• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The owners want longer entry level contracts and longer RFA status, not the other way around. The longer ELC and RFA is the longer the owners can keep players salaries artificially low, aka they won't have to pay them what their worth for a longer period of time. Owners would have to be semi-slow to go for a deal like that, hence why they asked for longer of both in their original 50/50 split.

Actually, the owners are proposing to shorten ELCs by a year. However, the purpose of that is to lower the value of the second contract. Consider Evander Kane. Had he come off his ELC before last year, his current deal would likely be $1-2M less per year. More than makes up the difference in year 3 salary. Originally they wanted it longer, but their latest offer is 2 years.

It's arbitration and UFA eligibility the owners want to push back a year now.

Dude, you sound like the one who hasn't been following the lockout. Each side has done nothing but throw around rhetoric. Small gains have been made but they seem more hell-bent on winning the PR battle. Don't understand what you don't understand about that, it's rather obvious.

Meh, one man's rhetoric is another's normal press conference. Seems to me the difference lies in whether what is said is what the listener wants/expects to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the owners are proposing to shorten ELCs by a year. However, the purpose of that is to lower the value of the second contract. Consider Evander Kane. Had he come off his ELC before last year, his current deal would likely be $1-2M less per year. More than makes up the difference in year 3 salary. Originally they wanted it longer, but their latest offer is 2 years.

It's arbitration and UFA eligibility the owners want to push back a year now.

Meh, one man's rhetoric is another's normal press conference. Seems to me the difference lies in whether what is said is what the listener wants/expects to hear.

ELC's are naturally always different in regards to who it benefits depending on the player. A longer ELC will benefit particular players in regards to their team, while a shorter ELC will benefit other teams in regards to the player. Yeah, if they had locked up Kane on a long-term deal for less money earlier it would have been better for the Jets. However, it's different for every different players situation.

Honestly they should all just agree to keep it at 3 years, seems to work good so far, no need change things just for the sake of changing them.

Totally disagree on your interpretation of rhetorical speech though. Their is a difference between business and rhetorical PR speech to the public. The entire hockey reporting/hockey blogging community is up in arms over all the public rhetoric being thrown around that means absolutely nothing. Bettman and Fehr both come out of meetings and spew BS that makes their side look good, trying to get the fans and such on their side. Any intelligent person can read through the rhetoric and tell the difference between what is a PR scheme and what is actual business/work getting done. Both sides are to blame, however I'd call the owners/league the instigators.

Ones mans rhetoric is a smart mans bulls***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all your posts are arguing with those who support the PA, so naturally the majority of your points go against the players. Criticism of the owners is mostly limited to one little line in a whole post countering any pro-player opinions. Someone not following the entire debate could easily draw a wrong conclusion. Hell, I've been involved in a lot of it, and sometimes I forget. :)

Being as that 80% of the people here support the NHLPA, that is not surprising. So I can understand to a certain point. At least the people who support the NHLPA who have kept up with the discussion here could look back and acknowledge the criticism I have towards Bettman and his negotiating tactics instead of ignoring them. As I said before, people who say things like that are showing their bias and true ignorance at its finest. It really isn't hard to see that I have similar backlash towards the actions of both sides, not just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, one man's rhetoric is another's normal press conference. Seems to me the difference lies in whether what is said is what the listener wants/expects to hear.

The hardline NHLPA fan will look at what Fehr is saying and do the, "He's the best, He's the best," impression. While they look at Bettman and say, "Lying moron!". Do both sides have points to consider? Yes. I just find the rhetoric unnecessary. I believe that both sides could improve on their public image even more so if they got into a room and negotiated for longer than an hour. Is it wrong for me to point the finger at both Fehr and Bettman and say that there has been a true lack of negotiation? I don't believe so. Here are where both sides have done a disservice to not only the fans, but to the game of hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Gary says that operating costs have become unmanageable for some teams.

He has chosen to attack the area that, that in his eyes, is the most obvious: player's salaries.

