WTF??
Lockout City
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
supposed to be meetings tomorrow.
interesting out of Philly
interesting out of Philly
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
Lecavalier and St Louis vs yzerman and neiuwendyk... this outta be interesting
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
scratch Yzerman
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
Brian Burke gonna bring some truculence to the negotiations
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
op the games, or the games won't start. Stop the attempts to intimidate and crack the union, or this deal won't get done anytime soon. It isn't working. Not only isn't it working, it's backfiring.
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's frustration with the union is apparent. (AP)The NHL is frustrated with the NHL Players' Association, particularly with executive director Don Fehr. Fine. It has reason to be. But the league got itself into this mess, and this isn't the way out – at least not the best way.
The latest misstep came Wednesday. Fehr and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman spoke on the phone. Fehr said the players did not want to negotiate off the owners' latest economic proposal, again.
Bettman suggested to Fehr a two-week moratorium.
Apparently the league heard Fehr had told players in a conference call that the owners' "date" was Dec. 1. I could not confirm Fehr said that. The NHLPA is not going to discuss details of an internal meeting, let alone sensitive information. But if true, it would make sense. I know of general managers telling people there won't be a season; I know of others telling people this will be settled soon – even that the puck will drop Jan. 1.
[Related: League asks union for two-week break in CBA talks]
The bottom line is this: We're still stuck in this cycle of mistrust, misinformation and misunderstanding. This is still too much about strategy and not enough about negotiating. And this was a mistake by Bettman, a shrewd man in many ways, but a poor politician.
Taking a breath is one thing. Taking a two-week break is another. Even if Bettman wanted to show the players that the owners have no "date" – let alone a date of Dec. 1 – this came off as a desperate attempt not to look desperate. This was a transparent attempt to put pressure on the players, essentially telling them they could come back to the table after they have missed another paycheck or two.
Through two months of CBA talks, the players appear to remain united behind NHLPA boss Don Fehr. (AP)This was yet another move that could encourage the players to stick together and keep waiting, instead of scaring them into capitulating. It was yet another move that could prolong the lockout, instead of end it.
The owners locked out the players for an entire season in 2004-05 to get a salary cap but failed to lock down the system, which is why the players hired Fehr, the longtime baseball union boss, for this fight. They insulted the players with their opening offer this time, uniting them more than Fehr ever could.
They have set deadlines and declared they have made their best offer, only to make better offers later. They left a meeting after considering three PA proposals in a matter of minutes. Feeling their message wasn't getting through Fehr's filter, they attempted an end-around, posting a proposal on the league website and giving team executives a short, secret window to explain it to players. Many execs didn't feel comfortable and didn't take advantage of it; many players laughed it off and rallied around Fehr.
The NHL had to be frustrated further when the details of a private conversation between the top two leaders leaked into the media Thursday night. But again, the league let its frustration show. Are league leaders making the players sweat? Or are they letting the players see them sweat?
"I find it incredible that the Union is suggesting that we are somehow 'close' to a deal," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in a message relayed by a spokesman. "They have utterly refused to negotiate for months. They have made essentially one proposal – five times. They continue to request a 'guaranteed' Players Share as part of the next agreement and we repeatedly tell them maybe they should get a reality check. And in the meantime, maybe they can make their position clear to us on 50-50, on the make-whole and on Player Contracting issues."
[Also: Wings' Ian White on Gary Bettman: 'I personally think he's an idiot']
All the NHLPA had to do was issue its standard statement: The players have made major concessions, haven't received anything in return and are willing to meet, as always.
Look, Fehr has dragged his feet. The players have taken shot after shot at Bettman. The sides are close on money only if you accept projections of growth – growth that is being threatened day by day. The players generally have continued to propose a guaranteed share, with raises, refusing to negotiate on a percentage basis.
The farther from the system, the harder to reach a deal. The whole point of the owners' system is to link the players' share to a percentage of revenue, and a big issue this time is financial relief in the first year. I understand why the players want to protect what they have, especially when they blame the owners for the lockout and the damage it is causing, and I understand the first year sets the bar for the following years. But I don't understand why they think the owners will assume all the risk again, or why they think the owners will cave on the first year.
The players say they want to give the owners incentive to grow revenues, and I think they feel the owners could do a better job. But the owners have incentive to grow revenues already, they had seven straight years of record revenues under the old system, and the players' projections of future growth have been more optimistic than the league's. So why not propose percentages that drop to 50 over time, or why not go straight from the old 57 to 50 and work on the league's "make-whole" provision, which is intended to make up the difference on current contracts with deferred payments?
[More: Teemu Selanne says his career likely over if lockout lasts all season]
The players do need to be realistic. They need stick to their principles, but in a way that appeals to the owners enough to close a deal. They aren't going to shame the owners into agreement. The owners canceled a season before, and no one should underestimate their stomach to do it again.
That said, the owners have to be realistic, too. They have to know who they're dealing with and deal with it – and with him. Their frustration is working against them. I doubt they will break the union again without another long, bloody battle. The players held out for a season before, and no one should underestimate their stomach to do it again.
Why keep attacking the contracting rules? Fehr is right to say entry-level deals, arbitration rights and free-agency eligibility become even more important to individual players as the players' share goes down. It is not too much to ask to keep things basically as they were – except for the elimination of back-diving, cap-circumventing contracts, which the players have been willing to discuss.
If the players' share is dramatically reduced, the owners should relent on how that share is distributed among the players, even if it isn't ideal. The owners will tell you they told the players the principles were important, not necessarily the specifics, and they hint that they can bend on contracting if the players will bend on economics. But the players will tell you the league has showed no wiggle room at the table.
[Also: The two sides of the CBA story]
Though the owners have come a long way on revenue sharing, though they have given the players assorted other things – single rooms on the road, a bigger playoff bonus pool, league-paid bonuses for top-three finishes in award voting, things like that – they have not given them an out, something, anything, that will satisfy them.
The owners have not accounted enough for the emotional aspect of this, and they have made too many empty threats. The players feel bullied. Their backs are up. They don't buy that "enough is enough." They are following their leader and fighting, because that's what players do, and they want to come back to work without feeling beaten up.
"We're comfortable that we have done everything we can reasonably do to get the game on the ice," Daly wrote in an e-mail Friday. "Have we made mistakes along the way? Probably, because obviously we haven't been successful to this point. But nobody should confuse that with a lack of commitment to the game."
I think the NHL wants to make a deal. I think the NHLPA wants to make a deal. I still think the odds are that they will make a deal and we will have some kind of season. I think that there is still plenty of time, and that's why we're still seeing so much posturing and brinksmanship – the NHL showing it isn't afraid to keep canceling games, Fehr coolly keeping a salary-cap challenge in his back pocket, both using the nuclear threat as leverage.
But I think both sides perceive weakness in the other. I think both sides still believe they can get the other to blink. And I think both sides better be careful. What if nobody blinks before it's too late? Push too far, miscalculate too much, and the moratorium will be much longer than two weeks.
The latest misstep came Wednesday. Fehr and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman spoke on the phone. Fehr said the players did not want to negotiate off the owners' latest economic proposal, again.
Bettman suggested to Fehr a two-week moratorium.
Apparently the league heard Fehr had told players in a conference call that the owners' "date" was Dec. 1. I could not confirm Fehr said that. The NHLPA is not going to discuss details of an internal meeting, let alone sensitive information. But if true, it would make sense. I know of general managers telling people there won't be a season; I know of others telling people this will be settled soon – even that the puck will drop Jan. 1.
[Related: League asks union for two-week break in CBA talks]
The bottom line is this: We're still stuck in this cycle of mistrust, misinformation and misunderstanding. This is still too much about strategy and not enough about negotiating. And this was a mistake by Bettman, a shrewd man in many ways, but a poor politician.
Taking a breath is one thing. Taking a two-week break is another. Even if Bettman wanted to show the players that the owners have no "date" – let alone a date of Dec. 1 – this came off as a desperate attempt not to look desperate. This was a transparent attempt to put pressure on the players, essentially telling them they could come back to the table after they have missed another paycheck or two.
The owners locked out the players for an entire season in 2004-05 to get a salary cap but failed to lock down the system, which is why the players hired Fehr, the longtime baseball union boss, for this fight. They insulted the players with their opening offer this time, uniting them more than Fehr ever could.
They have set deadlines and declared they have made their best offer, only to make better offers later. They left a meeting after considering three PA proposals in a matter of minutes. Feeling their message wasn't getting through Fehr's filter, they attempted an end-around, posting a proposal on the league website and giving team executives a short, secret window to explain it to players. Many execs didn't feel comfortable and didn't take advantage of it; many players laughed it off and rallied around Fehr.
