• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

2,459 posts in this topic

I've been fairly polite up until now, but keep up with your condescending insults and you will be getting locked out from this forum.

You were the one insistent on replying to my posts even after I made clear it was pointless for us to discuss this, so it would be great if you backed out of this discussion.

One thing is for certain, its pointless for either of us to reply to each others posts. We definitely see this situation in two different lights. Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Euro_Twins' timestamp='1351711486' post='2333129']

I am not trying to stir up a fight here, but I had to make a point on this last statement you made. Obviously the owners locked out the players, and refused to let them play under the old CBA. That being said, yes the NHL and the PA are both at fault here to varying extents. I believe the owners and Bettman are more at fault, which is partially why I take the players side, lets look at the facts;

- Bettman and the owners have been negotiating in bad faith since day 1 (look at the first proposal they made), and they refuse to negotiate unless it is under preconditioned terms.

- Fehr and the players have consistently put out proposals with different methods of how to get their revenue share to what the league is asking, and they got shot down without any consideration for what they are proposing.

- Bettman and Fehr are both trying to win a PR battle, difference is Bettman is making proposals that look good to fans, so they will back him, but when they players read through it, they realize he never had any intention of doing anything the players asked.

- The players are willing to go down to 50/50, it will take about 2 seasons to get there, but they will get there, all they ask is current contracts thatthe OWNERS willingly signed before the lockout be honored (not a lot to ask, considering they were given a contract right before the lockout stating they would be payed X amount) but the owners are refusing that now.

I am on the players side, but nothing I mentioned was based on opinion, or bias. Everything I wrote is factual, and if you really want I can post links to back up everything I have written.[/u]

Where is the fan outrage at owners not wanting to honor already signed contracts? When a player does this in any league he becomes the devil incarnate. I despise the tactic used by the owners during the days leading up to the expiration of the prior CBA. They outragously outbid eachother to overpay the few top end FA's fully knowing their future intentions of reniging with new CBA negotiations. That's dirty. I side on the side of the players because of this. I'm not a basketball fan at all but maybe this is the season that draws my interest. Sad.

Can somebody please tell me why everything above is underlined? What button did I push to make it stop?

Edited by haroldsnepsts
removed underline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to stir up a fight here, but I had to make a point on this last statement you made. Obviously the owners locked out the players, and refused to let them play under the old CBA. That being said, yes the NHL and the PA are both at fault here to varying extents. I believe the owners and Bettman are more at fault, which is partially why I take the players side, lets look at the facts;

- Bettman and the owners have been negotiating in bad faith since day 1 (look at the first proposal they made), and they refuse to negotiate unless it is under preconditioned terms.

- Fehr and the players have consistently put out proposals with different methods of how to get their revenue share to what the league is asking, and they got shot down without any consideration for what they are proposing.

- Bettman and Fehr are both trying to win a PR battle, difference is Bettman is making proposals that look good to fans, so they will back him, but when they players read through it, they realize he never had any intention of doing anything the players asked.

- The players are willing to go down to 50/50, it will take about 2 seasons to get there, but they will get there, all they ask is current contracts thatthe OWNERS willingly signed before the lockout be honored (not a lot to ask, considering they were given a contract right before the lockout stating they would be payed X amount) but the owners are refusing that now.

I am on the players side, but nothing I mentioned was based on opinion, or bias. Everything I wrote is factual, and if you really want I can post links to back up everything I have written.

I will say this, you have hit the nail on the head with every one of your complaints. At the same time though, as you mentioned, the NHLPA has fault in this which you didn't mention at all.

The NHLPA has not been negotiating in good faith either. Their delays with their first proposal (3 weeks) and waiting until the last minute to come to the table after the league said it was ready to start negotiating in January. I have called out the NHL proposal already numerous times. No sense of urgency and dragging things out is not negotiating in good faith.

