Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(ESPN)   NHLPA set to disband, allowing players to sue owners for antitrust violations. And here we go   (espn.go.com) divider line 115
    More: Cool, NHLPA, NHL, Scott Hartnell, Donald Fehr, antitrust laws, executive board, deputy commissioner, collective bargains  
•       •       •

1687 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Dec 2012 at 12:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 01:40:17 PM  
Does anybody know what happens to the Stanley Cup if the league goes under? :-(
 
2012-12-15 01:43:07 PM  

Captain Steroid: Does anybody know what happens to the Stanley Cup if the league goes under? :-(


I get to keep it.
 
2012-12-15 01:44:11 PM  

Captain Steroid: Does anybody know what happens to the Stanley Cup if the league goes under? :-(


Knowing Bettman, he'll sell it to the Pawn Stars for the scrap metal value.
 
2012-12-15 01:50:52 PM  
fc05.deviantart.net

FARK YOU BARTMAN!
 
2012-12-15 01:53:22 PM  

Dafatone: Also, revenue splits. In the previous CBA, players got 57% of the revenue. The league wanted this down to (I think) 47%. In mid-October, the league offered a 50-50 split and said if the players wouldn't take it then, that was it and they'd never get that offer again. The players rejected it since some other concerns weren't addressed, and we haven't been close to a resolution since.


I was under the impression that when they offered "50-50" some things that were previously part of Revenue Split were no longer considered "Revenue" making it not a true 50-50.
 
2012-12-15 01:54:00 PM  
Unions are great until you can't get what you want...then when all else fails you can join the other 98% of the population and just sue. Then when it's all over, Hey! Sup Union! I wub u!

And yes, it was just as stupid when the NFL did it too.
 
2012-12-15 02:02:34 PM  
Fark you and your sport, BERGMAN...

Bunch of smug jerks on both sides of this.
 
2012-12-15 02:07:00 PM  

Kevinnap: FARK YOU BARTMAN


i48.photobucket.com

"I only fark up baseball games"
 
2012-12-15 02:17:19 PM  
FARK YOU BAUMAN
 
2012-12-15 02:20:35 PM  

Captain Steroid: Does anybody know what happens to the Stanley Cup if the league goes under? :-(


Trust me, even if the NHL went completely under, the Canadian teams would stay (and keep the cup - it started with them and would stay with them). Hell, I think a few of the American ones would too, and they'd just start something new. Hockey doesn't die.
 
2012-12-15 02:21:27 PM  

desertgeek: So Donald Fehr will be directly involved in his second forced cancellation of a league's championship and Gary Bettman will be directly involved in his second self-imposed cancellation of a league's entire season.

You know what? Those two assholes deserve to be tied together in history.

/I no longer believe that it's the entirety of NHL ownership pulling Bettman's strings.
//It's a minority of them or Bettman himself leading them over a cliff
/But Fehr's farked this up quite a bit too


It's pretty hard to blame Fehr for no championship being awarded when it was the owners who locked out the players, and then refused to negotiate wtih Fehr in good faith.

freidog: Munchausen's Proxy:
Is this a case of the players seeing players in other sports raking in big $$ and wanting to match, or owners seeing owners in other sports raking in big$$$ and wanting to match? Or both?

It's more of a case of half the owners are making money, half aren't.

The reality is the NHL can't support a 32 team league right now, at least not with each team standing on their own financially. The bottom half of owners know they either need major revenue sharing between teams, or a substantial increase in the split between owners and players to stay in business.The player don't want to take that big of hit in salary cap and contract options, and the owners who are making money don't want to ship that much of their income to other teams. 

The long term answer is to contract / demote to AAA, about 8 teams, but I don't think they will get that desperate this go-round.


HALF the owners aren't making money? Bullshiat. The NHL has bee enjoying record revenues, and it's very hard to get an accurate financial picture of the individual franchises. And no, the Forbes numbers are not accurate, since Forbes does not have access to the books of ANY NHL franchise. Some sort of revenue-sharing system might help the NHL, but that's apparently evil voodoo over there.
 
