• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

NHL officially announced the cancellation of all games through November 30th. A total of 326 games scrapped, which accounts for 26.5% of the season.

I think that brings the total to 2,024 regular season games lost under Bettman. He's increasing his record lead.

And while the owners outvoted Bettman and saved half the season and playoffs in '95, you can add the entire 2004 Stanley Cup playoffs to that total.

By comparison MLB is next closest with 948 games and the NBA has lost 704.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And while the owners outvoted Bettman and saved half the season and playoffs in '95, you can add the entire 2004 Stanley Cup playoffs to that total.

That's a minimum of 60 games, maximum of 105 games. So that's at least 2,084 games lost, probably closer to 2,100 games or more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dan boyle is not happy with either side

That the league didn’t even really consider what the NHLPA put on the table irked a number of players, including Boyle.

“Sleep on it, look it over, discuss among the other 29 owners and then come back with a no, if that’s the case,” Boyle said.

Somewhat surprisingly, Boyle didn’t absolve his own side from helping to contribute to the stalemate.

“It’s supposed to be a negotiation, and I think right now both sides feel like it’s their way or the highway. I think you’ve got to give to get, and I don’t know that we’re at that point yet,” he said.

http://www.csnbayare...01&feedID=10290

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people have made this unprovable claim, but really how could anyone possibly do worse? The NHL by far leads the 4 major pro sports in games lost and that's all occurred under Bettman's reign.

He's not just a patsy for the owners. He's supposed to be the steward of the league.

I'd like to think they could find someone who of course would still have the interests of the owners in mind, but be able to use other strategies in negotiations than just the lockout. Instead of seeing the realignment as an opportunity for the league to involve players and establish some good will headed into the CBA negotiations, Bettman used it as a show of force and PR stunt to try and make the union look bad. Then followed it up with a first proposal that was essentially "F You!"

I am not saying that a new guy would be worse. I am just saying that the new head of the NHL would be doing the same thing. The owners call the shots, and he does what the owners want him to do. You don't think that there are a bulk of NHL owners that are tired of losing money or giving all their revenue sharing to crappy teams? Bettman is just doing what the ownership wants him to do. As "steward of the league" do you expect him to tell the ownership that he isn't going to lock the players out because its bad for the league?

I think you are taking the whole "steward of the league" thing a little too far. Bettman is there to negotiate on behalf of the owners. In reality, the steward of the league would be a different person with no ties to management or the players when it comes to bargaining.

Whats best for the NHL right now is to fire both Bettman and Fehr and get two leaders in there that get along and can work towards a deal. The current leadership on both sides has been all about their constituents, and while that isn't bad, it is when it comes to neither willing to budge much on key issues. Two sides that can work together would have this fixed quickly.

NapoleonGary.jpg

The title of Uncle Gary's autobiography: 50 Shades of No Way.

donald_fehr_nhlpa.jpg

In the meantime, Fehr has a message for the fans.

Bettman has a napoleon complex. Or maybe a tiny penis.

At the very least he lacks any sort of diplomacy skills.

Funny, I could say the same about Don "no compromise" Fehr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying that a new guy would be worse. I am just saying that the new head of the NHL would be doing the same thing. The owners call the shots, and he does what the owners want him to do. You don't think that there are a bulk of NHL owners that are tired of losing money or giving all their revenue sharing to crappy teams? Bettman is just doing what the ownership wants him to do. As "steward of the league" do you expect him to tell the ownership that he isn't going to lock the players out because its bad for the league?

And I'm saying you have no idea what a new commissioner would do. But the reality is Bettman has caused record setting work stoppages of the 4 major sports. It would be awfully difficult for any new commissioner to beat or even match that kind of lost games.

Yes, I actually do expect him to tell ownership that if necessary. Because it reaches a point where it's bad for the owners as well. Several of these owners have proven themselves to be not so bright when it comes to hockey so part of Bettman's job is balancing the interests of 30 owners and also the interest of the league.