Fehr has been looking at "alternate methods" and I applaud him for doing so. At the same time, if one side is speaking English and the other side comes to the table with an agreement set in Spanish, is that necessarily right? I do get what you are saying. The NHL should be looking at these proposals and be more willing to consider them. What I fault Fehr and the players with is not speaking the same language when they come to the bargaining table. This is where the disconnect lies right here. You would think by now both sides would be speaking the same language and they are not.

Bettman's proposals are definitely not what they are being advertised to be. The NHLPA is also guilty of this as well. For instance, in the NHLPA 3rd proposal, the numbers never get to the 50/50 split that the NHLPA makes it out to be.

http://espn.go.com/b...tter-to-players

None of the players proposals actually make it down to 50/50 in year 2 or 3.

So before you talk about misrepresentation, lies, not bargaining in good faith, look on both sides of the ledger. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Oh, and I am not surprised that our resident mod "liked" your post. It offered nothing in terms of pointing out these failings of the NHLPA and everything involving the sins of the NHL.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, salaries have increased only about 56%, not double. And it's only about 28% since before the lockout.

Secondly, 1-2% is not return on investment. It would only be ROI in a theoretical situation of someone purchasing a team today, keeping it for one season, then selling it at the same price. If you want to calculate the actual ROI, you have to use the amount of money that was actually invested, and factor in asset appreciation as well. That number looks to be more like 6%, though we don't have all the numbers to know for sure.

True, it is not double, but you also cannot count before the lockout either. Clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on salaries and changes had to be made for the long term survival of the league. Remember, this was needed at the time.

Player salaries average after the lockout year concessions were 1.4 million. In 2011 they were 2.45 million. I would guess they have gone up in the year after that, but thats 75% higher and we still have another year to tack on which we don't know the numbers for.

As for the ROI, you are correct. I am just calculating how much they are making in terms of the asset they own. By the way, making $5 million off a $240 million dollar asset is only 2% of the asset in terms of the profit. If the owner instead took $240 million and put it in an interest baring checking account, he would make 3% on his investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but I think what makes this worse to the players is when a team like Minnesota gets into a bidding war and shells out two 13-year $100 million contracts, then three months later the owner is sitting across from them saying franchises aren't making a profit because player's salaries are too high.

i agree. what leipold did puts a really big stain on the owners image. can't believe that he is on the negotating committee.

but my impressions from reading some of these quotes by players is that they act like they have always gotten every penny of their contracts in the past cba, which isn't true. i think it just shows how misinformed some of these players are.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

friedman speculates on who the hardliners are

The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.

While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down).

also another couple interesting tidbits from the article

Thought for sure Minnesota would be in the hardline group with Wild owner Craig Leipold on the negotiating committee. But a few sources said they think he wants to play, eventually. Too much momentum to lose
Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts on a conference call last week, courtesy Adweek: "I can tell you we're pretty disappointed with regard to the lockout. I don't think we should say a heck of a lot more. I think that we're just hopeful that the ownership and the players can get together and get on with the season." Comcast owns NBC and the Philadelphia Flyers.
Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is even more questionable why Bettman changed the rules to only need 8 owners to back him in order to initiate a lockout. It should be a majority, not a minority. The hardliners are doing their part to destroy the popularity of NHL hockey, which is bad for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note to those of you who I have been interacting with....

First off, I would like to apologize for my crappy behavior. I have sent out a few parting shots at people, and this isn't the way to act on a public forum. As many of you know, I feel strongly about this situation in blaming both sides for their conduct. I also understand that I am in a forum of people who, as a majority, like the NHLPA and what they stand for. While I don't agree with everything everyone says here, there are some good points being made for the NHLPA that I acknowledge. There are also some things which I believe to be incorrect that I have tried to correct people on, but not the right way to do so. Some of the parting shots I have thrown people have not been right and I wouldn't like it if I was put in your shoes.

