Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2458 replies to this topic

#441 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:25 PM

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.
...

Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap.

The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset.

If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.

#442 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,667 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:02 PM

Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap.

The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset.

If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.


I don't think its unreasonable to look for a 52-48 split in favor of the players. There is common ground here that can be achieved if the players come down a bit and the owners come up a bit. Then there are other things that can be given to the players, such as earlier unrestricted free agency. I do get what you are saying, but if you look at the ownership side as well, I understand why they are hesitant to agree to more revenue sharing. Personally, I think that revenue sharing is where it is at. That benefits everyone equally. If the NHL does really well, then the players should be well compensated for a job well done.

I believe what we need are two leaders that are less hard line about what they want. We need more unity and a willingness to compromise and work together. So far, I haven't seen that from Bettman or Fehr.

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.

The players wanted to play for a year under the current CBA because it benefitted them the most to do so. The league had more to lose apparently and locked out the players. I question this move, but it was readily apparent that the players wanted to keep things the same or not come to the bargaining table unless they were forced to.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#443 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,758 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

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.

I'm afraid that was an assumption on my part. We fans were taken aback when Bettman announced that the league would not exercise the option written into the previous CBA to extend it a year whilst negotiating if needed. I don't recall hearing whether or not the PA was surprised by it.

I guess that knowing Bettman, they should have been expecting it, and probably were.

Money on the board:  Current total: $6

$1 for a goal by any current Wing after whom I have named a hamster.  An additional $5 for a series-clinching goal scored by any current Wing after whom I have named a hamster. $5 if the other team fails to score against a current Wing goalie after whom I have named a hamster.

Hamsters I have had:  (current Wings highlighted)

Henrik Pavel Tomas Nicklas Dominik

Niklas Matthew Daniel Robert

Johan Andreas Valtteri Jonathan

Andrew Patrick Ian Todd

Jordin Damien Gustav James


#444 sibiriak

sibiriak

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:30 PM

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.

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

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.

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.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.
This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.
The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.

#445 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,429 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:55 PM

From TSN:


With no end in sight to the NHL lockout, the league is doing all it can to ease the concerns of its sponsors.

A small group of key clients gathered Wednesday afternoon in Toronto for an audience with chief operating officer John Collins, who provided an update on labour negotiations and took questions from participants.

A source indicated that representatives from Molson, Canadian Tire, Sport Chek, Kraft, Sirius XM and Scotiabank participated in the meeting. One attendee called the session "productive" and applauded Collins for taking part.

"They were very transparent with us," said the source, who requested anonymity. "I was looking around the room and the long-term, cumulative contract dollars around the table were probably at the $100-million mark. It's a significant chunk of change for the league."

The sponsors are an important group for the NHL to interact with during the labour dispute. Commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly have held a series of conference calls with business partners in recent months in an effort to keep everyone informed.


Lots of deals being brokered at that meeting. Is this the "100 million dollars in lost revenue" the League's been talking about?
Recent months? Interesting.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#446 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:30 PM

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.
This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.
The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.

They can't just let Bettman lock them (and us) out every time the CBA expires to get what he wants

#447 drwscc

drwscc

    I drink your milkshake...I drink it up!!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:44 PM

Sure they can. The owners can lock out the players any time they want. That's what it means to be an owner.

Is it a good tactic, no, but they can absolutely call a lockout whenever they see fit, and nothing is going to take that power away from them.

As soon as enough Dan Cleary and Cal Clutterbuck types that don't have the option of signing a lucrative deal in Europe start missing paychecks, you're going to start seeing cracks on the NHLPA side.
Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe.

I went to a doctor the other day, and all he did was suck blood out of my neck. Never go see Dr. Acula
- Mitch Hedberg

#448 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,667 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:23 PM

The players were the big losers last time. The just expired CBA was dictated by the owners and was designed to benefit them. Prior to the current CBA the players share of the revenue reached 74%. There was no salary cap. If the players won and kept the old system, the top salaries now would have been nearing $20 mil./year and the average salary would have been higher by at least a quarter, and given the existing then trend, probably even higher.

Let me clarify it for you. The owners want to cut the players salaries and limit their growth in the future. Since the league revenues went up 50% over the life of the existing CBA, there was no rational way to explain to the players why they would have to give up another 20% of their salary every year, when the players have signed contracts on hand. Since the owners didn't have any rational arguments, they had to somehow force the players to give up money they were contractually promised. The lockout is the most obvious option.
This is not only about greed. This is also about players' pride and self-respect. If the lockout lasts till January, and the players then win (that is their CBA offer,as it stands now, is adopted) the players would still lose more money then if they accepted the league offer right now. And the players know this.
The players motivation is to make sure that in the future they will not be forced to give up part of their salary any time the owners feel like taking it, without a fight. So the next time the owners want to redistribute income in their favor, they will know that they would have a fight on their hands.

