• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
stevkrause

Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Rate this topic

Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?   103 members have voted

  1. 1. Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

    • yes
      58
    • no
      35

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

188 posts in this topic

I don't need to love the commissioner of the NHL, I just need him not to cost the league 1,780 games.

I know Bettman's job isn't easy, but it's not unlike the commissioners of other sports, who while hated have managed to avoid the regular work stoppages Bettman utilizes.

You mean the NBA lockout that wrapped up a year ago when the players caved? Or how about the NBA lockout of 98-99, where they lost 30+ games?

Or are you referring to the MLB strike of 1994-1995? The 232-day strike, which lasted from August 12, 1994, to April 2, 1995, led to the cancellation of between 931 and 948 games overall, and the entire 1994 postseason and World Series (also involved Fehr, interesting.)

NFL Refs lockout that ended a couple of weeks ago? 2011 NFL lockout?

Nah, you're right. These guys are saints. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust the owners will make good on the "Make Whole" clause, I doubt the players trust the owners more than I do.

The owners negotiated contracts this summer under false pretenses. Offering money they were not willing to pay, giving out 10 year deals while claiming no one should have a contract over 5 years.

The owners are being very shady and hypocritical, if I were a player there is no way in hell I accept that Make Whole clause!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust the owners will make good on the "Make Whole" clause, I doubt the players trust the owners more than I do.

The owners negotiated contracts this summer under false pretenses. Offering money they were not willing to pay, giving out 10 year deals while claiming no one should have a contract over 5 years.

The owners are being very shady and hypocritical, if I were a player there is no way in hell I accept that Make Whole clause!

Hey, here's a topic that has not been brought up... where is the criticism for the players who negotiated and accepted contracts under false pretences? Both the players (agents) and owners could see the writing on the wall. The players negotiated and signed giant long term deals on the cusp of a likely lockout where they knew contract lengths and salary cap concerns would be addressed, yet somehow they are coming through squeaky clean in the eyes of many? Quite odd (read: bias).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, here's a topic that has not been brought up... where is the criticism for the players who negotiated and accepted contracts under false pretences? Both the players (agents) and owners could see the writing on the wall. The players negotiated and signed giant long term deals on the cusp of a likely lockout where they knew contract lengths and salary cap concerns would be addressed, yet somehow they are coming through squeaky clean in the eyes of many? Quite odd (read: bias).

What false pretenses exactly?

The players are the ones who would like to get paid the amount they signed the contracts for. It's the owners who are trying to pay them less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, here's a topic that has not been brought up... where is the criticism for the players who negotiated and accepted contracts under false pretences? Both the players (agents) and owners could see the writing on the wall. The players negotiated and signed giant long term deals on the cusp of a likely lockout where they knew contract lengths and salary cap concerns would be addressed, yet somehow they are coming through squeaky clean in the eyes of many? Quite odd (read: bias).

I never thought of it like that. It IS the players fault for expecting signed contracts to be honored by a group led by a duplicitous little weasel

Edited by Johnz96
roboturner and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought of it like that. It IS the players fault for expecting signed contracts to be honored by a group led by a duplicitous little weasel

What false pretenses exactly?

The players are the ones who would like to get paid the amount they signed the contracts for. It's the owners who are trying to pay them less.

Notice I made no attempt to exonerate or blame the owners, so can we turn down the defensiveness and focus on the actual point I made?

Both the players (agents) and owners could see the writing on the wall. The players negotiated and signed giant long term deals on the cusp of a likely lockout where they knew contract lengths and salary cap concerns would be addressed, yet somehow they are coming through squeaky clean in the eyes of many?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice I made no attempt to exonerate or blame the owners, so can we turn down the defensiveness and focus on the actual point I made?

Both the players (agents) and owners could see the writing on the wall. The players negotiated and signed giant long term deals on the cusp of a likely lockout where they knew contract lengths and salary cap concerns would be addressed, yet somehow they are coming through squeaky clean in the eyes of many?

I wasn't being defensive, but I guess I still don't understand your point.

