haroldsnepsts

True, but I think what makes this worse to the players is when a team like Minnesota gets into a bidding war and shells out two 13-year $100 million contracts, then three months later the owner is sitting across from them saying franchises aren't making a profit because player's salaries are too high.

Per Dreger's twitter: I know I'm desperate for any positive sign but I think this could be one. Steve Fehr and Daly are likely the best chance at getting a deal done soon. From what I've heard of Steve Fehr, he's more of a peace maker and diplomat than his brother in negotiations. And it's pretty clear the tone Bettman prefers to set, so the less he's involved probably the better.

That is a good piece. This is the heart of it for me. 6 months ago I never would've predicted we'd be in this situation given the state of the NHL.

I've been fairly polite up until now, but keep up with your condescending insults and you will be getting locked out from this forum. You were the one insistent on replying to my posts even after I made clear it was pointless for us to discuss this, so it would be great if you backed out of this discussion.

I don't. And it'd be nice if you would discuss what I'm saying instead of making condescending lectures. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the 2004 lockout. I'm talking about your claims as to the players benefitting far more than the owners. Holy cow you are misusing and misrepresenting a ton of information here. Since you didn't provide links for any of the numbers you used, I'm also assuming you're basing your figures on the Forbes report from two years ago, which isn't really a complete financial picture of the money the owners made. You're also taking a number for profit for the league and averaging it as if each team splits the pot, which is in now way how it works. You're also ignoring the value of the franchise. It's not just a revenue stream, it's an asset. Before the 2004-5 lockout, the average franchise value was $163.3 million. According to that source everyone loves to refer back to, Forbes says the average franchise is now worth $240 million. So the average value of the franchise has increased almost $80 million in 8 years. The well run franchises are not just bringing in good money, they're also greatly increasing in value. http://www.forbes.co...ness-of-hockey/ Again, it all comes back to the disparity between the franchises, not the players salary. The Maple Leafs have had a massive increase in revenue and franchise value under this CBA. This is from a fairly reputable financial blog, but it summarizes the Forbes info in a more concise way. http://www.davemanue...05-lockout-135/ Your claim that the players have fared far better is your opinion, nothing more. It remains a very sweeping and unsubstantiated opinion at that. The reality is it's just not that simple.

I don't need a history lesson. I'm not talking about where the sport was. I'm talking about your claim that the players "by and far" were making out better than the owners. You keep saying this but haven't provided any evidence. The players ended up doing pretty well under this CBA, certainly better than they would've expected after giving up nearly a quarter of their salary and conceding to a salary cap. But that's not the same as "they're making out better than owners." In 2003-2004 Nick Lidstrom, arguably one of the best players in the game, was making $10 million. 7 years later, the salaries of top players in the league are just now approaching that. So over the 7 years the owners enjoyed a massive reduction in their greatest cost while experiencing record setting revenues. Claiming the players faired not just better but far better is just too general and baseless of a statement to be meaningful unless you have some proof.

Right. I think you know what Bettman's magic number is. Not to mention MLB plays 80 more games a season. So if you want to try and equate the two, let's call 1995 for Bettman and Fehr a tie. That leaves Fehr's two successful CBA negotiations with no work stoppages. Whereas Bettman has two more lockouts. One that cost the entire season and playoffs. A first in history for one of the 4 major sports.

You keep saying this but I haven't heard you explain logically how the players who gave up 24% of their salary and and agreed to a hard cap benefitted more than the owners.

The first MLB strike was in 1972. Then there was the one in 1981, again in 1985 and then the one in 1994. So I'm not sure what point you're making exactly. The fact is that Fehr has done something Bettman never has. Negotiated a CBA without a work stoppage. Twice.

You forgot to mention they've had labor peace since that strike. Including new CBA's in 2002 and 2006. Want to guess who was head of the union for those? Prior to the 1994-5 strike every negotiation had resulted with a work stoppage. 8 times since 1972. I don't really follow baseball anymore but aside from the obvious problem of equating two very different situations in two very different sports, Fehr played a major role in successfully busting the owners for collusion three times. And since the 1995 strike, MLB has not lost a game. Not exactly the same situation.

The writing has been on the wall since 1995. Bettman = lockout.

I really don't understand spending all this energy and resources on the Quebec labor relations angle, other than as an F-You to Bettman. Even if they win, then what? The Canadiens are awarded the Stanley Cup because every other team has to forfeit?

I can understand wanting to speak with one voice in a negotiation like this so you stay on message, but I'm still surprised at the size of the punishment Bettman is able to dole out. Up to $1 million dollars for speaking out? That's nuts.

It's not really that simple. There's 30 owners with varying priorities and interests. I think you're underestimating how much politics there are just on the ownership side. Not to mention the owners had to outvote Bettman back in 1995 in order to make a deal and save the season, so you could say they've already hired someone who doesn't always do what they say. Back then they just had more power to overrule him.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. It's Bettman who imposed the gag order on owners and management. He put the rule in place so he can fine franchises up to $1 million for speaking out of turn. That's all the league's own doing.

