[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

[frankgrimes 1,836]

Don't Bettman and the NHL want to see Crosby play this season?

Get this deal done already.

Do you honestly believe Bettman even knows which position his BFF is playing?

Chances players are holding out for a better deal, period. Most people would do the same, if the owners are serious about helping rescuing the money losing franchises they better start crafting a fair deal soon...

Sent from my BlackBerry

[Buppy 1,720]

$250 million is the average value of an NHL team. It isn't some made up number. Please read the article I posted.

As for the numbers you posted, the revenues did show well, but those are not profits. The profts of $31 million per team for 6 years is very low. You are still looking at an average of 1.5%. Imagine how it is for the Red Wings who have a very successful franchise and Illitch is making less on his asset in comparison to others.

The point is that the profit in comparison to the asset is very low, which is what you are finally seeing. Now if it was a straight 50/50 split for the last 6 years, it would have been a lot more fair. Now, the owners are not going to get that true split for at least 6 years, but that is their own fault.

The owners can and should pay for every contract. The concept is very simple. If the split is 50-50, then the owners are responsible to pay the extra 7% out of pocket and off the salary cap to the players. i do get what you are saying though. In the salary cap era though, if the owners are shelling out the money for their decisions with a portion of it off the cap, then it can still work. All new contracts will be lower, and in future years, they will even out. Think of it as a 50/50 split from 2012-13 forward.

...

It's still an estimate. Regardless of the veracity of the number, comparing a single year of profit to the price you'd have to pay to buy the team doesn't mean anything. At least not anything relevant to this discussion. (Even using $250M value, the actual % would be 1.79. For reference, MLB is 2.38%, NFL is 3.71%, and NBA is 1.48%. All that really means is that as a rule, sports teams are considered more valuable than what might be indicated by profitability.)

Yearly profit (or actually, it's operating income, net profit would be less) has been around 5% of revenue. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes like a 5 year-old, that's your problem.

Yes, the owners can and should pay every contract. That is what I, the PA, and others that support the PA have been saying all along. The problem is that the owners aren't willing to do that. They want to pay 50%, and make future players pay the difference. Players want the owners to pay the difference. You can say it "works", but that's just a word. Anything can "work" if the two sides agree to it.

First off, the cap doesn't mean anything. The cap could be an octopus with a dollar sign in front of it and it wouldn't do anything but confuse people. What matters is the players' share. That is the amount of money that players actually get, regardless of what the cap numbers are, regardless of what contracts are...the players get the players' share.

Let's try an example:

Say we use an applicable % of 50%. Assume full season revenue of $3.4B. The players' share is $1.7B

From that share, you subtract benefits; league is estimating $95M. That leaves $1.605B for player salaries.

Current contracts are valued at $1.74B according to Capgeek, with most roster spots full. Capgeek shows around another $53M in potential bonuses. Fehr says player contracts are $1.776B. Seems close enough to use in an example. Using that we're left with $171M that someone has to pay. If the owners pay it, then for all practical purposes, the players' share is $1.871B, and the true % is ~55%. If we defer that payment instead...

Move on to year two:

Assume full season revenue of $3.57B. The players' share is $1.785B.

If you use a part of that to pay the year 1 shortfall, the amount actually earned by the players that year is only $1.614B (since $171M was earned the prior year), which gives a true % of ~45.2%. If the owners pay out of pocket, then the share is $1.956B and the % is ~54.8%.

And so on. It will never "even out". Either the owners pay more than 50%, or the players earn less. That is a mathematical fact. One or the other has to happen. The one and only possible way to avoid that is if revenues next year are $3.742B or more. Anything less and it is absolutely impossible to have a "true" 50/50 split, whether you go 2 years, or 5, or 500. Someone has to pay the difference. Neither side is willing to at this point.

I, the PA, and those who support the PA, say the owners should pay it. You say the owners should pay, but either you don't really mean it or you don't know what you're talking about.

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

Do you honestly believe Bettman even knows which position his BFF is playing?

