Jump to content

chances14's Photo


Member Since 19 Jun 2011
Offline Last Active Jul 31 2014 12:41 PM

#2336893 New CBA

Posted by Nightfall on 28 December 2012 - 10:40 AM

Oh please what?

I can assist.

Oh please, Saint Fehr has been honest and forthcoming in these negotiations. He cannot and has not sinned.

That should sum it up.

#2336478 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by ogreslayer on 20 December 2012 - 05:21 PM

Reports are that the next cancellation will be the season. I guess I can almost officially thank both the NHL owners & players for saving me the cost of the Center Ice package in these hard economic times. It's really nice that they were looking out for the fiscal health of the fans like that. That's what this was all about right? Right? :glare:

#2336178 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by RedWingsDad on 16 December 2012 - 09:06 AM

Hockey fans, take a stand, or else Bettman will continue to treat you like crap.

Hockey fans, take a stand, or else both sides will continue to treat you like crap.

fixed it for you

The players treat us like crap?

Yes, I think you grasped what he was trying to say. In the context that the original quote was saying the owners treat us like crap for not giving in to the NHLPA, I believe he was asserting that if one were to actually hold that kind of position, then logically the same must also be leveled against the players (read: NHLPA)... who likewise are not giving into the owners, and therefore are also causing the fans to miss out on NHL hockey. Is that the confirmation you were looking for with your question? Let me know if I can be of further assistance. ;)

#2336133 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Nightfall on 14 December 2012 - 10:47 PM

At least you admit the theoretical possibility of one-sided blame. Though I don't believe you for a second.

Thing is, there's an infinite number of "opportunities" to do something different in any situation. Any one has the potential to change the outcome. Why pick out one? Of course it's "certain" that starting earlier may or may not have helped, those are the only options. To justify the criticism, you should be more certain that it actually would have helped.

Beyond that, why do you blame the PA 100% for waiting? Were the owners sitting in a conference room for six months, looking at their watches, calling Fehr every hour begging him to negotiate? No, they said they were ready to start, but when the PA said they wanted to wait, the league said it was fine. What if the league had actually said, "No, we think we should start right away"? What if they'd just made a proposal anyway? The league took three weeks to make their first proposal after they started meeting. Took two weeks to make their second after the PA made their first. Neither side has been in any hurry to meet or make proposals, but you only ever mention the PA side.

Or how about this? The PA said they were willing to play without a CBA while they negotiated. The league didn't have to lockout. You'll say the PA wouldn't have negotiated, or would have waited until the end of the year an threatened to strike, but you don't actually know that. Shouldn't that count as one of your "opportunities" to resolve the situation without a work stoppage? Yet you forgive the league for that.

The one thing that is actually certain is that there will only be a deal when the two sides agree on the terms. Doesn't matter how long, or with what methods, they negotiate. One side agrees to a proposal, negotiations are done. No agreement, they keep going.

You do bring up some good points so let me address them.

First off, you are 100% correct that I have no idea if Fehr or the players would have negotiated in good faith if the NHL would have started the season on time. That is an assumption on my part as well that we don't know if the players would have come to the table in good faith if that happened. That is another "wasted opportunity" that was pissed away by the league thats for sure.

Secondly, I don't blame the PA for this debacle "100%". The fault lies with the ownership more than the players in my mind, about 60% to 40%. I don't blame one side entirely. So lets just put that to bed right there. I do blame them for pissing away the opportunity they had to negotiate though, and everyone should blame them for that. As for the first initial proposals, both sides waited 3 weeks each to deliver their first proposals. Being as that they didn't start until late June, that was a big mistake.

Lastly, I have been as harsh on the ownership as I have on the players throughout this entire thread when I have replied. You make statements like I blame the ownership 100%, which is entirely not true. The bias in this thread has always reeked of pro-players standpoint, and I am ok with that. That bias has also equated to anything that is spoken against the players is a lie and a farce. It is very hard for anyone here who is pro-player to even admit that their side has really sucked ass in these negotiations. Its so bad that anyone who says things against the players union is obviously "100%" against the union.

