Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 Lockout Watch

cba lockout

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

#761 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,549 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:39 PM

According to McKenzie's twitter, the league is asking for "an immediate and significant reduction in the $ spent on players salaries" while the union "won't take an actual decrease to $ spent on salaries."

If true, that contradicts how Bettman made it sound in his press conference. The impression I got was that the league's latest offer would be a more stepped down reduction as revenue grew, so it wouldn't require a rollback. I know the initial deals it sounded like the league was trying to avoid calling it a rollback by referring to the escrow, but unless the NHL made massive revenue gains next season, the players would end up giving money back, which is essentially a rollback.

It's confusing without knowing all the details. How does the league expect to reduce the cap without a rollback? Why can't they be gradually stepped down? The players revenue percentage should come down and they absolutely need limits on contract length. I just don't see why easing the pain of that over a few seasons couldn't happen.

Either way, it sounds like Gary's getting his lockout hat trick.

#762 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:03 PM

According to McKenzie's twitter, the league is asking for "an immediate and significant reduction in the $ spent on players salaries" while the union "won't take an actual decrease to $ spent on salaries."

If true, that contradicts how Bettman made it sound in his press conference. The impression I got was that the league's latest offer would be a more stepped down reduction as revenue grew, so it wouldn't require a rollback. I know the initial deals it sounded like the league was trying to avoid calling it a rollback by referring to the escrow, but unless the NHL made massive revenue gains next season, the players would end up giving money back, which is essentially a rollback.

It's confusing without knowing all the details. How does the league expect to reduce the cap without a rollback? Why can't they be gradually stepped down? The players revenue percentage should come down and they absolutely need limits on contract length. I just don't see why easing the pain of that over a few seasons couldn't happen.

Either way, it sounds like Gary's getting his lockout hat trick.

Only NHL hat trick we will see for a while

#763 Crashnburnluder

Crashnburnluder

    Crashnburnluder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,194 posts
  • Location:Lancater, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:11 PM

The lockout will happen, to think that some earth shattering agreement could happen overnight is stupid.

The players think they hold the cards, the owners think they hold the cards... It's a stand of and the only way to solve it is months of negotiations and a far solution....

What sucks for us red wings fans is that this will probably mean a season opener of the winter classic. 05 they started the season on hype with the Crosby lottery... Now it will be the winter classic.... It hurts us cause we miss out on 24/7... But atleast we get half a season... And once again we get screwed... First the reallignment, now 24/7.... The players will back down and i respect them for that...

The league asked them to take a pay cut for the good of the league... "make less now to make more later" now that there making "more" they are being asked to cut salaries again... If that was my boss id tell him to screw off....

The lockout will happen, to think that some earth shattering agreement could happen overnight is stupid.

The players think they hold the cards, the owners think they hold the cards... It's a stand of and the only way to solve it is months of negotiations and a far solution....

What sucks for us red wings fans is that this will probably mean a season opener of the winter classic. 05 they started the season on hype with the Crosby lottery... Now it will be the winter classic.... It hurts us cause we miss out on 24/7... But atleast we get half a season... And once again we get screwed... First the reallignment, now 24/7.... The players will back down and i respect them for that...

The league asked them to take a pay cut for the good of the league... "make less now to make more later" now that there making "more" they are being asked to cut salaries again... If that was my boss id tell him to screw off....

#764 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:12 PM

Can this ****** dwarf 3 lockout in a row - yes I said it - is unacceptable can his ass once and for all.

The league is healthy as its ever been this should have been the easiest CBA negotiations ever!

lidsretire2.jpg
 

Thank you so much perfect human being #5

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

Phase I: injury rattled roster Phase II: BABCOCK Phase III: Playoffs XXIII !


#765 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 463 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:21 PM

The NHL would never have had a lockout without Bettman and we are now going on the 3rd one with him.


I wasn't disagreeing about Bettman being bad for the NHL or even that he is a big part of why the lockout is coming. I was disagreeing about boycotting spending any money on the NHL.
If league revenues dropped for a season Bettman still wouldn't be fired. He is in place because as much as we hate him, the owners don't. If the owners get their way it will be because of his ultimatums and lockouts and then they'll have more money and love him even more.

