Lock out notice to the STH?

[geos]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Huh? The owners moved to 47.5%. I have never heard Bettman say he would move to 52%.

The league offered 49%. Have you never negotiated anything in your life? You never go all in on your offer, sheesh. An offer of 49% indicates a willingness to accept something higher. If Fehr pitched 54%, it means he'd probably take something in the ballpark, maybe 52 or 53%...

Bettman has moved and has indicated he is willing to move. Fehr has said absolutely no movement whatsoever, just increases. So there you have it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Laner99

You dont see anything wrong with this set up? Let's change the situation and put it into another business situation and see if this makes sense.

So you buy a truck and are leasing the truck for monthly payments of $1000 per month. Then all of a sudden your truck has a safety issue at no fault to you and the manufacture requires that you return the truck to get it fix. They dont know how long you will be without your truck, maybe a week, maybe a month, maybe a year. But while they have your truck they still want you to make the $1000 monthly payments on the truck. Even though you have no truck to drive you still have to pay for it. But for each day you dont have your truck they will give you 3% on the dollar for the payments you have made and eventually credit you the difference on future payments or in the event that you want to buy more trucks from them.

Does that sound fair. Chances are you wouldnt be very happy.

Actually, that's probably significantly more than you would receive in that scenario. In reality, you might get a loaner vehicle to drive while yours is out of commission. The loaner will probably not be as nice as your vehicle, and it might not even be a truck, so if you use it for work, you might be screwed. Plus, you'd still have to make all payments.

The chances that the car company would give you any financial compensation for loss of use are extremely low.

I've had recalls on cars in the past and didn't receive any compensation, or even a loaner car for the day. I had to drop the car off at the dealership on my own time and at my own expense, received a ride on the dealership's courtesy shuttle to work, then a ride back to the dealership when the car was ready.


Do you really think that if your truck was off the road for a month, the car company would say, "sorry for the inconvenience, we have credited your account with $1002.50 for your troubles, and you can either take that as cash now, or keep it in your account to take off a future payment"?


If the Flames treated this like a car company would treat a recall, the offer would have been to replace our tickets for every cancelled Flames game with a ticket for a Hitmen game, and we would keep paying full price for our Flames tickets.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Robbob

If any substantial amount of games are canceled then teh schedule would be redone completely so your scenario will not happen.

I was going to say the same, but if they went with the 1994-95 strategy where there were no interconference games, we'd still lose Washington, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Montreal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by geos

The league offered 49%. Have you never negotiated anything in your life? You never go all in on your offer, sheesh. An offer of 49% indicates a willingness to accept something higher. If Fehr pitched 54%, it means he'd probably take something in the ballpark, maybe 52 or 53%...

Bettman has moved and has indicated he is willing to move. Fehr has said absolutely no movement whatsoever, just increases. So there you have it.

In this case, Eddy is right. The NHL's last offer was 49% in year one, falling to 47%. The average is about 47.5%

[kipperfan]

I am also curoius about Hitmen tickets. As a STH back in 2004 I was given ALOT of free Hitmen tickets (I don't even remember how many now, but enough for me and a friend to go 15-20 times) as soon as the lockout started. I wonder if they will do something like this again to keep their STH/game pack holders somewhat happy?

[geos]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In this case, Eddy is right. The NHL's last offer was 49% in year one, falling to 47%. The average is about 47.5%

Sorry, you're right. However, moving to 47.5% from 43% and adopting the more generous definition of HRR are both major concessions and steps in the right direction. The players haven't moved an inch.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I was going to say the same, but if they went with the 1994-95 strategy where there were no interconference games, we'd still lose Washington, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Montreal.

Exactly. A shorter schedule isn't the same deal, and likely features less exciting games. I wouldn't pay as much for a Western Conference only schedule...

You also left out the big game against the Bruins that might be lost too... that one has about 10x the value of a Tuesday night Columbus match...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I am also curoius about Hitmen tickets. As a STH back in 2004 I was given ALOT of free Hitmen tickets (I don't even remember how many now, but enough for me and a friend to go 15-20 times) as soon as the lockout started. I wonder if they will do something like this again to keep their STH/game pack holders somewhat happy?

