2458 replies to this topic

[haroldsnepsts]

Same way how I say you have no idea how if the NHLPA and the NHL started bargaining in January, that they may have come to a deal with the extra time they had. You say there is no way it would have happened. I say its possible given the extra time. In this case, you choose to believe a new NHL commissioner would be more accomodating. I say not so fast, and that a new commissioner would probably lock out the players being as that the owners are only making 43%. So who is right in this case? Without anything to base it on except our gut, neither of us are right.


The ownership obviously believes that they can get a better deal. Its not like Bettman is doing his own thing here.

Thats funny, when the NHL put forward the proposal before the big 50/50 proposal, they were waiting for the NHLPA to come to the table and put forward a proposal, yet the NHLPA wouldn't do it. With Fehr saying this wasn't a game of "ping-pong" and he wasn't going to negotiate. No words for Fehr when he pulls that kind of buffoonery, but you have plenty for Bettman when he pulls the same stunt? I certainly don't excuse either side for their part in this charade, and neither should you. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you have a link to Fehr saying he wouldn't negotiate?

Because I remember Fehr saying the taking turns thing but that's not the same as refusing to negotiate.

Fehr ultimately paid the price for not putting forth the proposal because it allowed Bettman to pull the big PR stunt with the 50/50 offer that would save the season, even though that ultimately turned out not to be what it actually was.

And we've played this game before, remember? It's not my fault you apparently can't comprehend or remember any of the posts where I've been critical of the union.


EDIT: Nevermind, I found the actual context of Fehr's statement.

Although the two sides are scheduled to reconvene Saturday and Sunday, those financial issues are not expected to be addressed.
According to NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, the league is waiting for the union to make a move before that discussion resumes.
NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr pointed out, however, that bargaining does not have to follow any strict format and that the union is open to discussing such issues at any time.
"Bargaining is not ping-pong. There are no rules," Fehr said. "Whenever the parties are ready to discuss that, we can do it."

http://espn.go.com/b...e-progress-made

More context:

"I understand Steve's comment about it not being a ping-pong match and I don't disagree with that necessarily," Daly later said, "but at some point we've got to see a willingness from the Players' Association to compromise because they haven't shown any willingness to compromise at this point."

Steve Fehr said the Union is constantly working on ideas that could turn into proposals, but his hope is that the NHL is doing the same thing.

"It's clear that they say they would like a new proposal from us. For that matter we would like a new proposal from them," Fehr said. "Neither side should stand on ceremony. If either side has an idea that will help they should bring it forward."

Fehr also suggested that the major economic issues can be discussed without proposals being made.

"You don't have to have an offer to have a meeting," Fehr said. "Most of the last few weeks, unless it was on their terms -- that is, unless we have a proposal -- they don't seem very interested in discussing the core economics."

http://flyers.nhl.co...s.htm?id=643286

So it's pretty much what's going on right now between the sides. The NHL refused to meet with the players unless they had a proposal that was based closely off the NHL's last proposal because they feel the players need to concede more.

In other words, Fehr's ping pong comment was pretty much the opposite of how you characterized it.

[Nightfall]

In other words, Fehr's ping pong comment was pretty much the opposite of how you characterized it.

NHL willing to negotiate while Fehr says it isn't ping-pong and doesn't negotiate until the false 50/50 proposal. I suppose it could be defined as "the exact opposite" if you support the union. Here is a hint....let Fehr's actions speak for him. Did the NHL say they wanted to negotiate? Yes. Did Fehr step forward and negotiate a new agreement? No he did not. Why? Because he said that the NHL was only interested if it was on their terms. The league said they were ready, and Fehr said, "Well if its on their terms, we aren't discussing." Every part you bolded does not show that he negotiated at all unless it was on his terms. This is just the kind of behavior we need to get out of these negotiations. The whole, "My way or the highway" mentality, and both sides are playing that card right now and it just frustrates me. Fehr plays the card of the wounded child very well for the press. Where are the 8-10 hour negotiations between these two sides? Why must we talk about the other sides proposals? Why not negotiate?

