• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

906 posts in this topic

Is there a good reason why Uncle Gary craves short-term CBA's?

We've already seen he doesn't like (i.e., hates) the concept of an "option" season in a new CBA. Is it because the players suggested it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a good reason why Uncle Gary craves short-term CBA's?

We've already seen he doesn't like (i.e., hates) the concept of an "option" season in a new CBA. Is it because the players suggested it?

It probably lies with because he is the spokesperson of the owners. If the season were to start on time, regardless of things, the owners would technically be under 43% RS, with the players still getting the majority. I'm not sure if they can backdate the CBA to where regardless they can start the season under the terms of the old CBA but once the new one comes out they magically backdate everything from the original start of the season. I'm not even sure if i'm making sense. The owners don't want to budge at all with their proposal, it just seems like they're the ones unwilling to allow the season to start on time if the new CBA isn't hashed out before Sept. 15th.

Short version, I think the owners don't want to allow the players to get their 57% of RS for any period of time this upcoming season, therefore they won't allow the beginning of the season to be played on the terms of the old CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably lies with because he is the spokesperson of the owners. If the season were to start on time, regardless of things, the owners would technically be under 43% RS, with the players still getting the majority. I'm not sure if they can backdate the CBA to where regardless they can start the season under the terms of the old CBA but once the new one comes out they magically backdate everything from the original start of the season. I'm not even sure if i'm making sense. The owners don't want to budge at all with their proposal, it just seems like they're the ones unwilling to allow the season to start on time if the new CBA isn't hashed out before Sept. 15th.

Short version, I think the owners don't want to allow the players to get their 57% of RS for any period of time this upcoming season, therefore they won't allow the beginning of the season to be played on the terms of the old CBA.

I feel you may be right, but it boggles the mind that adults can sit around a table and say, "I don't want someone else to have more than me, so I'm going to make sure that we both get zero."

A cranky four-year-old who needs a nap, maybe, but a group of adults? Oh, heavens. It's going to be a long year.

Ally, F.Michael and Nev like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a good reason why Uncle Gary craves short-term CBA's?

We've already seen he doesn't like (i.e., hates) the concept of an "option" season in a new CBA. Is it because the players suggested it?

Short term CBA's work for the owners, means that they get to renegotiate(take more money from the players) more often! Gary probably likes them because he can use them as a time to push more money towards his favorite failure teams. Who knows, but this sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aaronward_nhl: At this point,PA has 200 players confirmed,expects many more to decide to attend NYC meeting.Anticipation NHL/NHLPA to meet Sunday. #TSN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a Redwings fan since the early '80's..........flown to Chicago, LA, Denver, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, St. Louis and of course, Detroit to watch em play. If there is no hockey this season, I'm done with the sport for good. They can all kiss my ass.

I agree. A possible 4th lock out under Bettman? I've had enough. I can get my sports fix with MLB and the NFL, and enjoy the Wings memories I have since 1995.

Funny the owners think 57% is to much, and majority of fans think the players are over paid. I've heard that most businesses, 75% of the money they make goes towards paying their workers. I found that interesting.

Edit: Hey did anyone else hear the NHL said they lost something like $250 Million the last few years? BS if you ask me! Why is the cap going up every year?

Edited by Barrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron MacLean seems pretty confident there won't be a lockout.

I wish I was just as confident. Neither side is willing to budge. I think we won't see hockey until November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been posted already, I dont want to sift through 30 pages of stuff, but this video got me real emotional.

Edited by stevieisthebest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I was just as confident. Neither side is willing to budge. I think we won't see hockey until November.

Why should the players budge? Bettmans proposal is take, take, take, take, take, take, take and take. Not a single proposal to sweeten the pot, no "we want to take this, but we'll give you that in return" to make them go "OK". Bettmans proposal isn't a negotiation, its an ultimatum. He's treating the NHLPA like a vanquished foe trying to get the least punitive terms out of an unconditional surrender, rather than an equal partner in negotiations for the mutual good.

