I guess that means that Gary’s tantrum is scheduled for about 2 pm.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/31/12 at 01:06 PM ET

Trying to map this one out, I feel like the league’s response today is very likely not going to be angry.  I feel they’ve used up their ability to throw tantrums and keep fans interested enough in that drama.

I don’t think they’ll get a deal done today, but I’m expecting what Daly says at the end of the day to be somewhat positive and mostly sad.  Something like “I feel we’re really close to a deal now, if only the players will come to us a little bit, we can start playing hockey. We just want to play hockey at this point and hope to get back on the ice very soon for our fans.”

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 01:18 PM ET

What if Daly came out after the meeting carrying an 80’s style boom box blasting “B*tch Betta Have My Money” by AMG?

Sure, it would probably mean the end of the season, but how awesome would that be, just as a change of pace?

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 12/31/12 at 01:29 PM ET

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 12/31/12 at 12:29 PM ET

Hahaha.  Honestly, if they’re going that route, they should definitely have Bettman with the Boombox while Daly stands in the background mean-mugging.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 01:33 PM ET

Thuggin’, bitches.

Posted by SYF from the Flood on 12/31/12 at 02:16 PM ET

The NHL offices are a block away from Times Square.  Soon people will start flocking to the area, so I wonder how long this meeting will really last?

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 02:30 PM ET

if the two sides are still a ways off, i would hope the NHL would take this opportunity to just cancel the season instead of dragging it on for another 2 or 3 weeks.  Just end this thing one way or another today.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/31/12 at 02:32 PM ET

What if Daly came out after the meeting carrying an 80’s style boom box blasting “B*tch Betta Have My Money” by AMG?

Man, I miss A2Y game threads

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 12/31/12 at 02:51 PM ET

The NHL offices are a block away from Times Square.  Soon people will start flocking to the area, so I wonder how long this meeting will really last?

The talks will hit an impasse around 11:30, as Fehr and Bettman argue over exactly what all the commotion and celebratory activity is for: Is it for The Gary? Or The Donald?

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 12/31/12 at 02:56 PM ET

The PA tweets,

Players attending CBA meetings today in NYC: Chris Campoli, Jamal Mayers, Rick DiPietro, Ron Hainsey, Martin St. Louis

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 03:14 PM ET

Some interesting tweets from player agent Allan Walsh in the last half hour.  Check them out.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 03:23 PM ET

Demanding that the league include expansion/relocation fees in HRR makes complete sense. Doing so this late in the game is quite a bluff call by the NHLPA.

I assume that everybody who might be mad about the players doing a bit of gloves-off negotiating aren’t any of the people who were so very calm about the league’s opening offer, right?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 03:23 PM ET

So part of the PA’s counterproposal is to try and roll in a billion dollars of ‘outside’ revenue under the HRR aegis?

That’s not just a non-starter, it’s an intentional grenade.  I refuse to believe that the PA could actually think the NHL would throw in an extra billion dollars of revenue without needing expansive concessions above and beyond what they’ve already asked for across the board.

That would be something like the NHL saying they want to go to a 55-45 owners favor HRR split.  It’s nuts.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/31/12 at 03:25 PM ET

Some interesting tweets from player agent Allan Walsh in the last half hour.  Check them out.

It’s typical petty Bettman grudge-holding, IMO.  I doubt he’s keeping all owners in the dark… just the ones he hates.  My guess is that Walsh is talking to a source in NJ.  He probably gives Detroit the Cliffs notes too.

I assume that everybody who might be mad about the players doing a bit of gloves-off negotiating aren’t any of the people who were so very calm about the league’s opening offer, right?

I don’t have a problem with it as a tactic, I just don’t know what they think they are going to accomplish, and considering how in the bag you’ve been for the players doesn’t this sort of illustrate the complete lack of difference between the two sides?

I don’t know how many owners actually want to play hockey this year.  I guarantee you that number is much less if relo and expansion fees are included under HRR.

So… what is the PA doing?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/31/12 at 03:30 PM ET

What ‘outside’ revenue?

In what way are expansion and relocation fees anything but hockey-related revenue?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 03:31 PM ET

David Alter of Fan590 with a YouTube vid of the mass of people around NHL HQ.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 03:31 PM ET

doesn’t this sort of illustrate the complete lack of difference between the two sides?

The players agreed to play hockey. The owners didn’t agree to that and locked out the sport. 

No, it does not illustrate that they are the same, because one side is still locked out and the other is choosing to keep locking out the sport.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 03:33 PM ET

If you were to figure there are multiple parties particulary affected by this non season… the MAJOR groups would be, Players, Owners, GM’s, and agents, and fans.  Of all the five, the agents would be the one group MOST biased towards nearly every issue related to revenue.  So lets keep that in perspective when we start to reference or even quote this particular group.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/31/12 at 03:55 PM ET

Good point GtL and I think most KK readers understand that.

