haroldsnepsts

That first one I think is a great way to make things more equitable between the big and smaller franchises besides reducing player salary (which doesn't actually achieve that). Right now the rich franchises can extend massive contracts that nearly cripple the small ones (a la Shea Weber) and essentially circumvent the cap with long term. I didn't realize the players even had an option for inflating the cap. It's definitely something else they could negotiate off of. Even if not eliminating, they could reduce it.

Has anyone in this thread put together a reasonable argument for the owner's side without resorting to a straw man or some other fallacy? Everyone is just accepting that players need to reduce their share of revenue (including myself), but why exactly? The most common argument I hear involves comparing it to the NFL or NBA, which has little relevance to hockey. Yes yes, the Forbes report where it lists 18 teams as having negative income. Forbes lists the Coyotes as dead last with -24.4 mill operating income. Their payroll was a very reasonable $55 million last season. They made it to the conference finals. I'm pretty sure the Forbes report was before the playoffs but assuming they didn't have a positive income (using the Forbes standard) if a team can't turn a profit with that payroll and a conference finals finish, the problem is not players salaries. Obviously that's just one example, but my point is it's not as easy as saying they need this reduction because the league is in trouble. This isn't 2004. The NHL overall is profitable. With a combination of contract limits, revenue sharing AND a reasonable reduction in player salary, the league could help the smaller markets succeed. Or at least give them the opportunity to succeed if they have any idea what they're doing. Instead they are asking for massive reduction in player's salary, with little compelling evidence as to why exactly other than they're willing to hold hockey hostage until the players cave. And at the same time they want to re-define what even constitutes the Hockey Related Revenue before they even give players less of it. As Fehr pointed out, what's in it for the players in any of these offers from the NHL? The concessions the union is mainly asking for is a less insane reduction from the league. They're not asking to get rid of the cap. The league is so fixated on ratcheting down players salary that it seems like they haven't even discussed things like contract length. And that's where I think the union can do some giving. Length of CBA. Length of player contracts. Instead, Bettman uses the nuclear option again and we as fans lose more hockey.

In 2004 he was saying comparison to other leagues wasn't really relevant because the sports are so different. Now that the percentage of players salary in those leagues works in his favor, funny how he's changed his tune.

Owners vote unanimously to lock the players out if there's not a new deal by Saturday. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405196

Not a reliable source. If this turns up somewhere else you can start a new thread.

According to McKenzie's twitter, the league is asking for "an immediate and significant reduction in the $ spent on players salaries" while the union "won't take an actual decrease to $ spent on salaries." If true, that contradicts how Bettman made it sound in his press conference. The impression I got was that the league's latest offer would be a more stepped down reduction as revenue grew, so it wouldn't require a rollback. I know the initial deals it sounded like the league was trying to avoid calling it a rollback by referring to the escrow, but unless the NHL made massive revenue gains next season, the players would end up giving money back, which is essentially a rollback. It's confusing without knowing all the details. How does the league expect to reduce the cap without a rollback? Why can't they be gradually stepped down? The players revenue percentage should come down and they absolutely need limits on contract length. I just don't see why easing the pain of that over a few seasons couldn't happen. Either way, it sounds like Gary's getting his lockout hat trick.

I pretty clearly spelled out why extra time doesn't matter. But I'll try and put it more simply. We're three days away and both sides are deadlocked. Yet you're saying starting 6 months earlier would've somehow helped? As if back then with little real threat of losing a season, they somehow would've started making concessions? I didn't say it was a bad or good move. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Lack of time is not the issue. And you say no offense, then call me a fool? I'm tired of the insults built into your arguments and the constant misrepresentations of what I've said. Your mind seems made up and you're constantly responding to some idea of what you think I believe, instead of what I've actually stated I believe. Carry on your merry way, but I'm done discussing this with you.

The only way it's about the timeline is in that they're running out of time and using the deadline as leverage. It doesn't matter if they started on January 1. If they're deadlocked 3 days from the deadline, what makes you think having 6 months would somehow help things? It's all about playing chicken with the season to see who swerves first. And your characterization of the PA playing blitz is inaccurate. It's not like they dropped a massive proposal on the NHL days before the deadline, and now Bettman and the owners are scrambling to make sense of it all. Three days away and they don't even agree on the core issue. It's not the timeline.

I have been speaking my mind. You repeatedly misinterpret and misconstrue what I and others have said in this thread. Based on your responses, you apparently can only understand that it is a completely 50/50 split or it is 100% the other sides fault. Anything in between gets lost on you. I've highlighted your most recent overdramatizations. Right now the ownership is the most glaring problem in the negotiations. I've already touched on some issues the union needs to move on. But those are more detailed points that the negotiations haven't even reached yet.

Are you incapable of responding to people who disagree with you without changing their words and insulting them? Though you seem unable to grasp the concept, there are more positions than: 1) agreeing with your "it's everybody's fault equally stance" and 2) the union is absolutely perfect! This is completely 100% the leagues fault. I never said that one side was doing everything in its power to make sure the season started. I never said one side is totally at fault.

What does it matter when they were "Ready for negotiation?" There's been plenty of time to negotiate this past week and they haven't been doing it. We're three days from the lockout and they're still not even talking about the same core issue. It's not about the timeline.

About the only thing I agree with Bettman on in his press conference is that a 6 year (or longer) deal would be better. Because hopefully in 6 years he will no longer be commissioner.