Chances players are holding out for a better deal, period. Most people would do the same, if the owners are serious about helping rescuing the money losing franchises they better start crafting a fair deal soon...

Sent from my BlackBerry

And the players need to start accepting the deals the owners are giving them if they want to play again. Owners are not budging rightly so.

[Nightfall 871]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/winter-classic-on-the-chopping-block-with-no-end-in-sight-to-nhl-lockout/article4726378/

Expect the Winter Classic to be canceled by Friday. Damn.

[BottleOfSmoke 5,965]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/winter-classic-on-the-chopping-block-with-no-end-in-sight-to-nhl-lockout/article4726378/

Expect the Winter Classic to be canceled by Friday. Damn.

I feel like I'm gonna puke.

[Nightfall 871]

It's still an estimate. Regardless of the veracity of the number, comparing a single year of profit to the price you'd have to pay to buy the team doesn't mean anything. At least not anything relevant to this discussion. (Even using $250M value, the actual % would be 1.79. For reference, MLB is 2.38%, NFL is 3.71%, and NBA is 1.48%. All that really means is that as a rule, sports teams are considered more valuable than what might be indicated by profitability.)

The estimate is done by Forbes which I consider to be very accurate. Here is another one...

http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports-recreation-leisure-market-research/industry-statistics

I don't know about the other franchises in the NBA, MLB, or NFL. Where did you get the figures that you found. I thought the profit margins would be more-so in those franchises. I did a quick look on Forbes and found the NBA Valuations list but there was no input on the profit compared. This plunkett research pretty much mimics what Forbes found.

So now that we have established that the number isn't "just made up".....

I feel the owners do have a right to have the ability to make more on their asset. Doesn't matter if they are billionaires or not. With a 43% cut, I feel that is not enough. Hell, I would feel it wouldn't be enough if the players made that much and I would be behind them 100% if they went on strike. A 50/50 split is the most equitable and fair. Players are risking their bodies while the owners are taking risk with the franchise.

I will say that you have some good points based on the owners/players split. I choose to think that the owners will payout for the contracts, but all new contracts will be a 50/50 split. Really, that is a gradual reduction, just like the NHLPA recommended. I was thinking of it as the owners paying out of their own pockets outside of their franchises. That way is "off the books" and the owners are writing the checks directly. Are the players taking a pay cut? From their respective leagues they are, but the owners are writing a check to the players on their roster for the difference. I would prefer to see owners who have been responsible write checks for less money, but thats up for discussion.

I feel like I'm gonna puke.

I already puked.

I won't be investing in the NHL when it comes back. The limit of my investment in the NHL will be my cable bill and watching them on TV. No Center Ice, no tickets, no merchandise, and so on. Yup, I am done with these greedy screwballs.

[Barrie 900]

http://www.theglobea...article4726378/

Expect the Winter Classic to be canceled by Friday. Damn.

I think it would be in the best interest to cancel the Winter Classic, even if they got a new deal in time. That would be a perfect game for the fans to protest. If only 50,000 fans showed up, out of 110,000, that would be a huge embarrassment!

[chances14 227]

posted it in the other thread but i suggest checking artlce out

http://www.sbnation....tive-reddit-ama

another good read by nick kyperos

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/10/29/nhl_lockout_gary_bettman_jeremy_jacobs_owners_silence/

hopefully he is right

Edited October 29, 2012 by chances14

[Barrie 900]

I already puked.

I won't be investing in the NHL when it comes back. The limit of my investment in the NHL will be my cable bill and watching them on TV. No Center Ice, no tickets, no merchandise, and so on. Yup, I am done with these greedy screwballs.

