HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Players pretended to be "insulted"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-24-2005, 08:56 AM
  #1
gerbilanium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
Players pretended to be "insulted"

IT was a little fishy how they seemed to be outraged so suddenly on something so minor like being compared to the auto workers union.

Could this be the PA just doing their job? Have they been told by the membership to get the best deal they can THIS YEAR? Last minute posturing before signing on the dotted line?

Ask yourself this question: Why did the NHL players' union, specifically Trevor Linden, seem at the very least neutral following a meeting with the league last Thursday, then appear utterly outraged 24 hours later with key members of the executive committee angrily declaring the season to be over?

Sounds a little strategic, wouldn't you say?

Given that rhetoric and bombast have dominated this entire process but never fail to have people believing it reflects the true state of negotiations, one shouldn't be surprised that the players delivered a staged gloom-and-doom message last Friday.

They then had all their carefully groomed media personnel echo that message over the past three days in the most strident terms possible.

On Friday, the players were simply endeavouring to solicit the league's best offer with another round of chest-thumping.

They know they've lost. They just need an honourable way to save face.


Here

gerbilanium is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:04 AM
  #2
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chattanooga TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,501
vCash: 500
They lost face with me a long time ago.

__________________
- Enoch -
Enoch is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:12 AM
  #3
mileflames
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Robert Esche - "we won't wouldn't accept a cap, even if it was at 200 million."

Brian McCabe - "we are ready to sit out our whole lives."

Darcy Tucker - "Then it goes on forever," Tucker said without a trace of hesitation. "Guys have been playing in Europe and will continue to do it. More will go over. We're not taking a cap."


Wow the players, really want too make the fans of hockey mad, Time to get find some rotten eggs :beatup:

sorry no link..

mileflames is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:19 AM
  #4
Wondercarrot
Classless
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
That article by Cox seems to make a lot of sense to me......anyone else?

Wondercarrot is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:20 AM
  #5
Riddarn
1980-2011
 
Riddarn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 9,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mileflames
Darcy Tucker - "Then it goes on forever," Tucker said without a trace of hesitation. "Guys have been playing in Europe and will continue to do it. More will go over. We're not taking a cap."
Is that a threat or a promise? Because if the top 400 players aged 25-30 go to europe that will only hurt two things: their own wallets and the jobs of third and forth liners of the european leagues.

Every year the NHL vets spend in europe they diminish their own value, which is the only real bargaining power they have. So what if the NHL looses a couple of hundred players, they are replaced within 5-10 years by players that always have played under a cap and will never question it.

Riddarn is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:23 AM
  #6
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondercarrot
That article by Cox seems to make a lot of sense to me......anyone else?
Might be the first article Cox has ever written that makes some sense...IMO Trevor knows they now have to give in to cost certainty and take the best deal possible, hopefully the owners will give them UFA at around 27-28 yrs old...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:23 AM
  #7
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mileflames
Darcy Tucker - "Then it goes on forever," Tucker said without a trace of hesitation. "Guys have been playing in Europe and will continue to do it. More will go over. We're not taking a cap."
Can you get a link for this quote? Tucker has been sitting at home playing Mr Mom just waiting for the season to start

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:27 AM
  #8
Briannj1970
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mileflames
Robert Esche - "we won't wouldn't accept a cap, even if it was at 200 million."

Brian McCabe - "we are ready to sit out our whole lives."

Darcy Tucker - "Then it goes on forever," Tucker said without a trace of hesitation. "Guys have been playing in Europe and will continue to do it. More will go over. We're not taking a cap."

There's no way that any of those quotes should ever be taken seriously.

Robert Esche: You'd settle for a 100 million dollar cap, who are you kidding. And not like you'd actually take up a large part of that cap, either.

Brian McCabe: Sit out the rest of your life. Better yet, don't just sit out but quit the NHL, get a real job that requires you to get up early, put in 40+ hours a week for a TON less than what you're making, and only a few weeks off per year.

Darcy Tucker: Then just give up your lifestyle in North America, go play in Europe probably for less than what you're already making.

