View Poll Results: Is your team in cap hell?
Yes
0
0%
No
0
0%
Don't care
0
0%
Go Nordiques!
0
0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll
Hockey: News and Discussion Thread
10-16-2012, 06:19 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
^^ Nobody wants to talk about it.
Major market owners should be ponying up the $$$ to pay the small market teams the coin so they can retract.....but nobody wants to talk about it.
What will save the league (contraction) is looked upon as failure, when really it is the leagues only saving grace.
Move a couple, and contract the rest.
Major market owners should be ponying up the $$$ to pay the small market teams the coin so they can retract.....but nobody wants to talk about it.
What will save the league (contraction) is looked upon as failure, when really it is the leagues only saving grace.
Move a couple, and contract the rest.
10-16-2012, 06:21 PM
Senior Moderator
^^ Nobody wants to talk about it.
Major market owners should be ponying up the $$$ to pay the small market teams the coin so they can retract.....but nobody wants to talk about it.
What will save the league (contraction) is looked upon as failure, when really it is the leagues only saving grace.
Move a couple, and contract the rest.
Major market owners should be ponying up the $$$ to pay the small market teams the coin so they can retract.....but nobody wants to talk about it.
What will save the league (contraction) is looked upon as failure, when really it is the leagues only saving grace.
Move a couple, and contract the rest.
So...vicious cycle continues...
10-16-2012, 06:23 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
meh....small market owners would gladly be paid to walk away from the NHL.
Again, they would only have to pay a few to retract, then relocate 2 franchises.
One to Seattle, the other to Ontario somewhere.
...and no, Quebec is not getting another shot at a franchise. You clownz say you want a team, but you never support them, so
Again, they would only have to pay a few to retract, then relocate 2 franchises.
One to Seattle, the other to Ontario somewhere.
...and no, Quebec is not getting another shot at a franchise. You clownz say you want a team, but you never support them, so
10-16-2012, 10:48 PM
Senior Moderator
meh....small market owners would gladly be paid to walk away from the NHL.
Again, they would only have to pay a few to retract, then relocate 2 franchises.
One to Seattle, the other to Ontario somewhere.
...and no, Quebec is not getting another shot at a franchise. You clownz say you want a team, but you never support them, so
Again, they would only have to pay a few to retract, then relocate 2 franchises.
One to Seattle, the other to Ontario somewhere.
...and no, Quebec is not getting another shot at a franchise. You clownz say you want a team, but you never support them, so
Or Regina.
10-17-2012, 12:58 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
Mckenzie: Nhl proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm
The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.
In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:
- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"
- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."
On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:
- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."
- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."
- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."
- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."
The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:
- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."
- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:
- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.
- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.
- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.
- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.
- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:
- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"
- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."
On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:
- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."
- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."
- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."
- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."
The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:
- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."
- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:
- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.
- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.
- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.
- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.
- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
10-17-2012, 01:09 PM
Senior Moderator
Yup, I wasn't optimistic...and this proves it.
10-17-2012, 01:35 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
^^ Stop agreeing with me, Statler.
You are making me
You are making me
10-17-2012, 01:41 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
Fehr on NHL offer: 'Enormous reductions' for players
2:36PM EDT October 17. 2012 - NHL Players' Association executive director Donald Fehr has told players that the NHL's Tuesday proposal is less draconian than previous ones "but still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rules."
Fehr broke down the NHL's offer in the memo to players. USA TODAY Sports obtained the memo.
In it, he said, the league's request to drop players' share of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 50% would cost players $231 million in the first year. And the impact would be bigger over the course of the deal.
"Over 6 years, this would save the owners an enormous amount of money, the precise amount depending on how fast revenue grows," he wrote. "For example, if revenue grows at 5%, which the owners predict, they save $1.651 billion that would otherwise be paid to players. If revenue grows at 7.1%, the average rate over the last agreement, the players' share is cut by $1.776 billion. (If revenue never grows, the owners pay players $1.387 billion less over 6 years.)"
Fehr also called in question the NHL's desire to "clarify" definitions of hockey-related revenue.
"It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries," he wrote.
