Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 Lockout Watch

cba lockout

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

#221 Esquire

Esquire

    Fix up, Look sharp.

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

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:21 PM

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


So then why would they give a contract extension to the man who proposed the salary cap and brought in these small market teams? And if any of the NHL's teams fold during this off-season, I shudder to even try and imagine the legal fallout that would encompass the entire league.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#222 ogreslayer

ogreslayer

    1st Line All-Star

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,997 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:33 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.

But he's the same guy who grew their revenues & got them their cost certainty with the salary cap. If anything, a 3rd lockout & a 3rd "win" for the owners, if fans come back like they did last time, will probably turn into a lifetime contract for the little midget. (No offense to actual little persons here on the boards) Overall, he's done a good job in lining the owners' pockets, players & fans be damned. Sadly, I don't see him going anywhere unless there's a absolute & utter abandoning of the sport if we see another lockout.

#223 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:55 PM

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.

Right. One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes. Most of it is a money grab. The restrictions on rookie contracts, getting rid of arbitration, extending the length before a player can become a UFA. Even with contract length, you've got GM's signing 13 year deals as they're negotiating to knock it to 5 years in the CBA. That's somehow the players fault?

The NHLPA has offered to start the season and continue negotiations. That's not bargaining in good faith? What evidence has the NHLPA shown that they're not? Now take a look at what Bettman has said in the media combined with the NHL's idiotic initial proposal. That's not good faith. Their offer is the equivalent of leaving a few pennies for a waiter so he knows it's an "F you!" and not that you just forgot to tip.

Like I said, obviously there's two sides to the negotiation. But with what we've heard so far, the owners and Bettman are BY FAR the ones pushing this to a lockout. How much hockey will we have to lose to try once again to keep these owners from screwing up their own franchises? Ilitch must be so frustrated having to be lumped in with these fools. He took a franchise at its lowest point and resurrected it, and now unfortunately is in an era of hockey were they keep punishing his franchise more and more in order to help support the poorly run ones.

The problem will be solved by owners figuring out how to run a successful business, not by constantly going back to take more money from the players.

And to be clear, I wasn't predicting Bettman would be fired. I was saying he should be. I understand that he reports to the owners so of course many will approve of him lining their pockets, even when it hurts the game. The only hope for him getting fired is if he screws this sport so badly that enough owners that actually care about hockey outvote those willing to run it into the ground to make more money in the short term.

#224 Stinkyness

Stinkyness

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 88 posts
  • Location:Fountain, CO

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:37 PM

Greedy bastards all around! Lock it out. Do it. Fold all these small market teams too. Let the large market teams with owners who love hockey re-organize into a capless, win first league. Fans will go nuts. All this collectivist BS should have died with the Soviet Union.

bettman needs to go, I hope he dies a slow and agonizing death for what he has inflicted on the hockey world.

#225 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • Location:Washington, District of Columbia

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:43 PM

Getting ahead of ourselves aren't we fellas? Just because Bettman says they will lock out doesn't mean there will be one. That crazy bastard in Iran keeps saying he's going to wipe Israel off the map but we haven't see any of that either. So far, it's all theater and should be treated as such.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#226 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:49 PM

Getting ahead of ourselves aren't we fellas? Just because Bettman says they will lock out doesn't mean there will be one. That crazy bastard in Iran keeps saying he's going to wipe Israel off the map but we haven't see any of that either. So far, it's all theater and should be treated as such.

Bettman has never renegotiated a CBA without a lockout so when he threatens to lock players out again, it's hard not to fear the worst.

#227 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • Location:Washington, District of Columbia

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:55 PM

I completely understand that, but like I said, until it happens there's really no need to be so reactionary about it.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#228 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,764 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:38 PM

Right. One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes. Most of it is a money grab. The restrictions on rookie contracts, getting rid of arbitration, extending the length before a player can become a UFA. Even with contract length, you've got GM's signing 13 year deals as they're negotiating to knock it to 5 years in the CBA. That's somehow the players fault?