I was on the owners side last time around, and as I've mentioned previously he did some good things for the players such as significantly raising the minimum salary (important when ~ 40% of the NHLPA are on mimimum salary), but this is just pure greed and stupidity. Bettman needs to go as point 1 of any new CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the players budge? Bettmans proposal is take, take, take, take, take, take, take and take. Not a single proposal to sweeten the pot, no "we want to take this, but we'll give you that in return" to make them go "OK". Bettmans proposal isn't a negotiation, its an ultimatum. He's treating the NHLPA like a vanquished foe trying to get the least punitive terms out of an unconditional surrender, rather than an equal partner in negotiations for the mutual good.

I was on the owners side last time around, and as I've mentioned previously he did some good things for the players such as significantly raising the minimum salary (important when ~ 40% of the NHLPA are on mimimum salary), but this is just pure greed and stupidity. Bettman needs to go as point 1 of any new CBA.

Agreed.

I too was on the owners side the last time we went thru this, but this time it's different...Bettman's gotten more vile as the years go by.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the players budge? Bettmans proposal is take, take, take, take, take, take, take and take. Not a single proposal to sweeten the pot, no "we want to take this, but we'll give you that in return" to make them go "OK". Bettmans proposal isn't a negotiation, its an ultimatum. He's treating the NHLPA like a vanquished foe trying to get the least punitive terms out of an unconditional surrender, rather than an equal partner in negotiations for the mutual good.

I was on the owners side last time around, and as I've mentioned previously he did some good things for the players such as significantly raising the minimum salary (important when ~ 40% of the NHLPA are on mimimum salary), but this is just pure greed and stupidity. Bettman needs to go as point 1 of any new CBA.

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down.

So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address.

The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.

Edited by Nightfall
esteef likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

That was not the point of the original post. Owners do not appear to be willing to make any concessions. The league of a whole is profitable but profits go to a small number of teams. So when when owners want to fix non profitable teams strictly at players expense (rather than revenue sharing) I understand why NHLPA would be unwilling to budge.

One interesting issue with the lockout. Profitable teams actually stand to lose money when there are no games (unlike Phoenix for example, or the last time around when everybody cried poor). So I wonder if there would be some push from "rich" teams to have season start on schedule.

This is an old article from The Globe And Mail, but I think it covers issues quite well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-nhl-teams-cry-poor-despite-the-leagues-record-growth/article4429817/

The frustration on the players’ side is that in many instances this is more a revenue problem than a player salary problem – and they have little say in how to correct the vast revenue imbalance in the league.

Relocation is one option – going from Atlanta to Winnipeg alone had to have boosted league revenues $30-million or more – but there really aren’t many places to go beyond perhaps franchises in Toronto, Quebec City and Seattle.

Another is to drop the salary floor and allow teams to simply spend what they can afford, giving up on forced parity when it means forced losses for those on the low end.

More robust revenue sharing could also certainly help – and I expect that’s what union leader Donald Fehr eventually pushes for – but how willing are the Leafs, Habs, Rangers et al to bail out the league’s perennial problem children?

“Not very” has always been the word, and that’s why they currently share only a tiny fraction (rumoured to be roughly 7 per cent) of their share of revenues.

But pushing the players to fix this can only take them so far here. For the rest of the solution, this is a league that needs to look in the mirror at what’s really happening and why some of its teams are losing this much money.

Or give up the ruse that that’s what they’re fighting to correct in the first place.

“I know other leagues have meaningful revenue sharing,” one agent said this week of the NHL’s revenue gap dilemma. “The NHL hopes that the media and fans ignore that fact. Owners would rather try to pound on players than pound on each other.”

Edited by Pskov Wings Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One avenue explored by the NHLPA hit a dead end; from Toronto Star:

Dalton McGuinty’s government has rejected a plea from the National Hockey League Players’ Association to help prevent a potential lockout this fall.

At an Aug. 22 meeting with the Ministry of Labour and the NHL in Toronto, the players union asked the province to form a so-called conciliation board, a group of government employees who could help mediate the differences between the union and the league.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Not at all, thats not what I said.

The problem with Bettman's proposal is that its the players making ALL the concessions. There has to be give and take. So the owners want the players 57% share of revenue cut - OK, offer a 50/50 split but also offer an increase in the minimum salary to say, $600,000. The owners want the length of contracts reduced to 5 years max - OK, but also offer to reduce the age a player reaches UFA by a year. Then you have the basis for a negotiation, rather than the current list of "sign it or we lock you out" demands

Ally, dobbles and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down.

So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address.

The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.

The NHL is not in trouble, some teams are in trouble, and most of those wouldn't be if the owners were smarter..

