• 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

Don't go making excuses for the players, both Daly and Bettman expressly stated that the 300 million in make whole was contingent upon either accepting or rejecting the contract and cba lengths. They didn't accept. The owners walked. It's not like they didn't know, Fehr thought he smelled blood and over played his hand. Don't go making it seem as if they players had no idea that one was contingent on the other, they did.

Whoa, calm down. I'm not making anybody out to be a bad guy here. I have no idea who's more to blame at this point. And I also stated it was a lack of communication, not intentional.

Everything I've read has stated that players were unaware it was take it or leave it at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is forcing the owners to hand out 8 year contracts, but they do provide safety for players and some are going to offer them.

yes in theory nobody is forcing the owners to hand out 8 yr contracts, just like in theory nobody is forcing the players to accept them. but once one owner steps out of line and offers a long term contract, the market value is set. if the owners had a gentleman's agreement to not offer a certain length contract, it could be considered collusion and grounds for legal action. that is what a cba is for.

That's the thing. At some point, there has to be a line where you say "This is as far as I can come," and that's what's happened here, per Daly, I believe.

Fehr is the one that blew things up this round. According to Adrian Dater, a player involved said that the players were ready to take the latest offer to a vote with all the players, and Fehr said not to, because they were going to get a better offer. I hope that that's true, but I am betting this pushed the more moderate owners into the hardline camp.

i strongly believe that fehr has brainwashed these players into thinking that the longer they hold off, the better the deal. they are going to be sorely mistaken.

I did read that quote from an undisclosed player.

This came out this morning, so maybe that had something to do with?

they still could have done an unofficial vote on the owner's proposal, even if it wasn't an official proposal.

According to Lebrun, it really did fall apart over max contract length (5 years NHL 8 NHLPA) and CBA length (10 years NHL 8 NHLPA).

Are you kidding me??

The owners see the 5 year contract length as a hill worth dying for, which is idiotic. Yes, contracts need to be shorter, but are you really willing to lose a season rather than agree on 6 years? Especially with the re-signing of free agents getting longer term. Throwing in a year would make the deal something the players need to absolutely accept. And they already have the 5% variance to eliminate back diving, which is much more important.

And as has been mentioned, I don't get why the 8 year CBA would be worth trashing a deal over on the NHLPA side. Bettman is only going to lock them out in 8 years anyway and the CBA will likely get worse for players no matter how the league recovers. Why not enjoy a decade of contract certainty?

Or as I mentioned before, there's this thing called 9, anyone heard of it? it's right between 8 and 10.

Unbelievable.

i think it's ridiculous for both sides to be arguing contract term lengths. and both sides should want the longest cba possible. it's ridiculous that a deal is being held up over these petty issues

I just watched Fehr's press conference. That voicemail s*** is a bigger work than HBK's "I lost my smile" speech.

maybe if fehr wasn't so busy telling the media that the lockout was essentially over, he wouldn't have missed the nhl's call

Don't go making excuses for the players, both Daly and Bettman expressly stated that the 300 million in make whole was contingent upon either accepting or rejecting the contract and cba lengths. They didn't accept. The owners walked. It's not like they didn't know, Fehr thought he smelled blood and over played his hand. Don't go making it seem as if they players had no idea that one was contingent on the other, they did.

agreed.

while i disagree with the owner's take it or leave it approach, fehr purposely misled the public. he knew full well that the league wasn't going to accept his proposal.

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while i disagree with the owner's take it or leave it approach, fehr purposely misled the public. he knew full well that the league wasn't going to accept his proposal.

That or he badly misread the situation. Either way it's not good.

Someone should have had a sense of how the owners felt, many that they had already offered too much, so even if the NHLPA wasn't going to accept that offer outright, that is should have been handled more delicately than it was. Like maybe more conversation about the contracting issues instead of making an outright proposal that doesn't include what the owners want.

Either way, the fact that both sides got this close and it fell apart over contract issues takes it to a new level of idiocy, and the idiocy level was already extremely high.

kipwinger, chances14 and Nightfall like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That or he badly misread the situation. Either way it's not good.

Someone should have had a sense of how the owners felt, many that they had already offered too much, so even if the NHLPA wasn't going to accept that offer outright, that is should have been handled more delicately than it was. Like maybe more conversation about the contracting issues instead of making an outright proposal that doesn't include what the owners want.

