- Rick D likes this
- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: rrasco
rrascoMember Since 08 Oct 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 07:46 PM
- Group Member
- Active Posts 2,749
- Profile Views 4,316
- Member Title Hall-of-Famer
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by rrasco on 02 November 2012 - 11:29 AM
Posted by rrasco on 01 November 2012 - 01:21 PM
Because there is rumor they will just delay the game until the following year. All tickets will be accepted then. May as well let the NHL have a interest free period with millions to line the coffers for another year.
That's what has me boiling.
- Nightfall likes this
Posted by rrasco on 31 October 2012 - 09:30 AM
So Z kind of went to Sweden?
Like a US citizen moving to Mexico is kind of staying at home?
Yep. Heck, using that analogy, I bet I'm close to Mexico than I am to you.
In all honesty, I wasn't sure how close Switzerland was to Sweden. Now I see they are not neighboring in much regard at all. It's been years since Geography.
- Hell Toupee likes this
Posted by rrasco on 22 October 2012 - 07:03 PM
Please point out where I placed any blame on the financial state of the NHL on the players. Oh, thats right, I didn't. You just made that up.
My point was, you at least share in the opinion that they are responsible for fixing the problem financially by giving up some of their paycheck. That is why you support the owners more than the players.
You just seem to have a grudge out against Fehr for some reason. I never agreed with all of his tactics either way, I just honestly believe it's asinine for the owners to demand salary roll backs, percentage drops, escrow withholdings, redefinition of HRR, whatever you want to call it....all or any of the above crying poor while they have no real plan to 'fix' the system. It's a pure cash grab and is not going to do anybody any good. Well, except those who stand to profit from it; the owners. The players don't stand to make one more cent from the next CBA than they did under the last one. So why do it?
Now for my question to you.....
I have no clue how you can realistically look at Fehr's actions and say that he has been bargaining in good faith this whole time. I really don't understand how you can stand behind a side and say that they are entirely in the right, when history and documentation have proved that they have lied and not negotiated in good faith. Instead, the NHLPA has been more focused on playing the PR card instead of getting into a room and negotiating. Do you have anything to say about this?
I didn't say he was bargaining in good faith this whole time. You just made that up. ;P
It's apparent which side is asking for more money here. Will you agree?
Both sides are playing the PR card. If you go back a few pages you'll see where I posted the email Fehr wrote and suggested I thought it was made public on purpose as part of a PR move by the PA. I don't think you can really suggest that the PA has played the PR card *more* than the League. I was under the impression the league were the ones who hired Luntz Global.
In the end, I just think the owners are wrong for asking for this restructuring of a deal that will benefit them financially on the grounds that the league is financially unstable while they have no real intention of fixing the instability.
- Kronstantinov likes this
Posted by rrasco on 22 October 2012 - 11:12 AM
I believe the problem that you and others have with my posts are that I am listing reasons why the PA is to blame. Every point I have made that has upset me with the NHL is summarily ignored by people who are on the side of the NHLPA. After all, they are the ones that are 100% at fault right? I have countless posts here where I go after Bettman and his negotiating, crappy proposals, and combative style where he belittles Fehr in front of the press. Yet, you and others here who are on the side of the NHLPA ignore those.
The league was on the record saying that they were ready to negotiate in January. Many links were posted with this information. Of course Bettman thought that there was plenty of time to negotiate a deal at the time. I didn't expect Bettman to come out and say the season was screwed because Fehr and the players weren't willing to negotiate early. I don't believe for a second that Bettman or Fehr were planning a lockout. Some people who are backing the NHLPA believe that Bettman planned to lockout the players the whole time. Some people who are backing the NHL believe that Fehr wasn't planning on negotiating because he wanted the league to lock them out so he could negotiate a new deal with a luxury tax in place. If the season is lost, then that was ok with Fehr.
So, do you believe that either side was planning to scrap the season?
I certainly don't.
The problem is greed and the unwillingness to compromise on both sides.
I don't have a side. I'm on my own selfish side in wanting hockey to start so I have something to entertain me.
Having said that, I do believe the owners are at fault here. Reason being is that while they are on a cash grab they are doing little to address the real issues of a "cash-strapped-league" and the bigger picture. If the players agree to salary rollbacks now, so we can have a season, is that going to suddenly fix the problems in Phoenix? Absolutely not. The players are willing to take a pay cut of some sort, but what justification do they have in doing so if it doesn't fix anything but make the owners wallet a little fatter and not to address the problem at hand? They're willing to give for the game, but only if it benefits the game.
The only reason you listed the PA is to blame is the "the league was willing to negotiate in January" and "Fehr sure does drag his feet doesn't he?". Even IF Bettman really was willing to negotiate in January, how long would it have taken him to shoot down the PA's offers? 15 minutes? It's hard to negotiate when you have one side saying it's my way or the highway. You claim that's the PA's stance as well, unwilling to budge, but damn them for wanting to not take a pay cut. They're so greedy. Would you take a pay cut today if your company was failing, but your owner just intended to pocket the money instead of actually help save the business?
You're right, Fehr wasn't planning a lockout. If anything, the players would have gone on strike, but now we're just getting into semantics. While this is our first go with Fehr and the NHL, his history shows he has used a strike as leverage before, right before the playoffs. However, if history is going to be used as any indicator, Bettman's negotiating tactic of choice appears to be locking the players out.