The NHL has said there would be no rollback in current salaries and any losses players have in the first two years would be made up by deferred payments in later years. Fehr questioned the NHL's method.
"The players share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "make whole" payment would be made," he wrote. "It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."
Fehr even questioned a league proposal that gives players an additional appeals avenue if they are suspended.
"Players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical matter, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned," he wrote.
Fehr and his staff are working on a counter-proposal and plan to present it on Thursday in Toronto.
Fehr broke down the NHL's offer in the memo to players. USA TODAY Sports obtained the memo.
In it, he said, the league's request to drop players' share of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 50% would cost players $231 million in the first year. And the impact would be bigger over the course of the deal.
"Over 6 years, this would save the owners an enormous amount of money, the precise amount depending on how fast revenue grows," he wrote. "For example, if revenue grows at 5%, which the owners predict, they save $1.651 billion that would otherwise be paid to players. If revenue grows at 7.1%, the average rate over the last agreement, the players' share is cut by $1.776 billion. (If revenue never grows, the owners pay players $1.387 billion less over 6 years.)"
Fehr also called in question the NHL's desire to "clarify" definitions of hockey-related revenue.
"It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries," he wrote.
The NHL has said there would be no rollback in current salaries and any losses players have in the first two years would be made up by deferred payments in later years. Fehr questioned the NHL's method.
"The players share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "make whole" payment would be made," he wrote. "It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."
Fehr even questioned a league proposal that gives players an additional appeals avenue if they are suspended.
"Players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical matter, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned," he wrote.
Fehr and his staff are working on a counter-proposal and plan to present it on Thursday in Toronto.
10-17-2012, 02:17 PM
Senior Moderator
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
iTrader: (6)
So, anybody still wanna blame the players???
10-17-2012, 03:06 PM
Senior Moderator
10-17-2012, 03:08 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
This is scary now...really scary.....but yea, they are both at fault.
League does not want to get its house in order regarding small market failing franchises.
Players want to act as if Owners are all operating in the black.
10-17-2012, 03:40 PM
Senior Moderator
@ season. 
Hate to be the doom and gloom...but, I just don't see how they are going to fix it this year.
10-18-2012, 09:13 AM
Senior Moderator
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
iTrader: (6)
They'll fix it, but the PA will have to give up way more, and it doesn't sound like Fehr wants to
10-18-2012, 09:53 AM
Looks like I need to get my paid in advance DTV $ back.
gaaaaaaaaa.
gaaaaaaaaa.
10-18-2012, 02:33 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
So Statler, have the moving vans started to show up yet at Rexall Place?
What a mess
What a mess
10-18-2012, 02:40 PM
Senior Moderator
10-18-2012, 02:44 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
You really think they will stay in the old barn?
Or do you think they will somehow build a new one?
Or do you think they will somehow build a new one?
10-18-2012, 03:07 PM
Senior Moderator
Who is ponying up for it is the question. The city has poured $75M already into this and have zip to show because Katz is holding his breath until he gets his way. So, dunno.
There is chatter that maybe the city will go for Plan B: build the arena entirely out of their own $$$ and make the team rent to use. Not sure...The idea of tax dollars used to build the place gives many residents the heebie-jeebie.
For the people in the city, I think Mr. Rexall is about as popular as the Count right now.
10-18-2012, 04:13 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
Well, looks like this season is DOA.
Good job Count!
Good job Players!
Good job Owners!
Suck it! Fans!
Good job Count!
Good job Players!
Good job Owners!
Suck it! Fans!
10-18-2012, 04:19 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
Q.Fehr:''What do the owners offer in return?''
A. A job
Yea, I know it's a bit more complicated, but therein lies the truth.
A. A job
Yea, I know it's a bit more complicated, but therein lies the truth.
10-19-2012, 08:24 AM
Senior Moderator
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
iTrader: (6)
10-19-2012, 10:32 AM
Senior Moderator
@ the "hope" some of the optimists were thinking when the owners offered a new proposal the other day...Here's word that they've gone a "step back": http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407649
season...and also, @ NHL...
