If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   NHL player$ and owner$ not $peaking the $ame language   (cbc.ca) divider line 127
    More: Followup, NHLPA, NHL, Donald Fehr, Eric Staal, Jarome Iginla, NHL players, Gary Bettman, Sidney Crosby  
•       •       •

1062 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Oct 2012 at 11:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-19 10:32:00 AM
Damn! I'm pretty sure I had a dream a night or two ago about the lockout ending. Guess it didn't carry over to the real world.
 
2012-10-19 11:54:21 AM
And not a fark was given for the fourth place sports league.
 
2012-10-19 11:54:56 AM

Slaves2Darkness: And not a fark was given for the fourth place sports league.


Well maybe the Canadians care, but fark them they are Canadians.
 
2012-10-19 11:58:47 AM
For anyone thinking this will end soon, remember these two key points.

1. The owners have already destroyed one season. They seem to be perfectly willing to do it again, especially with Jeremy Jacobs as the chair of the Board of Governors.
2. The players union selected Donald (screw the World Series) Fehr as their Executive Director.
 
2012-10-19 12:03:01 PM
This incarnation of the NHL has already lost me. Nuke it from orbit, go back to the original 12 or so teams and try again. Deal with these issues up front and come up with some workarounds for when labor deals do expire. And for FSM's sake, don't hire anyone from the NBA for any management jobs
 
2012-10-19 12:07:39 PM
Fark the owners, after that deadspin article its obvious there won't be a season
 
2012-10-19 12:10:54 PM
Asshole, all of them.
 
2012-10-19 12:12:52 PM
If the owners really wanted the whole league of 30 teams to thrive they would put in place a system where the gate receipts (minus the luxury boxes) is split 60/40 like in the NFL. NHL currently has gate receipts going to the home team 100% and of course some teams will make money while others will lose money if the cap is set based on the whole league HRR.

This is another example of greedy owners not being able to control themselves with the contracts that they offer and want the players to take another pay cut after the 2005 CBA which Bettman himself said that it was the deal needed to move NHL forward.

Fact of the matter is that the players' 3rd proposal of yesterday did have a 50/50 split of HRR starting this season as long as all existing contracts were to be paid in full. Owners don't want that after spending the past few offseasons offering 10+years deals worth close to or over 100 mil each.
 
2012-10-19 12:14:53 PM

Your Zionist Leader: This incarnation of the NHL has already lost me. Nuke it from orbit, go back to the original 12 or so teams and try again. Deal with these issues up front and come up with some workarounds for when labor deals do expire. And for FSM's sake, don't hire anyone from the NBA for any management jobs


So shut down Edmonton, bring back Oakland?

The NHL has no worries about the fans. How many fans who cheered Boston, Chicago or LA recently, had vowed they were done with the NHL in 04-05. Most came back. All that matters these days is how good the local team is.
 
2012-10-19 12:17:25 PM

ddam: If the owners really wanted the whole league of 30 teams to thrive they would put in place a system where the gate receipts (minus the luxury boxes) is split 60/40 like in the NFL. NHL currently has gate receipts going to the home team 100% and of course some teams will make money while others will lose money if the cap is set based on the whole league HRR.

This is another example of greedy owners not being able to control themselves with the contracts that they offer and want the players to take another pay cut after the 2005 CBA which Bettman himself said that it was the deal needed to move NHL forward.

Fact of the matter is that the players' 3rd proposal of yesterday did have a 50/50 split of HRR starting this season as long as all existing contracts were to be paid in full. Owners don't want that after spending the past few offseasons offering 10+years deals worth close to or over 100 mil each.


well you said it just as well as I would have. You also saved me some typing so...
thanks.
 
2012-10-19 12:18:03 PM

Decillion: Your Zionist Leader: This incarnation of the NHL has already lost me. Nuke it from orbit, go back to the original 12 or so teams and try again. Deal with these issues up front and come up with some workarounds for when labor deals do expire. And for FSM's sake, don't hire anyone from the NBA for any management jobs

So shut down Edmonton, bring back Oakland?

The NHL has no worries about the fans. How many fans who cheered Boston, Chicago or LA recently, had vowed they were done with the NHL in 04-05. Most came back. All that matters these days is how good the local team is.


Within reason of course. And I don't know about it this time, a good number of casual fans are still gone from before and now they're chipping away at the die hards. Of course hockey in places like Detroit, Montreal, Boston, etc will carry on business as usual. The teams more on the fringe will be the ones hit, and in the end, in my opinion, they will have to deal with contraction over relocation because they've just done too much damage to the product.
 
2012-10-19 12:25:10 PM

WhiskeySticks: Asshole, all of them.


Agreed. Here's to the NHL, SUCKING MY DICK

iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-19 12:37:57 PM
Bummed
 
2012-10-19 12:39:37 PM
What kills me is that Bettman and company spent about as long as it takes for me to put out a decent dump to reject 3 different offers from the NHLPA. Bettman and company must have some other-worldly speed reading skills.
 
2012-10-19 12:42:47 PM

KarlMaldensNose: What kills me is that Bettman and company spent about as long as it takes for me to put out a decent dump to reject 3 different offers from the NHLPA. Bettman and company must have some other-worldly speed reading skills.


NHL owners do not want to guarantee that 100% of contracts on the books will be paid. Any proposal that has that in it is automatically turned down.

I though the 3rd proposal from the NHLPA is the fairest to both sides. 50/50 split as of this season, cap set at 59 mil with adjustments that only 87% of existing contracts count towards cap while the team is responsible to pay the whole amount.
 
2012-10-19 12:44:20 PM
The players should just go play in Europe and forget the NHL. It has overexpanded, and will never make money in warm weather climates with no tradition of winter sports. Let it collapse, and be replaced by a new North American pro hockey league, or reformed into something that doesn't resemble the trainwreck it is now. Here is a piece I wrote during the last NHL lockout, if you are interested.
http://www.uncoveror.com/nhl.htm
 
2012-10-19 12:49:14 PM

ddam: This is another example of greedy owners not being able to control themselves with the contracts that they offer and want the players to take another pay cut after the 2005 CBA which Bettman himself said that it was the deal needed to move NHL forward.


This.

There isn't going to be a season this year. I'm okay with that, even though my team, the Ottawa Senators, were looking like they were going to have a great year. Really I could give a fark about hockey these days.
 
2012-10-19 12:51:45 PM

ddam: KarlMaldensNose: What kills me is that Bettman and company spent about as long as it takes for me to put out a decent dump to reject 3 different offers from the NHLPA. Bettman and company must have some other-worldly speed reading skills.

NHL owners do not want to guarantee that 100% of contracts on the books will be paid. Any proposal that has that in it is automatically turned down.

I though the 3rd proposal from the NHLPA is the fairest to both sides. 50/50 split as of this season, cap set at 59 mil with adjustments that only 87% of existing contracts count towards cap while the team is responsible to pay the whole amount.


But you get nowhere near 50% with that even over the course of the whole deal. The number ended up being about the same as it is today for most of the length of it. Keep in mind you have guys with huge 10+ year contracts out there.

Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.
 
2012-10-19 12:59:48 PM

LineNoise: ddam: KarlMaldensNose: What kills me is that Bettman and company spent about as long as it takes for me to put out a decent dump to reject 3 different offers from the NHLPA. Bettman and company must have some other-worldly speed reading skills.

NHL owners do not want to guarantee that 100% of contracts on the books will be paid. Any proposal that has that in it is automatically turned down.

I though the 3rd proposal from the NHLPA is the fairest to both sides. 50/50 split as of this season, cap set at 59 mil with adjustments that only 87% of existing contracts count towards cap while the team is responsible to pay the whole amount.

But you get nowhere near 50% with that even over the course of the whole deal. The number ended up being about the same as it is today for most of the length of it. Keep in mind you have guys with huge 10+ year contracts out there.

Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.


You are at 50/50 from now on. Contracts on the books have to be paid because they have been signed already. The players are against any rollback on existing contracts and for good reason... they rolled back contracts 25% a few years ago.

The teams wanted those 10+year contracts because they wanted to circumvent the salary cap. The teams offered the contracts, not the players.

And until the league puts in sharing of the gates receipts I refuse to believe their rethoric that they care about all 30 teams.
 
2012-10-19 01:06:21 PM
The fact that Fehr is involved tells me all I need to know about the likelihood of this getting resolved. He doesn't care, the owners don't care, and in the end the fans and all the infrastructure employees will be the ones who suffer. And it's gonna take a helluva lot for me to not feel that way at this point.
 
2012-10-19 01:06:58 PM

LineNoise: ddam: KarlMaldensNose: What kills me is that Bettman and company spent about as long as it takes for me to put out a decent dump to reject 3 different offers from the NHLPA. Bettman and company must have some other-worldly speed reading skills.

NHL owners do not want to guarantee that 100% of contracts on the books will be paid. Any proposal that has that in it is automatically turned down.

I though the 3rd proposal from the NHLPA is the fairest to both sides. 50/50 split as of this season, cap set at 59 mil with adjustments that only 87% of existing contracts count towards cap while the team is responsible to pay the whole amount.

But you get nowhere near 50% with that even over the course of the whole deal. The number ended up being about the same as it is today for most of the length of it. Keep in mind you have guys with huge 10+ year contracts out there.

Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.


And who's fault are those 10 year plus contracts? The owners shouldn't get to sign these huge deals and then say "Um hey, you know all that money we promised you? Yeah, we're not gonna pay you that. Is that ok?" It is laughable to me that Craig Leopold, the guy in Minnesota who earlier in the off season paid 2 guys about 200 million dollars, was at this meeting saying "We can't do this anymore. Please save us from ourselves." The owners did this to themselves and once again want the players to bail them out.
 
2012-10-19 01:07:54 PM

KarlMaldensNose: The owners did this to themselves and once again want the players to bail them out.


