Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 Lockout Watch

cba lockout

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
905 replies to this topic

#201 Rivalred

Rivalred

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,102 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:51 AM

I will say this, it make take me sometime to comeback to hockey if there is another lockout.
D-Fence Avatar Win-O-Meter 8-1

#202 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,557 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:55 AM

Here is the sticking point:
However, if the offer is examined closely it is far worse than simply a lowball opening position. In addition to cutting the rate of the players’ share of revenue to 46 per cent, the owners also want to redefine the hockey-related revenue (HRR) so there is much less in the pot, which reduces the real percentage of the players’ share to 43. In dollars, that’s a $450-million (all currency U.S.) haircut from the $1.88-billion the players received from the NHL’s preliminary estimate of its $3.3-billion in HRR from the 2011-12 season. The owners also want to increase the eligibility for free agency to 10 years, putting it beyond the reach of the average NHL player, to eliminate salary arbitration and impose five-year limits on player contracts.

1. Free agency eligibility increase to 10 years? are you freaking serious??!
2. Eliminate salary arbitration??!! Are you freaking serious??!!
3. 5 year limit on player contracts??!! are you freaking serious??!!

I'd tell the owners and Bettman to screw off and forego the season. I hope the players stick to their guns on this.

If the owners are going to be this freaking stupid then just lower the salary cap.

Great post.

Not many people are talking about how they want to redefine what constitutes hockey related revenue. So like you said, the owners are changing the definition so more money goes in their pockets while at the same time asking for a much bigger percentage of what's left.

And the other demands are so idiotic it's hard to believe they wanted to do anything other than piss off the NHLPA. Yes it's a negotiation, but when your bid is that outlandish you may just offend the other side and sour the deal.


This is a massive money grab by the owners as they apparently are intent on breaking the union again.

#203 TheXym

TheXym

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,414 posts
  • Location:PA

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:05 AM

The poison dwarf is living up to his name. I guess he wants ticket prices to mirror gas prices. A third lockout is beyond grossly unacceptable. The forced socialism of the cap isn't working, other than to punish the franchises that can make money. If you are depending on revenue sharing to maintain your franchise, you have absolutely no frakking business offering mega deals to free agents then crying poverty in CBA negotiations. If you can't legitimately afford it, don't expect others to bail you out.

Heck, I'd LOVE to drive a Lamborghini, but since I'm a teacher, not a doctor or lawyer, or professional athlete, it's not happening unless I get lucky with a powerball ticket or, like some of these owners, over extend myself or outright lie on the credit app. And when I can't make the payments, there isn't a bailout or revenue sharing. If that means certain well-run franchises have a better shot at the cup, so be it. Spending more is by no means a guarantee for a championship.

Maybe a luxury tax/soft cap system would be better, but the owners like Mr. Ilitch who can actually run a franchise should speak up. Sadly, there are some owners who apparently need to be saved from themselves.

The Wings sucked and sucked hard for a long time before the Ilitches bought the franchise. Good management paved the way for the rise to prominence and excellence.
It's pronounced "Zim" not "Exim". Aw heck with it, just call me Scott.

#204 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,653 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:13 AM

Great post.

Not many people are talking about how they want to redefine what constitutes hockey related revenue. So like you said, the owners are changing the definition so more money goes in their pockets while at the same time asking for a much bigger percentage of what's left.

And the other demands are so idiotic it's hard to believe they wanted to do anything other than piss off the NHLPA. Yes it's a negotiation, but when your bid is that outlandish you may just offend the other side and sour the deal.


This is a massive money grab by the owners as they apparently are intent on breaking the union again.

Just wait until the players come back with their lowball offer. So far, we haven't seen the players offer yet, and I know they are going to try to lowball the league. The best case would be for Fehr to look at the situation and come forward with a plan that benefits everyone. Such as a 50/50 split on revenues, a luxury cap system, and so on. Instead, I already know that Fehr isn't going to do that because one lowball offer deserves another. Everyone already hates Bettman and the league. Fehr doesn't need brownie points.

This is a two way street here. Both sides have to get a deal done for it to work. If a deal doesn't get done, both sides are a fault PERIOD.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#205 Esquire

Esquire

    Fix up, Look sharp.