But we have to hope Walsh isn’t trying to mislead us when quoting people. It sure would be easier if the Bettman gag order was removed.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 03:57 PM ET

Just told NHLPA never considered or even discussed asking owners for a share of future expansion or relocation money.

David Shoalts tweet.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 04:07 PM ET

  Just told NHLPA never considered or even discussed asking owners for a share of future expansion or relocation money.

David Shoalts tweet.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 03:07 PM ET

I’m inclined to believe Shoalts over the increasingly foolish Campbell.

I can’t imagine that a union leader would ask for something that cuts in half incentives on measures that could create as much 12% job growth among the membership. Even a union leader as cavalier with his clients’ money as Donald Fehr.

It’s not a question of whether expansion fees should be “hockey related revenue,” which is a bogus accounting to begin with. It’s a simple matter that the PA makes a HELL of a lot more, long-term, from a 50-200 job increase, than they do from a one-time cut of each expansion fee. They don’t want to do anything ever to reduce any incentives on league expansion.

Posted by larry on 12/31/12 at 04:37 PM ET

The expansion fee argument about how players are better off for simply having another team is a good one.

Relocation fees though? Different story.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 04:39 PM ET

Talked to NHL team executive this morning who was furious. He was raging that Bettman refuses to consult or update teams on negotiations.

NHL team executive said all they get are skeleton memos from NHL-NY with no real info. He said he’s getting all his info from his players.

Sounds like something Lamoriello would be angry about. Any other “NHL executive” could simply ask the governor and bypass the NHL. Lamoriello IS the governor, so, if he doesn’t already know, there’s nobody to ask but the league or the players.

This is a pretty legit thing for him to be mad about. If it’s him. If it’s, I don’t know, Fletcher from Minny, he should just ask his boss.

Posted by larry on 12/31/12 at 04:43 PM ET

The expansion fee argument about how players are better off for simply having another team is a good one.

Relocation fees though? Different story.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 03:39 PM ET

More understandable, but I’m not sure that’s always in their best interests either. The amount of revenue, say, a Hamilton or Quebec City team would generate vs Phoenix (which not only goes to that franchise’s players, but, since player share is linked to revenue, goes to everyone else too) is still probably enough that the union wouldn’t want to do anything to discourage such a move.

But moving Phoenix to another untested market (Kansas, Seattle, Vegas, etc), I could certainly see the PA wanting a cut of that fee, even though the one-time nature of such a move could make the cap actually FALL, the next season.

Posted by larry on 12/31/12 at 05:10 PM ET

John Shannon tweet,

Can also confirm that PA has not requested any changes to HRR.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 05:15 PM ET

probably enough that the union wouldn’t want to do anything to discourage such a move.

If the fee is set and static, then giving the NHLPA a cut of the fee paid by that owner to the entirety of hockey doesn’t discourage the move any more than having a relocation fee in existence in the first place would discourage it. I guess it would effectively cut the relocation fee “rebate” for the owner relocating (since I believe the fee is split evenly among teams and therefore the person paying it gets a cut of the split as well). That’s not much if true though.

Multiple sources now are refuting Ken Campbell’s claim about the NHLPA looking to redefine HRR, so it appears to be moot now.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 05:24 PM ET

Bruce Garrioch only media member reporting both sides back in the room.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/31/12 at 05:54 PM ET

What is this expansion crap… are they nuts?! Teams from big markets like Dallas are losing money and these people are considering expansion? I’m at the point where I would love to see the lockout continue until teams like: Phoenix, Florida, Columbus and Nashville go bankrupt. Sick of seeing AHL quality players on NHL teams and just as sick of owners from Sunrise-FL or Glendale-AZ begging for more revenue sharing to stay in business.

Posted by TeddyGB on 12/31/12 at 06:16 PM ET

Columbus would be better off in Cleveland. The last Cleveland NHL team failed for the same reason as the coyotes - the team was moved 40 minutes away from the city to a suburban arena with no easy way to get to games.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/31/12 at 07:15 PM ET

In what way are expansion and relocation fees anything but hockey-related revenue?

Try and not be obtuse about this, JJ.  You obviously know what we’re talking about here.

Just told NHLPA never considered or even discussed asking owners for a share of future expansion or relocation money.

That makes sense.  My first impression was that that would have been a lunatic assertion to make.

The players agreed to play hockey. The owners didn’t agree to that and locked out the sport.

And you continue to be completely and totally wrong here.  Both sides have expressed a structure under which they would be willing to play hockey.  Neither side has agreed to the other sides structure.

So, here they are.

There was no CBA.  The players ‘agreement to play hockey’ was them ‘agreeing’ to play under the old deal.  The one that expired.