Yeah I'm done spending money on the NHL too. The last of my favorite Red Wings, Holmstrom, has retired, so I can spend money and time elsewhere... Bettman has pissed me off so much, that I don't want to financially support the league anymore, and I'm not just saying that. Each year since the 05-06 lockout I've slowly lost interest, and this is the last straw. Despite the reports of record revenues, I think the league has turned into a big joke (bankrupt franchises, head shots, concussions, lack of proper suspensions, an 8th seed winning the Cup). I've almost been looking for a reason to not watch anymore, and this lockout is the reason... Add to that, as a fan of a big market team, I despise the Hard Cap and Floor, and I don't think what they've been talking about in a new deal will address what's actually wrong. Unless they have a Luxury Tax and proper Revenue Sharing there will be another lockout in 6 years.

But, I continue to post my opinions because owners and players read forums, twitter, and facebook, so I want them to read what I think.

[rrasco 1,312]

I feel like I'm gonna puke.

Good. Now the NHL can give me back my $600 f*cking dollars that they have had for several months. When I get it, I'll be filing a civil suit for interest on my loan that the NHL stole from me by misleading me on to think there was going to be a season and eventually a Winter Classic.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

If this joke of a commsissioner would spend as much time negotiating as he did with cancellations and whining to the effing media, we'd be having a season by now.

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

another good read by nick kyperos

http://www.sportsnet...owners_silence/

hopefully he is right

This is truly bizarre. There only 30 teams. It is a small enough number so that each owner can represent himself rather than delegate all the decisions to three individuals.

Jeremy Jacobs is 72 and apparently has no shortage of money. It would take a better psychologist than me to figure out what motivates him in the CBA fight. Show players who is the boss?

[Nightfall 871]

Good. Now the NHL can give me back my $600 f*cking dollars that they have had for several months. When I get it, I'll be filing a civil suit for interest on my loan that the NHL stole from me by misleading me on to think there was going to be a season and eventually a Winter Classic.

Imagine how the people in Chicago feel.

I say them because they were all charged for their season tickets. The blackhawks are paying it back as games are canceled. The season ticket holders are pretty pissed because they pretty much are giving the Blackhawks a interest free loan. What a bunch of crap. IMHO, you don't charge people when the league is locked out. What a bunch of crap.

Yeah I'm done spending money on the NHL too. The last of my favorite Red Wings, Holmstrom, has retired, so I can spend money and time elsewhere... Bettman has pissed me off so much, that I don't want to financially support the league anymore, and I'm not just saying that. Each year since the 05-06 lockout I've slowly lost interest, and this is the last straw. Despite the reports of record revenues, I think the league has turned into a big joke (bankrupt franchises, head shots, concussions, lack of proper suspensions, an 8th seed winning the Cup). I've almost been looking for a reason to not watch anymore, and this lockout is the reason... Add to that, as a fan of a big market team, I despise the Hard Cap and Floor, and I don't think what they've been talking about in a new deal will address what's actually wrong. Unless they have a Luxury Tax and proper Revenue Sharing there will be another lockout in 6 years.

But, I continue to post my opinions because owners and players read forums, twitter, and facebook, so I want them to read what I think.

The hard cap and floor really does make it tough for there to be a dynasty now. Now, 16 teams that make the playoffs can win the championship. The NHL has its parity, and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the greed and the unwillingness to compromise from both sides. Add in there that both would rather chirp about how they are getting screwed, and its really a no win scenario for everyone.

I am always going to be a hockey fan and a Wings fan. I just won't be spending $2000 a year on tickets, merchandise, gas to the games, hotel, and so on. The Wings will survive without me filling their pockets, but they lost a supporting fan at the games. I will be happy to watch them on TV. That will be the extent of my support.

[Guest irishock]

Oh well. Just go ahead and cancel the entire season. The WC was the only thing worth looking up to anyways.

[Buppy 1,720]

The estimate is done by Forbes which I consider to be very accurate. Here is another one...

http://www.plunkettr...stry-statistics

I don't know about the other franchises in the NBA, MLB, or NFL. Where did you get the figures that you found. I thought the profit margins would be more-so in those franchises. I did a quick look on Forbes and found the NBA Valuations list but there was no input on the profit compared. This plunkett research pretty much mimics what Forbes found.

