2458 replies to this topic

[haroldsnepsts]

Please provide a link or source to what I bolded. If you know where the proposals each side has given, including each subsequent one after the initial one, I would love to read them. It would go a long way towards seeing if the league came down from their demands or where the players ended up.

As for what you bolded, I think you need to go back and re-read what I said. I said that I have no idea if Fehr is going to ask for a luxury tax system or not. I am just merely suggesting that Fehr mentions it enough that he could make that an option during the negotiations. The point is that we don't know for sure. Course, you have read every proposal that has been released supposedly or you know where to find them. I look forward to you releasing that information to me so I can read up on them as well. Since you are making suppositions, I can do that as well.....oh wait.....it was against the NHLPA. That was the problem. Of course the supposition I made about the league was left unbolded because you agree with it. Ok, got it.

As for the owners, if they don't want to break the league like you say you believe, then you should have at least a little faith that they are going to bargain in good faith with the league.

This is insane.

You really think it's reasonable or possible to think Fehr may be asking for a luxury tax system, in spite of the fact that no proposal from the NHLPA has included it and as I mentioned is based on the cap system??

It's a ridiculous insinuation on your part based on zero evidence. I have no idea if Bettman is going to require that players salary be 3% of revenue but based on what we know of his proposals, I can say pretty reasonably he's not suddenly offering that behind closed doors.

As for the details, try using google. Obviously it's not going to be the full proposal from each side which is pages of legalese, but every major proposal and counter offer has been pretty well recapped in the media.

[Nightfall]

This is insane.

You really think it's reasonable or possible to think Fehr may be asking for a luxury tax system, in spite of the fact that no proposal from the NHLPA has included it and as I mentioned is based on the cap system??

It's a ridiculous insinuation on your part based on zero evidence. I have no idea if Bettman is going to require that players salary be 3% of revenue but based on what we know of his proposals, I can say pretty reasonably he's not suddenly offering that behind closed doors.

As for the details, try using google. Obviously it's not going to be the full proposal from each side which is pages of legalese, but every major proposal and counter offer has been pretty well recapped in the media.

I am really trying to be obvious here without insulting you...

Once again, I didn't say that Fehr was asking for a luxury tax system. I said its possible now that the lockout has started that he might include that in his proposals. Just as you are surmising on what the ownership is doing without any real proof as to how they feel or what they really are doing without a shred of proof. So, I guess in your mind it is ok to surmise that the ownership is trying to break the league. Not because there is any proof behind what they are thinking, but because you suspect that is so. Yet, I suspect that Fehr just MIGHT start pushing a luxury tax because he mentions it all the time and that is what worked for baseball, but I am being demonized for mentioning it as even a remote possibility.

I really think you need to take a step back from the NHLPA fanbase.

As for the proposals, I haven't read any news source that even glances over the other proposals other than the initial ones that the league and players submitted. There have been at least 4-6 others that have been mentioned, but no details were released. You made it seem like you read these in detail, to which in fact you did not.

[sibiriak]

So, put something up for sale on craigslist. I'll respond to the ad, and make all kinds of hateful remarks in our correspondence, and then will show up to look at the item, right after taking a dump in your yard in front of you. I'll be loud and obnoxious, and make lots of obscene jokes. Then when you tell me you don't want me to buy your couch, I'll come back later when you're not home, and bribe someone else that lives there to sell me the couch without telling you. You'll come home and catch me in the act. Now will you sell me the couch?

And guess what? If you sell me the couch, I'll be over at your house at least once a year, sometimes lots more, until I die or sell your couch to someone else, and you have no choice in the matter since you sold it to me.

So, come on. Let's do some business. I have money, you have a couch. Let's get this thing done. Can't wait for our joint vacation over the summer, so we can talk about our couches. Hello?

For $200 mil. you can have my couch and crap in my yard every week. I'll even put out some old newspapers for you to wipe your behind.

[cusimano_brothers]

Please provide a link or source to what I bolded. If you know where the proposals each side has given, including each subsequent one after the initial one, I would love to read them. It would go a long way towards seeing if the league came down from their demands or where the players ended up.

If we're dealing with the current negotiations, either here or here.

[haroldsnepsts]

I am really trying to be obvious here without insulting you...

