Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

#2334203 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 November 2012 - 05:45 PM

Owners 100% at fault, players 0%. You have made your position understood.

You use the word 'ultimately', but the context of your surrounding argument seems to suggest the word 'entirely'.... and you would be right... in a world without labor unions. That is the point that keeps getting ignored... the owners are not free to run a successful franchise as they see fit... they are beholden to a CBA forced upon them by the players... that must be negotiated with the players - so that the players do effect the way business is run. You cannot hold the owners entirely responsible when their business decisions are in part dictated by the players.The CBA... it keeps getting conveniently left out of any argument skewering the owners. The last CBA was a large factor in creating the environment where owners felt compelled to give out large contracts to be competitive.

Let me spare several people the time and effort in their response by paraphrasing their responses for them:

"BUT the owners won BIG in the last CBA!!... they dictated this and now we are supposed to feel bad for them?!"... blah blah.

I had typed out a lengthy response but read your last line and realized you're not interested in an actual discussion.

carry on.

#2334194 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

players calling the commissioner an idiot in public is not going to get negotiations going any faster. if anything it will only hinder it. if you are pro hockey, i don't see why you would support any name calling in the media by either side. it will only hinder progress

it's also not realistic for owners and gm's to pass up the chance of trying to make their teams better. if one owner didn't offer the big contract, someone else would. If the owners all secretly agreed on keeping contracts at a certain limit, that would be considered collusion and grounds for legal action by the players.

I agree on both points.

If he hasn't already, Fehr should tell the players to generally avoid off the cuff comments like that. And certainly to avoid calling Bettman names. It's not helping anything.

I don't fault GM's for trying to make their teams better but when the cost exceeds something your franchise can afford, you stop bidding. If they keep getting outbid then it gets back to the underlying problem of disparity between franchises. That's not the fault of the players.

#2334189 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 November 2012 - 03:07 PM


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.

  • ami likes this

#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


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

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.

#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.

#2331914 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 October 2012 - 11:21 AM

Of course it wasn't going to get done with this proposal. This proposal should have been made last season so both sides could have started negotiating with realistic starting positions and been able to go through the back and forth process. It will take weeks of back and forth, especially with such complicated legal proposals. Just to type up a proposal probly takes all day.


The union has to go through all the details of this proposal, explain it to their hundreds of constituents, let them mull it over, then gauge their reaction before even starting to craft a response. There's no way that could happen overnight. Bettman just has to talk to 30 owners who are businessmen and have plenty of lawyers and administrative staff to help them. Fehr has to talk to hundreds of hockey players. Not quite the same.

Though they don't have weeks. The league structured it so they have 9 days to salvage the season. Smart on their part because it's essentially an ultimatum without calling it such.

In the light of day the league's offer doesn't sound as rosy as it first did so I'm a little less optimistic. It sounds like they're screwing with HRR again and the form of arbitration they put back isn't really helpful.

Fehr is right in pointing out that everything in this deal is worse for the players. And unlike 2004 the NHL hasn't provided compelling evidence why the players should take another big paycut.

But the reality for the players is they're going to end up worse off no matter what the deal is. That's just the way it is. Public sentiment won't support them holding out and quibbling over complicated matters like HRR and what percentage split makes financial sense for franchises. The owners hold the cards and this is the players best window for playing hockey this season.

As I think McKenzie said on his twitter, Fehr needs to grind out the best deal possible in this window.