To put it simply, I am going to be tossing in discussion points, but I won't be engaging people in active discussion like I have been. I really have been almost emotionally involved in this discussion because of just how upset I am with the NHL and NHLPA with this whole mess. This lockout has consumed me to a certain point, and that is bad for my health. I have spent time on social networking publicly speaking about the faults of both of these sides and how upset I am with them. This is not the kind of person I am to be honest. This coming from someone who is positive, energetic, a leader, respectable, and most importantly, a real hockey fan.

To those of you who I have upset, I apologize.

To those of you who are typing up responses to things I have posted here, don't anticipate a reply.

I will still be active, but I am really going to knock things down and go low key for a while. Its time I put this lockout and the way I feel about it out of my head and concentrate on something else. Maybe computer games, work, refereeing hockey, or any one of the many things I enjoy doing. This lockout is really upsetting, but its time to move on.

Thank you all!

Echolalia, chances14, Buppy and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but I think what makes this worse to the players is when a team like Minnesota gets into a bidding war and shells out two 13-year $100 million contracts, then three months later the owner is sitting across from them saying franchises aren't making a profit because player's salaries are too high.

...

Minnesota did what it thought it needed to in order to be competitive within the previous CBA. They are still allowed to criticize that CBA (player salaries) without being accused of hypocrisy. Your argument would only hold water if the owners weren't forced to operate and compete under the rules outlined in the CBA.

Contract length limits and a reduction in player salaries under a new CBA would go far to solve that problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Minnesota did what it thought it needed to in order to be competitive within the previous CBA. They are still allowed to criticize that CBA (player salaries) without being accused of hypocrisy. Your argument would only hold water if the owners weren't forced to operate and compete under the rules outlined in the CBA.

Contract length limits and a reduction in player salaries under a new CBA would go far to solve that problem...

I didn't accuse anyone of hypocrisy or make an argument about the new CBA.

In response to a post pointing out how players already have their contracts affected by escrow, I speculated on one example of why they still may find the salary reductions in these negotiations difficult to take. I didn't make any argument about the logic of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quit spending money on the NHL until Bettman is fired if you don't want to go through this when the new CBA expires.

I was telling everybody this after and during the last lockout and everyone laughed it off. "He got his cap, he isn't going to lock us out again" is what most people said.

Edited by Johnz96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quit spending money on the NHL until Bettman is fired if you don't want to go through this when the new CBA expires.

I was telling everybody this after and during the last lockout and everyone laughed it off. "He got his cap, he isn't going to lock us out again" is what most people said.

Many here thought I was off my rocker this past spring when I predicted this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many here thought I was off my rocker this past spring when I predicted this mess.

Haha, I predicted it 8 years ago

F.Michael likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's kind of funny about that is that the players have never been guaranteed the money due to the escrow system that they negotiated in the last cba.

The only money that they have ever been guaranteed is signing bonuses.

While this IS true, you have to remember the escrow payments were around 8-10% every year, and they got the money back once they went through the finances. Now what the owners are asking, is that the players take an immediate rollback of 12% and still they will lose money to escrow, so they are actually losing more than what is contracted.

I will say this, you have hit the nail on the head with every one of your complaints. At the same time though, as you mentioned, the NHLPA has fault in this which you didn't mention at all.

The NHLPA has not been negotiating in good faith either. Their delays with their first proposal (3 weeks) and waiting until the last minute to come to the table after the league said it was ready to start negotiating in January. I have called out the NHL proposal already numerous times. No sense of urgency and dragging things out is not negotiating in good faith.

Fehr has been looking at "alternate methods" and I applaud him for doing so. At the same time, if one side is speaking English and the other side comes to the table with an agreement set in Spanish, is that necessarily right? I do get what you are saying. The NHL should be looking at these proposals and be more willing to consider them. What I fault Fehr and the players with is not speaking the same language when they come to the bargaining table. This is where the disconnect lies right here. You would think by now both sides would be speaking the same language and they are not.