Once again, I didn't say that Fehr was asking for a luxury tax system. I said its possible now that the lockout has started that he might include that in his proposals. Just as you are surmising on what the ownership is doing without any real proof as to how they feel or what they really are doing without a shred of proof. So, I guess in your mind it is ok to surmise that the ownership is trying to break the league. Not because there is any proof behind what they are thinking, but because you suspect that is so. Yet, I suspect that Fehr just MIGHT start pushing a luxury tax because he mentions it all the time and that is what worked for baseball, but I am being demonized for mentioning it as even a remote possibility.

I really think you need to take a step back from the NHLPA fanbase.

As for the proposals, I haven't read any news source that even glances over the other proposals other than the initial ones that the league and players submitted. There have been at least 4-6 others that have been mentioned, but no details were released. You made it seem like you read these in detail, to which in fact you did not.

It's fine. We're right back where we left off. You labeling me as a union slappy, misrepresenting what I've said, along with creating fictional situations regarding the union.

I've already pointed out I didn't say the owners were trying to break the league, then you once again misrepresent that point in another post. It shows how pointless this discussion is when my words clearly aren't being read or absorbed.

And I don't know what to tell you if you haven't found a news source that "even glances over" the proposals. While it's obviously not the full documents several sources have summarized the major economic points of the proposals and counter proposals from the league and union.

Over the endless posts I've made in this thread, I think I put together a fairly consistent and coherent explanation of my position. There's really no point in us continuing to have this conversation.

[Nightfall]

It's fine. We're right back where we left off. You labeling me as a union slappy, misrepresenting what I've said, along with creating fictional situations regarding the union.

Sorry man, but if the shoe fits.....

I've already pointed out I didn't say the owners were trying to break the league, then you once again misrepresent that point in another post. It shows how pointless this discussion is when my words clearly aren't being read or absorbed.

If there is a reading comprehension problem, I believe we are both somewhat at fault here. Hell, it took two separate posts to explain my position before you said, "It's fine". Now, either that means it didn't register (comprehension) or you were being difficult because it was a position you didn't agree with. Probably a bit of both.

And I don't know what to tell you if you haven't found a news source that "even glances over" the proposals. While it's obviously not the full documents several sources have summarized the major economic points of the proposals and counter proposals from the league and union.

The major economic points of the initial proposals are well documented. Anything that followed, to which there are 4-6 other proposals, were really never covered. Google searches really don't turn up anything on those. I asked for your sources, to which you have none. I was under the impression that you were reading things I wasn't, but apparently that isn't the case.

Over the endless posts I've made in this thread, I think I put together a fairly consistent and coherent explanation of my position. There's really no point in us continuing to have this conversation.

Yes, you have put together a fairly consistent and coherent explanation of your position. That is simply this.....

The owners put forward a lowball initial offer
Bettman and the owners are morons
The NHLPA offer they put together was excellent
The NHLPA obviously is more in touch with economics than the ownership
Therefore, the fault lies with the owners as to why we don't have NHL hockey this season

Make no mistake, the NHLPA has some fault in this lockout right now. As a fan of hockey, it infuriates me to see one side of the negotiation wait until June to negotiate when the league was ready in January. It also infuriates me to see both sides dig into their positions and not vary much in their proposals. No concessions? No talks scheduled for weeks at a time? There seems to be no trust between Bettman and Fehr. These are all problems.

So, while you continue to ***** and whine about Bettman and the ownership for screwing the fans out of a season of NHL hockey....

Take a long good look at the NHLPA and the screwjob they gave the fans as well. Make no mistake, neither side getting out of these negotiations looking pretty.

[55fan]

Right. Because 20,000 people travel for miles and pay hundreds of dollars to watch cows graze several times a week. Buy cow outfits to wear with the brand of their favorite cow on the side. Watch cows grazing on television for hours on end.

Totally a solid analogy.

And if ranchers did that it would be collusion. The NHL is a pretty specific situation.

Daggonit, Harold. That mental image made me choke on my lemonade.

Woohoo! Let's Go Red Bull!

And it might give ESPN ideas for another sport to favour over hockey.

Edited by 55fan, 27 September 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[cusimano_brothers]

Make no mistake, the NHLPA has some fault in this lockout right now.

Uncle Gary initiated the most recent lockout following the NHLPA's announcement that they would be willing to operate under the expired agreement while a new one was being worked on. Uncle Gary's ego, being as frail as it is, suspected a "trojan horse" and pulled out the big padlock.

[Z Winged Dangler]

Sorry man, but if the shoe fits.....


