Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Two Sides May Be Getting Closer To Make Whole Provision

 

added 6:41pm, via Darren Dreger of TSN,

The league amended a proposal made last month to shift the cost of the NHL designed 'make whole' provision from the players share over to the owners side.

The concept of "Make Whole" is a protection plan to cover player salary reduction in dropping the players revenue share from 57% to 50% in year 1 of a new CBA.

The NHL proposal included a deferred payment system which the league is also willing to reconsider when negotiations resume.

This move by the owners is considered a significant concession.

The two sides are expected to meet no later than early next week.

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

Comments

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

I like how they agree to make this concession immediately AFTER they cancel the Winter Classic a full month before they really needed to.

But it’s def a step in the right direction, I’ll give them that.  But why decide this hours after cancelling the WC knowing it’s one of the huge points of contention for the NHLPA?

Take it where you can get it I guess.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/02/12 at 06:36 PM ET

Avatar

But why decide this hours after cancelling the WC knowing it’s one of the huge points of contention for the NHLPA?

Someone on Bleacher Report posted an interesting thought on this. They said that because the WC would be an inter-conference matchup and not an intra-conference matchup it doesn’t match the shortened schedule they used in 94-95. Where all contests were either East-East or West-West.

Perhaps they are planning for a shortened season of all intra-conference contests.
I don’t know but it is food for thought

Posted by Pulsar93 on 11/02/12 at 07:01 PM ET

SYF's avatar

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Someone on Bleacher Report posted an interesting thought on this. They said that because the WC would be an inter-conference matchup and not an intra-conference matchup it doesn’t match the shortened schedule they used in 94-95. Where all contests were either East-East or West-West.

Perhaps they are planning for a shortened season of all intra-conference contests.
I don’t know but it is food for thought

Posted by Pulsar93 on 11/02/12 at 07:01 PM ET

Interesting…

Posted by SYF from the team that re-signed KFQ and DFC by KFH on 11/02/12 at 07:05 PM ET

Avatar

At this point the owners could literally beg the NHLPA to sign the old deal and most people would still think they were evil bastards.

IMO the make whole thing is going to be gimmicked.  The NHL will agree to eat it the first year if it’s a flat 50-50 by year two without a make whole.  That will likely save the NHL money in the long run sicne it avoids a 55, 53, 51.5 50 step down over the life of the deal.  Eat the 3-5% of HRR in year 1 and not have to lose 9.5% of HRR over 4 years.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/02/12 at 07:21 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

At this point the owners could literally beg the NHLPA to sign the old deal and most people would still think they were evil bastards.

Well sure they would, and they’d be right. Burning two months off the calendar and mercy-killing the Winter Classic just to go back to the old deal?

That would be pretty bastardly.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/02/12 at 07:27 PM ET

Avatar

This move by the owners is considered a significant concession.

Yeah, as considered by the owners. 

Of course I don’t know what all has been said of late between NHL and NHLPA.  But if the NHL’s very first bargaining proposal was to honor all current contracts in some fashion but otherwise immediately reduce player’s share from 57% to 50%, limit contract length, eliminate arbitration, etc., etc., etc., it would have been more readily seen, I believe, as a proposal that asks for many concessions from the players without offering any concessions in return.

Still, it is a movement, a gesture, toward the players.  Hopefully it signals a readiness of the NHL to actually begin bargaining in good faith.

Posted by BobTheZee on 11/02/12 at 07:29 PM ET

Avatar

Well sure they would, and they’d be right.

Case in point.

Yeah, as considered by the owners.

I don’t think one could accurately describe the NHLPA’s positions and offers in this negotiation as ‘flexible’ either, you know?

So far they’ve pretty much refused to give up any money, at all, ever.  Most of their counterproposals tend to be, at best, dollar-neutral.

There is a passably reasonable argument that can be made regarding how fair it is the NHL started at 43 to move to 50… but even if one says 43 was a demonic starting point for negotiations the NHL has moved off of a more reasonable and other sport comparable 46ish% starting point to 50-50.  Which is farther than the NHLPA has come in their offers as far as I am aware.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/02/12 at 07:43 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The NHL has never adequately explained the need for the players to give back any money and I don’t think it’s exactly reasonable to say they’ve refused to give up any dollars at all. Every single one of the NHLPA’s offers has ended up with them getting less money than they would have under the old CBA.

The NHL has moved farther off the worst offer they’ve made than the NHLPA has moved off the starting point of the status quo, sure. Giving the NHL credit for that is exactly what the NHL would love. It’s the opening bias where you get to sound reasonable by comparison thanks to starting off being completely unreasonable.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/02/12 at 07:51 PM ET

Avatar

So far they’ve pretty much refused to give up any money, at all, ever.

That’s a pretty curious way to interpret their offers.

Posted by Garth on 11/02/12 at 08:19 PM ET

Avatar

I think this puts significant pressure on the players to make a concession.

Posted by timbits on 11/02/12 at 09:07 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

I think this puts significant pressure on the players to make a concession.

