• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So you mean the PA could be partially to blame?

The PA is to blame for not coming to the table early and starting the process of negotiating in January. That is a fact.

Would that have avoided a lockout? Who knows.

Point is that lack of urgency on one sides part, the side that benefits the most from the current deal, doesn't excuse them from not negotiating preemptively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PA is to blame for not coming to the table early and starting the process of negotiating in January. That is a fact.

Uncle Gary said, in January:

"Don Fehr obviously being somewhat new to the job is going through a bit of a learning curve and wants to make sure he understands what his constituents want. And so, we're patient. I'm not concerned about the time frame."

Another very good summary of possible ramifications caused by the lockout in today's Toronto Star:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the PA's seeming lack of urgency (according to the League): The PA did not know that the League would summarily dismiss the option of playing under the old CBA for another year before the talks had begun in earnest.

If I'm at work and they say, "We need to start working on these. We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest, but we want them done as soon as possible." I'm going to assume that you're not going to tell me that you're removing an entire year from the ship date and blame me for not having them ready.

Based on Fehr's past, there would be no benefit to playing under the current CBA. All that would happen would be the PA would stall and fight until the playoffs/Finals, and then go on strike. It happened in MLB with Fehr at the helm, and there is no reason to suspect Fehr wouldn't pull the same crap here.

Uncle Gary said, in January:

Another very good summary of possible ramifications caused by the lockout in today's Toronto Star:

So, he's trying to be understanding of the PA side, and not make a big deal out of it, instead of saying "Look, we need to sit down and get this done, and Fehr is stalling." What a jerk.

There were 6 months at that time. I'm sure he figured Fehr would be ready in Feb, March, April..sometime around there. Plenty of time to sit down and start talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you finally came out and said that it was a mistake for the union to not start negotiating last season. I know that was a hard step for you to take, and the very first constructive comment I have heard you take against the players association.

I've already said several times I'm through having this conversation with you.

All you need to do is go back through this thread to see how the conversation derails time and time again as it comes to its inevitable end. If you need more evidence of what a pointless feedback loop this discussion is, revisit this post from the previous lockout thread (copied below) where you made the same accusation against me and then apologized when shown you were wrong.

If you continue baiting me with sarcastic comments like the one above, however, it will end with you getting a vacation.

http://www.letsgowin...80#entry2326246

You will have to excuse me, but that is the first time I have heard you levy any kind of criticism against the NHLPA in this thread. I will go back and re-read 19 pages of posts tomorrow just to make sure, and if I am wrong, I will post back here. So far, that is the impression I got from what you have said. I apologize if I got the wrong impression.

As for who the current CBA favors, you are correct. It favors the players and rich franchises. I may even go as far as profitable franchises. Yet, 19 franchises are not even breaking even.

You and I think a lot alike on this issue. Lets hope that there is no lockout or strike and they find a way to make a deal happen in time. I just don't think either side is up for giving up much but they both want everything. That is a bad combination.

I'll make it easy for you. Here's a few excerpts from just the last few pages of the thread.

You even quoted this post:

Fehr is apparently traveling to several cities to meet with players and suggested that the union and league could meet without the two heads being there, but the reality is there's no way they'd be able to hammer out a deal without the him and Bettman in the room.

It's another game of chicken and it's the fans who lose.

Yeah, Fehr is apparently meeting with his constituents, but I'm not sure about what exactly. The most important thing that should be happening is him and Bettman and their crews in a room working on the deal. Instead it seems like a stall tactic on both their parts.
I don't know that the players didn't cover all aspects. I don't agree with it but it sounds like they don't want contract length limited. So there's not going to be a provision offering that.
Well that's very good news that the players are willing to take reduced revenues and not trying to get rid of the hard cap.

Even if it's the only change to contract rules though, they absolutely need to put some limit on length.

Your post right below it:

I'll make it easy for you. Here's a few excerpts from just the last few pages of the thread.

You even quoted this post:

[/size][/font][/color]

As promised, I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PA is to blame for not coming to the table early and starting the process of negotiating in January. That is a fact.

