haroldsnepsts

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8435294/2012-lockout-nhl-players-resume-talks-2-week-break-no-progress-made So the league's strategy really does seem to be that they'd back up 100 miles, take three baby steps forward and expect the union to come their way, even though the union made concessions on their initial proposal and every one since. It's a ridiculous expectation of successfully negotiating the cba, though it explains why the NHL put forward such an unrealistic initial proposal. It does mention that Daly is frustrated they're not talking about the core economic issues, which I agree with. Who cares about drug testing when there's this massive issue they're ignoring?

I sure hope this part isn't accurate: If the owners really want the players to give that up in the first year, I think we're in for a long lockout. Though at least now it's being called what it is, another salary rollback.

As happy as I am that the two sides are meeting tomorrow, I'm not sure how it's gonna work if they don't discuss core economic issues. These secondary issues seem like bargaining chips used to lessen the blow of conceding some major issue. But they're just going to ignore the massive divide on the main problem? I guess if they make concessions on smaller stuff maybe the goodwill will start something? I want to be optimistic but really just don't get it.

Thank you for proving every point I made in my last post. You're getting awfully upset by a position that you invented, because it sure isn't mine. I'll say again because I don't think you read a lot of what I write, I'm done discussing this with you.

It's fine. We're right back where we left off. You labeling me as a union slappy, misrepresenting what I've said, along with creating fictional situations regarding the union. I've already pointed out I didn't say the owners were trying to break the league, then you once again misrepresent that point in another post. It shows how pointless this discussion is when my words clearly aren't being read or absorbed. And I don't know what to tell you if you haven't found a news source that "even glances over" the proposals. While it's obviously not the full documents several sources have summarized the major economic points of the proposals and counter proposals from the league and union. Over the endless posts I've made in this thread, I think I put together a fairly consistent and coherent explanation of my position. There's really no point in us continuing to have this conversation.

This is insane. You really think it's reasonable or possible to think Fehr may be asking for a luxury tax system, in spite of the fact that no proposal from the NHLPA has included it and as I mentioned is based on the cap system?? It's a ridiculous insinuation on your part based on zero evidence. I have no idea if Bettman is going to require that players salary be 3% of revenue but based on what we know of his proposals, I can say pretty reasonably he's not suddenly offering that behind closed doors. As for the details, try using google. Obviously it's not going to be the full proposal from each side which is pages of legalese, but every major proposal and counter offer has been pretty well recapped in the media.

Probably. And it's making me hungry.

Right. Because 20,000 people travel for miles and pay hundreds of dollars to watch cows graze several times a week. Buy cow outfits to wear with the brand of their favorite cow on the side. Watch cows grazing on television for hours on end. Totally a solid analogy. And if ranchers did that it would be collusion. The NHL is a pretty specific situation.

No, see the difference is I'm stating my opinion on matters. You have been misrepresenting cold hard facts about what the union has offered so far. The bolded section is a perfect case in point. You mention Fehr and a luxury tax system. No proposal put forward by the players union has had such a detail. That we do know for sure. Every NHLPA proposal has been based on the current capped system. Are you suggesting that in spite of every NHLPA proposal being based on the current salary cap, that in the room Fehr is somehow bargaining for a luxury tax system? That's absurd, and shows how far you'll stretch the truth to try and implicate the union in the lockout. Details of every proposal and counter proposal have been released. I'm not pretending to know what either side is saying in the room, but Bettman has made many statements to the media as the negotiations have gone on, where he takes his cheapshots at the union and beats the drum about franchises not being profitable. And then there's the fairly reasonable proposals from the union compared to the insane one from the owners. When the league moves a few baby steps away from an insane proposal, that doesn't suddenly doesn't make it a good one. That is information we do have. It's pretty obvious to journalist and fans alike that the biggest issue with the league is the financial disparity between franchises. Yet Bettman and the owners proposals almost completely ignore that issue. I never said the owners wanted to break the league. I've said multiple times that because their initial proposal was so insanely aggressive, the only way they could expect to players to agree to it would require breaking the will of the union. So when it comes to players cattle is a fine analogy, but when it comes to buying a franchise suddenly the NHL is a totally unique business?

That's the thing, Bettman's position is ridiculous. He is simultaneously pushing the franchises in non-hockey markets and bragging about the success and profitability of the nhl, while also claiming the league's current financial structure doesn't work and it's mostly the fault of player contracts. The owners and Bettman want people to believe that the biggest problem is once again player salaries and not the financial disparity between franchises, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The sad part is, it's starting to work. Bettman stays on message, relying on the players caving and fans coming back even though he's costing us hockey and not addressing the actual problem. See you in 6 years when there's another lockout.

It's still a terrible analogy. They may not all end up in the same league, but with that much elite talent available some league would likely make a big effort to attract most of the talent. Then yes, that league would be the best in the world. Here we're in agreement. It's not that I think the players are without fault here, but I too am astonished with how the owners, and Bettman especially who is supposed to be guiding them, handled this. It was almost like they wanted a lockout. Hockey is entertainment. Hockey players are elite talent people pay to see. Whether an owner thinks it or not, you don't treat them like cattle. And you certainly don't do something as stupid as calling them that, even if they are.

I could've saved myself a lot of typing by just posting "What Buppy said." Great post.

And therein lies a truth that a lot of people ignore in the lockout debates. the reason we fans are willing to shell out an insane amount of money for tickets, parking, beer, jerseys, directv packages, etc, is because we're watching the best players on the planet play the game. That's why they're not exactly cattle.