2012-12-15 02:31:34 PM  
Fark you Batman.
 
2012-12-15 02:36:42 PM  
Bergman!

i1020.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-15 02:49:28 PM  

FiendishFellow05: It's pretty hard to blame Fehr for no championship being awarded when it was the owners who locked out the players, and then refused to negotiate wtih Fehr in good faith.


Oh, I'm sure some labor hater will find a way.
 
2012-12-15 02:49:39 PM  

mikaloyd: Thats it then. Jets are going bankrupt.


So Atlanta gets another chance right? Right???

/Fark Gary Bergman
 
2012-12-15 02:58:59 PM  

FiendishFellow05: HALF the owners aren't making money? Bullshiat. The NHL has bee enjoying record revenues, and it's very hard to get an accurate financial picture of the individual franchises. And no, the Forbes numbers are not accurate, since Forbes does not have access to the books of ANY NHL franchise. Some sort of revenue-sharing system might help the NHL, but that's apparently evil voodoo over there.


The Leafs, Habs, and Rangers are almost entirely responsible for those record revenues. Everyone else, not so much.
 
2012-12-15 03:05:40 PM  
I miss my hockey.
/FARK YOU BERGMAN
 
2012-12-15 03:24:02 PM  

Dafatone: BMFPitt: NeoCortex42: cameroncrazy1984: desertgeek: mikaloyd: Thats it then. Jets are going bankrupt.

The new Jets and the old Jets. Plus Columbus and probably 3-5 more teams. I wouldn't rule out either Alberta team, either Florida team, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis or San Jose even.

Good. The NHL needs to have 25 teams at most.

At the rate hockey is going, we may go from "The Original Six" to "The Last Six Remaining".

There's got to be a point where the owners realize that killing their sport might effect their pocketbooks more than a bad contract.

By the way, I haven't been following this dispute too much since it started (other than knowing there simply isn't hockey on at all), but what are the major sticking points in the negotiations? Anybody care to give me a quick summary?

They're arguing over the length of the deal (players want the next lockout in 5 years, the owners 10.). Also, contract duration limits.

That's what the season is going to be cancelled over. That's what both sides are willing to lose millions more dollars (on top of the millions already thrown away) fighting for.

Also, revenue splits. In the previous CBA, players got 57% of the revenue. The league wanted this down to (I think) 47%. In mid-October, the league offered a 50-50 split and said if the players wouldn't take it then, that was it and they'd never get that offer again. The players rejected it since some other concerns weren't addressed, and we haven't been close to a resolution since.


The players share in the last CBA was 54-57%. When hockey related revenue was in the ~2B range, it was 54% and as revenues grew to over 3B, it went to 57%.

The owners end goal was always 50%. The difference then between what the players wanted and what the owners wanted was over how fast to get there. Players obviously wanted any fall staggered to ensure already signed contracts wouldn't be dinged because the owners felt particularly greedy that day while the league wanted an immediate clawback.

The biggest misconception early in the lockout was that the league put contracts restrictions (like term limits) on the table just so they could have bargaining chip to use against the PA, one that would come off the table once the PA agreed to a 50-50 split. Well, it turns out that 5 year term limits are the hill Bettman and Bill Daly are willing to die on. 

And while there's a just a few teams responsible for most of the revenue (Canadiens, Leafs, Rangers and Canucks) there's a only two teams in the Columbus Blue Jackets and the league owned and operated Phoenix Coyotes that are responsible for most of the losses. The fact that the league is using Phoenix as a reason why the players need to take less, when that franchise should have been relocated years ago, is just one of the many reasons why their position is so unsupportable.
 
2012-12-15 03:30:00 PM  
Columbus and Phoenix are not the only teams losing money by a long shot
 
2012-12-15 03:49:10 PM  
fark you, Bergen!