Would that have avoided a lockout? Who knows.

Point is that lack of urgency on one sides part, the side that benefits the most from the current deal, doesn't excuse them from not negotiating preemptively.

As has been stated, it is much more difficult for the players to negotiate during the season, when they are trying to focus on doing their jobs.

Also, let's not act like there was any urgency from the owners. Did they submit an offer? Did they try to schedule any meetings? It's not like the PA offices are located in some secret lair. Had they actually been urgent, they would have at least sent an offer. Neither side was worried about the timetable. That is a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 6 months to negotiate instead of 6 weeks, a lockout could have been avoided. Just because they are at an impasse now doesn't mean with more time they wouldn't have been able to come up with a solution. We don't know for sure either way, but I will take more time than less that's for sure.

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.

Totally agree....if they started negotiating in January, we'd be in the same spot now. The reference to January and the league being ready to talk and perhaps things would have been different is total...you know what! With two sides seemingly stubborn to move at all off of their positions, there is no way either side would have before a deadline is reached, why would they? It makes zero sense.

I know there are a lot of people out there that says, who knows what could have happened if they had have starting negotitating earlier, maybe they could be playing now, etc. Well, I for one have no problem saying that if they starting talking in January, there is a zero % chance they'd be playing now, not 0.001%, zero!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today. Its easy to dismiss this claim as a mere formality, but the simple fact of the matter is that with more time, this lockout could have been avoided. We don't know for sure one way or the other, but I would have loved to have seen an NHL and an NHLPA that were willing to work hard to avoid a lockout. The sooner that they met, the better off they would have been and the happier the fans would have been in the end. They would have seen two sides that genuinely cared about hockey. As it turned out, we all saw two sides that were monumentally greedy. The league gave a crap lowball offer while the union sat until the last minute and played the PR game which didn't result in a deal being made.

We have no way of knowing who would have won the 2007 Stanley Cup if Schneider and Kronwall had been healthy, but it definitely would have been Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already said several times I'm through having this conversation with you.

All you need to do is go back through this thread to see how the conversation derails time and time again as it comes to its inevitable end. If you need more evidence of what a pointless feedback loop this discussion is, revisit this post from the previous lockout thread (copied below) where you made the same accusation against me and then apologized when shown you were wrong.

The ones previously were small in comparison to the one you just levied, but I digress. I was more relating to this thread in specific.

I apologize and will try to limit my comments to your posts.

We have no way of knowing who would have won the 2007 Stanley Cup if Schneider and Kronwall had been healthy, but it definitely could have been Detroit.

I fixed it for you.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.

As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.

@freepwings: Red Wings' Henrik Zetterberg says NHL wants players to 'give everything' http://t.co/NgK3rtgc

I'm bored at work and living on twitter right now, sorry.

Hrm, NHL says the union doesn't want to budge while the NHLPA says the owners want to much. Both sides are way too greedy. Fire both Fehr and Bettman, and get some people in place that are willing to negotiate. Its that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RedWingsDad

Regarding the PA's seeming lack of urgency (according to the League): The PA did not know that the League would summarily dismiss the option of playing under the old CBA for another year before the talks had begun in earnest.

If I'm at work and they say, "We need to start working on these. We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest, but we want them done as soon as possible." I'm going to assume that you're not going to tell me that you're removing an entire year from the ship date and blame me for not having them ready.

Eh, stretching a bit? A responsible party would assume that when the CBA expired there would be no hockey. Also, using your analogy, "We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest"... please show me where the league said that they would play for a year without a CBA. If you cannot, then your analogy falls flat on it's face... if you can, I will give you props.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.

As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.

...

Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap.

The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset.

If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap.

The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset.

If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.

I don't think its unreasonable to look for a 52-48 split in favor of the players. There is common ground here that can be achieved if the players come down a bit and the owners come up a bit. Then there are other things that can be given to the players, such as earlier unrestricted free agency. I do get what you are saying, but if you look at the ownership side as well, I understand why they are hesitant to agree to more revenue sharing. Personally, I think that revenue sharing is where it is at. That benefits everyone equally. If the NHL does really well, then the players should be well compensated for a job well done.

