2458 replies to this topic

[frankgrimes]

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.

RS is basically an option not the answer. The league - especially the BOG - has allowed a certain guy too much power and therefore agreed to franchises that just can't support themselves, so what exac tly is the point of having them? Keep in mind, relocation =/= fold? Would I love seeing a 30 team league well run you can be t on it but as this stupid lockout has proven, that is not the case and the current regime will always find things to force their stupid parity s***.

The 5 year contract limit is crap, it would basically remove a lot of player rights they've countered with a great proposal the NHL should be ashamed for not accepting it. It is not up to the players to give up money and their rights, so the league can continue to support piss poor owners and horrible run franchises. Believe I'd love seeing the Isles succesful again but as long as they have their japanse owner nothing is going to change. Why should a guy like Mike pay for him?

Are the players without any sort of blame? No, but the hardline owners are just delusional for me I think it is time, for the good guys Mr. I, Dolan, Acqelani, Geffrey Molson and Snider to speak up against the BOG, their puppet and the play it poor owners because we then qualify for RS.

Some NHL guys don't even understand the point of negotiating this, picking things you like and then modify those you don't like is the whole point of this.

If I am a player and a guy with no hockey skills, no hockey sense and the charisma of a punching bag is calling me indirectly out like that you can bet I'd give my leader (Fehr) not only full support but also the green light to go nuclear against the BOG.

I think the Wings as a club would benefit from decertification so I am all for it, no more stall lockout tactics every 5 years.

[F.Michael]

If you ask me, the compromise is a Luxury Tax.

It's quite possible that Fehr is fine with losing this season - only to introduce a luxury tax for the 2013/2014 season...Maybe - just maybe some of the more profitable franchises push for this as a means to avoid losing 2 seasons in a row?

EDIT - truth be told - I'd love to see a luxury tax.

Edited by F.Michael, 07 December 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[frankgrimes]

It's quite possible that Fehr is fine with losing this season - only to introduce a luxury tax for the 2013/2014 season...Maybe - just maybe some of the more profitable franchises push for this as a means to avoid losing 2 seasons in a row?

EDIT - truth be told - I'd love to see a luxury tax.

That is the sort of RS I like, franchises like the Wings are still paying for others but the gain something from it -------->more space to sign great players and put a winner on the ice. There is a reason why the MLB is working like a charm since Fehr introduced the luxury tax.

If it takes a season or two to finally get in, count me in the game will be better than ever, without the stupid cap and player rights restrictions.

[chances14]

FWIW, @dater has since backtracked on all these comments and apologized.

I know he apparently writes for the Denver Post and SI at times, but I don't really think he's a consistent and credible source (that's my opinion as a hockey fan, not a mod), especially when compared to guys like McKenzie, Dreger and Lebrun.

more like the player he spoke to backtracked and now he's taking the heat claiming it was out of context.



this is worth a read

I’m sure this must seem like a wild coincidence: four lockouts in fourteen months, affecting three of the four major professional sports leagues of this country. What are the odds? Actually, they’re very good. This is not merely a case of four sets of labor negotiations that have tragically broken down. This is a conscious, industry-wide strategy. A law firm called Proskauer Rose is now representing management in all four major men’s sports leagues, the first time in history one firm has been hired to play such a unified role. In practice, this has meant that in four sets of negotiations with four very different economic issues at play, we get the same results: lockouts and a stack of union complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. It’s been great for owners and awful for players, fans, stadium workers and tax payers.

Proskauer Rose partner Howard Ganz represents the NBA and Major League Baseball, and fellow-partner Bob Batterman has led negotiations for the NFL and the NHL. As Sports Business Daily reported, “Batterman and Ganz provide advice on strategy, as well as on issues that can emerge during talks, such as the legality of using replacement players.”

Edited by chances14, 08 December 2012 - 01:41 AM.

[RippedOnNitro]

Ok, so let me see if I can understand...(please correct me if I am wrong):

1) The only issue is the contract length and % difference on the contract in order to prevent front-loading.

Let's say player A is 34 years old and signs a new contract (I am not sure what age a 'star' player normally retires, but let's say at age 38).

Owners proposal:
Year 1: $8.0M
Year 2: $7.6M
Year 3: $7.2M
Year 4: $6.8M
Year 5: $6.5M
Year 6: $6.2M
Year 7: $5.9M
Cap hit: $6.9M --> player got paid $29.6M while the cap hit was $27.6M. --> cap relieve of $2.0M

Players proposal:
Year 1: $8.0M
Year 2: $8.0M
Year 3: $8.0M
Year 4: $8.0M
Year 5: $2.0M
Year 6: $2.0M
Year 7: $2.0M
Year 8: $2.0M
Cap hit: $5.0M --> player got paid $32M while the cap hit was $20M --> cap relieve of $12.0M

So only one of these proposals actually solves the front loaded contracts?

