2012 Lockout Watch

[55fan 5,133]

Remember when they piped Janet Jackson music into a compound to force the people inside to surrender?

Just sayin'.

I honestly think that they should send each other a list of the issues they want discussed, then compile it into one list so that every issue gets addressed, then each side gets to submit their position/stance/demands for each request, and then, if they don't agree in 2 weeks, send it to arbitration.

The arbitrated contract is good for each year until the sides agree on a mutual contract.

No hockey lost. If they don't like what the arbitrator says, or if they don't think they'll like it, then have a squirrel convention (aka get your nuts together).

[dirtydangles 1,328]

Remember when they piped Janet Jackson music into a compound to force the people inside to surrender?

Just sayin'.

I honestly think that they should send each other a list of the issues they want discussed, then compile it into one list so that every issue gets addressed, then each side gets to submit their position/stance/demands for each request, and then, if they don't agree in 2 weeks, send it to arbitration.

The arbitrated contract is good for each year until the sides agree on a mutual contract.

No hockey lost. If they don't like what the arbitrator says, or if they don't think they'll like it, then have a squirrel convention (aka get your nuts together).

the only problem is that Bettman would be considered the arbitrator as commissioner in all likelihood. and we all know what he wants.

[55fan 5,133]

Oops. Meant to quote the person above me.

I figure it would have to be a neutral third party. Someone who knows little to nothing about the situation. Maybe a committee of the Spice Girls, Mr. Bean, and the Pope.

Edited August 17, 2012 by 55fan

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I never said Gary had control. But in spite of the financials, Bettman has failed in his other duties. NHL reffing and rules have been under huge scrutiny and the integrity of the game being questioned. He HAS failed to preserve public confidence. You always see Bettman providing threats in interviews to fans or owners or players etc rather than calmly saying that he hopes there can be an agreement or whatever. Look at his statement in Winnipeg where he called out the fanbase in an extremely negative way when they got their team back. He lacks the ability to make both sides happy. The job description isn't only to make the owners happy, the game as a whole must please the fans as well.

Exactly.

That's the point I've been trying to make. Yes Bettman has to answer to the owners, but that's not the limits of his job. He is responsible for the long term health and success of the NHL, which surprising as it may seem, some of these idiot owners down always have that same interest.

He ignored clutch and grab hockey that was ruining the game and hindering the most talented players in the world, saying fans love the game and there wasn't a problem. Then during the lost year of the lockout, suddenly there's all these adjustments being made to fix a problem Bettman wouldn't even acknowledge existed for ten years.

And I've reached the point in my life where I'm busy enough and there's enough other ways I could spend my time that refusing to watch or spend money on the NHL isn't just an idle threat, it's a definite option. As much as I love the sport, why follow a league that could give a crap about its fans?

[drwscc 212]

No league really gives a crap about its fans. They're big corporations. They could care less. As long as money keeps rolling in, they'll do what they want. When the money stops coming in, they'll make just enough changes to get the cash coming back in. To think anything else is really naivete.

The owners don't care about what you want. The executive offices of the NHL don't care about what you want. The players don't care about what you want. They all just want to make as much money as possible.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

What will NBC do?

I know, I know...it doesn't matter.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

No league really gives a crap about its fans. They're big corporations. They could care less. As long as money keeps rolling in, they'll do what they want. When the money stops coming in, they'll make just enough changes to get the cash coming back in. To think anything else is really naivete.

The owners don't care about what you want. The executive offices of the NHL don't care about what you want. The players don't care about what you want. They all just want to make as much money as possible.

I don't expect them to care about me as a person. But any business should pay attention to its customers and their wants and needs.

The NHL is counting on the fact that its customers love hockey more than they hate the way they're being treated and will come crawling back to continue supporting a business that has little regard for them.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

“The industry’s grown a billion dollars since (the lockout) and basically they just want more money,”

Chris Campoli, a member of the NHLPA’s negotiating committee

, said Thursday.

Facts don't lie.

[drwscc 212]

And the players *don't* want more money? They're being just as greedy as the owners here. I wish everyone would quit acting like the players are being altruistic, and are totally "just out for the fans." If that was the case, why not accept the initial deal? That would get a new CBA in place, and allow the season to start on time. The reason is, the players are greedy too. They see all that pie, and they want more of it than the other guys.

