2458 replies to this topic

[Euro_Twins]

the pa has refused to meet on nhl terms and the nhl refuses to meet on the nhlpa terms. the pa are also the ones who refused to come up with a new proposal unless the nhl took salary rollbacks off the table. likewise the owners refused to negotiate until the players accepted rollbacks.

both sides are guilty of wanting it their way or the highway.

Difference is the pa wants to be able to negotiate the whole contract, the nhl does not want that by any means. The pa submitted three contract proposals, and the nhl wants them to submit another after they barely even looked those three? I think its the nhl's turn to submit another proposal, but they never want to move off of their stance, there is about 600 million dollars seperating them over 6 years, they should be able to figure this out, meet in the middle.

EDIT:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408045

On Wednesday, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told The Canadian Press there is no way a full schedule can start after Nov. 2. The league has maintained that training camps would have to open by Friday in order for the season to begin a week later.

An invitation from the NHL Players' Association to reopen talks "without preconditions" was quickly denied by the NHL on Tuesday night. The request came after a conference call with the union's executive board and was seen as a way to "bridge the gap," according to a NHLPA spokesman.
The league saw little value in sitting down together if neither side was prepared to offer something new.

Edited by Euro_Twins, 24 October 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[Nightfall]

The thing is too, Bettman and Daly refuse to negotiate unless the Fehr brothers are nogotiating on their terms, off their proposal they tabled Tuesday and willing to make only minor changes. That is not negotiating, not at all. At least the Fehr brothers have tried to get in a room and hash it out, but the evil twins refuse to listen unless fehr says we want to accept your proposal but negotiate the "make whole" issue. That is why I am against Bettman, he consistently refuses to negotiate, while Daly says there is nothing to discuss. There is plenty to discuss.

I agree 100% with your assessment. What Bettman and Daly are doing now is petty. Not that we haven't seen this from Fehr in these negotiations though. Before the NHL's big 50/50 proposal hype, they were waiting on Fehr to table a proposal, and Fehr never did. His response was that this wasn't "ping-pong" and the NHLPA proposal was what they wanted to work from.

So, while you are against Bettman, just realize that Fehr pulls the same crap when it benefits him.

True.

But the devil was already in this fight. And he is a hateful, mean, vindictive devil who hates the players with a passion and would never negotiate in good faith no matter what the circumstances.

So the players had no choice but to bring in a "devil" of their own to help even up the fight, lest their souls be devoured and they lose everything to the original devil, dark lord Bettman.

In the end, the fans lose.

Which is why I say the NHL and NHLPA can go jump off a cliff.

[sleepwalker]

In the end, the fans lose.

Which is why I say the NHL and NHLPA can go jump off a cliff.

Agreed. Like has been pointed out in this thread a few time before though, its like the two sides in power in politics. Neither cares about the people whatsoever. Thats not the point. Its a power/money game.

[Johnz96]

I agree 100% with your assessment. What Bettman and Daly are doing now is petty. Not that we haven't seen this from Fehr in these negotiations though. Before the NHL's big 50/50 proposal hype, they were waiting on Fehr to table a proposal, and Fehr never did. His response was that this wasn't "ping-pong" and the NHLPA proposal was what they wanted to work from.

So, while you are against Bettman, just realize that Fehr pulls the same crap when it benefits him.


In the end, the fans lose.

Which is why I say the NHL and NHLPA can go jump off a cliff.

I think anyone fighting Bettman is fighting for us. They/we can't just let him lock us out every time the CBA expires to get what he wants for the new one, in this case it is to cheat players out of money they have agreed to pay them and offered in the first place. I don't understand how anyone can possibly blame the NHLPA for any of this.
The players are doing their part
When he finally unlocks the doors let's do ours.

[frankgrimes]

The NHL can go eff off. I hope the players won't budge so the midget fatback Daily and the play it poor owners won't try this s*** again.



Sent from my BlackBerry

[Nightfall]

I think anyone fighting Bettman is fighting for us. They/we can't just let him lock us out every time the CBA expires to get what he wants for the new one, in this case it is to cheat players out of money they have agreed to pay them and offered in the first place. I don't understand how anyone can possibly blame the NHLPA for any of this.
The players are doing their part
When he finally unlocks the doors let's do ours.

Lets keep in mind that the side that has the worst deal always strikes or locks out. If the players were making 43% and the owners were making 57%, would you be against the owners if the players went on strike? I hardly think so.

