• 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

it's also not realistic for owners and gm's to pass up the chance of trying to make their teams better.

So you are basically saying that it is not teams fault paying more than they can afford. Normally if you can't pay for the stuff you want you do not buy it. And if you did it is too late to cry that the stuff is too expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are basically saying that it is not teams fault paying more than they can afford. Normally if you can't pay for the stuff you want you do not buy it. And if you did it is too late to cry that the stuff is too expensive.

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.

Yes, those poor poor GM's, who with their approval of their owners extended ridiculous contracts to the players, which the players then signed.

The economic model of the NHL was not sustainable, which is why a cap was installed. The owners drove contracts up amongst themselves. Of course players (and certainly agents) were happy to take advantage of that. It's not realistic to think a player would pass up money for the good of the league, as if they gave up $3 million, the owner would use that money to somehow benefit all of the NHL instead of just putting it in his pocket.

The responsibility of running a successful franchise ultimately is on the owners and GM's. We're lucky enough with Detroit to have a great owner who knows what he's doing.

You use the word 'ultimately', but the context of your surrounding argument seems to suggest the word 'entirely'.... and you would be right... in a world without labor unions. That is the point that keeps getting ignored... the owners are not free to run a successful franchise as they see fit... they are beholden to a CBA forced upon them by the players... that must be negotiated with the players - so that the players do effect the way business is run. You cannot hold the owners entirely responsible when their business decisions are in part dictated by the players.The CBA... it keeps getting conveniently left out of any argument skewering the owners. The last CBA was a large factor in creating the environment where owners felt compelled to give out large contracts to be competitive.

Let me spare several people the time and effort in their response by paraphrasing their responses for them:

"BUT the owners won BIG in the last CBA!!... they dictated this and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?!"... blah blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a players union we would be watching hockey right now and also in 2004-05... true story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.

For giving out contracts they can afford? You bet they are. Or when a player is offered a contract he should say "No, this is a bit too much. This would be a burden on your team's finances dear GM"? What exactly is the player's fault when he is accepting a contract, which a team really should not have offered?

I am not talking about CBA, lockout or anything else. This is about teams paying money they do not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a players union we would be watching hockey right now and also in 2004-05... true story.

Without inept owners who don't know how to run a business or a commisioner who can't negotiate without a lockout, we'd be watching hockey now. The last lockout and loss of a season and the salary cap was supposed to fix everything and make the owners accountable. It didn't. So why should we believe its going to happen this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.

You use the word 'ultimately', but the context of your surrounding argument seems to suggest the word 'entirely'.... and you would be right... in a world without labor unions. That is the point that keeps getting ignored... the owners are not free to run a successful franchise as they see fit... they are beholden to a CBA forced upon them by the players... that must be negotiated with the players - so that the players do effect the way business is run. You cannot hold the owners entirely responsible when their business decisions are in part dictated by the players.The CBA... it keeps getting conveniently left out of any argument skewering the owners. The last CBA was a large factor in creating the environment where owners felt compelled to give out large contracts to be competitive.

Let me spare several people the time and effort in their response by paraphrasing their responses for them:

"BUT the owners won BIG in the last CBA!!... they dictated this and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?!"... blah blah.

I had typed out a lengthy response but read your last line and realized you're not interested in an actual discussion.

carry on.

Euro_Twins likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone care about hockey anymore? I've found I don't really miss it, and I didn't think I'd feel that way.

I still care, and miss it some, since I've been a fan so long, but I have to be honest, I miss is a LOT less than I thought I would a few months ago, and I seem to miss it less and less by the day. Which I didn't expect a few month ago.

Its also been a bit of a wake up, and helped me to see how unhealthy the NHL has been for me over the years, the last several especially. Instead of sitting around with the crew drinking beer and eating junk food, now I go out, take more walks, read more books, drink a lot less, since most of my drinking occured while watching hockey. Its really made me think about how much of my time has been spend in front of the idiot box, sitting on the couch, watching hockey games, while I could have been doing something a lot more productive. That kind of little "realization" alone will pretty much assure I don't watch anywhere near as much hockey when eventually it does come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.