What he needs to do is attack the area, that in my eyes, is the most obvious: the owners who pay the player's salaries.

He won't do that because they pay his salary as well.

Remember: 30-0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"(I'm) not sure there is any reason to meet if there is nothing new to say," deputy commissioner Bill Daly told The Canadian Press in an email. "Our position was communicated to the union pretty clearly last Tuesday and then again on Thursday.

"If they have a desire to meet with regard to the proposal we have on the table, they know how to reach us."

This really sounds like someone who gives a rats ass if there is even a season. The Chancellor has taught you well Darth Daly.... Keep standing firm with your 7 owners and default coyotes vote and feed the players and fans BS. About 75% to 25% of the fans seemingly are standing with the players, the one's who gave back 24% of their pay last time just for the owners and GM's to let things get out of control again cause their deal broke and the GM's found ways to overspend and exploit the very thing that Buttman and "most" of the owners wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly reminder. LGW is a politics-free zone. Although it might be easy to reference politics in this discussion, please keep your posts on topic regarding the lockout and hockey.

2916535503_no_politics_xlarge.jpeg

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the owners are proposing to shorten ELCs by a year. However, the purpose of that is to lower the value of the second contract. Consider Evander Kane. Had he come off his ELC before last year, his current deal would likely be $1-2M less per year. More than makes up the difference in year 3 salary. Originally they wanted it longer, but their latest offer is 2 years.

Actually, the two year ELC in the NHL's proposal is by design, not too lower value of 2nd contracts, but to delay UFA. While it initially looks like a give back to the players (i.e. the players want to get out of ELC as quickly as possible as the ELCs cap their earnings), it really is a take from the players when you combine with other proposals from the owners.

The owners want to push UFA back to 8 years from the current 7. They also want to cap contracts at 5 years. Therefore, if an ELC goes 2 years, then the max a player can get after that is 5 years....you are at 7 years, but still not a UFA. Forces players to go through 3 contracts at least before getting to UFA. Players are used to be getting big paydays much sooner than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"(I'm) not sure there is any reason to meet if there is nothing new to say," deputy commissioner Bill Daly told The Canadian Press in an email. "Our position was communicated to the union pretty clearly last Tuesday and then again on Thursday.

"If they have a desire to meet with regard to the proposal we have on the table, they know how to reach us."

This really sounds like someone who gives a rats ass if there is even a season. The Chancellor has taught you well Darth Daly.... Keep standing firm with your 7 owners and default coyotes vote and feed the players and fans BS. About 75% to 25% of the fans seemingly are standing with the players, the one's who gave back 24% of their pay last time just for the owners and GM's to let things get out of control again cause their deal broke and the GM's found ways to overspend and exploit the very thing that Buttman and "most" of the owners wanted.

Who cares where the fans stand? It doesn't matter one iota. They know you'll be back, as much as you protest, so what does it matter. Like I said before, when this is all over, noone is going to care who won the PR battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be nice if Fehr and Bettman would get together and discuss these issues as much as we have in this thread.

No kidding. I believe that we have a grasp on what each side needs more than Fehr and Bettman do.

haroldsnepsts, you can be the NHLPA negotiator

I will be the NHL negotiator

Here is my first proposal.

50/50 split

We will pay all current contracts

3 year entry level contract limit

6 year contract limit

I want the new realignment plan as well

Any thoughts? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96

No kidding. I believe that we have a grasp on what each side needs more than Fehr and Bettman do.

haroldsnepsts, you can be the NHLPA negotiator

I will be the NHL negotiator

Here is my first proposal.

50/50 split

We will pay all current contracts

3 year entry level contract limit

6 year contract limit

I want the new realignment plan as well

Any thoughts? :D

If the NHL made a realistic proposal like the lockout would be ended shortly after but what you are forgetting is that Bettman and the owners are doing this to renege on the contracts they signed and offered in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NHL made a realistic proposal like the lockout would be ended shortly after but what you are forgetting is that Bettman and the owners are doing this to renege on the contracts they signed and offered in the first place

This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No kidding. I believe that we have a grasp on what each side needs more than Fehr and Bettman do.

haroldsnepsts, you can be the NHLPA negotiator

I will be the NHL negotiator

Here is my first proposal.

