• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Comments on the TSN Articles are crazy one sided I can't even read them.

Every party involved in this is being dumb, just get it done before Ice hockey drops below field hockey in ratings.

:nono:

Sort of like some of the comments on here by some. hahaha field hockey..oh man that would be awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96

The Comments on the TSN Articles are crazy one sided I can't even read them.

Every party involved in this is being dumb, just get it done before Ice hockey drops below field hockey in ratings.

:nono:

I'm pretty sure Bettman and/or the owners(7 of them?) hired a PR team to work the internet. On that nolockout youtube video, I have seen comments against Bettman or the owners with 20 likes and by the time I finished watching the video those comments would have no likes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RedWingsDad

link?

My brain, using the information I have observed up until this point to make a deduction - kind of like Sherlock Holmes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brain, using the information I have observed up until this point to make a deduction - kind of like Sherlock Holmes.

Well, Sherlock Holmes mostly used abductive reasoning. That might be your problem.

If anything, the articles from the Times and the Post quoted one page back make it sound like the NHL are the ones who won't concede on contract issues. I'm hoping they're not true.

If both sides get to 50/50 and can agree on make whole, the NHL needs to give up most of their ridiculous contract demands except for the one eliminating cap circumvention (the 5% restriction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RedWingsDad

I speculate that both the NHL and NHLPA had terms in mind right from the start that they would be willing to settle on, if forced. It would seem that the 50/50 revenue split was one area that both sides could settle for.... I wonder where that settle point is for the rest of the topics.

It would seem at this point that the NHLPA's mindset from the start was "If we concede the 50/50 revenue split, we will NOT move much at all on contract right's issues.".

Just mindless speculation because I’m bored...

Well, Sherlock Holmes mostly used abductive reasoning. That might be your problem.

If anything, the articles from the Times and the Post quoted one page back make it sound like the NHL are the ones who won't concede on contract issues. I'm hoping they're not true.

If both sides get to 50/50 and can agree on make whole, the NHL needs to give up most of their ridiculous contract demands except for the one eliminating cap circumvention.

I don't have a "problem", thanks. Back off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just mindless speculation because I’m bored...

Thats the problem. 75 pages and the lockout is still ongoing. I really can't wait until this is done so I can start engaging others on how Dats scored in the shootout and how Franzen is lazy and he sucks (well, I don't believe that, but I digress.....)

I am pretty jaded towards the whole lockout now. I was emotionally involved, but now I just don't care anymore if the NHL comes back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I speculate that both the NHL and NHLPA had terms in mind right from the start that they would be willing to settle on, if forced. It would seem that the 50/50 revenue split was one area that both sides could settle for.... I wonder where that settle point is for the rest of the topics.

It would seem at this point that the NHLPA's mindset from the start was "If we concede the 50/50 revenue split, we will NOT move much at all on contract right's issues.".

Just mindless speculation because I’m bored...

I just don't see why the NHL cares so strongly about most of these issues. The ones that prevent cap circumvention I totally understand. But why not settle on the others?

I don't have a "problem", thanks. Back off.

lighten up francis.

I was talking about the one sidedness in your reasoning. You made it sound like only the union had this all picked from the beginning. I'm sure both sides had some sense of what they might settle for, but that's pretty much par for the course in any negotiation.

Honestly with your second post on the issue we both basically feel the same way about them arriving at 50/50. I guess I just didn't get that from your first one.

Edited by haroldsnepsts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the PA is moving from 57 to 50 which is still a big paycut, the NHL has to give something too so how about leaving all other things alone and get a damn deal done?

The problem is not based on RS, CBA or salary floor the problem is simple that some teams don't have a funbase and shouldn't be forced to spend more than they can afford, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409406

"But look what happened, the players always get their money. They're always going to get paid, no matter what. Look at that last deal. We ended up with the cap and everyone thought it was a bad deal. But it ended up great, right? No matter what the system is, or has been, the players get their money. No matter what the contract, the owners always find a way to pay them more. That's why I say, get a deal and get back in there...the money's always there."

Recchi also expressed his shock regarding the news three years ago that the players fired then-executive director Paul Kelly.

