HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Buffalo Sabres (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   All CBA talk. A deal? A deal!!! (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1277023)

joshjull 10-29-2012 08:40 AM

All CBA talk. A deal? A deal!!!
 
Carry on the CBA talk

Crazy Tasty 10-29-2012 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshjull (Post 55368411)
Carry on the CBA talk

do we have to?

Jame 10-29-2012 09:25 AM

Are we there yet?

Taelin 10-29-2012 11:37 AM

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...ed-source-says

Just for some wonderful ( :sarcasm: ) Monday news.

Zip15 10-29-2012 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taelin (Post 55371315)
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...ed-source-says

Just for some wonderful ( :sarcasm: ) Monday news.

Welp, settle in. I always thought that if they cancel the Winter Classic, the lockout will go into at least mid- or late-January.

Sabretip 10-29-2012 12:27 PM

Add Jack Johnson to the previous criticisms by Cammalleri and Suter as another outspoken player with right-on-the money assessments of the Owners' hypocrisies:

Quote:

"The concept that the owners are trying to dismantle existing contracts that they in good faith offered, signed, and committed to is appalling, unprofessional, and disgraceful," Johnson wrote in his blog at jackjohnson3.com.

"I negotiated my own contract, without an agent, with the confidence and belief that the owner offering me that contract operated by the same convictions and principals (sic) as I do. During the summer, the players offered to play through negotiations and the owners locked us out. We want to play hockey! Where is the honor? I'm ready to play and uphold my end of the deal!"
In doing so, Johnson then makes the mistake of reinforcing the belief the NHL is relying on to break the NHLPA's resolve:

Quote:

"I want to work," read the blog. "I'm a professional athlete and I want to play hockey! In my chosen profession, I don't have until I am 60 or 70 years old to do this job. My window of opportunity to play professional hockey is limited. If I'm lucky, I can play until I'm 40. "I have been training as a hockey player my entire life, and I know it is a privilege to play in the NHL. So each month, each week, and each game that is cancelled is an opportunity I will never get back."
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408388

haseoke39 10-29-2012 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretip (Post 55372455)
Add Jack Johnson to the previous criticisms by Cammalleri and Suter as another outspoken player with right-on-the money assessments of the Owners' hypocrisies:



In doing so, Johnson then makes the mistake of reinforcing the belief the NHL is relying on to break the NHLPA's resolve:



http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408388

"Right on the money"? How about Johnson signed a contract that was governed by the CBA, included no guarantees to a fixed dollar amount, regularly contracted to meet the amount stipulated in the active CBA, and he wanted to pretend forever that 57% was going to be the agreed amount? If the owners were trying to rip up a CBA in the middle of it, I could see him having a point. But the CBA that governed his contract EXPIRED. His contract has to be subject to new terms. There's nothing illegal, shady or under-the-table about what the owners are doing here. If JJ didn't know this was going to happen, he should've paid an agent to explain it to him.

littletonhockeycoach 10-29-2012 09:11 PM

At this point the players association are convinced the owners just aren't gonna lose another season while the owners are convinced that the players can't afford to lose a year of their contracts.

Both sides are right. Neither can afford to lose the entire year but since each side believes the other side is about to break, both are going to end up going down with their ships.

Pretty discouraging and the NHL might as well cancel the season now and start hiring new players for next season.:shakehead

SackTastic 10-29-2012 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haseoke39 (Post 55373957)
"Right on the money"? How about Johnson signed a contract that was governed by the CBA, included no guarantees to a fixed dollar amount, regularly contracted to meet the amount stipulated in the active CBA, and he wanted to pretend forever that 57% was going to be the agreed amount? If the owners were trying to rip up a CBA in the middle of it, I could see him having a point. But the CBA that governed his contract EXPIRED. His contract has to be subject to new terms. There's nothing illegal, shady or under-the-table about what the owners are doing here. If JJ didn't know this was going to happen, he should've paid an agent to explain it to him.