I believe what we need are two leaders that are less hard line about what they want. We need more unity and a willingness to compromise and work together. So far, I haven't seen that from Bettman or Fehr.

Eh, stretching a bit? A responsible party would assume that when the CBA expired there would be no hockey. Also, using your analogy, "We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest"... please show me where the league said that they would play for a year without a CBA. If you cannot, then your analogy falls flat on it's face... if you can, I will give you props.

The players wanted to play for a year under the current CBA because it benefitted them the most to do so. The league had more to lose apparently and locked out the players. I question this move, but it was readily apparent that the players wanted to keep things the same or not come to the bargaining table unless they were forced to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, stretching a bit? A responsible party would assume that when the CBA expired there would be no hockey. Also, using your analogy, "We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest"... please show me where the league said that they would play for a year without a CBA. If you cannot, then your analogy falls flat on it's face... if you can, I will give you props.

I'm afraid that was an assumption on my part. We fans were taken aback when Bettman announced that the league would not exercise the option written into the previous CBA to extend it a year whilst negotiating if needed. I don't recall hearing whether or not the PA was surprised by it.

I guess that knowing Bettman, they should have been expecting it, and probably were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.

Hrm, NHL says the union doesn't want to budge while the NHLPA says the owners want to much. Both sides are way too greedy. Fire both Fehr and Bettman, and get some people in place that are willing to negotiate. Its that simple.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.

This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.

The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN:

With no end in sight to the NHL lockout, the league is doing all it can to ease the concerns of its sponsors.

A small group of key clients gathered Wednesday afternoon in Toronto for an audience with chief operating officer John Collins, who provided an update on labour negotiations and took questions from participants.

A source indicated that representatives from Molson, Canadian Tire, Sport Chek, Kraft, Sirius XM and Scotiabank participated in the meeting. One attendee called the session "productive" and applauded Collins for taking part.

"They were very transparent with us," said the source, who requested anonymity. "I was looking around the room and the long-term, cumulative contract dollars around the table were probably at the $100-million mark. It's a significant chunk of change for the league."

The sponsors are an important group for the NHL to interact with during the labour dispute. Commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly have held a series of conference calls with business partners in recent months in an effort to keep everyone informed.

Lots of deals being brokered at that meeting. Is this the "100 million dollars in lost revenue" the League's been talking about?

Recent months? Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.

This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.

The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.

They can't just let Bettman lock them (and us) out every time the CBA expires to get what he wants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure they can. The owners can lock out the players any time they want. That's what it means to be an owner.

Is it a good tactic, no, but they can absolutely call a lockout whenever they see fit, and nothing is going to take that power away from them.

As soon as enough Dan Cleary and Cal Clutterbuck types that don't have the option of signing a lucrative deal in Europe start missing paychecks, you're going to start seeing cracks on the NHLPA side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.

This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.

The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.

I believe its less about pride and self respect. If there was pride and self respect on the line, the players association would have been negotiating in January. If pride and self respect were on the line, then the players association wouldn't be playing the PR role to a T. Lets face facts here, Don Fehr dragged his feet to the start of negotiations, then he drug his feet before he put forward his initial proposal. Fehr wants there to be revenue sharing, and I can understand why the owners don't want the deal based on what revenues could be. Now, the NHL has given the players a new proposal, and Don Fehr won't "play ping pong" and doesn't believe he needs to give the next proposal.

Lets face facts here, the owners are asking for too much. By locking the players out, they are damaging the game of hockey and future revenues. At the same time, and others have said, they feel they have no choice.

I know I have said it before, but I will say it again....

Both sides are in the wrong here. This should have never resulted in a lockout. All the owners have to do is come up a little from their demands, and all the players have to do is come down a little from their demands. As many have said here, its a game of chicken. Who will blink first?

I am not waiting around for either side to blink. Both sides can go jump off a cliff.

Share this post


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