Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private
***--

#2334189 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 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.


#2334162 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 November 2012 - 10:27 AM

TSN's Scott Cullen with the "elephant-in-the-room" tweet...

The NHL is using the faulty logic that they've conceded a lot because they moved off their insane first proposal. I guess Daly would've preferred that Fehr's first counter was to remove salary cap. Then the players could've made the large concession of agreeing to the cap all over again. It would also likely mean we'd lose hockey for the whole year.

Instead, they started by accepting that the cap was here to stay. The players have moved from 57% to 50%. That doesn't count?

It's also not a coincidence that the league started with the ridiculous 43% demand, so 50/50 would actually seem like a concession by the NHL (a falsehood that people seem to be falling for) instead of what it actually is, the players making the large concession.

The league's concessions involve reducing the absurd demands they began with. The players concessions involve actually giving up millions of dollars.


#2333940 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 November 2012 - 10:10 AM

So basically, the NHLPA's position from the start is that they would ultimately agree to the 50/50 split if they owners forced them to.... but would never concede on contract rights issues. Got it.

link?
  • ami likes this


#2333860 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 November 2012 - 02:24 PM

fehr didn't end the 95 strike. the courts decided it for him. put an injuction on the owners.



both sides are at fault here. i think that's pretty obvious by now.

Technically the players voted to end the strike if the courts supported the unfair labor practices complaint.

But if you reread my post you'll see I never claimed Fehr ended the strike. I said he's negotiated two CBA's after that without any work stoppage. There has been labor peace in baseball ever since the 95 strike.

Bettman on the other hand has never negotiated a CBA without locking the players out. Three CBA negotiations. Three lockouts. More lost games than any of the other major sports. He's not the only one at fault, but I think that track record is pretty damning.

I'm not claiming Fehr is innocent, but painting a bigger picture of Fehr's role in CBA negotiations beyond the 95 strike that everyone keeps referring to.

When they do finally agree on a CBA, the most important part will be the date it expires so we know when Bettman will lock players out again and can plan accordingly.

Negotiating labor peace in the past does not excuse the gamesmanship that Fehr is demonstrating now. I think it is a no-brainer that Bettman should be fired, but the behavior of the league in these negotiations cannot be excused. Showing up late for meetings, not willing to bargain while last season was ongoing, and so on. The list just keeps going on and on.

Remember how we talked about there not being any point in discussing this with each other and not replying ?

I think that's still the best choice.


#2333845 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 November 2012 - 01:31 AM

How long till Fehr is canned?

Why would Fehr be canned?

The NHLPA has been a mess over the years but this seems the most stable they've been in a while.

And though people like to point to Fehr's strike that cost the MLB playoffs in 95 they overlook the massive collusion he busted the league on and the fact that he negotiated to two CBA's after 95 and that there's been labor peace in baseball since that strike.

Gary Bettman has never negotiated a CBA without a work stoppage. Fehr has. Twice.


#2333063 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 30 October 2012 - 06:46 PM

the writing was on the wall 3 years ago

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=4435098

The writing has been on the wall since 1995. Bettman = lockout.


#2332602 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 24 October 2012 - 09:30 AM

How did I know you'd go to the "Well, those other guys only murdered a few people, Bettman murdered way more!" argument

You people are ridiculous and blind. It doesn't matter if it's Gary Bettman or Wayne Gretzky. If the owners want a lockout, that's what's gonna happen. You want to rail against something, rail against the owners. It makes me laugh that you really think this was a cabal of 7 owners. ALL of the owners are rich men, and they didn't get rich by not taking advantage of situations when they had an opportunity. Mike Illitch is not sitting there going "C'mon guys. I really want to lose money, so let's just let the guys play." The owners are not in this to lose money; they are going to make as much as they possibly can. Sounds just like the players, but the players are good, and the owners are bad.