I spoke out against one point that I am furious with the players union, and that is pissing away an opportunity to meet early and start negotiating. Its a known fact that the league wanted to meet early and the union dragged its feet until June. Is that right if both sides are negotiating in good faith? The answer is no.

Now, since you probably are just dying to hear me say something anti-owners, here we go.

Is it bargaining in good faith if one side lowballs the other with a proposal? The answer is no on that as well. That is not a side I would want to bargain with.

Of course, my second question will be ignored by many people here and everyone will just focus on the first one because it is anti-players union. Someone else will attempt to misrepresent my stance and say I am 100% for the owners, just because I said something anti player.

Lets just stop misrepresenting what people are saying at this stage. It does nothing positive to the conversation.

The PA already did that. Why blame the PA for the league not following suit? What if they had before now? Wouldn't that have been another "opportunity"?

Besides, when you've defended Bettman you've said basically that he's acting only at the behest of the owners. Which should mean that Fehr is acting likewise for the players. Wouldn't then the real solution be to replace all the owners and players?

Replacing all the owners and players is never going to happen. We can replace the people that are leading these negotiations though, and that is what needs to happen. Yes, Bettman does what the owners want him to do. Same as Fehr. I believe that both people are poisonous to the negotiating process though. I believe their counsel is also poisonous to the process. A clean slate is the only way that things are going to get better. Leaving one or the other in charge is akin to this whole process repeating again down the road.

Oh, and I wasn't defending Bettman. Just like I wasn't defending Fehr for the players taking a hard line. I was merely saying that both sides leaders are doing what their people want them to do. They really shouldn't take the blame solely. You can blame the greedy and inflexible owners and players for this debacle. Their leaders should be second on the list, but since you can't fire the owners and players, you have to fire the leaders.

#2336092 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Nightfall on 14 December 2012 - 04:15 PM

When players, fans and even owners are sick of the guy who is running the show it is time for a change. The NHL and NHLPA don't trust each other they aren't even meeting eye to eye anymore, so the best thing to do would be a restart and therefore bring in a commissioner, who at least understands the game and isn't focused on gambles in non hockeymarkets. Also I'd love to see some play it poor owners getting their asses handed to them once the cap is gone and owners who are willing to spend are icing great teams again.

Restarting means firing the commissioner and the NHLPA heads. I would even like to see their deputies and counsel fired as well. You want to bring in a new method of thinking? Then you have to get rid of the existing bureaucracies.

#2335950 New CBA

Posted by cusimano_brothers on 12 December 2012 - 07:51 PM

From New York Times:

Bettman's mission is simple: Put a stop to labor unrest; sell the product in television's mainstream marketplace; change the violent image of the game; curb salary inflation; force enlightened self-interest on reluctant, old-fashioned owners; expand contacts with European developmental leagues and markets; settle the divisive issue of possible Olympic involvement, and help launch several new expansion teams.

My ribs are still aching after reading the first one.

#2335826 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 December 2012 - 06:31 PM

One thing I think people are overlooking regarding this CBA negotiations is that while this does involve business owners and a union, this really has little to do with typical labor negotiations.

For starters, hockey is entertainment. Yes the players get paid ridiculous sums of money to play game. They don't get paid that amount because they are very good at hockey. They get paid that amount because people will pay a lot of money to watch them play.

It's why the owners need the players and the players need the owners. Sure, the owners could get rid of all the players and start over, but people won't shell out the ridiculous money they do for NHL games to watch 4th line scrubs play the game. there's already plenty of existing leagues with that level of talent, and ticket prices reflect that. That's the second point, the players are an elite and very small talent pool, and it's reflected in their salaries.

That's why these negotiations have more in common with the entertainment industry than the auto industry. Adam Sandler gets paid a boatload of money to be in movies not because he's great at acting, but because a lot of people will pay money to go see him in a movie.