And here we are again. You unable to understand anything other than all or nothing so you misrepresent my position, in spite of my repeated posts about it. My point, which you once again missed, is not that it's 100% anyone's fault (god I'm sick of typing that). I can understand the opinion of people who think the owners should be able to get what they want from their proposal because it's their franchises and the players are employees, so they should pretty much just agree to the deal. I don't agree with it, but I can see the position. What baffles me is you consistently misrepresenting what they players union has offered and saying both sides have essentially conceded nothing. It's patently false. What you don't acknowledge much is that the players have already conceded a ton. Hence my analogy. Their starting point was a heck of a lot closer to the middle than anything the league proposed. So if both sides keep moving forward equally from where they are now, in the end it means they end up with a deal heavily swayed towards the owners. If they were to both concede equally from here to arrive in the middle, then the union's starting point for negotiations should have been to get rid of the cap. This has little to do with my political preference, it has to do with looking at the facts. The league overall is profitable. Revenues are up over a billion dollars since the last deal. That's up 50%, which is amazing. The Winter Classic is a big hit. The NHL is now on several NBC networks. What should have been a relatively simple CBA negotiations went off the rails with the owners first offer. It was completely insane and hostile. As I've said before, the only way the owners could have expected the players to get anywhere near that first proposal is to break their will, which requires locking them out. The owners and Bettman's strategy was built upon a lockout. Yes there's things both sides could do better, but in terms of who's the biggest (not 100%, but biggest) reason we won't be watching hockey? It's Bettman and the owners by a country mile. Do you have access to the teams books? How do you know they're razor thin? As has been said countless times, the accounting is not that simple. It varies by what's included in HRR, expenses, if it's really a "loss" when you include the arena's other uses, etc. But you keep repeating this same conjecture as if it's fact. Everyone keeps repeating that 18 of the 30 franchises are losing money but that's based on a report in Forbes from a couple years ago. When Bettman started the CBA negotiations in 2004, he had a lengthy audit to show definitively that the league had grave financial problems. This time, it simply does not. It also ignores the overall increase in values of the franchise, even the ones listed as losing money. Even if it is losing money, it is in asset that is appreciating in value. It ignores the owners role in handing out bad contracts that hurt their franchise. It ignores that franchises in non-hockey markets are going to have a harder time financially, which is in no way the fault of the players. It was a choice Bettman and the owners made. These billionaire owners aren't stupid. If so many of these franchises were truly financial black holes that were damaging the owner's overall wealth and strategy, they'd sell it in a heartbeat.

Nevermind. I forgot how pointless this is to discuss with you and was just reminded. If the NHL was holding 100 apples and the NHLPA was holding 10 apples, you'd probably say they had an equal number.

The facts indeed are quite clear, but you don't seem to understand the players proposal or are ignoring the details of it. They're not asking for an increase in percentage of revenue. From your link: That is a stepped decrease down to the 52% that you speak of. As revenue increases they'll gradually get less and less, which actually is a sensible way to go about reducing their percentage of HRR. Let the revenue grow away from them. They also have a built in escape valve if for some reason revenue doesn't grow very much. And a built in protection if it goes through the roof. Their proposal also includes "an aggressive revenue sharing plan" which actually addresses the league's biggest problem. You can ignore the facts as much as you want, but the NHLPA made an incredibly reasonable proposal. Certainly one that could be tweaked and have the finer points negotiated, but is a sensible and thoughtful solution to the NHL's issues.

That's patently false when you look at the amount of money they are giving up. They are conceding salary once again in a league that has seen a 50% increase in revenue. Think about that. the league makes over a billion more dollars a year than it did 7 years ago. In spite of that, the players are willing to give up salary instead of wanting more of that giant increase in revenue. Like I said, it looks like now neither side is budging or only making tiny steps forward, which is true. But it ignores that the league took massive steps backward to begin things.

It just shows how willing pro sports owners are to run a sport into the ground so they can make more money. I haven't been following the NFL ref negotiations that closely, but every passing game just shows the locked out refs are worth the money. It's insane to put a multi-billion dollar league on the shoulders of refs who are from much smaller college and high school programs. It's crazy. For this season to have any credibility they'd practically have to bring back the real refs, the wipe the records clean and start over for 13 games.

The players gave ground with every proposal they've made. As has been pointed out multiple times, they're not asking for anything more. They just want to lose less. If we're trying to meet in the middle and you start by backing up 100 yards, it doesn't really matter if we both take 3 steps forward.

Tonight has to be the most hilariously awful ending to an NFL game I've ever seen. Packers got screwed tonight with the refs ignoring the push of and the interception. It's amazing that the owners would tarnish the credibility of the league like this. NFL games are fun to watch now because they're a trainwreck. Not because they're good football.

We'll see how committed Gary is to screwing this league up if he'll even kill of his own baby by canceling the Winter Classic.

It falls apart when you consider that if all the players left for some other league, then that league would become the best in the world.

Not bad, for cattle.

1) That doesn't make it a fact. Thinking that analogy is accurate is an opinion. Comparing players to cattle hardly makes sense, other than as an insult. Unless cattle can decide to go to ranches in Europe and graze? 2) In the broadest sense yes they are both product, but that hardly makes it a good analogy. Hockey players are highly skilled, elite level talent and ultimately entertainers. Through their skill they generate a massive amount of revenue besides just tickets to games. Television contracts, marketing, video games, merchandise, concessions, parking, etc. Cows are ground up and eaten. 3) People probably applaud Selanne because the owners are being the bigger idiots in this mess. And I haven't heard any of the NHLPA side say anything as stupid as comparing the players to cattle.