Yeah, but they offered a deal that had a big "50-50" on the cover page, so skip over all the other details and just pretend they're the good guys here.
 
2012-10-19 01:09:36 PM
Witness the magic of the Bettman and stand agape in awe:

"[We're] going to get a deal done" - Gary Bettman to some dude, October 18, 2012, approximately 2:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

"We were done in an hour today because there was really nothing there." - Gary Bettman to reporters, October 18, 2012, 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


Taken from the Puck Daddy article.. Link
 
2012-10-19 01:13:00 PM

wooden_badger: For anyone thinking this will end soon, remember these two key points.

1. The owners have already destroyed one season. They seem to be perfectly willing to do it again, especially with Jeremy Jacobs as the chair of the Board of Governors.
2. The players union selected Donald (screw the World Series) Fehr as their Executive Director.


Some men just want to watch the world burn.
 
2012-10-19 01:16:45 PM
Football season is not long enough to sustain my sports needs
 
2012-10-19 01:19:35 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: Football season is not long enough to sustain my sports needs


February and March are going to suck without hockey.
 
2012-10-19 01:20:12 PM

KarlMaldensNose: LineNoise: ddam: KarlMaldensNose: What kills me is that Bettman and company spent about as long as it takes for me to put out a decent dump to reject 3 different offers from the NHLPA. Bettman and company must have some other-worldly speed reading skills.

NHL owners do not want to guarantee that 100% of contracts on the books will be paid. Any proposal that has that in it is automatically turned down.

I though the 3rd proposal from the NHLPA is the fairest to both sides. 50/50 split as of this season, cap set at 59 mil with adjustments that only 87% of existing contracts count towards cap while the team is responsible to pay the whole amount.

But you get nowhere near 50% with that even over the course of the whole deal. The number ended up being about the same as it is today for most of the length of it. Keep in mind you have guys with huge 10+ year contracts out there.

Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.

And who's fault are those 10 year plus contracts? The owners shouldn't get to sign these huge deals and then say "Um hey, you know all that money we promised you? Yeah, we're not gonna pay you that. Is that ok?" It is laughable to me that Craig Leopold, the guy in Minnesota who earlier in the off season paid 2 guys about 200 million dollars, was at this meeting saying "We can't do this anymore. Please save us from ourselves." The owners did this to themselves and once again want the players to bail them out.


Sounds to me the answer is to let the owners reduce the current contracts by whatever percentage they want, but give any player who's contract is altered the ability to walk away as a UFA. IF the owners don't want to pay them, fine, but they should be allowed to quit and find work elsewhere instead of taking a pay cut with no recourse. I know damn well if my boss came to me and said "Abmoraz, you know you are a valued employee here, but we can't afford to keep paying you at the current rate. We need you to take a 25% pay cut" that I would be knocking on our competitor's door seeing if they were willing to pay a "valued employee" what he thought he was worth.

Contracts work both ways.
 
2012-10-19 01:22:27 PM
People, people, people...

This is all posturing. Even some NHL execs are saying that privately to reporters. Clearly, they're not on the same page yet, the owners and the union. But they're not as far apart as it may seem. The 2 sides are in agreement on the split of money, for once! It's just how to get there that's the worry.

Yes, the players want to get paid in full. And they should want that. Who is on the negotiating team for the owners? The owner of the Minnesota Wild- who signed off on giving 2 players 13 year, $98 million deals just a few months ago. And now he wants to tell them "no, you can't have all that money." Give me a farking break!

If I'm the players, I go in and say "we'll take a 10% rollback on all contracts. BUT the 10% goes into a bank account and is still paid to each player within 5 years after the player's career ends." Because the owners shouldn't be bailed out on their own stupidity, but that would still meet the goals of lowering the cap and getting to a 50-50 split.
 
2012-10-19 01:25:57 PM
 
2012-10-19 01:27:29 PM
The last lockout around the power was nearly entirely in the NHLs hands.

however this time around I feel like the power isnt entirely the same anymore. The dynamic has shifted with a much larger opportunity for top flight players to take up roots in the KHL, Swiss/Fin/Swede/German leagues.

Especially with the money starting to catch up to the gap between euro hockey pay and NHL hockey pay, the top flight players while losing some, are not losing all of their opportunity. The time right now is RIPE for the players to tell the NHL to go fark themselves. Yeah it sort of leaves the bottom third of the NHL hanging in the wind but i think most of those guys know that even with a full time NHL going the situation for their careers is pretty much the same. On a game by game basis for the most part.

In the end. The relevance of Euro hockey is taking away some of the juice the NHL once had. If the players REALLY wanted to win this, they could all go to Europe and let the NHL big swinging dicks float in the wind. It wont be too long losing 2 billion a year before the owners ditch Buttman and beg the players to come back with a sweet deal.

The amazing thing is that the NHL owners appear to be willing to let Buttman play chicken with 2 billion in revenue for the sake of saving 2-3 franchises that are losing 20-40 million a year. in a worst case scenario thats 6% of revenue.
 
2012-10-19 01:30:17 PM
Whiny rich people who get paid to play a game for huge amounts of money complaining about whiny reach people who get paid to play around with a sports team for huge amounts of money.

Rich people problems. Shut up and play the game.
 
2012-10-19 01:39:17 PM

sedric: call me when its over.. I want my hockey same as everyone, but really both sides are being dicks, although i kind of find myself siding with the players, maybe cause i play the sport rather than own a team.

Soon enough the AHL games will be on the tube and although the talent is less its still pro hockey.

Question does gary Bettman ever get a photo taken where you do NOT want to punch his farkin teeth out??

[www.sportsnet.ca image 640x360]

[storage.canoe.ca image 346x520]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 550x404]


The day the Bettman steps down/is removed as commissioner will be a national holiday in Canada.
 
2012-10-19 01:51:34 PM

GavinTheAlmighty: Whiny rich people who get paid to play a game for huge amounts of money complaining about whiny reach people who get paid to play around with a sports team for huge amounts of money.

Rich people problems. Shut up and play the game.


Maybe the owners shouldn't plead poverty after reaping record revenue and handing out giant contracts
 
2012-10-19 01:53:51 PM

mjohnson71: February and March are going to suck without hockey.


You forgot April, May and June.
 
2012-10-19 01:57:45 PM

Anderson's Pooper: mjohnson71: February and March are going to suck without hockey.

You forgot April, May and June.


This. College hockey goes into late March and early April. After that it's bleak.
 
kab
2012-10-19 02:04:21 PM

LineNoise: Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.


That's the thing. The owners have the stance that "this is the final offer", and players have the stance that "this is an ok place to start discussions".

Owners are still disillusioned enough to think that they're the reason people attend pro games. fark em.
 
2012-10-19 02:05:40 PM

kab: LineNoise: Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.

That's the thing. The owners have the stance that "this is the final offer", and players have the stance that "this is an ok place to start discussions".

Owners are still disillusioned enough to think that they're the reason people attend pro games. fark em.


I know that I, for one, would love to see Mike Illitch throw on a pair of skates and go to work
 
2012-10-19 02:07:58 PM
After the last lockout I stopped following hockey altogether until my ex started getting me to watch it again. Now that I'm married to a non-fan, there's no incentive for me to start watching greedy biatches play a game when I could be playing a game of my own. fark millionaires complaining that they aren't rich enough. I'm done.
 
2012-10-19 02:15:59 PM
Dammit...

I've already resigned myself to following the P-Bruins this season. I like the AHL ,but, well, you know...


And as far as this Bruins' fan is concerned, Jeremy Jacobs can go fark himself.
 
2012-10-19 02:16:24 PM
The only reaction a fan of hockey should have, in my opinion, is not to care. Take that time and money you would have devoted to NHL fandom and put it somewhere else, you'll probably be just as happy.

You can't, and don't have to, let these people (owners & players) jerk you around. Holds true for all these pro sports that exist only as entertainment.
 
2012-10-19 02:24:18 PM

LineNoise:

Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.


Sure, if you consider the players agreeing to 50/50 then caving to everything else a decent starting point. Another Farker(raise your hand if you're here) made the same observation when the NHL released that number earlier this week but left out the rest. The owners want to cut the giant contracts they signed, limit contract terms(entry, arbitration and UFA), tinker with arbitration and raise the age of free agency. On top of that they still aren't talking about genuine revenue sharing. Again, this wasn't a starting point, it was a PR move.
 
2012-10-19 02:26:09 PM
Burn it to the ground and start again. And ban the trap.
 
2012-10-19 02:26:22 PM

Flappyhead: Sure, if you consider the players agreeing to 50/50 then caving to everything else a decent starting point. Another Farker(raise your hand if you're here) made the same observation when the NHL released that number earlier this week but left out the rest.


There are a few of us who pointed out immediately that the NHL's release of the "50-50" split without any other details was nothing more than a PR move. It seems to have had the desired impact on some fans who can't move past it.
 
2012-10-19 02:28:29 PM

Your Zionist Leader: I know that I, for one, would love to see Mike Illitch throw on a pair of skates and go to work


Now that's funny right there. Last night I thought it was cool to see Mike and Marion Ilitch get the AL trophy. Then I realized it was Dave Dombrowski and Mike Illitch.
 
2012-10-19 02:32:14 PM

Flappyhead: LineNoise:

Is the owners deal perfect? of course not. But it is a pretty decent starting point. The players pretty much ignored that.

Sure, if you consider the players agreeing to 50/50 then caving to everything else a decent starting point. Another Farker(raise your hand if you're here) made the same observation when the NHL released that number earlier this week but left out the rest. The owners want to cut the giant contracts they signed, limit contract terms(entry, arbitration and UFA), tinker with arbitration and raise the age of free agency. On top of that they still aren't talking about genuine revenue sharing. Again, this wasn't a starting point, it was a PR move.