You use the word 'ultimately', but the context of your surrounding argument seems to suggest the word 'entirely'.... and you would be right... in a world without labor unions. That is the point that keeps getting ignored... the owners are not free to run a successful franchise as they see fit... they are beholden to a CBA forced upon them by the players... that must be negotiated with the players - so that the players do effect the way business is run. You cannot hold the owners entirely responsible when their business decisions are in part dictated by the players.The CBA... it keeps getting conveniently left out of any argument skewering the owners. The last CBA was a large factor in creating the environment where owners felt compelled to give out large contracts to be competitive.

Let me spare several people the time and effort in their response by paraphrasing their responses for them:

"BUT the owners won BIG in the last CBA!!... they dictated this and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?!"... blah blah.

Soft cap with luxury tax - low minimum for the "welfare clubs".

Owners get 54% of revenues - players get 46%.

Several teams will pay out the big $$$ to stay on top - several teams will be glorified feeder teams.

$$$ generated from teams going over the cap gets distributed to the bottom feeders.

Works in MLB (not that I'm a fan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fault GM's for trying to make their teams better but when the cost exceeds something your franchise can afford, you stop bidding. If they keep getting outbid then it gets back to the underlying problem of disparity between franchises. That's not the fault of the players.

this goes back to why i believe the owners are so dead set on the contracting issues and it's not just for cap circumvention issues.

in my opinion, they want to artificially keep players market value lower and allow teams to keep their star players for cheaper through their prime years. they don't want that bidding war that you are referring too. this would be extremely beneficial to teams like nashville for example, so that they are not faced with having to sign 100 million dollar contracts for their star players that they cannot afford but must accept if they want to be competitive. They believe that by putting strict standards on the contracts they will diminish the disparity between the rich and poor teams.

it's kind of a no win for the owners in that regard. they get crucified for taking on a contract that they cannot afford, but then when they don't sign a star player for outrageous money, they get crucified for not trying to be competitive and instead only caring about the bottom line.

So you are basically saying that it is not teams fault paying more than they can afford. Normally if you can't pay for the stuff you want you do not buy it. And if you did it is too late to cry that the stuff is too expensive.

the problem is that it only takes one owner to make an outrageous offer and the market value for players goes through the roof.

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not true. while the nhl hasn't given anything up as far as economics or contracting issues go

here are some of the things the players have reportedly gotten

-artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players;

- trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);

-eliminate re-entry waivers

- Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted)

- Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish)

-Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union;

-Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing);

-Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city;

-Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense;

- Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp;

-Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms;

-Ice condition improvements and standards;

-More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones;

-Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams;

-increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players;

-And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders

http://www.startribu.../177160641.html

now obviously these aren't as big as the revenue split or contracting issues but the notion that the owners haven't conceded a single thing yet is misinformed. i do agree that the owners contracting demands are outrageous and they should be willing to give on those

neither side couldn't care less about the game of hockey as long as they get their money

Thank you! Finally some actual information amidst the posturing (Fehr and Bettman) and finger-pointing (everyone else).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone care about hockey anymore? I've found I don't really miss it, and I didn't think I'd feel that way. All of these clowns have so completely soured the sport for me, if it comes back, I won't watch it. I'll follow the games to some extent here on LGW, but I sure as hell won't go out of my way for it. I did the same thing after the MLB strike in 1994, and it took quite a long time to re-ignite my love for baseball.

Grown adults, all making a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge sum of money well beyond that of their fans, arguing over who should get more money.

PATHETIC.

I couldn't care less if the league folds at this point. Money has poisoned the game. Its a joke that thousands of people in this nation are homeless, while these douchers sit around and bicker and whine over who gets more of the multi-million dollar pie. Its sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This part made me laugh out loud.

Yes, those poor poor GM's, who with their approval of their owners extended ridiculous contracts to the players, which the players then signed.

The economic model of the NHL was not sustainable, which is why a cap was installed. The owners drove contracts up amongst themselves. Of course players (and certainly agents) were happy to take advantage of that. It's not realistic to think a player would pass up money for the good of the league, as if they gave up $3 million, the owner would use that money to somehow benefit all of the NHL instead of just putting it in his pocket.

The responsibility of running a successful franchise ultimately is on the owners and GM's. We're lucky enough with Detroit to have a great owner who knows what he's doing.