10-19-2012, 11:15 AM
The sizzle in the Steak
At least the lockout helps Dallas, Phoenix, Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, Islanders.
They clearly are losing less money now than they were last year at this time.
......on second thought, that's really, really sad.
They clearly are losing less money now than they were last year at this time.
......on second thought, that's really, really sad.
The following users liked this post:
97BlackAckCL (10-19-2012)
10-19-2012, 11:34 AM
Senior Moderator
10-19-2012, 02:31 PM
Trolling Canuckistan
10-19-2012, 02:42 PM
Sanest Florida Man
10-19-2012, 03:56 PM
tune to KHL... F@ck NHL.
10-19-2012, 04:24 PM
The sizzle in the Steak
No Thanks
10-19-2012, 07:28 PM
Now it is until 11/1. Are they going to kill the season 2 weeks at a time?
10-19-2012, 09:20 PM
Senior Moderator
10-20-2012, 07:14 AM
I agree. It seems they just won't get real and make any meaningful concessions (both sides)
I'll be pleasantly shocked if there is a season.
Makes me very sad.
I'll be pleasantly shocked if there is a season.
Makes me very sad.
10-20-2012, 02:28 PM
Trolling Canuckistan
You know it's bad when we should be one week into the season and the lead story on NHL.com is about "Rowdy" Roddy Piper
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643744
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643744
10-22-2012, 08:49 AM
Senior Moderator
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
iTrader: (6)
10-22-2012, 10:22 AM
2008 Acura TL
10-22-2012, 10:49 AM
Jeebus what a friggin mess.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...m_campaign=nhl
Within 72 hours of declaring its intention to commence the delayed 2012-13 season on Nov. 2, the NHL deleted all originally scheduled action through Nov. 1. All of the latest proposals exchanged between the league and the NHL Players' Association evaporated, all but concomitantly taking down that initial hope to drop the puck two weeks from now.
Furthermore, as one Friday report from the Canadian Press noted, “If next Thursday's deadline passes, more games will likely be cut, and the New Year's Day Winter Classic will be the next big event in danger of being lost.”
Had the NHLPA agreed to the owners’ proposition laid out on Tuesday or if any of their multiple counteroffers passed muster, there still could have been a full-sized 82-game slate for all 30 teams. Considering the virtual lack of change in the labor landscape since those offers were unleashed, one can safely assume that a full 2012-13 campaign is now as good as impossible.
At this time, though, the aforementioned Winter Classic has ample life left in its prospects.
So, too, does the fledgling Thanksgiving Showdown, the league’s other U.S. national television special.
With an exact three-week gap between the earliest games still untouched by the lockout and the Black Friday bout between the Boston Bruins and New York Rangers, a deal can still conceivably be reached in time for both marquee events.
Even if roughly two months and a handful of games per team are irrecoverably squandered, the NHL could preserve some precious PR points by salvaging its full NBC network broadcast slate.
One item that is virtually out of the question is a schedule big enough for each club to cross paths at least once with all 29 of its adversaries. Unless the league wants to ultimately push its postseason beyond the summer solstice, non-conference games in the regular season are a natural sacrifice.
Of course, that can complicate the Winter Classic matchup, the first of its kind to feature one Eastern and one Western franchise.
But there is a way to take a not-so-awkward C-cut around that.
The less savory scenario would be to make the Red Wings and Maple Leafs reduce their meeting at Michigan Stadium to an exhibition. That simply would not cut it, whether the season is already underway or if, a la 1994-95, it constituted a part of the preseason before meaningful games began later in January.
The best solution that still falls within realistic boundaries is to restructure the schedule, link up each team in the Eastern Conference with one Western Conference team and have them trade visits.
This would mean having the Wings visit the Air Canada Centre sometime before or after the Winter Classic, whether that would be a direct home-and-home or whether the two games were months apart.
Other fixtures could include rematches of recent Stanley Cup Finals (Los Angeles-New Jersey, Boston-Vancouver, Chicago-Philadelphia, etc.). Still others, such as Minnesota-Winnipeg, Columbus-Buffalo or Carolina-Nashville, could capitalize on cases of decent geographic proximity.