In this case, the NHL SAID that they wanted they wanted it on their terms, which I think is the dumbest thing.

Yes, we have been through this before, and your posts speak for themselves. I post some satire on Fehr, and you get all upset about it. Someone else posts some satire on Bettman, and you are all supportive. I have no problems with you or anyone else supporting Fehr and the NHLPA through this entire ordeal. What I do have an issue with is the criticism towards the league while ignoring the failures of the NHLPA through this mess.

You are right, maybe it is best that we don't reply to each other's posts. I really can't wait until this whole ordeal is over with. Then we can go back to giving each other thumbs up while talking about something that we are both passionate about.....Red Wing Hockey.

Edited by Nightfall, 26 October 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[cusimano_brothers]

Thats funny, when the NHL put forward the proposal before the big 50/50 proposal, they were waiting for the NHLPA to come to the table and put forward a proposal, yet the NHLPA wouldn't do it.

Instead, the League was "bombarded" with three proposals. How did that turn out? in what might be considered record time, Uncle Gary did his best Amy Winehouse impersonation: no, no, no.

[haroldsnepsts]

NHL willing to negotiate while Fehr says it isn't ping-pong and doesn't negotiate until the false 50/50 proposal.

False. The NHL was only willing to negotiate if the union presented a proposal that made what they felt were meaningful concessions.

As clearly shown from the quotes in my last post, Fehr was willing to meet to talk over the issues at any time. The reason Fehr didn't negotiate was because the league wouldn't discuss core economic issues without a proposal from the union. That's why they spent those meetings discuss secondary issues, which is absurd.

Later when the union finally came forward with three proposals that they felt made meaningful concessions, which is what the league had been asking for, Bettman rejected them in less than 15 minutes.

I suppose it could be defined as "the exact opposite" if you support the union. Here is a hint....let Fehr's actions speak for him. Did the NHL say they wanted to negotiate? Yes.

False. They said they wanted a proposal from the union where the union made significant concessions and would not meet to discuss core economic issues until that happened. That's not saying you want to negotiate.

Did Fehr step forward and negotiate a new agreement? No he did not.

Technically true, but that's because the league wouldn't meet to negotiate with him unless their conditions were met. Fehr made clear he was willing to meet anytime to negotiate. You're using presenting a proposal and negotiating interchangeably when they are not.

As I mentioned, when Fehr did step forward with three proposals to negotiate. The league rejected them in 15 minutes.

Why? Because he said that the NHL was only interested if it was on their terms. The league said they were ready, and Fehr said, "Well if its on their terms, we aren't discussing."

False. Refer to my responses above regarding Fehr's statements and the league's position.

Unless you have some substantiated quote for Fehr you could provide? You put statements of his in quotes as if he actually said that but until you provide proof I have to assume this is just something you've made up.

Every part you bolded does not show that he negotiated at all unless it was on his terms. This is just the kind of behavior we need to get out of these negotiations. The whole, "My way or the highway" mentality, and both sides are playing that card right now and it just frustrates me. Fehr plays the card of the wounded child very well for the press. Where are the 8-10 hour negotiations between these two sides? Why must we talk about the other sides proposals? Why not negotiate?

This is by far the funniest part of your post, as it's exactly what Fehr was getting at. He wanted to meet to negotiate even if they didn't have all the details worked out. That's the parts about not standing on ceremony. If anyone has ideas they should bring it forward. The NHL refused to do that without a proposal.

Not to say Fehr's not playing games, but he's at least trying to get in the room to talk. The league is putting conditions before they even show up, then walking out in minutes.

In this case, the NHL SAID that they wanted they wanted it on their terms, which I think is the dumbest thing.

Finally, you actually stated something that was true.

The NHL currently is putting requirements on the union before they'll even sit down to talk about the CBA. Then when the union did meet those requirements, they were rejected in minutes and Bettman and company walked out of the room and left town.

That's a terrible way to negotiate if you actually want to reach a compromise.