So now that we have established that the number isn't "just made up".....

I feel the owners do have a right to have the ability to make more on their asset. Doesn't matter if they are billionaires or not. With a 43% cut, I feel that is not enough. Hell, I would feel it wouldn't be enough if the players made that much and I would be behind them 100% if they went on strike. A 50/50 split is the most equitable and fair. Players are risking their bodies while the owners are taking risk with the franchise.

I will say that you have some good points based on the owners/players split. I choose to think that the owners will payout for the contracts, but all new contracts will be a 50/50 split. Really, that is a gradual reduction, just like the NHLPA recommended. I was thinking of it as the owners paying out of their own pockets outside of their franchises. That way is "off the books" and the owners are writing the checks directly. Are the players taking a pay cut? From their respective leagues they are, but the owners are writing a check to the players on their roster for the difference. I would prefer to see owners who have been responsible write checks for less money, but thats up for discussion.

...

It's like we're not even on the same internet. But whatever, I'm done arguing about team value. You keep missing my main point, which is that operating income relative to current team value doesn't mean anything. That's not what a profit margin is, not what ROI is. It's just a number you came up with, and since it's small you plug it into your argument and call it "proof".

Worse yet, it seems (at times at least) that you don't even disagree with me or the PA. It's like you have some obsessive need to blame both sides, so you throw up all these straw men to argue against. Literally no one has, on either side or in this thread, proposed keeping the 43/57 split. Every single proposal is better from the owners perspective. No need to say "the owners have a right..., 43% is not enough...", since no one has ever disputed that. I may dispute the level "needed", but that's not really relevant since the PA has shown themselves willing to get down to ~50% at the end. Maybe not "guaranteed", but the growth needed to get there is very modest compared to what we've seen the last 20 years. (At least, it would have been modest before the lockout.) Maybe not exactly 50%, but the difference at that point is very small, and I'm sure the PA would be willing to negotiate that if the league accepted the principles for the first few years. What exactly are you arguing against?

Your argument comes off like the PA says, "we're willing to take a gradual reduction to 50%", and your response is, "damn you greedy screwballs, you need to take a gradual reduction to 50%". So again, what is your big issue with the PA proposals? That they don't get to 50% by year 2?

[Nightfall 871]

Your argument comes off like the PA says, "we're willing to take a gradual reduction to 50%", and your response is, "damn you greedy screwballs, you need to take a gradual reduction to 50%". So again, what is your big issue with the PA proposals? That they don't get to 50% by year 2?

The issue I have with the PA proposals are two fold.

First, the NHLPA didn't negotiate in good faith by dragging their feet through this entire process. It took them until June to even come to the table, and then 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to actually propose something of their own. So Fehr dragging his feet is the first thing I blame the NHLPA for.

Secondly, the NHLPA and NHL are both being greedy and not willing to compromise anything. In addition, there is no willingness to work together. If you read the deals, there is a deal to be made. Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes. So why aren't either side willing to budge? Even worse, why are both sides just playing the media? The NHL says that they are willing to meet, but that the NHLPA doesn't want to talk their language. The same goes for the NHLPA. Lastly, there are no hard negotiation sessions happening.

So its a little bit of everything. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides in these negotiations. I believe that both sides should come to the middle a little bit in order to make that happen. I also believe that both sides are in the wrong by involving the media more and getting both sides to the table and negotiating less.

If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.

Finally, I do have an issue with people taking sides on this issue. The NHL and NHLPA have both sinned in these negotiations. To claim that one side is more deserving than the other is a fallacy. Both sides together have failed the sport of hockey and the fans. Bettman is just as at fault for the lockout as Fehr. Its time to kick both these guys in the ass and out of their respective positions.

This is why I am not supporting the NHL anymore with anything more than my cable bill. They can get their share from Fox Sports Detroit or the NHL Network advertising. They won't get a penny out of me when it comes to merchandise, tickets, parking, gas, travel time, and so on. I encourage all fans who are furious with the NHL and NHLPA to do the same. Speak with your wallets.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Nightfall

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes.

