Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


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

#981 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 21 October 2012 - 10:30 PM

Burnside at ESPN just wrote one of the best columns on the NHL Lockout.

http://espn.go.com/n...reak-nhl-legacy


What has been most striking as this lockout lurches into its sixth week now is how precious little true negotiating has been done. The two sides have worked on ancillary (i.e., non-core economic) issues but as for sitting down, shirtsleeves rolled up, let's-really-get-down-to-brass-tacks-on-how-the-money-will-be-split-up-to-which-of-the-NHL's-needy-teams, not so much.
The NHL, for instance, waited all of about 10 minutes before dismissing the players' proposals Thursday even though, according to the union, at least a couple of those proposals examined a manner in which they could get to the 50-50 split in revenues that seems to be the magic equation to getting a deal done.
Far too much time has been spent pontificating for the cameras, spinning and bad-mouthing and complaining and quiet sulking, and far too little time getting to work.
And the time for that has come to stop.


The best line in the story though is this....

A shortened 2012-13 season should be emblazoned with a scarlet letter "M" for "Morons."


Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#982 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:13 AM

Burnside at ESPN just wrote one of the best columns on the NHL Lockout.

http://espn.go.com/n...reak-nhl-legacy

The best line in the story though is this....

Little point in sitting down if one side is going to throw out proposals after barely a glance. Remember, this is twice in a row Bettman has rejected proposals without even taking time to consider them. Just a glance to see if there's an immediate pay cut, and if not it goes straight in the trash. How do you negotiate with that? What more can the players do but capitulate to the owners demands?

What bugs me about all of the people bashing the union is that you all seem to agree that they shouldn't have to take a pay cut, but then say they have to be willing to compromise and give up a little more. Those two statements are contradictory. The players are as low as they can realistically go in the short term without pay cuts, and pretty much as low as they can go on the overall share% without going below 50% in any given year. And the worst part is that the longer the owners fail to acknowledge that, the higher the player's share has to be to avoid cuts.

That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again.

The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%.

Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.

#983 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:12 AM

Little point in sitting down if one side is going to throw out proposals after barely a glance. Remember, this is twice in a row Bettman has rejected proposals without even taking time to consider them. Just a glance to see if there's an immediate pay cut, and if not it goes straight in the trash. How do you negotiate with that? What more can the players do but capitulate to the owners demands?

What bugs me about all of the people bashing the union is that you all seem to agree that they shouldn't have to take a pay cut, but then say they have to be willing to compromise and give up a little more. Those two statements are contradictory. The players are as low as they can realistically go in the short term without pay cuts, and pretty much as low as they can go on the overall share% without going below 50% in any given year. And the worst part is that the longer the owners fail to acknowledge that, the higher the player's share has to be to avoid cuts.

That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again.

The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%.

Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.


I would agree with a lot of points made. But everyone can spin around all they like, in the end if the owners and players will not get an agreement before the Thurday deadline, games will be permanently lossed, which results in paychecks lost (= already a cut on their salary essentially) and lost revenues (= already a cut on their future salaries essentially).

So the players can demand for their salaries to remain uncut 100% all they want, it will happen! Either via an agreement for lower % or missed paychecks.

However if they really really want their current salaries to remain uncut, the owners did propose something like paying out the "cut" over the remaining years of the contracts. However this does mean it will be taken from new contracts in the future, meaning the actual % would drop below 50%.
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

#984 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:22 AM

Little point in sitting down if one side is going to throw out proposals after barely a glance. Remember, this is twice in a row Bettman has rejected proposals without even taking time to consider them. Just a glance to see if there's an immediate pay cut, and if not it goes straight in the trash. How do you negotiate with that? What more can the players do but capitulate to the owners demands?

What bugs me about all of the people bashing the union is that you all seem to agree that they shouldn't have to take a pay cut, but then say they have to be willing to compromise and give up a little more. Those two statements are contradictory. The players are as low as they can realistically go in the short term without pay cuts, and pretty much as low as they can go on the overall share% without going below 50% in any given year. And the worst part is that the longer the owners fail to acknowledge that, the higher the player's share has to be to avoid cuts.

That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again.

The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%.

Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.

The players are going to have to take a pay cut of some kind. That much is certain.