2) The players want to fight for the future players...ok fair, but why not propose a CBA length of 15-20 years? That means more security...
You know that the owners will take another money grab when the new cba expires...so they put themselves/future players in the same situation in 8 years.

[Echolalia]

I suspect that Fehr isn't playing the game with just this lockout in mind. Its apparent that the players are unhappy with how often and willing the league is to use a lockout as leverage to get what they're looking for. Based on what I've heard through the players, Bettman, media, etc, it sounds like Fehr is trying to make this process as uncomfortable, difficult, and frustrating as possible for the owners (even if that means turning down an offer that seems relatively reasonable for the players).
I think there are two goals here: 1) To get a fair CBA, and 2) To prevent the owners and Bettman from wanting to lockout the players again after the new CBA expires.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

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

I generally support the players but at this point it makes me wonder how many players are affected by 5% vs 25% variance as well as 5 vs 8 years contract length limit. I suspect majority never get to sign a 5 year deal during their whole career. If the only issues truly were the CBA, contract length and year-to-year variance then in my opinion players should have taken the deal. I assume existing long contracts would have been grandfathered in so Crosby's and Ovechkin's do not have a reason to complain either.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

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...

They did allow league expansion into unfavorable markets. I believe owners get some say in such manners so they can't claim complete innocence. Also even successful teams need opponents to play against. If they are so opposed to revenue sharing then allow poor teams to fold and go forward with a smaller league but stop complaining about something, which is of their own making and within their power to address.

[frankgrimes]

I generally support the players but at this point it makes me wonder how many players are affected by 5% vs 25% variance as well as 5 vs 8 years contract length limit. I suspect majority never get to sign a 5 year deal during their whole career. If the only issues truly were the CBA, contract length and year-to-year variance then in my opinion players should have taken the deal. I assume existing long contracts would have been grandfathered in so Crosby's and Ovechkin's do not have a reason to complain either.

Well I think the real issue here is, that we have two negotiators who want to win first and thats why I blame BOTH sides.

This is not about winning a battle it should be about getting hockey back on track by giving and taking from both sides. I really thought the PA offer would have been a starting point, sadly it was not.

I mean the NHL wants 5 % the PA 25 % why not meet at 15 % (either is giving up 10 %)
Same with contract lenght PA 8 years, NHL 5 years meet at 7?

It is really mind boggling how stubborn both parties are at this point. Let's be honest here, they have already agreed on the money terms are they really going to cancel a season because of such minor crap? If so screw the owners, players and everyone involved.

Edited by frankgrimes, 08 December 2012 - 12:37 PM.

[Johnz96]

I suspect that Fehr isn't playing the game with just this lockout in mind. Its apparent that the players are unhappy with how often and willing the league is to use a lockout as leverage to get what they're looking for. Based on what I've heard through the players, Bettman, media, etc, it sounds like Fehr is trying to make this process as uncomfortable, difficult, and frustrating as possible for the owners (even if that means turning down an offer that seems relatively reasonable for the players).
I think there are two goals here: 1) To get a fair CBA, and 2) To prevent the owners and Bettman from wanting to lockout the players again after the new CBA expires.

When they unlock the doors we have to do our part too. We can't just let them do this to us every time the CBA expires.

[haroldsnepsts]

Dustin Penner tweeted about an article that's a pretty interesting read. It's in the Nation, which i don't really read or know a lot about so take it for what it's worth.

But it points out how the same law firm Proskauer Rose is representing management in all 4 major sports for the first time in history. Since that has happened there has been lockout in 3 of the 4 sports. They assert that it's a unified strategy across leagues, in spite of the extremely different economic circumstances in each one.

A law firm called Proskauer Rose is now representing management in all four major men’s sports leagues, the first time in history one firm has been hired to play such a unified role. In practice, this has meant that in four sets of negotiations with four very different economic issues at play, we get the same results: lockouts and a stack of union complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. It’s been great for owners and awful for players, fans, stadium workers and tax payers.

Oh, and know who used to be a lawyer at this law firm? Gary Bettman (David Stern did as well)

He goes overboard towards the end relating it to corporations as a whole and the bias is pretty heavy, but the fact it's the same law firm makes for an interesting and depressing read.

http://www.thenation...troying-sports#

more like the player he spoke to backtracked and now he's taking the heat claiming it was out of context.



this is worth a read

No, it's just that he overextrapolated from what one anonymous player who was not in the room was saying at a very emotional time.

With over 700 players I'm sure they're not completely unified and some were questioning what happened and if it's the right move. But dater's comments completely overreached based on the context of when and what he was told.

Basically, bad journalism. His twitter account reads more like a fans is all I'm saying. Even compared to Aaron Ward, who is pretty clearly favoring players in this lockout.