False. The NHL was only willing to negotiate if the union presented a proposal that made what they felt were meaningful concessions. As clearly shown from the quotes in my last post, Fehr was willing to meet to talk over the issues at any time. The reason Fehr didn't negotiate was because the league wouldn't discuss core economic issues without a proposal from the union. That's why they spent those meetings discuss secondary issues, which is absurd. Later when the union finally came forward with three proposals that they felt made meaningful concessions, which is what the league had been asking for, Bettman rejected them in less than 15 minutes. False. They said they wanted a proposal from the union where the union made significant concessions and would not meet to discuss core economic issues until that happened. That's not saying you want to negotiate. Technically true, but that's because the league wouldn't meet to negotiate with him unless their conditions were met. Fehr made clear he was willing to meet anytime to negotiate. You're using presenting a proposal and negotiating interchangeably when they are not. As I mentioned, when Fehr did step forward with three proposals to negotiate. The league rejected them in 15 minutes. False. Refer to my responses above regarding Fehr's statements and the league's position. Unless you have some substantiated quote for Fehr you could provide? You put statements of his in quotes as if he actually said that but until you provide proof I have to assume this is just something you've made up. This is by far the funniest part of your post, as it's exactly what Fehr was getting at. He wanted to meet to negotiate even if they didn't have all the details worked out. That's the parts about not standing on ceremony. If anyone has ideas they should bring it forward. The NHL refused to do that without a proposal. Not to say Fehr's not playing games, but he's at least trying to get in the room to talk. The league is putting conditions before they even show up, then walking out in minutes. Finally, you actually stated something that was true. The NHL currently is putting requirements on the union before they'll even sit down to talk about the CBA. Then when the union did meet those requirements, they were rejected in minutes and Bettman and company walked out of the room and left town. That's a terrible way to negotiate if you actually want to reach a compromise. Nothing would make me happier.

Do you have a link to Fehr saying he wouldn't negotiate? Because I remember Fehr saying the taking turns thing but that's not the same as refusing to negotiate. Fehr ultimately paid the price for not putting forth the proposal because it allowed Bettman to pull the big PR stunt with the 50/50 offer that would save the season, even though that ultimately turned out not to be what it actually was. And we've played this game before, remember? It's not my fault you apparently can't comprehend or remember any of the posts where I've been critical of the union. EDIT: Nevermind, I found the actual context of Fehr's statement. http://espn.go.com/b...e-progress-made More context: http://flyers.nhl.co...s.htm?id=643286 So it's pretty much what's going on right now between the sides. The NHL refused to meet with the players unless they had a proposal that was based closely off the NHL's last proposal because they feel the players need to concede more. In other words, Fehr's ping pong comment was pretty much the opposite of how you characterized it.

And I'm saying you have no idea what a new commissioner would do. But the reality is Bettman has caused record setting work stoppages of the 4 major sports. It would be awfully difficult for any new commissioner to beat or even match that kind of lost games. Yes, I actually do expect him to tell ownership that if necessary. Because it reaches a point where it's bad for the owners as well. Several of these owners have proven themselves to be not so bright when it comes to hockey so part of Bettman's job is balancing the interests of 30 owners and also the interest of the league. I'm not actually. It's just the part of his job that Bettman is terrible at. According to the definition and duties of the Commissioner per the NHL constitution, negotiating on behalf of the owners is only a small portion of his job responsibilities. It's just when he's most noticeable because he always causes a loss in hockey games. According to the NHL Constitution, Article VI, section 6.1: ”6.1 Office of Commissioner, Election and Term of Office The League shall employ a Commissioner selected by the Board of Governors. The Commissioner shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the League and is charged with protecting the integrity of the game of professional hockey and preserving public confidence in the League. The Board of Governors shall determine the term of office and compensation of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall be elected a majority of the Governors present and voting at a League meeting at which a quorum was present when it was convened.“[1] In Section 6.3, his duties are spelled out as having "responsibility for the general supervision and direction of all business and affairs of the League", co-ordinates matters between member clubs and serves as the principal public spokesman for the League. The Commissioner also has authority over dispute resolution, League committees, interpretation of League rules, appointment of League staff, NHL financial matters, contracting authority, scheduling, officials and disciplinary powers.[2] The Commissioner also determines the date and places of Board of Governor meetings. How do you compromise when the other side won't even meet with you?

Bettman has a napoleon complex. Or maybe a tiny penis. At the very least he lacks any sort of diplomacy skills.

I think that brings the total to 2,024 regular season games lost under Bettman. He's increasing his record lead. And while the owners outvoted Bettman and saved half the season and playoffs in '95, you can add the entire 2004 Stanley Cup playoffs to that total. By comparison MLB is next closest with 948 games and the NBA has lost 704.

Many people have made this unprovable claim, but really how could anyone possibly do worse? The NHL by far leads the 4 major pro sports in games lost and that's all occurred under Bettman's reign. He's not just a patsy for the owners. He's supposed to be the steward of the league. I'd like to think they could find someone who of course would still have the interests of the owners in mind, but be able to use other strategies in negotiations than just the lockout. Instead of seeing the realignment as an opportunity for the league to involve players and establish some good will headed into the CBA negotiations, Bettman used it as a show of force and PR stunt to try and make the union look bad. Then followed it up with a first proposal that was essentially "F You!"

Do you have a source where the NHLPA demanded that the league negotiated off one of their proposals? Because it sounds like you have it backwards.

Care to quote one of my posts where I've said that? So the whole premise to your argument is something that you made up.

Do you have a link to this claim you keep making that the players are making well over what their employers do? Getting 57% of HRR is not the same as them making more money than the owners. It means they get 57% of the portion of the revenue that they've defined as hockey related. And they actually are making less than they are really worth because the existing hard cap prevents the top players from getting paid their full market value. Plus there's the whole escrow thing too.

Make your arguments without name calling please. Thank you.And following the name calling up with a straw man fallacy doesn't help your case either. I'd take a commissioner who's lost under 800 to one who's closing in on 2,000 in less than twenty years every time. I don't expect the commissioner to be perfect. I just don't want lockout to be his first move, which it clearly is with Bettman. And actually it wouldn't surprise me if Illitch was saying exactly that. Did you see the video about the last lockout? Where they talk about Ilitch getting mad at other owners saying he's being punished because they don't know how to run a business? Then there's the articles that talk about how Bettman runs things as commissioner. Not sure if you saw those either, but these aren't ideas we're just inventing.