You appear to be starting from the premise that players have to give to the owners. Why? Should not players be getting something in return for reduced share? Yet NHL wanted to restrict their contracting rights as well at the same time.

If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.

I think Fehr at this point has support of the players. And only they can fire him.

I actually have no idea what the procedure is for removing NHL commissioner. Might be interesting to find out.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

How has Fehr been a failure? Players are all praising him for keeping them informed and not going to bow down like Godwell (spelling?) did.

I think both should meet at each other at a point but the NHL hasn't done that so far their last offer was a right now 50 50 and we are taking away further playerrights proposal, so basically the players would have given up two concessions but the owners none...that's not how it works.

To me if further things are lost it will be because of an undersized man and it really is a shame.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Edited October 30, 2012 by frankgrimes

[chances14 227]

well i've just been reading ove the q&a nhl exec article that i posted earlier

responses that i found interesting (and yes i was bored)

The NHLPA rejected realignment towards the end of last season for 1 reason, they wanted a bargaining chip. It is still on the table (they still have that chip)

Of course not. Each team has it's own expenses and needs. 75% of the problems come down to the fact that not every team controls its building and gets revenues from outside events. The defending Cup champs share a building with not 1, but 2 professional teams in the 2nd largest market in America, and that's why the NHL is hurting in a microcosm.

As I've answered earlier, every single player in the league knew there would be a renegotiation this year. That's why there were so many front-loaded contracts. What many people don't understand is, by anti-trust laws, the owners are legally bound to not consult each other when they work on contracts. Otherwise it would be collusion. The players have no such limitation, and as much as some don't like it, a lot of owners want to win.

We can NEVER scoff at TV revenue. But aside from the Sunday NBC games, there isn't a lot to pass around. Let me preface my answer by saying I grew up in the sport, played since I could walk, but until there is legitimate revenue-sharing, TV revenues mean little (except for the Winter Classic). Fan support means everything. Most teams that I've talked with are offering rewards for season ticket holders. The casual fan will take some work.

Contract fulfillment is a sticking point for every player, and while I understand that, don't for one second think that the players didn't know this was happening. After the lockout in 2004-05, there were incentives in place that completely blew up the model of the previous CBA. It want from a 47% share of revenues to a 57% share of revenues. That's unsustainable.

there is a thing called "primary tenancy" in any building. For example: At the Staples Center in LA, the NBA Lakers have primary tenancy. The LA Clippers have secondary, and at the bottom are the Stanley Cup champ NHL LA Kings. I don't know what the division of revenues for non-sport events are in LA, but I know that dividing that by 3, with all its concessions, etc dilutes revenue. And that's assuming all the concerts and suite revenue would be shared. Compare that with a Detroit. Great building, great team, primary tenant. They get ALL revenues for anything that happens there.

do you feel there is something to negotiate off of the players 3rd deal, or the one the NHL proposed?

Sorry that I missed this question. I can't say much more than the NHLPA's response went back to definitions about revenue and contract fulfillment.

I feel there's no chance any of the NHLPA's most recent proposals will be accepted. There are always things to negotiate, but when they went back to defining terms I knew the Oct 25 deadline was out of the picture.

My takeaway from the meeting after the NHLPA's counterproposal (and I did see it) was that Donald Fehr wanted to re-exert his authority over the union. They want back to definitions of revenue, which in previous negotiations were settled. It was a slap in the face. It boiled down to " Yeah, we'll take 50/50, if we can define where our %50 comes from".

I can answer that, Mike Ilitch has a LOT of power on the Board of Governors, 2nd only to Jacobs. The Wings, perennially, have the longest distance traveling schedule, The NHLPA will keep the realignment chip until it suits them to give it up.

How is it legal for the NHL to even suggest rollback on contracts signed under a previous agreement? A contract is a contract for a reason.

The CBA from '04-'05 had an escape clause that both sides could enact. The owners enacted once the percentage of revenue sharing got too high. It's all legal.