Bettman's proposals are definitely not what they are being advertised to be. The NHLPA is also guilty of this as well. For instance, in the NHLPA 3rd proposal, the numbers never get to the 50/50 split that the NHLPA makes it out to be.

http://espn.go.com/b...tter-to-players

None of the players proposals actually make it down to 50/50 in year 2 or 3.

So before you talk about misrepresentation, lies, not bargaining in good faith, look on both sides of the ledger. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Oh, and I am not surprised that our resident mod "liked" your post. It offered nothing in terms of pointing out these failings of the NHLPA and everything involving the sins of the NHL.

Yes, to begin with Fehr was playing hardball, but that is what you have to do against Bettman or you won't get anywhere with him.

Maybe they are not speaking the "same language" but Fehr has been consistently trying to get Bettman in a negotiation room with him, which won't happen unless it is on Bettman's terms.

The PA's proposals do actually make it down to 50/50, as long as the league continues to grow at least 5% each year.

Lastly everyone is entitled to their opinion, so if the resident mod wants to like my post, I do not see the issue, as it is something he agrees with. (yes I did see your apology letter, and I think it speaks volumes, but again everyone is entitled to their opinion)

True, it is not double, but you also cannot count before the lockout either. Clubs were spending 76% of their revenue on salaries and changes had to be made for the long term survival of the league. Remember, this was needed at the time.

Player salaries average after the lockout year concessions were 1.4 million. In 2011 they were 2.45 million. I would guess they have gone up in the year after that, but thats 75% higher and we still have another year to tack on which we don't know the numbers for.

As for the ROI, you are correct. I am just calculating how much they are making in terms of the asset they own. By the way, making $5 million off a $240 million dollar asset is only 2% of the asset in terms of the profit. If the owner instead took $240 million and put it in an interest baring checking account, he would make 3% on his investment.

You are looking at this as if the owners actually paid $240 million for their teams, which they did not. For instance Mr. Illitch, I believe actually paid somewhere around 75-80 million, and not it is WORTH about $350 million. So if his original investment was $80 million, and we assume he made $7 million this year, his profit on his investment would actually be 8.75%. Now you can argue about money they spend every year blah blah blah, but they make that money back, and most years make profit, and mr. illitch's teams worth has grown about $270 million since his purchase, which is even more profit. There is about 10 teams "making money" and about 7-8 teams losing money, every other team basically is breaking even, give or take

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quit spending money on the NHL until Bettman is fired if you don't want to go through this when the new CBA expires.

I was telling everybody this after and during the last lockout and everyone laughed it off. "He got his cap, he isn't going to lock us out again" is what most people said.

This really is the right way to go.

The NHL and NHLPA need to be told that this kind of behavior, unwillingness to negotiate, and general bullheadedness won't be tolerated. By speaking with your wallets, the fans have a great opportunity to really tell the NHL what they think when they come back. I have already vowed to take every penny that I spent on NHL merchandise and tickets and put it towards something else. I can find something else to spend $1500-$2000 a season on. No more hotels or travel expenses to see games. No more time involved driving to games. No more NHL Center Ice.

If we want to be heard, then speaking with our wallets is really going to be the best option.

chances14 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this IS true, you have to remember the escrow payments were around 8-10% every year, and they got the money back once they went through the finances. Now what the owners are asking, is that the players take an immediate rollback of 12% and still they will lose money to escrow, so they are actually losing more than what is contracted.

...

For instance Mr. Illitch, I believe actually paid somewhere around 75-80 million, ...

Actually, the owners aren't asking for a rollback anymore, just a deferment of payment. The sticky issue now is that the deferment effectively lowers the % in future years below what the players feel is acceptable. (i.e. Instead of players earning 50% across the board, it's like 55, 52, 49, 47, 44, 50.) Existing contracts are still paid, and subject to only the same escrow as before.