The NHLPA has offered to start the season and continue negotiations. That's not bargaining in good faith? What evidence has the NHLPA shown that they're not? Now take a look at what Bettman has said in the media combined with the NHL's idiotic initial proposal. That's not good faith. Their offer is the equivalent of leaving a few pennies for a waiter so he knows it's an "F you!" and not that you just forgot to tip.

Like I said, obviously there's two sides to the negotiation. But with what we've heard so far, the owners and Bettman are BY FAR the ones pushing this to a lockout. How much hockey will we have to lose to try once again to keep these owners from screwing up their own franchises? Ilitch must be so frustrated having to be lumped in with these fools. He took a franchise at its lowest point and resurrected it, and now unfortunately is in an era of hockey were they keep punishing his franchise more and more in order to help support the poorly run ones.

The problem will be solved by owners figuring out how to run a successful business, not by constantly going back to take more money from the players.

And to be clear, I wasn't predicting Bettman would be fired. I was saying he should be. I understand that he reports to the owners so of course many will approve of him lining their pockets, even when it hurts the game. The only hope for him getting fired is if he screws this sport so badly that enough owners that actually care about hockey outvote those willing to run it into the ground to make more money in the short term.

I guess the point on the loopholes is that we saw the deal from a very high level. I would assume that these loopholes would be closed in the next CBA. Just as you are assuming they will be left open. So who is right here? I guess without the proposal to read, neither of us. So we really can't assume its a money grab or the loopholes were closed without that key piece of information. That was my point.

Agreeing to start the season and continue negotiating was what Fehr said was possible, not what he said he would do. Lets face facts here. The current CBA is not going to work for the long term for the NHL. Yes, the league approved it, but the issues with it need to be hammered out and will be with the new CBA. Of course the players want to keep the gravy train rolling. Thats a no brainer, but as I said before, Fehr didn't say without a doubt he wouldn't lock the league out.

I believe both sides are bargaining in good faith. More specifically, I will believe that the players association is bargaining in the best faith when I hear their proposal on Tuesday. If they lowball the league like the league lowballed them, then I will be convinced that they are both greedy.

I guess the problem I have with the "NHLPA fans" are that they are willing to take everything at face value, you included. Of course you say it takes both sides to make a deal happen, but if it doesn't happen, then its the damn league's fault. That is faulty thinking right there. Concessions have to be given by both sides. Yes, what the league is asking for is crazy. Just as I suspect that is what the players are going to ask for, which we will find out on Tuesday. So, in your mind and the rest of the "NHLPA fans" minds are that the league is being totally unreasonable asking for concessions and threatening a lockout. As a hockey fan just wanting to see a deal get done by both sides, I can firmly look at both sides and confirm that they are both equally at fault if there is a lockout.

I would urge people who take sides to step back and look at the bigger picture. Do you think that if the league and players were bargaining in the good faith that there would even be a possibility of a lockout? I think not. Both sides would concede certain things, and deal would happen.

I completely understand that, but like I said, until it happens there's really no need to be so reactionary about it.

I agree with this as well. Right now though, I don't want to test that theory.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#229 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 06:32 PM

I guess the point on the loopholes is that we saw the deal from a very high level. I would assume that these loopholes would be closed in the next CBA. Just as you are assuming they will be left open. So who is right here? I guess without the proposal to read, neither of us. So we really can't assume its a money grab or the loopholes were closed without that key piece of information. That was my point.

Where exactly did I say these loopholes would be left open? I wasn't talking about where things will end up, but how the league chose to start the process.

My point was that the majority of what the owners are demanding have little to do with the adjustments that need to be made to the CBA. I feel like most knowledgable hockey fans could come up with a workable solution for a new CBA in a couple days.

Instead, the NHL wants to redefine what constitutes hockey related revenue while also notching down player salaries to what effectively could mean a 20% rollback like the last lockout. That's in spite of the league making record revenues. Add to that wanting to eliminate any arbitration, making players wait a decade before they're UFA's, and lengthening entry level contracts to 5 years. All of those are moves to delay as long as possible having to pay players fair market value for their services, so it's not exactly a stretch to see it as a money grab.