Some teams may need to resort to relative randomness, but this arrangement would at least provide balance and keep the Winter Classic as meaningful as possible.
In turn, the best the NHL can do for a 2012-13 season would be a regular season starting on Friday, Nov. 23 and running through Sunday, April 28. All divisional and conference games would be kept intact along with the two non-conference tilts, giving each team a 66-game schedule to play over a 157-day span.
Just as it was in 1995, when everyone crammed 48 games into a 102-day time frame, the All-Star Game would likely need to be sacrificed. But at least the 2013 Stanley Cup playoffs could begin on Wednesday, May 1, with the assurance that it would be over before Canada Day/Free Agent Launch Day on July 1.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...m_campaign=nhl
Within 72 hours of declaring its intention to commence the delayed 2012-13 season on Nov. 2, the NHL deleted all originally scheduled action through Nov. 1. All of the latest proposals exchanged between the league and the NHL Players' Association evaporated, all but concomitantly taking down that initial hope to drop the puck two weeks from now.
Furthermore, as one Friday report from the Canadian Press noted, “If next Thursday's deadline passes, more games will likely be cut, and the New Year's Day Winter Classic will be the next big event in danger of being lost.”
Had the NHLPA agreed to the owners’ proposition laid out on Tuesday or if any of their multiple counteroffers passed muster, there still could have been a full-sized 82-game slate for all 30 teams. Considering the virtual lack of change in the labor landscape since those offers were unleashed, one can safely assume that a full 2012-13 campaign is now as good as impossible.
At this time, though, the aforementioned Winter Classic has ample life left in its prospects.
So, too, does the fledgling Thanksgiving Showdown, the league’s other U.S. national television special.
With an exact three-week gap between the earliest games still untouched by the lockout and the Black Friday bout between the Boston Bruins and New York Rangers, a deal can still conceivably be reached in time for both marquee events.
Even if roughly two months and a handful of games per team are irrecoverably squandered, the NHL could preserve some precious PR points by salvaging its full NBC network broadcast slate.
One item that is virtually out of the question is a schedule big enough for each club to cross paths at least once with all 29 of its adversaries. Unless the league wants to ultimately push its postseason beyond the summer solstice, non-conference games in the regular season are a natural sacrifice.
Of course, that can complicate the Winter Classic matchup, the first of its kind to feature one Eastern and one Western franchise.
But there is a way to take a not-so-awkward C-cut around that.
The less savory scenario would be to make the Red Wings and Maple Leafs reduce their meeting at Michigan Stadium to an exhibition. That simply would not cut it, whether the season is already underway or if, a la 1994-95, it constituted a part of the preseason before meaningful games began later in January.
The best solution that still falls within realistic boundaries is to restructure the schedule, link up each team in the Eastern Conference with one Western Conference team and have them trade visits.
This would mean having the Wings visit the Air Canada Centre sometime before or after the Winter Classic, whether that would be a direct home-and-home or whether the two games were months apart.
Other fixtures could include rematches of recent Stanley Cup Finals (Los Angeles-New Jersey, Boston-Vancouver, Chicago-Philadelphia, etc.). Still others, such as Minnesota-Winnipeg, Columbus-Buffalo or Carolina-Nashville, could capitalize on cases of decent geographic proximity.
Some teams may need to resort to relative randomness, but this arrangement would at least provide balance and keep the Winter Classic as meaningful as possible.
In turn, the best the NHL can do for a 2012-13 season would be a regular season starting on Friday, Nov. 23 and running through Sunday, April 28. All divisional and conference games would be kept intact along with the two non-conference tilts, giving each team a 66-game schedule to play over a 157-day span.
Just as it was in 1995, when everyone crammed 48 games into a 102-day time frame, the All-Star Game would likely need to be sacrificed. But at least the 2013 Stanley Cup playoffs could begin on Wednesday, May 1, with the assurance that it would be over before Canada Day/Free Agent Launch Day on July 1.
10-22-2012, 11:01 AM
Senior Moderator
Have they gone full-retard yet? 