The NHL had to be frustrated further when the details of a private conversation between the top two leaders leaked into the media Thursday night. But again, the league let its frustration show. Are league leaders making the players sweat? Or are they letting the players see them sweat?
"I find it incredible that the Union is suggesting that we are somehow 'close' to a deal," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in a message relayed by a spokesman. "They have utterly refused to negotiate for months. They have made essentially one proposal – five times. They continue to request a 'guaranteed' Players Share as part of the next agreement and we repeatedly tell them maybe they should get a reality check. And in the meantime, maybe they can make their position clear to us on 50-50, on the make-whole and on Player Contracting issues."
[Also: Wings' Ian White on Gary Bettman: 'I personally think he's an idiot']
All the NHLPA had to do was issue its standard statement: The players have made major concessions, haven't received anything in return and are willing to meet, as always.
Look, Fehr has dragged his feet. The players have taken shot after shot at Bettman. The sides are close on money only if you accept projections of growth – growth that is being threatened day by day. The players generally have continued to propose a guaranteed share, with raises, refusing to negotiate on a percentage basis.
The farther from the system, the harder to reach a deal. The whole point of the owners' system is to link the players' share to a percentage of revenue, and a big issue this time is financial relief in the first year. I understand why the players want to protect what they have, especially when they blame the owners for the lockout and the damage it is causing, and I understand the first year sets the bar for the following years. But I don't understand why they think the owners will assume all the risk again, or why they think the owners will cave on the first year.
The players say they want to give the owners incentive to grow revenues, and I think they feel the owners could do a better job. But the owners have incentive to grow revenues already, they had seven straight years of record revenues under the old system, and the players' projections of future growth have been more optimistic than the league's. So why not propose percentages that drop to 50 over time, or why not go straight from the old 57 to 50 and work on the league's "make-whole" provision, which is intended to make up the difference on current contracts with deferred payments?
[More: Teemu Selanne says his career likely over if lockout lasts all season]
The players do need to be realistic. They need stick to their principles, but in a way that appeals to the owners enough to close a deal. They aren't going to shame the owners into agreement. The owners canceled a season before, and no one should underestimate their stomach to do it again.
That said, the owners have to be realistic, too. They have to know who they're dealing with and deal with it – and with him. Their frustration is working against them. I doubt they will break the union again without another long, bloody battle. The players held out for a season before, and no one should underestimate their stomach to do it again.
Why keep attacking the contracting rules? Fehr is right to say entry-level deals, arbitration rights and free-agency eligibility become even more important to individual players as the players' share goes down. It is not too much to ask to keep things basically as they were – except for the elimination of back-diving, cap-circumventing contracts, which the players have been willing to discuss.
If the players' share is dramatically reduced, the owners should relent on how that share is distributed among the players, even if it isn't ideal. The owners will tell you they told the players the principles were important, not necessarily the specifics, and they hint that they can bend on contracting if the players will bend on economics. But the players will tell you the league has showed no wiggle room at the table.
[Also: The two sides of the CBA story]
Though the owners have come a long way on revenue sharing, though they have given the players assorted other things – single rooms on the road, a bigger playoff bonus pool, league-paid bonuses for top-three finishes in award voting, things like that – they have not given them an out, something, anything, that will satisfy them.
The owners have not accounted enough for the emotional aspect of this, and they have made too many empty threats. The players feel bullied. Their backs are up. They don't buy that "enough is enough." They are following their leader and fighting, because that's what players do, and they want to come back to work without feeling beaten up.
"We're comfortable that we have done everything we can reasonably do to get the game on the ice," Daly wrote in an e-mail Friday. "Have we made mistakes along the way? Probably, because obviously we haven't been successful to this point. But nobody should confuse that with a lack of commitment to the game."
I think the NHL wants to make a deal. I think the NHLPA wants to make a deal. I still think the odds are that they will make a deal and we will have some kind of season. I think that there is still plenty of time, and that's why we're still seeing so much posturing and brinksmanship – the NHL showing it isn't afraid to keep canceling games, Fehr coolly keeping a salary-cap challenge in his back pocket, both using the nuclear threat as leverage.
But I think both sides perceive weakness in the other. I think both sides still believe they can get the other to blink. And I think both sides better be careful. What if nobody blinks before it's too late? Push too far, miscalculate too much, and the moratorium will be much longer than two weeks.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
Greg Wyshynski<s>@</s>wyshynski NHL talks go off the rails when Jeremy Jacobs coughs "THANKSFORSEGUIN" within earshot of Brian Burke...
Expand Collapse
<small class="time">11m</small>
Expand Collapse
- Reply
[*]RetweetedRetweet
[*]Delete
[*]FavoritedFavorite
<small class="time">11m</small>
matteson83
Pretty much a regular
Favorite that shit
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
:angry:
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
league basically told PA dont come back without a proposal
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
PA to make proposal tomorrow
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
<hgroup>[h=1]Just Go Away, Gary[/h][h=3]Before getting to the Week 11 picks, let's take a moment to honor the incompetence of the NHL commissioner[/h]</hgroup><cite>By Bill Simmons on <time>November 16, 2012</time></cite><aside class="page-actions">
</aside>News broke last night that embattled NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested a two-week moratorium from lockout negotiations with the NHLPA. The reason? Things had just become too heated. I guess that's what happens when you cancel six weeks of games and Thanksgiving is looming — maybe there's a little more urgency, you say some things you regret, people take those things personally, and suddenly you're threatening each other in monotone Canadian accents. Why don't you go to hell, eh? But canceling another two weeks just so everyone can cool off? Who does this? And you wonder why hockey fans were regarding Bettman's lockout leadership the same way you'd act if you were watching a baby play with a chainsaw.
Oh God … wait, is that on … OH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a guy who recently earned the following e-mail from a Minneapolis reader named Peter Gilbertson: "How does one impeach a sports commissioner? How can a commissioner on the verge of losing two NHL seasons in one decade, with four work stoppages during his tenure, continue to keep his job? He is a failure. For the fans, the players, and the game this needs to be done — Bettman should be impeached."
First of all, how much fun would it be to impeach Gary Bettman? Can't you see him sweating and stammering through the hearings as various politicians rehashed an endless list of mistakes over the years? "So you allowed John Spano to buy the Islanders without any money because … why?" That would be the best courtroom TV since the O.J. trial. But if we voted for sports commissioners (with fans, players and owners each splitting one-third of the overall vote) or put term limits on their tenures (10 years max), then we wouldn't have to ask questions like "How does one impeach a sports commissioner?"
Gary Bettman should have lost his job years and years ago. He kept it for the same reason David Stern plans to hang around for three decades, Bud Selig will still be running baseball when he's 80, and Roger Goodell will probably get a contract extension even after he handled the Saints debacle so badly that he had to bring back his old boss to fix the situation for him. (Yes, we covered these commissioners in this space last month.) But Bettman's supernatural ability to keep ruining hockey is almost unparalleled — after I joked recently for the umpteenth time about Bettman's former boss, David Stern, planting him in the NHL to ruin hockey, a few readers e-mailed me wondering if that could be legitimately true. What other explanation could there be? How could someone be this bad for this long?
The case against Bettman in one sentence: The NHL sacrificed an entire season so they could reimagine their entire salary structure … and only seven years later, that "reimagining" went so poorly that they might have to sacrifice a second season because they need a mulligan.
That's all you need to know. I didn't even need to bring up the league's botched television deals, overexpansion, poorly picked markets, belated acknowledgement of the concussion epidemic, or more incredibly, how they stupidly forgot to limit the length of contracts. This is a commissioner who fought like hell to create a hard cap, and after it finally got approved, was too dense to remember to include a rule that contracts couldn't last longer than five or six years (like what the NBA does). That led to team after team circumventing that cap by giving out guaranteed deals lasting as long as 15 YEARS. Really, didn't see that loophole getting exploited, Gary? Never came up as you were hashing things out?
Imagine your neighbor knocking down his house, then rebuilding it from scratch as his family lived in a hotel. You had to listen to the construction guys hammering, sawing and banging for a solid year. Finally the house goes up, the family moves back in … and seven years later, suddenly they're knocking the house down again. You ask the neighbor what happened and he says, "Yeah, sorry about that — we screwed up when we rebuilt the house, had too many flaws, we needed to do it over again."
Naturally, you say, "Why didn't you figure out all that stuff before you rebuilt the house the first time?"
He says, "Because I'm an idiot, that's why."
And then, there's an awkward silence before he walks away, as you don't know whether he's kidding or not.
That's Gary Bettman.