I believe its less about pride and self respect. If there was pride and self respect on the line, the players association would have been negotiating in January. If pride and self respect were on the line, then the players association wouldn't be playing the PR role to a T. Lets face facts here, Don Fehr dragged his feet to the start of negotiations, then he drug his feet before he put forward his initial proposal. Fehr wants there to be revenue sharing, and I can understand why the owners don't want the deal based on what revenues could be. Now, the NHL has given the players a new proposal, and Don Fehr won't "play ping pong" and doesn't believe he needs to give the next proposal.

Lets face facts here, the owners are asking for too much. By locking the players out, they are damaging the game of hockey and future revenues. At the same time, and others have said, they feel they have no choice.

I know I have said it before, but I will say it again....

Both sides are in the wrong here. This should have never resulted in a lockout. All the owners have to do is come up a little from their demands, and all the players have to do is come down a little from their demands. As many have said here, its a game of chicken. Who will blink first?

I am not waiting around for either side to blink. Both sides can go jump off a cliff.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#449 HadThomasVokounOnFortSt

HadThomasVokounOnFortSt

    Hi

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts
  • Location:Cloudy Town, Minnesota. 762.20 miles from the Joe Louis Arena

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:05 PM

I miss the Crosby sucks chant. :(
hadthomasvokounonfortst.jpg
Follow me on Twitter: @W2G4U

#450 kylee

kylee

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,423 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:15 PM

I miss the Crosby sucks chant. :(


Doesn't it warm your heart to know us and Philadelphia are the two main cities known for that?

#451 sibiriak

sibiriak

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:23 PM

I believe its less about pride and self respect. If there was pride and self respect on the line, the players association would have been negotiating in January. If pride and self respect were on the line, then the players association wouldn't be playing the PR role to a T. Lets face facts here, Don Fehr dragged his feet to the start of negotiations, then he drug his feet before he put forward his initial proposal. Fehr wants there to be revenue sharing, and I can understand why the owners don't want the deal based on what revenues could be. Now, the NHL has given the players a new proposal, and Don Fehr won't "play ping pong" and doesn't believe he needs to give the next proposal.

Lets face facts here, the owners are asking for too much. By locking the players out, they are damaging the game of hockey and future revenues. At the same time, and others have said, they feel they have no choice.

I know I have said it before, but I will say it again....

Both sides are in the wrong here. This should have never resulted in a lockout. All the owners have to do is come up a little from their demands, and all the players have to do is come down a little from their demands. As many have said here, its a game of chicken. Who will blink first?

I am not waiting around for either side to blink. Both sides can go jump off a cliff.

You know, the sooner you let go of an idea that owners and (to a somewhat lesser degree) players are anything but two rational economic actors that behave strategically in order to maximize their respective incomes, the less nerves you will burn up thinking about this. They do not and are not really expected to care about the fans feelings, as long as the fans keep buying tix, and otherwise spending money on NHL product.. And as the 3 previous work stoppages have amply demonstrated, we fans are really that dumb and will grumble a bit, but come back and support the NHL, whenever they decide to play hockey again.
So your idea, that with different negotiating teams and/or more time, the compromise would have been found, is not plausible. Personalities and negotiating tactics are determined by the strategic goals, not the other way around. In other words, the players hired Fehr to do exactly what he is doing, and the owners pay Bettman to do exactly what he does. If either side wanted a compromise, they would have behaved differently.
From what we've seen so far, the owners are trying to crush the PA yet again, and the players are determined to not be crushed like it happened the last time. At the very least, the players want to make the owners victory so costly, that the owners may hesitate to do this again in the future. Both sides are following thought out strategies, and I don't see a quick resolution, unless something fundamental changes.

#452 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:05 PM

Sure they can. The owners can lock out the players any time they want. That's what it means to be an owner.

Is it a good tactic, no, but they can absolutely call a lockout whenever they see fit, and nothing is going to take that power away from them.

As soon as enough Dan Cleary and Cal Clutterbuck types that don't have the option of signing a lucrative deal in Europe start missing paychecks, you're going to start seeing cracks on the NHLPA side.

We can take that power away from them

#453 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:15 AM

It would appears that just like the NHL this thread has reached an impasse. Maybe if we would have started to argue in January we would be done by now.

#454 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:58 AM

It would appears that just like the NHL this thread has reached an impasse. Maybe if we would have started to argue in January we would be done by now.

You only mention this because you know damn well that we were too busy rootin on the Wings record home streak in January to have carried on any sort of serious argument such as this at that time

#455 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:34 AM

...
I am not waiting around for either side to blink. Both sides can go jump off a cliff.


