2458 replies to this topic

[GMRwings1983]

Does anyone think these owners or players really give a s*** about fans being upset?

I don't.

[mmorland]

As Matt finishes up the revamped LetsGoWings website, we're pushing ahead with the podcast.

The LetsGoWings.com podcast series, The Red Line, is back for a second season, with episode one out now. Episode 1 is all lockout talk, from money to egos and everything in between.

Follow This Link for More Details

Edited by mmorland, 04 October 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[barabbas16]

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.


I fixed it for you.

Ah, you did say 'could.' But you also said...

'we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today.'

AND

'The sooner that they met, the better off they would have been and the happier the fans would have been in the end.'

The first statement is fact. The second sure sounds like YOU seem to know what would have happened with more time.... you know, since you stated it there.... pretty much says we all lived happily ever after... except that it is based on no fact and is pure speculation.

I was trying to cleverly point out that you contradicted yourself. I thought it was funny, anyway.... even if noone else did. No offense or anything - just bored.

[Bump]

NHL agent Allan Walsh gets it:

"It's become perfectly clear that Gary Bettman cannot continue in his position. It's time for a new commissioner."

[toby91_ca]

Looks like a bit of a shot from Bobby Ryan at the players who decided to go overseas to play.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406772

"I'm going to continue to skate with the guys," Ryan told the New Jersey Courier-Post. "Whether it's coming back here (to South Jersey) for a couple weeks at a time. I think it's important to stay here (in the United States) and be part of the solution and not just run from it."

[Nightfall]

Ah, you did say 'could.' But you also said...

'we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today.'

AND

'The sooner that they met, the better off they would have been and the happier the fans would have been in the end.'

The first statement is fact. The second sure sounds like YOU seem to know what would have happened with more time.... you know, since you stated it there.... pretty much says we all lived happily ever after... except that it is based on no fact and is pure speculation.

I was trying to cleverly point out that you contradicted yourself. I thought it was funny, anyway.... even if noone else did. No offense or anything - just bored.

No offense taken. At the same time, my second statement does stand. If the NHLPA would have met with the NHL, the fans would have been happier because there would have been apparent traction. Also, if they would have met in January, both sides would have been better off in some part due to the fact they were talking sooner. I don't know if a deal would have been reached or not. I just can't understand how someone can say that meeting early wouldn't be a factor at all. The NHLPA behavior at least shows a pattern of negative bargaining behavior.

By my count we've lost 1,780 games due to Bettman's lockouts. That beats MLB, NBA and NFL by a longshot.

The sad part is we're still counting. That number is going to get even higher.

Hey, at least Bettman and Fehr are tied in locking out/striking their respective sides and each losing a championship series in their respective sports.

[barabbas16]

No offense taken. At the same time, my second statement does stand. If the NHLPA would have met with the NHL, the fans would have been happier because there would have been apparent traction. Also, if they would have met in January, both sides would have been better off in some part due to the fact they were talking sooner. I don't know if a deal would have been reached or not. I just can't understand how someone can say that meeting early wouldn't be a factor at all. The NHLPA behavior at least shows a pattern of negative bargaining behavior.

Oh, I don't think that it wouldn't be a factor at all. It would have to factor in somehow. But, there's no way to prove HOW it would factor in. There is a possibility that it would have factored in positively, but there's also a possibility that we would be sitting here writing these same messages today even if they had met in January.

It just seems to me like both sides would have dug the trenches no matter when the conversation started and both sides knew that their best chance to show they were 'really serious' and get as much of what they wanted was when this season would have started, when the other side was losing money. Not saying that definitely is the case, but it is what I think. Neither of these sides trusts the other side at all, imo, and good (i.e. quick) negotiations just aren't usually possible in that kind of environment.

[Buppy]

... If the NHLPA would have met with the NHL, the fans would have been happier because there would have been apparent traction. Also, if they would have met in January, both sides would have been better off in some part due to the fact they were talking sooner. I don't know if a deal would have been reached or not. I just can't understand how someone can say that meeting early wouldn't be a factor at all.
...

Or the fans would be even more mad because the sides had been arguing for 9 months without reaching an agreement. Also, both sides could have been worse off due to all the bad blood simmering for 9 months...

[toby91_ca]

If the NHLPA would have met with the NHL, the fans would have been happier because there would have been apparent traction. Also, if they would have met in January, both sides would have been better off in some part due to the fact they were talking sooner. I don't know if a deal would have been reached or not. I just can't understand how someone can say that meeting early wouldn't be a factor at all. The NHLPA behavior at least shows a pattern of negative bargaining behavior.

I can absolutely, without any shred of doubt whatsoever, tell you that it wouldn't have matter at all whether they started negotiating in January or June. Time is not the issue. It takes no time at all to strike a deal. The issue is that no one wants to move off their positions. There is no way that would have happened before a deadline. No one would have lost any money between January and now....the only hope now is that as both sides start losing money, someone will make a move (history has shown that doesn't matter too much though).

[Johnz96]

Does anyone think these owners or players really give a s*** about fans being upset?

I don't.

Do we really give a s*** how the owners and players feel? All that we care about is that we get to watch our game. And considering we flocked back to the game after the last lockout, we are most responsible for this one.
It's only a game we watch for our amusement, it's their livelihood for Pete's sake

Edited by Johnz96, 04 October 2012 - 10:52 PM.