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,268 posts
  • Location:Whitby, ON

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:18 AM

This is a two way street here. Both sides have to get a deal done for it to work. If a deal doesn't get done, both sides are a fault PERIOD.


:clap:
Posted Image
Posted Image

#206 Electrophile

Electrophile

    Ipsa scientia potestas est.

  • Silver Booster
  • 9,390 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:19 AM

If the season is locked out, Bettman should lose his job. Plain and simple. That would be the 3rd work stoppage during his tenure, which would effectively kill the sport dead in the United States. It's already swimming against the tide in relation to baseball, basketball, and football, and if the season is shortened by any significant duration (half or more), there's no point in anyone aside from the die hards to continue watching. The die hards are already by my guesstimate, 3/4ths of the audience anyway. That 1/4 that are "casual observers" will be gone, and it won't matter.

So Bettman better hope there isn't a lockout, or else he can kiss his job goodbye. In the event he does get a Shanaban levied on him, is there anyone who can act as interim commish until another one is appointed/elected/promoted?

electrophilewingsfloyd.jpg

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."  -- The Doctor


#207 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,653 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:19 AM

The thing is, in spite of the league making record revenues the owners want a huge reduction in salary by the players. Their biggest requests have little to do with remedying these massive contract lengths and cap hits. Most of their demands are just a money grab. They don't address any of the loopholes.

If there's a third lockout, Bettman should absolutely 100% lose his job. Yes it takes two to tango, but all three stoppages have been lockouts by management, not strikes. And this should be the easiest one to settle of all of them. Bettman has zero diplomacy skills and sets a hostile tone from the get go.

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post.

I don't deny what you are saying about Bettman losing his job though. There should not be a strike everytime the league CBA is up. At the same time, he is making the owners a lot of money. The chances of them firing Bettman is slim to none. At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both.

Thats just my .02 cents.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#208 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:53 AM

If the season is locked out, Bettman should lose his job. Plain and simple. That would be the 3rd work stoppage during his tenure, which would effectively kill the sport dead in the United States. It's already swimming against the tide in relation to baseball, basketball, and football, and if the season is shortened by any significant duration (half or more), there's no point in anyone aside from the die hards to continue watching. The die hards are already by my guesstimate, 3/4ths of the audience anyway. That 1/4 that are "casual observers" will be gone, and it won't matter.

So Bettman better hope there isn't a lockout, or else he can kiss his job goodbye. In the event he does get a Shanaban levied on him, is there anyone who can act as interim commish until another one is appointed/elected/promoted?


Can't disagree with that. But I've never really felt that hockey was a true national, network television competitor with those other sports anyway. In my opinion, that was a myth propagated by Bettman and fueled by a perfect storm of short-term East Coast hype (Rangers in '94, and Devils in '95), the heyday of SportsCenter coverage, and Bettman's ill-advised westward expansion.

Hockey doesn't look, play, or feel anything like the other sports. The only sports season that it really "competes" with from start to finish is the NBA, which is as about as opposite of hockey as you can get. In the late 90's, when hockey was getting play on FOX (glow puck, etc.), the majority of America who don't know this sport turn on the channel, see the white ice in the background, and quickly turn it off. It might as well be figure skating or equestrian to those people. There's really no point in pandering to that type of audience, pretending that your sport could ever be as big as football or basketball here. It can't.

At the same time, the league has done a lot of good things since the lockout to evolve into the type of sport that it needs to be going forward. Bettman deserves some credit for that, yes, but I'd have no problem seeing him gone as soon as possible - you could lose sleep thinking about how much better the league could have been with the direction of someone actually passionate about the product and its fans.

Think about it as a television analogy - I hear a lot of NHL fans still stuck in the 1990's, and Bettman is guilty of this too. They want the game to be "Friends" or "Seinfeld" - a central experience accessible to everyone that gets tens of millions of viewers on television. Well, guess what? The world has changed. Does anyone here like "Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", or "Game of Thrones"? Those shows get a fraction of the viewers that crap like the "CSI Miami" gets, yet they're considered some of the best shows on television, are extremely profitable for their networks, and are appreciated by a loyal collection of obsessed fans. Why does the NHL need to be "CSI Miami" or "Friends"? Why can't we keep costs within reason, and create a CBA without loopholes that result in star players making NFL or MLB-type money?

