The Next Cba And The 2010-2011 Labor Negotiations

[SteenIsThaFuture]

While many people don't even want to fathom it, the time has come again, its time for the NHL and the NHLPA to meet and dicsuss terms for the next CBA.

After the NHLPA decided not to opt out of the current contract, the end date for the current CBA is the 2010-2011 season, with a player option for one more year should they choose to use it. Otherwise, its time for another labor war:

Much like the last two labor talks, the league goes in with financial crisis, as GM's have showed their lack of discipline and intelligence once again and have spiraled the salaries upwards, but now the only difference is theres a roof. The financial crisis of the league is poor, albeit one can argue they were doing decent up until the recession.

With that in mind, the owners, Gary Bettman and Bill Daly go into 2011 with two major objectives:

1. Eliminate guaranteed contracts.

2. Close out the frontload loophole.

Paul Kelly and the NHLPA go in with asking a say in team relocation, new TV deals, league promotions and other related categories, basically they feel the league is being run poorly and they want a say at the voting table.

However some good news is that Kelly will not be like Goodenow in terms of when to initiate negotiations,

“There are many aspects of the deal that we are not satisfied with and I’m sure that several of the owners would probably make the same statement,” NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly said at a news conference in Montreal Friday. “If either side identifies issues of serious concern, we should seek to isolate, address and resolve those issues if possible.

“That way when we arrive at the 11th hour in this deal, hopefully we will have the platform of our next agreement substantially completed. All that should be left are a handful of issues to be resolved.”

Basically, none of the last minute hardball strategies that Goodenow employed, and Bettman always likes to begin negotiations ASAP, this shoud bode for a more compromising labor talk.

The major problems lie in the NHL demands and how far they are willing to take it, that being the nixing of guaranteed contracts. Adam Proteau of The Hockey News cits several people inside the league who say if the league is in such bad shape, that they abolsutely must get non-guaranteed deals then there will without a doubt be another lockout.

This isn't talking about % of contract that scale up and down with the cap, because the players are technically under that kind of deal already with the escrow clause. This is about all the money not being upfront and having to earn the rest through performance and games played bonuses, something I highly doubt the PA is going to allow.

The economy of the NHL in the next 2 years will be the main issue to follow, how bad is the league doing? Every pro sports league is suffering because of the recesssion, but none have the evil financial history the NHL does and I'm sure the fans are tired of the owners crying poor.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/2719...-questions.html

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/02/ke...ed_about_d.html

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/index.php/..._least_2010_11/

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/07/re...cba_points.html

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Brian Burke and Adam Proteau chirp in on the future labor talks:

A quick follow up to my collective bargaining agreement-related column from last week: a couple readers wrote in to wonder why I didn’t mention term limits on player contracts as one of the potential areas of change for the next CBA, scheduled to arrive sometime after the fall of 2012.

I didn’t mention it because I don’t think it’s a matter of if the league moves to term limits, but when they do.

In fact, if the NHLPA comes away with a maximum term limit of more than five years – and they’ll almost certainly come away with term limits of seven or eight years at the most – the players should consider that a significant labor victory in 2012. That’s how strong the impetus is at NHL headquarters and among GMs to restrict all contract terms to half a decade.

Need more proof? Get a load of what Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke has to say on the topic.

“We absolutely need to look at term limits,” Burke told THN.com Friday afternoon, before embarking on a week-long west coast vacation with his wife. “I personally do not believe some players have any intention of fulfilling some of these long-term contracts.”

me: Didn't Burke not fulfill his last contract??

Another rule Burke has lobbied to change for some time is the so-called “four-recall rule,” which limits NHL teams to just four player promotions from their American League affiliate after the trade deadline – as long as that AHL affiliate is still in contention for a playoff spot or playing in the post-season; if their affiliate is out of the playoff mix, there is no limit as to the number of players an NHL team can call up.

The rule was created as a protector for AHL teams and their fans, but Burke has suffered with its NHL-related consequences long enough to want it abolished.

“The four-recall rule is an antiquated and ridiculous provision that has survived only because the NHLPA has taken, in my view, a ridiculous position on it,” Burke said. “Their rationale (for the rule) is they want to trade it for something (in the collective bargaining process), even though they agree it doesn’t work. They want something for it because they have it.”