With an effective cap in place, you shouldn't need such punitive lengths on all the other elements of contracts too.

Agreeing to start the season and continue negotiating was what Fehr said was possible, not what he said he would do. Lets face facts here. The current CBA is not going to work for the long term for the NHL. Yes, the league approved it, but the issues with it need to be hammered out and will be with the new CBA. Of course the players want to keep the gravy train rolling. Thats a no brainer, but as I said before, Fehr didn't say without a doubt he wouldn't lock the league out.

So you're going by what Fehr hasn't said, as opposed to what Bettman has?

And it's not just a gravy train for the players, in spite of what the owners claim, they actually make make money off it as well.

I believe both sides are bargaining in good faith. More specifically, I will believe that the players association is bargaining in the best faith when I hear their proposal on Tuesday. If they lowball the league like the league lowballed them, then I will be convinced that they are both greedy.

The league's initial proposal was hardly bargaining in good faith. Those demands were a ridiculous starting point for negotiations.

I guess the problem I have with the "NHLPA fans" are that they are willing to take everything at face value, you included. Of course you say it takes both sides to make a deal happen, but if it doesn't happen, then its the damn league's fault. That is faulty thinking right there. Concessions have to be given by both sides. Yes, what the league is asking for is crazy. Just as I suspect that is what the players are going to ask for, which we will find out on Tuesday. So, in your mind and the rest of the "NHLPA fans" minds are that the league is being totally unreasonable asking for concessions and threatening a lockout. As a hockey fan just wanting to see a deal get done by both sides, I can firmly look at both sides and confirm that they are both equally at fault if there is a lockout.

I would urge people who take sides to step back and look at the bigger picture. Do you think that if the league and players were bargaining in the good faith that there would even be a possibility of a lockout? I think not. Both sides would concede certain things, and deal would happen.


how about you actually discuss my points instead of labeling me an "NHLPA" fan?

I guess it's easier to just tell me what I think so you can dismiss the argument you invented for me.

This should be a relatively painless CBA negotiation but it looks like it could get ugly. I'm going on face value in that I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen and read so far. Bettman has led in again with his hostile and divisive tone. The owners initial offer was a joke. What are you basing your opinions on?

The point you're missing or choosing to ignore is that the NHL is always in a position of greater strength. They are the ones locking players out. They are the ones with the stronger voice in the media. We go to NHL games, not NHLPA games. The NHL has the bully pulpit.

The NHL tried to change the makeup of the divisions and conferences of the league without bothering to consult with any of the people who would actually be playing the games. Why? Because as Bettman pointed out, they weren't required to. It's this kind of open disdain Bettman has for the players union that sets a divisive tone before negotiations even began. It was the warning shot. The league isn't required contractually to discuss realignment with the players, but it's not hard to see why it would've been a good idea to include the guys whose lives and careers would be most effected by the changes.

As I've said many times before, ultimately Bettman is supposed to be a steward of the NHL, not just a shill for current ownership. He is responsible for the overall health of the game, and a collection of owners do not always have that as a priority. His job also requires diplomacy, which is his biggest public failing.

Unless the NHLPA makes some absolutely insane request they refuse to back off of then yes, if we have another work stoppage, ultimately I do hold Bettman more responsible more than anyone else.

That's not to say he's the only one to blame, but he is the one in the best position to prevent it.

Unfortunately, lockout seems to be his go-to move.

#230 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:09 PM

From Sportsnet:


With a lockout looming larger, the National Hockey League Players' Association is quietly making plans for a series of star-studded exhibition games should the NHL shut down this fall.

Sources tell Sportsnet's John Shannon that games between a team of Russian all-stars from the Kontinental Hockey League and "world" all-stars from the NHL are tentatively set for Moscow, Halifax and Quebec City, as well as an undetermined site in Southern Ontario. Donald Fehr, the NHLPA's executive director, spoke with representatives of the Russian league while overseas last week.