No they don't. The current CBA of course officially expires, but there is nothing that says any proposal being made by either side also goes out the window. When you make a counter proposal and say the union has until the 15th to accept or the deal will be removed, that is an ultimatum. Listening to Bettman talk in the press conference, in between all his cheap shots at the union, he does sound like there may be the possibility of further negotiation before the deadline. But it's hard to know if that's sincere since his main purpose seemed to be spinning things that the union hadn't conceded anything, the league had "meaningful movement" and tried to make it sound as if the union is the hold up in further negotiations. All that after Bettman said "negotiating publicly doesn't help the process." The difference in professionalism and tone of the press conferences held by Bettman and Fehr is amazing. Again, that is false. The CBA expires, but that has no effect on proposals unless Bettman and the owners link the two, which they've done. And the implication of pulling any offer off the table is obviously that later offers will be even less favorable. By giving an expiration date on a deadline, there is the implicit threat that things will get worse later. It's beyond me that someone could watch Bettman's press conference and think this is equally both sides fault. He takes several shots at the union, then later lectures about "not negotiating publicly." And even goes back to blame the players for the lost season in 2004. When asked directly if it was a final offer, Bettman refused to answer and once again fell back on his "not negotiating publicly" dodge. He also said repeatedly revenue sharing is not the issue. http://watch.tsn.ca/...9512#clip759512

So with 3 days left to negotiate, the NHL makes its final offer and gives an ultimatum. If Bettman ever wonders why he always gets booed, he's got his answer.

The real negotiations are just beginning with the NHLPA's offer and league's response today, so naturally Bettman gives an ultimatum. @%@#$%@!!!!

Per Dreger's twitter feed, the Visnovsky trade has been deemed VALID. (sorry, I originally thought it said invalid)

Relative to what the owners first proposal was, the union's first proposal should have been the elimination of a salary cap. Their first offer already was a large concession. It boggles the mind that in spite of making over a billion dollars more revenue in 7years, that ownership thinks this is the solution to the league's issues. Revenue has increased 50% in seven years! How many industries see that kind of growth?? While the union's proposal certainly isn't an end point for the CBA, it's based on the idea that the league will continue to make money, increase revenue and be successful, which is what Gary has been telling us for 7 years and what has happened for 7 years. What ownership is trying to sell fans on is that in spite of a 50% increase in revenue in 7 years, the players need to make massive concessions on salaries and contracts in order for franchises to be successful. That's bulls***.

I think more than an online petition, if you want to be heard it's probably more effective to write to the Red Wings organization directly and spell out all the money you've spent in the past and all the money you will no longer be spending on the NHL. You could copy the NHL on it, if they have any sort of address where they can actually hear from fans. It's still mostly of a symbolic gesture, but I think is more likely to be heard and taken seriously than an online petition. Then the key of course is for everyone to follow up on it and cancel tickets and not spend the money.

According to Dreger's Twitter, the PA is presenting something to the league this morning.

He's not an outside party, but that role is supposed to be Bettman's. Yes he is ultimately hired by the ownership but he is also supposed to be a steward of the league and operate in its best overall interests, not just act as a patsy for the owners. It's been mentioned in the press several times that he has a lot of latitude and authority from ownership in these negotations. Obviously 30 different owners have varying interests. His job shouldn't be merely to galvanize them against the players union, but also to convince them to move in ways that help the overall league, not just their particular franchise.

Because it's not about a lack of conversation. It's an unwillingness to move off of their position. The owners are willing to gamble the season away in hopes the players will say uncle first like they did in 2004,so ownership won't have to concede very much at all.

I'm not high on Rozsival, but that's pretty much your standard response for everyone the Wings don't sign. More than anything he likely would've been a middle of the pack defenseman, which isn't what the Wings really need as much as they do a top pairing guy and a cheap depth d-man.

I thought they had to amputate his leg after the Brown hit. At least that's what it sounded like based on the Yotes players comments. He wasn't anyone that was on my radar, but looking at the blueline right now, it sure wouldn't have hurt as a depth signing since we have none.

That's not true. In spite of having to put up with yet another lockout, Bettman said we'd come crawling back again because we're the worlds greatest fans, remember?

I haven't done either of those, but keep trying. The difference is one side has not budged much from its insane proposal, while the other has not budged much from its pretty rational starting point for negotiating. The reason this is more the fault of the owners and Bettman is very simple. Revenue is up 50% in the 7 years under the CBA. The league has over a billion dollars more in revenue than it did at the start of the CBA. A BILLION DOLLARS. The problem is that rich have gotten richer while other franchises struggle. The biggest problem facing the league is clearly the financial disparity among franchises, not player salaries. The owners solution to that problem is to take more money from the players. That is no long term solution. It is an uncompromising money grabbing strategy that relies on the players union crumbling once again and conceding virtually everything. For that strategy to be effective requires a lockout to break the players will. In other words, the league's strategy from day one was built on implementing a lockout. So while they players haven't come far off their stance, there's still the underlying issue of ownership not even acknowledging that their assessment and proposed solution for the league is a fantasy. That's where Bettman should come in as the voice of reason, diplomat, and steward of the league. He isn't. I don't know if it's his strategy or if he's just parroting what ownership wants, but he seems more intent on breaking the union than on preserving hockey and the long term health of the league. We all can pretty much agree on what the general solution is, plus or minus a few details. The players salary does need to come down a few percentage points, the league needs to increase revenue sharing to struggling franchises, and add some limits to contract lengths and how they're calculated against the cap. Those will all help the smaller franchises compete with the ones flush with cash. The NHLPA's proposal was a starting point in that world. The NHL and Bettman in particular, however, have not joined the rest of us in the real world.