That was me. The owners hired some high level political PR guy who's helping them spin this whole thing
 
2012-10-19 02:37:43 PM

FishyFred: Damn! I'm pretty sure I had a dream a night or two ago about the lockout ending. Guess it didn't carry over to the real world.


Weird, i had a nightmare that the Wings released Datsyuk to clear cap space. Hockey Dreams!
 
2012-10-19 02:43:12 PM

Anderson's Pooper: mjohnson71: February and March are going to suck without hockey.

You forgot April, May and June.


We've got some good baseball here in St. Louis.
 
2012-10-19 02:43:19 PM
NHL has officially canceled all games through Nov 1st. Still says they can get in a 82 game season if a contract is signed by thursday.
 
2012-10-19 02:45:23 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Flappyhead: Sure, if you consider the players agreeing to 50/50 then caving to everything else a decent starting point. Another Farker(raise your hand if you're here) made the same observation when the NHL released that number earlier this week but left out the rest.

There are a few of us who pointed out immediately that the NHL's release of the "50-50" split without any other details was nothing more than a PR move. It seems to have had the desired impact on some fans who can't move past it.


Now we all know Donald Fehr's Fark handle.
 
2012-10-19 02:48:21 PM

ddam: You are at 50/50 from now on. Contracts on the books have to be paid because they have been signed already. The players are against any rollback on existing contracts and for good reason... they rolled back contracts 25% a few years ago.

The teams wanted those 10+year contracts because they wanted to circumvent the salary cap. The teams offered the contracts, not the players.

And until the league puts in sharing of the gates receipts I refuse to believe their rethoric that they care about all 30 teams.


This, almost exactly. The whole idea that the owners are trying to renege on deals that they made (as recently as three months ago!) is just ludicrous, to my mind. Especially since the owners got basically everything that they wanted in 2004-05. They got their salary cap. They got their current contract rollbacks. They got their definition of hockey-related revenues. They got the rule changes, the free agency changes, and the first-contract changes. Hell, last year, they got their TV contract, and they got record revenues league-wide.

To top that off, there's the absolutely ludicrous way the negotiations have been conducted. NHL makes an offer around July 13, NHLPA has to request more financial info from the league and then counter-offers August 13. NHL just sits their with their thumbs up their asses for the next month, before imposing an arbitrary negotiating deadline and, after a last few offers on September 13 (which nobody expected to be accepted) the league locks the players out September 15. Since then, have we seen anything? No, the NHL has just stonewalled, doing "market research" and other bullshiat, til this new offer and another arbitrary deadline for a full season. Players at least make the effort, coming back with a counterproposal that basically asks the owners to honor their damn contracts but agrees to the 50/50 revenue split, and the league turns them down flat. Now they're going to start cancelling regular season games and try to blame it on the players for being unreasonable, even though the players at least have made an effort to negotiate in good faith.
 
2012-10-19 03:07:32 PM
So one take away from this is that the Minnesota owner is a complete farking scumbag. I guess it's clear now why he felt comfortable handing out those big contracts - he knew he'd never have to pay them! What a dickbag.
 
2012-10-19 03:08:32 PM

GavinTheAlmighty: Rich people problems. Shut up and play the game.


You sound unemployed.

mjohnson71: There are a few of us who pointed out immediately that the NHL's release of the "50-50" split without any other details was nothing more than a PR move. It seems to have had the desired impact on some fans who can't move past it.

Now we all know Donald Fehr's Fark handle.


Not unless I'm his alt. The owners want to live in the dark ages where they get to dictate all the terms. As opposed to the NFL, which has meaningful revenue sharing to ensure the health of each team in the league. Normally I'm not a union guy but in this case I fully support the players. The owners are not being smart about their own business. Understandable, really, because until Pete Rozelle came along, the NFL was the same way. And Bettman sure ain't no Rozelle.
 
2012-10-19 03:08:35 PM

mjohnson71: Yanks_RSJ: Flappyhead: Sure, if you consider the players agreeing to 50/50 then caving to everything else a decent starting point. Another Farker(raise your hand if you're here) made the same observation when the NHL released that number earlier this week but left out the rest.

There are a few of us who pointed out immediately that the NHL's release of the "50-50" split without any other details was nothing more than a PR move. It seems to have had the desired impact on some fans who can't move past it.

Now we all know Donald Fehr's Fark handle.


You're right, the players should have just signed whatever the NHL threw at them this week because Gary Bettman said it was a fair deal.

What's it like being that simple-minded?
 
2012-10-19 03:08:56 PM

rugman11: But how is that fair to guys like Parise and Suter? They signed their deals THREE MONTHS AGO, and now the owner has basically admitted that he wasn't negotating in good faith because he had no intention of ever honoring those contracts.


They get to take the pay cut, or become free agents and sign new contracts that aren't subject to the reduction
 
2012-10-19 03:16:46 PM

boxiebrown: So one take away from this is that the Minnesota owner is a complete farking scumbag. I guess it's clear now why he felt comfortable handing out those big contracts - he knew he'd never have to pay them! What a dickbag.


Yeah, if I'm Ryan Suter and Zach Parise; I demand a trade from the Wild as soon as business opens again. I wouldn't want to work for a asshole like that owner. He's probably screwed his organization into the ground for the next 5 years because of this.
 
2012-10-19 03:16:53 PM
Back when this started, I said the players may as well hurry up and capitulate to a 50/50 split and try to get the best out of it that they could because in the end that's the most they were going to get. Along came this offer from the league with the promise that a full season could be had and the NHLPA not only turned it down, but did so in enough of a way that it is obvious the two sides aren't speaking the same language. A shame. The players are going to lose this one now or in 6 months. Whether it's denial or pride, all they're doing is drawing it out.

And I doubt it matters much to the negotiations, but they've lost a lot of the goodwill they had going into this thing.
 
2012-10-19 03:18:02 PM
Nick Kypreos made a good point on Hockey Central at Noon today. Bettman has a lot of pressure on this negotiation because it's all about clawing back money from the mistake he made in 2004. Goodenow offered the NHL a flat 45.9 frozen salary cap . No escalation with revenues. Bettman turned it down because he wanted the salary cap number to start with a 3 (ended up at $39 million dollar salary cap) with the salary cap to rise with revenues. That mistake cost the owners over $1 billion dollars. This is all about grabbing back some of that money.
 
2012-10-19 03:18:11 PM

boxiebrown: So one take away from this is that the Minnesota owner is a complete farking scumbag. I guess it's clear now why he felt comfortable handing out those big contracts - he knew he'd never have to pay them! What a dickbag.


Imagine if he were still running the Preds. Would he have matched that absurd Webber contract made by the Flyers that their current ownership felt they needed to stay relevant in Nashville?
 
2012-10-19 03:20:47 PM

swahnhennessy: Back when this started, I said the players may as well hurry up and capitulate to a 50/50 split and try to get the best out of it that they could because in the end that's the most they were going to get. Along came this offer from the league with the promise that a full season could be had and the NHLPA not only turned it down, but did so in enough of a way that it is obvious the two sides aren't speaking the same language. A shame. The players are going to lose this one now or in 6 months. Whether it's denial or pride, all they're doing is drawing it out.

And I doubt it matters much to the negotiations, but they've lost a lot of the goodwill they had going into this thing.


The one ray of hope I have is that the league only cancelled games until Nov 1st (which is obvious anyway, even if they signed today). It shows that they really do want to get in a full season.

i'd expect them to play hardball late next week. "Ok, you don't like this contract offer? Fine. We are canceling everything through thanksgiving, and won't be making up the dates even if we sign tomorrow. So you just lost some money. and in 2 weeks, we are cancelling up to the classic. and at the end of November, you are getting a 40 game season."
 
2012-10-19 03:24:27 PM

Galloping Galoshes: You sound unemployed.


Nice try. I just have a hard time caring about people whose job it is to play a game in a league where the minimum salary is $525,000/year, and owners who are all millionaires and billionaires who made a litany of decisions and now don't want to stick by them.

I'm upset that there is no hockey, because I love hockey. But I'll be damned if I'm taking a side in this debate. If the owners don't like the deals, maybe they should have been smarter with their contracts. If the players have a problem with the setup, nobody is stopping them from upping sticks and heading over to Dynamo Minsk, where I'm sure they'll make as much as they did playing for Toronto or New York.
 
2012-10-19 03:26:59 PM
As a hockey fan, I'm enjoying the lockout. I'm watching way more hockey then I would be if he NHL was playing. KHL, AHL, and CHL are really good. Even the DEL is entertaining once you get past the players looking like the front quarter panel of a NASCAR. I don't understand all these fake hockey fans biatching that "there's no hockey". There's shiatloads of it. You obviously have an internet connection so use it to watch some hockey or STFU.
 
2012-10-19 03:30:20 PM

LineNoise: and at the end of November, you are getting a 40 game season."


And by mid December, we will be making you wear these horrific sweaters to make up for lost revenue.

cdn.bleacherreport.net 
/Hot
 
2012-10-19 03:30:43 PM
I reacted initially pretty harshly towards both sides yesterday...but after sleeping on it. I feel like the NHL and NHLPA, for all their bluster, are actually not that far apart; in fact, they ARE speaking the same language;

that language is "50/50 split". The only fundamental difference between their two positions is WHEN they get to the 50/50 split and the smaller financial details. What will really determine the severity of that gap is what happens on monday. I suspect that both sides will come together and they'll start working out that difference in a more muted fashion than yesterday's grandstanding affair was.

There are some issues with this however;

1) the emotional element. Doan and Crosby both had some pretty strong and emotional responses. If this is representative of their motivation rather than simply a public "digging in", then they may not see the logic of a middle ground.

2) The owners refusing the ease-in more fluidly to a 50/50 split. If the Oilers INSIST on an immediate clawback to 50/50 then there may be an impasse, and it'd be ridiculous

3) Fehr suggesting he didn't "run the numbers" on his proposals is the height of stupidity and if they're proposing solutions without a factual foundation then nothing will be solved.