Either way, the fact that both sides got this close and it fell apart over contract issues takes it to a new level of idiocy, and the idiocy level was already extremely high.

I agree with your assessment, but it's not like everybody in the hockey universe didn't know that these frontloaded contracts were going to be a big sticking point in the CBA talks. After the Kovalchuk fiasco it was only a matter of time. As it happens this is the last issue in a long line of issues that needed to be resolved, but certainly it was going to be addressed. And obviously there was going to be considerable disagreement over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your assessment, but it's not like everybody in the hockey universe didn't know that these frontloaded contracts were going to be a big sticking point in the CBA talks. After the Kovalchuk fiasco it was only a matter of time. As it happens this is the last issue in a long line of issues that needed to be resolved, but certainly it was going to be addressed. And obviously there was going to be considerable disagreement over it.

but haven't both sides already agreed to the 5% variance?

If that's already agreed upon then contract length is a much smaller issue as the 5% eliminates backdiving.

i can still understand wanting some term length for owners, at least small market owners, but to say 5 years is a hill worth dying for is pretty extreme. with the 5% variance, 6 or 7 year length would still be a huge win for owners compared to the last CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kronwall has it right....

"I think if we're this close, I don't see the reason why we shouldn't just keep at it until we have something," Kronwall said. "I don't see the reason why we should all of a sudden step away and get all dramatic. Just stick with it and let's get this done."

link"]link

Edited by amato
Pskov Wings Fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but haven't both sides already agreed to the 5% variance?

If that's already agreed upon then contract length is a much smaller issue as the 5% eliminates backdiving.

i can still understand wanting some term length for owners, at least small market owners, but to say 5 years is a hill worth dying for is pretty extreme. with the 5% variance, 6 or 7 year length would still be a huge win for owners compared to the last CBA.

No, in their counter offer the players wanted 25% variance. Here's an article that explains the player's counter proposal, they talk about variance in the paragraph right above the picture of Fehr and Crosby...

http://aol.sportingn...r-hockey-strike

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt there's a fair amount of spin to this given the source, but if there's even a kernel of truth to it, it's pretty outrageous...

John Hoven, professional freelance hockey reporter, with a few bits of information from Mathieu Schneider as heard on NHL Radio...

Mathieu Schneider on NHL Radio confirms owners told PA that if Don Fehr came back in room, talks would end... but...

...he vehemently denies that Don Fehr told players to hold out for more this week when deal seemed close

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt there's a fair amount of spin to this, but if there's even a kernel of truth to it, it's pretty outrageous...

John Hoven, professional freelance hockey reporter, with a few bits of information from Mathieu Schneider as heard on NHL Radio...

It's sort of a moot point because Fehr did come back, and talks didn't end...well not until the players rejected the NHL offer and issued their counter proposal anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes in theory nobody is forcing the owners to hand out 8 yr contracts, just like in theory nobody is forcing the players to accept them. but once one owner steps out of line and offers a long term contract, the market value is set. if the owners had a gentleman's agreement to not offer a certain length contract, it could be considered collusion and grounds for legal action. that is what a cba is for.

NO T in theory also in the real hockey world, if an owner can't or wont offer such a contract too bad but it is on his own terms. I am freaking sick and tired of hearing Mr. ANTI hockey and his hardline ******* trying to support franchises that shouldn't even have an NHL team, while teams who are providing more revenue are left out (I.E QUEBEC, Hamilton).

I now want the players to go nuclear and into decertification, they know some franchises won't survive an open market too bad the stubborn hardliners couldn't see that.

The PA provided a fair proposal the NHL didn't even bother reading it so to hell with this league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO T in theory also in the real hockey world, if an owner can't or wont offer such a contract too bad but it is on his own terms. I am freaking sick and tired of hearing Mr. ANTI hockey and his hardline ******* trying to support franchises that shouldn't even have an NHL team, while teams who are providing more revenue are left out (I.E QUEBEC, Hamilton).

I now want the players to go nuclear and into decertification, they know some franchises won't survive an open market too bad the stubborn hardliners couldn't see that.

The PA provided a fair proposal the NHL didn't even bother reading it so to hell with this league.

I'm sick and tired of this false argument. The players favor supporting struggling teams too. Your assertion that revenue sharing is only favored by the league and Bettman is demonstrably false. Here's a quote from the NHLPA's website. I've gone ahead and bolded the parts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you said is either intentionally misleading or unintentionally misguided. Either way, you're dead f'ing wrong.

