[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

[Barrie 900]

While I understand Fehr's point of view here, about players losing rights and what not, I do not understand why they are not meeting and trying to come to an agreement somewhere in the middle. We have been locked out going on 5 days and no meetings have taken place, and no meetings are scheduled. It appears both sides have the same approach, do nothing till the other side caves.

Probably it's because Bettman is so arrogant and stubborn that's he's not worth trying to talk sense to. I heard someone on TSN radio say that a deal would probably get done if Bettman was told to leave the room.

Edit: Fehr has said he's not trying to get rid of the cap, he just wants to see the Owners revenue share and find better ways to generate revenue.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Barrie

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

Agree. The owners need to either get rid of the Floor, revenue share with bankrupt teams, or move the bankrupt teams to better hockey markets (if they want to continue under the current system). The Players don't have to give an inch.

I heard Forbes said the Leafs could pay Phoenix's entire debt and still be the richest team in the League. Obviously this isn't the Players fault. With fans and media on the Players side this time around, the longer this goes, the more info showing how screwed up the current system is will come out. The Owners will be the first to cave, and Bettman will lose his job.

I hope you're right, but I think that bettman and the owners are willing to go all year if they have to like last night. It's very unfortunate for the fans, I just want to see the wings play before Datsyuk gets too old

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

End the lockout. Come to an agreement. Stop screwing us the fans.

This has gone beyond ridiculous. The 4th out of the 4 major American sports leagues is undergoing its 4th work-stoppage in just over two decades.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

How long till the NHLPA will go to war? I'd tell the owners listen "we both want to get over with this and both sides need a fair deal". Some ownera s like G. Molson and the Rangerguy are not happy with the lockout and I am sure Mr. I isn't either.

So the only one standing in the way of a fair deal ist Bettman I'd really push the agenda to get him fired.

[Nev 1,085]

While I understand Fehr's point of view here, about players losing rights and what not, I do not understand why they are not meeting and trying to come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.

Because the NHL's original proposal was so utterly outrageous that "meeting in the middle" would still represent a massive reduction in pay and rights for the players. As I said earlier, the NHL's started out not with a basis for negotiation between 2 parties, but an ultimatum of surrender for a vanquished foe.

And all because a handful of teams have bad business models/bad markets, and the majority of owners keep handing out bonkers contracts.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

End the lockout. End of story.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

The highlights this morning mentioned some guy named "Ovechkin". i wonder if he's related to the NHL star?

There were highlights from another game in the KHL; the ice had more paint on it than a Skoda.

[Nic 59]

[esteef 2,679]

How about just fold all the teams in the "weaker markets" and tell the players to go find jobs elsewhere. That's what would happen if my boss "poorly managed" my company and I woudn't be guaranteed squat.

esteef

[Guest RedWingsDad]

How about just fold all the teams in the "weaker markets" and tell the players to go find jobs elsewhere. That's what would happen if my boss "poorly managed" my company and I woudn't be guaranteed squat.

esteef

I'm not sure if I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post.... but I agree. This is how free market economics work; if your business fails, you don't get to rely on your competition to bail you out. The argument that successful teams should redistribute their wealth to failing teams because the failing teams give their team someone to beat up on... doesn't hold water in the current scenario. The NHL can afford to lose 3-4 (or more) of the teams in the league bleeding money, and be better for it.

Of course, Bettman doesn't want to do that because he wants to land lucrative TV contacts... which he deems only possible if you have teams / viewership in a wide assortment of markets geographically (Phoenix, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, N. Carolina), and not just in the northern US and Canada.

Edited September 21, 2012 by RedWingsDad

[vladdy16 2,154]

It's time for the women to get involved! Sure can't hurt.....

[Tim Cheveldae's Ghost 9]

Lockouts are commonplace amongst all industries, so this is no surprise. Its only until recently that owners of companies have begun to exercise that right more, knowing they can squeeze their employers down to their demands eventually.

I hope the NHLPA never gives in to what the owners want and the league ultimately suffers a great defeat. I'm a Red Wings fan, NOT an NHL fan, so I could care less about the other 29 franchises. The longer the players refuse to negotiate, the better it will be for them in the end. They can always play overseas and marginal players with 2-way deals can play in the AHL. I think the whole season will be missed, maybe more, and the NHL will fade into obscurity in the American sports realm. The owners have brought this upon themselves and they will get what they deserve.