Agreed, the responsibility of running the franchises which make up the National Hockey League falls on the owners. The players have no such responsibility. Because the owners accrue ALL of the costs and take ALL of the financial risks, they deserve a majority of the HRR. Once the players agree to that, the owners can agree to honor existing contracts, and we can all start playing/watching hockey again.

chances14 and Nightfall like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, the responsibility of running the franchises which make up the National Hockey League falls on the owners. The players have no such responsibility. Because the owners accrue ALL of the costs and take ALL of the financial risks, they deserve a majority of the HRR. Once the players agree to that, the owners can agree to honor existing contracts, and we can all start playing/watching hockey again.

The players are already helping the owners out by agreeing to drop their share of the revenue to 50/50 all they want is for the owners to honor contracts they have already signed. Because they players are not only employees but also the product that the fans pay for, they deserve a majority of the HRR, they are being magnanimous saving the owners from their own decisions (hiring Betmman was their decision.

Anybody who doesn't see that Bettman is totally responsible for the lockouts has got their head up their ass

He is the worst thing to ever happen tothe game of hockey even if you don't consider the lockouts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole sage reminds me on a great Linkin Park video labeled I've become so numb...

Seriously, I am at point where I don't get care about this crap any longer. Bettman, Daily, Jacobs and the rest of these hardball clowns can jump off a bridge. The NHLPA already agreed to a freaking split and yet these idiots continue to ask for more. Negotiations are a two way street, so if the players share is dropping by 7 % at least honor their freaking rights and contracts. you know give and take for once?

The players are the product, they are generating the revenue, revenue which is then used by the owners to pay for mr. anti hockey himself and fatback Daily, keep franchises in non hockey markets and spend millions of $ for buying pro owner posters on some boards...

Go nuclear, fold the league, start from scratch or whatever but at least stop all this PR bulls*** I don't even read it anymore one thing tough is for sure, if mr. AntiHockey is keeping his job after this I really don't know what to say, the guy needs to be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Philadelphia Daily News:

On the surface, prospects for an end to the NHL's 2-month lockout took a nosedive this week, when commissioner Gary Bettman proposed a 2-week moratorium in talks after bargaining reached yet another standstill.

Behind the scenes, there seems to be a seismic shift going on among the NHL's Board of Governors, also known as the group that Bettman answers to collectively.

And Flyers chairman Ed Snider may be the big mover-and-shaker behind it all.

Multiple sources confirmed to the Daily News on Friday that Snider, once seen as a supporter of the Bettman's push to rein in the players' share of revenue, has soured on the process after it became apparent that a deal would not be brokered in time for a Dec. 1 puck drop.

And they all fall down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, the responsibility of running the franchises which make up the National Hockey League falls on the owners. The players have no such responsibility. Because the owners accrue ALL of the costs and take ALL of the financial risks, they deserve a majority of the HRR. Once the players agree to that, the owners can agree to honor existing contracts, and we can all start playing/watching hockey again.

But that ignores the fact that the players are the reason people pay so much to follow the NHL. They are elite talent and what generates billions of dollars for the league.

The owners take the financial risks but they depend on a very small and skilled labor pool to generate revenue.

If people just want to watch any old hockey played by above average athletes, there's plenty of minor leagues available. But fans won't shell out 3 billion dollars to follow those leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that ignores the fact that the players are the reason people pay so much to follow the NHL. They are elite talent and what generates billions of dollars for the league.

The owners take the financial risks but they depend on a very small and skilled labor pool to generate revenue.

If people just want to watch any old hockey played by above average athletes, there's plenty of minor leagues available. But fans won't shell out 3 billion dollars to follow those leagues.