And Ilitch paid $8 million for the Wings. I'm sure he's invested much more over the years, but the purchase price was only $8M.

Minnesota did what it thought it needed to in order to be competitive within the previous CBA. They are still allowed to criticize that CBA (player salaries) without being accused of hypocrisy. Your argument would only hold water if the owners weren't forced to operate and compete under the rules outlined in the CBA.

...

Correct to a point. They were operating within the rules at the time. They were not forced to commit almost $72M in salary for next year. Owners may be right to say, "If we didn't someone else would", but in some cases, someone else should. Someone who can afford it. Like it or not, all teams are not created equal. A team like Minnesota shouldn't be spending $10-15M more than teams like the Wings, Rangers, Leafs, and Montreal.

The cap system was designed around the premise that at current revenue levels, a team should be able to spend around 57% of their revenue on players. And that's salary and benefits, so around 53-55% for salaries. Minnesota is probably in the range of 70% for just salary. Now they want to lower the split to 50%. Why? So they can spend 63%? They'd be better off just following the intent of the old rules.

They didn't have to sign Parise and Suter, they wanted to. It's not necessary for parity. Look at Nashville or St. Louis. Look at baseball. Teams that spend smartly can still compete. It may be a bit easier for teams that can spend at will, but why shouldn't it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the owners aren't asking for a rollback anymore, just a deferment of payment. The sticky issue now is that the deferment effectively lowers the % in future years below what the players feel is acceptable. (i.e. Instead of players earning 50% across the board, it's like 55, 52, 49, 47, 44, 50.) Existing contracts are still paid, and subject to only the same escrow as before.

And Ilitch paid $8 million for the Wings. I'm sure he's invested much more over the years, but the purchase price was only $8M.

Correct to a point. They were operating within the rules at the time. They were not forced to commit almost $72M in salary for next year. Owners may be right to say, "If we didn't someone else would", but in some cases, someone else should. Someone who can afford it. Like it or not, all teams are not created equal. A team like Minnesota shouldn't be spending $10-15M more than teams like the Wings, Rangers, Leafs, and Montreal.

The cap system was designed around the premise that at current revenue levels, a team should be able to spend around 57% of their revenue on players. And that's salary and benefits, so around 53-55% for salaries. Minnesota is probably in the range of 70% for just salary. Now they want to lower the split to 50%. Why? So they can spend 63%? They'd be better off just following the intent of the old rules.

They didn't have to sign Parise and Suter, they wanted to. It's not necessary for parity. Look at Nashville or St. Louis. Look at baseball. Teams that spend smartly can still compete. It may be a bit easier for teams that can spend at will, but why shouldn't it be?

By creating an artificial parity for teams in the league you are creating an artificial disparity for the fans. The teams that create the greatest revenues have the most fans. So when a small market team knocks out a larger market there are more disappointed and losing fans than there are fans celebrating the victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

update on cba talks from lebrun

The players’ negotiating committee and executive board, plus other players who wanted to join, held another conference call Thursday, one of many they’ve had throughout the labor talks process to update members.

I heard from two players who were on the call. They requested anonymity, but here is their recap of the call:

Player 1 said the call reaffirmed the union's willingness to stick together and hang tough, feeling that NHL is trying to wait and see if players crack.

Player 2 said the overwhelming feeling on the call was that players want NHLPA leadership back in the bargaining room with the NHL to explore what kind of flexibility from the league exists on key issues.

It was expected NHLPA No. 2 man Steve Fehr would reach out to Daly sometime Thursday to see if they could schedule bargaining talks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't someone think of the children?!? Nevermind, there isn't any thinking happening from the NHL/PA. They are too busy lining their pockets with the tears of orphan children, baby seals, and bunnies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as long as the NHL is just whining and not interested in negotiating, what exactly is the point of meetings?

At this point, I don't think either side is really interested in negotiating. Pontificating for the press seems to be higher on their list of things to do.

Share this post


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