The only part of the 57% number that affects individual players relates to their escrow. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Frankly, they should stop calling them contracts, since most of you folks seem to like the idea that owners can just break them whenever they want.

Yes, the expiration of the CBA governs this, I understand. But I completely understand the players' frustration here. If an owner offers you a 7 year deal with 2 years left on the CBA, you're not thinking that they could pull the rug out from under you at CBA expiration. Yes, he should have an agent to warn him that COULD happen, but lets face it. Even with an agent you won't assume that would happen.

Crazy Tasty 10-29-2012 11:44 PM

And in life you can get let go in almost any circumstance if the company's bottom line isn't where it's assumed it should be. It's all about greed at this point and it makes me sick. I want to watch hockey, not read about adults *****ing about who gets more than who. Neither side is in the right on this and the only people that really suffer are the people who get enjoyment out of the sport, the fans. Last I checked we pay the bills for both parties involved. Debating over who's right and who's wrong seems pretty petty to me.

dotcommunism 10-30-2012 12:50 AM

How are the fans suffering in any meaningful way by not being able to spend their money and time on this particular diversion? How is that suffering more than hockey players being unable to perform the only job they've trained for their entire lives. And no, this is not as much about the NHL players per se, but more about the lower level players displaced due to NHL players having to take jobs elsewhere.

Luceni 10-30-2012 05:18 AM

I don't care this **** anymore.
The NHL don't deserve the fans we are. We should look for another sport.

20 years, 3 ****ing lockouts. And all the players and owners are ****ing millionaires.

GTFO

Greetings from an angry

Luceni

chadthestampede 10-30-2012 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luceni (Post 55392517)
I don't care this **** anymore.
The NHL don't deserve the fans we are. We should look for another sport.

20 years, 3 ****ing lockouts. And all the players and owners are ****ing millionaires.

GTFO

Greetings from an angry

Luceni

I've seen this all over this site and it cracks me up. Fans get all petulant about the lockout but everyone will be right back lining up to buy tickets and merchandise and watch games when hockey's back. These little tantrums are all over hfboards.

hizzoner 10-30-2012 10:34 AM

While I think that contracts ought to be honoured it makes sense to say that that includes all the terms applicable. If the player for some reason no longer has the compete level whether due to outside issues or just a lack of intensity from having a rich secure life the club must still pay his contract according to its terms. Similarly if a contract is tied to terms in a cba then those terms must be acceded to. Jack Johnson and others understand what they see as their rights--ok-but
they must give some heed to the rights of the the guy on the other side of the contract. That guy--the owner must pay, subject to contractual terms, no matter how crappy the player turns out to be. Jack Johnson knew that part I am sure when he signed. Now he complains when the owner says I want contracts to be bound to whatever cba we can agree on after negotiations. Whatever the agreement turns out to be he will have his say in a vote--just as Joe Schmo will have his say about minimum wages that are 10% of what Johnson getssomething that he and others are happy to keep low so that they can be paid more at the top.

vcv 10-30-2012 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadthestampede (Post 55393611)
I've seen this all over this site and it cracks me up. Fans get all petulant about the lockout but everyone will be right back lining up to buy tickets and merchandise and watch games when hockey's back. These little tantrums are all over hfboards.

So a fan is not allowed to express their anger and frustration without you calling it petulant?

start winnin 10-30-2012 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcv (Post 55395661)
So a fan is not allowed to express their anger and frustration without you calling it petulant?

My thoughts exactly, fans have the right to ***** and moan all they want, they pay good money to keep the league alive and this is how they repay us. By fighting over the money that we have provided for them.

chadthestampede 10-30-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcv (Post 55395661)
So a fan is not allowed to express their anger and frustration without you calling it petulant?

They can do whatever they want just like I can call it whatever I want. My point was that I've seen so many people say they're 'done with hockey' that I know will be right back in it as soon as hockey comes back.

joshjull 10-30-2012 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadthestampede (Post 55396017)
They can do whatever they want just like I can call it whatever I want. My point was that I've seen so many people say they're 'done with hockey' that I know will be right back in it as soon as hockey comes back.