 
"Everything he does is exciting to watch.” -Holmstrom describes Datsyuk


#766 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:34 PM

I wasn't disagreeing about Bettman being bad for the NHL or even that he is a big part of why the lockout is coming. I was disagreeing about boycotting spending any money on the NHL.
If league revenues dropped for a season Bettman still wouldn't be fired. He is in place because as much as we hate him, the owners don't. If the owners get their way it will be because of his ultimatums and lockouts and then they'll have more money and love him even more.

Some of the owners may like him because he has duped them into believing that his plan will benefit them but I think they must be getting tired of his plans not coming to fruition as he said they would. If the fans boycott spending on the NHL because of him, the owners that do like him won't when it causes a big affect on their pocket books.
I know Illitch always opposed him before he put a gag order on them

Edited by Johnz96, 12 September 2012 - 06:55 PM.


#767 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:10 PM

I think the only way to get rid of Bettman is empty seats when the Lockout is over. I'm not buying tickets to protest Bettman, and I hope other hockey fans do the same thing. 4 lockouts under this moron, there's no reason to go to games until he's gone.

I have a feeling attendance for American teams will suffer. Canadian teams, they're all like sheep, the league could tell them to F-off, and they'd still buy tickets.
Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#768 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:35 PM

I think the only way to get rid of Bettman is empty seats when the Lockout is over. I'm not buying tickets to protest Bettman, and I hope other hockey fans do the same thing. 4 lockouts under this moron, there's no reason to go to games until he's gone.

I have a feeling attendance for American teams will suffer. Canadian teams, they're all like sheep, the league could tell them to F-off, and they'd still buy tickets.

I've been trying to tell people this since the first lockout. Even without the lockouts he is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game of hockey. I haven't spent any of my money on the NHL since the first lockout and won't until he is gone. If more of us do it he will be gone

#769 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,632 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:47 PM

I pretty clearly spelled out why extra time doesn't matter. But I'll try and put it more simply. We're three days away and both sides are deadlocked. Yet you're saying starting 6 months earlier would've somehow helped? As if back then with little real threat of losing a season, they somehow would've started making concessions?

I didn't say it was a bad or good move. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Lack of time is not the issue.

And you say no offense, then call me a fool?

I'm tired of the insults built into your arguments and the constant misrepresentations of what I've said. Your mind seems made up and you're constantly responding to some idea of what you think I believe, instead of what I've actually stated I believe.

Carry on your merry way, but I'm done discussing this with you.

The point is that we don't know what would have happened. To say that, well, since we are 3 days away and no concessions have been made to this point doesn't mean that it wouldn't have worked with more time is ludicrous. Just the fact that you won't call out the NHLPA for even their lack of desire to negotiate early speaks volumes. I think its pretty much a foregone conclusion that you are willing to blindly believe the NHLPA, even when shown that they haven't been as "on the ball" as you believe them to be.

I have to agree with you that maybe it is best that we don't carry on this discussion. We can carry on our merry ways.

Edited by Nightfall, 12 September 2012 - 08:05 PM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#770 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:45 PM

Hell no. Emmerton can wear #25 on a different team when we trade him away. 25 will ALWAYS be Darren McCarty.

I don't understand why everyone is blaming Bettman alone? Why this guy Don Fehr and his little brother are not to blame too? Is this because Bettman salary is two times greater than Fehr's.

NHL has been ready for negotiation long before New Year 2012, it's been said too many times. Fehr responded once saying talks will start sometime after All-Star break. Well he was right, talks started well after All-Star break.


It is clear that owners want to have more than 50% of revenues while players are not willing accept less than 50%. If positions cannot be reconciled it does not matter when you start negotiating.

#771 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 12 September 2012 - 09:19 PM

Its beyond me that someone would watch either of those press conferences and think that one side is doing everything in its power to make sure a season starts while the other is totally at fault in these negotiations. I suppose you have to have your lips firmly planted on the ass of the NHLPA to really come to that conclusion.


I think that making sure that seasons starts is not the main goal of either side. The goal is to make sure that over the lifetime of the next CBA it would be most beneficial to that particular side. From that point of view each side is just following their agenda. Fans and people whose paychecks depend on NHL games (apart from players) are interested in not losing any games but they are not part of the process.

