2458 replies to this topic

[Dabura]

This is the problem I have with the logic of the league side. Because of the owners ridiculous first proposal, Bettman keeps claiming all they've done is concede. Starting at an insane point and moving towards something reasonable, however, is not really a concession. It just means you've actually decided to negotiate in good faith. Fehr should have started by taking the cap off the table, or increasing player share to 70%. Then he could have "conceded" to allowing the cap be in play again. Or having the percentage come down to 60%.

Bang on, harold.

These negotiations are a farce. And if that's at all on the players, then it's twice as much on "Bettman et al."

[BottleOfSmoke]

@AnsarKhanMLive: NHL talks to resume Wednesday under secrecy, contracting issues remain sticking point to CBA | http://t.co/gJ1ojxIv http://t.co/UEE42WzF

[cusimano_brothers]

Lawyer-ese, from TSN's Legal Look: NHLPA vs. Disclaimer of Interest.

[StormJH1]

I know what you're saying, but I'd hardly call it generous to agree to honor a portion of the contract you've decided not to pay in full, some of which were signed only months ago.

All sports are different, but the NBA is a relatively close business to the NHL. And in comparison, the NHL players are getting hammered in this negotiation, in great part due to the sins of the owners.

And of the things that benefit players listed in the article:

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

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

3) eliminate re-entry waivers;

4) 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);

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

Brilliant. I think the bulk of the hockey-following public really has lost touch with this debate. They hear little bits and pieces of another "concession" by the owners, and when a deal doesn't happen the next day, it must be because Fehr's an *******.

There is no "negotiation" here. This is more like a hostage situation where Bettman has kidnapped little bits and pieces of what the players already had, and letting them out piece by piece. At the end of the day, if he's only taking and not giving back, he's still the aggressor in all of this.

Player salaries did not become inflated (AGAIN) because the players are "greedy" or "overpaid". The salaries went up because the 2005 CBA and its salary cap that the OWNERS unilaterally wanted and forced upon the NHLPA is fundamentally broken. To put the salary cap and floor so close together and to raise the cap so aggressively so that it nearly doubled in the course of 7 years is absurd. The struggling market teams literally HAD to start overpaying mid-level guys to even meet the salary floor. It's not like Crosby and Ovechkin are readily available on the free agent market. You fill out your team and keep your budget up by paying way too much for Jeff Finger, Mike Cammeileri, or Ville Leino.

And worst of all, the same owners who now say they're all losing money were going out of their way to pay more ACTUAL money than the salary cap apparently allows. How do you expect the NHLPA to "give in", given that total lack of credibility on the other side?

[cusimano_brothers]

There are rotating teachers' strikes going on now in Ontario, so...

[Barrie]

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to wonder if in a few years some players are going to file lawsuits against Bettman and the League for costing them 2 years of their career, and I'm not talking about salary. Everytime I see Datsyuk and Zetterberg, I think of how unfair it is to them to have to lose 60 career goals and 80 career assists to their lifetime totals because Bettman and the owners can't make things work. These lockout are effecting career numbers and are taking away a chance for some players to reach levels of excellence in the history of the game.

Bettman can only push people around for so long before they push him back 10 times worse. I know if I was a star player, I'd think of something like a personal lawsuit against the guy. I'd ask around and see what other players thought and if they'd want to join me.

[ami]

... Everytime I see Datsyuk and Zetterberg, I think of how unfair it is to them to have to lose 60 career goals and 80 career assists to their lifetime totals ....

Last time I checked these two were getting their lifetime goals and assists. Players have places where they could go, and many actually went to explore these places.

Now, tell me about Detroit Red Wings or Toronto Maple Leafs or any other NHL team. Where is these can go to earn their goals and assists?


You guys massively misunderstood the situation. As well as an author of the funny picture above misunderstsood it. Unions bring FEHR, not Bettman. Feel the difference.

Edited by ami, 11 December 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[Nightfall]

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to wonder if in a few years some players are going to file lawsuits against Bettman and the League for costing them 2 years of their career, and I'm not talking about salary. Everytime I see Datsyuk and Zetterberg, I think of how unfair it is to them to have to lose 60 career goals and 80 career assists to their lifetime totals because Bettman and the owners can't make things work. These lockout are effecting career numbers and are taking away a chance for some players to reach levels of excellence in the history of the game.

Bettman can only push people around for so long before they push him back 10 times worse. I know if I was a star player, I'd think of something like a personal lawsuit against the guy. I'd ask around and see what other players thought and if they'd want to join me.

Ah, what short memories we have.