[Guest Johnz96]

Agree. The owners need to either get rid of the Floor, revenue share with bankrupt teams, or move the bankrupt teams to better hockey markets (if they want to continue under the current system). The Players don't have to give an inch.

I heard Forbes said the Leafs could pay Phoenix's entire debt and still be the richest team in the League. Obviously this isn't the Players fault. With fans and media on the Players side this time around, the longer this goes, the more info showing how screwed up the current system is will come out. The Owners will be the first to cave, and Bettman will lose his job.

If that turns out be the outcome, the lockout is almost worth it.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Johnz96

[frankgrimes 1,836]

If thats the case this would be the best lockout ever.

Midget already did too much damage to the game!

Sent from my BlackBerry

[Guest RedWingsDad]

Lockouts are commonplace amongst all industries, so this is no surprise. Its only until recently that owners of companies have begun to exercise that right more, knowing they can squeeze their employers down to their demands eventually.

I hope the NHLPA never gives in to what the owners want and the league ultimately suffers a great defeat. I'm a Red Wings fan, NOT an NHL fan, so I could care less about the other 29 franchises. The longer the players refuse to negotiate, the better it will be for them in the end. They can always play overseas and marginal players with 2-way deals can play in the AHL. I think the whole season will be missed, maybe more, and the NHL will fade into obscurity in the American sports realm. The owners have brought this upon themselves and they will get what they deserve.

So... I would like to hold you accountable for your statements. Please share why it is that you feel so strongly for the NHLPA, and seemingly have such vitriol towards the owners.

[55fan 5,133]

OK, all you financial types out there... I'm going to throw something out here, but I don't know if it would work for the NHL. Let me know what you think.

I work for a company that has a profit-sharing program. We get wages- not great wages, but wages nonetheless, plus other benefits for working, but at the end of the year, we get a share of the profits in addition to that.

It is based on the assumption that the company will make X dollars profit. If they do, the remainder of the profits gets split with the employees. If they don't, then they don't have to give us anything, but the one year that they didn't, they gave everyone a couple of hundred bucks anyway.

Where I work, the sharing is based in units. You get so many units for longevity, evaluation scores, and number of hours worked in the last year. The units are totaled, the money is divided, and we all get a check. Last year mine was close to three grand. Not bad for a $12/hour job.

So could this translate to the NHL? Players have their contracts. Owners pay the contracts. Then at the end of the season, they divvy up what's left above a certain amount. The owners get a sure profit or they don't pay the bonuses (which wouldn't count against the cap since they'd be even all around). If there is a profit, then everyone gets a piece of the pie.

They'd have to negotiate what the level of profit is for there to be a bonus, and also what the terms of payment would be, but it would get everyone marketing the league in hopes of more money.

Is this a viable solution? Or would it not work with something like the NHL?

[esteef 2,679]

^ Then every year there'd be an argument over what the "profit" would be with the owners projecting higher than they know they'll achieve and the players lowballing to easily get the bonuses. Plus, don't the players salaries already factor in what they bring to their respective "market". If that's the case then I'm sure the owners would want the salaries to come down then if the players want to share in the actual end of year profits. I'm no financial type though so who knows?

esteef

[sibiriak 84]

The highlights this morning mentioned some guy named "Ovechkin". i wonder if he's related to the NHL star?

There were highlights from another game in the KHL; the ice had more paint on it than a Skoda.

Envious? At least there's hockey being played over there, whatever the ice or the unis look like.

[sibiriak 84]

OK, all you financial types out there... I'm going to throw something out here, but I don't know if it would work for the NHL. Let me know what you think.

I work for a company that has a profit-sharing program. We get wages- not great wages, but wages nonetheless, plus other benefits for working, but at the end of the year, we get a share of the profits in addition to that.

It is based on the assumption that the company will make X dollars profit. If they do, the remainder of the profits gets split with the employees. If they don't, then they don't have to give us anything, but the one year that they didn't, they gave everyone a couple of hundred bucks anyway.

