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  
•       •       •

1060 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report