Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


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

#1541 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:53 PM

The players are equally at fault. They and their agents -- in orchestration with the NHLPA -- never missed a chance to sign a ridiculous deal, to prey on some GM whose job was on the line if he didn’t improve his roster to win some games, to drive salaries through the roof.

Today, players are paying the costs for 25 years of doing what was good for themselves, yet not good for the game as a whole. They drove the NHL’s economy into the ground. Like driving your car too hard, eventually it stops, and there’s a big bill involved in getting it started again.


This. Articulated the point better than I have been.
Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#1542 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:21 PM

@AnsarKhanMLive: Red Wings' Ian White lashes out at Gary Bettman, calling him 'an idiot' who's damaged the game | http://t.co/gJ1ojxIv http://t.co/7uhIO5jw

I think Ian White posts on LGW.


another red wing personnel making himself look like an idiot. so we've had devellano, zetterberg, and now white making stupid comments in public. wonderful.

#1543 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:04 PM

This. Articulated the point better than I have been.


The NHL has lost a lot more games due to labor disputes (all lockouts during Bettman's regime) than any other league
During bettman's reign as commissioner not including the current lockout the NHL has lost 1698 games due to lockouts. He uses them as a negotiating tactic to get what he wants for the new CBA
MLB has lost 948 games due to labor disputes and the NBA has lost 704 games while the NFL hasn't lost any.
Athletes are athletes, there are hundreds of them. Hockey players are not much different than athletes in other sports
The biggest difference between the NHL and other sports leagues is that the other ones aren't run by Bettman
http://www.sportsnet...wn_nhl_spector/

another red wing personnel making himself look like an idiot. so we've had devellano, zetterberg, and now white making stupid comments in public. wonderful.

The only Red Wing personnel posting stupid comments about the lockout was Devallano.

Edited by Johnz96, 16 November 2012 - 03:05 PM.


#1544 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,557 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:07 PM

http://www.sportsnet...wn_nhl_spector/


This part made me laugh out loud.

The players are equally at fault. They and their agents -- in orchestration with the NHLPA -- never missed a chance to sign a ridiculous deal, to prey on some GM whose job was on the line if he didn’t improve his roster to win some games, to drive salaries through the roof.

Yes, those poor poor GM's, who with their approval of their owners extended ridiculous contracts to the players, which the players then signed.

The economic model of the NHL was not sustainable, which is why a cap was installed. The owners drove contracts up amongst themselves. Of course players (and certainly agents) were happy to take advantage of that. It's not realistic to think a player would pass up money for the good of the league, as if they gave up $3 million, the owner would use that money to somehow benefit all of the NHL instead of just putting it in his pocket.

The responsibility of running a successful franchise ultimately is on the owners and GM's. We're lucky enough with Detroit to have a great owner who knows what he's doing.

#1545 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:27 PM

The only Red Wing personnel posting stupid comments about the lockout was Devallano.


players calling the commissioner an idiot in public is not going to get negotiations going any faster. if anything it will only hinder it. if you are pro hockey, i don't see why you would support any name calling in the media by either side. it will only hinder progress


This part made me laugh out loud.


Yes, those poor poor GM's, who with their approval of their owners extended ridiculous contracts to the players, which the players then signed.

The economic model of the NHL was not sustainable, which is why a cap was installed. The owners drove contracts up amongst themselves. Of course players (and certainly agents) were happy to take advantage of that. It's not realistic to think a player would pass up money for the good of the league, as if they gave up $3 million, the owner would use that money to somehow benefit all of the NHL instead of just putting it in his pocket.


it's also not realistic for owners and gm's to pass up the chance of trying to make their teams better. if one owner didn't offer the big contract, someone else would. If the owners all secretly agreed on keeping contracts at a certain limit, that would be considered collusion and grounds for legal action by the players.

#1546 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:35 PM

players calling the commissioner an idiot in public is not going to get negotiations going any faster. if anything it will only hinder it. if you are pro hockey, i don't see why you would support any name calling in the media by either side. it will only hinder progress




it's also not realistic for owners and gm's to pass up the chance of trying to make their teams better. if one owner didn't offer the big contract, someone else would. If the owners all secretly agreed on keeping contracts at a certain limit, that would be considered collusion and grounds for legal action by the players.

They are lucky the players are wiling to help them out and go to 50/50, they just want what is contractually owed to them

#1547 amato

amato

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,535 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:43 PM

players calling the commissioner an idiot in public is not going to get negotiations going any faster. if anything it will only hinder it. if you are pro hockey, i don't see why you would support any name calling in the media by either side. it will only hinder progress


White and zette are just being honest.. :P

Datsyukian

Dat·syu·ki·an [dat-soo-kee-uh n]

adjective

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


#1548 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:55 PM

They are lucky the players are wiling to help them out and go to 50/50, they just want what is contractually owed to them


and they are with the make whole provision which the nhl revised in the lastest round of talks so that the owners pay 100% of the make whole provision. but the players didn't like that the make whole was based on projected growth, which is the ultimate hypocrisy considering that every pa proposal to get to 50/50 has been based on projected revenue growth. can't have it both ways.

the issue now seems to be with the contracting issues, which i agree the nhl is making outrageous demands for.