Where I work, the sharing is based in units. You get so many units for longevity, evaluation scores, and number of hours worked in the last year. The units are totaled, the money is divided, and we all get a check. Last year mine was close to three grand. Not bad for a $12/hour job.

So could this translate to the NHL? Players have their contracts. Owners pay the contracts. Then at the end of the season, they divvy up what's left above a certain amount. The owners get a sure profit or they don't pay the bonuses (which wouldn't count against the cap since they'd be even all around). If there is a profit, then everyone gets a piece of the pie.

They'd have to negotiate what the level of profit is for there to be a bonus, and also what the terms of payment would be, but it would get everyone marketing the league in hopes of more money.

Is this a viable solution? Or would it not work with something like the NHL?

Your company does it to motivate the employees, since their increased work effort potentially increases company profit and therefore offering employee bonuses benefits the company's bottom line.

NHL players are paid to win games. That would tend to increase the profits of their own team, but not the league combined profit, since for every (Wings ) win and a happy (Wings) fan buying tix and merchandise, there must necessarily be a loss and an angry fan of some other team who does not buy NHL stuff.

So it would make no sense for the NHL as a whole to give the players a share of the combined profits, because increased players' effort does not increase the combined profit of the league.

And every NHL team already pays bonuses for winning - that's what playoff bonuses are for.

[Dabura 12,206]

Owners = Sadists

Players = Masochists

Bettman = Gimp

[55fan 5,133]

Your company does it to motivate the employees, since their increased work effort potentially increases company profit and therefore offering employee bonuses benefits the company's bottom line.

NHL players are paid to win games. That would tend to increase the profits of their own team, but not the league combined profit, since for every (Wings ) win and a happy (Wings) fan buying tix and merchandise, there must necessarily be a loss and an angry fan of some other team who does not buy NHL stuff.

So it would make no sense for the NHL as a whole to give the players a share of the combined profits, because increased players' effort does not increase the combined profit of the league.

And every NHL team already pays bonuses for winning - that's what playoff bonuses are for.

Good insight. You are right about the motive.

I guess hockey players don't really need motivation to win games as much as I need it to put stuff in boxes.

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

OK, all you financial types out there... I'm going to throw something out here, but I don't know if it would work for the NHL. Let me know what you think.

I work for a company that has a profit-sharing program. We get wages- not great wages, but wages nonetheless, plus other benefits for working, but at the end of the year, we get a share of the profits in addition to that.

It is based on the assumption that the company will make X dollars profit. If they do, the remainder of the profits gets split with the employees. If they don't, then they don't have to give us anything, but the one year that they didn't, they gave everyone a couple of hundred bucks anyway.

Where I work, the sharing is based in units. You get so many units for longevity, evaluation scores, and number of hours worked in the last year. The units are totaled, the money is divided, and we all get a check. Last year mine was close to three grand. Not bad for a $12/hour job.

So could this translate to the NHL? Players have their contracts. Owners pay the contracts. Then at the end of the season, they divvy up what's left above a certain amount. The owners get a sure profit or they don't pay the bonuses (which wouldn't count against the cap since they'd be even all around). If there is a profit, then everyone gets a piece of the pie.

They'd have to negotiate what the level of profit is for there to be a bonus, and also what the terms of payment would be, but it would get everyone marketing the league in hopes of more money.

Is this a viable solution? Or would it not work with something like the NHL?

They have it already. Just in reverse. It is called escrow. If league as a whole does not make quite enough money it gets to take some back from the players.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

They have it already. Just in reverse. It is called escrow. If league as a whole does not make quite enough money it gets to take some back from the players.

My understanding is they take it from the players all season long. Then if they don't meet the revenue targets they hang on to it. Otherwise the players get it back at the end of the season.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Envious? At least there's hockey being played over there, whatever the ice or the unis look like.

Not in the least. NBC should take a chance and show their games. They could set up shop now and be there for Sochi.

[sibiriak 84]

Not in the least. NBC should take a chance and show their games. They could set up shop now and be there for Sochi.

It would have been nice, but it is tough for me to watch teams I have no emotional investment in. I tried watching KHL online and I got bored. The low pic quality may have had something to do with it, but also I don't know most of the players.