Fans were on the owners side during the first lockout when the players were drawing over 70% of the revenues in the game. The players didn't budge for a cap while the owners insisted. So whos fault was it when a deal couldn't be worked out and a season was lost?

The sooner the general public cuts through the bull and the rhetoric and realizes that the lost games are the result of two sides unwilling to work together, the better off we will be.

[hillbillywingsfan]

Ah, what short memories we have.

Fans were on the owners side during the first lockout when the players were drawing over 70% of the revenues in the game. The players didn't budge for a cap while the owners insisted. So whos fault was it when a deal couldn't be worked out and a season was lost?

The sooner the general public cuts through the bull and the rhetoric and realizes that the lost games are the result of two sides unwilling to work together, the better off we will be.

Now Now you know the players deserve 100% of revenues because they are the professional athletes and have trained their hearts out for the chance to place at the nhl level and they all have 10 kids to feed off of their measly salaries and the owners are just fat cats sitting on their high horses drinking their cokes from cans.Let's forget about the fact that there would be no NHL without the Fat cats in charge that are willing to put up their money that they earned from whatever business they had before hockey. We all know Mr I's money was just handed to him anyways so why wont he just hand all of his out to the players. They have enough money and don't need no stinking revenues. Bettman is the only one negotiating to get whats best for the owners against those poor players and Saint Fehr. Maybe we can have a feast day for Fehr after this is all over.

[Buppy]

Ah, what short memories we have.

Fans were on the owners side during the first lockout when the players were drawing over 70% of the revenues in the game. The players didn't budge for a cap while the owners insisted. So whos fault was it when a deal couldn't be worked out and a season was lost?

The sooner the general public cuts through the bull and the rhetoric and realizes that the lost games are the result of two sides unwilling to work together, the better off we will be.

The present can often give one a new perspective on the past. Many people may have been on the owners' side during the last lockout, but that doesn't mean the owners' were right or that the hard cap and 24% rollback were the right solution. Furthermore, even if the owners were right it doesn't mean Bettman is the right man to be leading negotiations.

At this point, it's safe to say a pattern has emerged. Three negotiations and three of the five longest work stoppages in pro sports. Almost no one from the players, owners, or PA leadership was around for the first lockout. Many have even changed since the second. But Gary has been a constant. Before Gary, Goodenow led a strike, but it lasted only 10 days and no games were missed. Fehr led one major strike, but also led two negotiations afterward that were resolved without a work stoppage.

History suggests that Bettman just isn't qualified to be leading negotiations.

You say it's "two sides unwilling to work together", but what does that even mean? Seems to me your definition of "working together" is just "reaching an agreement".

[Seraph]

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to wonder if in a few years some players are going to file lawsuits against Bettman and the League for costing them 2 years of their career, and I'm not talking about salary. Everytime I see Datsyuk and Zetterberg, I think of how unfair it is to them to have to lose 60 career goals and 80 career assists to their lifetime totals because Bettman and the owners can't make things work. These lockout are effecting career numbers and are taking away a chance for some players to reach levels of excellence in the history of the game.

Bettman can only push people around for so long before they push him back 10 times worse. I know if I was a star player, I'd think of something like a personal lawsuit against the guy. I'd ask around and see what other players thought and if they'd want to join me.

Good point. In ten years, people will be like, "Zetterberg didn't put up as much points as our new star center, but you have to remember, he played in the 'lock-out era.' Who knows how they would compare without the missed production time."

[Johnz96]

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to wonder if in a few years some players are going to file lawsuits against Bettman and the League for costing them 2 years of their career, and I'm not talking about salary. Everytime I see Datsyuk and Zetterberg, I think of how unfair it is to them to have to lose 60 career goals and 80 career assists to their lifetime totals because Bettman and the owners can't make things work. These lockout are effecting career numbers and are taking away a chance for some players to reach levels of excellence in the history of the game.

Bettman can only push people around for so long before they push him back 10 times worse. I know if I was a star player, I'd think of something like a personal lawsuit against the guy. I'd ask around and see what other players thought and if they'd want to join me.

The Wings wouda won a Cup in 05 for sure

[Johnz96]

Ah, what short memories we have.

Fans were on the owners side during the first lockout when the players were drawing over 70% of the revenues in the game. The players didn't budge for a cap while the owners insisted. So whos fault was it when a deal couldn't be worked out and a season was lost?

The sooner the general public cuts through the bull and the rhetoric and realizes that the lost games are the result of two sides unwilling to work together, the better off we will be.

You mean fans like you and Hillbilly, I don't remember the fans being more on the owners side. A lot of fans were in favor of a luxury tax and a lot of fans were aware that locking us out was part of Bettman's negotiating tactic.