I don't expect them to care about me as a person. But any business should pay attention to its customers and their wants and needs.

The NHL is counting on the fact that its customers love hockey more than they hate the way they're being treated and will come crawling back to continue supporting a business that has little regard for them.

I didn't mean you as in you, just the general "you" that watches hockey. They don't care about the fans in general, because they don't have to. They know that the die hard fans will come back pretty much no matter what. How many changes were made after the last lockout that everyone was outraged about? Yet, league revenue has grown a ton. They won't take any notice or do anything good for fans because they don't have to. Not until they start experiencing some pain in the pocket book.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

And the players *don't* want more money? They're being just as greedy as the owners here. I wish everyone would quit acting like the players are being altruistic, and are totally "just out for the fans." If that was the case, why not accept the initial deal? That would get a new CBA in place, and allow the season to start on time. The reason is, the players are greedy too. They see all that pie, and they want more of it than the other guys.

Who has said anything like that?

The reality is the owners are the ones saying they're still losing tons of money so they need to reduce their primary costs, players salaries. This is in spite of making massive amounts more revenue than in 2004.

Judging by the players proposal, they would be more than happy to stick with the current CBA. Instead the owners want to greatly rollback players percentage of hockey related revenue while also reducing the amount of money that is considered hockey related revenue.

Players aren't "in it for the fans." But they want to play hockey and they want their fair share of the money for bringing in billions of dollars for the owners.

I know people make the argument that millions of dollars they currently make is enough, but that's not really a realistic assessment. They are elite level talent and have a job that takes a high physical toll and risk on the their health. Yes they make great money doing it, but because $1 million is great money compared to what most of us make here, that doesn't mean they should just let owners take the rest. If you had an extremely specialized skill that generated billions of dollars in revenue, would you be okay with the owner of the company getting most of the revenue for your skill? Especially if your job was high risk?

Sorry, this ones more on ownership.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

The owners are losing nothing.

[toby91_ca 620]

Who has said anything like that?

The reality is the owners are the ones saying they're still losing tons of money so they need to reduce their primary costs, players salaries. This is in spite of making massive amounts more revenue than in 2004.

Judging by the players proposal, they would be more than happy to stick with the current CBA. Instead the owners want to greatly rollback players percentage of hockey related revenue while also reducing the amount of money that is considered hockey related revenue.

Players aren't "in it for the fans." But they want to play hockey and they want their fair share of the money for bringing in billions of dollars for the owners.

I know people make the argument that millions of dollars they currently make is enough, but that's not really a realistic assessment. They are elite level talent and have a job that takes a high physical toll and risk on the their health. Yes they make great money doing it, but because $1 million is great money compared to what most of us make here, that doesn't mean they should just let owners take the rest. If you had an extremely specialized skill that generated billions of dollars in revenue, would you be okay with the owner of the company getting most of the revenue for your skill? Especially if your job was high risk?

Sorry, this ones more on ownership.

Agreed. It would be silly to suggest the players or owners are not greedy. To be successful, you probably need to develop some form of greed. But it is clear the owners are looking for more money, I don't see that yet from the players. In fact, didn't their proposal reduce the amount of money currently coming their way? They are just trying to keep as much money as possible. They aren't trying to get more.

I have no problem with professional athletes making as much as they do. There are very, very, very few people in the world capable of doing what the do. If you look at almost any other profession, the very top people in their field are making millions. Fact is, the players generate billions in revenues, therefore, they should get a good chunk of that money....question is, how much?

I think the system needs to change. The current proposal from the league is fine, it will help the struggling franchises, but what happens when revenues increase dramatically again (largely driven by the good market teams)....increasing the cap floor again and putting those teams in trouble. The problem with the linkage to league revenues is that it assumes as league revenues grow, each teams' revenues grow at the same rate....which is definately not true. Some might say the solution to that would be to eliminate the floor, but that has 2 problems: 1) players won't like it because less money for them, but more importantly, 2) removes partity which the league was trying to get to as well.