[Buppy]

I agree 100% with your assessment. What Bettman and Daly are doing now is petty. Not that we haven't seen this from Fehr in these negotiations though. Before the NHL's big 50/50 proposal hype, they were waiting on Fehr to table a proposal, and Fehr never did. His response was that this wasn't "ping-pong" and the NHLPA proposal was what they wanted to work from.

So, while you are against Bettman, just realize that Fehr pulls the same crap when it benefits him.
...

What the owners' camp is doing now is standing firm. Nothing inherently wrong with the behavior; it's wrong only if you believe they're standing firm behind an unreasonable demand. You can say the same for the PA, if you happen to think their demands are unreasonable. I don't, so I don't see any problem in their standing firm. (And it's hard to believe you really think they are either, when you posted an idea that was essentially the same as one of the PA proposals.)

But you're also ignoring the fact that it isn't ping-pong. There's no rule anywhere that says proposals have to take turns. When Fehr didn't put forth a new proposal, what he was really saying was that the offer at that time was the same as the last offer made. The owner's were the ones who supposedly took their offer off the table, so really they were the ones not showing their hand at the time. Besides that, the owners gave the impression that they weren't willing to consider any offer that didn't include an immediate pay cut (and considering how they handled the PAs last offers, that's not hard to believe), so it's likely there was little point in making a new offer. Much like the current situation. There's nothing to talk about, and there won't be until someone loses (or sits on the brink of losing) enough to change their mind. (Hopefully that's tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath.) You can go either way (or neither), depending on which side (if any) you think is being reasonable.

For clarity, when I say reasonable, I mean making an offer the other side should accept.

The players' demands as I see them:
No reduction in current contracts (or at least, no more than would be taken under the escrow rules of the prior CBA)
No reduction in the actual dollar value of the current players' share: $1.883B + marginal growth to offset rising benefit costs. (at least not as long as revenue keeps growing at a decent rate. Subject to the same escrow as above.)
Players' share not below 50% in any given season
Token rise in players' share if revenue growth exceeds expectations (not so adamant on this I think, but the only proposal without it is the "#3", where it's mostly replaced by some player pay being outside the players' share)

They certainly want contracting rules to stay as is, but they haven't talked much about that. I don't know that I would conclude that the lack of any provisions in their proposals is because they're actually proposing to keep them as is, or just leaving them to be negotiated later.

The owners' demands:
Immediate reduction of the players' share to 50%
Players' share not more than 50% in any given season
Pretty much across the board reduction in all player contracting rights

They seem fairly adamant about "clarifying" the definition of HRR, which should be taken to mean redefining it in their favor (though it does also open the door to go the other way). Seems absurd that there's anything to clarify after seven years, but then again the PA didn't exercise their right to audit league accounting until Fehr came in (and found problems, league settled for paying players an additional $20M, who knows what the player's might have been shorted in the first 5 years since those years can no longer be audited) so I guess it really is needed.

I don't think anything in the players' demands is unreasonable, unless it turns out they are totally inflexible on any contract rules. The only demand from the owners that I think is reasonable is the HRR, and only if they really mean 'mutual clarification'. Ironically, that one should be the most ridiculous, but sadly it seems truly necessary.

[Euro_Twins]

What the owners' camp is doing now is standing firm. Nothing inherently wrong with the behavior; it's wrong only if you believe they're standing firm behind an unreasonable demand. You can say the same for the PA, if you happen to think their demands are unreasonable. I don't, so I don't see any problem in their standing firm. (And it's hard to believe you really think they are either, when you posted an idea that was essentially the same as one of the PA proposals.)

But you're also ignoring the fact that it isn't ping-pong. There's no rule anywhere that says proposals have to take turns. When Fehr didn't put forth a new proposal, what he was really saying was that the offer at that time was the same as the last offer made. The owner's were the ones who supposedly took their offer off the table, so really they were the ones not showing their hand at the time. Besides that, the owners gave the impression that they weren't willing to consider any offer that didn't include an immediate pay cut (and considering how they handled the PAs last offers, that's not hard to believe), so it's likely there was little point in making a new offer. Much like the current situation. There's nothing to talk about, and there won't be until someone loses (or sits on the brink of losing) enough to change their mind. (Hopefully that's tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath.) You can go either way (or neither), depending on which side (if any) you think is being reasonable.

For clarity, when I say reasonable, I mean making an offer the other side should accept.