I think you are taking the whole "steward of the league" thing a little too far. Bettman is there to negotiate on behalf of the owners. In reality, the steward of the league would be a different person with no ties to management or the players when it comes to bargaining.

I'm not actually. It's just the part of his job that Bettman is terrible at.

According to the definition and duties of the Commissioner per the NHL constitution, negotiating on behalf of the owners is only a small portion of his job responsibilities. It's just when he's most noticeable because he always causes a loss in hockey games.

According to the NHL Constitution, Article VI, section 6.1:

6.1 Office of Commissioner, Election and Term of Office
The League shall employ a Commissioner selected by the Board of Governors. The Commissioner shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the League and
is charged with protecting the integrity of the game of professional hockey and preserving public confidence in the League.
The Board of Governors shall determine the term of office and compensation of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall be elected a majority of the Governors present and voting at a League meeting at which a quorum was present when it was convened.“
[1]

In Section 6.3, his duties are spelled out as having "responsibility for the general supervision and direction of all business and affairs of the League", co-ordinates matters between member clubs and serves as the principal public spokesman for the League. The Commissioner also has authority over dispute resolution, League committees, interpretation of League rules, appointment of League staff, NHL financial matters, contracting authority, scheduling, officials and disciplinary powers.[2] The Commissioner also determines the date and places of Board of Governor meetings.

Whats best for the NHL right now is to fire both Bettman and Fehr and get two leaders in there that get along and can work towards a deal. The current leadership on both sides has been all about their constituents, and while that isn't bad, it is when it comes to neither willing to budge much on key issues. Two sides that can work together would have this fixed quickly.

Funny, I could say the same about Don "no compromise" Fehr.

How do you compromise when the other side won't even meet with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that brings the total to 2,024 regular season games lost under Bettman. He's increasing his record lead.

And while the owners outvoted Bettman and saved half the season and playoffs in '95, you can add the entire 2004 Stanley Cup playoffs to that total.

By comparison MLB is next closest with 948 games and the NBA has lost 704.

That should secure a lock for 1st ballot HHOF, right? Maybe if he has one more lockout he could get his own wing. At least his name on a trophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm saying you have no idea what a new commissioner would do. But the reality is Bettman has caused record setting work stoppages of the 4 major sports. It would be awfully difficult for any new commissioner to beat or even match that kind of lost games.

Same way how I say you have no idea how if the NHLPA and the NHL started bargaining in January, that they may have come to a deal with the extra time they had. You say there is no way it would have happened. I say its possible given the extra time. In this case, you choose to believe a new NHL commissioner would be more accomodating. I say not so fast, and that a new commissioner would probably lock out the players being as that the owners are only making 43%. So who is right in this case? Without anything to base it on except our gut, neither of us are right.

Yes, I actually do expect him to tell ownership that if necessary. Because it reaches a point where it's bad for the owners as well. Several of these owners have proven themselves to be not so bright when it comes to hockey so part of Bettman's job is balancing the interests of 30 owners and also the interest of the league.

The ownership obviously believes that they can get a better deal. Its not like Bettman is doing his own thing here.

How do you compromise when the other side won't even meet with you?

Thats funny, when the NHL put forward the proposal before the big 50/50 proposal, they were waiting for the NHLPA to come to the table and put forward a proposal, yet the NHLPA wouldn't do it. With Fehr saying this wasn't a game of "ping-pong" and he wasn't going to negotiate. No words for Fehr when he pulls that kind of buffoonery, but you have plenty for Bettman when he pulls the same stunt? I certainly don't excuse either side for their part in this charade, and neither should you. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same way how I say you have no idea how if the NHLPA and the NHL started bargaining in January, that they may have come to a deal with the extra time they had. You say there is no way it would have happened. I say its possible given the extra time. In this case, you choose to believe a new NHL commissioner would be more accomodating. I say not so fast, and that a new commissioner would probably lock out the players being as that the owners are only making 43%. So who is right in this case? Without anything to base it on except our gut, neither of us are right.

