Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

#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.

#2331817 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

So looks like a deal will get done, how many of those 53 that voted yes, would still vote yes now?

Well if a deal is getting done, obviously not many. Most people said if they're gonna lose the season anyway, it'd be nice to get rid of Bettman too.

But we can take a poll again when he locks the players out at the end of this coming CBA.

#2331742 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

That is nothing but good news. To me, that sounds like they're backing off their asinine requirements on ELC's and prevention of salary arbitration.

Fehr has called a conference call with the NHLPA's Negotiating Committee and the Executive Committee for 5PM ET.


It depends on what they're doing to HRR at the same time but this sounds like a very realistic offer from the NHL. Finally.

Details are sketchy but Dreger and McKenzie are making it sound like the players full contracts will be honored, it's just going to be paid out over longer time. Without that sort of protection by McKenzie's figuring the NHLPA is going to have to swallow an 11% decrease in salary.

And as you mention, hopefully the NHL has moved off its idiotic contract demands as well.

This sounds very promising.

#2331658 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 October 2012 - 04:03 PM

it just shows you how well the PA has played the pr battle

I'm basing it more on the sum total of his career than any PR attempts by Fehr.

3 CBA negotiations. 3 lockouts.

1st major North American pro sport to lose a season due to a labor dispute. Other leagues have similar issues and problems but have managed to solve them without losing an entire season.

1,780 games lost to lockout under his watch and counting. That is by far more than any of the big pro sports.

How is that not a failure? The NHL commissioner is not just a shill for ownership, part of his job is to protect the integrity and public confidence in the league. The commissioners of other leagues have to deal with owners just like Bettman does.

7 years after losing an entire season to implement a hard cap, with an increase in revenue of 50% since the last CBA, there's no way there should be a lockout right now. Bettman and his hardliners want too much too fast. And unlike in 1995, the owners aren't going to be able to overrule him and salvage the season.

#2331488 Sacrifice the full season to guarantee Bettman's removal?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 October 2012 - 09:53 AM

There's really no getting around that three lockouts in a row, one (and maybe more) costing the entire season is terrible league management.

As others have said, there's a fair chance we'll lose this season. Might as well make it worth it.

#2331302 Our friend @HockeyyInsiderr lists anti-lockout teams...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 October 2012 - 11:34 AM

Do you have a link or source to this? I would like to see for myself what Bettman changed back in 95 and where they stand today. I did a google search on this and didn't find anything on it.

I had read it in a few places years ago but here's the most recent reminder.

To make sure the disunity of 1994-95 did not happen again, Bettman engineered a change in the voting rules: if he was against a settlement, he could be overruled only by a vote of three-quarters of the owners. And he was given the power to fine any owner or team official as much as $1 million for divulging internal league matters.


Everything I've read credits Bettman for the change but ultimately I think the Board of governors has to approve it. I haven't found much info about how that process works exactly.

And here:


There is legislation – he introduced a rule that allows him to reject a collective agreement proposal from the NHLPA with only eight votes from the 30 owners. Firing Bettman would require three-quarters of the owners to approve, something he negotiated when he took the job.
Bettman also made sure most of the other owners owed him enough, by naming them to the powerful governors’ executive committee or shepherding their attempts to buy a team or letting them bend the rules, that they will not cause any trouble. Finally, he makes sure he is aligned with the two most powerful owners, Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins, the chairman of the board of governors, and Ed Snider of the Philadelphia Flyers.
It is an adept way to handle people who are essentially your bosses and who are not accustomed to being told how to operate their business since many of them built successful companies before buying hockey teams.

The part I bolded is especially depressing.

#2331231 Z basically says Bettman should be fired

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 October 2012 - 05:27 PM

Boyle should have kept his mouth shut. Even if he was privy to some inside information (Which he probably isnt) does he honestly beleive there arent players out there who just want to play and arent in favor of asking for the moon? I am willing to bet my life savings (Granted it isnt much) that there is a MUCH higher percentage of players who just want to play then there are owners who do. This is why the players will cave first and revenue will probably end up being split some where close to 50 -50. Like every other sports league.

The best thing the owners have done is not say anything. Every single time a player opens his mouth in the press it ends up sounding selfish, immature and just plain stupid.

Every other sports league?

Look at baseball's salary situation. And the NBA may have a close to 50% split but they also have a luxury tax system the NHL doesn't. And a lot more revenue sharing among franchises. As does the NFL.

It's not really fair to just take the percentage while ignoring all the other differences between the leagues.

Just by sheer number, I'm sure you're right about there being more players wanting to play than the 29 owners. And like I mentioned in another thread, Bettman only needs 7 to keep from being overruled so it doesn't even matter if the majority of owners wanted to end the lockout.