We should mention that, in a vacuum, he's correct about this particular lockout: The league's financial model (already a mess because we have too many NHL teams, which is 100 percent Bettman's fault, but whatever) can't be sustained with such meager television revenue. Hockey depends on its attendance and the unwavering devotion of its zealous fan base. From a television standpoint, the league will always be handicapped by its lack of marketable stars (the biggest reason it can't command anything close to the NBA's television deal), a glaring problem that I noticed during my first year owning Kings season tickets, when I realized that it didn't really matter who the Kings played from night to night. Sure, you always enjoy seeing the Malkins and Ovechkins, but it's a much different mind-set from, say, LeBron playing the Clippers. Anyone who went to Wednesday's Heat-Clippers game was thinking I'm going to see LeBron!, because they knew he was playing 90 percent of the game. In hockey, you don't say "I'm going to see Ovechkin!," because he might play one-third of the game if you're lucky (and might not make a single meaningful play).
It's the ultimate team sport, and really, that's the best thing about hockey — there's a guaranteed level of entertainment night after night after night that transcends star power. Everyone skates hard, everyone throws their bodies around, everyone plays well together, everyone gives a crap. It's a blue-collar game that happens to be tailor-made for the ADD generation. That's why kids love going to hockey games so much, and that's why my daughter is so bitter right now (fast-forward to the last minute of this podcast). Throw in what hockey means to Canada (where they love hockey like we love football, basketball and baseball combined), some of the NHL's American hotbeds (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Los Angeles, etc.) and the underrated fact that hockey players are the least entitled professional athletes on the planet … and it's almost impossible to screw this up, right?
So how do we end up with a salary system that allows Minnesota to spend $196 million on Ryan Suter and Zach Parise? And that's not to pick on those guys — you could build a decent playoff team around them as long as your goalie didn't stink. Just know that nobody is saying the words, "Suter and Parise are coming to town tonight!" It's just not that kind of league. You go to hockey games to see quality teams, not quality players. There's a fixed level of entertainment. Suter and Parise shouldn't make that much money because hockey players shouldn't make that much money. It has nothing to do with them.
If you think of the cable television model, it makes more sense — channels like AMC, FX and Showtime realized that the quality of their shows matter a thousand times more than the "star power" of the actors on those shows. Yeah, AMC could have spent an extra $15 million per season on Keanu Reeves to play Rick in The Walking Dead, but why would they? People watch that show because they want to see people kill zombies. So they went the other way — cheaper actors, cheaper locations, more money on extras and special effects. Same for Showtime's hit Homeland, which features only one star (Claire Danes, who certainly isn't making Parise/Suter money) surrounded by well-casted actors, including a few good ones whom you'd recognize from other shows (including Mandy Patinkin, a fairly famous name in his own right) and certainly weren't expensive. You might recognize that same blueprint from Breaking Bad, Dexter, Californication, Shameless, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy and about 10 other cable shows. And by the way, did you know ANYONE on Mad Men when that show launched other than Ashton Kutcher's old girlfriend with the weird first name?
On cable television, the showrunner and the writing matter more than anything else. In hockey, the sport and the fans matter more than anything else. It doesn't matter who Minnesota's third-best player is any more or less than it matters who plays Mike on Homeland. Fans are coming, regardless. So why overpay players, jack up ticket prices and price out those fans when you don't have to? Wasn't that what the last lockout was about? Wasn't the league supposed to be regaining control of its broken salary structure? How are we back here seven years later battling the exact same problem?
For that and that alone, Gary Bettman needs to step down. No, we can't impeach him. Yes, we can continue to excoriate him. He's the worst commissioner in sports history, and really, it's going to remain that way unless Roger Goodell extends the NFL's season to 20 games, adds Wednesday- and Friday-night football to the schedule, pays a hitman to murder Jonathan Vilma, and gets outed for having a heated affair with his biographer, Peter King … and even then, I'd probably still give the edge to Bettman.
If you want to talk about moratoriums, Gary, here's a better idea — step down and give us a lifetime moratorium. From you
</aside>News broke last night that embattled NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested a two-week moratorium from lockout negotiations with the NHLPA. The reason? Things had just become too heated. I guess that's what happens when you cancel six weeks of games and Thanksgiving is looming — maybe there's a little more urgency, you say some things you regret, people take those things personally, and suddenly you're threatening each other in monotone Canadian accents. Why don't you go to hell, eh? But canceling another two weeks just so everyone can cool off? Who does this? And you wonder why hockey fans were regarding Bettman's lockout leadership the same way you'd act if you were watching a baby play with a chainsaw.
Oh God … wait, is that on … OH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a guy who recently earned the following e-mail from a Minneapolis reader named Peter Gilbertson: "How does one impeach a sports commissioner? How can a commissioner on the verge of losing two NHL seasons in one decade, with four work stoppages during his tenure, continue to keep his job? He is a failure. For the fans, the players, and the game this needs to be done — Bettman should be impeached."
First of all, how much fun would it be to impeach Gary Bettman? Can't you see him sweating and stammering through the hearings as various politicians rehashed an endless list of mistakes over the years? "So you allowed John Spano to buy the Islanders without any money because … why?" That would be the best courtroom TV since the O.J. trial. But if we voted for sports commissioners (with fans, players and owners each splitting one-third of the overall vote) or put term limits on their tenures (10 years max), then we wouldn't have to ask questions like "How does one impeach a sports commissioner?"
Gary Bettman should have lost his job years and years ago. He kept it for the same reason David Stern plans to hang around for three decades, Bud Selig will still be running baseball when he's 80, and Roger Goodell will probably get a contract extension even after he handled the Saints debacle so badly that he had to bring back his old boss to fix the situation for him. (Yes, we covered these commissioners in this space last month.) But Bettman's supernatural ability to keep ruining hockey is almost unparalleled — after I joked recently for the umpteenth time about Bettman's former boss, David Stern, planting him in the NHL to ruin hockey, a few readers e-mailed me wondering if that could be legitimately true. What other explanation could there be? How could someone be this bad for this long?
The case against Bettman in one sentence: The NHL sacrificed an entire season so they could reimagine their entire salary structure … and only seven years later, that "reimagining" went so poorly that they might have to sacrifice a second season because they need a mulligan.
That's all you need to know. I didn't even need to bring up the league's botched television deals, overexpansion, poorly picked markets, belated acknowledgement of the concussion epidemic, or more incredibly, how they stupidly forgot to limit the length of contracts. This is a commissioner who fought like hell to create a hard cap, and after it finally got approved, was too dense to remember to include a rule that contracts couldn't last longer than five or six years (like what the NBA does). That led to team after team circumventing that cap by giving out guaranteed deals lasting as long as 15 YEARS. Really, didn't see that loophole getting exploited, Gary? Never came up as you were hashing things out?
Imagine your neighbor knocking down his house, then rebuilding it from scratch as his family lived in a hotel. You had to listen to the construction guys hammering, sawing and banging for a solid year. Finally the house goes up, the family moves back in … and seven years later, suddenly they're knocking the house down again. You ask the neighbor what happened and he says, "Yeah, sorry about that — we screwed up when we rebuilt the house, had too many flaws, we needed to do it over again."
Naturally, you say, "Why didn't you figure out all that stuff before you rebuilt the house the first time?"
He says, "Because I'm an idiot, that's why."
And then, there's an awkward silence before he walks away, as you don't know whether he's kidding or not.
That's Gary Bettman.
We should mention that, in a vacuum, he's correct about this particular lockout: The league's financial model (already a mess because we have too many NHL teams, which is 100 percent Bettman's fault, but whatever) can't be sustained with such meager television revenue. Hockey depends on its attendance and the unwavering devotion of its zealous fan base. From a television standpoint, the league will always be handicapped by its lack of marketable stars (the biggest reason it can't command anything close to the NBA's television deal), a glaring problem that I noticed during my first year owning Kings season tickets, when I realized that it didn't really matter who the Kings played from night to night. Sure, you always enjoy seeing the Malkins and Ovechkins, but it's a much different mind-set from, say, LeBron playing the Clippers. Anyone who went to Wednesday's Heat-Clippers game was thinking I'm going to see LeBron!, because they knew he was playing 90 percent of the game. In hockey, you don't say "I'm going to see Ovechkin!," because he might play one-third of the game if you're lucky (and might not make a single meaningful play).
It's the ultimate team sport, and really, that's the best thing about hockey — there's a guaranteed level of entertainment night after night after night that transcends star power. Everyone skates hard, everyone throws their bodies around, everyone plays well together, everyone gives a crap. It's a blue-collar game that happens to be tailor-made for the ADD generation. That's why kids love going to hockey games so much, and that's why my daughter is so bitter right now (fast-forward to the last minute of this podcast). Throw in what hockey means to Canada (where they love hockey like we love football, basketball and baseball combined), some of the NHL's American hotbeds (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Los Angeles, etc.) and the underrated fact that hockey players are the least entitled professional athletes on the planet … and it's almost impossible to screw this up, right?