The ownership obviously believes that they can get a better deal. Its not like Bettman is doing his own thing here.

Thats funny, when the NHL put forward the proposal before the big 50/50 proposal, they were waiting for the NHLPA to come to the table and put forward a proposal, yet the NHLPA wouldn't do it. With Fehr saying this wasn't a game of "ping-pong" and he wasn't going to negotiate. No words for Fehr when he pulls that kind of buffoonery, but you have plenty for Bettman when he pulls the same stunt? I certainly don't excuse either side for their part in this charade, and neither should you. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you have a link to Fehr saying he wouldn't negotiate?

Because I remember Fehr saying the taking turns thing but that's not the same as refusing to negotiate.

Fehr ultimately paid the price for not putting forth the proposal because it allowed Bettman to pull the big PR stunt with the 50/50 offer that would save the season, even though that ultimately turned out not to be what it actually was.

And we've played this game before, remember? It's not my fault you apparently can't comprehend or remember any of the posts where I've been critical of the union.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found the actual context of Fehr's statement.

Although the two sides are scheduled to reconvene Saturday and Sunday, those financial issues are not expected to be addressed.

According to NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, the league is waiting for the union to make a move before that discussion resumes.

NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr pointed out, however, that bargaining does not have to follow any strict format and that the union is open to discussing such issues at any time.

"Bargaining is not ping-pong. There are no rules," Fehr said. "Whenever the parties are ready to discuss that, we can do it."

http://espn.go.com/b...e-progress-made

More context:

"I understand Steve's comment about it not being a ping-pong match and I don't disagree with that necessarily," Daly later said, "but at some point we've got to see a willingness from the Players' Association to compromise because they haven't shown any willingness to compromise at this point."

Steve Fehr said the Union is constantly working on ideas that could turn into proposals, but his hope is that the NHL is doing the same thing.

"It's clear that they say they would like a new proposal from us. For that matter we would like a new proposal from them," Fehr said. "Neither side should stand on ceremony. If either side has an idea that will help they should bring it forward."

Fehr also suggested that the major economic issues can be discussed without proposals being made.

"You don't have to have an offer to have a meeting," Fehr said. "Most of the last few weeks, unless it was on their terms -- that is, unless we have a proposal -- they don't seem very interested in discussing the core economics."

http://flyers.nhl.co...s.htm?id=643286

So it's pretty much what's going on right now between the sides. The NHL refused to meet with the players unless they had a proposal that was based closely off the NHL's last proposal because they feel the players need to concede more.

In other words, Fehr's ping pong comment was pretty much the opposite of how you characterized it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, Fehr's ping pong comment was pretty much the opposite of how you characterized it.

NHL willing to negotiate while Fehr says it isn't ping-pong and doesn't negotiate until the false 50/50 proposal. I suppose it could be defined as "the exact opposite" if you support the union. Here is a hint....let Fehr's actions speak for him. Did the NHL say they wanted to negotiate? Yes. Did Fehr step forward and negotiate a new agreement? No he did not. Why? Because he said that the NHL was only interested if it was on their terms. The league said they were ready, and Fehr said, "Well if its on their terms, we aren't discussing." Every part you bolded does not show that he negotiated at all unless it was on his terms. This is just the kind of behavior we need to get out of these negotiations. The whole, "My way or the highway" mentality, and both sides are playing that card right now and it just frustrates me. Fehr plays the card of the wounded child very well for the press. Where are the 8-10 hour negotiations between these two sides? Why must we talk about the other sides proposals? Why not negotiate?

In this case, the NHL SAID that they wanted they wanted it on their terms, which I think is the dumbest thing.