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-15 03:49:12 PM  
Can someone answer me this?  Since the CBA is now gone, and therefore there are no contracts between the NHLPA and the NHL... what's preventing them from suing anyway?
 
The players are now bound only to their agreement with the NHLPA.  Why would the union prohibit their members from suing?
 
Or, why doesn't/can't the NHLPA sue the NHL itself for antitrust violations?
 
2012-12-15 03:54:53 PM  
Interesting development. Does this mean that the season is destroyed? What about next year? I suppose theres 10 or so owners who are losing less money by not playing than playing so they dont particularly want to see an end to the lockout unless they get a big infusion of money so they can maybe get close to being in the black.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:36 PM  

downstairs: Can someone answer me this?  Since the CBA is now gone, and therefore there are no contracts between the NHLPA and the NHL... what's preventing them from suing anyway?
 
The players are now bound only to their agreement with the NHLPA.  Why would the union prohibit their members from suing?
 
Or, why doesn't/can't the NHLPA sue the NHL itself for antitrust violations?


The existence of a union prevents an anti-trust case. So they're going to disband the union on paper and then sue due to the lack of a union.

Federal labor law is really convoluted.
 
2012-12-15 04:17:57 PM  

IAmRight:
You're aware that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Unless the richest guy in Canada is happy with hemorrhaging money just because he really likes hockey that much. Usually rich people didn't get rich by being stupid and wasteful with their money.
.


I thought Winnipeg made money last season so I don't see how he'd be unhappy. Bankruptcy would also entail having more debt then assets so unless Chipman buys the team, they seem to be on solid fiscal footing.

Eitherway, I no longer have a hockey team to follow so until the owners in power die off human centipede style, we're all screwed.
 
2012-12-15 04:23:30 PM  
This is f*cking retarded.

F*ck both sides. I want every team in the league to play to an empty arena whenever they finally come back.

Send a message to these f*cksticks about who pays their salaries.
 
2012-12-15 04:33:22 PM  

desertgeek: Dafatone: desertgeek: So Donald Fehr will be directly involved in his second forced cancellation of a league's championship and Gary Bettman will be directly involved in his second self-imposed cancellation of a league's entire season.

You know what? Those two assholes deserve to be tied together in history.

/I no longer believe that it's the entirety of NHL ownership pulling Bettman's strings.
//It's a minority of them or Bettman himself leading them over a cliff
/But Fehr's farked this up quite a bit too

Are there any specifics to what Fehr's "farked up"? Or is this just one of those "FEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHRRRR" posts.

I think Fehr underestimated how far the league was willing to go here. I don't think Fehr was fully prepared to deal with people who were willing to kill their business just to make a point.


"Fehr = Obama" then?

/didn't mean to
//too damn obvious to ignore
 
2012-12-15 04:37:42 PM  
Was a huge fan of the NHL up until the last lockout. Since then they've neutered the game to the point where it looks like women's figure skating. Don't miss it and hope it doesn't come back.
 
2012-12-15 04:37:49 PM  

Rwa2play: "Fehr = Obama" then?

/didn't mean to
//too damn obvious to ignore


Well, I've thought quite a few times that Bettman = Romney in that they're both tone deaf pricks so I can't rip you any for that.
 
2012-12-15 04:42:25 PM  
 
2012-12-15 05:08:40 PM  

ElwoodCuse: Columbus and Phoenix are not the only teams losing money by a long shot

"...there's a only two teams in the Columbus Blue Jackets and the league owned and operated Phoenix Coyotes that are responsible for most of the losses

 
2012-12-15 05:30:48 PM  

Rev.K: This is f*cking retarded.

F*ck both sides. I want every team in the league to play to an empty arena whenever they finally come back.

Send a message to these f*cksticks about who pays their salaries.


robble robble robble!

waaaaaaaa
 
2012-12-15 05:32:48 PM  

JosephFinn: FiendishFellow05: It's pretty hard to blame Fehr for no championship being awarded when it was the owners who locked out the players, and then refused to negotiate wtih Fehr in good faith.

