rrasco 1,312 Report post Posted November 4, 2012 If a deal is reached this week, will they be able to retroactively uncancel the WC? PLEASE?! No chance. With people starting to get refunds and the cancellation being official, I'm sure the wheels starting turning for plenty of ticket holders, shareholders, corporate sponsors and all the other stuff that happens behind the scenes the moment the official statement hit the airwaves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted November 4, 2012 That thirteen-million dollars lost figure might have lit up the League's switchboard...with calls from owners. Maybe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted November 5, 2012 Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun Still not finalized 100 percent, but NHLPA/NHL tentatively scheduled to resume talks Tuesday in NYC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegerkin 189 Report post Posted November 5, 2012 "they came to an agreement (finally) and they started the nhl season, Daly played as Phoenix, while Fehr played as the all star team in NHL 13. The game quickly erupted in argument about a goal Daly said shouldn't have been allowed, when Fehr won by a goal, Daly enacted a lockout by snapping the disc in half, so and I quote "if it isn't my way, no one gets to play!" then they quickly broke off and took a well deserved break" That is just awesome They are acting like little spoiled brats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kylee 727 Report post Posted November 5, 2012 I'm more optimistic than I've been this entire lock out. No more bs, just get a deal done this week. 1 Rick D reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 5, 2012 Please keep the discussion about the lockout and addressing the content of people's posts, not about the person themselves. Posts that cross over into personal insults will be deleted and could result in warnings/suspensions. (I've already had to delete a few) Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ami 273 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 Six years from now, Uncle Gary should announce the "postponement" of the Winter Classic in July. This will speed things up and he won't have to worry about his inability to negotiate an agreement the way normal businesses. That, of course, assumes that Uncle Gary will still have his current job then. (a) You must've forgotten that was Uncle Gary who suggested to start negoting a new agreement more than a year ago. It were Fehr brothers who refused to negotiate anytime before All-Star game. (b) Uncle Gary represents businesses who rightfully authorized him to negotiate. If you doubt his ability to negotiate, call Mr. Ilitch and all other 28 owners (who are businessmen themself) and demand to relieve Uncle Gary from his duties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 Kindl has 5 pts (all assists) in 16 games with Pardubice. He's also -7. Maybe we should let the lockout continue until he's ready to play hockey. 3 Z Winged Dangler, Nev and evilzyme reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 (a) You must've forgotten that was Uncle Gary who suggested to start negoting a new agreement more than a year ago. It were Fehr brothers who refused to negotiate anytime before All-Star game. (b) Uncle Gary represents businesses who rightfully authorized him to negotiate. If you doubt his ability to negotiate, call Mr. Ilitch and all other 28 owners (who are businessmen themself) and demand to relieve Uncle Gary from his duties. Ultimately Bettman is the captain of the ship and if the ship runs aground 3 times he needs to take responsibility. That's why he's paid $8,000,000 a year. He doesn't need to be coddled or given excuses that the other side is tough to negotiate with. He's in charge and ultimately failure or success rests at his feet. This lockout is unquestionably a failure from many perspectives. Only the hardline group of 6-8 owners and Bettman himself seem to be happy with the situation. 2 Rick D and Z Winged Dangler reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 Ultimately Bettman is the captain of the ship and if the ship runs aground 3 times he needs to take responsibility. That's why he's paid $8,000,000 a year. He doesn't need to be coddled or given excuses that the other side is tough to negotiate with. He's in charge and ultimately failure or success rests at his feet. This lockout is unquestionably a failure from many perspectives. Only the hardline group of 6-8 owners and Bettman himself seem to be happy with the situation. he's paid 8 mil a year to be the whipping boy so that the owners don't take all the flack. if the owners didn't like him, he wouldn't be commissioner. 2 Nightfall and drwscc reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,474 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 he's paid 8 mil a year to be the whipping boy so that the owners don't take all the flack. if the owners didn't like him, he wouldn't be commissioner. only needs 7 owners to like him(assuming he gets the Phoenix vote) 1 evilmrt reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 only needs 7 owners to like him(assuming he gets the Phoenix vote) yes and the owners allowed that to happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 (a) You must've forgotten that was Uncle Gary who suggested to start negoting a new agreement more than a year ago. It were Fehr brothers who refused to negotiate anytime before All-Star game. (b) Uncle Gary represents businesses who rightfully authorized him to negotiate. If you doubt his ability to negotiate, call Mr. Ilitch and all other 28 owners (who are businessmen themself) and demand to relieve Uncle Gary