Posted by timbits on 11/02/12 at 09:07 PM ET

I agree, maybe they should give up 7% of their HR pie and take 50%.  And arbitration rights, and extend restricted free agency and accept term limits on contracts.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/03/12 at 12:11 AM ET

phillyd's avatar

Dang, that sounds like the deferred payment solution I had talked about when they first proposed it.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/03/12 at 12:57 AM ET

Avatar

The NHL has never adequately explained the need for the players to give back any money and I don’t think it’s exactly reasonable to say they’ve refused to give up any dollars at all. Every single one of the NHLPA’s offers has ended up with them getting less money than they would have under the old CBA.

That’s a pretty curious way to interpret their offers.

But not less actual money.

Again, this is where we disagree on how to look at what a number means.  I think getting the same amount of money means you got the same amount of money.  You two think getting the same amount of money when you ‘could have’ gotten more money means you took a pay cut.

Because this difference in approach bemuses me somewhat, I would like to apply your logic in a slightly different direction for comedic effect.

Hey, if the new CBA ends up being at 50% since the NHLPA ‘could have’ ended up signing for 43% if the NHL simply waited for the NHLPA to starve to death on their initial offer, does this mean they’re actually getting a raise?

I agree, maybe they should give up 7% of their HR pie and take 50%.  And arbitration rights, and extend restricted free agency and accept term limits on contracts.

Could someone list for me the concessions the NHLPA has actually offered?  I’m pretty sure the things you are suggesting aren’t actually things they’ve agreed to concede.

Dang, that sounds like the deferred payment solution I had talked about when they first proposed it.

My understanding of the NHL’s latest concession is that it’s not a deferred payment at all.  They appear to be offering to eat the overages caused by a ‘make whole’ provision entirely out of their own portion of HRR and not require the NHLPA to pay back any of it, at least in year 1.  I don’t know what it would look like in years 2 and beyond.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/03/12 at 05:35 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

But not less actual money.

Subjective levels of amusement aside, there are a few pieces of logical gymnastics required here to ignore context in defining what constitutes giving up money and the problems associated with assuming that a dollar is a fixed thing forever.

Hey, if the new CBA ends up being at 50% since the NHLPA ‘could have’ ended up signing for 43% if the NHL simply waited for the NHLPA to starve to death on their initial offer, does this mean they’re actually getting a raise?

This is what happens when you fart in a vacuum. While it’s amusing to compare things to hypotheticals, it’s much more honest to compare them to actual things which have happened; things like a players’ share and a collective economic basis which serve as a real reference point rather than perspective-skewing and unrealistic bargaining strategy anchor.

Could someone list for me the concessions the NHLPA has actually offered?

They’ve offered to let their share drop over time to a point where they’re making less than they should be. Could you list the concessions you think they should be making?

They appear to be offering to eat the overages caused by a ‘make whole’ provision entirely out of their own portion of HRR and not require the NHLPA to pay back any of it

I suspect this is merely a case of appearance and not reality.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/03/12 at 09:35 AM ET

Joe Z.'s avatar

That’s a concession without a “c”.
A concession usually is something you give away from your actual possession.
Which is the expired CBA, it says 43% for the NHL and 57% for the players.
Where is the concessioin from the NHL? As long the NHL gets more than 43% of HRR the only ones making a concession are the players.

I wonder how much Dreger and co. get payed for those biased articles.

Posted by Joe Z. from Austria on 11/03/12 at 09:45 AM ET

Red Winger's avatar

I think this puts significant pressure on the players to make a concession.

Posted by timbits on 11/02/12 at 09:07 PM ET

They won’t, and in a society (US and Canada) that has been brainwashed to believe anyone who makes more money than you is evil and deserves your contempt, the players rejection of this will be spun as more evil perpetuated by the greedy owners.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/03/12 at 09:49 AM ET

Avatar

Hey, if the new CBA ends up being at 50% since the NHLPA ‘could have’ ended up signing for 43% if the NHL simply waited for the NHLPA to starve to death on their initial offer, does this mean they’re actually getting a raise?

No, because what they ACTUALLY GOT last season is more than they will ACTUALLY GET this season.  We’re not talking about what they theoretically could have made last year, we are talking about what they actually made last year.

A raise or a pay cut are exactly that.  Getting more or less than you previously received.

Under a 50/50 split, the players will be getting less than last year.

That is not a raise.

Posted by Garth on 11/03/12 at 10:50 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

They’ve all been assumed.  Those were also concessions that the players would still be making had they accepted the NHL’s (some how) concession of asking for 7% instead of 14%.  Id also be interested in the concessions you think they should be making.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/03/12 at 07:42 PM ET

Avatar

(US and Canada) that has been brainwashed to believe anyone who makes more money than you is evil

Amazing how much this is true, so many people ar saying the players make too much money doing something many people would do for free. How greedy the players must be for wanting to make more money or retain what they are making when they are already making millions for playing a sport. I’m amazed at how much envy plays into this whole argument. so many people are envious of the players that it blinds them to reality.

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

 

image

image