Oh, I'm sure some labor hater will find a way.


I don't hate labor. I just hate the entitled asses that are the players. Getting paid millions a year, most making more than many owners, and they spend most of the process demanding guaranteed raises regardless of what happened to the NHL's revenue (they were demanding that the cap be not actually be linked to revenue). The NHL isn't the problem, the PA is.

And you're a moron if you think that playing a season without a labor agreement in place was EVER a possibility. Fehr killing the World Series when he called a strike in 94 saw to that. No labor deal in place means no hockey- blame it on the players or the owners based on the dynamics of the negotiations (which makes me say players all the way), not on who locked who out- they were never gonna play hockey without a deal, the owners locking the players out is only the formal mechanism for that to happen. The NHLPA had some wildly ridiculous demands couched in a proposal that was all PR, that wasn't exactly negotiating in good faith either. This deal was always going to wind up at 50-50, it was just a question of when- if Fehr hadn't been on a massive ego trip trying to win and make himself some sort of hero by fighting for a different group of whiny rich people, they would have negotiated down to 50-50 fairly early since it was incredibly obvious that that's what the owners were after, worked out a deal on the contract structure and CBA length, gotten very hot and angry on HRR, coming to an eventual compromise, and then we miss 10 games at most. But no- now Fehr has lost most of the players more money in their careers than they would have if the figure stayed at 57%. And again, he shut down a deal- latest out of the NHLPA is that if the owners' last proposal were put to a PA vote, it would have passed.

But no, donny boy and his ego trip won't let that happen. No sirree.


BMFPitt: downstairs: Can someone answer me this?  Since the CBA is now gone, and therefore there are no contracts between the NHLPA and the NHL... what's preventing them from suing anyway?
 
The players are now bound only to their agreement with the NHLPA.  Why would the union prohibit their members from suing?
 
Or, why doesn't/can't the NHLPA sue the NHL itself for antitrust violations?

The existence of a union prevents an anti-trust case. So they're going to disband the union on paper and then sue due to the lack of a union.

Federal labor law is really convoluted.


Not to mention that in the US, you're not allowed to use decertification as a bargaining tactic, and it's fairly obvious that's what this is. That's what the NHL's filing in court yesterday was- they're seeking a judgement saying in effect that the NHLPA's attempt to decertify isn't out of any genuine desire to not be represented by a union, it's just a tactic for negotiating position. Which would, of course be prohibited, and the NLRB would be directed to declare the lockout legal.
 
2012-12-15 05:39:28 PM  

desertgeek: The Bestest: Just to head off any additional FEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHR posts, let me remind everyone that since the 1994 strike, the MLBPA is the strongest players union in the world and MLB hasn't had even the slightest hint of a labor dispute with them since.

Bolded part not entirely accurate. They nearly went into a lockout in 2002 or 2003, but were able to get deal done just hours before games were lost. Unfortunately, I can't find a strong enough citation to link to and back that up.


It actually was almost a strike, not a lockout, but it did definitely almost happen.
 
2012-12-15 05:47:23 PM  

Someothermonkey: The fact that the league is using Phoenix as a reason why the players need to take less, when that franchise should have been relocated years ago, is just one of the many reasons why their position is so unsupportable.


Let me give you some facts that existed before this lockout.

Fact: The Coyotes had increasing revenue and attendance prior to the previous lockout. Losing that season blew that momentum

Fact: Phoenix was slated to host the All Star Game in 2006, before it was cancelled due to Winter Olympic participation.

Fact: The previous owner of the team, Jerry Moyes, used the team to boost revenue at his main businesses at the expense of the Coyotes bottom line. He was responsible for at least half of the team's financial losses between 2004 and 2009.

Fact: They are in a bad arena situation. I can't argue that for one second.