The negative effect of the four-recall rule is simple, Burke said – especially when two NHL teams with drastically different AHL affiliate situations meet in the playoffs.

“(The rule) handcuffs teams,” Burke said. “If you’re fortunate enough or skilled enough as a team to have success, it severely limits what you’re able to do with your roster.

“In the three full years I was in Anaheim, we played 14 playoff rounds, including the farm team and the big club. And it was just ridiculous when we were in the conference final against Edmonton (in 2006).

“Their farm team was out, ours was still playing. And we had no flexibility as far as using players, while they had 10 guys from their farm team sitting in the press box. The PA’s refusal to change this rule is asinine.”

Burke doubts no-trade clauses will be outlawed in the next CBA, but uses a recent unrestricted free agent signing of his in Toronto to illustrate how teams can balance a player’s desire for career control with what is best for the organization.

“I believe (Mike) Komisarek, at the start of every year, can give us a list of 10 teams he doesn’t want to go to (in a trade).” Burke said. “I think teams have to be smarter with those things. More than half the time, (the no-trade clause) ends up hurting both the player and the team.”

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/2735...erspective.html

----------------------------------------------------------

Article 2, just Proteau:

Almost from the second the NHL’s current collective bargaining agreement was signed, certain league watchers have cast their gaze toward the next round of labor talks – expected to commence in the months leading up to September of 2012 – in an effort to predict what future gains and give-backs potentially are in the cards for hockey’s greatest players.

Although there are some worrisome rumors regarding what league brass may be angling for 1,000 days or so from now – non-guaranteed contracts chief among them – the next CBA also represents a chance to remedy some of the on- and off-ice issues that ail the game.

For some people – alright, for the person typing this – the league would be well advised to do away with certain regulations and practices that do nothing but constrict fan appreciation of the product.

For instance, the No-Trade Clause clearly has become the Ebola virus of the NHL. Just from what we’ve seen from Mr. D. Heatley and the Ottawa Senators this season, there’s a very good argument to be made for a full-blown, across-the-board rescinding of what should be known as pro sports’ anti-Santa clause – a.k.a. the gift that never gives, but only takes away a team’s (and, as Heatley now well knows, a player’s) ability to be as flexible as organizational and/or personal situations dictate.

Even if you accept the argument the NTC is a fairly-bargained contractual perk, why couldn’t the league and NHL Players’ Association come up with a future setup in which any player can name three teams – 10 percent of the league – he doesn’t want to be dealt to under any circumstances and the 26 franchises he would be prepared to accept a trade to.

Beyond that, no NHLer – not Mats Sundin, not Heatley, not anybody – should have the power to burrow his bones into one city’s mud and demand to stay with a franchise that can’t afford (either from a financial perspective or a strategic on-ice sense) to keep him on the roster.

That’s one change that desperately needs implementing. But there’s also a longstanding, ridiculous NHL practice also due for the dumpster. It is called “In Keeping With Club Policy” and it is used when that statement precedes the words “salary information will not be disclosed” anytime a player is signed to a new contract.

Yes, despite the crucial role the salary cap plays in fan understanding of how NHL teams are built, many franchises still refuse to release salary information regarding their most valuable employees.

However, did you know some rogue teams throw caution to the wind and release said salary info to the public anyway? Utterly despicable, I know. Obviously, some team policies are not going to be impressed with that sort of behavior.

The solution here, of course, is to require teams to make that information public for every player signing. The NHLPA has been prepared to accept salary disclosure for years, but the league continues to stonewall on the issue. As soon as the NHL reveals a reasonable philosophy behind that stubborn stance, I’ll quit lambasting them for it.

Another often-discussed potential change focuses on the CBA rule forbidding any team from paying part of the salary of a player that team has traded away.

However, though I agree with Leafs GM Brian Burke when he argues that trades would be easier to complete if teams could pick up a portion of a traded player’s paycheck, this is one case where I also can agree with the league’s reticence to change the rule. There’s already ample evidence the cap system doesn’t come close to leveling the playing field – and any adjustment permitting large-market teams to eat salary in a way ‘budget’ teams cannot would only exacerbate that inequality.

Regardless of your opinions on labor issues, you’d best believe the backroom lobbying over future CBA changes has been underway for a long time – and will ratchet up exponentially in the next three years.