So how do we end up with a salary system that allows Minnesota to spend $196 million on Ryan Suter and Zach Parise? And that's not to pick on those guys — you could build a decent playoff team around them as long as your goalie didn't stink. Just know that nobody is saying the words, "Suter and Parise are coming to town tonight!" It's just not that kind of league. You go to hockey games to see quality teams, not quality players. There's a fixed level of entertainment. Suter and Parise shouldn't make that much money because hockey players shouldn't make that much money. It has nothing to do with them.
If you think of the cable television model, it makes more sense — channels like AMC, FX and Showtime realized that the quality of their shows matter a thousand times more than the "star power" of the actors on those shows. Yeah, AMC could have spent an extra $15 million per season on Keanu Reeves to play Rick in The Walking Dead, but why would they? People watch that show because they want to see people kill zombies. So they went the other way — cheaper actors, cheaper locations, more money on extras and special effects. Same for Showtime's hit Homeland, which features only one star (Claire Danes, who certainly isn't making Parise/Suter money) surrounded by well-casted actors, including a few good ones whom you'd recognize from other shows (including Mandy Patinkin, a fairly famous name in his own right) and certainly weren't expensive. You might recognize that same blueprint from Breaking Bad, Dexter, Californication, Shameless, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy and about 10 other cable shows. And by the way, did you know ANYONE on Mad Men when that show launched other than Ashton Kutcher's old girlfriend with the weird first name?
On cable television, the showrunner and the writing matter more than anything else. In hockey, the sport and the fans matter more than anything else. It doesn't matter who Minnesota's third-best player is any more or less than it matters who plays Mike on Homeland. Fans are coming, regardless. So why overpay players, jack up ticket prices and price out those fans when you don't have to? Wasn't that what the last lockout was about? Wasn't the league supposed to be regaining control of its broken salary structure? How are we back here seven years later battling the exact same problem?
For that and that alone, Gary Bettman needs to step down. No, we can't impeach him. Yes, we can continue to excoriate him. He's the worst commissioner in sports history, and really, it's going to remain that way unless Roger Goodell extends the NFL's season to 20 games, adds Wednesday- and Friday-night football to the schedule, pays a hitman to murder Jonathan Vilma, and gets outed for having a heated affair with his biographer, Peter King … and even then, I'd probably still give the edge to Bettman.
If you want to talk about moratoriums, Gary, here's a better idea — step down and give us a lifetime moratorium. From you
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
[h=1]Mirtle: A closer look at the NHLPA's last offer – and what may be next[/h]
James Mirtle
Toronto — The Globe and Mail
Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 21 2012, 8:41 AM EST
NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr (centre) glances at his notes as he
stands in front of players, including Sidney Crosby (centre left) following
collective bargaining talks in Toronto on Thursday October 18, 2012.
(The
Canadian Press)
And so we wait.
As the lockout rolls into Month No. 3, the NHL has asked the players to serve
up a full proposal, something the NHLPA is working on into the night in order to
present it by 10 a.m. Wednesday morning.
Details as to what it may include are relatively thin, but what is available
is the economic system the union put on the table about 10 days ago when
negotiations broke down into a shouting match between players and owners.
The players' proposal at that point was based on taking the $1.883-billion
share they received last season and simply adding 1.75 per cent to it each
season.
It was also reliant on the notion of NHL revenues continuing to grow from the
$3.303-billion they hit last season. If hockey-related revenues increased by 5
per cent each season (including the current, locked out one), the players' share
would shrink from 57 per cent last season to 55.2, 53.5, 51.9, 50.3 and 48.7
over the next five years.
Sounds good, right? A players' share of less than 50 per cent?
Here's the obvious issue: NHL revenues are not going to increase 5 per cent
this season. In fact, the league already estimates they'll drop some
$400-million to the $2.9-billion range, and that's if the season starts on Dec.
1, which is looking less and less likely by the day.
That makes it virtually impossible to set a guaranteed share like the players
have in their proposal, as no one truly knows where revenues will be for not
only 2012-13, but every season after that.
Will yet another lockout pull revenues down for years?
Or will this be a temporary one-year blip?
The best way to illustrate all of this is to simply present the financials in
chart form. One word of caution, though: I've organized this information as if
NHL revenues were going to increase by 5 per cent a season, something that is a
virtual impossibility now.
I'll explain why below (note: all dollar figures are in millions):
[TABLE="width: 370"]
<tbody>
[TR]
[TD="width: 78"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 118"]
[TD="width: 174"]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2011-12[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2012-13[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2013-14[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014-15[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015-16[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2016-17[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 78"]Total[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 430"]
<tbody>
[TR]
[TD="width: 91"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 174"]
[TD="width: 30"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 72"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2011-12[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2012-13[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2013-14[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014-15[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015-16[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2016-17[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Make whole[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 91"]Total[/TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
As you can see, the differences between these two offers, if revenues grew at
this rate, are pretty negligible: Just $128-million over five years, or less
than 0.7 per cent of total HRR over this time frame.
That's basically nothing, which is what makes the fact this wasn't on the
table back in October, when a full season could be salvaged and revenue gains
likely factored in, a little infuriating.
Now, I had attempted to rework the projected revenue figures and present the
NHLPA's offer in that light, but it's exceptionally difficult to do so. Even if
you simply scale down this year's share to account for the lost games and
revenue, what then do you do in Year 2 and beyond?
It's too hard to accurately determine, and we'd be guessing if we came up
with a 2013-14 or 2014-15 projection.
(It's important to note here that the NHLPA has said it wanted to lay out an
economic system first and then adjust it for the effects of the lockout. My
issue with that is how on earth do you project what those effects will be?)
There are positives buried in these figures. For one, the two sides are
closer together than they were in October, as the numbers here
show a gap of roughly $500-million before the NHL agreed to pay $211-million
toward the make whole and the PA put together these new numbers.
No. 2, the PA's ask of a 1.75 per cent increase, under normal circumstances,
isn't unreasonable.
Problem is these are hardly normal circumstances.
Where do they go from here?
Looking at the figures above, the players could theoretically put an
agreement on the table that started at 55.2 per cent in Year 1 before trailing
down to 50 per cent by Year 4.
If NHL revenues fall to $2.9-billion in a shortened season, however, the
players' share would dip to $1.6-billion and the notion of the league "making
whole" pre-existing deals would be altered significantly.
I'm not sure there's a way around that. Regardless of who either side
believes caused this mess, the so-called pain of the lockout is going to have to
be shared by both sides here or they'll never get a deal done.
Perhaps the best way to resolve the conflict is ultimately a variation of the
make whole provision: Anything above 50 per cent owed to the players in Years 1
and 2 is deferred down the road.
But even if the players decide to deal in percentages instead of guaranteed
increases for the first time, don't expect huge movement on the contractual
issues in any proposal.
There's a willingness to help the league eliminate the "back-diving" deals
like the one Ilya Kovalchuk signed a couple years ago – perhaps even with the
adoption of a 5 per cent year-by-year variance limit on contracts – but there's
not much room for movement beyond that.
Both sides are entrenched on the other issues, meaning even if there's
movement in the right direction on the economics, it likely won't be enough.
In some senses, they've never been closer. But getting through these final
series of hoops will be the most difficult part of all
James Mirtle
Toronto — The Globe and Mail
Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 21 2012, 8:41 AM EST
NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr (centre) glances at his notes as he
stands in front of players, including Sidney Crosby (centre left) following
collective bargaining talks in Toronto on Thursday October 18, 2012.
(The
Canadian Press)
And so we wait.
As the lockout rolls into Month No. 3, the NHL has asked the players to serve
up a full proposal, something the NHLPA is working on into the night in order to
present it by 10 a.m. Wednesday morning.
Details as to what it may include are relatively thin, but what is available
is the economic system the union put on the table about 10 days ago when
negotiations broke down into a shouting match between players and owners.
- Are the NHL owners cracking? Bettman says no
- NHL season not in danger of being wiped out – yet
- NHL closer to a deal than they think
The players' proposal at that point was based on taking the $1.883-billion
share they received last season and simply adding 1.75 per cent to it each
season.
It was also reliant on the notion of NHL revenues continuing to grow from the
$3.303-billion they hit last season. If hockey-related revenues increased by 5
per cent each season (including the current, locked out one), the players' share
would shrink from 57 per cent last season to 55.2, 53.5, 51.9, 50.3 and 48.7
over the next five years.
Sounds good, right? A players' share of less than 50 per cent?
