Official NHL and NHLPA CBA Negotiations Thread

[kodos]

In 95 they came to a deal on January 12th and managed to have a 48 games season that went into May.

They are pretty much in do or die territory now. If they can't get a deal done soon, the season is going to be lost.

For some reason, I'm also optimistic. Probably shouldn't be, but whatever.

[WaukeeBlues]

Agreed.

Chit-chatting with a fellow hockey fan yesterday and she noted that "there might be a deal tomorrow."

All I said was that "I'll believe it when I see it" but I couldn't help but get optimistic. I hadn't heard "there might be a deal done..." at almost any point this year. So that was nice to hear at any rate. We'll see.

[glen a richter]

There might be a deal tomorrow and there also might not be a deal tomorrow. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[not_a_wings_fan]

They won't be hockey this year. I am not hopeful for next year at this point.

For those of you who are "optimistic" I admire your ability to stay positive.

When they didn't get a deal sorted over the summer, I just assumed we wouldn't be having hockey for a year.

The closest the two sides have come to a deal was when Buttman had nothing to do with the process, and I don't think it's coincidence that the two sides actually made progress without him and Fehr.

[cardsfan04]

lol, they can't agree on anything. One side says they met this morning, informally. The other says they didn't. It's really just comical how they can't agree on anything at all, no matter how trivial.

[WaukeeBlues]

They won't be hockey this year. I am not hopeful for next year at this point.

For those of you who are "optimistic" I admire your ability to stay positive.

When they didn't get a deal sorted over the summer, I just assumed we wouldn't be having hockey for a year.

The closest the two sides have come to a deal was when Buttman had nothing to do with the process, and I don't think it's coincidence that the two sides actually made progress without him and Fehr.

Heard (and saw) the exact same thing: That meeting when Fehr and Bettman weren't in the rooms in that hotel, there was talk that a lot of things made significant leaps forward. I'm honestly beginning to believe this isn't even really about the NHLPA v. NHL anymore but more about Fehr v. Bettman, their respective egos and all they've invested in the process.

I lack the words that are strong enough to convey my disbelief, anger and frustration at the greed, incompetence and stupidity that it takes to have three lockouts in less than 20 years. I had hoped that such gross irresponsibility was not possible.

[gaijin]

Bettman is to negotiations as Eric Brewer is to playoff runs?

[not_a_wings_fan]

I think Bettman is to CBA negotiation as Alexi Gusarov is to Modano's ankles

[ViPeRx007]

(analogy removed due to fail)

Instead, this:

GARY BETTMAN HAVE THE TACO DICK (according to The Iron Sheik)

[glen a richter]

Gary Bettman is to being the NHL commissioner as Marc Bergevin is to scoring own goals in the playoffs.

So in your analogy you're saying that Bettman is good at being the commissioner?

[Kreegz2]

Bettman is to the fans what Al Macinnis is to Joselyn Thibault's finger.

At least I tried.

[cprice12]

It looks like I am going to lose my bet with Philco. You watch, those bastards will start playing on Jan 4th or something. But the rumblings from folks in the know seem to be optimistic that they are close enough on the key issues that they can get it done, even though both sides seem stubborn as hell...so I am also optimistic that we will play.

And I guess I'm one of the few folks who are on the owner's side, if just slightly.
Here's a nice article from stltoday.com:

Blues could lose with new labor contract
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hockey/blues-could-lose-with-new-labor-contract/article_9271fa65-9ceb-5824-999c-166e0df9bda7.html
By Jeremy Rutherford jrutherford@post-dispatch.com 314-444-71352



Even if the NHL is ultimately deemed the “winner” of the collective bargaining negotiations, it may not mean a victory for the Blues.
The franchise lost an estimated $20 million during the 2011-12 season, so it doesn’t take a sports economist to figure out that the best-case scenario for Tom Stillman’s new ownership group would have been a rollback in players’ salaries.

The NHL’s initial offer, last July, suggested dropping the players’ share of hockey related revenue to 43 percent from 57 percent under the previous agreement. That was never expected to fly with the union, and now with the sides still unable to produce a new CBA despite agreeing on a 50-50 split, it’s difficult to project which concessions will eventually be made by either side.

The league and the union communicated again Thursday through federal mediators but no progress was made.

