2458 replies to this topic

[Nightfall]

I don't really understand the fixation on the union not meeting months ago, other than it's really the only thing to try and blame just them for so far.

The union not wanting to meet last season is bad on them and they should be blamed, but the owners locking the players out and not being willing to negotiate this season is ok and makes sense?

We're 9 days out from the what was supposed to be the start of the regular season and there's no movement on either side. Any day now they'll start to announce the cancellation of games. I don't know what people think would've happened had they started meeting in January. Bettman even said he wasn't worried about the timetable back then.

Right now they still can't even agree on what constitutes HRR. It's not about lack of time.

It's not just about meeting with Daly and Bettman. Fehr was a relatively new president of the union and I'm guessing wanted to meet with a lot of the players, get a feel for where they stand on issues and also inform them of how he saw things.

That's a little harder to do with hundreds of players while the season is going on than it is 30 owners.

In a perfect world, yes they would've started meeting in January and had a deal hashed out this summer. I honestly (and naively) thought this would go relatively painlessly given the massive increase in revenue since the last CBA.

But the two sides are so monumentally far apart right now that it's looking like the only way a deal will be made is to play chicken with this season and see who gives first.

I can also blame the union and the players for not being willing to budge off of key financial points. The league has one method in mind, and the players have another method in mind. Who is to blame here? Both sides for not being willing to compromise in the least bit.

Once again, we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today. Its easy to dismiss this claim as a mere formality, but the simple fact of the matter is that with more time, this lockout could have been avoided. We don't know for sure one way or the other, but I would have loved to have seen an NHL and an NHLPA that were willing to work hard to avoid a lockout. The sooner that they met, the better off they would have been and the happier the fans would have been in the end. They would have seen two sides that genuinely cared about hockey. As it turned out, we all saw two sides that were monumentally greedy. The league gave a crap lowball offer while the union sat until the last minute and played the PR game which didn't result in a deal being made.

At least you finally came out and said that it was a mistake for the union to not start negotiating last season. I know that was a hard step for you to take, and the very first constructive comment I have heard you take against the players association.

No. I'm not advocating for either side in this debate, I am merely pointing out that despite your claims, the league was not willing to negotiate in January despite what they said. You keep bringing it up like it's a viable excuse for the owners locking out the players. I didn't claim anything about the PA or mention anything they said...I don't even have an argument, except that what you are claiming about the leagues willingness to negotiate is false.

I don't care who caves or what the CBA looks like or what constitutes HRR or what percentage of 3 billion dollars who gets to get for the next year, or two, or ten. Give me f****** hockey already.

Ok, fair enough. I choose to take what both sides say to face value. When I hear the league say, "We are ready," I believe them. Just like I believe the players when Fehr makes a statement. We can agree to disagree.

The quote below suggests that it is not lack of negotiating time, which causes the impasse. Sides understand each other, they just do not agree. So more meetings would not achieve much until some change to the circumstances of either side occurs.

With 6 months to negotiate instead of 6 weeks, a lockout could have been avoided. Just because they are at an impasse now doesn't mean with more time they wouldn't have been able to come up with a solution. We don't know for sure either way, but I will take more time than less that's for sure.

[Buppy]

...Once again, we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today. Its easy to dismiss this claim as a mere formality, but the simple fact of the matter is that with more time, this lockout could have been avoided. We don't know for sure one way or the other, ...

So you mean the PA could be partially to blame?

...As it turned out, we all saw two sides that were monumentally greedy. ...

I hate it when people talk about greed.

Would any of you walk up to a player on the street and demand that they give you $1 million, or $23 million from an owner, or half that from one of each? Would you label them greedy bastards if they refused? Aren't we as fans being just as greedy in demanding to be entertained regardless of what either side would have to give up? Their greed doesn't bother me in the slightest. I only expect them to be reasonable, and for owners to take some responsibility for their poor business decisions and lack of foresight.