Just a point I wanted to make clear because it seems to be getting lost in the noise. I don't hate the owners, but the players generate massive amounts of revenue for the owners. Both sides need each other and should have been able to come to a sensible agreement.

#2335583 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 07 December 2012 - 02:04 PM

while i disagree with the owner's take it or leave it approach, fehr purposely misled the public. he knew full well that the league wasn't going to accept his proposal.

That or he badly misread the situation. Either way it's not good.

Someone should have had a sense of how the owners felt, many that they had already offered too much, so even if the NHLPA wasn't going to accept that offer outright, that is should have been handled more delicately than it was. Like maybe more conversation about the contracting issues instead of making an outright proposal that doesn't include what the owners want.

Either way, the fact that both sides got this close and it fell apart over contract issues takes it to a new level of idiocy, and the idiocy level was already extremely high.

#2335554 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Euro_Twins on 07 December 2012 - 12:22 AM

that's exactly what I asked you on the last page, whether you'd be ok with that. I'd be ok with that too. We agree, it just took us a minute.

I don't think we ever really disagreed, we just misinterpreted what the other said

EDIT: or as the nhl/pa would say we were very close to a deal, but we differed on a few key issues which has caused us to break off talks for the next month

#2335504 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 06 December 2012 - 08:10 PM

"my way or no way" - Bettman.... it's like his negotiating tactics have been the same since he was 5

That's the thing, it's just so friggin hard to tell. From what I read on TSN it sounds like the league made a pretty good offer, one that should be able to get worked into a final deal.

Then it sounds like the union comes back closer to their demands but not accepting them outright, so the league bolts again.

Could it possibly be true they rejected the offer via voicemail??

But it's all so much conjecture I can't really even tell how far apart they are. I know the league wants 10 year CBA, didn't the union propose 8 years? Have both sides not heard of the number 9?

And while I think not honoring existing contracts is a screw job, it seems like something the owners are willing to sacrifice at least one season for. And the league apparently did increase make whole money. but it gets convoluted so friggin fast.

Though it is pretty funny Bettman saying the NHLPA offer was insulting to the owners, given what the owners first offer in this whole mess was.

#2334975 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by F.Michael on 29 November 2012 - 04:59 PM

Another prime example of how the BOG/NHLPA crap on their bread & butter - aka - the fans.

#2334740 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Nightfall on 26 November 2012 - 03:41 PM

But I refuse to give Bettman a pass on "causing the lockout" for this reason: He DID create and stubbornly support the environment that caused this lockout to happen in the last 2 CBA's. When you a situation where you can make $3.3 billion in profits AND it can also be true that (allegedly) 18 franchises are operating in the red, you have fundamental problems. If I honestly believed that setting HRR at 50/50 and just telling the players to give a little more back would solve those problems, I would turn on the NHLPA and Fehr in a heartbeat.

Just for clarification, Bettman didn't create the environment. The owners did. He did support it only because the ownership supported it. I understand why Bettman is taking the flack for this, but at the same time there are barely anyone that is able to look deeper into this situation. Yes, Mike Illitch is supporting this lockout. Why are there no fans upset at him? I guess being the mouthpiece means that they are going to take all the flack, but thats ok I suppose.

As for firing Bettman, nothing would please me more. Well, firing both Fehr and Bettman would please me the most. What I fear is Bettman's replacement. Sometimes the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't know. That could be true in this situation as well, especiially if the owners hire in someone who is more draconian than Bettman. Same goes for Fehr, but I believe in this case both sides leaders should be fired.

It appears a Federal mediator is now involved in the CBA negotiations, per LeBrun...

Mediation is non-binding, which means that what the mediator says is just a recommendation. Non-binding mediation isn't something that has teeth in my opinion. Just like back in the last lockout, the mediator put forward some great ideas but one side or the other shot them down. It really is the same as having an informed expert that has no side that is willing to put their opinion and thoughts on the subject.