10-22-2012, 12:08 PM
Looks like:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/10/19/...labour-dispute
This is the clipped down version. OW!
Twenty-four hours after the latest breakdown in talks between the NHL and the players union, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr explained to QMI Agency why it might be a long lockout.
He wasn't surprised the owners turned down all three of the proposals the players made Thursday and, during a exclusive one-on-one interview late Friday, he maintained NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners won't be happy until the players fork over more money.
Here is an edited transcript of Fehr's discussion:
QMI: Were you very disappointed in what happened Thursday and the way the meeting transpired?
FEHR: "I try to not get excited and not get disappointed. I've learned from long experience that all that does is burn my hormones. You sort of have to ride every day, take it where it is. If works out good, that's a good day. If it doesn't work out so good, that's a day that isn't so good and you try to figure out a way to do a better one tomorrow. That's what I try to do. It's clear the players are really disappointed. Here we are after massive concessions (in 2004-05) in the billions of dollars, followed by revenue growth that Gary and the owners have taken a lot of credit for, that the response is to say, 'We should have another round of concessionary bargaining and you should give us back more billions of dollars.' That oversimplifies the negotiations a little bit but not very much. The fact the players are willing to negotiate something in which they take a lower share going forward was a major move in the owners' direction and the owners have only moved away from the players. It's a disappointing set of circumstances. I don't go in for the very dramatic 'I am very disappointed' press conferences that other people engage in."
QMI: The players know they're going to take concessions, do you think the owners realize that?
FEHR: "I have no idea. You'd have to talk to individual owners about that. The reason I say that is the following: We have a rule that any player who wants to can come to a negotiating meetings and more than 100 have so far. We have calls right before meetings to clear positions and we have 100 players on the phone. There's no piece of paper in this office that the players can't go see. The second thing is, if you want to make a deal, it's pretty hard, I think, to come in and say, 'What we want is, very significant salary concessions.' (Talking) lots and lots and lots of money, and at the same time the things which are very valuable to players in terms of their individual contracting: Free agency, restricted free agency, salary arbitration, how you structure contracts -- which were the tradeoff last time for the billions of dollars in concessions that were made. 'We want that to.' I would just ask you, and you can ask your readers, what is the articulated reason for seeking these massive concessions that anybody knows about other than, 'We want them, 'cause we want them, and because basketball got them.' It's one thing to say it's because Franchise X has had some financial issues. Everybody knows about Phoenix. It's quite something else to say part of the deal is we should be lowering the salary costs of the Maple Leafs. Yet, that's their proposal. How do you deal with that?"
QMI: Is that what you're trying to figure out?
FEHR: "Well you get up every day and try to find an agreement that will get you there, but I'm just trying to give you a sense of the atmosphere as best I can.'
QMI: Did Gary Bettman tell you the last offer Tuesday was take-it-or-leave-it?
FEHR: "All I can tell you is that my sense in the meeting (Thursday): They reviewed our proposals. It took them 12 or 15 minutes, said they rejected them, said their offer on Tuesday was their very best offer and that outside of what he called 'minor tweaks' that was it. He said this in front of 19 players. When I said, 'So, a tweak means something small and insubstantial' or words to that effect, he said 'Yes.' That's sort of the way it ends. Except Gary said at the end of the meeting if the players were prepared to accept their offer in its entirety, minor tweaks, I could call him about the 'make whole' provision which has players paying players for the reduced salaries in the first two years. I just have to go on the basis of what I heard."
QMI: Were you upset the league took your proposals, looked at them for 12-to-15 minutes and dismissed them?
FEHR: "I don't get upset. I don't get excited. It's just another indication that this is going to be fairly long road."
QMI: The players who were in the room got a fairly good look at where the bargaining stands didn't they? It's a glimpse for them to see the difficulties you're having.
FEHR: "As I said before, all our meetings are open to players, happy to have them there, encourage them to be there, fly them at union expense. It's their contract, their union, their life and their future. Of course they have a right to be there, encourage them to be there and I hope they get as involved as they can."
QMI: Did you give any thought to bargaining off their latest proposal?
FEHR: "We thought we were, apparently not."
