CBA Negotiations - What questions still need to be answered so that the Season starts on time?
Anyone who has knowledge on this subject;
-- What are some of the questions that are going on with these Negotiations?
I know the owners are currently not ready to operate under the current CBA,
--what must change?
--what must everyone agree on within a Month?
- tomjc43Lv 77 years agoBest Answer
1) Both sides have a similar goal. Both realize that something must be done to help the financially struggling teams. How they go about it is at question. The owners want the players to take less money thusly the weaker teams will have to pay less and therefore not lose as much. The players want the richer teams to give more money to the weaker teams so they will have less losses.
2) The contract length is a problem. Owners think the CBA should limit the length of contracts. The players think that if owners didn't want longer contracts they shouldn't offer them. See item 1) above as to the problem.
3) Owners think that young players shouldn't become free agents until they have played 10 years. The players think they should be free agents the day they're born. A definite conflict.
4) Players think that players should rule on supplementary discipline. The owners think it is a league matter. (this will be easily resolved)
5) What are hockey related revenues? Owners think only ticket sales and some TV revenue. Players think anything with the word hockey loosely associated is hockey related revenue. (large disparity)
6) Olympics. Players want to play. League thinks it should be compensated. IOC must comply.
Other than these minor differences all is copacetic. Items will be resolved in this order 4). 2). 6). 5). 3) and 1).
If players are willing to take 50% of a much smaller pot and a 20% instant cut hockey will restart before US Thanksgiving. Otherwise don't plan on New Years in Ann Arbor.
- viphockey4Lv 77 years ago
There are a lot of items on the table some of which are fairly obvious while others might not be. Clearly the money factor is a big issue but there are a lot of things that factor into what % is paid out to the players. What defines hockey related income? The players and the owners have very different idea's about that subject alone. If the Coyotes were in fact staying the players argue that the arena contract constitutes income for the club because it is after all tax payer welfare pumped into the organization via a shady "agreement" where the city literally pays them to stay. The owners dont agree, they feel it is part of a teams right to have a part of their overall corporate objective such as "arena management" not be linked to hockey income. Owners want a bigger cut of players contracts with card companies and other merchandising ventures (jersey sales....do you buy the jersey blank or do you pay extra for a players name?). Discipline is a hot topic, currently the NHL doesnt have an equitable system of appeals for suspensions. Shanny decides and Bettman hears disputed cases....doesnt seem fair to the players! Travel and travel stipends along with designated family travel and lodging. Player ticket allotments. Team required appearances or promotions are an issue. Outside appearances where guys get paid (i.e., public signings), the owners want that money declared and want their % of that pie. Conference realignment. Playoff shares per player. Offseason training expenses. Preseason length and training camp length. Players want back to back and 3 in 4 nights schedules to not be so harsh. Housing for guys on call up or guys getting traded. There is so much that is being covered i couldnt give you a full list on this forum but many of the items tossed out there are merely meant to be "bargaining chips" and not really issues of true merit. Others are fair concerns but the bottom line is a deal can be reached if both sides truly want it....right now the owners have sent a clear message they hope the fans blame Bettman or the players while they continue to make more and more record revenue. The league is experiencing huge financial improvement but the owners want to be saved from themselves. The Predators get a 7 mill "poverty" payment from the city of Nashville yet matched the Weber deal. Ed Snyder continues to lead the anti player movement yet he tosses money around as quickly and recklessly as any owner. Leopold tells us Minny is too small a market and cant compete and proves it by throwing 26 years and 196 mill. at 2 players.....we should all be so poor!
- Anonymous7 years ago
Well some of the questions with these negotiations include like
Questions about players salaries
What must change? simple, they must agree on what players should be making for their salaries, dealing with revenues and limiting long contracts.
Also a new CBA, getting that agreed upon too.