"A dark time," Recchi told The Globe. "And it has been frustrating to see how it's played out, obviously. If Paul had stayed on the job, I don't think you would have seen this happen. The two sides would have started talking long before, maybe a year sooner (in 2011), and not with two or three months to go before (the CBA) expired. There would have been something in place, absolutely. And now here they are, trying to get to 50 per cent and also trying to make everyone whole. Well, you know, with the escrow we paid, I know I wasn't made whole over the last few years I played. That's just the way it was and we accepted it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just like the fact that some of the owners are coming out (anonymously of course), and saying that they are not all that concerned about contract issues, and just want a deal signed. I don't see why owners care so much much about the contract issues, if you want to sign a guy for only 5 years, then do that. Give a little bit and make it 8-10 year max signings with either 10% max variance, or 5 year with no variance. Not many teams would sign a guy for 10 million for 3 years then 2 million for 2 years... seems ridiculous what the owners are asking, if you ask me. :confused1: (we seriously need a banging head off a wall smiley, just sayin...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Axe

Why cant the nhl find harmony? Its stupid to lose seasons of hockey. This s*** pisses me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't even agree on whether to be optimistic or pessimistic.

Must... Not... Post... Silly-But-Relevant... Picture...

Dreger's Twitter:

From sickbay...players keep telling me they're optimistic a deal will get done, while owners tell me they have no confidence in that.

We've seen the reports of owners privately saying that they're closer to a deal than what's being presented to the public. And the reports of the players still being optimistic and putting together creative ideas. To me, it really sounds like the league needs to drop the Draconian contract restrictions, and a deal could be done within a few days.

That said, I'm still not holding my breath...

*edit* To clarify, some contract restrictions are needed, for sure. But not the "All-or-nothing" set that the league is demanding. Work with the PA, find something that works for both sides. It CAN be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Dreger's twitter:

People asking whether CBA talks are in a deep freeze. Well, NHL won't meet for sake of meeting. Need something from players.

This is ridiculous. Just keep getting in a room together! Stop putting requirements on even meeting. At the very least have S. Fehr and Daly meet and leave Don and Gary out of it. They can have their pissing contest somewhere else.

If they actually have nearly settled the 50/50 and the make whole provisions but now it's contract restrictions holding things up, then this lockout has gotten even stupider than I ever thought it could have.

The only thing the league really needs to fight for is the restrictions that eliminate back diving contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrison Mooney with Puck Daddy has an interesting article up about how Mitt Romney's campaign used the Bruin's stadium (TD Garden) for their election night HQ on a night that was supposed to be the B's home opener.

While the post is about 50/50 between lockout and politics, it provides a little bit of insight into Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs. Long story short, Jacobs knew that the space would be available, even before the games were officially cancelled, while the League's much-vaunted 50/50 deal was still on the table...

You see, Election Day in the U.S. was Nov. 6. Also scheduled for that date, for most of the calendar year: The Boston Bruins' home game against the Minnesota Wild that evening.

In fact, if the owners' Oct. 16 offer to end the NHL lockout and salvage an 82-game season had gone through, the game versus the Wild would have become the Bruins' home opener.

The Romney campaign told staff and volunteers they would be working from TD Garden on Election Day as early as Oct. 22, when the space was mentioned on a training call...

This is four days after the NHL rejected the NHLPA's trio of counter-offers, but also four days before the NHL closed the books on playing games on this date.

Even with an offer still on the table -- one that purported to be a sincere, last-ditch attempt to save the 82-game season -- Jeremy Jacobs was quite confident that the Bruins wouldn't be staging their home opener on Election Night.

Fair warning. Yes, I just linked to a page that has some political discussions. That said, I only did so because it directly involves Hockey/NHL/Lockout. Politics is still a NO-GO issue on LGW, so keep discussion hockey related only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really a moot point. Even if the '50/50' offer from the league was accepted by the players, the league had already stated that a full 82 game season was possible, starting on 11/1 I believe. Even if Jacobs wasn't close to negotiations, he could still rest assured that game would have been rescheduled. On the other hand, he shouldn't have had any indication a game wouldn't be rescheduled to that same date.

Edited by rrasco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.