Here's the obvious issue: NHL revenues are not going to increase 5 per cent
this season. In fact, the league already estimates they'll drop some
$400-million to the $2.9-billion range, and that's if the season starts on Dec.
1, which is looking less and less likely by the day.
That makes it virtually impossible to set a guaranteed share like the players
have in their proposal, as no one truly knows where revenues will be for not
only 2012-13, but every season after that.
Will yet another lockout pull revenues down for years?
Or will this be a temporary one-year blip?
The best way to illustrate all of this is to simply present the financials in
chart form. One word of caution, though: I've organized this information as if
NHL revenues were going to increase by 5 per cent a season, something that is a
virtual impossibility now.
I'll explain why below (note: all dollar figures are in millions):
[TABLE="width: 370"]
<tbody>
[TR]
[TD="width: 78"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 118"]
[/TD][TD="width: 174"]
NHLPA offer
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
League revenues
[/TD][TD]
Players share
[/TD][TD]
Percentage
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2011-12[/TD]
[TD]
$3,303.0
[/TD][TD]
$1,883.0
[/TD][TD]
57.0%
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2012-13[/TD]
[TD]
$3,468.2
[/TD][TD]
$1,916.0
[/TD][TD]
55.2%
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2013-14[/TD]
[TD]
$3,641.6
[/TD][TD]
$1,949.5
[/TD][TD]
53.5%
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014-15[/TD]
[TD]
$3,823.6
[/TD][TD]
$1,983.6
[/TD][TD]
51.9%
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015-16[/TD]
[TD]
$4,014.8
[/TD][TD]
$2,018.3
[/TD][TD]
50.3%
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2016-17[/TD]
[TD]
$4,215.6
[/TD][TD]
$2,053.6
[/TD][TD]
48.7%
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 78"]Total[/TD]
[TD]
$19,163.7
[/TD][TD]
$9,921.0
[/TD][TD]
51.8%
[/TD][/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 430"]
<tbody>
[TR]
[TD="width: 91"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 174"]
NHL offer
[/TD][TD="width: 30"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 72"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
Players share
[/TD][TD]
Percentage
[/TD][TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
Difference
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2011-12[/TD]
[TD]
$1,883.0
[/TD][TD]
57.0%
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
--
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2012-13[/TD]
[TD]
$1,734.1
[/TD][TD]
50.0%
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
$181.88
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2013-14[/TD]
[TD]
$1,820.8
[/TD][TD]
50.0%
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
$128.70
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014-15[/TD]
[TD]
$1,911.8
[/TD][TD]
50.0%
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
$71.78
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015-16[/TD]
[TD]
$2,007.4
[/TD][TD]
50.0%
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
$10.90
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2016-17[/TD]
[TD]
$2,107.8
[/TD][TD]
50.0%
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
-$54.15
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Make whole[/TD]
[TD]
$211.0
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
-$211.00
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 91"]Total[/TD]
[TD]
$9,792.9
[/TD][TD]
51.1%
[/TD][TD]
[/TD][TD]
$128.1
[/TD][/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
As you can see, the differences between these two offers, if revenues grew at
this rate, are pretty negligible: Just $128-million over five years, or less
than 0.7 per cent of total HRR over this time frame.
That's basically nothing, which is what makes the fact this wasn't on the
table back in October, when a full season could be salvaged and revenue gains
likely factored in, a little infuriating.
Now, I had attempted to rework the projected revenue figures and present the
NHLPA's offer in that light, but it's exceptionally difficult to do so. Even if
you simply scale down this year's share to account for the lost games and
revenue, what then do you do in Year 2 and beyond?
It's too hard to accurately determine, and we'd be guessing if we came up
with a 2013-14 or 2014-15 projection.
(It's important to note here that the NHLPA has said it wanted to lay out an
economic system first and then adjust it for the effects of the lockout. My
issue with that is how on earth do you project what those effects will be?)
There are positives buried in these figures. For one, the two sides are
closer together than they were in October, as the numbers here
show a gap of roughly $500-million before the NHL agreed to pay $211-million
toward the make whole and the PA put together these new numbers.
No. 2, the PA's ask of a 1.75 per cent increase, under normal circumstances,
isn't unreasonable.
Problem is these are hardly normal circumstances.
Where do they go from here?
Looking at the figures above, the players could theoretically put an
agreement on the table that started at 55.2 per cent in Year 1 before trailing
down to 50 per cent by Year 4.
If NHL revenues fall to $2.9-billion in a shortened season, however, the
players' share would dip to $1.6-billion and the notion of the league "making
whole" pre-existing deals would be altered significantly.
I'm not sure there's a way around that. Regardless of who either side
believes caused this mess, the so-called pain of the lockout is going to have to
be shared by both sides here or they'll never get a deal done.
Perhaps the best way to resolve the conflict is ultimately a variation of the
make whole provision: Anything above 50 per cent owed to the players in Years 1
and 2 is deferred down the road.
But even if the players decide to deal in percentages instead of guaranteed
increases for the first time, don't expect huge movement on the contractual
issues in any proposal.
There's a willingness to help the league eliminate the "back-diving" deals
like the one Ilya Kovalchuk signed a couple years ago – perhaps even with the
adoption of a 5 per cent year-by-year variance limit on contracts – but there's
not much room for movement beyond that.
Both sides are entrenched on the other issues, meaning even if there's
movement in the right direction on the economics, it likely won't be enough.
In some senses, they've never been closer. But getting through these final
series of hoops will be the most difficult part of all
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
Darren Dreger<s>@</s>DarrenDreger PA moves off its position on guaranteed players share dollars + shifts more to the owners demand of a percentage base in the revenue split.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
Bob McKenzie<s>@</s>TSNBobMcKenzie We're hearing today's NHLPA proposal to NHL will include increasing the NHL's $211M Make Whole provision by another $180M
matteson83
Pretty much a regular
Disappointment at 1 pm est, in the form of NHL response.
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
PA says they are 189m apart now where in the last NHL deal they were 1b
so today is pretty much now or never
so today is pretty much now or never
matteson83
Pretty much a regular
any speculation on start date if deal is worked out by dec 1?
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
If the league doesnt work and negotiate off this deal they are giving themselves a huge black eye...
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
TO: All Agents
FROM: Don Fehr
DATE: 21 November 2012
RE: NHLPA Proposal
The NHLPA’s Negotiating Committee today provided the NHL Owners with a comprehensive 6 page proposal on the key issues (see below). As you will read in the proposal, the players have made substantial moves in order to address all of the owners’ concerns, end the owners’ lockout and get the game back on the ice. Our proposal works off the league’s proposed language/structures and moves off our position that there be a guaranteed players’ share. These are major moves in the owners’ direction. Regarding player contractual issues, we have also addressed the owners concerns regarding back-diving contacts and NHL contacts being “buried” in the minors.
Now that we have made this proposal, there is no longer any doubt as to how far apart the parties are in dollars. As you will recall, we had previously said we thought the gap was less than $200M, while the owners had said that the gap was much larger and close to $1B. Under our proposal, it is now undisputed that the gap is only $182 M over 5 years. Now it is up to the owners to finally make a move towards the players.
At the same time, we have protected player rights by refusing to accept their proposals restricting free agency and salary arbitration.
Here are a few significant details from our proposal:
Players’ Share: A major move in the owners’ direction by removing guarantees or fixed targets for Players’ share.
Honouring Players’ Contracts/Transition payments: Players’ Share will equal 50 percent of HRR plus fixed payments in the first four years to partially honour player contracts and ease the transition to 50/50:
2012-13 - $182M
2013-14 - $128M
2014-15 - $72M
2015-16 - $11M
Total $393M
*The owners had previously proposed $211M
Long-term back-diving contracts – Cap benefit recapture rule so clubs no longer benefit from front-loading contracts (move in the owners’ direction)
Contracts in the minors – Clubs take a cap hit on contracts in the minors over $1M (move in the owners’ direction)
Four Recall Rule – Unlimited recalls after regular season (move in the owners’ direction)
Salary Arbitration – Elimination of walk-away from arbitrator’s decision, but clubs can still “walk-away” by not qualifying a player
Please read through the proposal below and contact the NHLPA if you have any questions. The league indicated that they plan to respond to our proposal later today. We will provide a further update following this meeting.
Regards,
Don
NHLPA Proposal -- 21 November 2012
This proposal addresses significant open issues concerning revenue sharing, player contracting, the players’ share, and certain other open areas, as reflected below. This proposal does not address other items upon which we have agreed or are pending, such as health and safety, hockey issues, the “jock tax”, and international.
1) Revenue Sharing
• Pool of $200 Million at $3.303 B of HRR. Varies year to year with HRR.