QMI: So you have a different position of what you presented than what Bettman characterized?
FEHR: "Given what their position was it was clear that at least for purposes of (Thursday's) proceedings, we either say, 'Gary, we agree or we don't.' "
QMI: If the NHL doesn't move off its past offer and threatens to cancel the season, what are your options?
FEHR: "There are a number of things that if the players became persuaded ... would be taken into consideration and evaluated. But, those are things I hope that I don't have to consider."
QMI: At the end of the day what are you hoping you will be able to achieve once this is over?
FEHR: "I don't think about this being over. What I think about is trying to get this finished and trying to get an agreement that the players are satisfied with, they can be proud of, that can stabilize the industry and allow us to move forward. I don't believe, the players don't believe, and I don't think most of the world believes that everything is perfect in hockey except the players get paid too much. We were trying to address a bunch of those things with revenue-sharing and elsewhere. Hopefully, there will eventually be an agreement done and when that's done, and I'm sure it will be because I know the resolve of the players, that it will be one that they think is fair, appropriate and balances the equation. The point is to get it done and get the season started."
QMI: There has to be something fair and equitable here that can satisfy both sides.
FEHR: "I would have thought so. I have my own views of fair and equitable. Somebody who was knowledgeable would like more accord in our views than theirs'. But so far the owners position seems to be: Players get paid too much because they get paid too much because they get paid too much. If you say it often enough, it's sort of there and that nothing else comes into the equation."
QMI: You wish they had made that 50-50 offer in July. Did the first offer galvanize the players?
FEHR: "The first offer, in our judgment and the players, was so over the top, so backward and so in your face, if you're asking me, 'Did that create a mood?' Sure. Of course it did. Couldn't be avoided. And, the movement away from it has been slow and grudging. In all of the important matters, whether it's players' share, contracting rights or any of that stuff, the owners still want very large concessions. When I say to them or anybody else, 'What is in this contract proposal for the players? What is it that they are willing to do that is of any magnitude?' and I get no answers. That's not because somebody is hiding an answer, it's because there isn't one."
QMI: How long are you willing to wait to get a deal done? Are you willing to wait a whole season if that's what it takes?
FEHR: "Players will make all of those decisions and I never speculate about stuff like that. I have never my entire career. I think it's counter-productive ... You can judge the level of the resolve just by talking to the players and listening to them. I'm not concerned about the unity and resolve of the players."
QMI: Why does the league not want to honour the deals that were signed?
FEHR: "They want to pay less money. That's all. It's really very simple: 'We've agreed to pay to the dollar all the contracts we've signed.' We've now decided that's more money than we'd like to pay.' The reason we made the last proposal the way we did was simply because they want to move toward 50-50. The players have already indicated they are willing to do that over time. The question is: Should you agree to honour the contracts you signed between now and then? Players think that's a straight-forward thing to do and not an unusual thing to do. It's sort of the way everybody does business."
QMI: What's your message to fans who have spent the past couple of days calling players "greedy" after the 50-50 offer from the league?
FEHR: "It's pretty hard to treat seriously the notion that the athletes, who are the only people who anybody comes to watch, that they would be greedy in the face of a 24% reduction in their pay last time; billions of dollars went to the owners, not the players; seven years of record revenues that was more than anybody thought. The result of all that success is for the owners to say, 'OK, now we want to renegotiate all the contracts again and we want to lower them.' My message to the fans is: I don't think that characterization hits the facts very well. Hockey players are pretty down-to-earth people. That's why fans like and identify with them. They want to do the right thing. The right thing here happens to be proceeding in a way which is not merely, 'Oh the owners asked for billions of dollars I guess we have to give it to them because who are we? Hockey players.' "
QMI: Do you remain hopeful the sides will be able to sit down and hammer out an agreement?
FEHR: "We're available at anytime. Where the commissioner left it was: (Don't call) unless you're prepared to tell me you'll accept everything that's on the table ... (or) if you want you can call me about that 'make whole' provision. There's no point. What am I supposed to do if I believe him?"
bruce.garrioch@sunmedia.ca
Twitter: @sungarrioch
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/10/19/...labour-dispute
This is the clipped down version. OW!