[Nightfall 871]

You appear to be starting from the premise that players have to give to the owners. Why? Should not players be getting something in return for reduced share? Yet NHL wanted to restrict their contracting rights as well at the same time.

I agree. Which adds into the greed on the owners side. Give the players earlier free agency. Make the first contract 2-3 years in limit, and then the RFA period for 4-5 years after that. For stars who are 19-20 years old, then they will be UFA as early as 26, in their prime.

As for why the players have to give to the owners, both sides should be at least 50/50. I could even see 52/48 in favor of the players, but I do feel the owners are entitled for more of a share just for the business risks they take. Plus, I look at it in terms of fairness. If one side was making 43% and the other side was making 57%, wouldn't you ask why? I would totally understand the players position if they were only making 43% of the share and went on strike.

[Buppy 1,720]

The issue I have with the PA proposals are two fold.

First, the NHLPA didn't negotiate in good faith by dragging their feet through this entire process. It took them until June to even come to the table, and then 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to actually propose something of their own. So Fehr dragging his feet is the first thing I blame the NHLPA for.

Secondly, the NHLPA and NHL are both being greedy and not willing to compromise anything. In addition, there is no willingness to work together. If you read the deals, there is a deal to be made. Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes. So why aren't either side willing to budge? Even worse, why are both sides just playing the media? The NHL says that they are willing to meet, but that the NHLPA doesn't want to talk their language. The same goes for the NHLPA. Lastly, there are no hard negotiation sessions happening.

So its a little bit of everything. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides in these negotiations. I believe that both sides should come to the middle a little bit in order to make that happen. I also believe that both sides are in the wrong by involving the media more and getting both sides to the table and negotiating less.

If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.

Finally, I do have an issue with people taking sides on this issue. The NHL and NHLPA have both sinned in these negotiations. To claim that one side is more deserving than the other is a fallacy. Both sides together have failed the sport of hockey and the fans. Bettman is just as at fault for the lockout as Fehr. Its time to kick both these guys in the ass and out of their respective positions.

...

I was asking specifically about your objections to the players' proposals. I get the other stuff, even though I don't necessarily agree.

Though it's curious that the "dragging their feet" criticism is reserved solely for the PA. The league claims they were ready to start in January, but didn't make any proposals; didn't to anyone's knowledge try to schedule any meetings, or even express any particular concern over the timetable. It took them two weeks from the time of the first meeting to actually make an offer, and another two weeks after that to deliver the full details. It took them two weeks again to make a new proposal after the PA finally made their first. Neither side made a proposal for a month after the start of the lockout. Seems if you want to criticize for this, you'd criticize both sides.

Personally, I don't see the timeline as an issue at all. Nor pandering to the media (I don't really see any of that, to be honest), nor the lack or negotiating sessions. I see the cause-effect relationship the other way I guess. I believe the lack of negotiation is the result of the separation between the proposals, not the other way around. Likewise, I believe the time it has taken thus far is the result of the separation, rather than the continuing separation being due to the lack of time spent. The way I see it even if either side had waited until 11:59PM on 9/15, kicked down the other guy's door, spit in his eye, called his mother a *****, then laid a fair offer on the table...we should be watching hockey right now. I happen to think the PA offers have been fair.

As to the actual proposals, of course the PA could give up a little more, but should they? They have already made plenty of concessions. Their first offer was a concession. Their second offer went further, and the third set went further still. You can say the same for the owners, but you have to remember that their "compromises" are only relative to the arbitrary figure from their first proposal. Much easier to give up something you never had (and likely never had any expectation to get anywhere close to) than give up something you do. Also, there has been speculation that the 50/50 deal the owners offered was what they wanted all along, and the other offers were just to give the illusion of compromise without really compromising. You could speculate the same regarding the PA, but that seems far less plausible. In all their proposals, the first three years are very similar, with almost all the movement coming in the final two years. You might interpret that as stubbornness, but it seems more likely that they just started off as low as they think should be in those years. One might wonder where the negotiations would be now if the owners hadn't started off with such a hostile first offer.