#772 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 463 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2012 - 09:23 PM

I haven't spent any of my money on the NHL since the first lockout and won't until he is gone. If more of us do it he will be gone


I always think that if you don't vote then you can't complain about whoever is in office...I'm gonna go with the same theory here and say that if we as fans don't support the league then we have no right to complain about what the league does.

 
"Everything he does is exciting to watch.” -Holmstrom describes Datsyuk


#773 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,632 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:26 PM

I think that making sure that seasons starts is not the main goal of either side. The goal is to make sure that over the lifetime of the next CBA it would be most beneficial to that particular side. From that point of view each side is just following their agenda. Fans and people whose paychecks depend on NHL games (apart from players) are interested in not losing any games but they are not part of the process.

Very true. Which is even more the reason why both sides are a fault. They are playing for themselves. Not for the good of the fans.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#774 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:26 PM

You guys are all getting pissed off for nothing. On December 21st none of this will matter. :alien: :alien2: :alien1:

esteef
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."

#775 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:32 PM

I always think that if you don't vote then you can't complain about whoever is in office...I'm gonna go with the same theory here and say that if we as fans don't support the league then we have no right to complain about what the league does.

WTF???
Fans have been expressing hatred for the man ever since he has been in the League, Rather than booing him or holding signs or spouting off in some forum about him, he would have been long gone if only more fans did what I did. Hopefully they will after this lockout. I will support them as soon as he is gone, I can't wait to get a Konstantinov shirt
He is the worst thing to ever happen to the game of hockey and I will not support a league run by him

#776 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:50 PM

You guys are all getting pissed off for nothing. On December 21st none of this will matter. :alien: :alien2: :alien1:


Even more, it hardly matters now. Just another business with conflict between management and workers. Everybody dies in the end regardless of which side gets better deal in the next CBA.

#777 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:57 AM

On a personal level I am pissed off. But on a business level they are about to lose a paying customer, they will not provide me what I pay for, a full regular season as scheduled, so I will be switching providers, meaning another hockey league to watch (NHL = hockey, but hockey != NHL or another sports, NFL has just begon, for example, and I am really starting to like watching those games actually).
First round series win: $0 () Second round series win: $0 () Third round series win: $0 () Fourth round series win: $0 () Goal difference: $0 (-3) Shutout difference: $0 (0) SHG difference: $0 (0) Extra points reg. season: $3 (102)

TOTAL COLLECTED: $0 TOTAL BONUS IF STANLEY CUP: $3

#778 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:48 AM

Very true. Which is even more the reason why both sides are a fault. They are playing for themselves. Not for the good of the fans.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don't expect either side to show any special consideration for fans. At least not in financial discussions. I expect them to produce a quality product at a price the market can bear. That's all. It's not like any of us will be hurt in any meaningful way if there's an extended lockout (barring those few who work in an NHL-dependent industry). So we might need to find something new to entertain us for a while. If that's the worst of our problems, we should just call ourselves lucky and be done with it. Not to say I won't be upset if we lose some or all of the season, I just don't expect any concessions from either side for our benefit.

I just want them to negotiate in good faith, and make fair offers. I've seen nothing to suggest the league is actually doing so, while the numbers seem to fall in line with what the players want. Of course, none of us has all the information so it's really pointless to keep that debate going.

Regarding the timing of negotiations: there's a reason almost all collective bargaining is done at the last minute. If there is some middle ground where both sides can agree, negotiation is really only a matter of hours. If there isn't, then you could negotiate non-stop for years and never get anywhere but more firmly entrenched. If there's no middle-ground, there has to be some external influence, such as a lockout (or sometimes just the threat of an impending one), to start changing people's minds.

Case in point: "The enforcer debate". It's been raging for what? 15 years? Pretty much no one on either side has changed their opinion at all. We all just keep repeating the same things every time the topic comes up. There's no reason for any of us to concede anything. But if someone were to come here tomorrow and say none of us will collect a paycheck until we reach a consensus... then you'd see some minds change. But it's been a heated debate for a long time, and some people are just stubbornly dug in to their position. Fighting more out of a determination to win than any real consideration of the topic

Had CBA negotiations started 6 months ago, we'd very likely be in an even worse spot now.