Twenty-four hours after the latest breakdown in talks between the NHL and the players union, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr explained to QMI Agency why it might be a long lockout.
He wasn't surprised the owners turned down all three of the proposals the players made Thursday and, during a exclusive one-on-one interview late Friday, he maintained NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners won't be happy until the players fork over more money.
Here is an edited transcript of Fehr's discussion:
QMI: Were you very disappointed in what happened Thursday and the way the meeting transpired?
FEHR: "I try to not get excited and not get disappointed. I've learned from long experience that all that does is burn my hormones. You sort of have to ride every day, take it where it is. If works out good, that's a good day. If it doesn't work out so good, that's a day that isn't so good and you try to figure out a way to do a better one tomorrow. That's what I try to do. It's clear the players are really disappointed. Here we are after massive concessions (in 2004-05) in the billions of dollars, followed by revenue growth that Gary and the owners have taken a lot of credit for, that the response is to say, 'We should have another round of concessionary bargaining and you should give us back more billions of dollars.' That oversimplifies the negotiations a little bit but not very much. The fact the players are willing to negotiate something in which they take a lower share going forward was a major move in the owners' direction and the owners have only moved away from the players. It's a disappointing set of circumstances. I don't go in for the very dramatic 'I am very disappointed' press conferences that other people engage in."
QMI: The players know they're going to take concessions, do you think the owners realize that?
FEHR: "I have no idea. You'd have to talk to individual owners about that. The reason I say that is the following: We have a rule that any player who wants to can come to a negotiating meetings and more than 100 have so far. We have calls right before meetings to clear positions and we have 100 players on the phone. There's no piece of paper in this office that the players can't go see. The second thing is, if you want to make a deal, it's pretty hard, I think, to come in and say, 'What we want is, very significant salary concessions.' (Talking) lots and lots and lots of money, and at the same time the things which are very valuable to players in terms of their individual contracting: Free agency, restricted free agency, salary arbitration, how you structure contracts -- which were the tradeoff last time for the billions of dollars in concessions that were made. 'We want that to.' I would just ask you, and you can ask your readers, what is the articulated reason for seeking these massive concessions that anybody knows about other than, 'We want them, 'cause we want them, and because basketball got them.' It's one thing to say it's because Franchise X has had some financial issues. Everybody knows about Phoenix. It's quite something else to say part of the deal is we should be lowering the salary costs of the Maple Leafs. Yet, that's their proposal. How do you deal with that?"
QMI: Is that what you're trying to figure out?
FEHR: "Well you get up every day and try to find an agreement that will get you there, but I'm just trying to give you a sense of the atmosphere as best I can.'
QMI: Did Gary Bettman tell you the last offer Tuesday was take-it-or-leave-it?
FEHR: "All I can tell you is that my sense in the meeting (Thursday): They reviewed our proposals. It took them 12 or 15 minutes, said they rejected them, said their offer on Tuesday was their very best offer and that outside of what he called 'minor tweaks' that was it. He said this in front of 19 players. When I said, 'So, a tweak means something small and insubstantial' or words to that effect, he said 'Yes.' That's sort of the way it ends. Except Gary said at the end of the meeting if the players were prepared to accept their offer in its entirety, minor tweaks, I could call him about the 'make whole' provision which has players paying players for the reduced salaries in the first two years. I just have to go on the basis of what I heard."
QMI: Were you upset the league took your proposals, looked at them for 12-to-15 minutes and dismissed them?
FEHR: "I don't get upset. I don't get excited. It's just another indication that this is going to be fairly long road."
QMI: The players who were in the room got a fairly good look at where the bargaining stands didn't they? It's a glimpse for them to see the difficulties you're having.
FEHR: "As I said before, all our meetings are open to players, happy to have them there, encourage them to be there, fly them at union expense. It's their contract, their union, their life and their future. Of course they have a right to be there, encourage them to be there and I hope they get as involved as they can."
QMI: Did you give any thought to bargaining off their latest proposal?
FEHR: "We thought we were, apparently not."
QMI: So you have a different position of what you presented than what Bettman characterized?