The only solution that makes sense to me is revenue sharing, anything other solution that would help the smaller market teams would simply mean large chunks of money would come out of the players pockets and going into the pockets of the rich teams.

The richest teams in the league are much richer these days than they were 7 years ago, becuase their revenues grew a lot. The poor teams are in the same spot they were 7 years ago because the league revenues grew dramatically, but their didn't. If revenue was shared, there wouldn't be this problem.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From QuantHockey.com:

Average Length of an NHL Player Career

A typical career of an NHL player can be summarized with one word. Its short! Over half of all NHL players play less that 100 games during their career and for approximately 5 percent of players, their first NHL game is also their last. If we look at this from a different angle, long careers are extremely rare. Only 4 percent of players (that's 1 out of 25) dress up for more than 1000 games.

They have to get it while they can.

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

Agreed. It would be silly to suggest the players or owners are not greedy. To be successful, you probably need to develop some form of greed. But it is clear the owners are looking for more money, I don't see that yet from the players. In fact, didn't their proposal reduce the amount of money currently coming their way? They are just trying to keep as much money as possible. They aren't trying to get more.

I have no problem with professional athletes making as much as they do. There are very, very, very few people in the world capable of doing what the do. If you look at almost any other profession, the very top people in their field are making millions. Fact is, the players generate billions in revenues, therefore, they should get a good chunk of that money....question is, how much?

I think the system needs to change. The current proposal from the league is fine, it will help the struggling franchises, but what happens when revenues increase dramatically again (largely driven by the good market teams)....increasing the cap floor again and putting those teams in trouble. The problem with the linkage to league revenues is that it assumes as league revenues grow, each teams' revenues grow at the same rate....which is definately not true. Some might say the solution to that would be to eliminate the floor, but that has 2 problems: 1) players won't like it because less money for them, but more importantly, 2) removes partity which the league was trying to get to as well.

The only solution that makes sense to me is revenue sharing, anything other solution that would help the smaller market teams would simply mean large chunks of money would come out of the players pockets and going into the pockets of the rich teams.

The richest teams in the league are much richer these days than they were 7 years ago, becuase their revenues grew a lot. The poor teams are in the same spot they were 7 years ago because the league revenues grew dramatically, but their didn't. If revenue was shared, there wouldn't be this problem.

Don't we already have revenue sharing? I mean I thougth Nashville was taking advantage of that since they been in the league. What I think a bigger revenue share would do is just more so hide the Owners that are tight wads that don't want to spend the money. If Nashvilles small market couldn't afford all those players they let go in the past then how come they just gave weber one of the biggest deals in franchise history and one of the biggest front loaded deal in all of the history of the nhl? Edited August 17, 2012 by hillbillywingsfan

[Z Winged Dangler 2,082]

And the players *don't* want more money? They're being just as greedy as the owners here. I wish everyone would quit acting like the players are being altruistic, and are totally "just out for the fans." If that was the case, why not accept the initial deal? That would get a new CBA in place, and allow the season to start on time. The reason is, the players are greedy too. They see all that pie, and they want more of it than the other guys.

I didn't mean you as in you, just the general "you" that watches hockey. They don't care about the fans in general, because they don't have to. They know that the die hard fans will come back pretty much no matter what. How many changes were made after the last lockout that everyone was outraged about? Yet, league revenue has grown a ton. They won't take any notice or do anything good for fans because they don't have to. Not until they start experiencing some pain in the pocket book.

Guilty...I fit in with the bolded part. My feelings are still very hurt when thinking about the lockout hat-trick though. The only thing that makes me feel any better is that I will have witnessed 1 more Red Wings Cup win than lockout....4-3.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Don't we already have revenue sharing? I mean I thougth Nashville was taking advantage of that since they been in the league. What I think a bigger revenue share would do is just more so hide the Owners that are tight wads that don't want to spend the money. If Nashvilles small market couldn't afford all those players they let go in the past then how come they just gave weber one of the biggest deals in franchise history and one of the biggest front loaded deal in all of the history of the nhl?

They do, but apparently not enough.

Taking more and more money from the players is not really addressing the problem, which is the disparity among franchises. So it's either more revenue sharing, or letting some franchises fail (which seems unlikely).