We'll see what sort of leaked information gets filtered out over the weekend and leading into monday.
 
2012-10-19 03:33:36 PM

swahnhennessy: Back when this started, I said the players may as well hurry up and capitulate to a 50/50 split and try to get the best out of it that they could because in the end that's the most they were going to get. Along came this offer from the league with the promise that a full season could be had and the NHLPA not only turned it down, but did so in enough of a way that it is obvious the two sides aren't speaking the same language. A shame. The players are going to lose this one now or in 6 months. Whether it's denial or pride, all they're doing is drawing it out.

And I doubt it matters much to the negotiations, but they've lost a lot of the goodwill they had going into this thing.


The issue wasn't the 50/50 split, it was the details of how existing contracts would be honored. Despite what the NHL was saying, there was no way those deals would be paid in full and the union saw that right away.

Either way, there will be a 50/50 split in revenues when this is done. That's pretty much a done deal. It's how you get there that's the problem.
 
2012-10-19 03:35:32 PM

CanadianCommie: that language is "50/50 split". The only fundamental difference between their two positions is WHEN they get to the 50/50 split and the smaller financial details.


You do realise their difference in "when" and the smaller financial details are apart by about a billion bucks, right?
 
2012-10-19 03:44:12 PM

carnifex2005: Nick Kypreos made a good point on Hockey Central at Noon today. Bettman has a lot of pressure on this negotiation because it's all about clawing back money from the mistake he made in 2004. Goodenow offered the NHL a flat 45.9 frozen salary cap . No escalation with revenues. Bettman turned it down because he wanted the salary cap number to start with a 3 (ended up at $39 million dollar salary cap) with the salary cap to rise with revenues. That mistake cost the owners over $1 billion dollars. This is all about grabbing back some of that money.


I'm not really going to blame Bettman - the owners at that point were probably saying "no, it needs to be below $40 million!...well, sure, we can make it go up if we're making more money! Agree to that!"

Then he went and negotiated a better TV deal and now they're making a lot more money and the owners are saying "NOOOOOOO WE COULD'VE MADE MORE MONEY DAMMIT LOCK THEM OUT AGAIN!"
 
2012-10-19 03:50:07 PM
Its hard to understand anyone taking the owners side on things.

Owners (-7 years): You will take 57% and like it! No other offers!
Players(-7 years): OK, we cave :(

Owners (now): That 57% deal sucks! Take 50%, and a bunch of other crap!!! No more offers!!! Ignore our record profits!
Players: OK, we will work it down to 50%, but we need to work on how we get there and also on various other parts of the deal.
Owners: NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH! NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH! YOU ARE HOLDING UP THE GAMES!!!



And at the end of the day, we pay to watch the players, not the owners. I'd rather the players get paid than the owners. sorry.
 
2012-10-19 03:50:18 PM

swahnhennessy: Back when this started, I said the players may as well hurry up and capitulate to a 50/50 split and try to get the best out of it that they could because in the end that's the most they were going to get. Along came this offer from the league with the promise that a full season could be had and the NHLPA not only turned it down, but did so in enough of a way that it is obvious the two sides aren't speaking the same language. A shame. The players are going to lose this one now or in 6 months. Whether it's denial or pride, all they're doing is drawing it out.

And I doubt it matters much to the negotiations, but they've lost a lot of the goodwill they had going into this thing.


I don't think you looked at what the players came back with. They made three offers, all of which were refused out of hand by the owners. I don't know much about two of them, but the third was basically "Ok, 50/50 split, but you're paying all existing contracts. We'll figure out a way to make that work with the cap, such as only counting part of the money on those contracts, but the players are getting all of the money that you promised to pay them when they signed these contracts."

I don't see how you can lose any good will when you agree to a 50/50 split but still want the owners to stand by their promises.
 
2012-10-19 03:54:03 PM

LemSkroob: Its hard to understand anyone taking the owners side on things.

Owners (-7 years): You will take 57% and like it! No other offers!
Players(-7 years): OK, we cave :(

Owners (now): That 57% deal sucks! Take 50%, and a bunch of other crap!!! No more offers!!! Ignore our record profits!
Players: OK, we will work it down to 50%, but we need to work on how we get there and also on various other parts of the deal.
Owners: NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH! NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH! YOU ARE HOLDING UP THE GAMES!!!



And at the end of the day, we pay to watch the players, not the owners. I'd rather the players get paid than the owners. sorry.


To be fair, the cap started at 54% of HRR and the percentage to players incremented as revenue increased. It wasn't 57% until after the 2009-2010 season when HRR hit $2.7 billion.
 
2012-10-19 03:55:35 PM
Nobody cares about Caucasian Thugpuck.

wepuckny.com
 
2012-10-19 03:56:16 PM

CanadianCommie: I reacted initially pretty harshly towards both sides yesterday...but after sleeping on it. I feel like the NHL and NHLPA, for all their bluster, are actually not that far apart; in fact, they ARE speaking the same language;

that language is "50/50 split". The only fundamental difference between their two positions is WHEN they get to the 50/50 split and the smaller financial details. What will really determine the severity of that gap is what happens on monday. I suspect that both sides will come together and they'll start working out that difference in a more muted fashion than yesterday's grandstanding affair was.

There are some issues with this however;

1) the emotional element. Doan and Crosby both had some pretty strong and emotional responses. If this is representative of their motivation rather than simply a public "digging in", then they may not see the logic of a middle ground.

2) The owners refusing the ease-in more fluidly to a 50/50 split. If the Oilers INSIST on an immediate clawback to 50/50 then there may be an impasse, and it'd be ridiculous

3) Fehr suggesting he didn't "run the numbers" on his proposals is the height of stupidity and if they're proposing solutions without a factual foundation then nothing will be solved.

We'll see what sort of leaked information gets filtered out over the weekend and leading into monday.


Fehr was lying through his teeth when he said they hadn't run the numbers on the third. That statement was made of the same bullshiat as the "some owners think Bettman offered too much" leaks that went around yesterday morning.

Not only did Fehr know the numbers on the third offer, he tabled the first two knowing they would be rejected out of hand for not including linkage. He was trying to make his third seem better by comparison. Somewhat hilariously, Bettman responded by turning Fehr's own tactics against him: The NHL just said no.

I do, however agree with the rest of your point. The union's real offer was a linked deal that averages about 53-47 (depending on revenue growth) with fully guaranteed contracts. The NHL's offer was 50-50 with mostly guaranteed contracts. The two sides actually moved significantly closer this week.

Now is the game of chicken. Hopefully it only lasts into next week, after which 82 games are impossible. But depending on how much sway the radicals in the union have over the rest of the membership that stands to get screwed, could last into January. The end deal is going to be a little over 50-50, which is a win for the union, but a little less than a full guarantee on current contract amounts. Given the PA has dealt with escrow the last seven seasons, they should be used to it.

Right now, the question for me is to wonder if the players really are stupid enough to throw their salaries away to prove how serious they are in their demands to retain their salaries.
 
2012-10-19 03:57:59 PM

LemSkroob: Its hard to understand anyone taking the owners side on things.

Owners (-7 years): You will take 57% and like it! No other offers!
Players(-7 years): OK, we cave :(

Owners (now): That 57% deal sucks! Take 50%, and a bunch of other crap!!! No more offers!!! Ignore our record profits!
Players: OK, we will work it down to 50%, but we need to work on how we get there and also on various other parts of the deal.
Owners: NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH! NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH! YOU ARE HOLDING UP THE GAMES!!!



And at the end of the day, we pay to watch the players, not the owners. I'd rather the players get paid than the owners. sorry.


The fact that your characterization of the 2004-05 negotiations is completely wrong is not helping your argument.
 
2012-10-19 03:58:40 PM
From the 2005 CBA. Section 50.4

The Players' Share shall be determined as follows:

(A) For the 2005-06 League Year, the Players' Share shall be fifty-four (54) percent of Actual HRR.

(B) For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is below $2.2 billion, the Players' Share shall be fifty-four (54) percent of Actual HRR for such League Year.

(C) For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is equal to or exceeds $2.2 billion, but is below $2.4 billion, the Players' Share shall be a percentage between fifty-five (55) and fifty-six (56) percent of Actual HRR, as adjusted pursuant to subsection (ii) below, for such League Year.

(D) For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is equal to or exceeds $2.4 billion, but is below $2.7 billion, the Players' Share shall be a percentage between fifty-six (56) and fifty-seven (57) percent of Actual HRR, as adjusted pursuant to subsection (ii) below, for such League Year.194

(E) For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is equal to or exceeds $2.7 billion, the Players' Share shall be fifty-seven (57) percent of Actual HRR for such League Year.

Link (it's a PDF, sorry. It is on the NHL.com website.)
 
2012-10-19 03:59:04 PM

Resolute: The fact that your characterization of the 2004-05 negotiations is completely wrong is not helping your argument.


Yeah, he left out the immediate 24% salary rollback the players took.
 
2012-10-19 04:05:33 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Resolute: The fact that your characterization of the 2004-05 negotiations is completely wrong is not helping your argument.

Yeah, he left out the immediate 24% salary rollback the players took.


A move that put Bob Goodnow into the collective bargaining hall of shame. He actually thought by offering that rollback that the owners would grab the easy money, then turn right around and spend it right back on the players. The only thing he accomplished was to cost his charges a quarter of what was left on their deals.

Because once you put something on the table, you can't take it off. Not without giving something the other side wants more.

For the NHL in 2004, it was all about the cap. I always laugh when players now say "we kinda saw their point in 2005" because they are lying. They didn't see the owners' point, and they didn't want to. They were dragged into a cap kicking and screaming. Negotiating the linkage worked out well for them, but over time, the percentage has been determined to be too high. And the fact that BOTH sides are negotiating a reduction is telling.