[RippedOnNitro]

So you mean the PA could be partially to blame?


I hate it when people talk about greed.

Would any of you walk up to a player on the street and demand that they give you $1 million, or $23 million from an owner, or half that from one of each? Would you label them greedy bastards if they refused? Aren't we as fans being just as greedy in demanding to be entertained regardless of what either side would have to give up? Their greed doesn't bother me in the slightest. I only expect them to be reasonable, and for owners to take some responsibility for their poor business decisions and lack of foresight.

In my opinion, the players are not reasonable if they refuse to take a paycut.
In my opinion, the owners are irresponsible if they refuse to take action against/for the losing teams.

In my opinion, the players should be open for taking a paycut to get to a 50/50 split of revenue.
In my opinion, the owners should be open to increase revenue sharing and/or relocating teams to big markets.

Edited by RippedOnNitro, 03 October 2012 - 01:59 AM.

[55fan]

Regarding the PA's seeming lack of urgency (according to the League): The PA did not know that the League would summarily dismiss the option of playing under the old CBA for another year before the talks had begun in earnest.

If I'm at work and they say, "We need to start working on these. We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest, but we want them done as soon as possible." I'm going to assume that you're not going to tell me that you're removing an entire year from the ship date and blame me for not having them ready.

[Nightfall]

In my opinion, the players are not reasonable if they refuse to take a paycut.
In my opinion, the owners are irresponsible if they refuse to take action against/for the losing teams.

In my opinion, the players should be open for taking a paycut to get to a 50/50 split of revenue.
In my opinion, the owners should be open to increase revenue sharing and/or relocating teams to big markets.

I can't like this post enough.

In order to get to a deal done, both sides have to make sacrifices to make it happen. So far, neither side wants to sacrifice anything. If both sides read these statements and followed them, we would be playing hockey today.

Regarding the PA's seeming lack of urgency (according to the League): The PA did not know that the League would summarily dismiss the option of playing under the old CBA for another year before the talks had begun in earnest.

If I'm at work and they say, "We need to start working on these. We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest, but we want them done as soon as possible." I'm going to assume that you're not going to tell me that you're removing an entire year from the ship date and blame me for not having them ready.

The last deal benefited the players and rich franchises the most. Hell, if there was a labor deal in place that benefited one side more than the other, I would come to the conclusion that the deal wasn't going to be extended by a year. I do admit that the league probably should have been telling the PA that the deal was not going to be extended and there would be a lockout if a new deal wasn't in place.

[Nightfall]

So you mean the PA could be partially to blame?

The PA is to blame for not coming to the table early and starting the process of negotiating in January. That is a fact.
Would that have avoided a lockout? Who knows.
Point is that lack of urgency on one sides part, the side that benefits the most from the current deal, doesn't excuse them from not negotiating preemptively.

[cusimano_brothers]

The PA is to blame for not coming to the table early and starting the process of negotiating in January. That is a fact.

Uncle Gary said, in January:

"Don Fehr obviously being somewhat new to the job is going through a bit of a learning curve and wants to make sure he understands what his constituents want. And so, we're patient. I'm not concerned about the time frame."

Another very good summary of possible ramifications caused by the lockout in today's Toronto Star:

[drwscc]

Regarding the PA's seeming lack of urgency (according to the League): The PA did not know that the League would summarily dismiss the option of playing under the old CBA for another year before the talks had begun in earnest.

If I'm at work and they say, "We need to start working on these. We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest, but we want them done as soon as possible." I'm going to assume that you're not going to tell me that you're removing an entire year from the ship date and blame me for not having them ready.

Based on Fehr's past, there would be no benefit to playing under the current CBA. All that would happen would be the PA would stall and fight until the playoffs/Finals, and then go on strike. It happened in MLB with Fehr at the helm, and there is no reason to suspect Fehr wouldn't pull the same crap here.