Yes, we have been through this before, and your posts speak for themselves. I post some satire on Fehr, and you get all upset about it. Someone else posts some satire on Bettman, and you are all supportive. I have no problems with you or anyone else supporting Fehr and the NHLPA through this entire ordeal. What I do have an issue with is the criticism towards the league while ignoring the failures of the NHLPA through this mess.

You are right, maybe it is best that we don't reply to each other's posts. I really can't wait until this whole ordeal is over with. Then we can go back to giving each other thumbs up while talking about something that we are both passionate about.....Red Wing Hockey.

Nothing would make me happier.

[F.Michael]

2013 Winter Classic...Original 6 match-up...Will probably be the most watched WC game by a country mile...Tick-Tock...Tick-Tock...

[Nightfall]

False. The NHL was only willing to negotiate if the union presented a proposal that made what they felt were meaningful concessions.

As clearly shown from the quotes in my last post, Fehr was willing to meet to talk over the issues at any time. The reason Fehr didn't negotiate was because the league wouldn't discuss core economic issues without a proposal from the union. That's why they spent those meetings discuss secondary issues, which is absurd.

Later when the union finally came forward with three proposals that they felt made meaningful concessions, which is what the league had been asking for, Bettman rejected them in less than 15 minutes.


False. They said they wanted a proposal from the union where the union made significant concessions and would not meet to discuss core economic issues until that happened. That's not saying you want to negotiate.

I think the disconnect we have here is that you are thinking too much into the word "proposal". Anyone eager to negotiate would bring a proposal with them. Not sit on their ass and say, "Well, I am not interested in proposing anything new or different." I do get what you are saying. You are taking the literal term and trying to defend Fehr to the best of your ability. I just don't understand that mindset.

You are correct about something. Bettman is not taking the time to evaluate Fehr's proposals in a timely fashion. At least Fehr is taking the time to examine and come up with some good ideas. Either that, or he is stalling, like he did when it took him three weeks to make his first proposal after the NHL lowballed the NHLPA with the first offer. Taking 3 weeks, after he took 5 months to even come to the table? What an asshat. If he actually showed any kind of sense of urgency, someone would have to stick a firecracker up his ass and light the fuse. Still, I have to give Fehr credit for not turning down the NHL right away. He is either playing a PR card with that (possible), or he is just delaying (probable).

In short, its very evident that Bettman and Fehr have no interest in taking what the other suggest. Which is why I mentioned the 8-10 hour marathon negotiation sessions. I do not believe either side is interested in those kind of negotiation sessions. I would like to see why you believe that Fehr is interested in this while Bettman is not.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

In short, its very evident that Bettman and Fehr have no interest in taking what the other suggest. Which is why I mentioned the 8-10 hour marathon negotiation sessions. I do not believe either side is interested in those kind of negotiation sessions. I would like to see why you believe that Fehr is interested in this while Bettman is not.

What is the obsession with the long negotiation sessions? What is the rationale here? They will get so bored/hungry/thirsty (or affected by any number of other pressing concerns) that they will sign a deal just to get out. There seem to be an assumption that just a few more hours at the table would produce movement toward an agreement. I just do not see why that would be the case.

[Nightfall]

What is the obsession with the long negotiation sessions? What is the rationale here? They will get so bored/hungry/thirsty (or affected by any number of other pressing concerns) that they will sign a deal just to get out. There seem to be an assumption that just a few more hours at the table would produce movement toward an agreement. I just do not see why that would be the case.

I would just like to see some kind of a sense of urgency and a willing to get to work. So far, I haven't seen that out of either side. You are right, a long negotiation session is hard. At the same time, these 1-2 hour at a time sessions with nothing getting done is frustrating.

[frankgrimes]

Well if one side is only taking 10 freaking minutes to look at a proposal there is no point in meetings at all.

Either have a meaingful discussion or if not cancel the meetings.

I hope Fehr finally puts the free market option on the table the midget deserves nothing but hate, he has costed this game too much.