Furthermore, the owners have yet to actually offer anything to the players, or even to maintain the status quo on anything. They are taking on every point. The only thing that sort of goes in the players' favor is the 2-year ELC, but that only affects a very small number of players, and has its own drawbacks as well. The players haven't asked to be given anything. They're offering to lower their share, and all they ask in return is to limit how much and what else is taken from them. Again, one might wonder where we'd be if the owners offered something other than imaginary concessions.

As to firing Fehr, I think you're doing him a disservice. When he came in the PA was in disarray. Many players were unhappy with how much the players gave up in 2004-05. They had one director spying on their emails, replaced him with a guy who many felt was too conciliatory toward the league, seemingly more interested in avoiding a work stoppage than acting in the players' best interests. A couple interim directors that no one seemed to have any faith in. No due diligence in auditing league HRR accounting. You may think a weak union or weak leadership is a positive, and maybe it would make a work stoppage less likely, but the players would never be happy with it. It's really best for all sides to have strong leadership on both sides, so long as they are reasonable. Both Fehr and Bettman are strong. How reasonable they are is up for debate. But looking at their records, it's clear that Fehr has the much better resume.

Bettman has now been party to three lockouts in three chances, resulting in two shortened seasons (presuming it's true we can no longer save a full season now) and one completely lost. His big victory last time really solved nothing, and we're locked out again. Fehr was party to a devastating strike, but his big victory in 94-95 helped broker a deal that left both sides healthy and happy enough that it hasn't been changed much in what has now been three straight CBA negotiations without a work stoppage. Baseball has flourished, and owners know they have to be accountable so spending on players is controlled without any need for a cap. Fehr helped accomplish that in an environment that was far more hostile, with a counterpart in Selig who was in part responsible for that hostility (Selig, as an owner, was one of those involved in the late-80's collusion). I think Fehr deserves a chance. Bettman has had his three strikes (or lockouts if you prefer), he should be out.

TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.

[number9 3,297]

giving the owners more money may actually expand hockey hypothetically (to phx and atl lol)....giving the players more money will make players richer

Edited October 30, 2012 by number9

[Guest Johnz96]

I was asking specifically about your objections to the players' proposals. I get the other stuff, even though I don't necessarily agree.

Though it's curious that the "dragging their feet" criticism is reserved solely for the PA. The league claims they were ready to start in January, but didn't make any proposals; didn't to anyone's knowledge try to schedule any meetings, or even express any particular concern over the timetable. It took them two weeks from the time of the first meeting to actually make an offer, and another two weeks after that to deliver the full details. It took them two weeks again to make a new proposal after the PA finally made their first. Neither side made a proposal for a month after the start of the lockout. Seems if you want to criticize for this, you'd criticize both sides.

Personally, I don't see the timeline as an issue at all. Nor pandering to the media (I don't really see any of that, to be honest), nor the lack or negotiating sessions. I see the cause-effect relationship the other way I guess. I believe the lack of negotiation is the result of the separation between the proposals, not the other way around. Likewise, I believe the time it has taken thus far is the result of the separation, rather than the continuing separation being due to the lack of time spent. The way I see it even if either side had waited until 11:59PM on 9/15, kicked down the other guy's door, spit in his eye, called his mother a *****, then laid a fair offer on the table...we should be watching hockey right now. I happen to think the PA offers have been fair.

As to the actual proposals, of course the PA could give up a little more, but should they? They have already made plenty of concessions. Their first offer was a concession. Their second offer went further, and the third set went further still. You can say the same for the owners, but you have to remember that their "compromises" are only relative to the arbitrary figure from their first proposal. Much easier to give up something you never had (and likely never had any expectation to get anywhere close to) than give up something you do. Also, there has been speculation that the 50/50 deal the owners offered was what they wanted all along, and the other offers were just to give the illusion of compromise without really compromising. You could speculate the same regarding the PA, but that seems far less plausible. In all their proposals, the first three years are very similar, with almost all the movement coming in the final two years. You might interpret that as stubbornness, but it seems more likely that they just started off as low as they think should be in those years. One might wonder where the negotiations would be now if the owners hadn't started off with such a hostile first offer.

