905 replies to this topic

[cusimano_brothers]

Edited by cusimano_brothers, 29 June 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[Nightfall]

I'm confused are you taking sides or not?


I do hope that they are serious about getting this worked out before the deadline. The summer is long enough without having to worry about part of the season not being played.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem....let me break it down for you easily....

Not taking sides initially. Fans should be putting pressure on both sides equally to get a deal done.
If by September 15th, there is no deal in place, and the players want to play under the current CBA while they negotiate a deal, but the owners initiate a lockout, I will be on the side of the players since they are willing to work under the current agreement and continue negotiations. The owners will simply be greedy if they lockout at that stage. If the players initiate the lockout, then that will be greed based as well and I will side with the owners at that point.

Simple enough?

Edited by Nightfall, 29 June 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[WizardOfOz30]

I was just joking around....which is why I included the

Slow day at the office, I need something to pass the time. But I do agree with you, if someone decides to be greedy it's harder to side with them.

[Nightfall]

I was just joking around....which is why I included the

Slow day at the office, I need something to pass the time. But I do agree with you, if someone decides to be greedy it's harder to side with them.

Ah ok, my apologies then.

[cusimano_brothers]

From Toronto Star:

At the conclusion of Friday’s collective bargaining talks between the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association, it sounded as if both sides were singing from the same songbook when it comes to the business-like atmosphere surrounding the talks.
But there was a key difference: NHL commissioner Gary Bettman sounded as if he was operating on a short timeline during negotiations. NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr said he was unaware of any deadline.

This is so typical of Uncle Gary.

[ogreslayer]

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem....let me break it down for you easily....

Not taking sides initially. Fans should be putting pressure on both sides equally to get a deal done.
If by September 15th, there is no deal in place, and the players want to play under the current CBA while they negotiate a deal, but the owners initiate a lockout, I will be on the side of the players since they are willing to work under the current agreement and continue negotiations. The owners will simply be greedy if they lockout at that stage. If the players initiate the lockout, then that will be greed based as well and I will side with the owners at that point.

Simple enough?

Technically, the players can't initiate a lockout. They don't have the keys so to speak. They can strike, not lock out.

[predmonkee]

So I'm reading the owners key points in their offer to the players today. I realize starting high is key in negotiating but this is ridiculous!
1-reduce player revenue from 57% to 46%
2-five year contract limits
3-ten years in the NHL before becoming UFA
4-entry level contracts 5 yrs instead of 3
5-no more salary arbitration

The owners know this will not fly and they will have to give so I understand starting out high but this is ludicrous

[Greatness=PavelDatsyuk]

So I'm reading the owners key points in their offer to the players today. I realize starting high is key in negotiating but this is ridiculous!
1-reduce player revenue from 57% to 46%
2-five year contract limits
3-ten years in the NHL before becoming UFA
4-entry level contracts 5 yrs instead of 3
5-no more salary arbitration

The owners know this will not fly and they will have to give so I understand starting out high but this is ludicrous

1. Owners would be lucky if they got player revenue down to a 50/50 split, which is what I feel they are going for
2. That will probably come up to around 7 or 8 if its included, which would be alright
3. Not sure how this will go
4. Don't see this happening, but I could see it bumped up to 4
5. There is no way the players association will go for this, there will most likely be more restrictions on arbitration but it will still be there

This isn't really that high, especially in such a long negotiation like this. I can guarantee the PA is doing exactly the same thing with some rather extreme demands. Being this early in the process these points are alright, but if it still looks like this come late August, then its time to start worrying.

Edited by Greatness=PavelDatsyuk, 13 July 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[Drake_Marcus]

Now that the bluster's out of the way I'm interested to see what the real offers on the table will look like.

[haroldsnepsts]

So I'm reading the owners key points in their offer to the players today. I realize starting high is key in negotiating but this is ridiculous!
1-reduce player revenue from 57% to 46%
2-five year contract limits
3-ten years in the NHL before becoming UFA
4-entry level contracts 5 yrs instead of 3
5-no more salary arbitration

The owners know this will not fly and they will have to give so I understand starting out high but this is ludicrous

Well at least the owners picked a reasonable starting point.

