonna sof-ball’em in like that huh?


I do think they should up the 105k to 500k.  500k still isn’t the disastrous mistake the Redden/Huet deals were and doesn’t cap AHLers earnings past what it’d have been without anyways.  And teams should definitely pony up for shitty contracts and accept responsibility and deal with it.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/05/12 at 11:53 AM ET

Avatar

If you are going to impose a “cap” on the AHL it should begin on deals above the NHL minimum and not $105k. That means a team still gets killed for ridiculous fat contracts where you overpaid, but allows a team to take a chance on third and fourth liners that may only have a three year career. Those bubble players are legitimately being sent up and down and not being buried to hide cap dollars.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 12:11 PM ET

Avatar

There are people who just pay the sticker and stumble off, and there are people who press for the best deal possible.

And then there’s the NHL, who want the PA to pay sticker price, so their starting point is 7% higher than the sticker.  Then when they go “Oh, well ok, how about sticker price”, that’s supposed to be a concession?

Posted by Garth on 11/05/12 at 12:16 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If you are going to impose a “cap” on the AHL it should begin on deals above the NHL minimum and not $105k. That means a team still gets killed for ridiculous fat contracts where you overpaid, but allows a team to take a chance on third and fourth liners that may only have a three year career. Those bubble players are legitimately being sent up and down and not being buried to hide cap dollars.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 12:11 PM ET

I’d go so far as to say that anybody getting paid 2x the league minimum or less should not count against the cap if he gets sent down. Not many teams are hiding $1.1M guys in the AHL; they’re mostly going down to get a spot to play because they aren’t good enough for the NHL.  Although any amount above league minimum still counting against the cap would also be a good solution for me, I think that it does end up counting guys against the cap who aren’t exactly “hidden” in the AHL because of their salaries.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/05/12 at 12:28 PM ET

Avatar

And then there’s the NHL, who want the PA to pay sticker price, so their starting point is 7% higher than the sticker.

The initial offer was more like a dealer offering to sell Hyundai’s for $1,000,000, hoping some sucker will come in off the street and pay $50k thinking they got a deal.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 12:33 PM ET

Avatar

Although any amount above league minimum still counting against the cap would also be a good solution for me, I think that it does end up counting guys against the cap who aren’t exactly “hidden” in the AHL because of their salaries.

That’s where I was going with this to some extent, it isn’t all or nothing. The league minimum is taken off the top of the contract when sent to the minors, the rest is charged against the NHL cap. It would still artificially cap deals, but at least at a more reasonable rate. 

 

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 12:38 PM ET

Avatar

So the owners are asking the players to concede from 57% to 50%. This is NOT an owner concession.

The owners initial offer was 43.  They have moved to 50.  Slightly above that depending on how the ‘make whole’ stupidity is figured out.  This is being characterized as a non-concession.

The NHLPA’s initial offer was 57.  They have moved, sort of, to a position where it is conceivable that some day they might end up at 50-50, although based on my understanding of the offers, not really and certainly not in terms of real dollars.  This is being characterized as a concession.

My position is that if one (Nathan specifically as he was the one I replied to, but the general principle applies broadly) is going to characterize the owners movement to date as a non-concession, one should characterize the NHLPA’s behavior similarly.

IMO both sides in this specific area have made ‘concessions’, although I would posit that the NHL has conceded far further from their initial ask than the NHLPA has.

Please site one instance where Donal Fehr has made this personal or appears pissed off?

This requires two statements of fact and a connection between them in order to reach that conclusion:

!) There have been numerous instances where Fehr has said ‘I work for the players’.  If you want to source troll me I’m sure I can find one or two fairly easily… but come on.  If you’ve heard him speak, you’ve heard him say it.

2) The people Fehr says he works for are incredibly pissed off at Bettman.  We know this because a boatload of quoted and non-quoted but sourced stuff tells us this.

So, if Fehr is telling the truth when he says he works for the players and the players are telling the truth when they talk about how much they dislike Bettman and have anger towards him… there you go.

And therefore as stated previously all of the following should now be on the table from the player perspective:

““Again, a previous agreement is often characterized as a starting point.  In general terms that’s accurate because it comprises a list of areas of common ground between the parties at some previous time.  In real terms, however, a former agreement is completely irrelevant with regards to what should be accepted as ‘givens’ in a current negotiation.”

f you don’t want the deal to get done. If I go into a teaming agreement negoatiation and offer someone 1% workshare and they are supposed to provide full BD share for the proposal, then that negotiation ends on the spot.