Bettman is totally ripable, but I think should be noted that public support in the 04-05 lockout was largely on the side of the OWNERS, despite the fact that the players are the actual face of the league and the source of the "product".

#209 TheXym

TheXym

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,414 posts
  • Location:PA

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:56 AM

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post.

I don't deny what you are saying about Bettman losing his job though. There should not be a strike everytime the league CBA is up. At the same time, he is making the owners a lot of money. The chances of them firing Bettman is slim to none. At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both.

Thats just my .02 cents.


If one side flat out refuses to bargain in good faith I have no problem calling them out on it. However, I also think neither side in this dispute is angelic. In some ways the initial league proposal is forcing the NHLPA to respond with an equally ridiculous offer to set the stage to eventually reach an equitable middle ground.

Maybe Fehr's reputation from his MLB days pushed the league to offer such an outlying proposal, but I'm inclined to think Bettman is just that much of a f**ktard.
It's pronounced "Zim" not "Exim". Aw heck with it, just call me Scott.

#210 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:00 AM

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post.


The NBA has both max contract lengths and amounts (...well, kind of). The NHL has the $14 million compensation rule, but the cap calculations and bonus structure are messed up to the point where Weber, Parise, and Suter are basically making $25 million next year to play hockey.

I think it's time to put real limits on what the upper end players can make in a single deal. I think the long-term deals are counter-productive, and I think the doubling of the salary cap over 7 seasons is a mirage.

If one side flat out refuses to bargain in good faith I have no problem calling them out on it. However, I also think neither side in this dispute is angelic. In some ways the initial league proposal is forcing the NHLPA to respond with an equally ridiculous offer to set the stage to eventually reach an equitable middle ground.

Maybe Fehr's reputation from his MLB days pushed the league to offer such an outlying proposal, but I'm inclined to think Bettman is just that much of a f**ktard.

Agreed. And what's sad is that while all of the CBA issues matter significantly to the financial health of the game (and, more noticeably, to competitive balance), this potential lockout kind of snuck up on people and swallowed the whole realignment effort, which I thought was a legitimate improvement that would help FANS see their teams play at reasonable hours, and foster realistic rivalries.

I got the sense that everyone just assumed there was NO WAY the two sides would get close to a lockout again after losing a year, and then the realignment thing got quashed and I thought "uh oh".

#211 Vladifan

Vladifan

    Legend

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 5,759 posts
  • Location:Central Texas

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:03 AM

what else does the league want? The got their "parity" throughout the league, revenue is up, they got the Cap in place, they got their "KID" the Cup (maybe one wasn't enough and they need changes to make sure he gets every two out of three?) I don't know what else the league would want from the players. If the NHL suffer another lockout or lose of an entire season, it is over. It cannot survive another whole, half or any part of the season being cancelled... I cannot see why Bettman still has his job, half a season lost in 1994-95, entire 2005 season lost AND now this possibility!?!? Why does this fool still have a job? He has done hardly anything GOOD for the NHL and tons bad!


"This fool" keeps his job because he's a tool of management and the owners. They don't care if fans boo him off the ice, as long as their profits are up.

"He even ate with women who at that time were accorded the same status as the family donkey. Are we willing to break bread with, say, child sex slaves, transgender teens and undocumented workers? Because when Jesus comes back to Earth, that's where he'll be hanging."
You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.

 
 
 


#212 drwscc

drwscc

    I drink your milkshake...I drink it up!!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:03 AM

At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both.

Thats just my .02 cents.


Nuh UH! It's all Bettman's fault and not the players at all. They should totally make like 90% of the league revenue, and the owners can all live off of the 10% the players decide to leave. I mean, the players play the game, so they should make all the money. The owners are just rich old men that write checks and sit in their owners boxes. What do they contribute to the game? Once the players get 90% of revenues, then the minimum salary can go up to like 3 mil per year, which is only fair, since the players sacrifice so much to get where they are.
Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe.

I went to a doctor the other day, and all he did was suck blood out of my neck. Never go see Dr. Acula
- Mitch Hedberg

#213 JPT

JPT

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 116 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:20 AM

I don't blame Bettman. All he is is the mouthpiece for the owners. And they want a bigger share of the pie.

If I were the players I wouldn't back down on this. A salary cap was out in place to save the owners from themselves and now its not good enough. Screw that! Players are worth what owners are willing to pay them. Period. If a franchise can't afford to sign big contracts the salary cap means they can still be competitive and can still be elite with good management.