[rrasco]

I mean the NHL wants 5 % the PA 25 % why not meet at 15 % (either is giving up 10 %)
Same with contract lenght PA 8 years, NHL 5 years meet at 7?

That's incorrect. It's not a 25% variance. It's a 25% minimum of the maximum. A little bit different and doesn't actually go to prevent back-diving contacts like a variance would. Not at a 25% minimum anyways.

And Daly said the contract issues are the 'hill they will die on'. They are posturing, or really don't intend to move off the 5 year contract term; and possibly the 5% variance.

Edited by rrasco, 08 December 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[haroldsnepsts]

That's incorrect. It's not a 25% variance. It's a 25% minimum of the maximum. A little bit different and doesn't actually go to prevent back-diving contacts like a variance would. Not at a 25% minimum anyways.

And Daly said the contract issues are the 'hill they will die on'. They are posturing, or really don't intend to move off the 5 year contract term; and possibly the 5% variance.

I thought he said the 5 year term was the hill they would die on, which is ridiculous.

The variance I could completely understand, though I think they could move up a ways from 5% and still eliminate back diving.

If the NHLPA offered 25% min of the maximum and not variance, then that's a terrible move on their part. It's one thing to negotiate the variance number, but that's miles away from what is clearly extremely important to the league and has been since day one. Bettman's irritation with backdiving contracts was clear well before the last CBA had even expired, and without doing the math it seems like 25% min of the max will not prevent it.

[rrasco]

I thought he said the 5 year term was the hill they would die on, which is ridiculous.

The variance I could completely understand, though I think they could move up a ways from 5% and still eliminate back diving.

If the NHLPA offered 25% min of the maximum and not variance, then that's a terrible move on their part. It's one thing to negotiate the variance number, but that's miles away from what is clearly extremely important to the league and has been since day one. Bettman's irritation with backdiving contracts was clear well before the last CBA had even expired, and without doing the math it seems like 25% min of the max will not prevent it.

I was unclear of exactly which issues they would 'die on the hill' for, but I'm fairly positive the contract term was one. The three things they listed in the presser I believe were contract term, 5% variance, and CBA term. I don't know if Daly was specifying one of those or all of them as the hill they would die on. I would presume all three, as that is why they offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

And I agree, the PA put some kind of restriction on the value year to year but I think we can all agree it would not be effective for the purpose it was intended. Those numbers or format would have to move a lot closer to what the league came up with.

[cusimano_brothers]

Dustin Penner tweeted about an article that's a pretty interesting read. It's in the Nation, which i don't really read or know a lot about so take it for what it's worth.

He's also found another way to keep busy.

[haroldsnepsts]

He's also found another way to keep busy.

embedded for you.

[cusimano_brothers]

Thank you.

[Nightfall]

It's quite possible that Fehr is fine with losing this season - only to introduce a luxury tax for the 2013/2014 season...Maybe - just maybe some of the more profitable franchises push for this as a means to avoid losing 2 seasons in a row?

EDIT - truth be told - I'd love to see a luxury tax.

A luxury tax would be both a benefit and a curse.

I suspected that Fehr was going to want a luxury tax when he started the process of negotiating. In order to get the luxury tax, the season will be lost. Could everyone deal with another lost season to get a luxury tax? I am sure the uninformed and biased will blame Bettman for the lost season regardless if Fehr is the one who is pushing for the luxury tax to sacrifice the season.

Personally, I like the idea of a luxury tax as well.

[frankgrimes]

Don Fehr introducing a luxury tax would make him a god amongst players and fans, to me it'd be well worth it!

LT is so much better than the stupid cap. In the end the NHL might not even have a choice if they continue to throw the PA under the bus, they are going to decertify or pursh hard for a luxury tax.

[haroldsnepsts]

Mayers and Westgarth were interviewed by ESPN while at a charity game in Windsor. They were both in the room for the players owners meeting and are optimistic both sides really are close.

They also seemed surprised by the NHL's response to the NHLPA offer.

During their Thursday news conference, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly said they were looking for a yes or no answer from the players rather than more negotiations. According to Mayers, that wasn't the message they received from inside the room.

"To be honest, it was never a take-it-or-leave-it offer they gave. I was in the room. That may have changed now; that wasn't how it was presented," Mayers said. "They pointed out those elements that were important to them. We came back and addressed every single one of them."

I don't know if that makes it better or worse than it sounds like a colossal lack of communication between both sides than a deliberate strategy by anyone.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8728037/los-angeles-kings-kevin-westgarth-chicago-blackhawks-jamal-mayers-optimistic-regarding-labor-talks

From Dreger:

As bleak as it seemed Thursday following emotional press conferences in NYC, both sides are pushing their leaders to get back to the table.