FEHR: "Given what their position was it was clear that at least for purposes of (Thursday's) proceedings, we either say, 'Gary, we agree or we don't.' "
QMI: If the NHL doesn't move off its past offer and threatens to cancel the season, what are your options?
FEHR: "There are a number of things that if the players became persuaded ... would be taken into consideration and evaluated. But, those are things I hope that I don't have to consider."
QMI: At the end of the day what are you hoping you will be able to achieve once this is over?
FEHR: "I don't think about this being over. What I think about is trying to get this finished and trying to get an agreement that the players are satisfied with, they can be proud of, that can stabilize the industry and allow us to move forward. I don't believe, the players don't believe, and I don't think most of the world believes that everything is perfect in hockey except the players get paid too much. We were trying to address a bunch of those things with revenue-sharing and elsewhere. Hopefully, there will eventually be an agreement done and when that's done, and I'm sure it will be because I know the resolve of the players, that it will be one that they think is fair, appropriate and balances the equation. The point is to get it done and get the season started."
QMI: There has to be something fair and equitable here that can satisfy both sides.
FEHR: "I would have thought so. I have my own views of fair and equitable. Somebody who was knowledgeable would like more accord in our views than theirs'. But so far the owners position seems to be: Players get paid too much because they get paid too much because they get paid too much. If you say it often enough, it's sort of there and that nothing else comes into the equation."
QMI: You wish they had made that 50-50 offer in July. Did the first offer galvanize the players?
FEHR: "The first offer, in our judgment and the players, was so over the top, so backward and so in your face, if you're asking me, 'Did that create a mood?' Sure. Of course it did. Couldn't be avoided. And, the movement away from it has been slow and grudging. In all of the important matters, whether it's players' share, contracting rights or any of that stuff, the owners still want very large concessions. When I say to them or anybody else, 'What is in this contract proposal for the players? What is it that they are willing to do that is of any magnitude?' and I get no answers. That's not because somebody is hiding an answer, it's because there isn't one."
QMI: How long are you willing to wait to get a deal done? Are you willing to wait a whole season if that's what it takes?
FEHR: "Players will make all of those decisions and I never speculate about stuff like that. I have never my entire career. I think it's counter-productive ... You can judge the level of the resolve just by talking to the players and listening to them. I'm not concerned about the unity and resolve of the players."
QMI: Why does the league not want to honour the deals that were signed?
FEHR: "They want to pay less money. That's all. It's really very simple: 'We've agreed to pay to the dollar all the contracts we've signed.' We've now decided that's more money than we'd like to pay.' The reason we made the last proposal the way we did was simply because they want to move toward 50-50. The players have already indicated they are willing to do that over time. The question is: Should you agree to honour the contracts you signed between now and then? Players think that's a straight-forward thing to do and not an unusual thing to do. It's sort of the way everybody does business."
QMI: What's your message to fans who have spent the past couple of days calling players "greedy" after the 50-50 offer from the league?
FEHR: "It's pretty hard to treat seriously the notion that the athletes, who are the only people who anybody comes to watch, that they would be greedy in the face of a 24% reduction in their pay last time; billions of dollars went to the owners, not the players; seven years of record revenues that was more than anybody thought. The result of all that success is for the owners to say, 'OK, now we want to renegotiate all the contracts again and we want to lower them.' My message to the fans is: I don't think that characterization hits the facts very well. Hockey players are pretty down-to-earth people. That's why fans like and identify with them. They want to do the right thing. The right thing here happens to be proceeding in a way which is not merely, 'Oh the owners asked for billions of dollars I guess we have to give it to them because who are we? Hockey players.' "
QMI: Do you remain hopeful the sides will be able to sit down and hammer out an agreement?
FEHR: "We're available at anytime. Where the commissioner left it was: (Don't call) unless you're prepared to tell me you'll accept everything that's on the table ... (or) if you want you can call me about that 'make whole' provision. There's no point. What am I supposed to do if I believe him?"
bruce.garrioch@sunmedia.ca
Twitter: @sungarrioch
10-24-2012, 10:19 AM