• 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

For the record, I don't think the players are blameless. And I don't think Bettman is the sole cause of this lockout. And I don't think axing Bettman will change much in the way of owner-player relations.

I do think this is an owners' lockout. I do think this is a "Hi, we want to screw you over in every possible way, and to as great an extent as possible. Please sign here, here, and here. Then we can all be friends again" situation - the third under Bettman's reign. And I do think 1) there's something wrong with that, 2) the blame for all this bulls*** rests more on the shoulders of the Commissioner and the owners.

I think the owners are entirely justified in wanting more than half of the HRR, given that they accrue ALL of the costs and take ALL of the financial risks. The players are entirely justified in wanting their ALREADY NEGOTIATED contracts honored, and not wanting unnecessary regulation of future contracts. Unfortunately, in negotations where millions of dollars are on the line, getting to a reasonable position takes time, and the final compromise has to be fought for (by both sides). I find it especially distrubing that anyone (not that you're doing this) would suggest that this is some sort of pissing contest between Fehr and Bettman. Neither of them do a single thing that they aren't mandated to do by their respective constituencies.

All of the vehemence, hyperbole, etc. by the fans is the result of our third party view of all of this. It's easy to point a finger at one (or both) sides of this because in reality its not OUR millions of dollars on the line. It's always easy to tell someone else what they ought to do when the tough decisions aren't ours to make, and the consequences aren't ours to accept.

Who cares who's right or wrong? I don't. I just want to watch Datsyuk turn Ryan Suter inside out.

Nightfall and Hockeymom1960 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked out of this (depressing as all hell, yet informative) thread but assume that everybody is caught up to speed on the Michael Russo article indicating that the NHL has offered no better than a tiered reduction where their HRR share only gets down to 52.5%, and that's in the FIFTH year of the CBA. Primary blame still goes to the NHL, in my opinion, but if the NHL was willing to compromise on the "make whole" provision and the NHLPA couldn't find a way to get to 50% after a long phase-in....well, that starts to increase my anger toward the players.

The NHLPA may still get to 50% at some point, but I'm a little sick of hearing what all the other leagues are doing with revenues percentage-wise. It's pretty safe to say that "Hockey Related Revenues" only apply to....hockey, and this league specifically. The manner in which they are calculated could be completely different than revenue calculations for other leagues, and the NHLPA has argued this very fact.

But even more than that, the idea that the players HAVE to get to 50% because that's how it's done in other leagues makes no sense to me. In what other major sport did every existing player in the league agree to a 24% salary reduction AND lose an entire year's pay due to lockout? Might not the decision to set the HRR share at 57% have been a bargaining chip to partially compensate the players for that extreme financial burden.

The counter-argument to that is "Well, fine, there were rollbacks, but what about the future?" But it wasn't just the salary rollbacks - it was the installation of an entire cap system that was also SUPPOSED to limit the amount of overall salaries paid. Had the cap not been installed (and the league continued to flourish due to the Canadian dollar, Winter Classic, etc.), don't you think the Red Wings, Bruins, Maple Leafs, and Rangers (among others) would have gotten up to $100 million payrolls?

There's no amount revenues that could have kept hockey franchises in Phoenix, Florida, Atlanta (and now Dallas and others) financially viable because they still have to fill an 18,000 seat arena and pay for players in markets that don't have any freakin' fans! EIther the "have" teams agree to tow the "have not" teams (like the NFL does with places like Jacksonville), or you have to eliminate those teams. Simply taking a bigger chunk of the pie won't fix the underlying problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't agree with Bettman's bargaining tactics and his my way or the highway attitude. Yet when Fehr has the same bargaining tactics and his my way or the highway attitude, you consider it as "standing strong". Yet you say that both sides are being greedy. Hrm......

That will cost a full season of hockey. Thats a high price to pay for the owners to just fire Bettman and then hire in another guy who could be worse than Bettman. After all, firing Bettman won't solve the problem of the owners. These same owners will select another leader who is similar to Bettman probably. If not the same, he will be worse.

You should get a job in the media, you could cover the CBA since you are good at misrepresenting information.