Uncle Gary said, in January:



Another very good summary of possible ramifications caused by the lockout in today's Toronto Star:

So, he's trying to be understanding of the PA side, and not make a big deal out of it, instead of saying "Look, we need to sit down and get this done, and Fehr is stalling." What a jerk.

There were 6 months at that time. I'm sure he figured Fehr would be ready in Feb, March, April..sometime around there. Plenty of time to sit down and start talking.

[cusimano_brothers]

Yes he is.

[haroldsnepsts]

At least you finally came out and said that it was a mistake for the union to not start negotiating last season. I know that was a hard step for you to take, and the very first constructive comment I have heard you take against the players association.

I've already said several times I'm through having this conversation with you.

All you need to do is go back through this thread to see how the conversation derails time and time again as it comes to its inevitable end. If you need more evidence of what a pointless feedback loop this discussion is, revisit this post from the previous lockout thread (copied below) where you made the same accusation against me and then apologized when shown you were wrong.

If you continue baiting me with sarcastic comments like the one above, however, it will end with you getting a vacation.


http://www.letsgowin...80#entry2326246

You will have to excuse me, but that is the first time I have heard you levy any kind of criticism against the NHLPA in this thread. I will go back and re-read 19 pages of posts tomorrow just to make sure, and if I am wrong, I will post back here. So far, that is the impression I got from what you have said. I apologize if I got the wrong impression.

As for who the current CBA favors, you are correct. It favors the players and rich franchises. I may even go as far as profitable franchises. Yet, 19 franchises are not even breaking even.

You and I think a lot alike on this issue. Lets hope that there is no lockout or strike and they find a way to make a deal happen in time. I just don't think either side is up for giving up much but they both want everything. That is a bad combination.

I'll make it easy for you. Here's a few excerpts from just the last few pages of the thread.

You even quoted this post:

Fehr is apparently traveling to several cities to meet with players and suggested that the union and league could meet without the two heads being there, but the reality is there's no way they'd be able to hammer out a deal without the him and Bettman in the room.

It's another game of chicken and it's the fans who lose.

Yeah, Fehr is apparently meeting with his constituents, but I'm not sure about what exactly. The most important thing that should be happening is him and Bettman and their crews in a room working on the deal. Instead it seems like a stall tactic on both their parts.

I don't know that the players didn't cover all aspects. I don't agree with it but it sounds like they don't want contract length limited. So there's not going to be a provision offering that.

Well that's very good news that the players are willing to take reduced revenues and not trying to get rid of the hard cap.

Even if it's the only change to contract rules though, they absolutely need to put some limit on length.

Your post right below it:

I'll make it easy for you. Here's a few excerpts from just the last few pages of the thread.

You even quoted this post:


[/size][/font][/color]

As promised, I stand corrected.

[Buppy]

The PA is to blame for not coming to the table early and starting the process of negotiating in January. That is a fact.
Would that have avoided a lockout? Who knows.
Point is that lack of urgency on one sides part, the side that benefits the most from the current deal, doesn't excuse them from not negotiating preemptively.

As has been stated, it is much more difficult for the players to negotiate during the season, when they are trying to focus on doing their jobs.

Also, let's not act like there was any urgency from the owners. Did they submit an offer? Did they try to schedule any meetings? It's not like the PA offices are located in some secret lair. Had they actually been urgent, they would have at least sent an offer. Neither side was worried about the timetable. That is a fact.

[sibiriak]

With 6 months to negotiate instead of 6 weeks, a lockout could have been avoided. Just because they are at an impasse now doesn't mean with more time they wouldn't have been able to come up with a solution. We don't know for sure either way, but I will take more time than less that's for sure.

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.

[toby91_ca]

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.

Totally agree....if they started negotiating in January, we'd be in the same spot now. The reference to January and the league being ready to talk and perhaps things would have been different is total...you know what! With two sides seemingly stubborn to move at all off of their positions, there is no way either side would have before a deadline is reached, why would they? It makes zero sense.