Sent from my BlackBerry

[cusimano_brothers]

Who took (or is going to take) the last offer off the table?
Don't tell me "Well, that offer was based on an eighty-two game schedule and that's why it's being pulled". That's a crock.
And, as far as losing the Winter Classic and the All-Star game: they'll be back and the League won't lose any of that revenue. Whether the fans will come rushing back, it's the choice of that individual.
The players were screwed in the last contract and Uncle Gary wants to do it again.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

I would just like to see some kind of a sense of urgency and a willing to get to work. So far, I haven't seen that out of either side. You are right, a long negotiation session is hard. At the same time, these 1-2 hour at a time sessions with nothing getting done is frustrating.

I haven't said that "long negotiation session is hard". My point was that if they can agree in 2 hours they will no do so in 10 hours either. Each side appear to come to each meeting with well defined set of deal parameters they are willing to accept. As long as those do not overlap more time would not help.

They are not trying at achieve peace in the Middle East here.

[Nightfall]

Who took (or is going to take) the last offer off the table?
Don't tell me "Well, that offer was based on an eighty-two game schedule and that's why it's being pulled". That's a crock.
And, as far as losing the Winter Classic and the All-Star game: they'll be back and the League won't lose any of that revenue. Whether the fans will come rushing back, it's the choice of that individual.
The players were screwed in the last contract and Uncle Gary wants to do it again.

I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure.

In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it?

IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.

[frankgrimes]

I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure.

In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it?

IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.

Oh please are you honestly telling me that guys like Toews, Crosby, Stamkos, Perfect Human, Datsyuk, OV and Malkin wouldn't have made more on an open market? You can bet they'd be sitting at salaries north of 10 million annually easily, so yes the players got screwed over the last time and now that isn't even good enough for an undersized idiot and his BFF BoG. Their PR offer was just as stupid as everthing else they've accomplished this off-season.

Is our commissioner in all honesty that stupid? Does this ***** midget really believe he can craft a system where all 30 franchises are returning a profit? Maybe it's his last stand because even an antihockey guy like him should know, that some franchises are just located in ridiculous non hockey enviroments and on top of that are plagued with owners that don't want to spend, they'd rather cry poor and become wellfared by great owners such as Mr. I.

Go on cancel whatever you greedy billionaires and your poor explanation of a commissioner wants to cancel the players are going to play elsewhere, youf****** billionaires can sit in your empty arenas and cry poor while eating imported cavier and drinking 10.000 $ champagne.

Sorry for the rant but really the NHL trying hard to win the PR war with their stupid focus groups and beyond ridiculous PR offer can f*** off , I will never feel sorry for a bunch of billionaires never.

[cusimano_brothers]

This is an interesting theory; from Sportsnet:

The NHL’s cancellation of another 326 regular-season games Friday afternoon was just a formality, according Patrick Marleau. The owners’ decision to wipe November clean was made months ago.
According to a text message the veteran San Jose Sharks forward sent Josh Rimer of NHL Home Ice, the NHL never intended to drop the puck prior to Nov. 30.
"The league had these games canceled already in the summer. They are just releasing that info now," Marleau texted Rimer. "Every time we move closer, they pull further away."

This continues to be all about Uncle Gary.

[Nightfall]

Oh please are you honestly telling me that guys like Toews, Crosby, Stamkos, Perfect Human, Datsyuk, OV and Malkin wouldn't have made more on an open market? You can bet they'd be sitting at salaries north of 10 million annually easily, so yes the players got screwed over the last time and now that isn't even good enough for an undersized idiot and his BFF BoG. Their PR offer was just as stupid as everthing else they've accomplished this off-season.

Is our commissioner in all honesty that stupid? Does this ***** midget really believe he can craft a system where all 30 franchises are returning a profit? Maybe it's his last stand because even an antihockey guy like him should know, that some franchises are just located in ridiculous non hockey enviroments and on top of that are plagued with owners that don't want to spend, they'd rather cry poor and become wellfared by great owners such as Mr. I.