...



On the Public Relations front, I'd say the NHLPA is up 2-0.

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#231 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,764 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:54 PM

Where exactly did I say these loopholes would be left open? I wasn't talking about where things will end up, but how the league chose to start the process.

You said...

"One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes."

So, you said these loopholes were going to remain open. You going to tell me how you know this? Maybe you will provide a link with information on the league proposal.

My point was that the majority of what the owners are demanding have little to do with the adjustments that need to be made to the CBA. I feel like most knowledgable hockey fans could come up with a workable solution for a new CBA in a couple days.

Instead, the NHL wants to redefine what constitutes hockey related revenue while also notching down player salaries to what effectively could mean a 20% rollback like the last lockout. That's in spite of the league making record revenues. Add to that wanting to eliminate any arbitration, making players wait a decade before they're UFA's, and lengthening entry level contracts to 5 years. All of those are moves to delay as long as possible having to pay players fair market value for their services, so it's not exactly a stretch to see it as a money grab.

With an effective cap in place, you shouldn't need such punitive lengths on all the other elements of contracts too.

I agree that it was a lowball offer. So, if the NHLPA lowballs the league, you going to have the same harsh criticism for them? We will find out on Tuesday next week.

So you're going by what Fehr hasn't said, as opposed to what Bettman has?

I think the same could be asked of you. The point is that both sides are posturing for what is going to be a fight. Who knows what the hell is going to happen. I am not going to side either one because no one knows what the heck is going to happen.

how about you actually discuss my points instead of labeling me an "NHLPA" fan?

I guess it's easier to just tell me what I think so you can dismiss the argument you invented for me.

This should be a relatively painless CBA negotiation but it looks like it could get ugly. I'm going on face value in that I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen and read so far. Bettman has led in again with his hostile and divisive tone. The owners initial offer was a joke. What are you basing your opinions on?

The point you're missing or choosing to ignore is that the NHL is always in a position of greater strength. They are the ones locking players out. They are the ones with the stronger voice in the media. We go to NHL games, not NHLPA games. The NHL has the bully pulpit.

The NHL tried to change the makeup of the divisions and conferences of the league without bothering to consult with any of the people who would actually be playing the games. Why? Because as Bettman pointed out, they weren't required to. It's this kind of open disdain Bettman has for the players union that sets a divisive tone before negotiations even began. It was the warning shot. The league isn't required contractually to discuss realignment with the players, but it's not hard to see why it would've been a good idea to include the guys whose lives and careers would be most effected by the changes.

As I've said many times before, ultimately Bettman is supposed to be a steward of the NHL, not just a shill for current ownership. He is responsible for the overall health of the game, and a collection of owners do not always have that as a priority. His job also requires diplomacy, which is his biggest public failing.

Unless the NHLPA makes some absolutely insane request they refuse to back off of then yes, if we have another work stoppage, ultimately I do hold Bettman more responsible more than anyone else.

That's not to say he's the only one to blame, but he is the one in the best position to prevent it.

Unfortunately, lockout seems to be his go-to move.

So, let me get this straight, you believe....

1. The league bargains from a position of strength while the NHLPA is weaker.
2. Because the league lowballed the NHLPA, that the league is totally in the wrong and not bargaining with good faith.
3. If a deal doesn't get done, its all on the league
4. Meanwhile, you are ok with assuming the NHLPA has been bargaining in good faith from the beginning. Making a deal requires no concessions on their part.

Yea, I think I got it. :P

Meanwhile, in reality....

1. The NHLPA and league are both equal in terms of pull. There are no replacement players, just as there are no replacement owners.
2. The NHLPA has yet to give them an offer. The question is, will you be as harsh if the NHLPA comes back with a lowball offer? To assume their offer will be fair is an assumption.
3. If a lockout ensues, both sides are to blame.
4. Both sides will have to concede things equally to get a deal done.