But, getting back to putting something on the table. The NHLPA's one real offer yesterday put linkage back on. That was a big step. Fehr's admitted that a linked cap is viable. He's not going to get it off. Not that the NHL was ever going to agree to take the system itself backwards. But, we'll hopefully be spared any more of those "look how much you'll save if revenues continue to grow at a fantastic rate!" proposals that have no ability to adjust if something happens that hurts the business.
 
2012-10-19 04:05:53 PM

uncoveror: The players should just go play in Europe and forget the NHL. It has overexpanded, and will never make money in warm weather climates with no tradition of winter sports.


A lot of people who live in warm weather climates are transplants from those areas from colder climates. I was born just outside of Philadelphia, and I'm impatiently waiting to finally see the Phoenix Coyotes in person.
 
2012-10-19 04:09:41 PM

LineNoise: You do realise their difference in "when" and the smaller financial details are apart by about a billion bucks, right?


I am absolutely aware of this, which is why it's not a small issue, but I don't believe it's so dire that it's unsolvable. I'm sure there's a middle ground in there that allows both sides to create more financial stability as well as ensure that the players are not beaten with sticks for the imbalance (or at least appear it to be the case).

Resolute: Fehr was lying through his teeth when he said they hadn't run the numbers on the third. That statement was made of the same bullshiat as the "some owners think Bettman offered too much" leaks that went around yesterday morning.

Not only did Fehr know the numbers on the third offer, he tabled the first two knowing they would be rejected out of hand for not including linkage. He was trying to make his third seem better by comparison. Somewhat hilariously, Bettman responded by turning Fehr's own tactics against him: The NHL just said no.


Yeah, you're probably correct. Bettman is no pushover.

I think both sides need to set aside the gamesmanship; I think the NHLPA would have been better served for their cause if they'd just crafted one reasonable proposal, rather than two shiatty ones and one okay one. It definitely made it too easy for Bettman to dig for more PR gold out of them.

Resolute: I do, however agree with the rest of your point. The union's real offer was a linked deal that averages about 53-47 (depending on revenue growth) with fully guaranteed contracts. The NHL's offer was 50-50 with mostly guaranteed contracts. The two sides actually moved significantly closer this week.

Now is the game of chicken. Hopefully it only lasts into next week, after which 82 games are impossible. But depending on how much sway the radicals in the union have over the rest of the membership that stands to get screwed, could last into January. The end deal is going to be a little over 50-50, which is a win for the union, but a little less than a full guarantee on current contract amounts. Given the PA has dealt with escrow the last seven seasons, they should be used to it.

Right now, the question for me is to wonder if the players really are stupid enough to throw their salaries away to prove how serious they are in their demands to retain their salaries.


I feel like the union is ignoring the concept of escrow entirely, which is a little odd; they want to make sure their contracts are honoured in full, but escrow has been a built-in removal of any true guarantee that they'll make 100% of their contract. They already accept the idea that they won't make 100% of what they sign, I think they just don't want it framed as a ROLLBACK.

It seems ridiculous that they'll lose a large chunk of their salary for this principle, rather than just taking a small shave off the top in the first year or two to help normalize it.

I still think there's a deal out there somewhere to be had, and barring a disasterous counter by either side I think they'll come together on monday and start sorting it out properly.
 
2012-10-19 05:24:57 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Flappyhead: Sure, if you consider the players agreeing to 50/50 then caving to everything else a decent starting point. Another Farker(raise your hand if you're here) made the same observation when the NHL released that number earlier this week but left out the rest.

There are a few of us who pointed out immediately that the NHL's release of the "50-50" split without any other details was nothing more than a PR move. It seems to have had the desired impact on some fans who can't move past it.


They also mentioned that it would guarantee that the currently signed contracts would get paid. Which was my big thing. Signing all of these huge long-term contracts and KNOWING you won't have to pay them (and if the players want you to, you can just lock them out) was bullshiat. I figured that was a big thing for the players.

After it took the owners a whopping 15 minutes to reject 3 counter-offers by the NHLPA, after the NHLPA took the NHL's contract...studied it... looked it over for 2 days, then offered their OWN counter-proposal, reminded my how big of pricks the owners are.

I was siding with the owners after their proposal, but now I'm back on the players side after that dick move. Anything the owners gained in PR, they instantly lost by not even taking the time to look over the NHLPA's counters.
 
2012-10-19 05:46:58 PM
I'm pretty sure Bettman just hates Hockey in general, he needs a good cross check where there is a boarding penalty.
 
2012-10-19 05:47:30 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Resolute: The fact that your characterization of the 2004-05 negotiations is completely wrong is not helping your argument.

Yeah, he left out the immediate 24% salary rollback the players took.


And the escrow deductions in case the League lost money.
 
2012-10-19 05:51:56 PM

CanadianCommie: I feel like the union is ignoring the concept of escrow entirely, which is a little odd; they want to make sure their contracts are honoured in full, but escrow has been a built-in removal of any true guarantee that they'll make 100% of their contract. They already accept the idea that they won't make 100% of what they sign, I think they just don't want it framed as a ROLLBACK.


The escrow concept also allows for the possibility that they will make more than what they signed for, which has happened twice in the last CBA. so there's that carrot to go with the stick.

I don't think it's odd, it was clearly defined in the last CBA that money would go into escrow and that they might not get 100%, and they accepted that - and now the NHL wants more money back on top of that. That would stick in my craw, that's for sure. 

I wonder what happens to players with contracts longer than five years currently. Do they get grandfathered in, or maybe they come up with some kind of formula to change the way they hit the cap maybe.
 
2012-10-19 06:02:59 PM

phyrkrakr: he whole idea that the owners are trying to renege on deals that they made (as recently as three months ago!) is just ludicrous, to my mind.


The players signed those deals knowing damn well that the CBA would be up for renewals, and that there was very likely going to be a reduction in the player percentage of HRR. The players negotiated with that in mind.

That also ignores the fact that the face value of the contract has never meant anything- it's always just been a placeholder for an adjusted value based on the value of other contracts in the league. The players get 57% total, not a penny more, not a penny less. They never get paid the face value, they sometimes get more, they sometimes get less, based on projected revenues. With more teams over midpoint than not in recent years, they've been getting less than the face value of their contracts. That's what Escrow is.


phyrkrakr: Especially since the owners got basically everything that they wanted in 2004-05.


Utterly irrelevant, and not true anyway. The only thing that matters here are the current market conditions, and in the current conditions, there are a lot of NHL teams hurting.

phyrkrakr: No, the NHL has just stonewalled,


The NHLPA have been the ones who have been stonewalling for the entire process. They've just done a much better job of PR.

phyrkrakr: owners to honor their damn contracts but agrees to the 50/50 revenue split


No, they didn't agree to the 50/50 split. None of the NHLPA proposals have been linked to revenue at all, and in some cases, they maybe, just maybe, if the revenues work out in the most optimistic way possible, the financial balance would reach 50 percent for one year at the end.

This idea that somehow the players agreed to 50/50 is complete and utter bullshiat. They did not. They proposed automatic raises for themselves that might wind up at 50/50 if things go unrealistically well.

phyrkrakr: the players at least have made an effort to negotiate in good faith.


It's almost funny how much you've swallowed every little bit of NHLPA spin hook, line and sinker.
 
2012-10-19 06:06:15 PM
The owners want total control. Bettman has them convinced that they can outlast the players that they will voluntarily return to serf status. Of course he is a moron but being a moron is a requirement to be a major league sports commissioner.

--No Hockey this year. probably none next year. Rival league with Canadian money starts up in 2014 and the NFL loses all of its potential players. Bettman is canned and and a smaller more competitive NHL rises in his wake.
 
2012-10-19 06:10:03 PM

rugman11: But how is that fair to guys like Parise and Suter? They signed their deals THREE MONTHS AGO, and now the owner has basically admitted that he wasn't negotating in good faith because he had no intention of ever honoring those contracts.


Parise and Suter were negotiating with someone who knew exactly what the environment was for the CBA talks, and knew that a decrease in the player percentage was likely to result. It was not a hard situation to read- just about everybody following the situation knew that the NHL wasn't happy, and knew that they would very likely wind up at 50%. Parise and Suter's agents damn well knew exactly that, and unless Parise and Suter couldn't manage to count to potato(e), they knew that too. Their contracts were negotiated with the the same knowledge of the NHL's intent on the CBA as the Wild has. Notice those big fat, up front bonuses?

You've swallowed a really stupid talking point.
 
2012-10-19 06:10:46 PM

Delawheredad: The owners want total control. Bettman has them convinced that they can outlast the players that they will voluntarily return to serf status. Of course he is a moron but being a moron is a requirement to be a major league sports commissioner.

--No Hockey this year. probably none next year. Rival league with Canadian money starts up in 2014 and the NFL loses all of its potential players. Bettman is canned and and a smaller more competitive NHL rises in his wake.


And you think Bettman is a moron?
 
2012-10-19 06:12:12 PM
Cpt. Dbag Jeff, I asked you in the other thread what one thing the owners wanted that they did not get in the 2005 CBA and you never answered. So what didn't they get?
 
2012-10-19 06:24:25 PM

ddam: If the owners really wanted the whole league of 30 teams to thrive they would put in place a system where the gate receipts (minus the luxury boxes) is split 60/40 like in the NFL. NHL currently has gate receipts going to the home team 100% and of course some teams will make money while others will lose money if the cap is set based on the whole league HRR.

This is another example of greedy owners not being able to control themselves with the contracts that they offer and want the players to take another pay cut after the 2005 CBA which Bettman himself said that it was the deal needed to move NHL forward.