[Euro_Twins]

I can absolutely, without any shred of doubt whatsoever, tell you that it wouldn't have matter at all whether they started negotiating in January or June. Time is not the issue. It takes no time at all to strike a deal. The issue is that no one wants to move off their positions. There is no way that would have happened before a deadline. No one would have lost any money between January and now....the only hope now is that as both sides start losing money, someone will make a move (history has shown that doesn't matter too much though).

I agree that we would still be in the same spot we are in now, but I may have been a little bit happier knowing that they were negotiating for 9 months before cancelling games, rather then 2 months

[Vladiator]

I've been watching/reading this thread too long. Two weeks of the regular season are gone now. I think that many of you will agree that is time to walk away now. I'm sick of the drama. Go play in the KHL and all of the other leagues. Have fun traveling on those Russian jetliners.

[Nightfall]

Well, the war of words is still going on. The NHL whines about not getting their way and the NHLPA says they would have played while they continued negotiating for a new CBA, forget the fact that the NHLPA has drug its feet through this process so far. Both sides just need to get back to the bargaining table.

I agree that we would still be in the same spot we are in now, but I may have been a little bit happier knowing that they were negotiating for 9 months before cancelling games, rather then 2 months

It either could go this way or fans could be more upset because they were talking for 9 months and nothing happened. I guess at this juncture, I don't think it could be any worse than where we are today if we started negotiating early.

[cusimano_brothers]

“The decision to cancel the first two weeks of the NHL season is the unilateral choice of the NHL owners,” Donald Fehr, the executive director of the NHL Players Association, said in a release. “If the owners truly cared about the game and the fans, they would lift the lockout and allow the season to begin on time while negotiations continue.

“A lockout should be the last resort in bargaining, not the strategy of first resort. For nearly 20 years, the owners have elected to lockout the players in an effort to secure massive concessions.

[Nightfall]

Fehr is great at playing the public relations card. Just based on Fehr's behavior, if the league would have started the season, Fehr would have not negotiated a new CBA. Hell, I bet it would have been December/January before he even thought about it.

No doubt that the ownership is trying to secure massive concessions. At the same time, neither the owners or players are blinking off of their initial stances. A deal can be made, but only if both sides drift to the middle. It really is that simple.

Hell, Fehr is good at playing the PR card. What he should do is put forward a proposal that gives the players 52% of revenue while the owners get 48%, and then make it public.

[RippedOnNitro]

Andy Strickland
Told #NHLPA is working on proposal and will present it to #NHLsometime soon[/background][/font][/color]

http://bleacherrepor...er-cba-proposal

Edited by RippedOnNitro, 05 October 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[RippedOnNitro]

Working with some numbers again...although I have trouble finding the correct and full numbers, this is what I based it on.

The NHLPA is set on not reducing players salaries in year 1. While the NHL's latest offer was a player's share of 49%.

The NHLPA mentioned they wanted to keep the player's share on a fixed amount of $1.91B (equals 57%), while the NHL offered $1.64B (equals 49%).

Difference is $270M, calculating on the NHL proposal that is the same as $551M revenue.

Since a revenue of $100M was already lost due to cancelling the preseason, there is only an amount of $451M of revenue left, untill the proposal of the NHLPA (for year 1) is already below the offer of the NHL of 49%.

These calculations are based on year 1 only, but what I understand of what I've read...the NHLPA's most important point is to not reduce salaries in year 1.

Perhaps I will look into the other years tomorrow if I have time for it.

Edited by RippedOnNitro, 05 October 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[haroldsnepsts]

While it's not surprising that the owners don't want to play out the season without a CBA, Fehr is exactly right that under Bettman's reign lockout has not been a last resort but is the basis of his negotiating strategy.

Especially considering Bettman got the rules changed to make it even harder to overrule him, so compromise on the owners side is even less likely. Given the amount of concessions they want from the players, ownership had to know it would require locking the players out before they'd ever agree to them.

This lockout wasn't the unfortunate result of unexpected circumstances, it was almost certainly something ownership prepared for.

[Jedi]

Especially considering Bettman got the rules changed to make it even harder to overrule him, so compromise on the owners side is even less likely.

It's unbelievable that an employee of the owners/BoG has so much power over them. There are few jobs anywhere else in the world where the employee holds all the power over his employers...

I'm glad to hear that the PA is working on a new proposal, but I can't wait to see how long the League rejects it, and submits a counter offer that's pretty much the same thing as their first and second proposals.

[haroldsnepsts]

It's unbelievable that an employee of the owners/BoG has so much power over them. There are few jobs anywhere else in the world where the employee holds all the power over his employers...

I'm glad to hear that the PA is working on a new proposal, but I can't wait to see how long the League rejects it, and submits a counter offer that's pretty much the same thing as their first and second proposals.

When I found out how hard it is to overrule Bettman, it was both depressing and explained a lot about the last lockout.

We've seen how idiotic some of these owners can be. And now Gary only needs 8 not to vote against him. I've seen several references to what a hardliner Jeremy Jacobs (owner of the Bruins) is and how much influence he has. A friend of mine is from Boston and said fans hate him. They even booed him when he was announced during their Cup win.

Among ownership there's got to be more reasonable, intelligent voices in the group, but are there 24 of them? Probably not.

EDIT: And I just remembered that the league owns the coyotes, so Bettman probably gets one of those 30 votes himself. So he might only need 7 owners to support him.