Fact: If the Coyotes situation before now was so bad that the NHL shouldn't have been keeping the team alive, why have 3 seperate groups attempted to buy the team in order to keep them in Arizona? Because they saw oppotunity here. If they thought there was no chance in hell of making it work, do you think they'd be looking to spend $150 million on the team, plus work so hard on an arena lease? If so, then they must be worse businessmen than Moyes or the Dodgers' Frank McCourt (who did the same damn thing) ever was.

As long as someone with money is interested in making the Phoenix situation work, the Coyotes will stay. It's that simple. If and when the interest is not there anymore, they will be gone.

Ask Winnipeg in 1995: no one that had the money was interested in keeping the Jets there, so they were forced to move. Same with the Atlanta Thrashers (helped by a very unworkable lease situation).

It's not rocket science. It's business.

Sadly, this lockout probably screwed the best chance the Coyotes had of any success off the ice. Not just because of what happened last Spring, but because all the other teams in this city are terrible.

/Fark Gary Buttman
 
2012-12-15 05:49:47 PM  
Hockey fans went from mocking the NBA mercilessly for cancelling 20 games to probably losing the NHL, karma's a biatch.
 
2012-12-15 05:52:48 PM  
f*ck it, pipe in European and Russian League games at 6AM, like they do the EPL, and kill the NHL forever. Let all the greedy owners' franchise values drop to $0. Hopefully they will see fit to all kill themselves.
 
2012-12-15 06:02:12 PM  

desertgeek: Someothermonkey: The fact that the league is using Phoenix as a reason why the players need to take less, when that franchise should have been relocated years ago, is just one of the many reasons why their position is so unsupportable.

Let me give you some facts that existed before this lockout.

Fact: The Coyotes had increasing revenue and attendance prior to the previous lockout. Losing that season blew that momentum

Fact: Phoenix was slated to host the All Star Game in 2006, before it was cancelled due to Winter Olympic participation.

Fact: The previous owner of the team, Jerry Moyes, used the team to boost revenue at his main businesses at the expense of the Coyotes bottom line. He was responsible for at least half of the team's financial losses between 2004 and 2009.

Fact: They are in a bad arena situation. I can't argue that for one second.

Fact: If the Coyotes situation before now was so bad that the NHL shouldn't have been keeping the team alive, why have 3 seperate groups attempted to buy the team in order to keep them in Arizona? Because they saw oppotunity here. If they thought there was no chance in hell of making it work, do you think they'd be looking to spend $150 million on the team, plus work so hard on an arena lease? If so, then they must be worse businessmen than Moyes or the Dodgers' Frank McCourt (who did the same damn thing) ever was.

As long as someone with money is interested in making the Phoenix situation work, the Coyotes will stay. It's that simple. If and when the interest is not there anymore, they will be gone.

Ask Winnipeg in 1995: no one that had the money was interested in keeping the Jets there, so they were forced to move. Same with the Atlanta Thrashers (helped by a very unworkable lease situation).

It's not rocket science. It's business.

Sadly, this lockout probably screwed the best chance the Coyotes had of any success off the ice. Not just because of what happened last Spring, but because all the other teams in this ...


1995 Winnipeg vs. 2012 Coyotes is apples to oranges. Winnipeg and Quebec moved because the Canadian dollar was so weak that they were not able to economically compete with larger market teams. The Canadian economy, and the looney, improved. Thus, Winnipeg is back *and* viable.
 
2012-12-15 06:08:18 PM  
So proud to see Bergman getting its due. Still would rather see a truncated Hockey season, I want to watch my Caps fail to choke in the playoffs one day.
 
2012-12-15 06:18:42 PM  

cptjeff: And again, he shut down a deal- latest out of the NHLPA is that if the owners' last proposal were put to a PA vote, it would have passed.


Yeah, you're going to have give that a citation.
 
2012-12-15 06:29:23 PM  
Last time around there was a sense that the league had to take drastic measures to stay afloat and bring about parity. At the time I thought the lock out sucked, but found it a necessary evil. Not this time around. They turned the ship around in 2004/2005, but this time is seems greedy. All the "we love our fans" rhetoric just sounds like so much bullshiat now. They don't love their fans, and the fans are going to show their disgust by staying away in droves in those non traditional markets.