A strong possibility even if there is a breakthrough in the four-month-old lockout is that the Blues won’t benefit regardless of how negotiations end up, and thus the momentum created from a 109-point regular season and trip to the playoffs in ’11-12 will be met with backlash despite no explainable gain.

The union has agreed to a seven-percent cutback in “HRR” and moved toward the NHL on contract issues, but the league’s agreement to pay $300 million in “make-whole” money, honoring players’ existing contracts, could create a larger challenge than many small- and mid-market franchises expected after the negotiations.

Many believe the Blues are among a group of clubs not thrilled with the NHL’s decision to increase its make-whole offer from $211 million, and while that proposal is reportedly off the table, it would likely return in exchange for contract concessions by the union.

The resulting aftermath – fair or unfair to players – will be a difficulty for the Blues to foresee turning a profit, even though they have ticket prices ranked in the bottom-third of the NHL and had two rounds of layoffs on the business side during the lockout.

The league established a record revenue in 2011-12 of $3.3 billion but did itself no favors boasting about those gains, considering that its also facing record costs. Last month, Forbes reported that three teams – Toronto, New York Rangers and Montreal – accounted for 83 percent of the league’s income, while 13 of the 30 clubs – including the Blues – lost money.

The league has failed to deliver the message in these negotiations that there is a “business need” for many struggling franchises to fix the economic system. Instead, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has dropped lines such as “we’re paying the players too much,” which only motivated the union’s contingency.

Forbes valued the Blues at $130 million, ranking them last among the 30 teams in the league. With a payroll that would have been close to $51 million in 2012-13, ranking 26th according to Capgeek.com, another projected financial loss this season illustrates the vulnerability of the franchise.

The Blues have continued to collect from the NHL’s revenue-sharing program, and according to recent CBA negotiations, the total amount of those funds will increase to as much as $200 million from $140 million. However, several league sources have confirmed that as many as seven to eight teams could be added to the recipient group, meaning that clubs such as the Blues would actually get back less than they have received in the past.

Toronto, despite a Forbes’ value of $1 billion after turning a profit of $81.9 million last season, tops the list of money-making teams that don’t seem willing to split the pie more evenly, and so far, the NHL hasn’t shown a desire to make that happen.

The assertion that only the “big boys” have Bettman’s ear has proved to have validity during the lockout and questioning why the clubs with less influence haven’t banded together to make their voices heard is legitimate. But that movement would now to be too late, as negotiations, seen to be going in the league’s favor, have crossed the point of real returns for many teams.

For the Blues, even the NHL’s contractual priorities aren’t necessarily appetizing.

The NHL set out to ensure that teams would have players’ rights for 10 years instead of seven, which would have helped keep the Blues’ young core intact, but the league has backed off that. The NHL, meanwhile, has insisted on limiting signed contracts to a maximum length of five years (seven with the player’s current team), which could shorten the Blues’ plans on the term for defenseman Alex Pietrangelo’s next deal.

At this point, the lone development viewed as a potential positive for teams such as the Blues is the expected decrease in the salary cap. The projected cap is $70.2 million, and while transition rules to get all teams below a lower cap have yet to be agreed upon, clubs may eventually be forced to unload players, some of whom the Blues may be in position to target.

That, however, would mean spending more money. While new ownership has indicated a flexibility to increase payroll to upgrade the roster, it may not be wise for a franchise attempting to limit its losses and find stable footing.

After taking steps toward that end last season, the Blues could be facing a lose-lose proposition when the CBA talks wrap up.

I'm just tired of players demanding this and demanding that when almost half of the teams are losing money and 83% of the league's revenue is brought in by three teams. The players make guaranteed money, and a lot of it. The average salary in the NHL right now is over $2 million/year, which is higher than the average salary in the NFL.

Players are talking about if they sign this deal or that deal, they'll be losing x many dollars. Well you know what? You guys have been vastly overpaid for over a couple decades now, and we've seen three work stoppages because of it.
The owners have proven they aren't responsible enough to balance their books, so certain things have to be worked into the CBA to prevent folks from overspending and making sure teams don't lose $20, 30, 40 million every year.
The owners aren't playing with guaranteed money, the players are. Once a player signs a contract, they are getting the money (well, as long as a new CBA doesn't roll it back some), but still, even with a roll back, no matter how unfair that is, they are getting paid and making a lot of money. The same can't be said for the owners.