White and zette are just being honest.. :P


they can be honest all they want, just keep it within the conference calls and meetings and out of the media.

Edited by chances14, 16 November 2012 - 03:56 PM.


#1549 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,557 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

players calling the commissioner an idiot in public is not going to get negotiations going any faster. if anything it will only hinder it. if you are pro hockey, i don't see why you would support any name calling in the media by either side. it will only hinder progress




it's also not realistic for owners and gm's to pass up the chance of trying to make their teams better. if one owner didn't offer the big contract, someone else would. If the owners all secretly agreed on keeping contracts at a certain limit, that would be considered collusion and grounds for legal action by the players.


I agree on both points.

If he hasn't already, Fehr should tell the players to generally avoid off the cuff comments like that. And certainly to avoid calling Bettman names. It's not helping anything.

I don't fault GM's for trying to make their teams better but when the cost exceeds something your franchise can afford, you stop bidding. If they keep getting outbid then it gets back to the underlying problem of disparity between franchises. That's not the fault of the players.

#1550 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,651 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

and they are with the make whole provision which the nhl revised in the lastest round of talks so that the owners pay 100% of the make whole provision. but the players didn't like that the make whole was based on projected growth, which is the ultimate hypocrisy considering that every pa proposal to get to 50/50 has been based on projected revenue growth. can't have it both ways.

the issue now seems to be with the contracting issues, which i agree the nhl is making outrageous demands for.

I agree. Everyone who stood behind the players and said that their proposals were spot on cannot possibly be against the owners proposals to make whole based on the projected revenues. Hell, the players proposals were based on projected revenue. I don't think basing any proposal based on a projection is really fair, as both sides know that the future is not certain. Which is why when key points of the other sides' proposal is being proposed using "projected revenues", that side balks.

The best thing that can happen at this stage is for both sides to take a 2 year break and let the league die.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#1551 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:42 PM

it's also not realistic for owners and gm's to pass up the chance of trying to make their teams better.


So you are basically saying that it is not teams fault paying more than they can afford. Normally if you can't pay for the stuff you want you do not buy it. And if you did it is too late to cry that the stuff is too expensive.

#1552 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:06 PM

So you are basically saying that it is not teams fault paying more than they can afford. Normally if you can't pay for the stuff you want you do not buy it. And if you did it is too late to cry that the stuff is too expensive.


Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.

Yes, those poor poor GM's, who with their approval of their owners extended ridiculous contracts to the players, which the players then signed.

The economic model of the NHL was not sustainable, which is why a cap was installed. The owners drove contracts up amongst themselves. Of course players (and certainly agents) were happy to take advantage of that. It's not realistic to think a player would pass up money for the good of the league, as if they gave up $3 million, the owner would use that money to somehow benefit all of the NHL instead of just putting it in his pocket.

The responsibility of running a successful franchise ultimately is on the owners and GM's. We're lucky enough with Detroit to have a great owner who knows what he's doing.


You use the word 'ultimately', but the context of your surrounding argument seems to suggest the word 'entirely'.... and you would be right... in a world without labor unions. That is the point that keeps getting ignored... the owners are not free to run a successful franchise as they see fit... they are beholden to a CBA forced upon them by the players... that must be negotiated with the players - so that the players do effect the way business is run. You cannot hold the owners entirely responsible when their business decisions are in part dictated by the players.The CBA... it keeps getting conveniently left out of any argument skewering the owners. The last CBA was a large factor in creating the environment where owners felt compelled to give out large contracts to be competitive.

Let me spare several people the time and effort in their response by paraphrasing their responses for them:

"BUT the owners won BIG in the last CBA!!... they dictated this and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?!"... blah blah.
Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#1553 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

Without a players union we would be watching hockey right now and also in 2004-05... true story.
Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#1554 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:15 PM

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.


For giving out contracts they can afford? You bet they are. Or when a player is offered a contract he should say "No, this is a bit too much. This would be a burden on your team's finances dear GM"? What exactly is the player's fault when he is accepting a contract, which a team really should not have offered?

I am not talking about CBA, lockout or anything else. This is about teams paying money they do not have.

#1555 Playmaker

Playmaker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:26 PM

Without a players union we would be watching hockey right now and also in 2004-05... true story.


Without inept owners who don't know how to run a business or a commisioner who can't negotiate without a lockout, we'd be watching hockey now. The last lockout and loss of a season and the salary cap was supposed to fix everything and make the owners accountable. It didn't. So why should we believe its going to happen this time?

#1556 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,557 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:45 PM

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.



You use the word 'ultimately', but the context of your surrounding argument seems to suggest the word 'entirely'.... and you would be right... in a world without labor unions. That is the point that keeps getting ignored... the owners are not free to run a successful franchise as they see fit... they are beholden to a CBA forced upon them by the players... that must be negotiated with the players - so that the players do effect the way business is run. You cannot hold the owners entirely responsible when their business decisions are in part dictated by the players.The CBA... it keeps getting conveniently left out of any argument skewering the owners. The last CBA was a large factor in creating the environment where owners felt compelled to give out large contracts to be competitive.