You are attempting to use a ridiculously extreme example to disprove an incredibly common sense business practice.

If the NHL started at 46 instead of 43 and then moved to 50… would that have been any better or different?  Of course not.  What is tripping you up here is that you can;t get your mind off of the 43 opening offer.  Look, if you’re making a big purchase and it’s a negotiated transaction, if you are the purchaser your first offer determines the trajectory of the final deal.

Is someone is asking for 200k for their house and you come in and offer 175k because you think that’s a fair price… unless you are going to sit on that 175k offer and walk away from the deal if they don’t drop you are setting an environment up where the final number will be more than 175k, ergo more than what you think is fair.

So, what usually happens is capable negotiators make sure their first offer is less than what they would consider a fair price for the asset, the idea being that through the process of negotiation when the dust settles the final price is right in the range where they think is ‘fair’.

So assuming for the minute the NHL wanted to get to 50-50 (which at this point I mean, duh… obviously), if the NHLPA was starting at 57 (and they were)... golly gee.

Wherever could the NHL start in order to frame their end target (50-50) as a fairly likely outcome of the negotiation process?  57 is 7 more than 50.  What number is 7 less than 50?  Oh hai number 43.

Nobody has ever accused the NHL or Bettman of a surfeit of subtlety.

This is a little different since they have no other partners, but when you know who you HAVE to make a deal with, it is even more preposterous to take such a hard line stance.

I don;t think ‘hard line stance’ means what you think it means.  If we were here three months later and the NHL was still sitting on 43%... that’s a hard line stance.  They moved off of 43% almost immediately, IIRC.  Their next offer was 46%, right?  And then the one after that was 48ish?  And then this last one was 50-50.

NOW they are taking a ‘hard line stance’... because they are at the number they aren’t willing to budge past.  Maybe a tiny bit of budging, but not much.

You’re just gonna sof-ball’em in like that huh?

I know my audience. wink

And teams should definitely pony up for shitty contracts and accept responsibility and deal with it.

The last CBA was garbage.  It was awfully written and showed an astonishing lack of sense or awareness regarding either the present or the future of the league.  Bettman should have been fired for it immediately, it was so bad.  As soon as GMs started driving 16 year contract Mack Trucks through it, Bettman should have been fired and jailed.  After GMs started floating Redden and Huet-sized barges through it he should have been fired, jailed, and force-streamed an endless loop of ‘Honey Booboo’ or whatever that show with those morons is called.

It was a shining beacon of Pure Dumb (tm) that I don’t believe I’ll ever see equaled in pro sports business.

And then there’s the NHL, who want the PA to pay sticker price, so their starting point is 7% higher than the sticker.  Then when they go “Oh, well ok, how about sticker price”, that’s supposed to be a concession?

Yeah… you lost me there.

That’s where I was going with this to some extent, it isn’t all or nothing. The league minimum is taken off the top of the contract when sent to the minors, the rest is charged against the NHL cap. It would still artificially cap deals, but at least at a more reasonable rate.

It’s almost like the league is starting low with the understanding that they’ll get negotiated up to the point they’re planning on settling at, eh?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 01:06 PM ET

Avatar

It’s almost like the league is starting low with the understanding that they’ll get negotiated up to the point they’re planning on settling at, eh?

The difference is I start from a position of reasonableness and can explain how what I am asking makes sense to both parties.

The owners initial offer was 43.  They have moved to 50

A concession is moving from something you HAVE to something that is agreeable. A concession is not asking for something you have no hope of getting and then saying you are conceding something you never had in the first place. You are hung up on the idea that 43% ever existed a realm of reality outside of the owner’s pipe dreams.

You are attempting to use a ridiculously extreme example ..... If we were here three months later and the NHL was still sitting on 43%... that’s a hard line stance.

You said yourself that the 43% was an extreme position to start with. Can we agree that 3 months and counting were wasted in at least some small part by the NHL insistence to start from the 43% premise?  A hard line stance, for example, ” is we will read your proposals for 15 minutes and then dismiss them since they are not based on our proposal”. Pre-conditions to a negotiation is pretty SOP for maintaining a hard line as well.

two statements of fact and a connection between them in order to reach that conclusion:

Or a leap in logic. The players may be frustrated, impatient, angry, feeling betrayed and many other things, but their representative is not. He works for the players, but he doesn’t have to share in their emotional state.  Fehr has been through this before and why in the end he makes the deal for the players and not the other way around.

The last CBA was garbage

.