If there is a reading comprehension problem, I believe we are both somewhat at fault here. Hell, it took two separate posts to explain my position before you said, "It's fine". Now, either that means it didn't register (comprehension) or you were being difficult because it was a position you didn't agree with. Probably a bit of both.


The major economic points of the initial proposals are well documented. Anything that followed, to which there are 4-6 other proposals, were really never covered. Google searches really don't turn up anything on those. I asked for your sources, to which you have none. I was under the impression that you were reading things I wasn't, but apparently that isn't the case.


Yes, you have put together a fairly consistent and coherent explanation of your position. That is simply this.....

The owners put forward a lowball initial offer
Bettman and the owners are morons
The NHLPA offer they put together was excellent
The NHLPA obviously is more in touch with economics than the ownership
Therefore, the fault lies with the owners as to why we don't have NHL hockey this season

Make no mistake, the NHLPA has some fault in this lockout right now. As a fan of hockey, it infuriates me to see one side of the negotiation wait until June to negotiate when the league was ready in January. It also infuriates me to see both sides dig into their positions and not vary much in their proposals. No concessions? No talks scheduled for weeks at a time? There seems to be no trust between Bettman and Fehr. These are all problems.

So, while you continue to ***** and whine about Bettman and the ownership for screwing the fans out of a season of NHL hockey....

Take a long good look at the NHLPA and the screwjob they gave the fans as well. Make no mistake, neither side getting out of these negotiations looking pretty.

Well, they're set to meet again tomorrow morning and hopefully the NHLPA will have another proposal to table to the NHL. I personally think it's fair for both sides to make a 50/50 split and if they don't get close to that sometime soon then i for one will be losing faith in there being a season at all. Someone in the organizations needs to step up and show all the numbers and try to actually prove to both sides where the middle point should be and that's where they should aim to close a deal on. Neither side wants to meet half way, they both just want to get a bigger piece of the pie than the other and it's getting really sad to watch and read about.

The NHL lockout is quickly becoming a tradition and any new CBA that's agreed upon needs to help eliminate this in the future. There's already a lot of people saying that they aren't coming back or will not support the NHL anymore, even just on this site. The word is spreading on HF Boards too and the media with people saying they're done with the NHL. Imagine how poor the NHL is gonna be in non-hockey markets when their already small fanbase becomes essentially non existant. Maybe then Bettman will be more willing to move the teams and own up to his past mistakes. But in saying that, the players will need to take less money if those teams remain in the league or we will not be watching NHL hockey any time soon.

[drwscc]

Uncle Gary initiated the most recent lockout following the NHLPA's announcement that they would be willing to operate under the expired agreement while a new one was being worked on. Uncle Gary's ego, being as frail as it is, suspected a "trojan horse" and pulled out the big padlock.

That's because if they did that, the players have all the leverage. Fehr would just wait until right before the playoffs start, and then have the players strike. He's done it before, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't do it again. But, hey. I'm sure we'd all rather we miss the Stanley Cup Finals, rather than some games at the beginning of the season.

[haroldsnepsts]

Sorry man, but if the shoe fits.....


If there is a reading comprehension problem, I believe we are both somewhat at fault here. Hell, it took two separate posts to explain my position before you said, "It's fine". Now, either that means it didn't register (comprehension) or you were being difficult because it was a position you didn't agree with. Probably a bit of both.


The major economic points of the initial proposals are well documented. Anything that followed, to which there are 4-6 other proposals, were really never covered. Google searches really don't turn up anything on those. I asked for your sources, to which you have none. I was under the impression that you were reading things I wasn't, but apparently that isn't the case.


Yes, you have put together a fairly consistent and coherent explanation of your position. That is simply this.....

The owners put forward a lowball initial offer
Bettman and the owners are morons
The NHLPA offer they put together was excellent
The NHLPA obviously is more in touch with economics than the ownership
Therefore, the fault lies with the owners as to why we don't have NHL hockey this season

Make no mistake, the NHLPA has some fault in this lockout right now. As a fan of hockey, it infuriates me to see one side of the negotiation wait until June to negotiate when the league was ready in January. It also infuriates me to see both sides dig into their positions and not vary much in their proposals. No concessions? No talks scheduled for weeks at a time? There seems to be no trust between Bettman and Fehr. These are all problems.

So, while you continue to ***** and whine about Bettman and the ownership for screwing the fans out of a season of NHL hockey....