Fact of the matter is that the players' 3rd proposal of yesterday did have a 50/50 split of HRR starting this season as long as all existing contracts were to be paid in full. Owners don't want that after spending the past few offseasons offering 10+years deals worth close to or over 100 mil each.


i blame both sides. owners for giving in to long term, front loaded deals that they then complain about, and players for taking the deals...as well as for being horrible negotiators.
 
2012-10-19 06:29:51 PM

poisonedpawn78: In the end. The relevance of Euro hockey is taking away some of the juice the NHL once had. If the players REALLY wanted to win this, they could all go to Europe and let the NHL big swinging dicks float in the wind. It wont be too long losing 2 billion a year before the owners ditch Buttman and beg the players to come back with a sweet deal.


I said it before... if the NHL isn't interested in playing, they should relinquish the Stanley Cup. Perhaps we need a playoff system between the smaller leagues...
 
2012-10-19 06:38:08 PM

BATMANATEE: As a hockey fan, I'm enjoying the lockout. I'm watching way more hockey then I would be if he NHL was playing. KHL, AHL, and CHL are really good. Even the DEL is entertaining once you get past the players looking like the front quarter panel of a NASCAR. I don't understand all these fake hockey fans biatching that "there's no hockey". There's shiatloads of it. You obviously have an internet connection so use it to watch some hockey or STFU.


THIS indeed. I caught the Wolves/Icehogs games (AHL) last weekend, and there was damn good hockey going on. If the NHL can't get its shiat together, there's plenty of other hockey, and I think the other leagues could take its place if they play their cards right.
 
2012-10-19 06:43:41 PM

soopey: Cpt. Dbag Jeff, I asked you in the other thread what one thing the owners wanted that they did not get in the 2005 CBA and you never answered. So what didn't they get?


I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Since that deal was signed, the Canadian Dollar has appreciated in value over 20%, the US had a massive economic melt down and the other big pro leagues have moved to giving their players less than a 50% share. By and large, the NHL's position is pretty obvious: they want to bring the players' share more in line with everyone else, close loopholes that were not anticipated in 2005 and make the league more profitable.


Delawheredad - I am curious to know where you think the "big Canadian money" is going to come from for the rival league. I am also curious to know where this big money expects to play games. Because I can tell you right now that Rogers Centre, the Saddledome, MTS Centre, Air Canada Centre, Scotiabank Place and the Molson Centre are all out. Not to mention every arena in the states controlled by an NHL owner, namely MSG, Philly, Pittsburgh.
 
2012-10-19 06:51:00 PM

Resolute: soopey: Cpt. Dbag Jeff, I asked you in the other thread what one thing the owners wanted that they did not get in the 2005 CBA and you never answered. So what didn't they get?

I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Since that deal was signed, the Canadian Dollar has appreciated in value over 20%, the US had a massive economic melt down and the other big pro leagues have moved to giving their players less than a 50% share. By and large, the NHL's position is pretty obvious: they want to bring the players' share more in line with everyone else, close loopholes that were not anticipated in 2005 and make the league more profitable.


There's two points of the question. The first is that in the last negotiations the owners did get everything they want. They got their cap (largely everyone but the players agreed they needed it). They got their meager revenue sharing plan even when certain franchises were on very thin ice even with the projected cap numbers. They got their mechanism to avoid overly large and dangerous contracts (which they eventually circumvented). They got it all with a nice bow tie on top.

The second point is that CptJeff has come into this thread and shiat all over it again with very little proof and no acknowledgement that the players do in fact have a good reason to their "talking points." He's refused to acknowledge that the franchises in the red is largely an owner vs. owner problem that is largely being pushed back onto the players. To the end, he's quite obstinate to the view that the owners might not be 1000% in the right this time around.
 
2012-10-19 07:04:29 PM
Yeah, I realize I interjected into your dispute with CptJeff. However, the "they got everything they wanted" line is as much bullshiat as it is irrelevant. The owners wanted a system that controlled salaries, and they did. But they also wanted a league where all teams are, if not profitable, are at least breaking even. That has not happened, and one of the primary reasons is that costs are still too high. This also ties into the issue of revenue sharing and it being an "owner vs. owner problem". It isn't. Revenue sharing itself is, but it is not being argued anywhere that the league's teams collectively are not profitable enough to expand revenue sharing by a huge degree without cutting player costs.

So no, the NHL did not get everything it wanted in 2005. It got a much improved situation, yes, but it is foolish to think or suggest that the league should not have the right to push for changes that improve their situation this time around. The players, of course, could have pushed for increased salaries themselves, but at least they realized that wasn't going to get a deal done.


Incidentally, Damien Cox wrote a good article (did I just say that?) about how the NHLPA probably screwed itself by allowing the union's radicals to stab Paul Kelly in the back and instill Don Fehr.

/As if I didn't need more reasons to hate Matt Stajan
 
2012-10-19 07:09:59 PM

Slaves2Darkness: And not a fark was given for the fourth place sports league.


Fourth? Let's see...NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, PGA...

I'd say 6th and sinking

/...MLS, Arena League, Professional Lacrosse, Lingerie League, WNBA, Iron Chef...
 
2012-10-19 07:13:28 PM

Resolute: So no, the NHL did not get everything it wanted in 2005. It got a much improved situation, yes, but it is foolish to think or suggest that the league should not have the right to push for changes that improve their situation this time around. The players, of course, could have pushed for increased salaries themselves, but at least they realized that wasn't going to get a deal done.


That's all and fine. I agree they improved their situation and made their bed. What they haven't done is say, "Ya know what, we screwed up. Honestly. It was a mistake. Let's fix this by decreasing the players share so it goes to 50-50. That 54% we started at last time is a good number. Let's go from there."

Instead it has been, "You players are ruining us. Take 43% or else."

I don't expect the owners to be so conciliatory like that first statement. That's a fantasy world that billionaire owners would admit defeat. They (or their fathers) made their money playing hardball somehow. But this is negotiation and negotiation is give and take which I have failed to see over the past few months. So far it has been more akin to a hostage and ransom situation

As dire as some prognosticators and pundits (Gary Bettman included) made it seem yesterday, I agree with your and others assessment that this is far closer than it publicly seems.
 
2012-10-19 07:17:04 PM
Won't admit to past mistakes? saying how they are being run into the ground amongst record profits? Expecting others to cover for their losses after bad business decisions?

Hmm, i wonder how many NHL owners are republicans???
 
2012-10-19 07:25:17 PM
LemSkroob - Record revenue is not a synonym of record profits. Also, how do you propose the league fix said bad business decisions without reducing player salaries? I realize "just relocate some teams" is the easy answer, but I would expect a detailed explanation of why you think that would work before you even state it. Including the impact it would have on existing teams.

soopey - Please don't be disingenuous. The owners have never said "you take 43%, or else". In fact, their last offer was "you take 50%, and we'll squeeze the entire season in." I agree that the owners haven't said "we screwed up" though. And they did in some respects. Front loaded long-term contracts was an obvious loophole in retrospect, but they actually thought players would naturally take short term deals to maximize their salary as the cap rose. Whoops. But then, the players have screwed up as well. The single biggest driver of the hated escrow clawback has been the NHLPA's own shortsightedness. They had the option to inflate the cap by 5%. They exercised it every season but one. And in every season but two, they paid into escrow, usually more than 5%. They wanted the inflated cap for the bigger contracts, then cried when HRR didn't support the inflation. Whoops.

As for how close we are... hopefully the two sides get some meetings going on Monday. But I think at this point, it is Fehr who has to pick up the phone.
 
2012-10-19 07:27:24 PM

Resolute: Yeah, I realize I interjected into your dispute with CptJeff. However, the "they got everything they wanted" line is as much bullshiat as it is irrelevant. The owners wanted a system that controlled salaries, and they did. But they also wanted a league where all teams are, if not profitable, are at least breaking even. That has not happened, and one of the primary reasons is that costs are still too high. This also ties into the issue of revenue sharing and it being an "owner vs. owner problem". It isn't. Revenue sharing itself is, but it is not being argued anywhere that the league's teams collectively are not profitable enough to expand revenue sharing by a huge degree without cutting player costs.

So no, the NHL did not get everything it wanted in 2005. It got a much improved situation, yes, but it is foolish to think or suggest that the league should not have the right to push for changes that improve their situation this time around. The players, of course, could have pushed for increased salaries themselves, but at least they realized that wasn't going to get a deal done.


Incidentally, Damien Cox wrote a good article (did I just say that?) about how the NHLPA probably screwed itself by allowing the union's radicals to stab Paul Kelly in the back and instill Don Fehr.

/As if I didn't need more reasons to hate Matt Stajan


Outside of pointing out that saying Cox wrote a good article is a sign of the End Times, let me add this:

I think the owners got what they wanted at that time. But they didn't forsee the economy going in the crapper and GMs playing with the numbers and finding loopholes in the cap system. And once an owner signed off on that first front loaded contract, it was game over for that CBA.

The owners have a right to make money on their business, but they shouldn't be bailed out from their own stupidity of signing players to deals they can't afford. And the players shouldn't have to pay for doing what was in their own best interests- getting paid to play a violent sport.
 
2012-10-19 07:29:01 PM

soopey: The second point is that CptJeff has come into this thread and shiat all over it again


*Yawn*

I'm not a troll, you're just a moron. Disagreeing is not trolling, and the NHLPA talking points are profoundly idiotic from where I'm sitting (which is as somebody who actually understands much of what's in these proposals, and isn't just going off what sportswriters with no experience with business or negotiation are saying). The NHL is having some issues, and the players don't have a god given right to 57%. For that matter, naming a percentage suggests that the money would be tied to revenue, and under every NHLPA proposal, they would just get automatic raises regardless of revenue.
 
2012-10-19 07:29:36 PM
I have been trying to avoid news on this because last time it seemed like we, as fans, were on a roller coaster. On, off, on, off, on, off. Hopefully we will get an answer soon one way or the other. As for me, the Landshut Cannibals are getting my support for the season. They play in the German Second Division but they have the most politically incorrect jersey in the history of sports and are sponsored by a brothel which is owned by the mother of one of their players. And they scorched Rick DiPietro last week.
 