In other words, if this kind of talk exhausts you now, you’re going to need to invest in a comfortable pillow, because you’ll be bombarded with it until Gary Bettman and Paul Kelly hammer out a new document before the end of the Mayan Calendar.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/2732...-CBA-needs.html

-----------------------

My suggestion:

To get rid of the frontload loophole, get rid of the Average Cap Hit thing. It would kill teams who frontload contracts because no when they have to worry about the 20% rule, they have to actually worry about the 20% rule.

I understand teams may start to backload now as a result, but players won't agree to backloaded deals if they intend to play them out, very alike to how MLB works with its contract/payroll system.

However I don't want to see from MLB is trading money and eating contracts.

[leafs_rock_go_mccabe]

Thanks for these updates! The reads are quite interesting and illuminating.

[chrisjamessauve]

No, please! A huge part of me died during the 04/05 Lockout. Not another one!

[leafs_rock_go_mccabe]

No, please! A huge part of me died during the 04/05 Lockout. Not another one!

I'm not sure if we have to worry about another lockout. I mean, can the league really afford to have another one now, when the economy is weak and stories of teams losing truckloads of money are surfacing?

[SteenIsThaFuture]

I'm not sure if we have to worry about another lockout. I mean, can the league really afford to have another one now, when the economy is weak and stories of teams losing truckloads of money are surfacing?

Where were you in 04-05?

[Rocket-1]

I'm not sure if we have to worry about another lockout. I mean, can the league really afford to have another one now, when the economy is weak and stories of teams losing truckloads of money are surfacing?

Actually probably 60-70% of the owners would be more than happy to have another lockout, with all these teams losing money and the teams who barely make any profits at the end of the year, a lockout means for these owner 1 year of saving an average of 45 millions (or more) in players salaries probably another 10 million in management and employee plus they can rent their building to anybody and manage a safe guaranteed profit instead.

Don't be surprised a bit if theres another lockout within a few years.

The league will never understand that theres too many teams now, well they will eventually, but by the time thi's gonna happen most of these teams will be bankrupt.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Actually probably 60-70% of the owners would be more than happy to have another lockout, with all these teams losing money and the teams who barely make any profits at the end of the year, a lockout means for these owner 1 year of saving an average of 45 millions (or more) in players salaries probably another 10 million in management and employee plus they can rent their building to anybody and manage a safe guaranteed profit instead.

Don't be surprised a bit if theres another lockout within a few years.

The league will never understand that theres too many teams now, well they will eventually, but by the time thi's gonna happen most of these teams will be bankrupt.

Well I don't think thats the problem, you can exist with a large amount of teams, but the league needs more revenue sharing, and the big market teams won't agree to that until theres more national revenue... aka a ESPN TV deal.

[tmash]

The chance of another lockout is slim. Last time the league was in an absolute mess, even big market teams like Montreal were losing money, the NHL wasn't going to budge. The finances may look bad right now, but it's primarily due to the overall economy and a few franchises in struggling markets, not a bad player agreement.

You'll probably see some rhetoric in the media, but in the end cooler heads will prevail and I doubt it will come very close to a lockout / strike.

On some of the likely issues:

Front-ended loophole: I think the NHLPA will play ball here, it's obviously gotten beyond ridiculous and it's obviously a loophole that needs patched. They may try to get something out of it, but I expect they'll go along with some sort of change that doesn't affect its membership too negatively.

Term Limits: This is an area I think the NHLPA will publicly battle, but eventually give into something reasonable (8 years or so). This really only affects the top tier of players, I can't see the Lapierre's wanting to get locked out for a provision that will never affect them

Guaranteed Contracts: This could be "the" issue. The NHL will want less than the current 2/3 of contracts to be guaranteed. The NHLPA will fight this one tooth and nail and I would expect little if any give. In the end I think the NHL will back down or escape with a very small victory.

[Rocket-1]

The only reasons the canadiens were losing money was because of the value of the dollar back then.

Theres gonna be another lockout eventually for sure.

Well I don't think thats the problem, you can exist with a large amount of teams, but the league needs more revenue sharing, and the big market teams won't agree to that until theres more national revenue... aka a ESPN TV deal.

Nope.... you can't exist with that kind of amount of money losing team.... were talking about probably 25% of the teams in the league who don't make profits.

Why would in the world would the 6 canadians teams keep sharing more and more of their profits every year to teams in places like Phoenix, Florida etc... where theres no interest for hockey whatsoever down there?