The 57% that the players got last CBA really was fair at the time, considering what they came from before the last lockout. When the NBA and the NFL negotiated 50-50 splits for the most part, you knew that the NHL was headed for the same destination. Now, how much of a pay cut is up for discussion. I believe that the players are entitled to every dime they have in current contracts. I also believe that the players should be looking at a 50-50 split. The problem I have with the league and the union is that they say 50-50, but in reality it isn't. If you look at the 3 proposals given by the players and the proposal by the league, which of those are an actual 50-50 split right off the bat?

Answer: None of them

I can find plenty of blame on both sides of the coin. Since you can't seem to find any fault with the league except for "not seeing the problem", how about I educate you on a few other problems.

League invites the players to start bargaining in January, but Fehr says he needs more time.
League invites the players to bargain upon conclusion of the season, but Fehr waits until the end of June.
Fehr holds off a full 3 weeks after the NHL's crappy proposal before he issues his first proposal. (Notice he is dragging his feet yet?)
Being willing to play the PR card as much as the league is. Touting 50-50 split in his 3rd proposal was a outright lie, just like the NHL proposal was.

I could go on and on here, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides have not been honest and have not negotiated in good faith. The NHL speaks one language, while the NHLPA speaks another. Then they go to the press and play the PR card. They get in a room for 30 minutes, decline the others proposals, and then don't meet again for a week or two at a time. Is that the sign of two sides eager to get a deal done?

So before you start saying that the only fault you can see with the union is that they don't see the problem, take a long good look at the crap they have pulled since the beginning of the year on these CBA negotiations. If you still can't see any fault at all with their actions, then I really am sorry. (Please note that this behavior does not excuse the NHL's behavior in these negotiations either. Two wrongs do not make a right.)

As a fan, this kind of behavior from both sides just pisses me off. It should piss off any fan who has had to sit through this for the last few months.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#985 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,494 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:24 AM

Ignoring other aspects of the deal, I think this should be a fair framework:

Year 1 - players get minimum 50% of HRR and max 55% (if full contracts are paid at 52%, they get no more than that).
Year 2 - min 50%, max 54%
Year 3 - min 50%, max 53%
Year 4 - min 50%, max 52%
Year 5 - min 50%, max 51%
Year 6 - 50%....period

Neither side will really like it too much, which probably means it would be a pretty fair deal.

#986 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:52 AM

I would agree with a lot of points made. But everyone can spin around all they like, in the end if the owners and players will not get an agreement before the Thurday deadline, games will be permanently lossed, which results in paychecks lost (= already a cut on their salary essentially) and lost revenues (= already a cut on their future salaries essentially).

So the players can demand for their salaries to remain uncut 100% all they want, it will happen! Either via an agreement for lower % or missed paychecks.

However if they really really want their current salaries to remain uncut, the owners did propose something like paying out the "cut" over the remaining years of the contracts. However this does mean it will be taken from new contracts in the future, meaning the actual % would drop below 50%.

It's not about the money for the players

#987 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:58 AM

It's not about the money for the players


It has always been all about the money, it still is all about the money and it will always be all about the money ;)
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

#988 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:03 AM

I can find plenty of blame on both sides of the coin. Since you can't seem to find any fault with the league except for "not seeing the problem", how about I educate you on a few other problems.

League invites the players to start bargaining in January, but Fehr says he needs more time.
League invites the players to bargain upon conclusion of the season, but Fehr waits until the end of June.
Fehr holds off a full 3 weeks after the NHL's crappy proposal before he issues his first proposal. (Notice he is dragging his feet yet?)
Being willing to play the PR card as much as the league is. Touting 50-50 split in his 3rd proposal was a outright lie, just like the NHL proposal was.

I could go on and on here, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides have not been honest and have not negotiated in good faith. The NHL speaks one language, while the NHLPA speaks another. Then they go to the press and play the PR card. They get in a room for 30 minutes, decline the others proposals, and then don't meet again for a week or two at a time. Is that the sign of two sides eager to get a deal done?

So before you start saying that the only fault you can see with the union is that they don't see the problem, take a long good look at the crap they have pulled since the beginning of the year on these CBA negotiations. If you still can't see any fault at all with their actions, then I really am sorry. (Please note that this behavior does not excuse the NHL's behavior in these negotiations either. Two wrongs do not make a right.)