I'm sure they will announce something, but I'd be surprised if it as good a deal as we got then. In 2004-05, the Flames offered Hitmen season tickets for $100 to any Flames STH. And the Hitmen have always had a deal where if you missed a game, your unused ticket became a voucher for future games.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by geos

Sorry, you're right. However, moving to 47.5% from 43% and adopting the more generous definition of HRR are both major concessions and steps in the right direction. The players haven't moved an inch.

The owners moved from 43 to 47.5% if you equalize the HRR out and assume they were always working from the old HRR. If you want to say they changed HRR and they moved their percentages they moved from 46 to 47.5% and changed the definition of HRR. They did not do both.

The players started at 57%. They put forward an offer that could net the owners realistically upwards of a 3-5% gain in HRR share. Obviously I suppose it is possible that all revenue dries up and HRR goes down, but it seems highly unlikely. But there offer did put more risk on the shoulders of the owners with the owners able to capitalize and thus increase their share of revenue if the business succeeds. In any event it would be a fair statement to say, all things being equal, the players have moved a minimum of 3% downward.

The owners have taken away arbitration in their offer, raised the UFA age, made it so ELC's can be ripped up after two years or renewed at a cheaper rate for up to five years and put term limits on contracts. They have not moved off of this position. The players to the best of my knowledge want the status quo on all those issues.

So at the end of the day, you have the owners moving 4.5%, the players moving a minimum of 3%, possibly upwards of 5% and I suppose on the off chance NBC goes bankrupt not moving at all. I am not sure how this equates to the owners giving up generous concessions and the players not moving an inch. Not moving an inch would be saying that 57% is their final offer.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm sure they will announce something, but I'd be surprised if it as good a deal as we got then. In 2004-05, the Flames offered Hitmen season tickets for $100 to any Flames STH. And the Hitmen have always had a deal where if you missed a game, your unused ticket became a voucher for future games.

Thanks for the memory refresh...I guess I did pay a bit of money for those Hitmen tickets...still was an awesome deal though, I became a huge Hitmen fan thanks only to that deal.

[Laner99]

Originally Posted by getbak

Actually, that's probably significantly more than you would receive in that scenario. In reality, you might get a loaner vehicle to drive while yours is out of commission. The loaner will probably not be as nice as your vehicle, and it might not even be a truck, so if you use it for work, you might be screwed. Plus, you'd still have to make all payments.

The chances that the car company would give you any financial compensation for loss of use are extremely low.

I've had recalls on cars in the past and didn't receive any compensation, or even a loaner car for the day. I had to drop the car off at the dealership on my own time and at my own expense, received a ride on the dealership's courtesy shuttle to work, then a ride back to the dealership when the car was ready.


Do you really think that if your truck was off the road for a month, the car company would say, "sorry for the inconvenience, we have credited your account with $1002.50 for your troubles, and you can either take that as cash now, or keep it in your account to take off a future payment"?


If the Flames treated this like a car company would treat a recall, the offer would have been to replace our tickets for every cancelled Flames game with a ticket for a Hitmen game, and we would keep paying full price for our Flames tickets.

your right my analogy was not very good. Here is a better one. Give me $1000/month and in return I will give you nothing....

[geos]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

So at the end of the day, you have the owners moving 4.5%, the players moving a minimum of 3%, possibly upwards of 5% and I suppose on the off chance NBC goes bankrupt not moving at all. I am not sure how this equates to the owners giving up generous concessions and the players not moving an inch. Not moving an inch would be saying that 57% is their final offer.

That's crazy. Guarnteed pay increases regardless of economic realities that might reduce their share of HRR if things are fantastic for the league going forward. Big sacrifice...

If they believe their projections, they should just be willing to take that split, but they are not. So what does that tell you about their projections?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

The owners moved from 43 to 47.5% if you equalize the HRR out and assume they were always working from the old HRR. If you want to say they changed HRR and they moved their percentages they moved from 46 to 47.5% and changed the definition of HRR. They did not do both.

The players started at 57%. They put forward an offer that could net the owners realistically upwards of a 3-5% gain in HRR share. Obviously I suppose it is possible that all revenue dries up and HRR goes down, but it seems highly unlikely. But there offer did put more risk on the shoulders of the owners with the owners able to capitalize and thus increase their share of revenue if the business succeeds. In any event it would be a fair statement to say, all things being equal, the players have moved a minimum of 3% downward.