Bergman's goal was to expand the game into non traditional markets. He is not doing well in that regard. I don't see how he is not fired when 1/3 of the league folds over this in the next few years.
 
2012-12-15 06:31:12 PM  
The traditional model of sports ownership was something like this:

Buy a team for $100M. Take a reasonable loss on yearly revenue to pay for a competitive team, and use the loss as a nice tax write off. Then, ten years later, sell the team for $200M. That model allowed you to be competitive every year AND get a massive ROI.

For some reason, ownership groups in the North American leagues are no longer satisfied with that, and now demand yearly profits-- as if there's no difference between a NHL franchise and a McDonalds franchise. And they're militant with this demand-- lockouts were once unheard of, but have now become a regular occurrence (especially in hockey).

That mentality is very dangerous for the long-term, because if you try to run a sports team like it's your only source of annual income, you'll never be able to compete with the teams that don't look at it that way-- and those teams might be the New York Rangers, or they might be in the KHL.
 
2012-12-15 06:31:52 PM  
Oh yeah, FARK YOU BERMAN!

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-15 06:33:48 PM  

swahnhennessy: cptjeff: And again, he shut down a deal- latest out of the NHLPA is that if the owners' last proposal were put to a PA vote, it would have passed.

Yeah, you're going to have give that a citation.


I can prove it, but I believe that too. The issues are too micro for most guys in the PA to give a sh*t about. It's the superstars at the table who have the most to lose, and they're not letting a vote happen until they get the deal they want.
 
2012-12-15 06:35:32 PM  
And by can, I mean can't.
 
2012-12-15 06:37:25 PM  

cptjeff: JosephFinn: FiendishFellow05: It's pretty hard to blame Fehr for no championship being awarded when it was the owners who locked out the players, and then refused to negotiate wtih Fehr in good faith.

Oh, I'm sure some labor hater will find a way.

I don't hate labor. I just hate the entitled asses that are the players. Getting paid millions a year, most making more than many owners, and they spend most of the process demanding guaranteed raises regardless of what happened to the NHL's revenue (they were demanding that the cap be not actually be linked to revenue). The NHL isn't the problem, the PA is.

And you're a moron if you think that playing a season without a labor agreement in place was EVER a possibility. Fehr killing the World Series when he called a strike in 94 saw to that. No labor deal in place means no hockey- blame it on the players or the owners based on the dynamics of the negotiations (which makes me say players all the way), not on who locked who out- they were never gonna play hockey without a deal, the owners locking the players out is only the formal mechanism for that to happen. The NHLPA had some wildly ridiculous demands couched in a proposal that was all PR, that wasn't exactly negotiating in good faith either. This deal was always going to wind up at 50-50, it was just a question of when- if Fehr hadn't been on a massive ego trip trying to win and make himself some sort of hero by fighting for a different group of whiny rich people, they would have negotiated down to 50-50 fairly early since it was incredibly obvious that that's what the owners were after, worked out a deal on the contract structure and CBA length, gotten very hot and angry on HRR, coming to an eventual compromise, and then we miss 10 games at most. But no- now Fehr has lost most of the players more money in their careers than they would have if the figure stayed at 57%. And again, he shut down a deal- latest out of the NHLPA is that if the owners' last proposal were put ...


You just have no goddamn clue, do you?

THE PLAYERS AGREED TO A 50-50 SPLIT, AS LONG AS IT WAS A FAIR ONE.

As far as negotiating in good faith, the NHL's first proposal was ludicrous. It read like something the MLB would have proposed - in 1977. And the entire point of negotiating is to, i don't know, NEGOTIATE? Yet on three separate occasions the NHL, upon receiving a counter-proposal, has thrown a tantrum like a colicky baby and walked out of negotations. And during the last negotiations, the owners literally tried to strongarm the NHLPA into signing a deal without their legal representation in the room by threatening to walk away from the table if he returned(which is completely indefensible and in utterly bad faith). And they did.