As a fan, this kind of behavior from both sides just pisses me off. It should piss off any fan who has had to sit through this for the last few months.


Here is the problem I have reading your posts: You start off by claiming you can find fault on both sides, then you list several reasons why the PA is to blame while speaking rather objectively about it, then you conclude by saying both sides piss you off. That doesn't make sense.

If the League was so ready to negotiate in January, why was Bettman telling the media there was plenty of time and there was no reason to ruin a good season? He knew he was going to lock them out.

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid


#989 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:18 AM

Here is the problem I have reading your posts: You start off by claiming you can find fault on both sides, then you list several reasons why the PA is to blame while speaking rather objectively about it, then you conclude by saying both sides piss you off. That doesn't make sense.

If the League was so ready to negotiate in January, why was Bettman telling the media there was plenty of time and there was no reason to ruin a good season? He knew he was going to lock them out.

I believe the problem that you and others have with my posts are that I am listing reasons why the PA is to blame. Every point I have made that has upset me with the NHL is summarily ignored by people who are on the side of the NHLPA. After all, they are the ones that are 100% at fault right? I have countless posts here where I go after Bettman and his negotiating, crappy proposals, and combative style where he belittles Fehr in front of the press. Yet, you and others here who are on the side of the NHLPA ignore those.

The league was on the record saying that they were ready to negotiate in January. Many links were posted with this information. Of course Bettman thought that there was plenty of time to negotiate a deal at the time. I didn't expect Bettman to come out and say the season was screwed because Fehr and the players weren't willing to negotiate early. I don't believe for a second that Bettman or Fehr were planning a lockout. Some people who are backing the NHLPA believe that Bettman planned to lockout the players the whole time. Some people who are backing the NHL believe that Fehr wasn't planning on negotiating because he wanted the league to lock them out so he could negotiate a new deal with a luxury tax in place. If the season is lost, then that was ok with Fehr.

So, do you believe that either side was planning to scrap the season?

I certainly don't.

The problem is greed and the unwillingness to compromise on both sides.

Edited by Nightfall, 22 October 2012 - 10:20 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#990 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:44 AM

That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again.

The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%.

Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.


Great post, though I'm not entirely clear why a league that generated this much revenue in the past 7 years couldn't have some workable form of revenue sharing. The NFL does, and it's not like Dallas and Jacksonville are even in the same arena in terms of the money they bring into the league.

But your other points are all well taken. I've had people telling me that the players should cave in some more because "the teams in bad markets are still struggling". Well, great, but the lockout does nothing to solve that problem. There's no new revolutionary money-sharing arrangement that come out of it - the owners as a whole are just trying to grab as much as they can.

I've never seen much evidence that Bettman and the well-to-do owners want real parity in this league. I find it ironic that the Stanley Cup matchup in 2004 was Calgary and Tampa Bay, but the Cup winners from the past several years in the "new NHL" have been LA, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Detroit. All of them either large markets, or at least solid hockey markets with ownership that can easily spend up to the cap and beyond. (Well, the LA Kings are a more complex story, but they've definitely had money to spend in the past few years, and the ability to acquire expensive contracts from other teams).

Can anyone honestly say that the players have done more to unreasonably drive up costs in this league than the OWNERS since 2005? I think everyone knows and expects that Crosby and Ovechkin are going to want gigantic 10-year deals, or that marginal players like Ville Leino and Scott Gomez are going to ask for $30 and $50 million deals that they never deserved. Somebody has to agree to PAY these stupid deals, or it doesn't happen. Heck, baseball doesn't even have a salary cap, and yet you see free agents like Jermaine Dye sit on the free agent market because they think they're worth multi-million dollar deals, and 30 MLB teams wisely disagree.

Then you look at what teams like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Minnesota have done to take advantage of their healthy financial situation, and pay out MASSIVE long-term deals that are completely antithetical to the spirit of the CBA. And if Minnesota hadn't done it, Detroit, Pittsburgh, New York, or any number of other "have" teams would have. And then Buffalo or the Islanders goes out and overpays some run-of-the-mill veteran way too much money, either because they need to keep up or, even worse, because they have to overpay some guys to even get to the salary cap floor.