One thing that I've been thinking is just how much of this all comes back to the low-revenue teams. The league want to cut spending on players, not because the league as a whole can't afford it, but because some teams can't afford it (and even more teams can't control themselves). The players don't want to give up what they've been contractually promised (because the league as a whole can afford it) and want the rich teams to do more to support the poor teams.

So the rich teams don't want to support the poor teams. The players don't want to support the poor teams. The fans don't want to support the poor teams (or they wouldn't be so poor). Who does want these teams? Why is no one other than a fairly small number of fans talking about getting rid of them? Is it fair to force pay cuts on the players while the Leafs could maybe see $100M+ in profit, and a handful more could see $30-50M, just so a few s***ty teams that apparently no one gives a damn about can also make a few million? On the other hand, is it fair to ask the rich teams to support the poor ones when they don't really benefit from doing so? The PA benefits from the extra jobs those teams create, but they'd benefit just as much if those teams were in better markets, and the players have no say in team location. Revenue disparity is really the biggest issue in the league, but it seems everyone accepts it as a handicap to be worked around rather than an infection to be cured.

There's a few ways to cure it:

Get rid of the cap system. Simplest solution, and I'm sure the players would love it. Each team free to spend as much or as little as they want. Players aren't guaranteed any percentage, and the market alone determines player salaries. There's no good reason that all 30 teams couldn't make a profit in this system. Owners are dead set against it, to the point that it's almost a joke to even suggest it. They like to say it's for "parity", but really it's because the NHL if full of owners who have proven they can't control themselves. MLB, for all intents, has no cap. But they do have smarter owners. Most MLB teams make a profit, and there's some decent parity. The Yankees spend over $140M more in player salary than the A's but have a worse record. Yeah, the spending gap is higher than most NHL teams' total revenue. Spending has almost zero correlation to standing. But the NHL has too many stupid owners, so it wouldn't work. Too bad.

Widen the cap-floor separation. Similar to the above. Let the poorer teams spend less, and the rich teams more. Leave the mid-point/player's share alone. The rich teams make up for the poor teams, but unlike profit sharing the rich teams see a tangible benefit. Player's still get what they consider a fair cut, and again no reason that every team couldn't make a profit. You can also do this indirectly via soft cap/tax system, trading cap space, etc. Unfortunately, it has basically the same problems as removing the cap. Owners would need to control themselves, which they've proven they can't do.

Move a few teams. Bit more complicated, but maybe easier than replacing half the owners. Phoenix and the Islanders have to go. They're failures just like Atlanta was. I'd say Carolina too. Columbus, Florida, and Nashville possible alternates. Maybe even St.Louis. Looking at the revenue numbers, the Toronto market needs another team, and could probably support a third. Montreal could likely support another, and/or put a team back in Quebec. Vancouver could maybe support a second, and even a tiny Canadian market like Saskatoon might do better than some current NHL cities (though I don't think that it should be tried). Point is, you could possibly put six more teams in Canada and the league would be better for it. A few US markets like Seattle, KC, Salt Lake, Vegas, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis might be worth a look. Move a few teams, improve the revenue gap, stagnate cap growth rather than rollback salaries, and the PA likely buys in for a lower percentage of a bigger pie. Owners (other than the few who would relocate, or face new market competition) shouldn't care where the other teams are. But it won't even be discussed because ??? doesn't want teams to move...

#779 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,405 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:18 AM

This morning, TSN's Darren Dreger said a "big-name" player said (paraphrasing): "I'd rather leave the game than give back more like we did the last time".
The Board of Governors will also meet today, voting on Uncle Gary's desire the lockout; speculation on TSN showed voting could be as high as unanimous and as low as 25-5.

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#780 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:43 AM

On a personal level I am pissed off. But on a business level they are about to lose a paying customer, they will not provide me what I pay for, a full regular season as scheduled, so I will be switching providers, meaning another hockey league to watch (NHL = hockey, but hockey != NHL or another sports, NFL has just begon, for example, and I am really starting to like watching those games actually).

Football is great. As a kid I used to follow both equally but because I like to know all the players and everything I can aboiut a sport i follow there just wasn't enough time so when the NFL had a strike and brought in the scabs, I gave it up , now I'm comin back.





Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users