Don't get me wrong, you bring up great points when it comes to dancing around these key points. Like realignment, which I agree upon. I am not surprised it was shot down because the league did not involve the NHLPA. Could communication be better between them? Absolutely. That is the problem with these negotiations is that they waited until the final month to really get to work, to which I blame both sides for that nonsense.

If I have your positions wrong, please correct me and tell me your positions.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#232 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:58 AM

I am not a fan of either side, I am a fan of the Detroit Red Wings. Having said that:

2005:
- owners got everything they wanted
- dwarf and the NHL celebrated like they've won
- they did design the deal


2012:
  • Now their own deal isn't good enough anymore? Seeks greed
  • Owners are the ones flying with around with their jets, copters or whatever to hand out 100 $ + contracts and now they are blaming the players for taking it? *rotfl*
  • You don't start negotiations in sour fate i.E. lowballing or insulting the other side
  • Dwarf needs to push for more revenue sharing to save face, otherwhise it would be even more obvious that his sunbelt expansion felt, despite maybe Tampa and San Jose
  • The NHLPA has a lot of smart guys Bergeron, Parros (Princeton degree) and Doan oh and of course Donald Fehr they are not going to roll over this time, why should they?
  • Players already stated their displeasure with the way the NHL is handeling this.
After everything to me it seems clear who to blame this time, last time I was more in favour with the owners but this time, its the NHLPA by a landslide. I think the owners are risking a huge gamble here just because the NHL came back stronger than ever doesn't mean it will again this time, because even to diehards it is so obvious whom to blame. You can't pose with record-numbers for years and then screaming "no you need to give us everything again, because we aren't making (enough) money".

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..

<< Win it for Mr. Hockey !


#233 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:56 AM

NBC must have been thrilled when they read Uncle Gary's most recent "Lockout Manifesto".

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#234 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,151 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:39 PM

You said...

"One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes."

So, you said these loopholes were going to remain open. You going to tell me how you know this? Maybe you will provide a link with information on the league proposal.

Re-read this part of your post several times. It's a perfect example of how you misrepresent what I've said.

I've even bolded the relevant sections. Go slowly, maybe you'll start to see it.

Let me also include this part of my last post that you chose to ignore. " I wasn't talking about where things will end up, but how the league chose to start the process."

Yet you want me to provide a link to prove a point I never made?

I agree that it was a lowball offer. So, if the NHLPA lowballs the league, you going to have the same harsh criticism for them? We will find out on Tuesday next week.

I think the same could be asked of you. The point is that both sides are posturing for what is going to be a fight. Who knows what the hell is going to happen. I am not going to side either one because no one knows what the heck is going to happen.

So, let me get this straight, you believe....

1. The league bargains from a position of strength while the NHLPA is weaker.
2. Because the league lowballed the NHLPA, that the league is totally in the wrong and not bargaining with good faith.
3. If a deal doesn't get done, its all on the league
4. Meanwhile, you are ok with assuming the NHLPA has been bargaining in good faith from the beginning. Making a deal requires no concessions on their part.

Yea, I think I got it. :P

Meanwhile, in reality....

1. The NHLPA and league are both equal in terms of pull. There are no replacement players, just as there are no replacement owners.

this is your opinion.

2. The NHLPA has yet to give them an offer. The question is, will you be as harsh if the NHLPA comes back with a lowball offer? To assume their offer will be fair is an assumption.

I never assumed their offer would be fair.

3. If a lockout ensues, both sides are to blame.

Likely, but not always true.

4. Both sides will have to concede things equally to get a deal done.

This is absolutely false. In no way do both sides have to concede equally to get a deal done. That's not what happened in the last CBA negotiations.

Don't get me wrong, you bring up great points when it comes to dancing around these key points. Like realignment, which I agree upon. I am not surprised it was shot down because the league did not involve the NHLPA. Could communication be better between them? Absolutely. That is the problem with these negotiations is that they waited until the final month to really get to work, to which I blame both sides for that nonsense.

If I have your positions wrong, please correct me and tell me your positions.

Of course you have my positions wrong. I've bolded your most obvious misrepresentations.