• Contributions to be raised per NHL formula. No discretion to increase individual team contributions beyond what formula provides
• Existing level of distributions to be protected for 2 years. If additional funds needed, raised pro-rata from all teams
• Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee (RSOC) has discretion to adjust amounts for Phase One distributions by up to +/- 15% per team, provided that all such adjustments are considered and decided upon at one time
o RSOC by unanimous vote may move beyond +/- 15% limitation towards but not exceeding the straight pool value for regular season HRR. (Must therefore compute straight pool every year.)
• Industry Growth Fund to be managed by the RSOC.
o IGF will have callable dollars of up to $20M in first year, $40M in second year, and $60M in each subsequent year of the agreement.
o Need to establish criteria for which teams may apply for IGF funding and/or will submit plans.
o IGF funding is available to any team by unanimous consent of RSOC
o IGF funding also available for industry-wide programs or projects
• RSOC has seven (7) members selected by the parties in their sole discretion, as follows
o Four employer representatives, at least one of which must by an owner
o Three (3) player representatives, at least one of which must be a player
o Parties may name up to 2 Alternate RSOC representatives who will serve in the event of absence of a member
o Need to spell out in drafting the process of the RSOC, and limited arbitral review of decisions
2) Defined Benefit Pension Plan
• The parties will establish a defined benefit pension plan under US law per the NHLPA proposal.
3) Discipline
• For on-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to a neutral arbitrator or to a panel of three arbitrators (one appointed by each side and one neutral). The standard of review will be whether the League’s finding of a violation of the League Playing Rules was supported by substantial evidence, and, if so, whether the penalty imposed was within the League’s reasonable discretion and consistent with past practice
• For off-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to the impartial arbitrator. The issue will be whether the discipline was for just cause.
4) Player Contracting and System Issues
• NHLPA liability for escrow is eliminated from the side letter.
• NHLPA may set a higher percentage for escrow in a given year than the formula would provide. The NHL may also set a higher percentage than the formula would provide in the last year of the agreement, provided that any number so set is not unreasonable.
• The Playoff Pool is increased per the NHLPA proposal
• Liquidated damages provisions in SPCs are prohibited. This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
• Prompt mutual disclosure of European loan agreements, ATOs and PTOs.
• NHLPA proposal on no trade / no move clauses
• NHL proposal to prevent a team playing with less than the minimum of 18/2 is accepted provided limitation is the NHL minimum + $100,000; counts against the share but not the cap.
• Waivers
o Re-entry waivers are eliminated
o Waivers will be required to loan a player who is on emergency recall if that player has played 10 games
o NHLPA proposal on 13.23 waivers
• Four Recall Rule
o After the conclusion of the Regular Season, a Club may exercise an unlimited number of additional Regular Recalls provided that it may have no more than three (3) Players on its Active Roster who were recalled by way of Regular Recall after the Trade Deadline
• Minimum salary continues to increase on the same schedule as previous CBA, $25,000 every second year
• Goepfert Rule as proposed by NHLPA
• Performance bonus cushion in each year of the agreement
• The Lower limit must be satisfied without consideration of performance bonuses.
• Players and cash/cap trading. A team may have an unlimited number of Retained Salary Transactions up to 15% of the Upper Limit in any League year
• The amount in excess of $1M paid to a player while in the minor leagues or in Europe on an NHL contract counts against the cap (none counts against the share). This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
• NHLPA cap benefit recapture proposal.
o Applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
o Applies to contracts of 9 years or longer
o 35 year old rule changed to provide that the cap charge taken will be as per cap benefit recapture
• Salary Arbitration
o Walk away eliminated
• Second buyout period will continue in its current form except that
o A Club may not buy out a player who was not on its Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline
o A Club may not buy out a player who has a cap hit of less than $3 M
• Critical dates calendar
o Sec. 12.3(a) election moved per NHLPA proposal
o Free agency interview period per NHLPA proposal
• Salary Cap and Payroll Range
o Growth Factor, Performance Bonus Cushion, Long-Term, injury continue except for any changes already agreed to or contained in this proposal
o +8M/-8M payroll range becomes +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14
o The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M).
5) Players’ Share
• Our players’ share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.
• Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement:
• 2012/13 $ 182 M
• 2013/14 $ 128 M
• 2014/15 $ 72 M
• 2015/16 $ 11 M
• Payment of these amounts may be deferred for one year (specific payment date to be agreed upon), with the deferral accumulating interest rate equal to the sum of the prime interest rate in effect at The J.P. Morgan Chase Bank on the next June 15, plus 1%. Payment of these fixed dollar amounts is guaranteed by the League.
• In years two through five of this Agreement, the players’ share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year.
• Attached are charts which show this proposal against your last in the format you provided after our last proposal.
6) Term of CBA
• The term of the CBA will be for 5 years/seasons, and will end on September 15, 2017.
7) Transition Rules to be negotiated
• May cover, among other things, compliance buyouts, pro-ration of status/service and statistical criteria/thresholds based on the length of the season, movement of deadlines, and any other relevant matters.
FROM: Don Fehr
DATE: 21 November 2012
RE: NHLPA Proposal
The NHLPA’s Negotiating Committee today provided the NHL Owners with a comprehensive 6 page proposal on the key issues (see below). As you will read in the proposal, the players have made substantial moves in order to address all of the owners’ concerns, end the owners’ lockout and get the game back on the ice. Our proposal works off the league’s proposed language/structures and moves off our position that there be a guaranteed players’ share. These are major moves in the owners’ direction. Regarding player contractual issues, we have also addressed the owners concerns regarding back-diving contacts and NHL contacts being “buried” in the minors.
Now that we have made this proposal, there is no longer any doubt as to how far apart the parties are in dollars. As you will recall, we had previously said we thought the gap was less than $200M, while the owners had said that the gap was much larger and close to $1B. Under our proposal, it is now undisputed that the gap is only $182 M over 5 years. Now it is up to the owners to finally make a move towards the players.
At the same time, we have protected player rights by refusing to accept their proposals restricting free agency and salary arbitration.
Here are a few significant details from our proposal:
Players’ Share: A major move in the owners’ direction by removing guarantees or fixed targets for Players’ share.
Honouring Players’ Contracts/Transition payments: Players’ Share will equal 50 percent of HRR plus fixed payments in the first four years to partially honour player contracts and ease the transition to 50/50:
2012-13 - $182M
2013-14 - $128M
2014-15 - $72M
2015-16 - $11M
Total $393M
*The owners had previously proposed $211M
Long-term back-diving contracts – Cap benefit recapture rule so clubs no longer benefit from front-loading contracts (move in the owners’ direction)
Contracts in the minors – Clubs take a cap hit on contracts in the minors over $1M (move in the owners’ direction)
Four Recall Rule – Unlimited recalls after regular season (move in the owners’ direction)
Salary Arbitration – Elimination of walk-away from arbitrator’s decision, but clubs can still “walk-away” by not qualifying a player
Please read through the proposal below and contact the NHLPA if you have any questions. The league indicated that they plan to respond to our proposal later today. We will provide a further update following this meeting.
Regards,
Don
NHLPA Proposal -- 21 November 2012
This proposal addresses significant open issues concerning revenue sharing, player contracting, the players’ share, and certain other open areas, as reflected below. This proposal does not address other items upon which we have agreed or are pending, such as health and safety, hockey issues, the “jock tax”, and international.
1) Revenue Sharing
• Pool of $200 Million at $3.303 B of HRR. Varies year to year with HRR.
• Contributions to be raised per NHL formula. No discretion to increase individual team contributions beyond what formula provides
• Existing level of distributions to be protected for 2 years. If additional funds needed, raised pro-rata from all teams
• Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee (RSOC) has discretion to adjust amounts for Phase One distributions by up to +/- 15% per team, provided that all such adjustments are considered and decided upon at one time
o RSOC by unanimous vote may move beyond +/- 15% limitation towards but not exceeding the straight pool value for regular season HRR. (Must therefore compute straight pool every year.)
• Industry Growth Fund to be managed by the RSOC.
o IGF will have callable dollars of up to $20M in first year, $40M in second year, and $60M in each subsequent year of the agreement.
o Need to establish criteria for which teams may apply for IGF funding and/or will submit plans.
o IGF funding is available to any team by unanimous consent of RSOC
o IGF funding also available for industry-wide programs or projects
• RSOC has seven (7) members selected by the parties in their sole discretion, as follows
o Four employer representatives, at least one of which must by an owner
o Three (3) player representatives, at least one of which must be a player
o Parties may name up to 2 Alternate RSOC representatives who will serve in the event of absence of a member
o Need to spell out in drafting the process of the RSOC, and limited arbitral review of decisions
2) Defined Benefit Pension Plan
• The parties will establish a defined benefit pension plan under US law per the NHLPA proposal.