Relocation fees though? Different story.

If you move a team from a market that generates 50 mil in revenue to one that generates 75 mil in revenue… what happens?

If the fee is set and static, then giving the NHLPA a cut of the fee paid by that owner to the entirety of hockey doesn’t discourage the move any more than having a relocation fee in existence in the first place would discourage it.

What generally happens when a ‘fee’ is added to the cost chain is that the end cost of the product or service is increased.  I highly doubt that the NHL is going to agree to take less money just because they are cutting the PA in on a portion of it.  What would likely happen is that the PA’s ‘convenience charge’ would just roll up into a larger bottom line… which does impact how willing people are to purchase and relocate franchises.

What is this expansion crap… are they nuts?!

Nope, just greedy.  If they can get a true 50-50 they’ll be able to float a couple more soft-market teams in non-traditional markets, and the 300+ mil in expansion fees they’ll get (and if they go 2nd team in Toronto we can just about triple that number) will more than make up every singly penny the NHL may have lost over floating the Coyotes for 5 years and every single lost game the NHL has experienced under Bettman.

As an aside, this is why I was facepalming over the PA’s submarining of realignment last year out of purely cynical negotiating tactics.  The league wants to get to 32 teams, and having imbalanced conferences for a year or two would be a spur to that.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/31/12 at 07:21 PM ET

The PA volunteered to continue for a year under the old contract - the same CBA the owners locked them out to get last time. It has a no-strike clause. Who’s being obtuse?

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/31/12 at 07:34 PM ET

Try and not be obtuse about this, JJ.  You obviously know what we’re talking about here.

I was just hoping that you’d actually type out the words that essentially imply that the NHL is entitled to the definition of HRR laid out by an expired CBA, because that’s what you meant and that’s hilarious.

There was no CBA.  The players ‘agreement to play hockey’ was them ‘agreeing’ to play under the old deal.  The one that expired.

Weird that you’d call me wrong in one paragraph and then prove me right in the next.

If you move a team from a market that generates 50 mil in revenue to one that generates 75 mil in revenue… what happens?

$12.5M in new revenues for each side… just like what they should get if you charge a new owner $25M to relocate his team.

What generally happens when a ‘fee’ is added to the cost chain is that the end cost of the product or service is increased.

So what’s the purpose of a relocation fee?  It’s a cash grab and they’re going to grab as much as as the market will bear to pay it. If they try to roll it into an amount that’s too high, it’s lost money and nobody gets it. If the NHL really wants to eliminate $1 or $2M per team in relocation fees because they don’t want to share anything, that’s their prerogative, but that’s a dumb prerogative. 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 07:41 PM ET

The PA volunteered to continue for a year under the old contract

Indeed.  When I said “The players ‘agreement to play hockey’ was them ‘agreeing’ to play under the old deal.  The one that expired.”

... that was kind of what I had in mind.

It has a no-strike clause

Well, no duh.  Why would they want to strike out of a deal that is better than they’re ever going to get in the future?

So let me ask you a question, red: Let’s say this one year extension happens.  Do you think getting it would make the PA more willing to negotiate, less willing, or have no impact?

IMO, it at best doesn’t change their willingness to negotiate and most likely reduces it.  After all, they would (justifiably) think, the NHL clearly doesn’t want to miss a single game… so lets just stick to all of the old terms.

That’s where the PA needs to get.  They need to get to the point where missing games is a greater financial threat to owners than it is to them.  That’s where the leverage is.

Who’s being obtuse?

Two guesses.

I was just hoping that you’d actually type out the words that essentially imply that the NHL is entitled to the definition of HRR laid out by an expired CBA, because that’s what you meant and that’s hilarious.

That’s just you lying through your digital teeth, though.  I don’t think either side is entitled to anything.  I’ve actually said that, on the off chance that what I actually say becomes more relevant to you than your intentionally dishonest phantom conversations with a version of me you must chat with in your head.

When a CBA expires, it expires.  It’s not like any new deal just assumes any characteristics of the old one.  It may include those old characteristics, but just because it’s sometimes easier for both sides to cede certain issues they’ve already mutually agreed to.

Something as gigantic as including relo/expo fees in HRR would require a significant reworking of all the associated financials, which is why I thought it would be very stupid for the PA to even attempt to bring up this late in the game.

Early on while the NHL was throwing around their lowball opening offers?  Heck yeah.  Perfect time for a brushback.  100 days in when the season is (allegedly) within two weeks of getting cancelled entirely?  Really, really stupid plan.

Which is what I said, and likely supported by the PA not proposing it.  If they had, that would have been it for the year pretty much immediately.  It would be like the NHL going from their current 50-50 to a 55-45 pro-owner HRR split.  It would be a gigantic walkback.