Go on cancel whatever you greedy billionaires and your poor explanation of a commissioner wants to cancel the players are going to play elsewhere, youf****** billionaires can sit in your empty arenas and cry poor while eating imported cavier and drinking 10.000 $ champagne.

Sorry for the rant but really the NHL trying hard to win the PR war with their stupid focus groups and beyond ridiculous PR offer can f*** off , I will never feel sorry for a bunch of billionaires never.

The NHL wasn't going to be able to survive in an open market like that paying players 10 million annually. Hell, we are already seeing that now.

Sounds like you have a problem with Billionaires making money. Just keep in mind that these billionaires are the ones with a true investment in the game. They supply everything to the players. I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit.

Once again I will say that if the players were making 43% and they went on strike, many of the NHLPA fans would still be behind the players because they were not getting a fair deal. So it really is a lose/lose situation.

[MidMichSteve]

President Urges End To NHL Lockout............

http://news.yahoo.co...3--finance.html

Edited by MidMichSteve, 27 October 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Buppy]

...I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit.
...

I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure.

In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it?

IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.

Don't make up numbers and use them as if they were facts.

The league made $126.5M in 2010-11. About 4% of revenue. We don't know what the profit was last year, since Forbes doesn't have those numbers yet. (However, the numbers we do know, and growth trends for those we don't know, suggest it's very possible the league may have turned record profits last year.)

Secondly, the average purchase price for an NHL team was $139M. Average ownership length is 14 years. Average team value as of last November is $240M, for an appreciation average of $101M. Average profit for the first 6 years of the prior CBA, plus the last year of the CBA before that was $24.5M. Even if we assume profits for last year of only $110M, it brings that to $28.2. Profits or losses from '98-99 through '02-03 aren't available, but considering the league could have, but didn't (in fact, the league agreed to extend that deal 4 years beyond it's original end), open negotiations for a new CBA before each of those years it's hard to imagine any losses were significant. We'll just say the league broke even over that span.

So in total profits, income plus appreciation, the average owner has seen pretty close to (and possibly more than) a 100% return on investment minus whatever was lost in '04-05. Average annual ROI is probably at least 6%, and that's even with losing an entire season. Average annual return on revenue over the life of the last CBA is likely around 5%. And that was with a players' share of 54-57%. All the players' proposals have been less than that.

So you can continue to make up "facts", act like owners can't make any money, etc...but saying it doesn't make it true. Even at 57%, the league as a whole does decent. At 53-54%, the league as a whole would be doing better than the vast majority of industries in the US. The problem in the league is not player salaries, nor player contract rights. The problem is the revenue disparity. That is an issue the owners need to address among themselves. The players have offered to slow (almost stagnate) their salary growth for a time to help. The owners should be saying 'thank you'.

In regards to the bolded section, it simply isn't possible to take an immediate pay cut and honor every contract at the same time. They can take a relative cut in the future, and they have already offered to do so. But the owners are demanding both an immediate cut, and a larger relative cut in the future. Neither is justified by the numbers.

And here's something for the owners to think about, if they're already worried about their public image: Imagine how much worse it will be if we're still locked out in a month, and the Forbes numbers do come out showing record profits.

Edited by Buppy, 27 October 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

Sounds like you have a problem with Billionaires making money. Just keep in mind that these billionaires are the ones with a true investment in the game. They supply everything to the players. I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit.

Well, If we are calculating return on investment we should not forget that franchises tend to rise in value.

Current Minnesota Wild owner (Craig Leipold) bought Predators for 80M and sold them for 193M. He claims to have had 70M in operating losses, which still leaves him 43M in the black.

[RippedOnNitro]

http://blogs.edmonto...ter-adler-says/

[Pskov Wings Fan]

http://blogs.edmonto...ter-adler-says/

So the new CBA takes precedence over the old contracts.

It does not make the point about honoring previous contracts moot. It just means that players have to make sure that the new CBA contains are clause that existing contracts are to be paid in full (or whatever they are looking for). So it remains a stumbling block regardless of what that writer is saying.