#2334732 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by StormJH1 on 26 November 2012 - 01:38 PM

This issue so complicated because of the polarizing figure that is Gary Bettman. A New York lawyer running the most popular sport in Canada. 3 significant work stoppages in 18 years.

@Nightfall is partially right when he says that Bettman was not the "cause" of the lockout. Admittedly, that would be an oversimplification. I heard a TSN podcast today where one guy wondered if this isn't just the "new normal" given the fact that salaries were so constant for so many years and then shot up exponentially in the past 20 years. He wondered if the underlying problem isn't just that nobody knows "what anything is worth" in the NHL.

But I refuse to give Bettman a pass on "causing the lockout" for this reason: He DID create and stubbornly support the environment that caused this lockout to happen in the last 2 CBA's. When you a situation where you can make $3.3 billion in profits AND it can also be true that (allegedly) 18 franchises are operating in the red, you have fundamental problems. If I honestly believed that setting HRR at 50/50 and just telling the players to give a little more back would solve those problems, I would turn on the NHLPA and Fehr in a heartbeat.

But here's the thing: I have zero confidence that Phoenix, Dallas, Nashville, Florida, etc are suddenly going to become profitable simply because you cap player contracts at 5 years, lower the salary cap, and take money out of the players' share. I have zero confidence because we were told that everything in '05 CBA was necessary to save those bottom-feeder teams, and it didn't work.

The problem is the structure of the league, and the freedom of the owners to continue spending even with a hard cap in place. The deeper problem is that the league is badly overexpanded into places it doesn't belong. Phoenix is not going to start drawing 15,000 a game just because you made it so the Parises and Suters of the world only sign $40 million deals instead of $98 million ones. And when ownership in Phoenix or any other city in Bettman's "Grand Sun Belt Experiment" tried to sell to owners/cities with actual money and an interest in hockey, Bettman blocked it.

Unless you are willing to dramatically revise how revenue sharing works and commit yourself to having the Tornto-type markets carrying the struggling teams (which is obviously problematic), this will continue to happen. And Bettman (who whoever represents the owners) will continue to ask for additional money every CBA simply because they can.

#2334708 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Nightfall on 26 November 2012 - 09:32 AM

If with you man. I've decided I'll only comeback if Bettman's gone. I'm not interested in following this League anymore with him in charge. He makes me so angry that it's not worth it. Baseball and Football can be my 2 main sports now, Hockey can suck it.

I've actually been seriously thinking of taking down all my Red Wings stuff I have up in my house and redecorating. It pains me to have to do that, because this team has meant so much to me the past 20 years, but I've just had enough. I'd rather just move on and not see anything Hockey related anymore.

I have seen the vile hatred for Bettman, but lets be honest here.....

Bettman is not the cause of this lockout. You can point the blame to the owners who voted to lock the players out moreso than Bettman. Even if Bettman was canned, then his successor could be even worse. After all, the ownership is going to hire a pitbull, not a poodle. They are also going to hire someone to represent them. Bettman is taking a lot of flack for what the ownership wants. Yes, I believe even Mike Illitch is supporting Bettman because he is tired of seeing his profits getting thrown to teams that can't survive in these crappy markets. He is tired of seeing a $3.5 million dollar profit margin. Hell, Hudler makes more than that.

Otherwise, I won't take down my Red Wings stuff. I have been a fan of the Wings since I discovered hockey back in 1994. I just won't fund the players or the ownership by going to games or buying merchandice. The only money they will see is what I pay for in my cable bill to watch them. Hell, I will even go out of my way to watch games on streaming services because I won't buy the center ice package.

#2334214 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by kipwinger on 16 November 2012 - 10:29 PM

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.

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.

Agreed, the responsibility of running the franchises which make up the National Hockey League falls on the owners. The players have no such responsibility. Because the owners accrue ALL of the costs and take ALL of the financial risks, they deserve a majority of the HRR. Once the players agree to that, the owners can agree to honor existing contracts, and we can all start playing/watching hockey again.