Yeah, I want an 82-game season, but if we leave all this crap unfixed and have continued labor unrest through the next CBA, how is this game going to fix any of the serious problems facing it in the coming years? EVERY other issue gets swallowed up by the money debate, even ones that everyone would benefit from, like realignment and player safety.

#991 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:12 AM

I believe the problem that you and others have with my posts are that I am listing reasons why the PA is to blame. Every point I have made that has upset me with the NHL is summarily ignored by people who are on the side of the NHLPA. After all, they are the ones that are 100% at fault right? I have countless posts here where I go after Bettman and his negotiating, crappy proposals, and combative style where he belittles Fehr in front of the press. Yet, you and others here who are on the side of the NHLPA ignore those.

The league was on the record saying that they were ready to negotiate in January. Many links were posted with this information. Of course Bettman thought that there was plenty of time to negotiate a deal at the time. I didn't expect Bettman to come out and say the season was screwed because Fehr and the players weren't willing to negotiate early. I don't believe for a second that Bettman or Fehr were planning a lockout. Some people who are backing the NHLPA believe that Bettman planned to lockout the players the whole time. Some people who are backing the NHL believe that Fehr wasn't planning on negotiating because he wanted the league to lock them out so he could negotiate a new deal with a luxury tax in place. If the season is lost, then that was ok with Fehr.

So, do you believe that either side was planning to scrap the season?

I certainly don't.

The problem is greed and the unwillingness to compromise on both sides.


I don't have a side. I'm on my own selfish side in wanting hockey to start so I have something to entertain me.

Having said that, I do believe the owners are at fault here. Reason being is that while they are on a cash grab they are doing little to address the real issues of a "cash-strapped-league" and the bigger picture. If the players agree to salary rollbacks now, so we can have a season, is that going to suddenly fix the problems in Phoenix? Absolutely not. The players are willing to take a pay cut of some sort, but what justification do they have in doing so if it doesn't fix anything but make the owners wallet a little fatter and not to address the problem at hand? They're willing to give for the game, but only if it benefits the game.

The only reason you listed the PA is to blame is the "the league was willing to negotiate in January" and "Fehr sure does drag his feet doesn't he?". Even IF Bettman really was willing to negotiate in January, how long would it have taken him to shoot down the PA's offers? 15 minutes? It's hard to negotiate when you have one side saying it's my way or the highway. You claim that's the PA's stance as well, unwilling to budge, but damn them for wanting to not take a pay cut. They're so greedy. Would you take a pay cut today if your company was failing, but your owner just intended to pocket the money instead of actually help save the business?

You're right, Fehr wasn't planning a lockout. If anything, the players would have gone on strike, but now we're just getting into semantics. While this is our first go with Fehr and the NHL, his history shows he has used a strike as leverage before, right before the playoffs. However, if history is going to be used as any indicator, Bettman's negotiating tactic of choice appears to be locking the players out.

So now I'll go back to an old point I brought up a few pages ago: why exactly should the players be willing to take ANY kind of pay cut to contracts that were signed by the very same owners crying poor?

I really don't have any clue how you can realistically place blame of the financial state of the NHL on the players and state that they are equally to blame for the lockout as the owners are because they are not willing to have their salaries rolled back at the demand of the owners who are doing little to address the reasoning behind why the league 'is failing'.

Edited by rrasco, 22 October 2012 - 11:13 AM.

Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid


#992 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:19 PM

From Globe and Mail:



Nashville Predators winger Sergei Kostitsyn, who joined Russian club Avangard Omsk during a work stoppage in the National Hockey League (NHL), hopes the lockout will lead to the cancellation of the entire season.

“Let’s put it this way – it would be better (for the players) if the lockout continues,” Kostitsyn was quoted as saying by Russian daily Sport-Express on Monday.

“Players want a definite answer. If the NHL season is lost – let it be that way. I would then play in Russia for the whole season.”


Big talk coming out of Russia.

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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#993 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:32 PM

It has always been all about the money, it still is all about the money and it will always be all about the money ;)

They are losing money to make a stand. If they were to lose the negotiations and accept the offer the owners presented them now they would lose less money than if they won the negotiations and the owners accepted one of the 3 proposals the players countered with in January or next year.
They can't just let Bettman lock them (and us) out every time the CBA expires to get what he wants for the new one.