50/50 split

We will pay all current contracts

3 year entry level contract limit

6 year contract limit

I want the new realignment plan as well

Any thoughts? :D

What about RFA/UFA?

What about arbitration?

What is the definition of HRR?

Is the 50/50 immediate or phased in?

How are cap hits calculated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.

How would you suggest they go about getting to 50/50 right out of the gate AND honoring of all current contracts at the same time? (which you say you are in favor of)

Edited by sleepwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Ottawa Sun. A particularly troubling line in a story about time running out on the league imposed deadline...

League sources say Bettman won't be allowed to offer up any more concessions to try to get a deal and, in fact, he has gone further than some owners expected he would.

Although I doubt it's a case of Bettman being "allowed" to do anything, it's still very disconcerting that the League may not be willing to concede anything more to the players to get a deal done...

Although, two lines before that, Daly seems to indicate that the league will still bargain over the most recent proposal, which indicates some concessions could still be made.

"We have a proposal on the table," Daly wrote Monday. "If, and when, the (union wants) to bargain over it, we will be more than happy to do so."

And yes, I realize that the "League sources" are unnamed, so take the story with your preferred amount of salt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Ottawa Sun. A particularly troubling line in a story about time running out on the league imposed deadline...

Although I doubt it's a case of Bettman being "allowed" to do anything, it's still very disconcerting that the League may not be willing to concede anything more to the players to get a deal done...

Although, two lines before that, Daly seems to indicate that the league will still bargain over the most recent proposal, which indicates some concessions could still be made.

And yes, I realize that the "League sources" are unnamed, so take the story with your preferred amount of salt...

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

OMFG! NO WAY! THAT LITTLE MIDGET DWARF UNCLE GARY CAN BURN IN HELL!!!!

esteef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

It certainly is interesting to consider, but I'm not sure I buy it, to be honest. Bettman only needs 8 votes in his favor to ensure he isn't overruled, for the "Bettman's fault" theory to not be true, he would need 23 owners against him to force his hand. And since we already know that Jacobs (Boston), Leipold (Minnesota), Edwards (Calgary) and Leonsis (Washington) are solidly in Bettman's camp as well as the League-Owned Coyotes, that leaves Bettman only needing 3 votes to ensure that he gets the final say on the League's stance.

My best guess? Bettman has more than 8 owners in his court, but their support very well could be conditional on him doing everything he can to completely break the PA, and force them into only a deal of the League's offering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Toronto Star:

With pressure mounting to get a season-saving deal done, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman secretly allowed owners and general managers to be in contact with players for a 48-hour period last week.

Owners and GMs were afforded a chance to promote Bettman’s proposal of a

50-50 division of hockey related revenue. The window for conversations ended Friday.

The report initially came from

Quebec-based TVA.

“Propaganda,” one NHL unidentified player told TVA Sports.

“Players were calling to ask about the offer,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told the Star in an email. “We let clubs answer their questions. . . . We did authorize club executives to respond substantively to player inquiries.”

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96

This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.

What I was trying to say in your hypothetical proposal representing the NHL, you would pay contracts already signed but that is the purpose of the lockout in the first place and the ultimate goal for the NHL. To renege on contracts the owners signed and offered in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That confuses me. I wasn't aware it was a league-sanctioned gag order that the owners couldn't talk to the players.

I had assumed that was commonplace, especially after the League slapped Jimmy D with a $250k fine for speaking out. The League hired Bettman to be their mouthpiece and chief negotiator. If the Owners are spreading the message instead of Bettman, it undermines his position as League spokesman, and makes it less likely that everyone stays "on message".

Plus, if the owners and players were allowed to speak without League supervision/approval, then you could see the more moderate owners and players working together to oppose the official League stance. That is the LAST thing Bettman wants at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.