I know there are a lot of people out there that says, who knows what could have happened if they had have starting negotitating earlier, maybe they could be playing now, etc. Well, I for one have no problem saying that if they starting talking in January, there is a zero % chance they'd be playing now, not 0.001%, zero!

[barabbas16]

Once again, we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today. Its easy to dismiss this claim as a mere formality, but the simple fact of the matter is that with more time, this lockout could have been avoided. We don't know for sure one way or the other, but I would have loved to have seen an NHL and an NHLPA that were willing to work hard to avoid a lockout. The sooner that they met, the better off they would have been and the happier the fans would have been in the end. They would have seen two sides that genuinely cared about hockey. As it turned out, we all saw two sides that were monumentally greedy. The league gave a crap lowball offer while the union sat until the last minute and played the PR game which didn't result in a deal being made.

We have no way of knowing who would have won the 2007 Stanley Cup if Schneider and Kronwall had been healthy, but it definitely would have been Detroit.

[cusimano_brothers]

The month of January would not have been the answer to the current situation. Uncle Gary his goal was another lockout and he has a myriad of ways to say "no".
By the way, it's "Players Association", not "U####". Semantics, y'know.

[BottleOfSmoke]

@freepwings: Red Wings' Henrik Zetterberg says NHL wants players to 'give everything' http://t.co/NgK3rtgc

I'm bored at work and living on twitter right now, sorry.

[F.Michael]

Well...Just like in 2004 - I became more invloved in watching the EPL (English Premiere League).

Maybe Tottenham will rise to the top - I certainly hope so!

[Nightfall]

I've already said several times I'm through having this conversation with you.

All you need to do is go back through this thread to see how the conversation derails time and time again as it comes to its inevitable end. If you need more evidence of what a pointless feedback loop this discussion is, revisit this post from the previous lockout thread (copied below) where you made the same accusation against me and then apologized when shown you were wrong.

The ones previously were small in comparison to the one you just levied, but I digress. I was more relating to this thread in specific.

I apologize and will try to limit my comments to your posts.

We have no way of knowing who would have won the 2007 Stanley Cup if Schneider and Kronwall had been healthy, but it definitely could have been Detroit.

I fixed it for you.

Edited by Nightfall, 03 October 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[Nightfall]

I think that is the key point. The league and the players are at an impasse on money. You appear to believe that there exist a solution that is a win-win for both parties, and if only they had some more time to hash it out, then we'd be seeing hockey right now. I believe that this is a zero-sum game and there is no solution that does not require at least one party to give up a significant amount of cash going forward. The league believes that the way to achieve that solution is to put so much financial pressure on the players, that they would cave in to owners' demands. And therefore the league had to lock the players out. They could have started to negotiate in 2005, and still we would have this lockout.

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.

As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.

@freepwings: Red Wings' Henrik Zetterberg says NHL wants players to 'give everything' http://t.co/NgK3rtgc

I'm bored at work and living on twitter right now, sorry.

Hrm, NHL says the union doesn't want to budge while the NHLPA says the owners want to much. Both sides are way too greedy. Fire both Fehr and Bettman, and get some people in place that are willing to negotiate. Its that simple.

[RedWingsDad]

Regarding the PA's seeming lack of urgency (according to the League): The PA did not know that the League would summarily dismiss the option of playing under the old CBA for another year before the talks had begun in earnest.

If I'm at work and they say, "We need to start working on these. We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest, but we want them done as soon as possible." I'm going to assume that you're not going to tell me that you're removing an entire year from the ship date and blame me for not having them ready.

Eh, stretching a bit? A responsible party would assume that when the CBA expired there would be no hockey. Also, using your analogy, "We have to have them shipped out by next year at the latest"... please show me where the league said that they would play for a year without a CBA. If you cannot, then your analogy falls flat on it's face... if you can, I will give you props.