#994 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:34 PM

It has always been all about the money, it still is all about the money and it will always be all about the money ;)


It is not about missing or getting the next paycheck. It is about getting all that they have signed contracts for. So it is about money just not the immediate money. Otherwise the only strategy for players is to give in to owners demands right away so that they would not lose any of the (smaller) paychecks.

#995 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:39 PM

I don't have a side. I'm on my own selfish side in wanting hockey to start so I have something to entertain me.

Having said that, I do believe the owners are at fault here. Reason being is that while they are on a cash grab they are doing little to address the real issues of a "cash-strapped-league" and the bigger picture. If the players agree to salary rollbacks now, so we can have a season, is that going to suddenly fix the problems in Phoenix? Absolutely not. The players are willing to take a pay cut of some sort, but what justification do they have in doing so if it doesn't fix anything but make the owners wallet a little fatter and not to address the problem at hand? They're willing to give for the game, but only if it benefits the game.

The only reason you listed the PA is to blame is the "the league was willing to negotiate in January" and "Fehr sure does drag his feet doesn't he?". Even IF Bettman really was willing to negotiate in January, how long would it have taken him to shoot down the PA's offers? 15 minutes? It's hard to negotiate when you have one side saying it's my way or the highway. You claim that's the PA's stance as well, unwilling to budge, but damn them for wanting to not take a pay cut. They're so greedy. Would you take a pay cut today if your company was failing, but your owner just intended to pocket the money instead of actually help save the business?

You're right, Fehr wasn't planning a lockout. If anything, the players would have gone on strike, but now we're just getting into semantics. While this is our first go with Fehr and the NHL, his history shows he has used a strike as leverage before, right before the playoffs. However, if history is going to be used as any indicator, Bettman's negotiating tactic of choice appears to be locking the players out.

So now I'll go back to an old point I brought up a few pages ago: why exactly should the players be willing to take ANY kind of pay cut to contracts that were signed by the very same owners crying poor?

I really don't have any clue how you can realistically place blame of the financial state of the NHL on the players and state that they are equally to blame for the lockout as the owners are because they are not willing to have their salaries rolled back at the demand of the owners who are doing little to address the reasoning behind why the league 'is failing'.

Please point out where I placed any blame on the financial state of the NHL on the players. Oh, thats right, I didn't. You just made that up.

Now, I will point out that the players and owners have blame for the lockout. Right now I put that at 60%-40% in favor of the owners being at fault. I believe that every player should get every penny from every contract that was signed. However, I do believe that a 50/50 split is more equitable in the long run. Especially since the NBA and NFL both negotiated 50/50 splits in their respective sports. Like it or not, this was the way it was going to end up. The owners are more at fault because they are asking for the salary rollback. At the same time, Fehr's responses to the owners proposals have been all about revenue sharing, which the owners apparently don't want to address because they don't want it based on possible revenues. Fehr comes into these meetings speaking an entirely different language, and yet the people who are on the side of the players are ok on giving him a pass on that.

Do I think its right for the NHL to ask for a 50/50 split in revenues? Yes I do. Do I believe that the NHL has the right to ask for salary cuts across the board to existing contracts? No I do not. I believe a deal can be made in this medium. So far, it hasn't been proposed. The NHLPA claims their 3rd option proposal did that, but that was a lie if you read the letter that Fehr sent to all players explaining each proposal. That is the one that is the closest to this option though.

So in essence, you have two leaders who are sitting in their prospective camps and not willing to budge very much. The players don't want to relinquish to 50% from 57%, and yes even their option #3 proposal wasn't 50%. Same with the NHL's latest proposal. So both leaders were lying there. Negotiating in good faith? Neither leader can say they have been doing that. From Fehr dragging his feet a full 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to propose something different, to the NHL and their initial lowball proposal that was insulting, no one can say that they were the angel in these negotiations.

You are right, lets not get into semantics at all. What if the NHLPA decided to come to the table early? We have no idea. You can guess that no deal would have worked out. I can say the possibility was there. Who is right? No one knows because it didn't happen. My point is that more time is better than less time.

Now for my question to you.....