But that's the point of your game. You've continued to misrepresent my argument so you can dismiss and ridicule it, then go on to state your opinions as fact. I'm not sure if you lack basic reading comprehension or are just so eager to make a condescending reply that you're only skimming what I've written.

If you do actually ever want to know what I think, the posts are there for you to re-read at your leisure.

#235 BostonBruinsDan1924

BostonBruinsDan1924

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:43 PM

Whether we support the NHL or NHLPA, the only fact I know is that the Owners/Gm's are the one's responsible for signing players to BIG, LONG TERM contracts. Players/agents can push the limits but the one who signs the paychecks makes the final decision.

#236 BostonBruinsDan1924

BostonBruinsDan1924

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:24 PM

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26391

EXCERPTS FROM COMMISSIONER BETTMAN REMARKS - July 22, 2005
Is it just me or do I smell bulls*** in this article...

#237 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,246 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:34 PM

Yeah, Gary couldn't shovel that fast enough, could he?
I remember making a comment about redesigning the logo, something to the effect of "oh, yeah, that's what's wrong with the game. Fix that and it's all rainbows and puppies from here on out. The fans will come back in droves."

I only hope the league and the players decide not to spit in the fans' faces again and work this out in a mature, reasonable manner as expeditiously as possible.
Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#238 BostonBruinsDan1924

BostonBruinsDan1924

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 09:16 PM

Allan Walsh@walsha
Bettman on Thurs: "The owners' fundamental proposal relates to the fact that we need to be paying out less in player costs."

If that is the case then the HUGE contracts that the Wild and Preds paid out go against this and it was the OWNERS that APPOVED THESE CONTRACTS! You can't have your cake and eat it too OWNERS.

Allan Walsh@walsha
Bettman on Thurs: "Revenue sharing is not the key element of the negotiations for the League."

Really?? Are you serious??

Allan Walsh@walsha
Isn't it interesting how NHL owners believe in a free market when it comes to ticket prices but not when it comes to player salaries?

#239 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,764 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 12 August 2012 - 12:17 AM

If you do actually ever want to know what I think, the posts are there for you to re-read at your leisure.

First off, I will admit that maybe I am reading too much into what you are trying to say. However, in the same sense, by not addressing it you are implying it. For instance, when you say that "these loopholes were not addressed" you are in essence saying that they are left open. Another thing you are doing is implying that you have read the league proposal. Once again I ask, have you? I certainly would like to know where you are getting your informaiton.

Secondly, we are both of different opinions on a couple key points. Your opinion is that the owners are the ones with all the leverage, whereas I believe both are equal. Since neither of us have data to backup our claims, it is what it is I suppose.

Third, I will agree with you that both sides don't always have to concede things to get a deal done. You are right in the last lockout, the owners got the best of them. This time around, I am sure, you will agree, is different. What will happen remains a mystery. I believe you will see more concessions this time around from both sides than you have in the past.

Lastly, by bolding the statements that I made, you are coming across as more of a moderate like myself. Its easy to blame Bettman and the owners. Its hard to look deeper at the situation and see a system that is broken. These two sides leaders are just dumb IMHO. The players and owners don't get together until 2 months before the season starts? No urgency from either one? The lack of communication between these two sides are just horrible. Yet, you and others here are quick to jump on the "blame the owners" bus. I haven't seen you, or others here who jump on the NHLPA bandwagon, levy a single constructive comment towards the NHLPA. Yet, you and others here have plenty of crap to say about the owners.

Ok, you are more of a moderate like I am. You want to see a deal get done as badly as I do. I guess when the NHLPA offer hits next week, and if its a lowball offer, we will see just how many people are riding the NHLPA bandwagon who claim to be moderates.

Both sides in this case are a bunch of morons for various reasons. Neither side is getting a pass from me, and if they strike, both sides are are fault.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#240 BostonBruinsDan1924

BostonBruinsDan1924

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:35 AM

http://espn.go.com/b...-dispute-owners





Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users