The owners have taken away arbitration in their offer, raised the UFA age, made it so ELC's can be ripped up after two years or renewed at a cheaper rate for up to five years and put term limits on contracts. They have not moved off of this position. The players to the best of my knowledge want the status quo on all those issues.

So at the end of the day, you have the owners moving 4.5%, the players moving a minimum of 3%, possibly upwards of 5% and I suppose on the off chance NBC goes bankrupt not moving at all. I am not sure how this equates to the owners giving up generous concessions and the players not moving an inch. Not moving an inch would be saying that 57% is their final offer.

The problem is, there is no "status quo" as the agreement ended.
As Gary said, (paraphrasing) the league honoured the deal during its duration, and now wants a new deal. The players want the old deal, because they did very well by it. I don't blame them for it, but personally feel their answer of "because that's what we got last time" is bogus, as is their argument that they are offering a reduction in salaries, when all they are offering is a reduction in the increase in salaries they will accept.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

The problem is, there is no "status quo" as the agreement ended.
As Gary said, (paraphrasing) the league honoured the deal during its duration, and now wants a new deal. The players want the old deal, because they did very well by it. I don't blame them for it, but personally feel their answer of "because that's what we got last time" is bogus, as is their argument that they are offering a reduction in salaries, when all they are offering is a reduction in the increase in salaries they will accept.

Is there a legitimate business reason to have ELC's guaranteed for 2 years and then have a team option for the next 3 years? Is there a legitimate business reason under their linkage proposal to eliminate arbitration? Is there a legitimate business reason to raise the UFA age? Those are the issues that I was citing, perhaps there is a reason for these things, but I have not seen it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Laner99

your right my analogy was not very good. Here is a better one. Give me $1000/month and in return I will give you nothing....

That analogy is even worse, actually. To reflect reality, the Flames are asking you to give them $1000 now, representing 1/x of a season. If you leave your money with them, you will still get that 1/x of a season you paid for, just not necessarily when you expect. For your troubles, they will toss you an additional $30.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Is there a legitimate business reason to have ELC's guaranteed for 2 years and then have a team option for the next 3 years? Is there a legitimate business reason under their linkage proposal to eliminate arbitration? Is there a legitimate business reason to raise the UFA age? Those are the issues that I was citing, perhaps there is a reason for these things, but I have not seen it.

Yes, actually. To control costs. The same goal every other company shares.

That being said, I think it is unlikely that the league will get most, or even any of those changes. Other than perhaps contract term limits, I think the owners will be happy to let the players "win" on all of the side issues and keep the status quo.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, actually. To control costs. The same goal every other company shares.

That being said, I think it is unlikely that the league will get most, or even any of those changes. Other than perhaps contract term limits, I think the owners will be happy to let the players "win" on all of the side issues and keep the status quo.

Maybe I am slow, but how do any of the matters I listed control costs in an environment where players get a fixed percentage of revenue?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Maybe I am slow, but how do any of the matters I listed control costs in an environment where players get a fixed percentage of revenue?

Touche. In most cases, I guess the better answer is to reallocate costs where the owners feel there is greater benefit. Though in some cases - such as sending the god-awful contracts to the AHL - there is a definite cost to ownership/benefit to players.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Laner99

your right my analogy was not very good. Here is a better one. Give me $1000/month and in return I will give you nothing....

That would only work if you bought season tickets, the season was cancelled, there was no refund or interest paid back, and you weren't given the option to be removed from your contract at a full refund and no contract breakage charge (which is usually close to impossible).

As far as your truck analogy, if you drop your cell in the toilet would you demand bell refund the rest of your contract? Do you ask shaw to refund you a days worth of cable because the power went out?

The fact that the teams are offering interest on account balances is impressive, IMO. Especially considering its better than most bank rates.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Touche. In most cases, I guess the better answer is to reallocate costs where the owners feel there is greater benefit. Though in some cases - such as sending the god-awful contracts to the AHL - there is a definite cost to ownership/benefit to players.

I do not think the owners even addressed the Wade Redden loophole, but I could be wrong.

[Flamenspiel]

To be clear, even of you are on a payment plan, they will issue a check "on request" based on the number of games cancelled. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the way the Flames are handling this.

In fact, as opposed to the last one when we were apparently on the verge of winning a stanley cup and were robbed of Iginla in his prime I am not tremendously bothered by the delayed start or cancellation of the season. I think teams like Vancouver and San Jose have more to lose as their prime players will miss a year!