Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

#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.

#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.

#2335477 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 06 December 2012 - 07:22 PM


I've seen thirteen year olds have more mature and productive communication than this.

#2335017 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 30 November 2012 - 11:07 AM

Not that he's the end-all-be-all authority on anything, but Danny Cleary at least is is keen on the idea...

And while it may prove to be a terrible idea for the players, it does at least address one question that we've seen raised several times here. The question of "What would happen if Bettman and Fehr (and their substantial egos) were not involved in the process?"

In the end, I don't think anything would come of that kind of a meeting, especially if hawks like Jacobs and Leonsis are involved. But it would at least be interesting to see what might happen with a direct meeting like that...

Hell at this point they should try just about anything. I guess it's good Bettman actually asked the union this time before trying the end around of owners talking directly to players.

Mostly I just meant that this definitely benefits the owners more than players. There's nothing they'd love more than to negotiate directly with players during contract negotiations and CBA negotiations. It'd be like the pre-NHLPA days. If hockey players were great at negotiations, they wouldn't need agents. Meanwhile they're sitting across from billionaire owners with extensive business and negotiating experience, as well as a massive support staff to help them.

Either way, my main position is still f*** this league. With the growth this league has enjoyed during this last CBA, the prudent move would've been a compromise that wouldn't lose games and damage the integrity and public faith in the NHL. What both sides gave up on the negotiating table would've been recouped fairly quickly.

Instead they're still arguing over how to arrange the deck chairs on the titanic.

#2334880 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 28 November 2012 - 02:41 PM

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money

People keep repeating that but it's not true.

According to Forbes analysis with the financial info they have available to them, those teams have a negative operating income before things like taxes, depreciation and amortization. But it's inaccurate for them to simply say they're losing money.

These owners have multiple corporations with revenue and expenses moving between one and the other. The goal with corps is not to show a huge profit because you want to reduce your tax burden.

Clearly there are teams that are struggling financially but the Forbes report isn't a complete or accurate financial picture. In 2004 Bettman had an extensive audit of franchises to show in irrefutable detail how many were losing money. Strange how he didn't do that this time.

There's the secondary issue of how much it's actually the players fault that these franchises aren't profitable. Unlike 2005 the real issue is the disparity of the franchises, not the un-capped costs of player salaries.

#2334636 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 24 November 2012 - 12:03 AM

I deleted more posts because they went from discussing the lockout to making personal comments about the person they're quoting.

Want your posts to live in this thread? Stay on topic and discuss the lockout.

Want them to disappear? Keep making personal accusations about each other.

If you haven't noticed, the rules are being enforced tightly in this thread because of all the crap that's gone on and multiple warnings being ignored.

#2334372 Has your opinion of kenny changed?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 20 November 2012 - 05:26 PM

Was totally unprepared for Lidstrom's retirement. Shouldn't have had to jump through hoops for Suter in the first place.


I'm not mad at Holland for not getting Suter in the bidding war. I was disappointed he put the team in the position where he had to go for a hail mary like that.

Add to that giving up a first rounder to get back a player he gave away as a stopgap move for Stuart's departure.

#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.