There are *no* good guys in this situation. The owners voted for a lockout, and the players hired their own Bettman to fight the real Bettman. Instead of someone who might be willing to negotiate, they decided to hire the most contentious and litigious labor negotiator around. What does that tell you? Hell, most of the players even understand that the Fehr brothers could care less about hockey.

But, keep on believing that the players are operating in good faith, and that the poor owners like Mike Illitch and Terry Pegula are being thwarted in their quest to lose money for your benefit by an evil Commissioner and an Illuminati of 7 owners. Oooh Booga Booga

Make your arguments without name calling please. Thank you.

And following the name calling up with a straw man fallacy doesn't help your case either. I'd take a commissioner who's lost under 800 to one who's closing in on 2,000 in less than twenty years every time.

I don't expect the commissioner to be perfect. I just don't want lockout to be his first move, which it clearly is with Bettman.

And actually it wouldn't surprise me if Illitch was saying exactly that. Did you see the video about the last lockout? Where they talk about Ilitch getting mad at other owners saying he's being punished because they don't know how to run a business? Then there's the articles that talk about how Bettman runs things as commissioner. Not sure if you saw those either, but these aren't ideas we're just inventing.


#2332599 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 24 October 2012 - 09:14 AM

Oh, you mean like all the other commissioners?


Attached File  lockoutgraph.jpg   65.88KB   9 downloads
http://www.cbssports...to-labor-strife

No, not like all other commissioners.

And I'm not sure what a baseball strike has to do with a new NHL commissioner.


#2332479 What would your proposal be?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 23 October 2012 - 10:39 AM

Max player contract of 1 million dollars per year.
Immediate reduction of ticket prices to $35-$50 maximum.
Corporate sponsorship is limited.
Ticket prices are frozen for the duration of the CBA.
No max contract length restrictions.

That way, noone can complain that the owners are making too much, and the contracts can't get out of hand. The players get to get rich, but not obscenely so. Win/win.

I think that would basically create another AHL.


#2332472 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 23 October 2012 - 09:30 AM

It'd be nice if Fehr and Bettman would get together and discuss these issues as much as we have in this thread.


#2332339 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 21 October 2012 - 11:27 AM

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.


#2332136 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 October 2012 - 05:01 PM

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.


#2332120 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 October 2012 - 04:03 PM

Bettman: I offer 50/50
Fehr: I offer 57/43
Bettman: Wait, didn't you offer us that in your initial proposal?
Fehr: Yes, but we are bargaining here. I have a couple other proposals.
Bettman: Ah, good. What are they?
Fehr: Proposal #2 is 57/43
Bettman: Wait, what is the difference?
Fehr: Well, this one is actually 57.5% because I felt like being a prick since you were a prick to us in your first proposal.
Bettman: Fair enough, what about your last proposal?
Fehr: Proposal #3 is 56.5/43.5
Bettman: A half of a percent difference?
Fehr: Well, since you came up from your earlier demands, we thought we would come down a bit.
Bettman: Wow. Is that all?
Fehr: Yea, see ya.

This post is very telling.

It would've saved me a lot of time and energy if earlier in the thread you included these imaginary conversations that you get so pissed about.


#2332103 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 October 2012 - 03:05 PM

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.


#2331939 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 October 2012 - 12:26 PM

God i totally hate bettman too but we have no idea if the next the commissioner will be better or even worse. Assuming that all lockout and NHL problems will be fixed by firing bettman is foolish. The owners hired this mofo and who's to say they won't just hire bettman 2.0.

The wings have way more to gain this season by playing and keeping gary than not playing and losing gary....unless the next comish is really the most awesome guy ever, which i doubt

I wouldn't want to lose the season, but what're the odds the next commissioner would be worse?

What are they going to do, lock players out every time a CBA expires? Come off as a condescending d-bag every time they speak publicly? ignore massive clutching and grabbing for years before finally doing something about it? Not really even like hockey?

I know there's the possibility they could somehow find someone even worse than Bettman, but it seems pretty unlikely.