It's wasting money literally.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Nope.... you can't exist with that kind of amount of money losing team.... were talking about probably 25% of the teams in the league who don't make profits.

Why would in the world would the 6 canadians teams keep sharing more and more of their profits every year to teams in places like Phoenix, Florida etc... where theres no interest for hockey whatsoever down there?

It's wasting money literally.

If they were getting big share of national TV revenue I'm sure it would entice them, ala the NFL model, not the retarded gate-dependant NHL model.

[fourtrax]

If they were getting big share of national TV revenue I'm sure it would entice them, ala the NFL model, not the retarded gate-dependant NHL model.

Revenue sharing is a joke right now, because of said NHL model which depends so heavily on gate because the TV deal is an even bigger joke. If the NHL can claw its way out of the Versus gulag and back to ESPN, they may actually be able to start raising their U.S. profile and generating significant revenue from things that aren't hockey tickets.

[Rocket-1]

CBC/TSN/RDS are paying 25 times the amount of money of every us network combine together.

It's simple, theres no interest for hockey on tv in the us, the ratings are horrible year after year, even during the stanley cup finals.

No market = no money, no exposure.

[A-K-46]

CBC/TSN/RDS are paying 25 times the amount of money of every us network combine together.

It's simple, theres no interest for hockey on tv in the us, the ratings are horrible year after year, even during the stanley cup finals.

No market = no money, no exposure.

exactly thats why we need more canadian teams

bring hockey to quebec winnipeg hamilton hell even places like halifax saskatoon

[SteenIsThaFuture]

CBC/TSN/RDS are paying 25 times the amount of money of every us network combine together.

It's simple, theres no interest for hockey on tv in the us, the ratings are horrible year after year, even during the stanley cup finals.

No market = no money, no exposure.

You're referring to National Tv ratings, please refer to the Regional ratings before making statements like "theres no market".

Its plain and simple, get on ESPN... end of story.

[Rocket-1]

They did a survey (on regional and national ratings) in 2006 or 2007 (i can't remember when really) Moneypuck, there is no ratings whatsoever for hockey in the us.

If i remember correctly the biggest ratings they had (on a regular basis) through all the united state was the Rangers on MSG with under a million viewers a game (overall).

Then it was Detroit, Florida (probably the quebecers down there helping the ratings) Minnesota, then it was very poor all over the place.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

They did a survey (on regional and national ratings) in 2006 or 2007 (i can't remember when really) Moneypuck, there is no ratings whatsoever for hockey in the us.

If i remember correctly the biggest ratings they had (on a regular basis) through all the united state was the Rangers on MSG with under a million viewers a game (overall).

Then it was Detroit, Florida (probably the quebecers down there helping the ratings) Minnesota, then it was very poor all over the place.

Well ya if you did it in 06, 07 of course it was bad it was right after the lockout. I'm sure baseball had pretty bad ratings in 96 too. Hockey has been on the uptip the last few years and popularity has steadily been growing.

[drcox]

The cap needs to go. It just ruins dynasties. Teams can't stay together anymore. The Penguins have already lost Gill, and Scuderi, they'll probably lose Satan and Sykora, all because of a lack of cap space. Lets not pretend the Pittsburgh Penguins are the problem.

Baseball has no salary cap. They have a slight luxury tax, but other than that, it's everything the small market pukes fear, and it makes as much as any league. The Florida Marlins have won the World Series twice already. Also: Small market teams need to realize the smallest city with a pro sports team could still sell out a stadium. You have to invest money in your team to give people a reason to go. People go see good teams. If the owners of the Oakland Athletics spent some money so they could go out and get Jason Bay or whatever free agent they wanted, and they got better, people would go. If they were a consistant contender, jersey and hat sales would go up, they'd get a better TV deal, they'd get more nationally broadcast games...Boston isn't that big a city in the grand scheme of things, but look at them as a market.

[A-K-46]

The cap needs to go. It just ruins dynasties. Teams can't stay together anymore. The Penguins have already lost Gill, and Scuderi, they'll probably lose Satan and Sykora, all because of a lack of cap space. Lets not pretend the Pittsburgh Penguins are the problem.