I can see both sides and I'm probably more pro player than anything, but it's that kind of crap that just infuriates me. When the NHL does start up, and at some point it'll have to, they'll either be a part of it or still on their little picket line going, "We'll sit out the rest of our lives if we have to" and nobody'll be listening.

Briannj1970 is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:38 AM
  #9
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,465
vCash: 500
Cox suggests that the league will now suddenly offer much higher payroll threshholds and a luxury tax scheme of some sort.

Does anyone find that even remotely believeable at this stage?

Bettman has said they aren't interested in any flavour of luxury tax, and in the last press conference they did he said they aren't interested in "40, 50, or 60" million dollar payrolls.

So, for the league to suddenly turn around at this point and offer teams the ability to spend $50 million again, and also institute a luxury tax, seems bizarre to me.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:38 AM
  #10
mileflames
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
Can you get a link for this quote? Tucker has been sitting at home playing Mr Mom just waiting for the season to start
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Toront...06648-sun.html

mileflames is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:39 AM
  #11
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Tucker's quote doesn't support or go against the NHLPA. He could very well be saying that the PA isn't willing to move forward. It doesn't sound like the idiot comments you get out of McCabe, who really needs to stop talking and revealing to the world what a dumbass he really is.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:48 AM
  #12
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,878
vCash: 500
Two thoughts.

1-Damien Cox was bang on and I have been thinking the same thing since this happened. Right after the meeting Linden was neutral or cautiously optimistic that progress had been made, then 24 hours later he was saying it is all over. Bluff.

2-Those comments by those players are idiotic and they win points with no one when they talk like that. They are much worse for the union in terms of PR than what guys like Dageneis has said.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 09:55 AM
  #13
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Do players even realize how they are alienating fans with all their rhetoric? I want hockey back but if there is no hockey the one saving grace will be that Tucker, McCabe, Esche and many others will be one year closer to retirement. They just don't seem to understand how much harm they are doing to the game and ultimately their own value to the game.

eye is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:31 AM
  #14
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,131
vCash: 500
Cox has a good idea for a hybrid system....of course it's a good idea it is the same one I've been trotting out the past few months to get this thing solved! I'm not saying Cox took the idea from me or the others that have proposed similar ideas but it's a deal that makes sense and provides the middle ground. The middle ground of course being the union saving some face and not getting completely crushed as the economics of the game would dictate. The NHLPA executive would seriously have to look at before rejecting it. THey may even have to put it to a vote.

tantalum is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:32 AM
  #15
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
So basically Trevor Linden has been crying because someone told him the truth. That the players are EMPLOYEES? I like this quote from an article I read.

The game itself is the product, produced by the players with tools provided by the owners.

 
Old
01-24-2005, 10:55 AM
  #16
kremlin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mileflames
Robert Esche - "we won't wouldn't accept a cap, even if it was at 200 million."

Brian McCabe - "we are ready to sit out our whole lives."

Darcy Tucker - "Then it goes on forever," Tucker said without a trace of hesitation. "Guys have been playing in Europe and will continue to do it. More will go over. We're not taking a cap."


Wow the players, really want too make the fans of hockey mad, Time to get find some rotten eggs :beatup:

sorry no link..
McCabe is a joke, he can't even cut it in Europe.

kremlin is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:57 AM
  #17
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kremlin
McCabe is a joke, he can't even cut it in Europe.
Yeah, cutting it in Europe or not is really how NHL players should be evaluated.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:58 AM
  #18
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Anyone thinking the NHL will come with just a number and not tieing a soft cap with revenues will be sadly mistaken. The players have already lost this battle and its up there greedy selves to either take what is left, or wait till there is nothing left.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 11:14 AM
  #19
Wondercarrot
Classless
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Cox suggests that the league will now suddenly offer much higher payroll threshholds and a luxury tax scheme of some sort.

Does anyone find that even remotely believeable at this stage?

Bettman has said they aren't interested in any flavour of luxury tax, and in the last press conference they did he said they aren't interested in "40, 50, or 60" million dollar payrolls.

