2458 replies to this topic

[RippedOnNitro]

I know I was just making a play off the movie but I think it would be pointless for the owners, it won't draw fans, it costs to run it and the insurance... Just a bigger waste of money... In my opinion and would actually give players to just say... "See we fill the arenas not the owners just putting guys on the ice"

You might be right yes, but was just thinking out loud on how to just start the regular season. I don't mind at all seeing Detroit's prospects giving it their all in the NHL when given a chance.

[RippedOnNitro]

Yeah, it has to. Last lockout they lost a whole season and then caved into all the demands of the owners to get the next season started.

The owners will not even remotely consider negotiating until a whole season is lost AND it continues into the next season. Right now the owners are thinking "we'll just wait it out until before the start of the 2013-14 season and the players will cave again to get the next season going again like they did last time"

If the lockout goes into a second season, then the owners will start to get nervous and realize the players are serious this time.

And if the players aren't willing to let the lockout go into the 2013-14 season, then honestly, they may as well just cave in to all the owners demands now and get it over with.

Thats the reality of the situation.

I wonder who gets nervous first...the owners of the players? History says the players...and from my own opinion I also think the players would be getting nervous before the owners.

Just think of it...owners of the losing teams don't have to pay the players, therefore saving a lot of money. Besides the "higher talented" players (even they can earn only less in the KHL under current rules), others will be playing in the AHL or other lower leagues making a lot less money.

You can say what you want, but the paychecks/contracts they receive from the NHL are always very generous (even if they have to give up 10% of it).

[chances14]

saw this earlier
http://themccabechro...h.html?spref=tw

I wonder who gets nervous first...the owners of the players? History says the players...and from my own opinion I also think the players would be getting nervous before the owners.

Just think of it...owners of the losing teams don't have to pay the players, therefore saving a lot of money. Besides the "higher talented" players (even they can earn only less in the KHL under current rules), others will be playing in the AHL or other lower leagues making a lot less money.

You can say what you want, but the paychecks/contracts they receive from the NHL are always very generous (even if they have to give up 10% of it).

the top dogs and the face of the union players like dan cleary might be willing to drag this out for a year but i think the lesser known players like the drew millers and patrick eaves of the league are going to be squirming once their paychecks stop come october

Edited by chances14, 25 September 2012 - 02:09 AM.

[Nightfall]

The players gave ground with every proposal they've made. As has been pointed out multiple times, they're not asking for anything more. They just want to lose less.

If we're trying to meet in the middle and you start by backing up 100 yards, it doesn't really matter if we both take 3 steps forward.

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.

You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

[RippedOnNitro]

saw this earlier
http://themccabechro...h.html?spref=tw



the top dogs and the face of the union players like dan cleary might be willing to drag this out for a year but i think the lesser known players like the drew millers and patrick eaves of the league are going to be squirming once their paychecks stop come october

Isn't this actually bad press for the players? A player saying they have absolutely no problem with sitting out even more than a season in order to secure their huge paychecks?

[RippedOnNitro]

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.

You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

I concur 100%. Making a deal should not be that hard if both parties would look for a solution which is in the best interest of the league and not in the best interest of the owners or the players.

[Buppy]

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.

You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

Please tell me why you continue to ignore the facts? The only thing temporary about the players proposal is the term, and any agreement is going to have a term. Do you really still not know the players proposal after you've been told several times?

...
Just think of it...owners of the losing teams don't have to pay the players, therefore saving a lot of money.
...

That's not really true. There are still major expenses that have to be paid, and with a lockout a greatly reduced revenue stream to pay them from. Everyone loses money in a lockout.

[Nightfall]

Please tell me why you continue to ignore the facts? The only thing temporary about the players proposal is the term, and any agreement is going to have a term. Do you really still not know the players proposal after you've been told several times?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739

The facts are quite clear. This is a pretty good analysis of the proposals and situation.

Edited by Nightfall, 25 September 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[rrasco]

The fact of the matter is I am one pissed off paying customer. And I'm watchingf****** football. Ack!

[WizardOfOz30]

I was just thinking about all the other people that are affected by this lockout....the trainers and other team employees. They aren't getting a paycheck and can't just run to another leauge for work. It's got to be hard on their families because they are pretty much unemployed, maybe they can claim that for a while but will stii cause financial hardship even more than the players.

I don't see this ending anytime soon and the dominoe effect of their unwillingness to even work at trying to come to a compromise is what upsets me. They need to have meetings scheduled at least a few times a week if they are serious about actually getting a contract. You can't just let everyone do their own thing for months hoping someone will cave first when there is no communcation going on between the 2 sides.

[haroldsnepsts]

The players gave ground temporarily, but not permanently. Why can't they meet in the middle at 52-48? If the league would have stepped forward and put an offer on the table for 5 years at that figure, then I would believe you. A temporary rollback in year 1, with percentages climbing through year 2 and back up to where we are today at year 3 is a concession, but its not a big one. The greed on the owners side is well known, but the players have to be held to a standard as well. A temporary rollback is not the solution. You make it sound like the players gave a lot of concessions, but in reality, they really threw the ownership a small treat and nothing more.

You and I both agree that two rational parties could have had a CBA hammered out in 2-4 hours. Fehr and Bettman are not rational though.

That's patently false when you look at the amount of money they are giving up. They are conceding salary once again in a league that has seen a 50% increase in revenue. Think about that. the league makes over a billion more dollars a year than it did 7 years ago. In spite of that, the players are willing to give up salary instead of wanting more of that giant increase in revenue.