from his duties. A) You must have conveniently forgot about this: L-O-C-K-O-U-T. Three-for-three. This type of tactic demonstrates a total disrespect for the collective bargaining agreement negotiating process and, even worse of in my mind, a lack or respect of the employees which is unparalleled in the history of sports . Uncle Gary loves to see his name mentioned in the media. In his mind, even bad press is better than no press. B) Uncle Gary represents "businesses" or in some cases "hobbies of the rich and famous", some of whose owners are doing a terrible job at running their "business". Many experts break it down as this: at the present time ten teams make money, ten teams break even and ten teams lose money. Imagine how much more money the League could have in their coffers if some of these owners had even a modicum of business savey and knew how to properly run a "business". Of course they will vote 30-0; Article 17 commands them to; Uncle Gary's got their back. 1 Z Winged Dangler reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 Ultimately Bettman is the captain of the ship and if the ship runs aground 3 times he needs to take responsibility. That's why he's paid $8,000,000 a year. He doesn't need to be coddled or given excuses that the other side is tough to negotiate with. He's in charge and ultimately failure or success rests at his feet. This lockout is unquestionably a failure from many perspectives. Only the hardline group of 6-8 owners and Bettman himself seem to be happy with the situation. To say this means you have some inside information that the rest of us don't have. Care to share this? This is really just an assumption. I don't think it is safe to assume that 6-8 owners are responsible for the lockout, just as it isn't safe to assume they are all behind Bettman. The thing is that we really don't know how the owners voted. All we can do is assume at this point. It certainly would be nice to know who voted for the lockout and who voted against it. You can bet there are some owners who are managing their clubs well that could have went either way with their votes. You don't think that Illitch could have voted for the lockout because he is tired of seeing his profits get sucked away to teams who can't control their finances? I look at it as a tossup at this stage. We have no idea how these owners voted, and to say that its only 6-8 is really just a guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VM1138 1,921 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 I think the truth is that the owners wanted a lockout way before. Remember the re-alignment? They didn't even bother to show the NHLPA, which anyone with a kindergarten education would realize would sour relations between the two and that the NHLPA would almost certainly torpedo it. They angled to get this thing to a lockout a long time ago, they knew the costs. It really can't be a failure, because no matter what the owners will start making money again next season, and the players will end up playing. Both sides are going to be perfectly fine and are perfectly fine dragging this out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 So, with the NHL/NHLPA apparently set to talk today, do we really have any idea what was said in these recent meetings. They seemed to be productive (or at least not counter-productive), and this came on the heels of the 11/1 news that the owners were willing to "chip in" somewhat on the "make whole" provision. Even though the media is slightly pro-players in their coverage, I was surprised how many people gave Bettman the benefit of the doubt on his 10 minute consideration of the three counter-proposals by the NHLPA. I think that Bettman's barely-even-perfunctory review of those offers, coupled with distrust over the 48-hour "owners can talk to players" window really tanked what should have been an ongoing process leading up to 10/25. I never believed that the full season could be saved (or perhaps even the Winter Classic), but it was disgraceful to see that progress completely fall apart due to (IMO) the stubbornness of the Union to make ANY concessions on their proposal. 1 Rick D reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 I think the truth is that the owners wanted a lockout way before. Remember the re-alignment? They didn't even bother to show the NHLPA, which anyone with a kindergarten education would realize would sour relations between the two and that the NHLPA would almost certainly torpedo it. They angled to get this thing to a lockout a long time ago, they knew the costs. It really can't be a failure, because no matter what the owners will start making money again next season, and the players will end up playing. Both sides are going to be perfectly fine and are perfectly fine dragging this out. how does the re alignment prove that the owners wanted a lockout? the owners had nothing to gain by souring relations with the nhlpa on purpose at that point. if they really wanted the lockout all they had to do was reject the pa proposals. if anything the pa rejected it so that they could have a bargaining chip( and yes i know about what the pa said to the media on why they rejected it). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) To say this means you have some inside information that the rest of us don't have. Care to share this? This is really just an assumption. I don't think it is safe to assume that 6-8 owners are responsible for the lockout, just as it isn't safe to assume they are all behind Bettman. The thing is that we really don't know how the owners voted. All we can do is assume at this point. It certainly would be nice to know who voted for the lockout and who voted against it. You can bet there are some owners who are managing their clubs well that could have went either way with their votes. You don't think that Illitch could have voted for the lockout because he is tired of seeing his profits get sucked away to teams who can't control their finances? I look at it as a tossup at this stage. We have no idea how these owners voted, and to say that its only 6-8 is really just a guess. here's a article by mark specter speculating on who is or isn't against the lockout. most interesting part There are more than 20 teams that are 100 per cent happy to wait" for the best deal, said a source. Edited November 6, 2012 by chances14 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 how does the re alignment prove that the owners wanted a lockout? the owners had nothing to gain by souring relations with the nhlpa on purpose at that point. if they really wanted the lockout all they had to do was reject the pa proposals. if anything the pa rejected it so that they could have a bargaining chip( and yes i know about what the pa said to the media on why they rejected it). So the owners had nothing to gain by rejecting it and souring relations, but the union somehow did? Bettman and the league basically dropped this on the union and didn't provide them good information or a reasonable amount of time to look over a plan that would dramatically affect the players professionally and personally. Even if they didn't technically have to include the union, it was a pretty insulting move to not include your talent when making a major decision like this. The only thing the league really had to gain was trying to make the union look bad by putting them in the position of stopping it. The realignment plan was the beginning of this mess and set a very hostile tone before negotiations even began. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 So the owners had nothing to gain by rejecting it and souring relations, but the union somehow did? the union was perfectly fine with keeping things the way they were. the nhl were the ones pushing for re alignment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 how does the re alignment prove that the owners wanted a lockout? the owners had nothing to gain by souring relations with the nhlpa on purpose at that point. if they really wanted the lockout all they had to do was reject the pa proposals. if anything the pa rejected it so that they could have a bargaining chip( and yes i know about what the pa said to the media on why they rejected it). Puck Daddy had a pretty good article about the PA's realignment rejection. It's worth a read, as I think it helps clarify the two sides' positions on the issue. And Wysh got it right that the whole issue was a bellwether for the CBA talks as well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kylee 727 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 Chris Botta @ChrisBottaNHL The NHLPA will hold what it is calling a "brief media scrum" today at 1:30 in NYC, before negotiations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Puck Daddy had a pretty good article about the PA's realignment rejection. It's worth a read, as I think it helps clarify the two sides' positions on the issue. And Wysh got it right that the whole issue was a bellwether for the CBA talks as well... that is a good article but it still doesn't prove that the owners had already planned a lockout like the poster i originally quoted suggested, just that the players and owners had a strained relationship and that the owners were already playing the pr spin machine in case there was a lockout. Edited November 6, 2012 by chances14 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 that is a good article but it still doesn't prove that the owners had already planned a lockout like the poster i originally quoted suggested, just that the players and owners had a strained relationship and that the owners were already playing the pr spin machine in case there was a lockout. Never said it did. Only that it clarifies the positions. I do, however, think it goes to show that the league saw it as an opportunity to get an early shot in against the PA in the eyes of the general public. Both sides understand how important it is to be on the upper hand in the PR war, and the article goes to suggest it was something that the League wanted to get an early advantage in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ami 273 Report post Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) A) You must have conveniently forgot about this: L-O-C-K-O-U-T. Three-for-three. This type of tactic demonstrates a total disrespect for the collective bargaining agreement negotiating process and, even worse of in my mind, a lack or respect of the employees which is unparalleled in the history of sports . Uncle Gary loves to see his name mentioned in the media. In his mind, even bad press is better than no press. B) Uncle Gary represents "businesses" or in some cases "hobbies of the rich and famous", some of whose owners are doing a terrible job at running their "business". Many experts break it down as this: at the present time ten teams make money, ten teams break even and ten teams lose money. Imagine how much more money the League could have in their coffers if some of these owners had even a modicum of business savey and knew how to properly run a "business". Of course they will vote 30-0; Article 17 commands them to; Uncle Gary's got their back. (a) Do you aware that it takes TWO to tango? (b) I assume you know how to properly run business? Let me ask you a simple question, why are you not running NHL team? Edited November 6, 2012 by ami Share this post Link to post Share on other sites