2012-10-19 07:31:08 PM

cptjeff: *Yawn*

I'm not a troll,


Right. Answer the question.
 
2012-10-19 07:34:57 PM

Resolute: soopey- pease don't be disingenuous. The owners have never said "you take 43%, or else". In fact, their last offer was "you take 50%, and we'll squeeze the entire season in.


I'm not, but from what we heard of the first offers the owners were. It was 47% with changes to how to calculate HHR, and no protections for players what so ever. The "make whole" mechanism and cap circumvention proposal are allegedly a new development, and even then it seems that the players are paying for it themselves.
 
2012-10-19 07:44:52 PM

desertgeek: but they shouldn't be bailed out from their own stupidity of signing players to deals they can't afford.


This is a silly talking point. The players get the exact same percentage of revenue every year, regardless of what the numbers on the contracts say. If every team colluded (which is what you seem to be suggesting) to stay at the cap floor and keep the numbers on the contract down, the players would still get exactly the same amount of money as they get now.

Why? Because the player's share of revenue is exactly 57%, no matter what. With each paycheck, a portion is set aside towards the escrow fund. At the end of the season, if the value on the contracts is above 57%, a portion of that escrow fund goes back to the league. With most teams spending over the midpoint, that's been the case recently. If the total of the money paid to players comes in under 57%, the owners have to make up the difference.

The contract amounts have never been anything other than a marker for the proportion of the total player share of HRR. If every team spent to the cap, the players would get the exact same amount of money as if every team spent to the floor. Individual contracts are irrelevant to what they can and can't afford.

It's also important to note that the GMs are operating in a competitive environment- they fight to give the best contracts they can to players, so as to attract talent. If they collaborate during that time to try and make sure they act more reasonably and don't go insane, that's collaboration, and that's very much against the CBA. CBA negotiations are the only time that owners can work together to create a system that reins in excesses. Which is, uh, exactly what they're trying to do.

And in case you didn't notice, Gary Bettman is busy wedging a boot in the asses of teams that signed the most ridiculous cap busting contracts in the NHL's current offer. If a player on a contract over whatever the limit winds up being (5 in the current proposal, probably aiming for 7 after the NHLPA decides to negotiate) retires early, the team that originally signed the contract is stuck with the full cap hit for the life of the contract. Which could possibly leave the Flyers with Weber's full cap hit sometime in the future, and would dick the Rangers over if Gomez retires soon.
 
2012-10-19 07:47:12 PM

soopey: cptjeff: *Yawn*

I'm not a troll,

Right. Answer the question.


Here's a good answer, though I'm sure you'll just pretend to have never seen it.


Resolute: Yeah, I realize I interjected into your dispute with CptJeff. However, the "they got everything they wanted" line is as much bullshiat as it is irrelevant. The owners wanted a system that controlled salaries, and they did. But they also wanted a league where all teams are, if not profitable, are at least breaking even. That has not happened, and one of the primary reasons is that costs are still too high. This also ties into the issue of revenue sharing and it being an "owner vs. owner problem". It isn't. Revenue sharing itself is, but it is not being argued anywhere that the league's teams collectively are not profitable enough to expand revenue sharing by a huge degree without cutting player costs.

So no, the NHL did not get everything it wanted in 2005. It got a much improved situation, yes, but it is foolish to think or suggest that the league should not have the right to push for changes that improve their situation this time around. The players, of course, could have pushed for increased salaries themselves, but at least they realized that wasn't going to get a deal done.


Incidentally, Damien Cox wrote a good article (did I just say that?) about how the NHLPA probably screwed itself by allowing the union's radicals to stab Paul Kelly in the back and instill Don Fehr.

/As if I didn't need more reasons to hate Matt Stajan

 
2012-10-19 07:48:40 PM

cptjeff: This is a silly talking point


Please sir, I await your enlightening response to the following query:

Would you kindly name one thing the owners wanted that they did not get in the 2005 CBA?
 
2012-10-19 07:49:48 PM
Damn, should have underlined your.
 
2012-10-19 07:50:49 PM
img.badposts.org
Hockey's days are numbered.
 
2012-10-19 07:51:03 PM

soopey: Resolute: soopey- pease don't be disingenuous. The owners have never said "you take 43%, or else". In fact, their last offer was "you take 50%, and we'll squeeze the entire season in.

I'm not, but from what we heard of the first offers the owners were. It was 47% with changes to how to calculate HHR, and no protections for players what so ever. The "make whole" mechanism and cap circumvention proposal are allegedly a new development, and even then it seems that the players are paying for it themselves.


Yes, the first offer was for 43%, as HRR is currently defined. But it was never an "or else" offer. And yes, it was a bad offer, but a calculated one I think. I said in the thread of a couple days ago that that offer set up everything leading to the NHL's offer on Tuesday. By starting so low (as anyone would in negotiations), it gave the NHL the ability to come up to 50-50 and get the other side to see it as a good deal relative to first offers. And it worked. The narrative we are getting from the union is "our proposals now reach 50-50". Those proposals don't get there fast enough nor are they guaranteed to do so ever, but at least the language is coming clearer, and it is coalescing around the owners' viewpoint.

And yes, the "make whole" provisions are basically the players paying later for their contracts now. But it does change the game. The owners are talking about guaranteeing, after a fashion, the players' existing contracts. That suggests to me that we will see this in the final deal - in a more realistic form.
 
2012-10-19 07:55:34 PM

Foxxinnia: [img.badposts.org image 700x600]
Hockey's days are numbered.


Aside from the fact that that table doesn't even attempt to tell the reader what it is measuring - I assume it relates to national television viewership in the US somehow - it does not show that hockey's days are numbered.

For one, I wonder if that chart includes regional television coverage. And for two, hockey is less reliant on Americacentric thinking than anything else on that list. The truth is, hockey is a niche sport in the US outside of the northeast. There's no reason why that should worry anybody. Especially when it is so big in so many other regions.
 
2012-10-19 07:56:35 PM
I'm all for both sides making money. But this is farking ridiculous. They lost a season and are in danger of losing another. Does anyone other than die-hard fans (myself included) consider them a "major" sport anymore?

/still have NHL package
//watching past seasons to get my fix
///farging icehole owners and players
////obligatory slashies
 
2012-10-19 08:06:58 PM
Read the Damien Cox story. I feel dirty now..

Anyway. It's an interesting take. I don't know how well it would have ended up with Kelly still in place. I think some of the more hardline players that went through the last round would have resented the relationship and canned Kelly during the middle of negotiations for seemingly being too close to the owners. Short sighted, yes, but I think it would have been inevitable and ended up for worse. The coupe without seeking input from the majority of the other players was just flat out assassination. Kelly had some shady dealings about himself that were not to be overlooked. Unsubstantiated rumors were that he was to expand his power beyond what he was hired to do. Kelly didn't last too long when he was named to College Hockey Inc. either. Rumors floated around there that he approached some athletic directors about expanding College Hockey Inc's role in administrating Div 1 NCAA hockey.
 
2012-10-19 08:33:06 PM

soopey: Damn, should have underlined your.


Hey stupid, why does it matter if I type it out or someone else types it out? You were provided with the information. You were shown to be quite wrong. So either admit you were wrong and revise your position, or shut the hell up.

Of course, you're using Republican Logic™ at this point, so I don't expect you to do anything more than the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", and continue to spout the same shiat you've been spouting regardless of how many people and sources show it to be completely wrong.
 
2012-10-19 08:37:39 PM
Answer the question and stop dancing around it.
 
2012-10-19 09:20:54 PM
FWIW: NHL Network is airing a CHL game right now.
 
2012-10-19 09:32:40 PM

soopey: Answer the question and stop dancing around it.


It's been answered. Why would I need to answer it again?
 
2012-10-19 09:39:55 PM

cptjeff: soopey: Answer the question and stop dancing around it.

It's been answered. Why would I need to answer it again?


Because you brought it up the other day, refused to answer then, and are now copping out on another persons work?
 
2012-10-19 09:40:05 PM
cptjeff: Let me respond to this, bit by bit

This is a silly talking point. The players get the exact same percentage of revenue every year, regardless of what the numbers on the contracts say. If every team colluded (which is what you seem to be suggesting) to stay at the cap floor and keep the numbers on the contract down, the players would still get exactly the same amount of money as they get now.

Where the fark do you get the idea that I'm suggesting that teams colluded? Seriously? Collusion involves paying players LESS to lower the market value of other players. If collusion was going on, would Suter and Parise have gotten $98 million each this summer? I think not.

What is going on in the case of some owners, such as the guy who will be paying those 2 guys; is negotiating in bad faith. The Wild owner agreed to those deals expecting full well that he wouldn't have to pay every single dollar of those deals. Would you like it if you signed a deal to work for a company which pays you X number of dollars per year only to have the CEO of that company say before you even begin working there "unless you all take 15% pay cuts, you can't work anymore?" I don't think so.

If an owner signs off on a contract, he should be bound to fulfill his obligations under that deal unless the player does something that violates the terms of said contract. That's what the players are demanding, essentially. The players have done nothing to warrant giving up any of their future salaries.

Why? Because the player's share of revenue is exactly 57%, no matter what. With each paycheck, a portion is set aside towards the escrow fund. At the end of the season, if the value on the contracts is above 57%, a portion of that escrow fund goes back to the league. With most teams spending over the midpoint, that's been the case recently. If the total of the money paid to players comes in under 57%, the owners have to make up the difference.

And if you ask the players, they'll tell you that escrow sucks because it's basically a gamble. If their share of revenue (including what's paid to escrow) ends up at 56%, they get paid. But if their share ends up at 58%, they lose money.