Like I said, it looks like now neither side is budging or only making tiny steps forward, which is true. But it ignores that the league took massive steps backward to begin things.

[haroldsnepsts]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739

The facts are quite clear. This is a pretty good analysis of the proposals and situation.

The facts indeed are quite clear, but you don't seem to understand the players proposal or are ignoring the details of it. They're not asking for an increase in percentage of revenue.
From your link:

Under the NHLPA's plan, the player share of revenue never drops below 52 per cent and tops out at 54.3 per cent. Again, this assumes steady seven per cent growth.

That is a stepped decrease down to the 52% that you speak of. As revenue increases they'll gradually get less and less, which actually is a sensible way to go about reducing their percentage of HRR. Let the revenue grow away from them.

They also have a built in escape valve if for some reason revenue doesn't grow very much. And a built in protection if it goes through the roof. Their proposal also includes "an aggressive revenue sharing plan" which actually addresses the league's biggest problem.

You can ignore the facts as much as you want, but the NHLPA made an incredibly reasonable proposal. Certainly one that could be tweaked and have the finer points negotiated, but is a sensible and thoughtful solution to the NHL's issues.

[Nightfall]

The facts indeed are quite clear, but you don't seem to understand the players proposal or are ignoring the details of it. They're not asking for an increase in percentage of revenue.
From your link:



That is a stepped decrease down to the 52% that you speak of. As revenue increases they'll gradually get less and less, which actually is a sensible way to go about reducing their percentage of HRR. Let the revenue grow away from them.

They also have a built in escape valve if for some reason revenue doesn't grow very much. And a built in protection if it goes through the roof. Their proposal also includes "an aggressive revenue sharing plan" which actually addresses the league's biggest problem.

You can ignore the facts as much as you want, but the NHLPA made an incredibly reasonable proposal. Certainly one that could be tweaked and have the finer points negotiated, but is a sensible and thoughtful solution to the NHL's issues.

I never said that the NHLPA proposal wasn't more reasonable than the NHL's proposal. As you said though, that proposal could be tweaked and negotiated, to which the NHLPA has not been willing to budge off their initial proposal. There is still a $1 billion dollar difference between the two proposals.

Here is a good breakdown between both proposals.

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/

FTA

The league doesn’t like the PA’s system because there’s some uncertainty here and, well, the players share is still 52 per cent or so if revenues grow at the rate they have lately.
The players don’t like the league’s proposal because it’s a whopping $1.9-billion cut over five years from the old agreement of 57 per cent of revenues. (Not that they have a chance of retaining that...)

Overall, as you said, its a good starting point but not the answer to the CBA problem that all NHLPA fans are drooling after. I am saying that the NHL or NHLPA could budge some more in these negotiations, and we don't know the level that the NHLPA and the NHL have budged since their inital proposals. Both sides just need to be shut in a room to figure this out. The problem, as I see it, is communication and concessions on both sides. From the ownership especially. Anyone spouting that the NHLPA has done their due diligence when it comes to these negotiations is talking out of their ass. Plenty of fault on both sides. Which is why I am not paying any money to attend games or buy merchandise for the NHL after this negotiation is over.

Edited by Nightfall, 25 September 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

Here is a good breakdown between both proposals.

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/

The math is suspect in this article. Dropping players share from 57% to 49% in the first year is not an 8% pay cut as the article states, but about 14%.

57% from $3.28B = $1.87B
49% from $3.28B = $1.61B

This is not 8% difference.

[haroldsnepsts]

I never said that the NHLPA proposal wasn't more reasonable than the NHL's proposal. As you said though, that proposal could be tweaked and negotiated, to which the NHLPA has not been willing to budge off their initial proposal. There is still a $1 billion dollar difference between the two proposals.

Here is a good breakdown between both proposals.

http://www.theglobea...article4541634/

FTA


Overall, as you said, its a good starting point but not the answer to the CBA problem that all NHLPA fans are drooling after. I am saying that the NHL or NHLPA could budge some more in these negotiations, and we don't know the level that the NHLPA and the NHL have budged since their inital proposals. Both sides just need to be shut in a room to figure this out. The problem, as I see it, is communication and concessions on both sides. From the ownership especially. Anyone spouting that the NHLPA has done their due diligence when it comes to these negotiations is talking out of their ass. Plenty of fault on both sides. Which is why I am not paying any money to attend games or buy merchandise for the NHL after this negotiation is over.

Nevermind. I forgot how pointless this is to discuss with you and was just reminded.

If the NHL was holding 100 apples and the NHLPA was holding 10 apples, you'd probably say they had an equal number.

[cusimano_brothers]

From TSN:

The NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed to return to the bargaining table.
Deputy commissioner Bill Daly and NHL Players' Association special counsel Steve Fehr had a face-to-face meeting Tuesday in Toronto and scheduled a formal negotiating session between the sides for Friday.
A location for the talks has yet to be determined.

[RippedOnNitro]

They will only discuss non core economics on Friday...

[cusimano_brothers]

I guess yesterday's meeting, going over "The Books", went well.

[kylee]

all sarcasm aside this is actually a good sign, yes?

[Echolalia]

The effects that a lockout could have on Detroit's local economy: http://www.mlive.com...gs - MLive.com)

After hitting rock-bottom throughout the most recent recession and auto crisis, it would really be a shame to watch the local businesses that are helping to rebuild and revitalize Detroit suffer. I wonder how other cities will fare.