The players' demands as I see them:
No reduction in current contracts (or at least, no more than would be taken under the escrow rules of the prior CBA)
No reduction in the actual dollar value of the current players' share: $1.883B + marginal growth to offset rising benefit costs. (at least not as long as revenue keeps growing at a decent rate. Subject to the same escrow as above.)
Players' share not below 50% in any given season
Token rise in players' share if revenue growth exceeds expectations (not so adamant on this I think, but the only proposal without it is the "#3", where it's mostly replaced by some player pay being outside the players' share)

They certainly want contracting rules to stay as is, but they haven't talked much about that. I don't know that I would conclude that the lack of any provisions in their proposals is because they're actually proposing to keep them as is, or just leaving them to be negotiated later.

The owners' demands:
Immediate reduction of the players' share to 50%
Players' share not more than 50% in any given season
Pretty much across the board reduction in all player contracting rights

They seem fairly adamant about "clarifying" the definition of HRR, which should be taken to mean redefining it in their favor (though it does also open the door to go the other way). Seems absurd that there's anything to clarify after seven years, but then again the PA didn't exercise their right to audit league accounting until Fehr came in (and found problems, league settled for paying players an additional $20M, who knows what the player's might have been shorted in the first 5 years since those years can no longer be audited) so I guess it really is needed.

I don't think anything in the players' demands is unreasonable, unless it turns out they are totally inflexible on any contract rules. The only demand from the owners that I think is reasonable is the HRR, and only if they really mean 'mutual clarification'. Ironically, that one should be the most ridiculous, but sadly it seems truly necessary.

I am not debating the fact that they are standing firm. Good on them for fighting for what they (the owners) think is right. I am upset about the fact that they refuse to meet with the PA to discuss what they can do to solve all this crap, without any preconditions. Everything should be on the table for negotiations in a lockout, not just what Bettheleaguesmoneyman thinks should be discussed. The PA wants to negotiate currently and resolve the lockout, the evil twins don't. If that changes I will take the owners side.

I agree 100% with your assessment. What Bettman and Daly are doing now is petty. Not that we haven't seen this from Fehr in these negotiations though. Before the NHL's big 50/50 proposal hype, they were waiting on Fehr to table a proposal, and Fehr never did. His response was that this wasn't "ping-pong" and the NHLPA proposal was what they wanted to work from.

So, while you are against Bettman, just realize that Fehr pulls the same crap when it benefits him.


In the end, the fans lose.

Which is why I say the NHL and NHLPA can go jump off a cliff.

Yes, but what Fehr did was in fact a little bit different, as the owners tabled an extremely unreasonable offer, while the PA was trying lose as little as possible. I tend to agree with Fehr on that one solely because the owners were refusing to budge on their initial proposal, rewording a proposal does not count as a "new" proposal. Yes I know the PA was also trying to keep what they had, but that is what any good unionhead would do, they were not asking for more, just what they were promised (as far as contracts go), but the owners were asking for a huge salary rollback, afgter they committed to the contracts THEY signed.

[hillbillywingsfan]

The NHL can go eff off. I hope the players won't budge so the midget fatback Daily and the play it poor owners won't try this s*** again.



Sent from my BlackBerry

Not sure why you are wishing that. The players and the nhlpa haven't changed one bit from what they have wanted the very first time they came to the table. Thats whats screwing this all up. no one wants to give any. Players for some reason think they are worth more then their employers and the employers know better.

[RippedOnNitro]

Some more interesting tweets:

@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Bettman says 82-game season must start by Nov. 2. NHLPA leadership believes an 82-game season can start a bit later... Game of chicken

Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
According to sources Don Fehr has convinced the players the longer they remain firm, the better the deal will be down the road #NHLPA

Edited by RippedOnNitro, 25 October 2012 - 01:43 AM.

[RippedOnNitro]

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA PA Executive Director Don Fehr: "The players made multiple core-economic proposals on Thursday that were a significant move in the ...

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
"....owners direction. We are and continue to be ready to meet to discuss how to resolve our remaining differences, with no preconditions.."

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA "...For whatever reason, the owners are not. At the same time they are refusing to meet, they are winding the clock down to yet...

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA "...another artificial deadline they created."

John Vogl ‏@BuffNewsVogl

The lockout talks might gain some traction if Fehr realizes these "artificial deadlines" are real, actual deadlines in the NHL's eyes.

[frankgrimes]

Here is a really good summary of what needs to happen (concessions from both sides) for the lockout to end. Basically I agree with all points but the biggest one is so simple: http://www.usatoday....to-end/1650627/

If the owners want the players to give back again, they can't ask for reduced player rights like waiting even longer for UFA status or no arbitration, this is not 2004-5.