Yes, we have been through this before, and your posts speak for themselves. I post some satire on Fehr, and you get all upset about it. Someone else posts some satire on Bettman, and you are all supportive. I have no problems with you or anyone else supporting Fehr and the NHLPA through this entire ordeal. What I do have an issue with is the criticism towards the league while ignoring the failures of the NHLPA through this mess.

You are right, maybe it is best that we don't reply to each other's posts. I really can't wait until this whole ordeal is over with. Then we can go back to giving each other thumbs up while talking about something that we are both passionate about.....Red Wing Hockey.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats funny, when the NHL put forward the proposal before the big 50/50 proposal, they were waiting for the NHLPA to come to the table and put forward a proposal, yet the NHLPA wouldn't do it.

Instead, the League was "bombarded" with three proposals. How did that turn out? in what might be considered record time, Uncle Gary did his best Amy Winehouse impersonation: no, no, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL willing to negotiate while Fehr says it isn't ping-pong and doesn't negotiate until the false 50/50 proposal.

False. The NHL was only willing to negotiate if the union presented a proposal that made what they felt were meaningful concessions.

As clearly shown from the quotes in my last post, Fehr was willing to meet to talk over the issues at any time. The reason Fehr didn't negotiate was because the league wouldn't discuss core economic issues without a proposal from the union. That's why they spent those meetings discuss secondary issues, which is absurd.

Later when the union finally came forward with three proposals that they felt made meaningful concessions, which is what the league had been asking for, Bettman rejected them in less than 15 minutes.

I suppose it could be defined as "the exact opposite" if you support the union. Here is a hint....let Fehr's actions speak for him. Did the NHL say they wanted to negotiate? Yes.

False. They said they wanted a proposal from the union where the union made significant concessions and would not meet to discuss core economic issues until that happened. That's not saying you want to negotiate.

Did Fehr step forward and negotiate a new agreement? No he did not.

Technically true, but that's because the league wouldn't meet to negotiate with him unless their conditions were met. Fehr made clear he was willing to meet anytime to negotiate. You're using presenting a proposal and negotiating interchangeably when they are not.

As I mentioned, when Fehr did step forward with three proposals to negotiate. The league rejected them in 15 minutes.

Why? Because he said that the NHL was only interested if it was on their terms. The league said they were ready, and Fehr said, "Well if its on their terms, we aren't discussing."

False. Refer to my responses above regarding Fehr's statements and the league's position.

Unless you have some substantiated quote for Fehr you could provide? You put statements of his in quotes as if he actually said that but until you provide proof I have to assume this is just something you've made up.

Every part you bolded does not show that he negotiated at all unless it was on his terms. This is just the kind of behavior we need to get out of these negotiations. The whole, "My way or the highway" mentality, and both sides are playing that card right now and it just frustrates me. Fehr plays the card of the wounded child very well for the press. Where are the 8-10 hour negotiations between these two sides? Why must we talk about the other sides proposals? Why not negotiate?

This is by far the funniest part of your post, as it's exactly what Fehr was getting at. He wanted to meet to negotiate even if they didn't have all the details worked out. That's the parts about not standing on ceremony. If anyone has ideas they should bring it forward. The NHL refused to do that without a proposal.

Not to say Fehr's not playing games, but he's at least trying to get in the room to talk. The league is putting conditions before they even show up, then walking out in minutes.

In this case, the NHL SAID that they wanted they wanted it on their terms, which I think is the dumbest thing.

Finally, you actually stated something that was true.

The NHL currently is putting requirements on the union before they'll even sit down to talk about the CBA. Then when the union did meet those requirements, they were rejected in minutes and Bettman and company walked out of the room and left town.

That's a terrible way to negotiate if you actually want to reach a compromise.

Yes, we have been through this before, and your posts speak for themselves. I post some satire on Fehr, and you get all upset about it. Someone else posts some satire on Bettman, and you are all supportive. I have no problems with you or anyone else supporting Fehr and the NHLPA through this entire ordeal. What I do have an issue with is the criticism towards the league while ignoring the failures of the NHLPA through this mess.