"Meaningful revenue sharing is an essential component of any successful league. It is not a distraction; it is the heart of the issue.

After seven straight seasons of record revenue, it’s clear that if the NHL has a problem, it is not a revenue issue, but rather a revenue disparity issue. The owners’ revenue sharing proposal does increase to revenue sharing somewhat, but every dollar of revenue sharing is paid for by player salary reductions; the higher income clubs contribute nothing on their own.

The Players’ propose that they partner with the high-income teams to provide targeted funding for the distressed teams and owners. But the players won’t and shouldn’t have to do this alone. The higher income teams need to share far more with the lower revenue teams. The Players will do their part; will the owners?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in their counter offer the players wanted 25% variance. Here's an article that explains the player's counter proposal, they talk about variance in the paragraph right above the picture of Fehr and Crosby...

http://aol.sportingn...r-hockey-strike

Ah.

So it sounds more and more that the league really did make a take it or leave it offer. Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted. That's unrealistic.

Keep talking and adjusting everything. Meet somewhere between 5% and 25%. Or reduce the make whole in exchange for longer contract length. Or adjust CBA length.

I don't get why both variance AND term is worth blowing up the deal to ownership. Either a short term or a low variance (or some combination) will eliminate back diving. I'd be inclined to give them a little longer term for some job security for the stars, which as Richards points out, is good for the franchises when you know you'll have a star player for more years.

5% variance is extremely tight. I assumed (wrongly) that number was just a starting point and they'd move off of it. 10% would still eliminate backdiving pretty significantly, especially if you tied it to a 7 to 10 year term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sick and tired of this false argument. The players favor supporting struggling teams too. Your assertion that revenue sharing is only favored by the league and Bettman is demonstrably false. Here's a quote from the NHLPA's website. I've gone ahead and bolded the parts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you said is either intentionally misleading or unintentionally misguided. Either way, you're dead f'ing wrong.

"Meaningful revenue sharing is an essential component of any successful league. It is not a distraction; it is the heart of the issue.

After seven straight seasons of record revenue, it’s clear that if the NHL has a problem, it is not a revenue issue, but rather a revenue disparity issue. The owners’ revenue sharing proposal does increase to revenue sharing somewhat, but every dollar of revenue sharing is paid for by player salary reductions; the higher income clubs contribute nothing on their own.

The Players’ propose that they partner with the high-income teams to provide targeted funding for the distressed teams and owners. But the players won’t and shouldn’t have to do this alone. The higher income teams need to share far more with the lower revenue teams. The Players will do their part; will the owners?"

If this league would have an open market, this problem would have been non existent. I don't want the game to "grow" I want it to be highly competitive, with HOCKEY franchises and no some stupid experiments.

The NHL is a stubborn regime run by idiots, who think they just can lockout the players every 5 years and get their freaking will well this time the NHLPA will go into decertification before bending over.

Just blow it up and start from scratch, the league does deserve to lose revenue in a big way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah.

So it sounds more and more that the league really did make a take it or leave it offer. Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted. That's unrealistic.

Keep talking and adjusting everything. Meet somewhere between 5% and 25%. Or reduce the make whole in exchange for longer contract length. Or adjust CBA length.

I don't get why both variance AND term is worth blowing up the deal to ownership. Either a short term or a low variance (or some combination) will eliminate back diving. I'd be inclined to give them a little longer term for some job security for the stars, which as Richards points out, is good for the franchises when you know you'll have a star player for more years.

5% variance is extremely tight. I assumed (wrongly) that number was just a starting point and they'd move off of it. 10% would still eliminate backdiving pretty significantly, especially if you tied it to a 7 to 10 year term.

I agree with you that they could easily make due with 10% variance, however I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that "Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted". They didn't get everything they wanted, they already conceded (without caveats) on arbitration, entry level contracts, and age requirements for free agency.

If this league would have an open market, this problem would have been non existent. I don't want the game to "grow" I want it to be highly competitive, with HOCKEY franchises and no some stupid experiments.

The NHL is a stubborn regime run by idiots, who think they just can lockout the players every 5 years and get their freaking will well this time the NHLPA will go into decertification before bending over.

Just blow it up and start from scratch, the league does deserve to lose revenue in a big way.