It's a sad day when your employees are making truckloads of money, but the bosses & ownership groups are losing money...of course, that is, if you believe the books. And its' all we have to go by..even though part of me doesn't think teams lose quite as much as they say...but I have no proof, so whatever.

[dmiles2186]

I'm so sick and tired of the lockout talks. So many highs and lows being played out in the media. One minute we're hearing reports of team employees being put on standby because we're about to get this thing rolling, and the next minutes Ryan Miller goes batcrap in the boardroom and OH MY GOD THE NHL HAS COMPLETELY IMPLODED!!!

I don't have a 'side' in this fight. I'm a hockey fan. I understand why the players are upset because owners offered them those ridiculous contracts and are now trying to get out of it. On the flip side, owners (much like our very own Mr. Stillman) are running franchises that are bleeding money. The sport is thriving but that's mostly due to the big Canadian markets. They've got to right the ship some way and I don't even pretend to know how they do that.

All I'm saying is, I just want to stop reading about this on Twitter. No good is coming out of the constant 'updates' we're hearing because most of them are part of the negotiating and putting heat on the other side.

In short: this is all just really stupid.

[ViPeRx007]

Gary Bettman is to being the NHL commissioner as Marc Bergevin is to scoring own goals in the playoffs.

So in your analogy you're saying that Bettman is good at being the commissioner?

I suck at analogies.

[Portland Blues]

Gary Bettman is to being the NHL commissioner as Marc Bergevin is to scoring own goals in the playoffs.

So in your analogy you're saying that Bettman is good at being the commissioner?

I suck at analogies.

Gary Bettman is to being commissioner as Viper is to analogies.

[cprice12]

Gary Bettman is to being the NHL commissioner as Marc Bergevin is to scoring own goals in the playoffs.

So in your analogy you're saying that Bettman is good at being the commissioner?

I suck at analogies.

I, however, am the KING of analogies.

I'm like... uh... well.... hmmmm........ I'm just really good at them.

[sseagle]

I for one am glad that this lockout isnt getting the balls in your face... um balls to the walls coverage that the NFL and the other sports league thingy last year got.

Player A eats doo doo dumplings at Ben Was Ball Shack

NO SEASON NO SEASON NEVER

Player B hasn't murdered A SINGLE PERSON since the lockout started..

THEY ARE COMING BACK FOR XMAS!!

(Frank) em all, looks like I'm not only never going to see a cup, but I might never see a competitive team again.

[ViPeRx007]

Gary Bettman is to being the NHL commissioner as Marc Bergevin is to scoring own goals in the playoffs.

So in your analogy you're saying that Bettman is good at being the commissioner?

I suck at analogies.

Gary Bettman is to being commissioner as Viper is to analogies.

I deserve this. Nice analogy btw.

[WaukeeBlues]

It looks like I am going to lose my bet with Philco. You watch, those bastards will start playing on Jan 4th or something. But the rumblings from folks in the know seem to be optimistic that they are close enough on the key issues that they can get it done, even though both sides seem stubborn as hell...so I am also optimistic that we will play.

And I guess I'm one of the few folks who are on the owner's side, if just slightly.
...

I'm just tired of players demanding this and demanding that when almost half of the teams are losing money and 83% of the league's revenue is brought in by three teams. The players make guaranteed money, and a lot of it. The average salary in the NHL right now is over $2 million/year, which is higher than the average salary in the NFL.

Players are talking about if they sign this deal or that deal, they'll be losing x many dollars. Well you know what? You guys have been vastly overpaid for over a couple decades now, and we've seen three work stoppages because of it.
The owners have proven they aren't responsible enough to balance their books, so certain things have to be worked into the CBA to prevent folks from overspending and making sure teams don't lose $20, 30, 40 million every year.
The owners aren't playing with guaranteed money, the players are. Once a player signs a contract, they are getting the money (well, as long as a new CBA doesn't roll it back some), but still, even with a roll back, no matter how unfair that is, they are getting paid and making a lot of money. The same can't be said for the owners.

It's a sad day when your employees are making truckloads of money, but the bosses & ownership groups are losing money...of course, that is, if you believe the books. And its' all we have to go by..even though part of me doesn't think teams lose quite as much as they say...but I have no proof, so whatever.