Is it really that shocking that some have posted some over the top stuff they didnt necessairly mean because they were pissed off/frustrated over this labor dispute?

chadthestampede 10-30-2012 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshjull (Post 55396265)
Is it really that shocking that some have posted some over the top stuff they didnt necessairly mean because they were pissed off/frustrated over this labor dispute?

No? I'm not shocked at all. I'm not really sure what the big deal is. People here get criticized all the time for saying 'blow it up' and all the other **** that gets said after every sabres loss but I'm not allowed to point out when people are being ridiculous about the lockout?

brian_griffin 10-30-2012 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadthestampede (Post 55396479)
No? I'm not shocked at all. I'm not really sure what the big deal is. People here get criticized all the time for saying 'blow it up' and all the other **** that gets said after every sabres loss but I'm not allowed to point out when people are being ridiculous about the lockout?

Your avatar expresses your frustration exactly...

vcv 10-30-2012 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadthestampede (Post 55396017)
They can do whatever they want just like I can call it whatever I want. My point was that I've seen so many people say they're 'done with hockey' that I know will be right back in it as soon as hockey comes back.

Okay, but he never said he's done with hockey.

joshjull 10-30-2012 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadthestampede (Post 55396479)
No? I'm not shocked at all. I'm not really sure what the big deal is. People here get criticized all the time for saying 'blow it up' and all the other **** that gets said after every sabres loss but I'm not allowed to point out when people are being ridiculous about the lockout?

Who said you're not allowed to post that sentiment?

Luceni 10-30-2012 01:31 PM

Seriously, aren't there some other fans who quit watching the NHL if they can't find a freaking agreement?

I mean this is just BS.
They're all should be happy that there are so many people who are interested in this league and this is how they blow it up.

my patience is almost over and I've got zero understanding for both sides.

****ing *****es....

luceni

joshjull 10-30-2012 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beechsack (Post 55386775)
The only part of the 57% number that affects individual players relates to their escrow. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Frankly, they should stop calling them contracts, since most of you folks seem to like the idea that owners can just break them whenever they want.

Yes, the expiration of the CBA governs this, I understand. But I completely understand the players' frustration here. If an owner offers you a 7 year deal with 2 years left on the CBA, you're not thinking that they could pull the rug out from under you at CBA expiration. Yes, he should have an agent to warn him that COULD happen, but lets face it. Even with an agent you won't assume that would happen.

The bolded is a contradiction.


If you understand that the CBA allows for what the owners are doing. You can't attack others that understand that as well by accusing them of liking that contracts can be broken. Because the players contracts are not being broken.


As for Jack Johnson, Why should I feel bad for someone who agreed to a multi-year, multimillion dollar contract and apparently did so without understanding the rules governing it?

I know this is crazy talk but players that signed deals 2+ years out from the CBA expiring could have chosen to have their contracts expire with the CBA. Then they wouldn't have to worry about the new CBAs impact on their contracts. But of course most didn't do that and chose to take the gamble that their deals wouldn't be impact by a new CBA. The players that signed this past summer knew full well that they could take a hit on their deals with a new CBA. In fact it lead to a slight salary escalation that the players got because the owners figured they could get some of the money back in the next CBA.


The players have guaranteed contracts that they are paid regardless of performance, injury, etc. There is only one thing that can impact their deals and thats the terms of a new CBA. Most players complaining about it are either ill-informed or being disingenuous.

SackTastic 10-30-2012 02:09 PM

I understand that it is. Not saying that I believe that to be true, but I repeatedly see that argument being made.

I'm aware that the contract signed is governed by the CBA. I agree that Jack Johnson should have had an agent explain everything to him. However, consider this.

Both sides had the right to terminate the CBA and renegotiate it. If the players opted out in order to get more money in a new deal, they'd universally be called greedy. However, they didn't. The owners opted out of a deal that they basically wrote and got most of what they wanted. Why are the players still being called greedy?

I just can't reconcile the fact that no matter what happened with the CBA, people are so quick to hate on the players in all this.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.