I've gone from wondering if we'll lose some hockey games to wondering just how many.

[stevkrause]

Well at least the owners picked a reasonable starting point.

I've gone from wondering if we'll lose some hockey games to wondering just how many.

The NHL will not recover from another lockout, no matter how short... I have to imagine they'll sort it out

[haroldsnepsts]

The NHL will not recover from another lockout, no matter how short... I have to imagine they'll sort it out

I hope so, but this list is after how many days of negotiating?

The owners are really going for it here at the start. No arbitration, 5 year entry level contracts, ten years before a player is a UFA, AND notching down salaries by over 10%?? Those are all huge. Honestly on that list reducing salaries is probably the least aggressive and most realistic starting point.

[MabusIncarnate]

It's ridiculous, there needs to be a ton of bending on both sides if we are gonna watch hockey next season. This isn't a powerhouse league like the NFL, risking another lockout isn't in the best interest of the NHL, and i'm not entirely sure why the changes would be so steep all things considered.

[Salviaman]

It took at least 3 years for the NHL to get over the last lockout. I don't want to see it happen again.

[dragonballgtz]

So I'm reading the owners key points in their offer to the players today. I realize starting high is key in negotiating but this is ridiculous!
1-reduce player revenue from 57% to 46%
2-five year contract limits
3-ten years in the NHL before becoming UFA
4-entry level contracts 5 yrs instead of 3
5-no more salary arbitration

The owners know this will not fly and they will have to give so I understand starting out high but this is ludicrous

Looks like something else as well

Larry Brooks of the New York Post also tweeted that the NHL's proposal would eliminate signing bonuses on future contracts and mandate that all future deals have an equal value for every year of the contract.

I'm fine with 2 and the above quote.

1. Needs to be 50/50
3. I like that players can leave at 28 years of age. That's their true prime and should be able to get top dollar if that's what they are looking for.
4. I think 3 years is fine. Just get rid of the stupid rule that a guy at 21 cannot become a UFA if they do not sign with the team that drafted them (Schultz)
5. I don't see this going away.

[frankgrimes]

So I'm reading the owners key points in their offer to the players today. I realize starting high is key in negotiating but this is ridiculous!
1-reduce player revenue from 57% to 46%
2-five year contract limits
3-ten years in the NHL before becoming UFA
4-entry level contracts 5 yrs instead of 3
5-no more salary arbitration

The owners know this will not fly and they will have to give so I understand starting out high but this is ludicrous

This is beyond ridiculous, ....the owners seriously. I know its about starting low, but I really hope Fehr and the NHLPA will throw them a big F...you combined with a statement about not playing with us or we won't negotiate any further.

It is so funny, the owners got exactly what they wanted during the last CBA and now it isn't good enough anymore? Talk about a bunch of superwealth capitalists, shame on them go Fehr go! As a player and/or PA representive I would take this offer as offensive and counter with something like:

1. increase player revenue from 57 to 75 %
2. 25 year contracts limit
3. 3 years in the NHL before becoming UFA
4. 1 year entry level contract
5. teams can't walk from salary arbitration but players can

Sounds stupid? Yes, but it is just the opposite from the things the owners are asking for, hello lockout bye season 2013

Edited by frankgrimes, 14 July 2012 - 06:14 AM.

[cusimano_brothers]

Is this another of Uncle Gary's attempts to achieve "parity"?

[sibiriak]

Well, given the past history between NHL and the NHLPA, and the fact that the players hired D.Fehr, I am now certain that at least a half of the next season will be lost to a lockout. To top it off, the All Star game was supposed to be here in Columbus this year, there goes my best chance to see it live...

Edited by sibiriak, 14 July 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[stevkrause]

In regards to the NHL's proposal - As a great philosopher once said:
You better check yourself, before you wreck yourself.

[Hey man nice shot!]

The NHL will not recover from another lockout, no matter how short... I have to imagine they'll sort it out

at the least they will use this contract for another year and use the whole season to piece it together if need be. God summer is to long without hockey:)