So now I'll go back to an old point I brought up a few pages ago: why exactly should the players be willing to take ANY kind of pay cut to contracts that were signed by the very same owners crying poor?
I really don't have any clue how you can realistically place blame of the financial state of the NHL on the players and state that they are equally to blame for the lockout as the owners are because they are not willing to have their salaries rolled back at the demand of the owners who are doing little to address the reasoning behind why the league 'is failing'.
Posted by rrasco on 22 October 2012 - 10:03 AM
I can find plenty of blame on both sides of the coin. Since you can't seem to find any fault with the league except for "not seeing the problem", how about I educate you on a few other problems.
League invites the players to start bargaining in January, but Fehr says he needs more time.
League invites the players to bargain upon conclusion of the season, but Fehr waits until the end of June.
Fehr holds off a full 3 weeks after the NHL's crappy proposal before he issues his first proposal. (Notice he is dragging his feet yet?)
Being willing to play the PR card as much as the league is. Touting 50-50 split in his 3rd proposal was a outright lie, just like the NHL proposal was.
I could go on and on here, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides have not been honest and have not negotiated in good faith. The NHL speaks one language, while the NHLPA speaks another. Then they go to the press and play the PR card. They get in a room for 30 minutes, decline the others proposals, and then don't meet again for a week or two at a time. Is that the sign of two sides eager to get a deal done?
So before you start saying that the only fault you can see with the union is that they don't see the problem, take a long good look at the crap they have pulled since the beginning of the year on these CBA negotiations. If you still can't see any fault at all with their actions, then I really am sorry. (Please note that this behavior does not excuse the NHL's behavior in these negotiations either. Two wrongs do not make a right.)
As a fan, this kind of behavior from both sides just pisses me off. It should piss off any fan who has had to sit through this for the last few months.
Here is the problem I have reading your posts: You start off by claiming you can find fault on both sides, then you list several reasons why the PA is to blame while speaking rather objectively about it, then you conclude by saying both sides piss you off. That doesn't make sense.
If the League was so ready to negotiate in January, why was Bettman telling the media there was plenty of time and there was no reason to ruin a good season? He knew he was going to lock them out.
Posted by rrasco on 15 October 2012 - 01:35 PM
I believe that financially, things change so a new CBA should be negotiated every 5 years or so. Lets get that out of the way first.
I believe the players should have to give up a little for various reasons. The cost to operate a club has went up, rent, fuel charges, team personnel, and so on. I don't know what it takes to run an NHL team in terms of cash, but these costs alone are worth a little bit at least. As clearly pointed out in Forbes, many teams are not making a profit right now, which means the most profitable ones are carrying the entire league. Lastly, I look at other leagues and the split in each league. For example, the NFL and NBA the split is close to 50-50 with the league. I believe an even split is quite equitable.
I agree. Costs went up, but so did profits, so that's something to take into account as well.
I can see your point though in that the players should not have to relinquish any share of the revenues for the mistakes of the NHL or management of the teams. At the same time, there are other factors which can easily make the CBA sway 2-3% back from the players to the owners.
I guess the way I see it is: if my company's business was booming and they agree to pay me $100K in annual salary, but the next few years encompassed the company making bad business decisions like opening up new franchises in bad locations and thus they wanted to lower employee salaries to compensate for these financial losses and try to save them; I wouldn't be so willing. On the flip side, knowing that I was making more money working for this company than I could at any comparable one, and it's the most reputable one on top of that, I might be willing to take a little pay cut to keep my position and pay. Then again, I might get pissed off and quit and while I might not make as much somewhere else, my former employer still lost my talent; however valuable that may be.
Posted by rrasco on 15 October 2012 - 11:01 AM
My stance is what it has always has been. Both sides have not been willing or able to move from what they have wanted. The owners want too much, the players won't give up very much.
Without taking sides: why do you believe the players should give up anything at all? Why are the owners entitled to anymore than they already get? This was their dream CBA 7 years ago after all. From the beginning of this CBA negotiation, the owners never risked losing anything, only something to gain. There was never the risk of the owners percentage being lowered.
Posted by rrasco on 12 October 2012 - 12:22 PM
Posted by rrasco on 11 October 2012 - 04:10 PM
I don't know if you skipped over it or what, but I did directly quote the article in my post;
Read the fourth paragragh, and you will see where daly says that quote exactly. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407119
You're right. I missed that part. I guess my eyes wander when I read the same quotes in every article about the lockout.
Posted by rrasco on 10 October 2012 - 01:09 PM
Posted by rrasco on 08 October 2012 - 03:51 PM
Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.
Without a league, there would be no lockout. What's your point?
The salary cap was instituted to protect the owners from themselves, because they demonstrated they cannot control their spending. Do you believe the PA proposed the salary cap last time which led to a lockout? The cap is not the reason for this lockout, and the salary cap isn't even the core of the negotiations. They're negotiating the definition of HRR and how that revenue will be split between the owners and players. If in any way shape or form the salary cap relates to overspending, it's the cap floor, and some franchises trying to reach the floor will spend more than a player is worth in the process, thus inflating salaries.
I'm beginning to think you're not familiar with the core issues about the league, PA, or CBA at all. You just seem to be bashing the PA without any apparent base.