The players knew a CBA renegotiation was coming, but they agreed to a salary and term with the owners. Signed a legal document reflecting that, and now would like to be paid that actual amount.

so I'm still not understanding what false pretenses the players were working under. How else were they supposed to operate? They were working from what was known at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice I made no attempt to exonerate or blame the owners, so can we turn down the defensiveness and focus on the actual point I made?

Both the players (agents) and owners could see the writing on the wall. The players negotiated and signed giant long term deals on the cusp of a likely lockout where they knew contract lengths and salary cap concerns would be addressed, yet somehow they are coming through squeaky clean in the eyes of many?

A contract ones again is a legal binding agreement, the contract you are signing today with all the clauses can not be modified until BOTH sides agree to it. Boy I'd love seeing ******* like Jacobs crying infront of a judge about a contract he has willingly given out and then with all his billionaire friends crying again about not being able to pay it.

Judges would rip these dirty gamblers a new one.

Z Winged Dangler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It shouldn't matter if they thought that there might be trouble down the road, fact is the players signed binding contracts and should be paid for those contracts. Period

roboturner and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't being defensive, but I guess I still don't understand your point.

The players knew a CBA renegotiation was coming, but they agreed to a salary and term with the owners. Signed a legal document reflecting that, and now would like to be paid that actual amount.

so I'm still not understanding what false pretenses the players were working under. How else were they supposed to operate? They were working from what was known at the time.

Perhaps 'fale pretenses' isn't the best term to describe it... I was burrowing that phrase from the post I was quoting.

That phrase aside, im not quite sure what else I can say to get my point across. Both sides signed legal documents with the full knowledge that changes would likely be made to effect that contract. It was no news to anyone that owners wanted to lower the salary cap, including players and agents. Both sides were playing the game, with specific emphasis on the players and teams who signed massive deals right before CBA negotiations began.

It's total bias when someone berates the owners while pretending the players are as pure and white as the wind driven snow. They knew what they were doing, and they knew what was likely to happen... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the topic of possible salary reductions was discussed and factored in when negotiating said contracts.

Edited by RedWingsDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps 'fale pretenses' isn't the best term to describe it... I was burrowing that phrase from the post I was quoting.

That phrase aside, im not quite sure what else I can say to get my point across. Both sides signed legal documents with the full knowledge that changes would likely be made to effect that contract. It was no news to anyone that owners wanted to lower the salary cap, including players and agents. Both sides were playing the game, with specific emphasis on the players and teams who signed massive deals right before CBA negotiations began.

It's total bias when someone berates the owners while pretending the players are as pure and white as the wind driven snow. They knew what they were doing, and they knew what was likely to happen... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the topic of possible salary reductions was discussed and factored in when negotiating said contracts.

I see what you mean now. Players are just as guilty because they knew the owners wouldn't honor the contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps 'fale pretenses' isn't the best term to describe it... I was burrowing that phrase from the post I was quoting.

That phrase aside, im not quite sure what else I can say to get my point across. Both sides signed legal documents with the full knowledge that changes would likely be made to effect that contract. It was no news to anyone that owners wanted to lower the salary cap, including players and agents. Both sides were playing the game, with specific emphasis on the players and teams who signed massive deals right before CBA negotiations began.

It's total bias when someone berates the owners while pretending the players are as pure and white as the wind driven snow. They knew what they were doing, and they knew what was likely to happen... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the topic of possible salary reductions was discussed and factored in when negotiating said contracts.

Generally, if you're going to criticize someone for shady dealing, the shadiness has to benefit them in some way. What benefit do players get from having salary rolled back or deferred?

At best, your argument excuses owners from blame, if players actually knew there would be a rollback. It doesn't actually place any fault on the players, unless I guess you want to criticize them for whining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's nonsense.

especially considering the wings have the winter classic this year. that's the biggest reason why i wouldn't sacrifice this season to remove bettman.

Do you still think its nonsense, I could see this end result coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What benefit do players get from having salary rolled back or deferred?

they get a CBA deal done and back to playing hockey along with getting paychecks again.

Do you still think its nonsense, I could see this end result coming.

yes i do.

getting rid of bettman does not guarantee that we will not be in the same situation down the road. some of these hardline owners would need to go too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they get a CBA deal done and back to playing hockey along with getting paychecks again.