And the players are willing to make concessions. They are willing to lower their share of the revenue. They're reportedly even flexible on the one option year. The players want to increase revenue sharing. They proposed allowing cap space to be traded, which would allow teams struggling to reach the floor to spend less and gain assets for doing so. How are they not trying to address the issues?

The players don't want to accept another salary rollback, and they shouldn't. League revenues will likely be around $3.5 billion, and as of now there's about $1.75B in salary commitments with almost all teams having full rosters. So it seems we're pretty close to a 50/50 split right now. It's not the players fault that the wrong teams are spending money. Buffalo is and has been hemorrhaging money but they have the highest salary payroll in the league. $20M this year for Myers and Ehrhoff. $6M for Leino. Minnesota, San Jose, Tampa Bay are no better. Middle of the pack in revenue but trying to spend at the top while teams that can afford it like the Wings, Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, and Flyers can't get enough players worth spending anything on.

You want to call people uninformed and ignorant, but it seems you have no idea what the players are proposing and haven't looked at any of the numbers available. I think you just want to blame the players regardless of any facts.

dobbles, haroldsnepsts and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, thats not what I said.

The problem with Bettman's proposal is that its the players making ALL the concessions. There has to be give and take. So the owners want the players 57% share of revenue cut - OK, offer a 50/50 split but also offer an increase in the minimum salary to say, $600,000. The owners want the length of contracts reduced to 5 years max - OK, but also offer to reduce the age a player reaches UFA by a year. Then you have the basis for a negotiation, rather than the current list of "sign it or we lock you out" demands

I like how they tried to pitch 43% --> 46% as a major concession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not the point of the original post. Owners do not appear to be willing to make any concessions. The league of a whole is profitable but profits go to a small number of teams. So when when owners want to fix non profitable teams strictly at players expense (rather than revenue sharing) I understand why NHLPA would be unwilling to budge.

One interesting issue with the lockout. Profitable teams actually stand to lose money when there are no games (unlike Phoenix for example, or the last time around when everybody cried poor). So I wonder if there would be some push from "rich" teams to have season start on schedule.

This is an old article from The Globe And Mail, but I think it covers issues quite well.

http://www.theglobea...article4429817/

That's the heart of it right there:

“I know other leagues have meaningful revenue sharing,” one agent said this week of the NHL’s revenue gap dilemma. “The NHL hopes that the media and fans ignore that fact. Owners would rather try to pound on players than pound on each other.”

The league is trying the same strategy as last time, but this time it's not true. Player's salaries are not the biggest issue in franchise profitability.

So, in your opinion, the players need not make any concessions because there are no issues with the league finances right now?

Lets face facts here, the NHL is in trouble. What the owners are proposing won't fix the problem and the NHLPA doesn't want to see the salary floor go down.

So far, the NHLPA just wants to keep everything they have right now and the owners don't want to address the problems that they have with their ownership group and clubs that are not financially secure. Its a dangerous mix, and one where both sides really need to address.

The greed on both sides is going to drive the league to initiate a lockout. Sure, the uninformed and the ignorant people will say the league is at fault for locking out the players. The ones who have looked at the issues that are dogging the league as a whole right now will be able to see greed and stupidity as the biggest problems right now.

Sure, the people who kill puppies and punch babies think it's an equal split of responsibility for the looming lockout. The ones who have looked at the issues are incredibly smart and realize like me that the league and Bettman are more responsible.

Did I do it right? I'm still learning how this built-in insult on anyone who disagrees works. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to call people uninformed and ignorant, but it seems you have no idea what the players are proposing and haven't looked at any of the numbers available. I think you just want to blame the players regardless of any facts.

The players proposal calls for a 3 year plan. The first year they decrease their share of the profits to 53%, then it goes up to 55% the next year, and up to 57% in the 3rd year. So, in short, the players proposal calls for no changes to the existing system, and the league would be right back where it started 3 years ago. So, how is that not understanding what the players are proposing? How are you not surprised that the league didn't accept this proposal?

http://www.vancouver...2488/story.html

Once again I will say this, the people who are solely behind the players and blaming the league are uninformed and ignorant. Those people do not understand what the players proposed and the ramifications behind the proposal. The players proposal is not a silver bullet that solves all the issues, contrary to what you believe.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0