Take a long good look at the NHLPA and the screwjob they gave the fans as well. Make no mistake, neither side getting out of these negotiations looking pretty.

Thank you for proving every point I made in my last post. You're getting awfully upset by a position that you invented, because it sure isn't mine.

I'll say again because I don't think you read a lot of what I write, I'm done discussing this with you.

[Nightfall]

Thank you for proving every point I made in my last post. You're getting awfully upset by a position that you invented, because it sure isn't mine.

I'll say again because I don't think you read a lot of what I write, I'm done discussing this with you.

Keep pressing that "I win" button until your finger falls off. It still doesn't change the fact that you are siding with a union that has little to no interest in playing hockey this season. Sure, they aren't as bad as the owners, but they don't deserve your unwaivering loyalty.

[Nightfall]

Well, they're set to meet again tomorrow morning and hopefully the NHLPA will have another proposal to table to the NHL. I personally think it's fair for both sides to make a 50/50 split and if they don't get close to that sometime soon then i for one will be losing faith in there being a season at all. Someone in the organizations needs to step up and show all the numbers and try to actually prove to both sides where the middle point should be and that's where they should aim to close a deal on. Neither side wants to meet half way, they both just want to get a bigger piece of the pie than the other and it's getting really sad to watch and read about.

The NHL lockout is quickly becoming a tradition and any new CBA that's agreed upon needs to help eliminate this in the future. There's already a lot of people saying that they aren't coming back or will not support the NHL anymore, even just on this site. The word is spreading on HF Boards too and the media with people saying they're done with the NHL. Imagine how poor the NHL is gonna be in non-hockey markets when their already small fanbase becomes essentially non existant. Maybe then Bettman will be more willing to move the teams and own up to his past mistakes. But in saying that, the players will need to take less money if those teams remain in the league or we will not be watching NHL hockey any time soon.

I really don't think we will have a season. Both sides are just bullheaded enough to not make any concessions. This is why I won't be puting any money in the hands of the league or players anytime soon. Even if the league does come back, the extent of my contribution will be my cable TV package and thats it. I have read the same thing as you have. Fans are tired of the retoric coming from both sides. They are tired of the lack of cooperation. They are also tired of the greed. This should have been a very easy CBA negotiation. Instead, we have a money grab and two entirely different financial plans. Maybe even soon to be 3 if and when Fehr plays the luxury tax card.

Sure, the fans will come back. They may even come back in droves. The NHL has lost one paying fan though for the next 5-6 years. They probably will lose many more the longer the lockout goes.

[rrasco]

As a fan of hockey, it infuriates me to see one side of the negotiation wait until June to negotiate when the league was ready in January.

I don't buy that. Did the NHL table an offer in January? I specifically remember Bettman not wanting to do any negotiating until the season was over.

[Nightfall]

I don't buy that. Did the NHL table an offer in January? I specifically remember Bettman not wanting to do any negotiating until the season was over.

No offer was tabled, but the NHL was on record saying that they were ready to start the process in January. I remember reading about it, but I didn't find much on it other than snippets of info.

---

Back in January, NHL fans were assured initial negotiations regarding the next round of NHL collective bargaining would begin following the All-Star Game.
That subsequently changed to a vague point later in the regular season,to some point following the Stanley Cup Playoffs
It’s believed there’s been some quiet talk behind the scenes between the two sides , but the real negotiations probably won’t start until mid-July at the earliest, allowing time for the NHL Awards, entry draft weekend, and the opening week of unrestricted free agency.
In mid-March, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman professed to be unconcerned (“I’m not worried. At all”) over when negotiations would start, saying his side was ready whenever the PA was ready to talk.

---

http://spectorshockey.net/blog/review-of-recent-cba-news-may-17-2012/

[Pskov Wings Fan]

Keep pressing that "I win" button until your finger falls off. It still doesn't change the fact that you are siding with a union that has little to no interest in playing hockey this season. Sure, they aren't as bad as the owners, but they don't deserve your unwaivering loyalty.

But they do have interest in playing hockey. Just today Datsyuk had two assists and Malkin scored a goal and added two assists.
Players just do want to play in NHL given the conditions owners are demanding.

[Buppy]

...
The major economic points of the initial proposals are well documented. Anything that followed, to which there are 4-6 other proposals, were really never covered. Google searches really don't turn up anything on those. I asked for your sources, to which you have none. I was under the impression that you were reading things I wasn't, but apparently that isn't the case.
...

