And here we are again. You unable to understand anything other than all or nothing so you misrepresent my position, in spite of my repeated posts about it.
I guess I have to have my head so far up the NHLPA's ass to see what you see in those greedy screwballs. Its all or nothing in your mind. The NHLPA has zero fault while the NHL has 100% fault. I can't just put all the fault on one party, when it most clearly is the fault of both why we are in a lockout right now. As I said before, 60% at fault with the ownership group, but the players carry 40% of the burden easily.
My point, which you once again missed, is not that it's 100% anyone's fault (god I'm sick of typing that). I can understand the opinion of people who think the owners should be able to get what they want from their proposal because it's their franchises and the players are employees, so they should pretty much just agree to the deal. I don't agree with it, but I can see the position.
What baffles me is you consistently misrepresenting what they players union has offered and saying both sides have essentially conceded nothing. It's patently false.
What you don't acknowledge much is that the players have already conceded a ton. Hence my analogy. Their starting point was a heck of a lot closer to the middle than anything the league proposed. So if both sides keep moving forward equally from where they are now, in the end it means they end up with a deal heavily swayed towards the owners.
I think a fair and equitable agreement could be made at 52% for the players and 48% for the owners on the core economics side of things.
I would like to know why you think that I expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree? I have said numerous times that there is room for both sides to give something in these negotiations. The ownership can easily give back to the players just as much as the players can give back to the owners. Its not that hard to see that concessions can be made and they don't have to all come from one side.
If they were to both concede equally from here to arrive in the middle, then the union's starting point for negotiations should have been to get rid of the cap.
This has little to do with my political preference, it has to do with looking at the facts. The league overall is profitable. Revenues are up over a billion dollars since the last deal. That's up 50%, which is amazing. The Winter Classic is a big hit. The NHL is now on several NBC networks.
This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.
I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.
I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.
What should have been a relatively simple CBA negotiations went off the rails with the owners first offer. It was completely insane and hostile. As I've said before, the only way the owners could have expected the players to get anywhere near that first proposal is to break their will, which requires locking them out.
The owners and Bettman's strategy was built upon a lockout.
Yes there's things both sides could do better, but in terms of who's the biggest (not 100%, but biggest) reason we won't be watching hockey? It's Bettman and the owners by a country mile.
Do you have access to the teams books? How do you know they're razor thin?
The profit margins for these teams are really razor thin. The people who are for the NHLPA like to think that owners are fine just losing millions per year for their stake in the team. Is that the right mentality? At the same time, is it right for the owners to have to lose money? Shouldn't there be a fair and equitable deal in place in order for both sides to profit equally?
As has been said countless times, the accounting is not that simple. It varies by what's included in HRR, expenses, if it's really a "loss" when you include the arena's other uses, etc. But you keep repeating this same conjecture as if it's fact.
Everyone keeps repeating that 18 of the 30 franchises are losing money but that's based on a report in Forbes from a couple years ago. When Bettman started the CBA negotiations in 2004, he had a lengthy audit to show definitively that the league had grave financial problems. This time, it simply does not.
It also ignores the overall increase in values of the franchise, even the ones listed as losing money. Even if it is losing money, it is in asset that is appreciating in value. It ignores the owners role in handing out bad contracts that hurt their franchise. It ignores that franchises in non-hockey markets are going to have a harder time financially, which is in no way the fault of the players. It was a choice Bettman and the owners made.
These billionaire owners aren't stupid. If so many of these franchises were truly financial black holes that were damaging the owner's overall wealth and strategy, they'd sell it in a heartbeat.
- Johnz96 likes this