I have no clue how you can realistically look at Fehr's actions and say that he has been bargaining in good faith this whole time. I really don't understand how you can stand behind a side and say that they are entirely in the right, when history and documentation have proved that they have lied and not negotiated in good faith. Instead, the NHLPA has been more focused on playing the PR card instead of getting into a room and negotiating. Do you have anything to say about this?

Then you look at what teams like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Minnesota have done to take advantage of their healthy financial situation, and pay out MASSIVE long-term deals that are completely antithetical to the spirit of the CBA. And if Minnesota hadn't done it, Detroit, Pittsburgh, New York, or any number of other "have" teams would have. And then Buffalo or the Islanders goes out and overpays some run-of-the-mill veteran way too much money, either because they need to keep up or, even worse, because they have to overpay some guys to even get to the salary cap floor.

Yeah, I want an 82-game season, but if we leave all this crap unfixed and have continued labor unrest through the next CBA, how is this game going to fix any of the serious problems facing it in the coming years? EVERY other issue gets swallowed up by the money debate, even ones that everyone would benefit from, like realignment and player safety.

I agree with this.

I believe the players should get paid every cent that they signed for in existing contracts. At the same time, limits have to be placed on contracts. I agree it goes far beyond the split. So far though, it is the split that is causing most of the issue right now.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#996 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:50 PM

I believe the players should get paid every cent that they signed for in existing contracts. At the same time, limits have to be placed on contracts. I agree it goes far beyond the split. So far though, it is the split that is causing most of the issue right now.


I disagree. I think the immediate salary cut is the issue preventing deal from happening. I think if NHL were to propose to freeze players share at 1.87B (or whatever it was last year) until league revenues grow to the point when it represents 50% then they may got some constructive response back. I think one of NHLPA proposals had similar scheme but with higher frozen numbers.

#997 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,754 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:10 PM

I disagree. I think the immediate salary cut is the issue preventing deal from happening. I think if NHL were to propose to freeze players share at 1.87B (or whatever it was last year) until league revenues grow to the point when it represents 50% then they may got some constructive response back. I think one of NHLPA proposals had similar scheme but with higher frozen numbers.

If thats the case, then the owners should be just letting the current contracts go and concentrating on the 50/50 split. The NHL proposal was similar. Just not the 50/50 split that the NHLPA touted.

http://espn.go.com/b...tter-to-players

Edited by Nightfall, 22 October 2012 - 02:11 PM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#998 kylee

kylee

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:14 PM

It makes me very very pessimistic that they may not meet until Thursday, as several are suggesting

Edited by kylee, 22 October 2012 - 02:14 PM.


#999 Marty Barry

Marty Barry

    Buzkashi Grandmaster

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,380 posts
  • Location:Columbus, Ohio

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:48 PM

Each side votes on the other side's best and worst proposition then lock them up in a room with the 4 propostitions. Every 4 hours send a runner out to announce deal or no deal. Pretty soon, after fatigue wears in, BOOM, we have a new pope.


I'm already tired of this sh*t.

Edited by Marty Barry, 22 October 2012 - 03:49 PM.


#1000 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:50 PM

It is not about missing or getting the next paycheck. It is about getting all that they have signed contracts for. So it is about money just not the immediate money. Otherwise the only strategy for players is to give in to owners demands right away so that they would not lose any of the (smaller) paychecks.


They all signed contracts knowing that they are subject to future cba's. If not...either they are ignorant or their agents have lied to them. A lot of the recently signed deals included huge signing bonuses, because their agents know those are not subject to future cba's and are guaranteed in full face $$$.

And according to the most recent players twitters, there would be already a deal if the owners would 'honor' existing deals. The players already accepted for the player's share to drop to 50/50 in the end, meaning they just want to secure the paychecks for the coming 1-2 years and are willing to give up future players' share in return.

If they are already fighting for the next cba (which most players wouldn't even make), they should fight for a higher players' share at the end of the deal instead of the beginning of the deal.

If I read messages from guys like Krejci saying they are treated like animals by the owners, I question his intelligence. Making millions of dollars per year and than complain you are mistreated...ugh. Good thing for him he has talent otherwise he would realize what being treated as an animal really feels like with a 'normal' job.
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





Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users