Baseball has no salary cap. They have a slight luxury tax, but other than that, it's everything the small market pukes fear, and it makes as much as any league. The Florida Marlins have won the World Series twice already. Also: Small market teams need to realize the smallest city with a pro sports team could still sell out a stadium. You have to invest money in your team to give people a reason to go. People go see good teams. If the owners of the Oakland Athletics spent some money so they could go out and get Jason Bay or whatever free agent they wanted, and they got better, people would go. If they were a consistant contender, jersey and hat sales would go up, they'd get a better TV deal, they'd get more nationally broadcast games...Boston isn't that big a city in the grand scheme of things, but look at them as a market.

[DA_Champion]

Moneypuck, I think you have ignored the elephant in the room;

The proliferation of buyouts, waivers, and 30 year old UFAs not getting offered a contract so that cap money can go to a balance of superstars and rookies.

If I were the players, I'd demand protections, for example they could ask that the salary minimum for rookies be raised, and that there be a maximum salary to spend on 3 players like they do in the NBA.

[DA_Champion]

If they were getting big share of national TV revenue I'm sure it would entice them, ala the NFL model, not the retarded gate-dependant NHL model.

FYI, television advertising is an industry on the decline, we can expect TV deals to go down in value.

[Rocket-1]

Well ya if you did it in 06, 07 of course it was bad it was right after the lockout. I'm sure baseball had pretty bad ratings in 96 too. Hockey has been on the uptip the last few years and popularity has steadily been growing.

lol you can't be serious now....

The NHL and TV in the us = poison.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Moneypuck, I think you have ignored the elephant in the room;

The proliferation of buyouts, waivers, and 30 year old UFAs not getting offered a contract so that cap money can go to a balance of superstars and rookies.

If I were the players, I'd demand protections, for example they could ask that the salary minimum for rookies be raised, and that there be a maximum salary to spend on 3 players like they do in the NBA.

Theres an elephant in the room? Where?!

I like that idea. They could also lower the maximum % a player gets paid down to like 15% also or something.

FYI, television advertising is an industry on the decline, we can expect TV deals to go down in value.

Moneys still money and its money the NHL isn't getting even if its on the decline.

lol you can't be serious now....

The NHL and TV in the us = poison.

You want the Cup Finals ratings?

[Rocket-1]

What your impressed with 8 million viewers for a game 7 of the stanley cup finals ?

A regular season game of the habs gets 2 millions viewers.

[Larry-Launstein-Jr]

The cap needs to go. It just ruins dynasties. Teams can't stay together anymore. The Penguins have already lost Gill, and Scuderi, they'll probably lose Satan and Sykora, all because of a lack of cap space. Lets not pretend the Pittsburgh Penguins are the problem.

Baseball has no salary cap. They have a slight luxury tax, but other than that, it's everything the small market pukes fear, and it makes as much as any league. The Florida Marlins have won the World Series twice already. Also: Small market teams need to realize the smallest city with a pro sports team could still sell out a stadium. You have to invest money in your team to give people a reason to go. People go see good teams. If the owners of the Oakland Athletics spent some money so they could go out and get Jason Bay or whatever free agent they wanted, and they got better, people would go. If they were a consistant contender, jersey and hat sales would go up, they'd get a better TV deal, they'd get more nationally broadcast games...Boston isn't that big a city in the grand scheme of things, but look at them as a market.

The baseball model is not the best, either. While they do have a luxury tax, the small market teams still lose lots of good players. Your analogy of Oakland is a good one, but understand they had two great teams in my lifetime, and both were broken up by free agency - other teams were willing to spend more money to get their players than Oakland was. The early 70s dynasty, where they won 3 World Series in a row, was broken up by free agency, with Charlie O'Finley losing out when his players signed big contracts elsewhere. Many of them ended up in New York and helped the Yankees in the late 70s. The same fate occurred to Oakland in the early 90s, after they made two appearances in the World Series, winning in '89, and losing to Cincinnati in '90. They lost Rickey Henderson, Mark McGwire, and Jose Canseco, and Dave Stewart, among others.

What this system forces small market teams to do is develop their young players, and try stay as good as possible before losing them to trades or free agency. The team that appears to be the best at it is the Minnesota Twins. They have developed lots of young talent, and even though they lose someone every year, they always seem to have someone good waiting in the wings. Their general manager and manager both really have good baseball acumen, and know how to scout, develop and get the most out of their players. And they have won two World Series in the modern era as well as being a factor every year in the playoff chase.