Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

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

#2331226 Our friend @HockeyyInsiderr lists anti-lockout teams...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 05:09 PM

It's well known that Jeremy Jacobs is solidly on Bettman's side, so that would mean he would only need 7 more to guarantee he has the final word. Although the teams listed by "HockeyyDerpp" (as I've seen him called) might be big market powerful teams, they still would need a practically impossible majority to overrule Bettman.

Lest we also forget, all 30 owners voted in favor of a lockout...

The NHL owns the Coyotes, so I think that actually makes it 6 owners since Bettman likely controls that vote.


#2331219 Our friend @HockeyyInsiderr lists anti-lockout teams...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 03:27 PM

Even if that is true, they still need 18 more teams to overrule him.

Because of how Bettman got the rules changed after he as overruled in '95, there's practically no chance of the owners seizing control from him. He only needs to keep 8 happy.


#2331216 Russians Possibly Staying In KHL After Lockout

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

I disagree. I think they have TONS of marketable players, but they just chose the obvious ones. Think if Biznasty was marketed like OV. I think he has a better personality. I don't know why Russians come off as so selfish to me and seem egotistical.

I don't know either. Are you basing it on only a few Russians?

Because the Wings currently have a Russian player that is the antithesis of that. And they have had several in the past as well. Larionov, Fetisov, Vladdy, Kozlov.


#2331124 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 09 October 2012 - 05:31 PM

Bettman and Fehr have combined to cause a lockout or strike that has resulted in missing their respective championship playoff series 1 each. Not 3.

What could I possibly have been referring to when I said Bettman has done this three times?

Anyone? Any guesses?


#2330979 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 October 2012 - 04:45 PM

Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.

Owners spending more than they can afford is a complicated topic, but without question the current CBA largely contributes to it. Without a union, there is no need for a CBA. If you believe the core problem with the leagues finances is rich clubs driving up the players salaries... how does the union solve that problem? I would argue that the NHLPA contributes to that problem, through forcing a CBA.

Get rid of Bettman and there's no lockout.

Without Bettman, there wouldn't have been a lockout in 95 that cost half a season, and we wouldn't have lost a whole season ten years later. Just let the true free market decide, no cap, and owners pay whatever they want to players. Then for those franchises that aren't profitable, let 'em fail.

See how easy that is?

Saying getting rid of unions equals no lockouts is a massive oversimplification of what's going on. First, every major pro sport has a union. It's a reality of the beast. And hockey is entertainment, entertainers also typically have unions.

If there wasn't a union and the NHL owners put together any deal they wanted, one of two things (or possibly both) would likely happen. The players would organize a union because they'd see they were getting a ridiculously small portion of the billions in revenue they generate. Or a lot of players would leave the NHL play in other leagues.

If this current group of owners and Bettman ran the league however they wanted back in 2004, it's pretty safe to say the Red Wings would have lost most of their European contingent.

Lidstrom would've gone back to Sweden. Dats back to Russia. So long guys! I'm sure they scrubs that couldn't crack the NHL when you were playing will be just as entertaining. Anyone can do what those guys do.


#2330939 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 October 2012 - 10:08 AM

We should all support dissolving the players union. When that is done, we will never have to worry about another lockout. If players don't like the terms the NHL owners offer, they can play elsewhere. If the best players are choosing to play outside of the NHL, the owners can choose to offer better contracts to entice them to play in the NHL. Free market economics... it works amazingly well.

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.

Free market competition would mean no salary cap.


The players aren't striking for more money. The owners are refusing to let them play even though they have current valid contracts in the NHL.

The league had market competition before the cap and the owners apparently couldn't manage to run their business under that construct. It's not like the players were striking because they felt they were underpaid. The owners locked them out to implement a device that artificially suppresses employee salaries.

Once again, the big problem is the disparity in the wealth of the clubs. The rich clubs are what's driving up the players salaries, not unions. It was just a couple months ago that the Flyers put together an offer sheet for Weber that was specifically constructed to try and financially cripple Nashville so they wouldn't be able to match.

But that's somehow the unions fault?


#2330758 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 05 October 2012 - 10:23 AM

It's unbelievable that an employee of the owners/BoG has so much power over them. There are few jobs anywhere else in the world where the employee holds all the power over his employers...

I'm glad to hear that the PA is working on a new proposal, but I can't wait to see how long the League rejects it, and submits a counter offer that's pretty much the same thing as their first and second proposals.