Can we push them off the cliff??? Please???

Since I love messing around with numbers...they are talking about $100M lost in revenue due to the cancellation of pre-season games. This equals 3% of the annual revenue. So in other words...the players already lost 3% on their paycheck right now (first year only).

If they go for the proposed PA's 4-year deal, this would mean a lost percentage of around 0.7% based on a annual increase of 4% on total revenue.

Ofcourse these amounts are not huge comparing to the offer the league has put on the table, but salaries are already taking a cut with the lockout.

Hopefully financial details will be released during the lockout, so I can crunch the numbers.
First round series win: $0 () Second round series win: $0 () Third round series win: $0 () Fourth round series win: $0 () Goal difference: $0 (-3) Shutout difference: $0 (0) SHG difference: $0 (0) Extra points reg. season: $3 (102)

TOTAL COLLECTED: $0 TOTAL BONUS IF STANLEY CUP: $3

#456 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:54 AM

Every time I hear either side talk about this they're throwing little jabs. Come on boys, less chirping more bringing back my damn hockey!

 
"Everything he does is exciting to watch.” -Holmstrom describes Datsyuk


#457 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,667 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:26 AM

You know, the sooner you let go of an idea that owners and (to a somewhat lesser degree) players are anything but two rational economic actors that behave strategically in order to maximize their respective incomes, the less nerves you will burn up thinking about this. They do not and are not really expected to care about the fans feelings, as long as the fans keep buying tix, and otherwise spending money on NHL product.. And as the 3 previous work stoppages have amply demonstrated, we fans are really that dumb and will grumble a bit, but come back and support the NHL, whenever they decide to play hockey again.
So your idea, that with different negotiating teams and/or more time, the compromise would have been found, is not plausible. Personalities and negotiating tactics are determined by the strategic goals, not the other way around. In other words, the players hired Fehr to do exactly what he is doing, and the owners pay Bettman to do exactly what he does. If either side wanted a compromise, they would have behaved differently.
From what we've seen so far, the owners are trying to crush the PA yet again, and the players are determined to not be crushed like it happened the last time. At the very least, the players want to make the owners victory so costly, that the owners may hesitate to do this again in the future. Both sides are following thought out strategies, and I don't see a quick resolution, unless something fundamental changes.

I cannot like this post enough. Very good points.

I guess I am tired of the rhetoric from some people here just spouting off that the league is all at fault in this meanwhile standing behind the players. The players have played the PR card very well in these negotiations. Fehr needed to do it in order to get the fans on his side and put pressure on the ownership. I saw through it the moment that Fehr dragged his feet in negotiations and waited until June to even start negotiations. Now that he has the fans on his side, the players have carte blanche to fight the league. Of course, the ownership will get a lot of emails and letters from upset fans, but that won't curtail the strike or end it early.

I have been participating in the social media blitz against both sides. Yes, its true that I love hockey. It is also true that I won't spend a dime on merchandise, nhl center ice package, or nhl tickets for the next five years or so if we lose any regular season games. That seems to be a formality at this stage, but the point is both sides are going to understand that the only support I will be extending to the NHL will be watching the games on TV. Both sides need to understand that the rhetoric won't be tolerated. The NHL will come back, but it will be weaker because many fans won't be buying tickets anymore. Sure, many will return, but the amount of people who change their spending habits will have a greater impact. It is my goal to get more people on board with this idea.

True, I don't expect everyone to see things the way I do. That doesn't make our opinions more or less valid in the end. After all, this is a forum where we can voice our opinions. When the regular season starts back up, I intend to make my impact felt in some way.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#458 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,429 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:29 AM

Posted Image

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#459 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,578 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:13 AM

An NHL executive met with sponsors yesterday.

With the NHL on hold, sponsors have been forced to abandon plans to activate against the league and some have started channelling money into other projects. Typically, campaigns and product launches take months to pull together — posing a problem for league partners given the uncertainty brought on by the lockout.


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406703

That's a point of pressure on the ownership side I hadn't really thought about. Hopefully the sponsors are getting upset at this completely unnecessary lockout. And even if the season does resume, the league could potentially lose revenue because the sponsors will have reallocated it to other things.

#460 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:29 AM

An NHL executive met with sponsors yesterday.



http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406703

That's a point of pressure on the ownership side I hadn't really thought about. Hopefully the sponsors are getting upset at this completely unnecessary lockout. And even if the season does resume, the league could potentially lose revenue because the sponsors will have reallocated it to other things.


it sucks that nbc was dumb enough to pay the nhl 200 million dollars this season regardless if games are played or not





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users