3) Discipline
• For on-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to a neutral arbitrator or to a panel of three arbitrators (one appointed by each side and one neutral). The standard of review will be whether the League’s finding of a violation of the League Playing Rules was supported by substantial evidence, and, if so, whether the penalty imposed was within the League’s reasonable discretion and consistent with past practice
• For off-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to the impartial arbitrator. The issue will be whether the discipline was for just cause.
4) Player Contracting and System Issues
• NHLPA liability for escrow is eliminated from the side letter.
• NHLPA may set a higher percentage for escrow in a given year than the formula would provide. The NHL may also set a higher percentage than the formula would provide in the last year of the agreement, provided that any number so set is not unreasonable.
• The Playoff Pool is increased per the NHLPA proposal
• Liquidated damages provisions in SPCs are prohibited. This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
• Prompt mutual disclosure of European loan agreements, ATOs and PTOs.
• NHLPA proposal on no trade / no move clauses
• NHL proposal to prevent a team playing with less than the minimum of 18/2 is accepted provided limitation is the NHL minimum + $100,000; counts against the share but not the cap.
• Waivers
o Re-entry waivers are eliminated
o Waivers will be required to loan a player who is on emergency recall if that player has played 10 games
o NHLPA proposal on 13.23 waivers
• Four Recall Rule
o After the conclusion of the Regular Season, a Club may exercise an unlimited number of additional Regular Recalls provided that it may have no more than three (3) Players on its Active Roster who were recalled by way of Regular Recall after the Trade Deadline
• Minimum salary continues to increase on the same schedule as previous CBA, $25,000 every second year
• Goepfert Rule as proposed by NHLPA
• Performance bonus cushion in each year of the agreement
• The Lower limit must be satisfied without consideration of performance bonuses.
• Players and cash/cap trading. A team may have an unlimited number of Retained Salary Transactions up to 15% of the Upper Limit in any League year
• The amount in excess of $1M paid to a player while in the minor leagues or in Europe on an NHL contract counts against the cap (none counts against the share). This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
• NHLPA cap benefit recapture proposal.
o Applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.
o Applies to contracts of 9 years or longer
o 35 year old rule changed to provide that the cap charge taken will be as per cap benefit recapture
• Salary Arbitration
o Walk away eliminated
• Second buyout period will continue in its current form except that
o A Club may not buy out a player who was not on its Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline
o A Club may not buy out a player who has a cap hit of less than $3 M
• Critical dates calendar
o Sec. 12.3(a) election moved per NHLPA proposal
o Free agency interview period per NHLPA proposal
• Salary Cap and Payroll Range
o Growth Factor, Performance Bonus Cushion, Long-Term, injury continue except for any changes already agreed to or contained in this proposal
o +8M/-8M payroll range becomes +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14
o The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M).
5) Players’ Share
• Our players’ share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.
• Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement:
• 2012/13 $ 182 M
• 2013/14 $ 128 M
• 2014/15 $ 72 M
• 2015/16 $ 11 M
• Payment of these amounts may be deferred for one year (specific payment date to be agreed upon), with the deferral accumulating interest rate equal to the sum of the prime interest rate in effect at The J.P. Morgan Chase Bank on the next June 15, plus 1%. Payment of these fixed dollar amounts is guaranteed by the League.
• In years two through five of this Agreement, the players’ share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year.
• Attached are charts which show this proposal against your last in the format you provided after our last proposal.
6) Term of CBA
• The term of the CBA will be for 5 years/seasons, and will end on September 15, 2017.
7) Transition Rules to be negotiated
• May cover, among other things, compliance buyouts, pro-ration of status/service and statistical criteria/thresholds based on the length of the season, movement of deadlines, and any other relevant matters.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
this cant be good, league basically said thanks but no thanks
'no movement' as per Fehr...
seasons over IMO
'no movement' as per Fehr...
seasons over IMO
matteson83
Pretty much a regular
I wouldn't be surprised either way.
PA is moving closer to what the league wants, why would they negotiate? Polarizing move but the league will get closer to what they want than what the PA wants.
PA is moving closer to what the league wants, why would they negotiate? Polarizing move but the league will get closer to what they want than what the PA wants.
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
ya the owners are waiting them out, I don't think they make a move for at least a few more weeks to see how much further the PA will come
the players hatred of Bettman is getting funny, not realizing that he works for the owners
Del Zotto and Jeff O'Neill made themselves look real smart today
the players hatred of Bettman is getting funny, not realizing that he works for the owners
Del Zotto and Jeff O'Neill made themselves look real smart today
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Allan Walsh <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>walshaThat's not the point. You said we need leadership and dealmakers. Fehr a proven dealmaker. What about Bettman? <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>brianlawton9
Expand
<small class="time" style="font-size: 12px; color: rgb(187, 187, 187); position: relative; float: right; margin-top: 1px;">5h</small>
Brian Lawton <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>brianlawton9
<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>walsha I have said many things still on thread I was talking about leaders seeing the need for more urgency & what can both live with! CS
Expand
Brian Lawton <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>brianlawton9<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>walsha I have said many things still on thread I was talking about leaders seeing the need for more urgency & what can both live with! CS
Expand
<small class="time" style="font-size: 12px; color: rgb(187, 187, 187); position: relative; float: right; margin-top: 1px;">4h</small>
RJ Umberger <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>Umby18
<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>brianlawton9 <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>walsha where was that urgency when I was advised to sit out a year of hockey
RJ Umberger <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>Umby18<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>brianlawton9 <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>walsha where was that urgency when I was advised to sit out a year of hockey
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
o'neils generally a funny guy on twitter but that was stupid as can be
all star game expected to be canned friday... hiding the friday after thanksgiving... nhl mo
all star game expected to be canned friday... hiding the friday after thanksgiving... nhl mo
matteson83
Pretty much a regular
Thats the key here, Bettman isn't 100% to blame. Jeremy Jacobs and his band of supporters in the ownership community are orchestrating the lockout. I'm not saything Bettman is handling this well but he shouldn't get most of the blame.
I've been thinking about how players turning to social media might play out down the road. A few are voicing their opinions clearly for the public to see, they know its the owners, their bosses controlling this and not Bettman.
I've been thinking about how players turning to social media might play out down the road. A few are voicing their opinions clearly for the public to see, they know its the owners, their bosses controlling this and not Bettman.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
Bettman is a puppet to the key players and the board of governors, but its a full 30 team league with some terrible markets (Bettmans doing)
He has people to answer to, but dont be quoted as saying the CBA needed tweaking, and minor adjustments then go full tilt take them across the coals.
He has people to answer to, but dont be quoted as saying the CBA needed tweaking, and minor adjustments then go full tilt take them across the coals.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
more and more talks of decertification goign about
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
the longer this goes, the more I hope the owners just crush the players
what a group of idiots
what a group of idiots
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Desertification is a huge risk
in the extremely unlikely event that it goes through, the league becomes completely different. No Pension, minimum wage, no say in league moves
this would help the top 10% of the league, but the lower 90% will end up making less
the NHL also has the threat of folding Phoenix, which takes away 50 contracts
if it works though and the NHL fears it, there's probably a 2-4 week window where they could reach a deal, but after that the season is lost
in the extremely unlikely event that it goes through, the league becomes completely different. No Pension, minimum wage, no say in league moves
this would help the top 10% of the league, but the lower 90% will end up making less
the NHL also has the threat of folding Phoenix, which takes away 50 contracts
if it works though and the NHL fears it, there's probably a 2-4 week window where they could reach a deal, but after that the season is lost
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
even just the mention has to put a little momentum onto the players side...
if this is the owners MO, the players cant give anymore. It will be a lockout everytime after the CBA expires and press until players give in.
The players are acting like fools in social media, but the actual basis of the lockout, Im with them
if this is the owners MO, the players cant give anymore. It will be a lockout everytime after the CBA expires and press until players give in.