Not sure why you are wishing that. The players and the nhlpa haven't changed one bit from what they have wanted the very first time they came to the table. Thats whats screwing this all up. no one wants to give any. Players for some reason think they are worth more then their employers and the employers know better.

If the players "win" we won't have this crap every 5 or 6 years simple as that and it would also mean the end to the dark Bettman era. Players are the product, fans are watching the players/teams not the owners if people want to watch a bunch of billionaires in their super luxury suits go on I highly doubt, the ratings or even attendence would be that great.

Edited by frankgrimes, 25 October 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[55fan]

Just for fun and giggles, not that it would ever happen, but I'd love to see the PA submit a proposal in which they agree to the League's demands on the condition that they will receive their agreed-upon pay for the duration of future lockouts (not strikes) at the owners' expense.

Bettman would implode.

I was also reading last night that the players on LTIR are still paid during a lockout. The article was talking about DiPetrio being taken off LTIR at the end of the summer, not because he was ready to play, but as a money-saving move in the event of a lockout.

Is this the case? If so, does LTIR fall under the escrow rules? How does that work during a lockout?

If I recall correctly, Eaves is our only guy on LTIR. Lucky him.

[cusimano_brothers]

“The union has chosen not to engage on our proposal or to make a new proposal of their own so, unfortunately, it looks like the 82-game season is not going to be a reality,” NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told reporters in Brooklyn, N.Y.

“We are, and continue to be, ready to meet to discuss how to resolve our remaining differences, with no preconditions,” NHLPA head Donald Fehr said Wednesday. “For whatever reason, the owners are not. At the same time they are refusing to meet, they are winding the clock down to yet another artificial deadline they created.”

Any questions?

[RedWingsDad]

... if people want to watch a bunch of billionaires in their super luxury suits go on I highly doubt, the ratings or even attendence would be that great...

I could just see you spitefully spitting out the words "bunch of billionaires in their super luxury suits" !!!!!... really now, the personal wealth of the owners (or players for that matter) is not the issue here at all. Lay off the jealousy induced class warfare...

Edited by RedWingsDad, 25 October 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[frankgrimes]

Any questions?

@ this point it is just funny and I mean really funny, now they can't even agree on oneline or twoline at best sentences.

Sounds like if either side is talking about apples the other one understands Cocacola.

Sent from my BlackBerry

[cusimano_brothers]

From Sportsnet:

One day after controversial translated quotes emerged from a Russian newspaper, Nashville Predators forward Sergei Kostitsyn clarified his comments Tuesday in an interview with The Tennessean.
On Monday, Kostitsyn was quoted as saying that "it would be better (for the players) if the lockout continues," and "if the NHL season is lost, let it be that way." Those quotes caused a mini firestorm and made many fans believe that he wanted the lockout to wipe out the 2012-13 season.
Kostitsyn told the Nashville paper that he was misquoted by Sport-Express from Russia.
"We all want to get back to hockey in the NHL and a full year and an 82-game season, but we need to reach a deal that is fair and we need to respect contracts that are already signed. It’s only fair," Kostitsyn said.

Are translators tested?

[chances14]

Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
According to sources Don Fehr has convinced the players the longer they remain firm, the better the deal will be down the road #NHLPA

that's nonsense. the longer this goes on, the worse it will be for both sides

[sleepwalker]

that's nonsense. the longer this goes on, the worse it will be for both sides

Not all people on both sides. Despite the emotional based rhetoric from fans about how they think Illitch is against the lockout, and wants to get back to hockey asap, blah blah blah. The reality is, Illitich HATES the fact that he has to support the s***ty welfare franchises and has made it clear multiple times that he feels this way. The longer the lockout goes on, the better chance there is that those welfare teams fold, and owners like Illitch won't have to foot the bill any more. I am willing to bet Illitch hopes the lockout goes far past one season, so the teams that deserve to fold, do, and he and the other owners like him can finally stop supporting the bottom feeders.

Edited by sleepwalker, 25 October 2012 - 01:59 PM.

[chances14]

Not all people on both sides. Despite the emotional based rhetoric from fans about how they think Illitch is against the lockout, and wants to get back to hockey asap, blah blah blah. The reality is, Illitich HATES the fact that he has to support the s***ty welfare franchises and has made it clear multiple times that he feels this way. The longer the lockout goes on, the better chance there is that those welfare teams fold, and owners like Illitch won't have to foot the bill any more. I am willing to bet Illitch hopes the lockout goes far past one season, so the teams that deserve to fold, do, and he and the other owners like him can finally stop supporting the bottom feeders.

if i was a player, i would not want any teams to fold. that is less jobs for them