View Single Post
Old
12-13-2012, 10:57 AM
  #377
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapAttack View Post
So we have the puck daddy article about teams calling players back. We have the Yotes laying down a fresh sheet of ice at their arena. Numerous reports tonight that the owners think they have the PA right where they want them, etc etc..
I think they're just grasping at straws. The ice has been down in Tampa for months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Other Flame View Post
Yes, it would hurt the owners, in the sense that the 'pie' would be smaller. But it would hurt the players more because they have the larger share. Plus, the players, already unhappy with the escrow system as it were, would be furious at the very notion of having to write checks to billionaire owners. It just wouldn't happen.
All good points, thanks. One thing you didn't consider, however, is Fehr's clear willingness to cost his constituency a fortune while trying to gain a much lesser amount. Would he be willing to do the same with a strike before the playoffs, knowing it would hurt the owners? Frankly, I think he would. His primary concern seems to be how hard he can hit the owners, his own folks be damned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
The players have a point - where is the negotiation on the part of the owners?
It's ironic, isn't it, to hear this question? I mean, at the start of things a lot of people were asking the same thing on the part of the PA, which stalled and stalled and stalled and when it did "negotiate" it consisted basically of "no," "no," "no," without counteroffers or proposals. That was the PA's tactic. The league continued to submit revised proposals while the PA stalled. Now the league has (apparently) reached its limit (or close to it) and the PA is upset that the league won't continue to modify its proposals. Perhaps the stall tactic wasn't the best method, or perhaps they used it too long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
I find it funny that some of the things the owners have added to this deal are brushed aside as "peanuts" when in fact they just double the hotel bills for the players by agreeing to have one player per room, someone do the math on that.
Can't do it exactly but can give you a ballpark. A few years back some friends and I went to see the Bolts play the Caps and the team got us our room on their account so we got the team discount. Thank goodness - the room was $435 a night but we only had to pay $185. So, using totally round numbers because I'm lousy at math, let's say a team had at that time no players who qualified for private rooms, and there were 20 players on the roster. So, that would have been 10 rooms, $1,850. 20 rooms obviously would have been $3,700. So, even if every single road trip consisted of only one night in a hotel each, the difference would be $75,850 for shared rooms to $151,700 for single rooms. Obviously, there would be single rooms already which would take some of those totals down, but there are far more nights in hotels than 41, which would take it way up. Also, that's using the $185 rate per night, which probably isn't the same in every hotel around the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailor Hopberle View Post
Maybe after talking to the PA, the mediator can go to the league and say something along the lines of "The PA is willing to move on X if you're willing to move on Y".
That's exactly what he'll do. Of course, that's exactly what he would have been doing all day yesterday, as well.

Boltsfan2029 is offline