The players are acting like fools in social media, but the actual basis of the lockout, Im with them
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
now that it's basically down to 50/50 I agree with them on the larger contract issues
I think there should be some type of control so that the Hossa/Luongo/Zetterberg contracts can't work, but that's as easy as making it so the dollars/cap have to be the same in every year. This rule has less to due with Owners/Players and more to do with limiting GMs
I could even understand a limit of 7 or 8, but the 5 that the league wants is too short, and so is raising UFA a year (which I am guessing was thrown in so they can give it away in future and say they are making concessions)
the make whole is tricky, a roll back like 04 is probably easier to do or else a lot of teams are in big trouble with the cap
I think there should be some type of control so that the Hossa/Luongo/Zetterberg contracts can't work, but that's as easy as making it so the dollars/cap have to be the same in every year. This rule has less to due with Owners/Players and more to do with limiting GMs
I could even understand a limit of 7 or 8, but the 5 that the league wants is too short, and so is raising UFA a year (which I am guessing was thrown in so they can give it away in future and say they are making concessions)
the make whole is tricky, a roll back like 04 is probably easier to do or else a lot of teams are in big trouble with the cap
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Director George H. Cohen issued the following statement today on the ongoing labor negotiations between the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association:
“I have had separate, informal discussions with the key representatives of the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association during the course of their negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement. At the invitation of the FMCS, and with the agreement of both parties, the ongoing negotiations will now be conducted under our auspices. I have assigned Deputy Director Scot L. Beckenbaugh, Director of Mediation Services John Sweeney, and Commissioner Guy Serota to serve as the mediators.”
“Due to the extreme sensitivity of these negotiations and consistent with the FMCS’s long-standing practice, the Agency will refrain from any public comment concerning the future schedule and/or the status of the negotiations until further notice.”
“I have had separate, informal discussions with the key representatives of the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association during the course of their negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement. At the invitation of the FMCS, and with the agreement of both parties, the ongoing negotiations will now be conducted under our auspices. I have assigned Deputy Director Scot L. Beckenbaugh, Director of Mediation Services John Sweeney, and Commissioner Guy Serota to serve as the mediators.”
“Due to the extreme sensitivity of these negotiations and consistent with the FMCS’s long-standing practice, the Agency will refrain from any public comment concerning the future schedule and/or the status of the negotiations until further notice.”
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Pierre LeBrun <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>Real_ESPNLeBrunFederal mediator now involved in NHL/NHLPA labor talks. More to come.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
came out of left field for me... heard some rumblings that it would be best, but didnt see it happening
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Jesse Spector <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>jessespector"Percentage of mediated cases settled through FMCS," per the agency's annual report, has been 85-87% each of last four years.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
wanna know what was on Serotas twitter page before deleting it other than tweeting @ sarah silverman
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
haha someone had to have taken a screenshot
he's saying he was temporarily hacked, must have been for months
he's saying he was temporarily hacked, must have been for months
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
damh hes been removed, bettman has a robot penis
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
If only the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service could settle the NHL lockout as quickly as it dropped Guy Serota from the mediation. On Monday afternoon, Serota was named by the independent federal agency as one of three mediators assigned to the collective bargaining dispute between the NHL and the NHLPA.
Within moments of the announcement, intrepid hockey fans had discovered Serota's Twitter feed, which identified him as "Commissioner with Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, United States Government." Serota's worked with the FMCS for 15 years.
The feed featured several partisan" political comments, referencing "Karl Rove and Republican math" and "Great morning here in USA! Obama is still President. Restores my faith in the American voter (after 2 terms George W)."
But it also featured a slew of off-color jokes; some inspired by late night talk show host Craig Ferguson, whose term "ass mode" was cited by Serota out of context (and the amusement of others); and this one that referenced comedian Sarah Silverman in a clunky, uncomfortable tweet:
SEROROORRAYeah …
The hockey Twittersphere gleefully piled on Serota, mocking the sudden celebrity. He deleted his Twitter feed, although it was soon resurrected with a message claiming the feed been hacked.
ESPN's Pierre LeBrun reached Serota, who said his feed had been in fact been hacked and that he was not running his new Twitter account, i.e. it was an imposter who scooped up the I.D. when Serota deleted the account.
The FMCS apparently had seen enough, however. In one of the least surprising moves of the NHL lockout, Serota was removed from the case, just over two hours after the initial announcement of the NHL mediation.
Here's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Director George H. Cohen's statement on the matter:
Yup. Hacked. Just like Jukt Micronics.
Honestly, nothing Serota tweeted really bothered us all that much, nor did it seem to indicate he didn't have the integrity to mediate the dispute between the owners and players in the NHL. His removal is the result of the wide-ranging mockery of his feed; his hasty and attention-fueling decision to delete the feed; and the embarrassment that he caused the FMCS in what be a record amount of time. (And for the federal government, that's saying something.)
Here's full collection of the wit and wisdom of Commissioner Serota, via Ryan Lambert and 5-Hole Eric:
Pagination
Within moments of the announcement, intrepid hockey fans had discovered Serota's Twitter feed, which identified him as "Commissioner with Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, United States Government." Serota's worked with the FMCS for 15 years.
The feed featured several partisan" political comments, referencing "Karl Rove and Republican math" and "Great morning here in USA! Obama is still President. Restores my faith in the American voter (after 2 terms George W)."
But it also featured a slew of off-color jokes; some inspired by late night talk show host Craig Ferguson, whose term "ass mode" was cited by Serota out of context (and the amusement of others); and this one that referenced comedian Sarah Silverman in a clunky, uncomfortable tweet:
SEROROORRAYeah …The hockey Twittersphere gleefully piled on Serota, mocking the sudden celebrity. He deleted his Twitter feed, although it was soon resurrected with a message claiming the feed been hacked.
ESPN's Pierre LeBrun reached Serota, who said his feed had been in fact been hacked and that he was not running his new Twitter account, i.e. it was an imposter who scooped up the I.D. when Serota deleted the account.
The FMCS apparently had seen enough, however. In one of the least surprising moves of the NHL lockout, Serota was removed from the case, just over two hours after the initial announcement of the NHL mediation.
Here's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Director George H. Cohen's statement on the matter:
"Within one hour after I issued a press release announcing that further negotiations between the NHL and NHLPA would be conducted under the auspices of the FMCS, it has been called to my attention that there are issues involving an allegedly hacked Twitter account associated with Commissioner Guy Serota, one of the mediators I assigned. Accordingly, in order to immediately dispel any cloud on the mediation process, and without regard to the merits of the allegations, I have determined to take immediate action, namely to remove Commissioner Serota from this
assignment."
Yes, a Twitter hack that lasted multiple weeks, was unnoticed by a federal employee and didn't seem to have a point. A Twitter hack that seemed to have messages and themes (Kathy Baker; jokes about David Patraeus) that oddly synced up with Guy Serota's YouTube account assignment."
Yup. Hacked. Just like Jukt Micronics.
Honestly, nothing Serota tweeted really bothered us all that much, nor did it seem to indicate he didn't have the integrity to mediate the dispute between the owners and players in the NHL. His removal is the result of the wide-ranging mockery of his feed; his hasty and attention-fueling decision to delete the feed; and the embarrassment that he caused the FMCS in what be a record amount of time. (And for the federal government, that's saying something.)
Here's full collection of the wit and wisdom of Commissioner Serota, via Ryan Lambert and 5-Hole Eric:
Pagination
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
mediation over after 2 days, sides too far apart... Bettman requested a meeting with owners and players and no reps...
so lockout 2013?
so lockout 2013?
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
I dont think it will never happen, but it would be a step in the right direction
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
couldnt hurt right? IMO it depends on the owners in the room... IE the big 6 or the other players amid reports of the bullying owners this week
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
about 3 months too late
Louis Jean <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>LouisJean_TVA
<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 193, 193);">@</s>NHLPA Exec. Dir, Don Fehr sent e-mail to players. Asked them to refrain from commenting negs & league offer for player/owners only meeting.
Louis Jean <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>LouisJean_TVA
The reason players are asked to stop talking is simple. Some of the comments or info that was leaked has been harmful to process.
Louis Jean <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>LouisJean_TVA<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 193, 193);">@</s>NHLPA Exec. Dir, Don Fehr sent e-mail to players. Asked them to refrain from commenting negs & league offer for player/owners only meeting.
Louis Jean <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>LouisJean_TVAThe reason players are asked to stop talking is simple. Some of the comments or info that was leaked has been harmful to process.
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
players really listening lol...
PA expected to give answer to league by tomorrow AM at latest
PA expected to give answer to league by tomorrow AM at latest
Santacapper
Pretty much a regular
all depends who you talk to... myself Im with the players. I liken the basis to being a sales guy, and having a commision deal.. you sell your ass off and the boss comes back and says "I didnt think you would make me that much money, Im going to need 24% cutbacks here"
The players are being stubborn, but IMO they have to. Bettman has locked out the players 3 times in his tenure, and each times the players have made major concessions to get the deal done. What's going to happen after the expiration of this CBA once it gets signed? All signs point to a lockout and havign the players make concessions if they do this time around.
There's a happy medium, and Bettman is on record saying this past CBA needs minor tweaks... now he is going for a major over haul.
If I were to place a bet, id say no season. They are too far apart, and get farther apart each time they talk. The league added a year to salary arbitration in last talks, somethign that was a moot point in the past, just to be dicks.
hope im wrong, but I dont see it