The point of revenue sharing IS to make the league more competitive, which is why Phoenix and New Jersey (both teams that lose money) were in the conference finals last year. The players AND the league want revenue sharing for the same reason you say you do...because it makes more teams more competitive. Anything else?

hillbillywingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that they could easily make due with 10% variance, however I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that "Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted". They didn't get everything they wanted, they already conceded (without caveats) on arbitration, entry level contracts, and age requirements for free agency.

The point of revenue sharing IS to make the league more competitive, which is why Phoenix and New Jersey (both teams that lose money) were in the conference finals last year. The players AND the league want revenue sharing for the same reason you say you do...because it makes more teams more competitive. Anything else?

No the point is to force parity. We have the most competitive in all of sports why shouldn't he be allowed to spend 80 m on player salaries and ice a great team every year? Just because some questionable teams can't and wont even exist without RS? Too bad then they shouldn't have an NHL team.

Liked the pre 2005 era much better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO T in theory also in the real hockey world, if an owner can't or wont offer such a contract too bad but it is on his own terms. I am freaking sick and tired of hearing Mr. ANTI hockey and his hardline ******* trying to support franchises that shouldn't even have an NHL team, while teams who are providing more revenue are left out (I.E QUEBEC, Hamilton).

I now want the players to go nuclear and into decertification, they know some franchises won't survive an open market too bad the stubborn hardliners couldn't see that.

The PA provided a fair proposal the NHL didn't even bother reading it so to hell with this league.

in the first stages of the lockout, revenue sharing was actually a sticking point, with the players wanting more revenue sharing and the owners being against substantial revenue sharing. the reason for that is the players do not want to see any teams fold. less teams = less jobs for the union. players are just as guilty of wanting these small market teams to succeed as the owners.

it seems like these owners are in a no win situation. people get mad when owners don't spend money to make their teams better and only care about the bottom line, but then people turn around and get mad that owners are spending money that they can't afford to make their teams better.

Edited by chances14
hillbillywingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the point is to force parity. We have the most competitive in all of sports why shouldn't he be allowed to spend 80 m on player salaries and ice a great team every year? Just because some questionable teams can't and wont even exist without RS? Too bad then they shouldn't have an NHL team.

Liked the pre 2005 era much better...

Because that would make the league less, and not more, competitive? I'm not sure we're seeing eye to eye on the definition of competitive. More teams, all with a reasonable chance of winning in any given year, is competitive. Less teams, dominated by those that spend the most, is not competitive. You apparently favor having fewer teams, with success contingent on who can buy the most free agents, which if fine. But don't sit here and preach about how you want more competition.

Also, I'm going to reiterate again, the players want revenue sharing too. So stop making it seem like revenue sharing is some awful sin perpetrated by Bettman and the league. Players want more teams, because more teams mean more jobs, and more money. As a matter of fact, the owners want more teams, the players want more teams, and the fans in places like Dallas, Nashville, Phoenix, and Carolina want more teams. The only people that want teams to fold are people like you...an extreme minority.

Edited by kipwinger
hillbillywingsfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people that want teams to fold are people like you...an extreme minority.

I want teams to fold that have a business model only sustainable with the help of revenue sharing. I don't think those holding this position are an extreme minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want teams to fold that have a business model only sustainable with the help of revenue sharing. I don't think those holding this position are an extreme minority.

Like I said, all the owners favor revenue sharing, the NHLPA favors revenue sharing, and all the fans of teams who lose money (the majority of teams and fans) probably favor revenue sharing. So I'm not really sure who exactly does favor it, aside from fans in cities making money. Even then I don't know why they care, considering it's not their money, and their own players and owners organizations support the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that they could easily make due with 10% variance, however I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that "Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted". They didn't get everything they wanted, they already conceded (without caveats) on arbitration, entry level contracts, and age requirements for free agency.

I meant specifically their final proposal. That it was essentially take it or leave it.

Bob McKenzie is breaking down some interesting things about the 5 year contract limit on his twitter account. Here's my general summary of his thoughts:

According to him and capgeek, about 89 players have contracts greater than 5 years. And about half of those are on 6 or 7 year deals signed as free agents by their club, which would still be allowable under the new CBA.

So if all that is true and we're talking about 40 or 50 players that would potentially be affected, why does either side care so much?

As he points out you could use the math to argue for either side, but either way it's certainly not an issue that should have blown up the whole negotiations.