The contract amounts have never been anything other than a marker for the proportion of the total player share of HRR. If every team spent to the cap, the players would get the exact same amount of money as if every team spent to the floor. Individual contracts are irrelevant to what they can and can't afford.

Technically, this is incorrect. Every player's cap hit is determined by the average salary for the duration of the contract. That's why you see 31 year old players signing 12 yr, $96 million deals ($8 million to the cap) over 6 yr, $66 million deals ($11 million cap hit). They'll probably never play the last 5 years of that deal and under the CBA, the team wouldn't have that go against the cap those 5 years (except for players above age 35).

It's also important to note that the GMs are operating in a competitive environment- they fight to give the best contracts they can to players, so as to attract talent. If they collaborate during that time to try and make sure they act more reasonably and don't go insane, that's collaboration, and that's very much against the CBA. CBA negotiations are the only time that owners can work together to create a system that reins in excesses. Which is, uh, exactly what they're trying to do.

And in case you didn't notice, Gary Bettman is busy wedging a boot in the asses of teams that signed the most ridiculous cap busting contracts in the NHL's current offer. If a player on a contract over whatever the limit winds up being (5 in the current proposal, probably aiming for 7 after the NHLPA decides to negotiate) retires early, the team that originally signed the contract is stuck with the full cap hit for the life of the contract. Which could possibly leave the Flyers with Weber's full cap hit sometime in the future, and would dick the Rangers over if Gomez retires soon.


And no one is against that. Nobody likes those 10, 12, 13 year deals that guys like Hossa, Kovy and most recently Suter and Parise got. We all know that they're not likely to be playing at age 38 or 40 (because not everyone can be Ray Whitney).

So I and most people on here, it seems; support limiting contracts to 7 or 8 years, support making teams pay for signing those contracts by keeping the cap hit there (though I'd need to see where the Flyers would get stuck with Weber's cap hit just for signing their offer sheet).

What I'm saying to the owners is this: you signed off on paying those players that much money. You should pay them every dollar you agreed to.

And to the players, I say this: You should get paid every dollar, but you need to come up with a way that lets you get paid in full without doing damage to your team's cap.

So I suggest:

- All yearly salaries on existing contracts are cut 10-15%
- Cap hits are adjusted accordingly
- That percentage of money cut is placed into deferred payments that are paid to the player no later than 5 years from the end of his playing career with interest.
- How payments are made (lump sum, installments, etc.) would be negotiated between each player and their team
- If the player is moved from his current team (trade, released, etc.), the team would still be responsible for paying the deferred payment

That would get the job done and would guarantee players the full value of their contracts, while giving them a limited salary after their career ends.
 
2012-10-19 09:53:40 PM

soopey: Read the Damien Cox story. I feel dirty now..


You should, because as usual Cox is leaving out some key facts and playing fancy word games. The most glaring of course is omiting that Kelly was never elected head of the PA, he just suddenly became the Chairman when Goodenow stepped down. The investigation that lead to his stepping aside had a lot more to do with whether or not PA rules and procedures had been violated than being chummy with ownership(although that likely didn't help). I admit it's got some interesting observations, but most of his conclusions are based on wishful thinking.
 
2012-10-19 10:26:15 PM
People are taking something Damien Cox wrote seriously? Really?

On Thursday, he walked into a significant meeting with several NHL owners 90 minutes late, plopped down two single sheets of paper, each with a different skeleton proposal to the owners that didn't include any ideas on systemic issues, then verbally delivered a third proposal with no accompanying paperwork. For all three proposals, he acknowledged to the owners he hadn't actually "run the numbers."

The meeting was postponed earlier in the day. How could Fehr be late if the meeting was postponed?

What does the number of pages have to do with anything? Fehr acknowledged that the recent proposals only involved the economic aspects, that is to say, the revenue split. All the rest of the stuff (UFA age, ELC length, capping term, etc.) are secondary issues that could be solved pretty quickly.

Fehr said he didn't run the numbers on the third proposal, not all three.

That's not to say there aren't legitimate issues with the Kelly's dismissal but Cox is easily one of the last people fans should expect to get actual news from.
 
2012-10-19 10:40:35 PM

Someothermonkey:
That's not to say there aren't legitimate issues with the Kelly's dismissal but Cox is easily one of the last people fans should expect to get actual news from.


Comparing Fehr to Eagleson is another hilariously stupid point. Eagleson never let the players know what was going on while Fehr has not only been constantly talking to the players, he's made sure they are allowed to sit in during negotiations. Back in '04 when Goodenow dropped the 24% rollback bomb a lot of players weren't even aware he had even considered it. There are reasons to dislike Fehr, but this has easily been the most open CBA negotiations ever seen by NHLPA members.
 
2012-10-20 01:07:06 AM

Foxxinnia: [img.badposts.org image 700x600]
Hockey's days are numbered.


PBA?

The professional bullriders association?



FAAAAKE!
 
2012-10-20 01:37:11 AM

mikaloyd: Foxxinnia: [img.badposts.org image 700x600]
Hockey's days are numbered.

PBA?

The professional bullriders association?



FAAAAKE!


Actually, it's bowling.
 
2012-10-20 01:58:55 AM
i'd rather watch womens curling.

/boner

who cares about the NHL any more?
 
2012-10-20 02:09:51 AM

desertgeek: Where the fark do you get the idea that I'm suggesting that teams colluded? Seriously?


I've seen people more or less suggest that the owners should just decide to pay the players less. That's effectively suggesting that they SHOULD collude.

desertgeek: Every player's cap hit is determined by


I'm not talking about cap hit. I'm talking about what they actually get paid. Each year, the players get exactly 57% of revenue, and the salary listed on their contract is modified through escrow to achieve that result.


desertgeek: And if you ask the players, they'll tell you that escrow sucks because it's basically a gamble. If their share of revenue (including what's paid to escrow) ends up at 56%, they get paid. But if their share ends up at 58%, they lose money.


Yeah. And? The salaries are linked to HRR. That's what cost certainty is, and it's the reason we lost the 2004-2005 season. There is no way in hell that that the owners will let the players separate salaries from revenue, as every NHLPA has proposed.

desertgeek: is negotiating in bad faith.


No, it's negotiating with an eye towards the market conditions. Every team, player, and agent knew that a 50-50 split of HRR, which was possibly going to be modified, would be the likely result of these CBA talks. If any agent didn't know that, or didn't tell their client, they should be fired for gross incompetence. That the owners were unhappy with the CBA and were looking for modifications surprised absolutely no one- it was public information. You can't accuse me of bad faith negotiation when I try to sell you a house that you can plainly see is falling apart when you discover on buying it that it needs significant repairs.

desertgeek: he should be bound to fulfill his obligations under that deal


The terms of the deal (aka a Standard Player Contract) include a provision saying that the contract is set forth under the NHL CBA and terms may be modified under a future agreement. Owners are absolutely bound to fulfill their obligations under a deal, but what those obligations are can be changed by a new CBA.

desertgeek: What I'm saying to the owners is this: you signed off on paying those players that much money. You should pay them every dollar you agreed to.


That's never been the case before, why should it be now? Since the salary cap era began, the actual face value of the contract has been illusory. That's not what they're actually paid. The players know that, the owners know that. Contracts are dependent on the CBA- again, all parties knew this, they can suck it up.

It also matters that they agreed to a contract with a base dollar amount modified by a revenue split defined by the CBA. The idea that they sign a contract for, say, 4 million, and that that amount of money is fixed is a simplistic fantasy.
 
2012-10-20 02:15:56 AM

soopey: cptjeff: soopey: Answer the question and stop dancing around it.

It's been answered. Why would I need to answer it again?

Because you brought it up the other day, refused to answer then, and are now copping out on another persons work?


Well, I did give a quick answer then, and in this thread, I directed you to a post that directly addressed your concerns. This is a public discussion board, not a one on one argument. You got the information and were shown to be wrong. I didn't, and still don't, see the need to go any further.

Besides which, it's still an utterly irrelevant point. The current CBA negotiation will be affected by the current market conditions, not who did or didn't 'win' last time. Life doesn't work that way, we're not taking turns on the playground swings here.
 
2012-10-20 03:37:00 AM
I think the NHL is just negotiating from the position of the poorest team. The real problem, in my mind, is the over-expansion - because both players and owners lose if they fold any teams. The Southern market franchises would be worth even less. The other major problem is the big owners not being held in check to run their businesses in a way that doesn't crush the small ones. Phoenix can't commit 200 million to two guys.
They can't fold teams because that devalues other teams. They can't move to Canada because it means the US market isn't there, still devaluing teams.

Weren't they close to a big national NBC deal? Didn't the guy running the Sharks have an offer on the table to finally buy Phoenix? The truth is the bottom 4 or 6 teams need to fold, move, or do something - but the union will never tolerate lower membership and Bettman won't concede that he could never deliver the huge US market. I see this negotiation as Bettman's last stand to deliver on viable sports business across the USA. The longer this goes, the more of the last 7 years of momentum stops, and the sooner Bettman makes a deal and concedes the salaries already signed, the more uphill is the battle for the smaller markets.

The NHL approves or rejects every contract, and they should have structured in the survival of the smaller markets years ago. 
Hockey or not this year, I think this negotiation will change the face of the game over the next 10 years for better or worse.
 
2012-10-20 08:06:34 AM

Resolute: For one, I wonder if that chart includes regional television coverage. And for two, hockey is less reliant on Americacentric thinking than anything else on that list. The truth is, hockey is a niche sport in the US outside of the northeast. There's no reason why that should worry anybody. Especially when it is so big in so many other regions.


Glad we agree. Now convince that windowlicker Betteman of that whole "non-Americacentric" part, before he expands to 32 teams just so he can get teams in Houston & San Antonio.
 
2012-10-20 10:01:15 AM
Why does this spring to mind as I read the article?
 
Displayed 127 of 127 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report