Depending on who you ask. I’m sure plenty of the large markets loved the large loopholes and the agents did too.  And if Gary just works for the owners, then he just did what they wanted so no need to fire him for fulfilling their wishes. I didn’t see many GMs fired after making these deals and many of the worst were negotiated in principle by the owners themselves - see DiPietro, Rick and Wang, Charles, with a sign off by the GM.  There are a million things I hated about the last CBA, principally the cap and no strong revenue sharing agreement, but that is propably what others thought was great at the time.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 01:30 PM ET

Avatar

My position is that if one (Nathan specifically as he was the one I replied to, but the general principle applies broadly) is going to characterize the owners movement to date as a non-concession, one should characterize the NHLPA’s behavior similarly.

Except that the PA is making an ACTUAL concession.  In any of their proposals the PA is taking home a smaller percentage of the HRR.  In every one of the league’s proposal, they will be taking home a larger percentage of the HRR.

The owners have not made a single concession, because in any of their proposals, they are GAINING something from the last CBA and proposing that the PA loses something from the last CBA.

The league is asking the players to make several concessions, including but not limited to a smaller percentage of HRR, shorter terms on contracts and a longer period before reaching UFA status.  The league is not proposing that the league make ANY concessions, nor have they yet accepted the PA’s proposal to even soften some of the concessions that the league wants the PA to make.

Yeah… you lost me there.

Not surprising.

Posted by Garth on 11/05/12 at 02:07 PM ET

Avatar

Except that the PA is making an ACTUAL concession.

“The problem I have with your shaded definition of the term is that it makes the word ‘concession’ effectively meaningless.  I think it’s a concession when you start at one point and move to a point closer to the other side.  You are conceding ground previously desired.”

The owners have not made a single concession, because in any of their proposals, they are GAINING something from the last CBA and proposing that the PA loses something from the last CBA.

So to clarify, if the NHLPA takes a lower % but a greater dollar amount since they could have made more, they took a pay cut… but if the NHL starts at 43% and moves to 50+% since they started paying 57% that’s not a concession even though they are taking less than they could have taken had they sat firmly on any of three previous offers.

Riiiiiight.

Not surprising.

I wasn’t surprised either.  Your analogies have a tendency to fall off the table, roll out the door, wobble into the street, and then get hit by a car.

The difference is I start from a position of reasonableness and can explain how what I am asking makes sense to both parties.

And then a skilled negotiator eats your lunch.  You always start low to end where you want to be.  At no point in this negotiation was Fehr worried about a ‘fair deal’.  He is trying to get the best deal possible for the NHLPA. 

As he should be.  That’s his job.  He’s not a Federally Appointed Arbitrator.

The stuff you are talking about is what Arbitrators do, not negotiators.  Totally different priorities.

A concession is moving from something you HAVE to something that is agreeable.

Wrong.  A concession is moving from a point A to a point B which is closer to the position of the other party involved.  You may think point A was a horsebleep place to start, but moving closer from it (three times now) does qualify as a concession.

You are hung up on the idea that 43% ever existed a realm of reality outside of the owner’s pipe dreams.

“So, what usually happens is capable negotiators make sure their first offer is less than what they would consider a fair price for the asset, the idea being that through the process of negotiation when the dust settles the final price is right in the range where they think is ‘fair’.”

A hard line stance, for example, ” is we will read your proposals for 15 minutes and then dismiss them since they are not based on our proposal”.

“If we were here three months later and the NHL was still sitting on 43%... that’s a hard line stance.  They moved off of 43% almost immediately, IIRC.  Their next offer was 46%, right?  And then the one after that was 48ish?  And then this last one was 50-50.

NOW they are taking a ‘hard line stance’... because they are at the number they aren’t willing to budge past.  Maybe a tiny bit of budging, but not much.”

The players may be frustrated, impatient, angry, feeling betrayed and many other things, but their representative is not. He works for the players, but he doesn’t have to share in their emotional state.

I did not say Fehr, himself, was angry.  I said that the players are angry and have made this issue personal, and since Fehr works for them and allegedly follows their instructions will refuse deals based on the say so of the players, who are making the decisions in a state of anger.

Depending on who you ask.

No.  Wrong.  If the last CBA was fine, the NHL wouldn’t want a different one now and Bettman wouldn’t be trying to close up all the loopholes in it now.

I am sure the CBA worked out for some people.  Every deal always does.  However, there are very very few people who you will ever read commenting on the last CBA who thought it was a good deal.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 03:06 PM ET

Avatar

I did not say Fehr, himself, was angry.  I said that the players are angry and have made this issue personal

 

Where the NHLPA screwed up (and where they are continually screwing up) is in allowing stuff like that to piss them off and make the whole deal personal.