So, for the league to suddenly turn around at this point and offer teams the ability to spend $50 million again, and also institute a luxury tax, seems bizarre to me.
not especially bizzare. The article discusses a Cap from 33 million to 40 million. pretty close to what the owners are offering now. With an extremely punitive luxury tax from 40 to 50 not only does it prevent overspending by most teams and levels the spending playing field, it does allow teams that are close to add a player or 2 for a few years while in contention.

This seems like a very reasonable idea from both sides......so obviously it won't work....

Wondercarrot is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 11:21 AM
  #20
Jasper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,499
vCash: 707
It is reasonable.. and it is the last offer.. aside from, I guess, the offer they'll get next year which won't be nearly as pleasant. It's up to the PA to negotiate whatever is put on the table and make it into something.. if they whine and ***** over it (as usual) and let it carry on til next season, I think we'll just have to enjoy hearing their sob stories for another season... it's starting to feel good to watch a bunch of spoiled millionaires continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

Jasper is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 11:21 AM
  #21
HockeyCritter
Registered User
 
HockeyCritter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mileflames
Robert Esche - "we won't wouldn't accept a cap, even if it was at 200 million."

Brian McCabe - "we are ready to sit out our whole lives."

Darcy Tucker - "Then it goes on forever," Tucker said without a trace of hesitation. "Guys have been playing in Europe and will continue to do it. More will go over. We're not taking a cap."


Wow the players, really want too make the fans of hockey mad, Time to get find some rotten eggs :beatup:

sorry no link..
Two things~

1-How unified can the PA be when half the membership jumps ship to earn a buck in Europe and leaves the other half (the lower half it seems) to fend for themselves?

2-How do they know Europe will accept NHLers next season? I have a feeling if this thing does extend into next year, European clubs will not be so willing to put an “out” into the contracts. Also, how many more spots are available to NHLers?

HockeyCritter is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 11:36 AM
  #22
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Cox suggests that the league will now suddenly offer much higher payroll threshholds and a luxury tax scheme of some sort.

Does anyone find that even remotely believeable at this stage?

Bettman has said they aren't interested in any flavour of luxury tax, and in the last press conference they did he said they aren't interested in "40, 50, or 60" million dollar payrolls.

So, for the league to suddenly turn around at this point and offer teams the ability to spend $50 million again, and also institute a luxury tax, seems bizarre to me.
The league will throw the players some bones to sweeten the deal and allow them to save face. However, a $50 million dollar cap will not be one of them and comes simply from the Cox's fertile imagination.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:26 PM
  #23
chara
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
More labour negotiation nonsense. They will take a cap but it will be closer to 60% of revenues plus is taking a huge pay cut. There'll be hockey in February. If there isn't, the owners will force an agreement down their throats and they'll be playing next February under a less than ideal CBA.

chara is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:34 PM
  #24
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Might be the first article Cox has ever written that makes some sense...IMO Trevor knows they now have to give in to cost certainty and take the best deal possible, hopefully the owners will give them UFA at around 27-28 yrs old...
The lower the UFA the worse it is for the league and the fans. It takes so long and so many resources to develop a player, it would put the whole system in jeapordy to lower the UFA age. A team must feel that it can develop a player and keep him long enough to reap the benefits of his play and the season ticket holder's support. With players playing longer these days, I say RAISE the UFA age to 35!
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 01:42 PM
  #25
Habs13
Registered User
 
Habs13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: England
Posts: 5,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
The lower the UFA the worse it is for the league and the fans. It takes so long and so many resources to develop a player, it would put the whole system in jeapordy to lower the UFA age. A team must feel that it can develop a player and keep him long enough to reap the benefits of his play and the season ticket holder's support. With players playing longer these days, I say RAISE the UFA age to 35!
-HckyFght!
I agree with this, minus raising the age to 35. For example, if every team was able to offer the player they want the same contract, why will guys like Lecavalier or Gagne or Tanguay not want to come back to play for the team they grew up supporting? (I used the French Canadian players because they're basically all either Habs or Nords fans.. same is probably true for guys from any province or state) Actually, what am I saying? It benefits my team!! hehe

Habs13 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.