Let me spare several people the time and effort in their response by paraphrasing their responses for them:

"BUT the owners won BIG in the last CBA!!... they dictated this and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?!"... blah blah.

I had typed out a lengthy response but read your last line and realized you're not interested in an actual discussion.

carry on.

#1557 sleepwalker

sleepwalker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:42 PM

Does anyone care about hockey anymore? I've found I don't really miss it, and I didn't think I'd feel that way.


I still care, and miss it some, since I've been a fan so long, but I have to be honest, I miss is a LOT less than I thought I would a few months ago, and I seem to miss it less and less by the day. Which I didn't expect a few month ago.

Its also been a bit of a wake up, and helped me to see how unhealthy the NHL has been for me over the years, the last several especially. Instead of sitting around with the crew drinking beer and eating junk food, now I go out, take more walks, read more books, drink a lot less, since most of my drinking occured while watching hockey. Its really made me think about how much of my time has been spend in front of the idiot box, sitting on the couch, watching hockey games, while I could have been doing something a lot more productive. That kind of little "realization" alone will pretty much assure I don't watch anywhere near as much hockey when eventually it does come back.

#1558 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,342 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:14 PM

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.



You use the word 'ultimately', but the context of your surrounding argument seems to suggest the word 'entirely'.... and you would be right... in a world without labor unions. That is the point that keeps getting ignored... the owners are not free to run a successful franchise as they see fit... they are beholden to a CBA forced upon them by the players... that must be negotiated with the players - so that the players do effect the way business is run. You cannot hold the owners entirely responsible when their business decisions are in part dictated by the players.The CBA... it keeps getting conveniently left out of any argument skewering the owners. The last CBA was a large factor in creating the environment where owners felt compelled to give out large contracts to be competitive.

Let me spare several people the time and effort in their response by paraphrasing their responses for them:

"BUT the owners won BIG in the last CBA!!... they dictated this and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?!"... blah blah.

Soft cap with luxury tax - low minimum for the "welfare clubs".

Owners get 54% of revenues - players get 46%.

Several teams will pay out the big $$$ to stay on top - several teams will be glorified feeder teams.

$$$ generated from teams going over the cap gets distributed to the bottom feeders.

Works in MLB (not that I'm a fan).

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#1559 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

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

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:37 PM

I don't fault GM's for trying to make their teams better but when the cost exceeds something your franchise can afford, you stop bidding. If they keep getting outbid then it gets back to the underlying problem of disparity between franchises. That's not the fault of the players.


this goes back to why i believe the owners are so dead set on the contracting issues and it's not just for cap circumvention issues.

in my opinion, they want to artificially keep players market value lower and allow teams to keep their star players for cheaper through their prime years. they don't want that bidding war that you are referring too. this would be extremely beneficial to teams like nashville for example, so that they are not faced with having to sign 100 million dollar contracts for their star players that they cannot afford but must accept if they want to be competitive. They believe that by putting strict standards on the contracts they will diminish the disparity between the rich and poor teams.

it's kind of a no win for the owners in that regard. they get crucified for taking on a contract that they cannot afford, but then when they don't sign a star player for outrageous money, they get crucified for not trying to be competitive and instead only caring about the bottom line.


So you are basically saying that it is not teams fault paying more than they can afford. Normally if you can't pay for the stuff you want you do not buy it. And if you did it is too late to cry that the stuff is too expensive.


the problem is that it only takes one owner to make an outrageous offer and the market value for players goes through the roof.

Edited by chances14, 16 November 2012 - 09:39 PM.


#1560 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,709 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:44 PM

that's not true. while the nhl hasn't given anything up as far as economics or contracting issues go

here are some of the things the players have reportedly gotten

-artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players;

- trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);

-eliminate re-entry waivers

- Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted)

- Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish)

-Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union;

-Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing);

-Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city;

-Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense;

- Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp;

-Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms;

-Ice condition improvements and standards;

-More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones;

-Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams;

-increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players;

-And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders

http://www.startribu.../177160641.html

now obviously these aren't as big as the revenue split or contracting issues but the notion that the owners haven't conceded a single thing yet is misinformed. i do agree that the owners contracting demands are outrageous and they should be willing to give on those


neither side couldn't care less about the game of hockey as long as they get their money

Thank you! Finally some actual information amidst the posturing (Fehr and Bettman) and finger-pointing (everyone else).

Money on the board:  Current total: $6

$1 for a goal by any current Wing after whom I have named a hamster.  An additional $5 for a series-clinching goal scored by any current Wing after whom I have named a hamster. $5 if the other team fails to score against a current Wing goalie after whom I have named a hamster.

Hamsters I have had:  (current Wings highlighted)

Henrik Pavel Tomas Nicklas Dominik

Niklas Matthew Daniel Robert

Johan Andreas Valtteri Jonathan

Andrew Patrick Ian Todd

Jordin Damien Gustav James






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users