Weird that you’d call me wrong in one paragraph and then prove me right in the next.

You’re confusing your latest performance of JJ’s Nighty-Night Bedtime Snugglepuss Stories with, you know, things that have actually been said.

$12.5M in new revenues for each side… just like what they should get if you charge a new owner $25M to relocate his team.

You’re confusing yourself here.  Hopefully not a-purpose, so I’ll clarify:

You:“The expansion fee argument about how players are better off for simply having another team is a good one.

Relocation fees though? Different story.”

Me: “If you move a team from a market that generates 50 mil in revenue to one that generates 75 mil in revenue… what happens?”

Obviously having a team in a better market that generates more money for the HRR pie is better for the players than having that team languishing somewhere on life support.

Is that benefit greater than the raw amount of financial benefit that adding a brand new team is?  Probably not.  However, it’s a whole lot easier to pull off.

So what’s the purpose of a relocation fee?  It’s a cash grab and they’re going to grab as much as as the market will bear to pay it.

Exactly.  And the more fees you roll into that number the less likely it is the market will bear to pay it.  What you’re talking about here, in order for your position to make any sense at all, has to be there being relo fees of x, which the NHL goes from getting 100% of to getting <100% of, while the PA gets the remainder.

Anything else implies that the NHL isn’t already in full-on cash grab mode and charging as much as they think they possibly can for people to move, that there’s some kind of untapped fee ceiling that they’d rather let the PA have than to just charge it and give it to themselves.

I wouldn’t buy that for a minute.  I’ve seen nothing to indicate the NHL is in the business of giving away cash.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/31/12 at 09:34 PM ET

Something as gigantic as including relo/expo fees in HRR would require a significant reworking of all the associated financials, which is why I thought it would be very stupid for the PA to even attempt to bring up this late in the game.

not really, on either case. This is the point of the game that the NHL started and it is the point where the NHLPA has leverage.

Is that benefit greater than the raw amount of financial benefit that adding a brand new team is?  Probably not.  However, it’s a whole lot easier to pull off.

So you mean that relocation and expansion are not the same thing? My lord; it’s almost as though I had said they were different and was right about having said that. Imagine that.

I’ve seen nothing to indicate the NHL is in the business of giving away cash.

Trying to charge more than the market can bear simply because they now suddenly actually have to count HRR that should count as HRR and not earning those dollars equates to giving away money.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/31/12 at 10:28 PM ET

JJ: The players agreed to play hockey. The owners didn’t agree to that and locked out the sport.

HD: And you continue to be completely and totally wrong here.  Both sides have expressed a structure under which they would be willing to play hockey.  Neither side has agreed to the other sides structure. (Calling JJ wrong)

So, here they are.

There was no CBA.  The players ‘agreement to play hockey’ was them ‘agreeing’ to play under the old deal.  The one that expired. (Proving JJ right)

JJ: Weird that you’d call me wrong in one paragraph and then prove me right in the next. (If you want to get technical there was one in between)

HD :You’re confusing your latest performance of JJ’s Nighty-Night Bedtime Snugglepuss Stories with, you know, things that have actually been said.

That’s just you lying through your digital teeth, though.  I don’t think either side is entitled to anything.  I’ve actually said that, on the off chance that what I actually say becomes more relevant to you than your intentionally dishonest phantom conversations with a version of me you must chat with in your head.

Who is the one making up phantom conversations?

Posted by tkfergy on 01/01/13 at 04:22 AM ET

HD, if you’d spend half the time arguing your points that you spend attacking anyone and everyone that does not worship at your altar… there’d probably be a lot less room at your altar.  You manage to present your case in the most off-putting manner possible and it really does do you a disservice..

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 01/01/13 at 06:42 AM ET

I’ve been working for 5 years on an expired/extended contract. We agreed to extend the old agreement because neither side felt it would be a good time to renegotiate. That’s what responsible parties do.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 01/01/13 at 12:51 PM ET

I assume that everybody who might be mad about the players doing a bit of gloves-off negotiating aren’t any of the people who were so very calm about the league’s opening offer, right?

“Owners = Bad, Players = Good”

Repeat

LOL

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 01/01/13 at 01:43 PM ET

I’ve been working for 5 years on an expired/extended contract. We agreed to extend the old agreement because neither side felt it would be a good time to renegotiate. That’s what responsible parties do.

Similarly, I’ve been leasing property for three years on an expired contract.  We agreed to extend the old agreement and see no reason to renegotiate.  I second your “That’s what responsible parties do.”

That said; I do still pay a lease at the formerly agreed upon rate.  I hadn’t thought of the Illitch situation in these terms, just the CBA, but, man, that one is a bit of a headscratcher.

Posted by shanetx from Floydada, Texas on 01/01/13 at 08:57 PM ET