...

So it's all relative then. So long as one can maintain the threat of taking away more, taking away less should be perceived as a boon.

However, that benefit, as you call it, comes from the union agreeing to a CBA, not an individual agreeing to a contract.

But I'll rephrase the question to better emphasize my point. What benefit does a player get out of negotiating a contract with the intent/knowledge that some portion of pay be rolled back or deferred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the problem is their signing to get paid in apples and getting paid in oranges.

They sign for dollar amounts individually, but then get paid according to a percentage of profits. It would be clearer for everyone if they signed contracts giving them a certain percent of the team's profits and at the end of the season, they got the money once they had figured out what the team's profits were after all the poor teams had gotten their payments etc.

It would be stupid, but it's essentially what they're doing now, they are just placing dollar amounts on numbers that are subject to change. Hence the whole escrow thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they get a CBA deal done and back to playing hockey along with getting paychecks again.

yes i do.

getting rid of bettman does not guarantee that we will not be in the same situation down the road. some of these hardline owners would need to go too

You really think it can get worse? 94-95 lost half a season, 2004-2005 lost a full season, 2012-2013 been locked out a month and a half thus far. I don't think it can get worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think it can get worse? 94-95 lost half a season, 2004-2005 lost a full season, 2012-2013 been locked out a month and a half thus far. I don't think it can get worse

Especially when you consider that the lockout in 95 ended when the owners overruled Bettman. Gary didn't want to take the deal and was willing to lose more of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that the parity thing is working in the NFL because that league is fun to watch and wants to please its fans. The NHL is fun to watch, but they simply dont give a s*** about us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially when you consider that the lockout in 95 ended when the owners overruled Bettman. Gary didn't want to take the deal and was willing to lose more of the season.

Exactly my thought, this is an interesting article I just stumbled upon. It talks about how it may be possible Bettman planned from the getgo to turn down any NHLPA offer before it was even tabled, worth a read.

http://www.rantsports.com/nhl/2012/10/18/nhl-rumor-did-nhl-plan-to-turn-down-nhlpas-offer-from-the-start/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A contract ones again is a legal binding agreement, the contract you are signing today with all the clauses can not be modified until BOTH sides agree to it. Boy I'd love seeing ******* like Jacobs crying infront of a judge about a contract he has willingly given out and then with all his billionaire friends crying again about not being able to pay it.

Judges would rip these dirty gamblers a new one.

and I would love to see the owners stand against a bunch of greedy players and their greedy union.....oh wait.

drwscc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guessing you've missed the point of who created this mess. Just a hint it is an undersized overpaid minime with a bunch of 8 billionaire blowhards.

The owners decided to allow the most hated man in hockey such powers and they've accepted things like

- sunbelt failure

- refusing to move some babysitted teams

- can't control themselves

- blindsiding players this summer

All the players did was accepting great contracts +willingly & freely+ offered by a bunch multi billionaires.

Oh and btw. teams like the Wings are getting punished and limited for having a long tradition and an established fanbase. Illitch has to pay millions so the effing midget can support his stupid grow the game and false parity crap.

Wanna swim with the Sharks but can't support to do so ? Well could luck in another city hungry for hockey such as Quebec.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think it can get worse? 94-95 lost half a season, 2004-2005 lost a full season, 2012-2013 been locked out a month and a half thus far. I don't think it can get worse

Like I said, the owners voted for the lockout, not Bettman. The owners are the ones who gave bettman esstentially infinite power.

Imo As long as you have those supposed 8 hard line owners in there, we are going to be going through this same thing down the road, regardless who the commissioner is

Edited by chances14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, the owners voted for the lockout, not Bettman. The owners are the ones who gave bettman esstentially infinite power.

Imo As long as you have those supposed 8 hard line owners in there, we are going to be going through this same thing down the road, regardless who the commissioner is

I'd hope that if they ever did manage to get rid of Bettman, they'd change back the rule he got changed to how it was in 1995.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hope that if they ever did manage to get rid of Bettman, they'd change back the rule he got changed to how it was in 1995.

so would i but considering that they let him get that much power, i wouldn't get my hopes up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0