Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


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

#901 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,337 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:13 PM

And Leipold for matching it.

The players will inevitably have to come down on percentage for the simple reason that the owners will withhold hockey until they do. But I can understand them being pissed that the same people who gave out these huge contracts a couple months ago are now sitting across the table from them crying poor and saying they need to reduce player salaries and not honor those contracts.

It's this very same reason why I personally favour what MLB has - a soft cap with a "luxury tax".

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#902 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,550 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:16 PM

I just saw the meeting only lasted an hour today. That's basically enough time to present the three proposals and for the NHL to say no thanks.

Then both sides heading back to the corners.


depressing.

It's this very same reason why I personally favour what MLB has - a soft cap with a "luxury tax".

Agreed. The NBA has a soft cap and luxury tax as well.

I'd have to guess that sort of system would benefit an owner like Illitch, who actually knows how to run a successful franchise.

#903 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,337 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:20 PM

Agreed. The NBA has a soft cap and luxury tax as well.

I'd have to guess that sort of system would benefit an owner like Illitch, who actually knows how to run a successful franchise.

...and the Maple Leafs would have a shot at buying winning the Cup.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#904 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,632 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:23 PM

Agreed. The NBA has a soft cap and luxury tax as well.

I'd have to guess that sort of system would benefit an owner like Illitch, who actually knows how to run a successful franchise.

The biggest problem with the NHL is you don't have 23 owners that are like Illitch. As you have pointed out, Bettman only needs 8 owners to side with him. If you had a lot of responsible owners, then these negotiations would have been infinitely easy. In reality though, you have probably 8 owners who are actually smart when it comes to contracts and running their franchises.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#905 sleepwalker

sleepwalker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:44 PM

The biggest problem with the NHL is you don't have 23 owners that are like Illitch. As you have pointed out, Bettman only needs 8 owners to side with him. If you had a lot of responsible owners, then these negotiations would have been infinitely easy. In reality though, you have probably 8 owners who are actually smart when it comes to contracts and running their franchises.


Is it 8? Has anyone actually figured out what happens to the Phoenix vote? Does Bettman get to cast it himself? If so, I imagine it is actually 7 owners, not 8, as Bettman wouldn't vote against himself.

#906 Hockeymom1960

Hockeymom1960

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,807 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:52 PM

And now on a more serious note.....


Edited by Hockeymom1960, 18 October 2012 - 05:53 PM.


#907 Jedi

Jedi

    Fire and Blood

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 9,781 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:54 PM

Is it 8? Has anyone actually figured out what happens to the Phoenix vote? Does Bettman get to cast it himself? If so, I imagine it is actually 7 owners, not 8, as Bettman wouldn't vote against himself.


I don't know the actual details, but I can't imagine it's Bettman himself who votes on behalf of Phoenix. While they're definitely on the same side, there could be a huge case for conflict of interest there (though, perhaps not an actual legal case, but definitely room for complaint).

I'd imagine that the league has appointed someone to look out for the best interests of the Phoenix Coyotes, someone who will probably be in lockstep with Bettman, but isn't actually Uncle Gary himself. In other words, the 1st vote in Gary's corner.

bdc4.jpg
"I am the sword in the darkness... I am the watcher on the walls..."


#908 b.shanafan14

b.shanafan14

    One good Swede deserves another!

  • Silver Booster
  • 2,858 posts
  • Location:Upper Peninsula, Michigan

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:54 PM

I just saw the meeting only lasted an hour today. That's basically enough time to present the three proposals and for the NHL to say no thanks.

Then both sides heading back to the corners.


This has been the most frustrating part of this lockout so far (aside from the fact that the league has been making record revenues and the stoppage seems completely unjustified). How can we believe two parties are actually trying to negotiate and reach an agreement when what we get is weeks between meetings that are scheduled for 90-minutes and can barely make it more than an hour before breaking for another week or so. Millions, even billions of dollars hang in the balance, not only for the league, owners, and players, but for arena personnel and local businesses. Where is the f***ing urgency?

These are professionals trying to reach a compromise?

#909 sleepwalker

sleepwalker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:58 PM

This has been the most frustrating part of this lockout so far (aside from the fact that the league has been making record revenues and the stoppage seems completely unjustified). How can we believe two parties are actually trying to negotiate and reach an agreement when what we get is weeks between meetings that are scheduled for 90-minutes and can barely make it more than an hour before breaking for another week or so. Millions, even billions of dollars hang in the balance, not only for the league, owners, and players, but for arena personnel and local businesses. Where is the f***ing urgency?

These are professionals trying to reach a compromise?


Agreed.

#910 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:02 PM

@FriedgeHNIC: Am personally curious about NHLPA proposal 3, the 50/50 plus contracts being protected. Dispute appears to be...

@FriedgeHNIC: that NHL feels salary money would be "hidden" outside the system. After both sides calm down and stop breathing fire, we'll see if this...

@FriedgeHNIC: Idea would have any traction. For the first time, though, I see a deal. We won't have 82 games, but something decent.