See the difference is the NHLPA has already agreed to go from 57% to 50% share of HRR. The only thing the league has given anything on are very minor issues. So yes Fehr is standing strong, so the players do not lose more than what they already have. He wants current contracts honored, and RFA length and entry level lengths to stay the same. What is so unreasonable about that after agreeing to a %12 decrease in HRR (assuming HRR definitions stay the same)

Edited by Euro_Twins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should get a job in the media, you could cover the CBA since you are good at misrepresenting information.

See the difference is the NHLPA has already agreed to go from 57% to 50% share of HRR. The only thing the league has given anything on are very minor issues. So yes Fehr is standing strong, so the players do not lose more than what they already have. He wants current contracts honored, and RFA length and entry level lengths to stay the same. What is so unreasonable about that after agreeing to a %12 decrease in HRR (assuming HRR definitions stay the same)

As kipwinger put so elegantly above, "It's easy to point a finger at one (or both) sides of this because in reality its not OUR millions of dollars on the line. It's always easy to tell someone else what they ought to do when the tough decisions aren't ours to make, and the consequences aren't ours to accept."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren Dreger confirms the next meeting will be tomorrow morning at 10amEST.

PA confirms meeting tomorrow morning. Roughly, 10 am start.

And it looks like the NHLPA is having an internal meeting this evening, discussing strategy and presentation for tomorrow's session.

PA intends on continuing to strategize and work on its presentation tonight for tomorrows next round of CBA negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every comment from you i have seen from you has been pro-NHL.

Lol, seriously, and the you throw in the fact that he keeps trying to call out others as being one-sided, when he has been one of the most biased one-sided posters in this entire thread, its just too funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, seriously, and the you throw in the fact that he keeps trying to call out others as being one-sided, when he has been one of the most biased one-sided posters in this entire thread, its just too funny.

Hurr hurr. You go, man! It couldn't possibly be because everyone, including the mods, has already covered the pants on head stupidity of "It's all Buttman cancer midget's fault. If it wasn't for Buttman, the owners would give the players 99% of HRR and they'd be playing hockey right now" Nah, couldn't be that it's already been covered, so what's the point of repeating it. Not everyone feels the need to say the same thing over and over and over, as if repetition makes it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurr hurr. You go, man! It couldn't possibly be because everyone, including the mods, has already covered the pants on head stupidity of "It's all Buttman cancer midget's fault. If it wasn't for Buttman, the owners would give the players 99% of HRR and they'd be playing hockey right now" Nah, couldn't be that it's already been covered, so what's the point of repeating it. Not everyone feels the need to say the same thing over and over and over, as if repetition makes it true.

Uhhh...did you quote the wrong post or something? What the hell does any of that have to do with my post that you quoted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, please remember that this thread is for discussion of the lockout, meetings, etc. pointing out each other's posting style and viewpoints in a "gotcha" game isn't exactly staying on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, please remember that this thread is for discussion of the lockout, meetings, etc. pointing out each other's posting style and viewpoints in a "gotcha" game isn't exactly staying on topic.

True, true.

What I think the problem is, is certain people on BOTH sides of the arguement in this thread are completely ignoring the specifics of the actual CBA proposals and have taken either a hardline pro-league or pro-players stance based 100% on their political views regarding unions, and nothing else.

roboginger likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked out of this (depressing as all hell, yet informative) thread but assume that everybody is caught up to speed on the Michael Russo article indicating that the NHL has offered no better than a tiered reduction where their HRR share only gets down to 52.5%, and that's in the FIFTH year of the CBA. Primary blame still goes to the NHL, in my opinion, but if the NHL was willing to compromise on the "make whole" provision and the NHLPA couldn't find a way to get to 50% after a long phase-in....well, that starts to increase my anger toward the players.

...

That's something of a misrepresentation of the PA proposal. The PA does not want the actual dollar value of the players' share to go down, so their plans have, for the most part, called for de-linking the share from revenue. They want to slow the growth of their share (dollar value) so league revenue growth results in a lower percentage. Therefore, the percentage depends entirely on growth.

The current PA proposal is apparently a flat 1.75% increase in the players' share dollar value each year for five years. The Russo article you mention referenced charts from the league with estimated growth factors, and include estimated lockout damage. They anticipate a drop in revenue for the 12-13 season (obviously), then a modest recovery with the 13-14 season having slight growth over 11-12, and a more normal growth pattern in the following years.