[Nightfall]

You mean fans like you and Hillbilly, I don't remember the fans being more on the owners side. A lot of fans were in favor of a luxury tax and a lot of fans were aware that locking us out was part of Bettman's negotiating tactic.

Fans were more on ownerships side back in the last lockout.

[RedWingsDad]

You mean fans like you and Hillbilly, I don't remember the fans being more on the owners side. A lot of fans were in favor of a luxury tax and a lot of fans were aware that locking us out was part of Bettman's negotiating tactic.

"...a lot of fans were aware that locking us out was part of Bettman's negotiating tactic." ...is an illogical allegation to make. If owners want X, and players won't give X, a lockout is the natural outcome... not a negotiating tactic. The concept of playing without a CBA is non-sense and solely a "negotiating tactic" used by the NHLPA to attempt to make themselves look reasonable, and owners unreasonable.

[Echolalia]

"...a lot of fans were aware that locking us out was part of Bettman's negotiating tactic." ...is an illogical allegation to make. If owners want X, and players won't give X, a lockout is the natural outcome... not a negotiating tactic. The concept of playing without a CBA is non-sense and solely a "negotiating tactic" used by the NHLPA to attempt to make themselves look reasonable, and owners unreasonable.

I don't think this is an entirely fair assessment to make. Remember the initial proposal that Bettman and the owners put forth was quite ridiculous and the players would have been asinine to accept. The first proposal wasn't a proposal so much as it was signifying where the owners and Bettman wanted to begin negotiating from. By putting forth that specific proposal, the owners decided to take the lockout route for a better starting point in negotiations. They could have put a more reasonable proposal down in hopes of avoiding a lockout altogether, but then they may not get as much in the new CBA after negotiations.
On playing through the season while negotiating, I agree with you. The players would have no incentive to bargain while a season was ongoing.

[RedWingsDad]

I don't think this is an entirely fair assessment to make. Remember the initial proposal that Bettman and the owners put forth was quite ridiculous and the players would have been asinine to accept. The first proposal wasn't a proposal so much as it was signifying where the owners and Bettman wanted to begin negotiating from. By putting forth that specific proposal, the owners decided to take the lockout route for a better starting point in negotiations. They could have put a more reasonable proposal down in hopes of avoiding a lockout altogether, but then they may not get as much in the new CBA after negotiations.
On playing through the season while negotiating, I agree with you. The players would have no incentive to bargain while a season was ongoing.

I do agree that both sides have used various negotiating tactics. Bettmans opening low-ball offer. Both sides claiming that their constituencies are united behind them. Fehr always coming away from negotiating sessions sounding cheery and optimistic. Bettman putting one time take it or leave it offers on the table... are all negotiating tactics.

If I re-call, the league wanted to start up negotiations long before the season ended and the NHLPA did not come to the table. I see what your saying about the leagues initial low-ball offer contributing to the likelihood of a lockout... but I still contend that the statement "Bettman used a lockout as a negotiating tactic" is not logically sound when you consider what a negotiation actual is, and take into account all the surrounding circumstances.

Edited by RedWingsDad, 12 December 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[Nightfall]

I do agree that both sides have used various negotiating tactics. Bettmans opening low-ball offer. Both sides claiming that their constituencies are united behind them. Fehr always coming away from negotiating sessions sounding cheery and optimistic. Bettman putting one time take it or leave it offers on the table... are all negotiating tactics.

If I re-call, the league wanted to start up negotiations long before the season ended and the NHLPA did not come to the table. I see what your saying about the leagues initial low-ball offer contributing to the likelihood of a lockout... but I still contend that the statement "Bettman used a lockout as a negotiating tactic" is not logically sound when you consider what a negotiation actual is, and take into account all the surrounding circumstances.

This has always been my stance all along. Both sides have sinned in these negotiations, and the resulting lost games are not due to Bettman alone. You can blame both sides pretty equally. What I find pretty outlandish is that those people sitting on their respective sides, either the owners or players, are unwilling to see the sins of their side but are totally open about seeing the faults of the side they are against. I just cannot understand for the life of me how someone can be supporting a side that has not negotiated in good faith from the start. The tactics of both sides really have been frustrating to say the least as well.

[cusimano_brothers]

I have no problem in supporting Mr. Fehr and the NHLPA. If you want something bad enough, you go out and put up a good fight to get it. The numbers I look at are straightforward: 3 lockouts, 30-0.
And, before anyone dare ask the question, here's the answer: I have absolutely no problem sleeping at night.

[Jedi]

As of about an hour ago, the CBA meeting broke for lunch. Per Dreger, federal mediators have been in and out of the meetings so far.