Everyone can read what you said. Fehr is the head of the NHLPA he is the only one that officially acts or speaks for the NHLPA. Not once has the NHLPA as an abstract entity represented by Fehr said anything personal.

Depending on who you ask. No.  Wrong.  ...... I am sure the CBA worked out for some people

Thank you for contradicting yourself. So for the people it worked out for, they would not agree it was a good deal?

what Arbitrators do, not negotiators.  Totally different priorities

No, negotiators go to arbitrators to get a deal done, which is exactly what the objective of both sides should be. If negotiating in good faith. I get deals done because the other side knows I am not there to screw them. That allows each subsequent deal to be easier to negotiate and we work on growing our business in concert, not trying to undercut each other. See they don’t need to eat my lunch, we can both afford dinner.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/05/12 at 03:24 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The last CBA was garbage.  It was awfully written and showed an astonishing lack of sense or awareness regarding either the present or the future of the league.  Bettman should have been fired for it immediately, it was so bad.  As soon as GMs started driving 16 year contract Mack Trucks through it, Bettman should have been fired and jailed.  After GMs started floating Redden and Huet-sized barges through it he should have been fired, jailed, and force-streamed an endless loop of ‘Honey Booboo’ or whatever that show with those morons is called.

I think that for somebody who’s spent the last several days accusing others of being “overwrought”, using hyperbole, and simply overstating things, this is a great example of “do as I say, not as I do.”

“16 year contract Mack Trucks”?

I might be misreading Capgeek, but could you please point me to the 16-year contract(s) you’re seeing there?

A *GARBAGE* CBA which spent seven years guaranteeing that the biggest expense a hockey team has became a certain cost that was indexed by their revenues?

One that should have led to the lead negotiator (not the author of the contract mind you) to be fired, jailed, and tortured for how absolutely horrible it was?

Come on now, HiHD. That’s pretty overwrought.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/05/12 at 03:28 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/05/12 at 03:06 PM ET

More arguing for the sake of arguing.  More page-long posts intended to do nothing more than piss people off, egg them on, and muddy the waters enough that you don’t have to admit to being “wrong.”  It’s extremely sad that you commit so much time to stirring up pointless controversy.  How little joy there must be in your life that this is worth so much of your time.

 

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 11/05/12 at 03:36 PM ET

Avatar

Your analogies have a tendency to fall off the table, roll out the door, wobble into the street, and then get hit by a car.

Hey, cool.  You’ve gone from quoting my comments and arguing against things I didn’t say to admitting that you’re not bright enough to follow my comments.

That’s quite a concession you’ve made.

Posted by Garth on 11/05/12 at 06:10 PM ET

Avatar

Everyone can read what you said.

I agree.  I disagree that people can read what I said and understand it.  I suspect this is true because people are reading what I said and not understanding it.  Whether that’s accidental or intentional I don’t know, but rather than waste a whole ton of time I’ll just restate what I’ve already said about the issue rather than trying to come up with a bunch of novel ways to pierce a veil of confusion that some people may be generating a-purpose.

No, negotiators go to arbitrators to get a deal done, which is exactly what the objective of both sides should be.

Negotiators = Best possible deal for their side without regard or respect to fairness.
Arbitrator = An equitable compromise between two sides.

The process of negotiation often leads to a deal in the general vicinity of what an Arbitrator might propose, but that’s not and should never be the motivation of a negotiator going in.  If one side is going to give up something significant and not ask anything in return, a negotiator jumps on it and takes it even though ideally he knows it’s not a ‘fair trade’.

Come on now, HiHD. That’s pretty overwrought.

Alas.  Let us all sing a dirge to the passing of the new JJ, the guy who wasn’t going to get personal and make posts all about me anymore. wink

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 11/05/12 at 03:36 PM ET

Eyeroll.

You need to get a thicker skin, Lizzie.  I don’t argue to argue I argue because I disagree.  If me disagreeing with you chafes your hide, then put me on ignore and read someone else.  I’m pretty sure I won’t notice.

That’s quite a concession you’ve made.

You’ve got… quite an imagination there, Garth.  Very active.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/06/12 at 04:04 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

the guy who wasn’t going to get personal and make posts all about me anymore.

Your personality is the limit, but your writing style is fair game. As far as the rhetoric being used, it makes it harder to take your writing seriously when you tell others that they’re blowing things out of proportion or adding a bit too much emotion and then doing the same thing.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/06/12 at 08:03 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