[frankgrimes 1,836]

I say if it really comes down to it, let them fail. These owners are all rich as hell so if they overspend and fail to get the franchise on track its not the players fault, it is their own damn fault and the dwarf is absolute idiot for not acknowledging that fact. Fehr played it pretty well, now the NHL has to fight the players and itself :-)

There is already revenue sharing if franchises still can 't cut it do something against it, if we end up with less but overall more profitable teams so be it. Funny how the NBA and NFL are always getting mentioned but not the MLB with the luxury tax which is a way better system of course. This is hockey not the NBA, NFL and MLB so who cares what they are doing? Only one guy the dwarf, why not let him be the commissioner of these leagues? Hockey would benefit a great deal from this.

Personally the NHL will lose me for some time if its comes to a lockout, even as die hard fans we need to show them we do care and won't tolerate this s*** every 5 or 8 years.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From Toronto Star:

Donald Fehr says he plans to speak with

Gary Bettman by phone before the NHL’s collective bargaining negotiations resume next week.

On a conference call with reporters, the executive director of the NHL Players’ Association indicated that he hopes to have a discussion with the NHL commissioner over the weekend.

Like any good pizzeria, Uncle Gary will let it ring a few times; lets people think he's busy.

[predmonkee 47]

Gary B has to go. He's committed to taking two steps back everytime this league takes one step forward. The league deserves better. It needs someone who can think forward, be proactive, and stay ahead of the curve. The NHL is a potential goldmine and he keeps spinning his wheels in quicksand.

[kipwinger 8,520]

I'm starting to think the NHLPA is being too accomodating. Sometimes you've got to be a hardass when negotiating. Playing nice only encourages the other guys to press harder.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

From Hockey Memes twitter:

https://twitter.com/hockeymemes

[chances14 227]

I'm starting to think the NHLPA is being too accomodating. Sometimes you've got to be a hardass when negotiating. Playing nice only encourages the other guys to press harder.

i think they're trying to go out of their way to be the good guys in the court of public opinion, hoping that the fans and media put pressure on the owners

[Nightfall 871]

i think they're trying to go out of their way to be the good guys in the court of public opinion, hoping that the fans and media put pressure on the owners

Being good guys in the court of public opinion is fine and dandy, but if there is a lockout, the people who say who won't come back are going to hurt the players as much as the owners. This isn't a popularity contest. They should be working to get a deal done.

[Ally 448]

I want to be clear that I hate Bettman as much as any good hockey fan...

That being said, I don't like when everyone lets the blame fall solely on him. I think it must be a hard job to speak for a room of greedy men who want the players to pay for mishandled teams. Let the broke teams fail and this wouldn't happen so often.

The failing teams are like a gangrenous leg that you don't amputate. You know it's going to keep causing problems but you just had such high hopes for the leg that you can't let it go.

That analogy was terrible...sorry about that.

[Cali-Wing-Nut 102]

The big hangup from what I can tell are the Coyotes the Panthers and the other small market teams. They are getting murdered with the salary cap floor. While Det, Pitt, Van, Chi, Phi, NY ect are making massive profits, the small teams arent keeping up. Since it is easy to say that they should move the team to a bigger market, that has a much bigger affect and isnt all that easy.

I think the cap should be the same. I also think minimum salary should go up. Last I think the cap floor should drop. This will keep small teams from over paying players just to get above the cap floor. This will also contract the inflation in salaries because of the floor. More or less, if a player sees that some no name team is paying a top 40 defenseman top 20 pay because of the cap, the top 20 players are going to want pay that is exponetially higher. This has a circular affect that keeps feeding on its self and over time making the problem worse.

I also would like to see the teams being able to release players the same way as the NFL. If you get hurt, thats life, youre a millionaire that has a bad knee. No need to keep the player under contract if they cant play. Eaves is a perfect example for this, a great guy and good player but is dragging the finacials because he cant play but also cant be released. This is a bigger issue for teams with WAY less cash the DET.

Bettman needs to work it out, if he oversees another lockout I pray my wishes are fulfilled and he is sent packing. We dont need such an anti player commisioner.