Like I said, all the owners favor revenue sharing, the NHLPA favors revenue sharing, and all the fans of teams who lose money (the majority of teams and fans) probably favor revenue sharing. So I'm not really sure who exactly does favor it, aside from fans in cities making money. Even then I don't know why they care, considering it's not their money, and their own players and owners organizations support the system.

I don't think that's true at all. I'm betting the wealthy franchises don't. Someone had posted a video clip of Keenan talking about an incident in 2005 with Ilitch pointing a finger at a fellow owner and wondering why he has to give him money because that guy doesn't know how to run a franchise.

If all the owners were in favor of it, it wouldn't have taken so long and been such a concession for them to increase it closer to what the NHLPA had offered in their proposal.

From an owner's perspective, it's going to be better to reduce costs by reducing players salary than having to give up part of your revenue to support a struggling franchise. So they're always going to argue cost certainty before revenue sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, all the owners favor revenue sharing, the NHLPA favors revenue sharing, and all the fans of teams who lose money (the majority of teams and fans) probably favor revenue sharing. So I'm not really sure who exactly does favor it, aside from fans in cities making money. Even then I don't know why they care, considering it's not their money, and their own players and owners organizations support the system.

I generally oppose revenue sharing on the premise that it punishes success, and rewards failure... which is never a winning combination. I re-call the video of an insider talking about a board of governors meeting where Mike Illitch called out another owner or owners for not being able to properly run a business and therefore forcing him to subsidize their failure. I wonder how much he really supports revenue sharing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The offer the PA tabled yesterday did not have a 25% variance on contact terms. They proposed that the lowest year value could not be less than 25% of the highest. If player X makes $10M this year on a 10 year contract, the lowest amount of any of those 10 years could be is $2.5M.

I wasn't a big fan of this.

Edited by rrasco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant specifically their final proposal. That it was essentially take it or leave it.

Bob McKenzie is breaking down some interesting things about the 5 year contract limit on his twitter account. Here's my general summary of his thoughts:

According to him and capgeek, about 89 players have contracts greater than 5 years. And about half of those are on 6 or 7 year deals signed as free agents by their club, which would still be allowable under the new CBA.

So if all that is true and we're talking about 40 or 50 players that would potentially be affected, why does either side care so much?

As he points out you could use the math to argue for either side, but either way it's certainly not an issue that should have blown up the whole negotiations.

I don't think that's true at all. I'm betting the wealthy franchises don't. Someone had posted a video clip of Keenan talking about an incident in 2005 with Ilitch pointing a finger at a fellow owner and wondering why he has to give him money because that guy doesn't know how to run a franchise.

If all the owners were in favor of it, it wouldn't have taken so long and been such a concession for them to increase it closer to what the NHLPA had offered in their proposal.

From an owner's perspective, it's going to be better to reduce costs by reducing players salary than having to give up part of your revenue to support a struggling franchise. So they're always going to argue cost certainty before revenue sharing.

I see what you mean, I don't think the issue is that it's only 50 players, but rather (as Bettman stated in his presser yesterday) that the tend is going toward longer contracts. As he said, prior to this last cba, only one player had a contract of that length. I think they're trying to preempt the problem. But you're right, it doesn't affect that many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean, I don't think the issue is that it's only 50 players, but rather (as Bettman stated in his presser yesterday) that the tend is going toward longer contracts. As he said, prior to this last cba, only one player had a contract of that length. I think they're trying to preempt the problem. But you're right, it doesn't affect that many people.

McKenize tweeted a link to some guy who made an interesting argument. One he wasn't even necessarily completely sold on, but is an interesting point.

The basic idea is that even though the 5 year contract length only involves a handful of players, it indirectly affects a lot of other players. The longer contracts are really only going to be with star players. And because of the cap and contract restrictions, it's more difficult for franchises to compete for star players. One way they can compete is by extending longer contracts. That means more job security for the player, but it also means a lower cap hit because of the longer term. That frees up more cap space for the lower line players.

The thinking (as I understand it) is if there's 5% variance and 5 year contracts, contracts could just get maxed out for the star players and eat up a greater portion of the cap, thereby depressing salaries for the lower line players because there's less cap space left to split among several players.

It's an interesting idea. And if the logic holds up is a counterargument to why the contracting issues affect more than just those 40 or 90 players.

So I don't know what to think about it anymore. I just want hockey.

kipwinger likes this

Share this post


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