When I found out how hard it is to overrule Bettman, it was both depressing and explained a lot about the last lockout.

We've seen how idiotic some of these owners can be. And now Gary only needs 8 not to vote against him. I've seen several references to what a hardliner Jeremy Jacobs (owner of the Bruins) is and how much influence he has. A friend of mine is from Boston and said fans hate him. They even booed him when he was announced during their Cup win.

Among ownership there's got to be more reasonable, intelligent voices in the group, but are there 24 of them? Probably not.

EDIT: And I just remembered that the league owns the coyotes, so Bettman probably gets one of those 30 votes himself. So he might only need 7 owners to support him.


#2330755 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 05 October 2012 - 10:12 AM

While it's not surprising that the owners don't want to play out the season without a CBA, Fehr is exactly right that under Bettman's reign lockout has not been a last resort but is the basis of his negotiating strategy.

Especially considering Bettman got the rules changed to make it even harder to overrule him, so compromise on the owners side is even less likely. Given the amount of concessions they want from the players, ownership had to know it would require locking the players out before they'd ever agree to them.

This lockout wasn't the unfortunate result of unexpected circumstances, it was almost certainly something ownership prepared for.


#2330680 ESPN-KHL Deal in the Works?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 04 October 2012 - 01:47 PM

Yeah I realize that now. I thought he was playing for Ak Bars again.
I actually just watched today's game CSKA against Spartak. CSKA won 2-1 in OT. Datsyuk scored a nice one intercepting a defenseman's pass, going in one on one on the goalie (who played deep in the net and didn't challenge Pav fearing the datsyukian dekes) and sniped a wrister to give CSKA a 1-0 lead in the second. He also scored the game winner in OT on a goal mouth scramble quickly pouncing on a Radulov rebound and putting it home

It's depressing me hearing about Datsyuk playing.

He's 34 years old and doesn't have a lot of seasons left, certainly not at top level. Every game missed is a big deal at this point in his career.


#2330679 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 04 October 2012 - 01:42 PM

from NHL.com

NEW YORK -- The National Hockey League announced today the cancellation of the 2012-13 regular-season schedule through October 24. A total of 82 regular-season games were scheduled for Oct. 11 through Oct. 24.
The cancellation was necessary because of the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL Players' Association and the NHL.


There was nothing about this that was necessary.


#2330479 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 02 October 2012 - 12:22 PM

Wow, they met a whole two hours? They must be exhausted.

I think what Daly means by compromise is "agree to our ridiculous demands."

Again, it looks like the union should have used removal of the salary cap as a starting point so they could "compromise" to where they're at now, which is a reasonable place from which to negotiate.

It's a waiting game to see who breaks first. Start canceling the regular season.


#2330442 Project Unfollow-Hear the Fan's Voice

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 01 October 2012 - 06:16 PM

I like where your heads at, but there is no way I am unfollowing any of them. I like to hear what's going on and unfollowing all the players, agents, and gm's would do me no good.

I think you could still get a good handle on what's going on by just following guys like Dreger and McKenzie.

It sounds like there's an existing twitter account that's basically trying to do the same thing.

https://twitter.com/UnfollowNHLSept


#2330115 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 26 September 2012 - 02:02 PM

No, it still works. It's just a select group of 30 cattle ranchers that have Kobe cows. There are other ranches with angus cows, longhorns, etc, but in order to get a Kobe ranch, you have to be approved by the other ranchers. They can't have you going insane, selling your cows for pennies on the dollar, or making changes to the breed that will hurt the other ranchers.

Right. Because 20,000 people travel for miles and pay hundreds of dollars to watch cows graze several times a week. Buy cow outfits to wear with the brand of their favorite cow on the side. Watch cows grazing on television for hours on end.

Totally a solid analogy.

And if ranchers did that it would be collusion. The NHL is a pretty specific situation.


#2330081 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 26 September 2012 - 09:40 AM

I am not going to see that for the price of NHL ticket. At $5 a game maybe.

And therein lies a truth that a lot of people ignore in the lockout debates.

the reason we fans are willing to shell out an insane amount of money for tickets, parking, beer, jerseys, directv packages, etc, is because we're watching the best players on the planet play the game. That's why they're not exactly cattle.


#2330080 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 26 September 2012 - 09:36 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

Do you have access to the teams books? How do you know they're razor thin?

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.