You are right, maybe it is best that we don't reply to each other's posts. I really can't wait until this whole ordeal is over with. Then we can go back to giving each other thumbs up while talking about something that we are both passionate about.....Red Wing Hockey.

Nothing would make me happier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False. The NHL was only willing to negotiate if the union presented a proposal that made what they felt were meaningful concessions.

As clearly shown from the quotes in my last post, Fehr was willing to meet to talk over the issues at any time. The reason Fehr didn't negotiate was because the league wouldn't discuss core economic issues without a proposal from the union. That's why they spent those meetings discuss secondary issues, which is absurd.

Later when the union finally came forward with three proposals that they felt made meaningful concessions, which is what the league had been asking for, Bettman rejected them in less than 15 minutes.

False. They said they wanted a proposal from the union where the union made significant concessions and would not meet to discuss core economic issues until that happened. That's not saying you want to negotiate.

I think the disconnect we have here is that you are thinking too much into the word "proposal". Anyone eager to negotiate would bring a proposal with them. Not sit on their ass and say, "Well, I am not interested in proposing anything new or different." I do get what you are saying. You are taking the literal term and trying to defend Fehr to the best of your ability. I just don't understand that mindset.

You are correct about something. Bettman is not taking the time to evaluate Fehr's proposals in a timely fashion. At least Fehr is taking the time to examine and come up with some good ideas. Either that, or he is stalling, like he did when it took him three weeks to make his first proposal after the NHL lowballed the NHLPA with the first offer. Taking 3 weeks, after he took 5 months to even come to the table? What an asshat. If he actually showed any kind of sense of urgency, someone would have to stick a firecracker up his ass and light the fuse. Still, I have to give Fehr credit for not turning down the NHL right away. He is either playing a PR card with that (possible), or he is just delaying (probable).

In short, its very evident that Bettman and Fehr have no interest in taking what the other suggest. Which is why I mentioned the 8-10 hour marathon negotiation sessions. I do not believe either side is interested in those kind of negotiation sessions. I would like to see why you believe that Fehr is interested in this while Bettman is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, its very evident that Bettman and Fehr have no interest in taking what the other suggest. Which is why I mentioned the 8-10 hour marathon negotiation sessions. I do not believe either side is interested in those kind of negotiation sessions. I would like to see why you believe that Fehr is interested in this while Bettman is not.

What is the obsession with the long negotiation sessions? What is the rationale here? They will get so bored/hungry/thirsty (or affected by any number of other pressing concerns) that they will sign a deal just to get out. There seem to be an assumption that just a few more hours at the table would produce movement toward an agreement. I just do not see why that would be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the obsession with the long negotiation sessions? What is the rationale here? They will get so bored/hungry/thirsty (or affected by any number of other pressing concerns) that they will sign a deal just to get out. There seem to be an assumption that just a few more hours at the table would produce movement toward an agreement. I just do not see why that would be the case.

I would just like to see some kind of a sense of urgency and a willing to get to work. So far, I haven't seen that out of either side. You are right, a long negotiation session is hard. At the same time, these 1-2 hour at a time sessions with nothing getting done is frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if one side is only taking 10 freaking minutes to look at a proposal there is no point in meetings at all.

Either have a meaingful discussion or if not cancel the meetings.

I hope Fehr finally puts the free market option on the table the midget deserves nothing but hate, he has costed this game too much.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who took (or is going to take) the last offer off the table?

Don't tell me "Well, that offer was based on an eighty-two game schedule and that's why it's being pulled". That's a crock.

And, as far as losing the Winter Classic and the All-Star game: they'll be back and the League won't lose any of that revenue. Whether the fans will come rushing back, it's the choice of that individual.

The players were screwed in the last contract and Uncle Gary wants to do it again.

Share this post


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