Fehr did not kill the 1994 World Series. What is it that you don't understand about the fact that THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MLBPA CANNOT UNILATERALLY CALL A STRIKE. IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON BY THE PLAYERS. THIS GOES BACK TO THE DAYS OF MARVIN MILLER(that's the late 60's, children). And the 1994 strike was the endgame of 20 years of bullshiat clawback attempts by the owners, who constantly fought the MLBPA at every negotiation, and underestimated the unity of the players constantly. Hell, the MLB owners colluded against the players at least twice - can you really blame the players for not trusting them? Even in 1994, the owners were still trying to get rid of salary arbitration and find ways to keep players from entering the free market/drive down their value. The players used the only tool they had to stand up for themselves. Note that there hasn't been another work stoppage in the MLB since - both sides learned their lessons, mostly. But I digress..

Donald Fehr is not triyng to "wind up as a hero of some sort". He is doing what the players hired him to do. And where the hell did you here that the latest deal would have been passed had it been voted on? The only person who said anything even resembling that was Roman Hamrlik, a player, who not only is he not actively involved in the negotiations, but also does not speak for all 500-odd NHL players. And what scuttled the last deal, ONCE AGAIN, was NOT DONALD FEHR. It was the NHL complete unwillingness to sit down with Fehr and hammer out the fine details - basically, let Fehr do the job he was hired to do. This was corroborated by two different players at that series of meetings: Ron Hainsey and Kevin Westgarth. 

And where are you getting your numbers about the owners income? If you say Forbes, I'm going to tell you to go pound sand. Why? Because the numbers from Forbes Magazine are notoriously worthless. They are educated guesses built upon educated guesses. Forbes has not had and does not have access to ANY NHL TEAM'S BOOKS. The only people who truly know the financial situations for the individual clubs are the owners - and they're not spilling the truth any time soon.
 
2012-12-15 06:38:30 PM  

Rev.K: swahnhennessy: cptjeff: And again, he shut down a deal- latest out of the NHLPA is that if the owners' last proposal were put to a PA vote, it would have passed.

Yeah, you're going to have give that a citation.

I can prove it, but I believe that too. The issues are too micro for most guys in the PA to give a sh*t about. It's the superstars at the table who have the most to lose, and they're not letting a vote happen until they get the deal they want.


I didn't realize Ron Hainsey and Kevin Westgarth were superstars.
 
2012-12-15 06:38:43 PM  
As I said in a previous lockout thread, it would be interesting to know the dynamic of what's happening in the PA right now.

Are the players actually the ones being adamant about each of the issues and have instructed Fehr to do what it takes to get what they want? Or is Fehr telling the players that he can go and get them X, Y, and Z and that they just have to wait it out?

This vote should prove interesting.
 
2012-12-15 06:43:35 PM  

Rev.K: As I said in a previous lockout thread, it would be interesting to know the dynamic of what's happening in the PA right now.

Are the players actually the ones being adamant about each of the issues and have instructed Fehr to do what it takes to get what they want? Or is Fehr telling the players that he can go and get them X, Y, and Z and that they just have to wait it out?

This vote should prove interesting.


Based on Fehr's history, it's more likely to be "wait it out" than the other way around. Though there's probably a fair number of players who have been simmering about the previous CBA and everything they lost in that for 8 years and are using this lockout to let off the steam, if you will.

With that in mind, it was the union that made the last real offer in this whole mess.
 
2012-12-15 06:49:58 PM  

FiendishFellow05: I didn't realize Ron Hainsey and Kevin Westgarth were superstars.


True.

But if Ron Hainsey and Kevin Westgarth think 5-year contract maximums are going to hurt their careers, they're f*cking morons.

Neither of those guys will ever sign a deal longer than 5 years. The only guys who sign the decade-long deals are the superstars,
 
2012-12-15 07:05:21 PM  
www.thatericalper.com
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report