#911 ami

ami

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:51 PM

.... Where is the f***ing urgency?


NHL has been asking Ferh brothers this question for almost a year now. It looks like these unions pigs don't care.

#912 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,408 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:16 PM

Its going to be interesting to see what these proposals were. Right now, I don't believe either of these blowhards. Let the PR spin commence.

Posted Image

The only reason Craig Leopold was there was to remind Uncle Gary that he's already put in the order for the Minnesota Wild 2013 Stanley Cup Champions banner and the deposit is non-refundable.

I thought Mr. Fehr did an excellent job of providing the history of how the players gave up too much in the last negotiations and how they are being asked to give up more...again during his press conference..

"None of the three variations of player share that they gave us even began to approach 50-50, either at all or for some long period of time," Bettman said.

"It's clear we're not speaking the same language."

Fun Fact: Uncle Gary can say the word "no" in umpteen different languages.

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#913 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:17 PM

NHL has been asking Ferh brothers this question for almost a year now. It looks like these unions pigs don't care.


Pigs or not but the owners who signed huge contracts this summer anticipating never to honor their full value (Craig Leipold comes to mind) need a lesson in fair dealing. I do not know if NHLPA has enough leverage and determination to win but I do not fault them for trying.


#914 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,043 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:22 PM

Pigs or not but the owners who signed huge contracts this summer anticipating never to honor their full value (Craig Leipold comes to mind) need a lesson in fair dealing. I do not know if NHLPA has enough leverage and determination to win but I do not fault them for trying.


Well I hope they do win, these damn NHL ********* meaning the undersized midget and his gambling owners need to learn a lesson. If am a player and this thing continues over a year I'd take my new "owner" to court a contract is a binding, free-will agreement between two sites and to me it is absolutely clear some owners never wanted to life up to the contracts they've given out, to me thats blindsiding and I hope they are going to pay a price for that.

At this point I really don't care if e we have a season or not, all I want is Bettman gone asap and so are some of the so called owners, don't want to spend m oney? Don't own a hockey club, we need more owners like Pegula, Illitch, and less douchebags like Jacobs, Leonsis, Samueli...

lidsretire2.jpg
 

Thank you so much perfect human being #5

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

Phase I: injury rattled roster Phase II: BABCOCK Phase III: Playoffs XXIII !


#915 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,408 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:30 PM

NHL has been asking Ferh brothers this question for almost a year now. It looks like these unions pigs don't care.


Posted Image

You have your diagram upside-down.

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#916 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:44 PM

It appears the unions 3rd proposal, where it is 50/50 in year 1 isn't actually 50/50. NHL estimates its actually comes out to 56-57 percent on year 1. Union admitted that it did not run the numbers on the 3rd proposal. I think this is revenge for the owners disguised "whole" provision in their offer from tuesday

Edited by chances14, 18 October 2012 - 07:45 PM.


#917 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:54 PM

@TSNBobMcKenzie: Personally, I'll tune out rhetoric and wait to see what next few days brings. Often a difference between public comments/private sentiment.

#918 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:57 PM

It appears the unions 3rd proposal, where it is 50/50 in year 1 isn't actually 50/50. NHL estimates its actually comes out to 56-57 percent on year 1. Union admitted that it did not run the numbers on the 3rd proposal. I think this is revenge for the owners disguised "whole" provision in their offer from tuesday


Union has never proposed 50/50 in the first year. It is just not possible to do it without cutting existing contracts. Their proposals include gradual reduction of the players share by giving larger portion of the future revenue growth to owners. So it might be getting to 50/50 by the end of the deal assuming some particular rate of revenue growth.

#919 amato

amato

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 08:43 PM

Union has never proposed 50/50 in the first year. It is just not possible to do it without cutting existing contracts. Their proposals include gradual reduction of the players share by giving larger portion of the future revenue growth to owners. So it might be getting to 50/50 by the end of the deal assuming some particular rate of revenue growth.


It's just too bad that revenue growth will take a step back because of the lockout.. The longer it goes on, the less revenue growth we'll see in upcoming years.

Datsyukian

Dat·syu·ki·an [dat-soo-kee-uh n]

adjective

          1. When your moves are so amazing and beyond reason, the only way to describe them is "datsyukian."


#920 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 08:46 PM

It appears the unions 3rd proposal, where it is 50/50 in year 1 isn't actually 50/50. NHL estimates its actually comes out to 56-57 percent on year 1. Union admitted that it did not run the numbers on the 3rd proposal. I think this is revenge for the owners disguised "whole" provision in their offer from tuesday

Not sure 'revenge' would be the right word, but I would guess it's semantics similar to the league's proposal.

They call it 50%, but I'd assume it doesn't count any amount over that that is used to pay existing contracts. Just like the league's proposal calls the later years 50% when in fact part of that 50% is used to pay back what gets taken in the first few years.

Both amount to the same thing: A higher percentage to start (even if only in money earned rather than actually payed), and falling from there. Same thing as most of the other proposals, just couched a bit differently.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users