Agreed, they rely on a small and extremely skilled labor pool and that labor pool is compensated accordingly. I'm ok with the NHLPA fighting to ensure the NHL honor existing contracts, precisely because high end labor must be compensated accordingly. The NHL should budge on that issue. However I don't see how anyone can justify a majority of HRR also going to the players as compensation by saying "they're elite laborers". They are that, which is why they get paid as much as they do. The majority of the HRR should go to the people who take the risks and therefore can actually LOSE money. Owners lose money (via declining ticket and merch sales) if their players play like s***. Players are guaranteed their money whether they suck or not (looking at you Ty Conklin). Owners can also lose money via things that are completely out of their control, like global recessions. They take risks. That's the difference, and that's why the players should budge on HRR.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, they rely on a small and extremely skilled labor pool and that labor pool is compensated accordingly. I'm ok with the NHLPA fighting to ensure the NHL honor existing contracts, precisely because high end labor must be compensated accordingly. The NHL should budge on that issue. However I don't see how anyone can justify a majority of HRR also going to the players as compensation by saying "they're elite laborers". They are that, which is why they get paid as much as they do. The majority of the HRR should go to the people who take the risks and therefore can actually LOSE money. Owners lose money (via declining ticket and merch sales) if their players play like s***. Players are guaranteed their money whether they suck or not (looking at you Ty Conklin). Owners can also lose money via things that are completely out of their control, like global recessions. They take risks. That's the difference, and that's why the players should budge on HRR.

They already have. It sounds like they're at 50/50. I don't know what the current situation is regarding the make whole payments.

So at this point is the holdup just contracting rights? I'm really not sure due to disbelief and waning interest in the whole mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already have. It sounds like they're at 50/50. I don't know what the current situation is regarding the make whole payments.

So at this point is the holdup just contracting rights? I'm really not sure due to disbelief and waning interest in the whole mess.

Well I think the holdup is two things, the League doesn't want to honor contracts, and the NHLPA won't give on the HRR because it's not an even split, it's only 50/50 for a couple years and then the league gets a little more as far as I understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK they have already come to terms on the revenue split and the definitions of HRR, it's the players' contracting rights that are stifling progress. Obviously I'm not in the room, but that's what I get from the reports.

kipwinger and haroldsnepsts like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK they have already come to terms on the revenue split and the definitions of HRR, it's the players' contracting rights that are stifling progress. Obviously I'm not in the room, but that's what I get from the reports.

Thanks for the heads up, I'm apparently behind in the "news that infuriates me" department, haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting

“In the last conference call, a player asked Don why he was learning details of the NHL’s last proposal through the media and not via Don or the players in attendance,” an NHL player told ESPNBoston.com. “Don and some other players called that player out and basically embarrassed him for asking that.”

To be fair, we might be missing information that would add further context to the situation that the player is describing.

It’s also worth noting that a couple of players have suggested that the union should, at least partially, share in the blame for the ongoing lockout.

Tomas Kaberle recently said that “both sides need to smarten up.”

Last month, Dan Boyle complained that “both sides think it’s their way or the highway.”

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/17/report-player-called-out-for-criticizing-fehr-in-conference-call/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players are already helping the owners out by agreeing to drop their share of the revenue to 50/50 all they want is for the owners to honor contracts they have already signed. Because they players are not only employees but also the product that the fans pay for, they deserve a majority of the HRR, they are being magnanimous saving the owners from their own decisions (hiring Betmman was their decision.

Anybody who doesn't see that Bettman is totally responsible for the lockouts has got their head up their ass

He is the worst thing to ever happen tothe game of hockey even if you don't consider the lockouts

My original comment had nothing to say about (or to do with) Gary Bettman. Would you prefer I go back and edit in something about him so that your standard broken record blame game seems a little more organic and a little less forced or what? I'd be glad to help you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Wyshynski's take on the NHL's two week break proposal. I rather like the last paragraph...

Exactly. Why the *** cant these idiots work s*** out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409721

The NHL and NHLPA intend on resuming bargaining Monday night in New York City.

The dynamic of those attending hasn't been confirmed, although it's expected both players and owners will be involved in what is described as a "smaller group" meeting.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly tells TSN the league's position has been somewhat misrepresented and while the NHL has certain parameters it isn't willing to budge on, he suggests there is flexibility as the negotiation remains in a critical stage.

"Nothing was ever said or even suggested that we needed the details of our proposal "down to the comma. We told them the issues we wanted addressed in the system. We told them we have provided a proposal that we think will effectively address those issues.

"But we told them that we are open to discussing other ways to address those issues if they want to propose any," continued Daly. "In fact, we used the exact example of "if we need five and we have proposed 3+2 to get there, that we are happy to listening to and considering 4+1 instead. I'm not sure why they chose to characterize the way they did. As I've said before, I can only control what we say."

so did fehr misrepresent the nhl's position to the players or is the nhl simply backtracking? we'll probably never know.

Share this post


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