Okay, well: Don't be an owner then!!!!!

I've always been of the mind that owners should, by and large, buy professional sports team as a hobby for their billions and not to actually make money. If you can't balance your books, you can't compete with other teams signing guys to retarded contract lengths and prices, then don't be an owner!!! Or pull a Stillman and get a few of your hundred-millionaire buddies together.

Owners that have been signing the likes of Franzen, Suter, et al, weren't doing anything illegal or against the cap (unless you're the GM of New Jersey). If the whole point of rules is that there are limits to conduct, why are poorer owners b*tching at all? You bought it!!!! So sorry you didn't foresee a non-"Original Six" hockey team in Miami, Florida or Glendale, Arizona as a poor investment choice. Shocker.

[Oaklandblue]

It looks like I am going to lose my bet with Philco. You watch, those bastards will start playing on Jan 4th or something. But the rumblings from folks in the know seem to be optimistic that they are close enough on the key issues that they can get it done, even though both sides seem stubborn as hell...so I am also optimistic that we will play.

And I guess I'm one of the few folks who are on the owner's side, if just slightly.
...

I'm just tired of players demanding this and demanding that when almost half of the teams are losing money and 83% of the league's revenue is brought in by three teams. The players make guaranteed money, and a lot of it. The average salary in the NHL right now is over $2 million/year, which is higher than the average salary in the NFL.

Players are talking about if they sign this deal or that deal, they'll be losing x many dollars. Well you know what? You guys have been vastly overpaid for over a couple decades now, and we've seen three work stoppages because of it.
The owners have proven they aren't responsible enough to balance their books, so certain things have to be worked into the CBA to prevent folks from overspending and making sure teams don't lose $20, 30, 40 million every year.
The owners aren't playing with guaranteed money, the players are. Once a player signs a contract, they are getting the money (well, as long as a new CBA doesn't roll it back some), but still, even with a roll back, no matter how unfair that is, they are getting paid and making a lot of money. The same can't be said for the owners.

It's a sad day when your employees are making truckloads of money, but the bosses & ownership groups are losing money...of course, that is, if you believe the books. And its' all we have to go by..even though part of me doesn't think teams lose quite as much as they say...but I have no proof, so whatever.

Okay, well: Don't be an owner then!!!!!

I've always been of the mind that owners should, by and large, buy professional sports team as a hobby for their billions and not to actually make money. If you can't balance your books, you can't compete with other teams signing guys to retarded contract lengths and prices, then don't be an owner!!! Or pull a Stillman and get a few of your hundred-millionaire buddies together.

Owners that have been signing the likes of Franzen, Suter, et al, weren't doing anything illegal or against the cap (unless you're the GM of New Jersey). If the whole point of rules is that there are limits to conduct, why are poorer owners b*tching at all? You bought it!!!! So sorry you didn't foresee a non-"Original Six" hockey team in Miami, Florida or Glendale, Arizona as a poor investment choice. Shocker.

One can't complain about there being no Hockey season and then say 'Well, don't be an owner'

The owners are why there is a league in the first place. The money issues come from players demanding to be paid ridiculous amounts of money and the owners being forced to pay them or lose key pieces to the puzzle. Be honest here, if the Laurie's still owned the Blues, wouldn't YOU want them to dump money into players that can help win the Cup?

Yes. We all would.

The owners can't make ends meet because the system that is in place, doesn't work and has led to the breaking apart of the league. We are seeing it now with teams running in the red, with the lack of revenue sharing among all teams and both sides have a (somewhat) legitimate beef: The players want more money and the owners can't give more because the asking price is too high to pay and operate at.

Seriously, where are these uncounted for billions that the players THINK exists with a team? Maybe an Original Six team has those kind of funds, but two of them - Montreal and Toronto, for instance, obviously don't. With the benefits packages the players are getting as it is, I can't see how any team is able to pay, pay, pay and the revenue from TV alone is covering it.

Yeah, we all want a season, but is it better to stop now and fix this or to continue til we start losing teams? We might anyway, but at what point does this madness end? When we lose the league?

EDIT: Changed the tenses. It's not aimed at you, it's a general statement. Apologies if the Posters took this as an attack on yall, it wasn't.