FYI: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739 is the PAs second (and most recent) proposal. Details of the first were never all that clear, but it seems the first three years were very similar (maybe identical), but the first had a 4th year at 57% instead of the two years described in that site.

The owners initial offer was well documented, their second was reportedly mostly the same, but changed the players share to 46%. Their last offer has few details, other than it was "simplified". Revenue split is also given in the link above. However, according to Bettman, that offer was taken off the table when the lockout started so the details don't really matter.

[toby91_ca]

No offer was tabled, but the NHL was on record saying that they were ready to start the process in January. I remember reading about it, but I didn't find much on it other than snippets of info.

---

Back in January, NHL fans were assured initial negotiations regarding the next round of NHL collective bargaining would begin following the All-Star Game.
That subsequently changed to a vague point later in the regular season,to some point following the Stanley Cup Playoffs
It’s believed there’s been some quiet talk behind the scenes between the two sides , but the real negotiations probably won’t start until mid-July at the earliest, allowing time for the NHL Awards, entry draft weekend, and the opening week of unrestricted free agency.
In mid-March, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman professed to be unconcerned (“I’m not worried. At all”) over when negotiations would start, saying his side was ready whenever the PA was ready to talk.

---

http://spectorshocke...ws-may-17-2012/

You do realize that's all public posturing right? The league suggesting they are willing to negotiate and any time whenever the PA is ready is no different than the PA saying they are willing to start the season under the existing CBA while a new one is negotiated. I'm not sure why either side is really all that interested in getting public support on their side though, I don't see it as having any real impact on resolving any differences they may have.

I'm not one of those guys that are against the players from the view that they make too much money, etc. If an owner generates $100 million profit off a player, is it fair for that player to get $5 million and the owner get $95 million? Extreme case, but some would look at the player and say "hey, you are making $5 million, how much do you need...suck it up and play".....however, I think that's hardly fair.

That said, I think it's a fine line trying to determine what is fair and what's not. I'm not sure what math is being used to demonstrate that. I am more on the player's side right now though as their proposals at least attempt to address the issues faced by the NHL. I'm not sure about the fairness of the NHLPA's numbers, but their approach at least attempts to address the issues. The NHL's proposal, whether the sharing is fair or not is plain dumb as it does not address their issues.....all it would do it make the richer teams richer and the poor teams be a little less poor in the first year or so.

My solution would be as follows:

Determine an appropriate fair profit margin to be earned by the league as a whole (based on appropriate risk weightings and market data, etc.). If overall league revenues are $3.4 billion, all other expenses before player salaries = X.....after deducting X, you can determine how much should be allocated to a player salaries while maintaining an overall profit margin of 10% for example (not sure what that appropriate number may be, but it should be easily calculated, shouldn't be a number out of the air).

In terms of then moving down to the individual teams, that's an ownership issue. You are going to having some owners profess their lack of willingness to share profits with other teams who aren't running their businesses properly, etc, which is fine, but if the league really wants parity, they have to figure out a way for the owners to share the wealth with each other......that should not be a player's concern.

[haroldsnepsts]

As happy as I am that the two sides are meeting tomorrow, I'm not sure how it's gonna work if they don't discuss core economic issues. These secondary issues seem like bargaining chips used to lessen the blow of conceding some major issue. But they're just going to ignore the massive divide on the main problem?

I guess if they make concessions on smaller stuff maybe the goodwill will start something? I want to be optimistic but really just don't get it.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

My solution would be as follows:

Determine an appropriate fair profit margin to be earned by the league as a whole (based on appropriate risk weightings and market data, etc.). If overall league revenues are $3.4 billion, all other expenses before player salaries = X.....after deducting X, you can determine how much should be allocated to a player salaries while maintaining an overall profit margin of 10% for example (not sure what that appropriate number may be, but it should be easily calculated, shouldn't be a number out of the air).

In terms of then moving down to the individual teams, that's an ownership issue. You are going to having some owners profess their lack of willingness to share profits with other teams who aren't running their businesses properly, etc, which is fine, but if the league really wants parity, they have to figure out a way for the owners to share the wealth with each other......that should not be a player's concern.

I agree that revenue spit should be determined based on the profitability of the league as a whole and not the fortunes of the individual teams. Otherwise having a few "non performing" teams would result in artificially lowered players share and financial benefits for the owners (which is basically the nature of all league's proposals to date).