Of course, no one can predict either growth or what the long-term fallout from the lockout will be. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic, as well as cause for concern. Even being just a little more optimistic than the leagues' charts would get it down to 50%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that shop.nhl.com sells all kinds of merchandise with the names of players on the back.

I don't recall ever seeing an "Official Gary Bettman Three-piece Suit" being for sale.

:lol:

But there has been a plethora of Don Cherry wannabes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my...When I say it's both sides I mean nhlpa AND bettmans fault...I don 't like either side...I don't stand closer to either side meaning I'm not going to do like "some" on here and say it's all bettmans and the owners fault . that doesn't mean that I'm all in on saying it's the nhlpa's fault either.

Edited by haroldsnepsts
edited to remove deleted quoted post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my...When I say it's both sides I mean nhlpa AND bettmans fault...I don 't like either side...I don't stand closer to either side meaning I'm not going to do like "some" on here and say it's all bettmans and the owners fault . that doesn't mean that I'm all in on saying it's the nhlpa's fault either.

OK, fair enough. Almost everything I have seen you say up to this point though has been pro-league and anti-union/Fehr, so you can't blame me for thinking that.

roboginger likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, fair enough. Almost everything I have seen you say up to this point though has been pro-league and anti-union/Fehr, so you can't blame me for thinking that.

Well I understand that but thats what happens when you have a discussion like this and have many saying that it is all Bettmans fault. I'm not really one to go with a trend just because someone comes up with a clever name for Bettman but I know that it does suck that we have had to go through this 3 times with him but im also not going to say it has been all his and the owners fault either.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, please remember that this thread is for discussion of the lockout, meetings, etc. pointing out each other's posting style and viewpoints in a "gotcha" game isn't exactly staying on topic.

Quoted as another reminder.

When Jedi says to stay on topic about the lockout, that doesn't mean take your parting shots.

Talk about the lockout and discuss the issues. Discuss the points people have made in their posts and not the people themselves. Discussions about who's on what side and what arguments they've made and anything along those lines will be deleted.

It's really that simple.

I've deleted some posts and edited a few that were mostly on topic. Please don't make me clean up threads when there's not even any hockey. Any future posts that go even partially off topic will be deleted entirely, even the on-topic portion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that shop.nhl.com sells all kinds of merchandise with the names of players on the back.

I don't recall ever seeing an "Official Gary Bettman Three-piece Suit" being for sale.

That's interesting because I know shop.nhl.com sells all kinds of merchandise with team logos on the front. I don't recall ever seeing a player that owned a team before.

Good try though.

hillbillywingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am optimistic the NHLPA will come with a linked proposal, something like this:

Year 1: 57.0%

Year 2: 55.1%

Year 3: 53.1%

Year 4: 52.0%

Year 5: 51.2%

Based on 5% revenue growth annually + keeping old contracts at 57% value.

If there is revenue growth the fans deserve a lockout when the new CBA expires

frankgrimes likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is revenue growth the fans deserve a lockout when the new CBA expires

I hardly see a revenue grow, sponsors are pissed off so are fans, second lockout in 8 years and on top of that even the hotbed media in Toronto and Montreal stopped caring, this time it is really different compared to 2004/5.

The NHL will be lucky to see 3,3 billion revenue after 5 years again, it will take a loooong time to recover (if it ever does).

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly see a revenue grow, sponsors are pissed off so are fans, second lockout in 8 years and on top of that even the hotbed media in Toronto and Montreal stopped caring, this time it is really different compared to 2004/5.

The NHL will be lucky to see 3,3 billion revenue after 5 years again, it will take a loooong time to recover (if it ever does).

I hope you're right. Not to punish anyone but to save the game of hockey from the worst thing to ever happen to it. If there is a significant decline in revenue Bettman should get fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're right. Not to punish anyone but to save the game of hockey from the worst thing to ever happen to it. If there is a significant decline in revenue Bettman should get fired.

I hope you're right. Not to punish anyone but to save the game of hockey from the worst thing to ever happen to it. If there is a significant decline in revenue Bettman should get fired.

More so for everyone to give their heads a shake and realize where "their money" comes from, and how easily it can disappear!

frankgrimes likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More so for everyone to give their heads a shake and realize where "their money" comes from, and how easily it can disappear!

Exactly, maybe this will be the best thing coming out of the lockout a dose of reality check for the holy NHL..........

Share this post


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