• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Interesting that Bettman's salary has risen from less than $3M before 2004-05 lockout to approx $8M today.

i wonder if he takes a hit to his salary like the players lol? his salary inflated even more than the players'.

P.S. who would have the power to remove Bettman from his position? A vote by the owners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole "Bettman is the problem" thing is really getting out of hand. The guy is a slimeball, but let's give credit where it is due. Bettman is essentially employed by the owners of the teams in the NHL. It's his prerogative to make them happy, or he finds himself unemployed. All things considered, he has done an excellent job satisfying owners. The game has evolved and grown by leaps and bounds under his direction, and the owners overall have made great profits, despite everything the league has had going against it.

Bettman is the voice of the owners is the labor dispute. What they want is what he has to try to sell to the NHLPA and public. Bettman is not the devil whispering evils into the ears of the owners. Its actually the other way around. He's just the front man.

Edit: actually Bettman is in quite a tough pickle now that I think on it. The owners are asking for quite a lot and under the current environment are coming of as unrealistic and greedy. If Bettman can't achieve these extremely lofty and completely one-sided goals (ie owners win, players lose (again)), he may be out of a job. I'm not sure if it would come to that considering the profits that the league has earned in the past decade, but its certainly not an appealing situation to be in.

Edited by Echolalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things come to mind...

1. What I will find interesting is what will happen after this fiasco is resolved. Will the owners abide by their own concerns and be more fiscally responsible? Doubt it. Bettman doesn't sign the players to their contracts, the owners do, so we should be more upset with them then Bettman.

2. I wonder if there is any kind of 'Collusion' language in the NHL's past CBA's? Anyone know? If there is, I wonder if the players association could file suit if the Owners stop bidding or at least offering UFA's huge contracts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“What we expect to do tomorrow is to put forth an alternative view as to what we should do next,” Fehr said Monday. “That’s the best way I can put it.”

Despite that, the union thoroughly examined it over the last month before deciding there was no true counter-proposal to be made. Fehr will instead offer up a “different kind of an approach” — one that no doubt includes expanded revenue sharing and more flexibility under the league’s rigid salary cap system.

“It’s how the players see the world,” said Fehr.

This should be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'm interested in the league at least exploring the idea of a soft cap or luxury tax, there's no way a majority of owners or Bettman will go for that. But it at least tries to address what is one of the fundamental issues in the NHL today: the financial disparity between the franchises.

That's my biggest problem with the NHL's proposal. Their demands are not only idiotically extreme, most don't really address the fundamental problems. Taking greater and greater percentages of the players money is not really a viable long-term solution for the league. The rich teams will still find ways to use their financial advantage to lure star players away from small market teams.

My fear is that the two sides aren't even talking about the same problems, so it's not even really a negotiation.

It should be a very interesting day tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While Fehr did not get into specific line-by-line details of the proposal, he did indicate that the players were willing to take reduced hockey-related revenue for the next three seasons and that it did not suggest the elimination of the league's hard cap.

Fehr added that the union also asked that no changes be made in regards to player contracting rules.

Well that's very good news that the players are willing to take reduced revenues and not trying to get rid of the hard cap.

Even if it's the only change to contract rules though, they absolutely need to put some limit on length.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=403068

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It's clear to me (the NHLPA) didn't put (the proposal) together in an hour or two," Bettman told reporters on Tuesday, confirming the league would evaluate the proposal at their offices.

No truth to the rumor that Bettman finished that sentance with "...but it will only take us an hour or two to reject it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With what little info we have on the NHLPA proposal, to me the biggest sticking point is the CBA "snapping back" to the current one after three or four years. Unless Bettman allows these struggling franchises to fail, it's unrealistic to think that after a few seasons under this proposal things will be fixed enough that reverting to the current CBA makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article posted on tsn regarding the NHLPA proposal. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=403068

The union says its proposal to the league includes a smaller percentage of revenues for players and an expanded revenue sharing program to help struggling teams.
Fehr also said the union's proposal does not call for the removal of the hard salary cap the league won in the last round of negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Union leader Donald Fehr says players could give up as much as US$465 million in revenue under the proposal if the league continues to grow at an average rate. If the league grows at the rate it has over the past two seasons, he says the amount could reach $800 million."

Today must be my "off day"...can someone explain to me WHY the players are giving this up??

Why would the Owners agree to return to the current system after three years of the new one? They have stated they have no interest in the current system and will not return to it. I wonder why this was even added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Union leader Donald Fehr says players could give up as much as US$465 million in revenue under the proposal if the league continues to grow at an average rate. If the league grows at the rate it has over the past two seasons, he says the amount could reach $800 million."

Today must be my "off day"...can someone explain to me WHY the players are giving this up??

Why would the Owners agree to return to the current system after three years of the new one? They have stated they have no interest in the current system and will not return to it. I wonder why this was even added.

My interpretation of it (which is a best guess given what few details we know) is this is the unions way of saying they'll cut the ownership a break for a few years while they get their franchises in order and figure out how to make these smaller markets profitable.

It doesn't seem very realistic that the owners will ever go back to the current CBA, but I think the NHLPA is at least talking about about the right issue, unlike the owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I admit I am wrong. I thought Fehr and the players were going to lowball the union. This is good progress made by the players. Instead of being pricks like the owners, they took the high road and they put forward a good proposal. Lets see what happens with the owners now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this