Furthermore, the owners have yet to actually offer anything to the players, or even to maintain the status quo on anything. They are taking on every point. The only thing that sort of goes in the players' favor is the 2-year ELC, but that only affects a very small number of players, and has its own drawbacks as well. The players haven't asked to be given anything. They're offering to lower their share, and all they ask in return is to limit how much and what else is taken from them. Again, one might wonder where we'd be if the owners offered something other than imaginary concessions.

As to firing Fehr, I think you're doing him a disservice. When he came in the PA was in disarray. Many players were unhappy with how much the players gave up in 2004-05. They had one director spying on their emails, replaced him with a guy who many felt was too conciliatory toward the league, seemingly more interested in avoiding a work stoppage than acting in the players' best interests. A couple interim directors that no one seemed to have any faith in. No due diligence in auditing league HRR accounting. You may think a weak union or weak leadership is a positive, and maybe it would make a work stoppage less likely, but the players would never be happy with it. It's really best for all sides to have strong leadership on both sides, so long as they are reasonable. Both Fehr and Bettman are strong. How reasonable they are is up for debate. But looking at their records, it's clear that Fehr has the much better resume.

Bettman has now been party to three lockouts in three chances, resulting in two shortened seasons (presuming it's true we can no longer save a full season now) and one completely lost. His big victory last time really solved nothing, and we're locked out again. Fehr was party to a devastating strike, but his big victory in 94-95 helped broker a deal that left both sides healthy and happy enough that it hasn't been changed much in what has now been three straight CBA negotiations without a work stoppage. Baseball has flourished, and owners know they have to be accountable so spending on players is controlled without any need for a cap. Fehr helped accomplish that in an environment that was far more hostile, with a counterpart in Selig who was in part responsible for that hostility (Selig, as an owner, was one of those involved in the late-80's collusion). I think Fehr deserves a chance. Bettman has had his three strikes (or lockouts if you prefer), he should be out.

TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.

Anyone fighting Bettman is fighting for us. They/we can't just let him lock us out every time the CBA expires to get what he wants for the new one, in this case it is to cheat players out of money they have agreed to pay them and offered in the first place. I don't understand how anyone can possibly blame the NHLPA for any of this. They are already helping by agreeing to drop their percentage of revenues to 50/50, they just want what is contractually due to them

The players are doing their part

When he finally unlocks the doors let's do ours.

He gives us empty arenas

Let's give him empty arenas

No More Lockouts

No Bettman!

Edited October 30, 2012 by Johnz96

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From Ottawa Citizen:

The NHL Players' Association and the National Hockey League are scheduled to square off again in December at Quebec's labour relations board.

The Commission des relations du travail rejected a request in September from the NHLPA and 16 Montreal Canadiens players for a provisional order to prevent the league and the team from locking out the Habs.

But Judge Andree St-Georges also stated the parties would be called to a hearing on the merits of the question.

The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 6 and 7.

"The NHL tried to delay it into January and February and we tried to get earlier dates for our sort of obvious reasons," said Alexandra Dagg, the NHLPA's director of operations, who added the board sets the dates.

"At every opportunity we have continued to state that we are ready to meet and willing to discuss all open issues, including the owners' last offer," Fehr wrote.

"Nonetheless, to date, their group has declined to commit to a meeting unless it can dictate what the agenda is. We will update you further as soon as there is anything more to report. Regards, Don."

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

From Ottawa Citizen:

I really don't understand spending all this energy and resources on the Quebec labor relations angle, other than as an F-You to Bettman.

Even if they win, then what? The Canadiens are awarded the Stanley Cup because every other team has to forfeit?