Hockey is my favorite sport and the Wings my favorite team but should we lose the season I would have to seriously think about spending a single dollar with the NHL.

#214 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,419 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:08 PM

"I reconfirmed something that the union has been told multiple times over the last nine to 12 months, namely that time is getting short and the owners are not prepared to operate under this Collective Bargaining Agreement for another season, so we need to get to making a deal and doing it soon," Commissioner Bettman said in remarks after Thursday's negotiating session at the League office. "We believe there is ample time for the parties to get together and make a deal, and that is what we're going to be working toward."


This is in response to Fehr's suggestion that the union membership was prepared to go past the "drop dead date" and begin the new season under the old Collective Agreement, showing that they wanted to get a new agreement done, no matter how long it takes.
Uncle Gary, the supposed "mouthpiece of the owners", has not shown that he wants to do that.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#215 grimace1970

grimace1970

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 312 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:45 PM

Anybody think it's really irresponsible for Bettman to make a "nuclear option" statement like this before both proposals are even on the table? This is like starting peace negotiations by saying, "We are prepared to detonate tactical nuclear weapons above your country if you don't sign". I mean, he's the commissioner of the sport.

Edited by grimace1970, 10 August 2012 - 12:53 PM.


#216 evilmrt

evilmrt

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts
  • Location:Winter Freakin Wonderland

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:55 PM

This is in response to Fehr's suggestion that the union membership was prepared to go past the "drop dead date" and begin the new season under the old Collective Agreement, showing that they wanted to get a new agreement done, no matter how long it takes.
Uncle Gary, the supposed "mouthpiece of the owners", has not shown that he wants to do that.


The lockout might be a good thing. If we see contraction of weak markets due to no play in the 12-13 season, then there will be less of this BS. The only reason that the owners are being so unreasonable is due to the large number of non-hockey market owners on the board of governors, pushing for this nhl-style socialism/parity. I say let the lockout happen, and the "real" teams can have more of a voice, as they used to.

That is the whole point of this, and I am surprised that I haven't seen much commentary about it in the media.

The Wings sucked and sucked hard for a long time before the Ilitches bought the franchise. Good management paved the way for the rise to prominence and excellence.


:thumbup:
IPB Image

#217 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,419 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:04 PM

Uncle Gary is going to mention the word "contraction" to the owners?
Three words for that meeting:
Pay
Per
View.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#218 Esquire

Esquire

    Fix up, Look sharp.

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,268 posts
  • Location:Whitby, ON

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:08 PM

The lockout might be a good thing. If we see contraction of weak markets due to no play in the 12-13 season, then there will be less of this BS. The only reason that the owners are being so unreasonable is due to the large number of non-hockey market owners on the board of governors, pushing for this nhl-style socialism/parity. I say let the lockout happen, and the "real" teams can have more of a voice, as they used to.

That is the whole point of this, and I am surprised that I haven't seen much commentary about it in the media.


While I see the point you're trying to make, I think it's a little off.

There has to be a majority board support in order for the small market teams to even be considered let into the league. So by your reasoning, the same board members who voted these teams in are the same ones who want them out now?!
Posted Image
Posted Image

#219 evilmrt

evilmrt

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts
  • Location:Winter Freakin Wonderland

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:11 PM

While I see the point you're trying to make, I think it's a little off.

There has to be a majority board support in order for the small market teams to even be considered let into the league. So by your reasoning, the same board members who voted these teams in are the same ones who want them out now?!


Of course. You don't think they've changed their minds since Bettman sold them the dream of thriving southern hockey teams?
IPB Image

#220 Electrophile

Electrophile

    Ipsa scientia potestas est.

  • Silver Booster
  • 9,390 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:18 PM

I've seen several people say that if the league does lockout, it's not Bettman's fault, it's the owners' fault. To a degree, I agree with that. However, three work stoppages in less than 20 years? SOMEONE has to lose their job for that. If what some of you have said is true, and he's just a mouthpiece for the owners, he's not a very good commissioner, now is he? He may not be directly at fault for what's going on, but his inept leadership, re: his relationship with the owners', needs to be dealt with and if that means bye bye Bettman, then so be it.

electrophilewingsfloyd.jpg

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."  -- The Doctor






Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users