If the season started in January, and we ended up winning the cup, it wouldn't feel sufficient. I would rather lose an entire season than play a half assed 35-40 game season. **** that.
Either we start games on October 12, or this league can go **** itself.
Who cares? We'd win the cup. I don't care as long as we win.
It's not anywhere near the same as playing a full 82 game schedule. It just isn't.
So then why do people care about most of Montreal's Stanley Cups? There used to be a 44-game schedule.
Also, I believe there used to be a 20-game schedule even before that.
I doubt Devil fan or anyone else besides those homer Ranger fans cares about their "half Cup" in 1995.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
Pretty strong statement here from someone who know's nothing about me. Pretty ignorant one too, being that we have been able to start some pretty successful events, and helpful programs on this board.
See Vinnie Auricchio's Baby shower list after the incident in the winter classic. I just don't understand why you have to give your two cents, since obviously you don't care to do anything which is fine. If your goal is to prove that you are smarter then me, fine you got it so you can stop now. Especially if your not going to add anything except trying to be heard.
Ya never know if people are kidding or busting cookies... ya just dont know..
Point the finger you want all at Bettman, but you need to understand that the players are at fault here also.
Everyone is at fault, so all the hate being towards Bettman and the Owners is a little outrageous, and really only proves that the NHL needs a new PR department.
Hey NHL, I'm available
what are the players at fault for? not immediately dropping their pants and grabbing their ankles?
what are the players at fault for? not immediately dropping their pants and grabbing their ankles?
No, but if you actually look at their proposal, its a bit of a smokescreen in someways. I still think the idea of the flat cap is something that can be developed. But the players are going to have to take some sort of cut(rollback)in salaries. The initial proposal didn't even address it.
Also there were some downright asinine points dealing with Non player salaries, and extra draft picks. It certainly wasn't perfect.
If the season started in January, and we ended up winning the cup, it wouldn't feel sufficient. I would rather lose an entire season than play a half assed 35-40 game season. **** that.
Either we start games on October 12, or this league can go **** itself.
Thats the dumbest thing I've seen in this thread.
And thats saying a lot considering this thread is filled with hockey fans attempting to discuss complex collective bargaining for a multi-billion dollar entity.
No, but if you actually look at their proposal, its a bit of a smokescreen in someways. I still think the idea of the flat cap is something that can be developed. But the players are going to have to take some sort of cut(rollback)in salaries. The initial proposal didn't even address it.
Also there were some downright asinine points dealing with Non player salaries, and extra draft picks. It certainly wasn't perfect.
to say that the players NEED to take a rollback is a completely ridiculous assumption. its 110% the owners fault that the players make what they make. don fehr didn't give zach parise and ryan suter $200 mil. suggesting they must take a rollback is suggesting that they should just grab their ankles AGAIN and just take whatever gary will give them
fehr was spot on when he said that there is only such a big gap because of how unrealistic the owners proposal was. they want to rollback salaries to 2004 levels and thats fair?
to say that the players NEED to take a rollback is a completely ridiculous assumption. its 110% the owners fault that the players make what they make. don fehr didn't give zach parise and ryan suter $200 mil. suggesting they must take a rollback is suggesting that they should just grab their ankles AGAIN and just take whatever gary will give them
fehr was spot on when he said that there is only such a big gap because of how unrealistic the owners proposal was. they want to rollback salaries to 2004 levels and thats fair?
Did I say that? I said they should probably take some sort of rollback. Like 5-8 percent. That wouldn't be unreasonable. Considering that current player spending is unreasonable right now for the owners. What good does potential profit serve them? Which is also not guaranteed but projected.
I don't think the players deserve to have 25 percent taken away out of their salaries. Thats crazy. But taking some reduction combined with a flat cap could be a compromise for both sides.
i also think that fehr is spot on when he points out that last time the league got the system that THEY wanted and now they are claiming that that system doesn't work. but there solution is to take basically the same system that doesn't work, lower the numbers and hope it works...
the players approach is different but if the current system doesn't work maybe you need to change or modify that system...and its not like the players are suggesting getting rid of the cap
what are the players at fault for? not immediately dropping their pants and grabbing their ankles?
Waiting a month to come to the NHL with their terms
Proposing a CBA that includes controlled spending on "non-player expenses"
Proposing a salary cap that increases to $78 million in year 3 of the new CBA, a number in which the NHL cannot operate at
Not proposing any changes to contract negotiations, which are at an all time disgrace level for the NHL...of course, this is the owner's fault, but it needs to be addressed and changed
These are just a few, and it's just my opinion, but both parties are absolutely at fault.
Waiting a month to come to the NHL with their terms
Because they took the time to put together a thought out response to the NHL's absurd proposal this is their fault?
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish
Proposing a CBA that includes controlled spending on "non-player expenses"
What's wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish
Proposing a salary cap that increases to $78 million in year 3 of the new CBA, a number in which the NHL cannot operate at
Says who? They're already artificially keeping their salaries down by untying it from revenue. Why shouldn't the cap continue to increase as the league makes more and more money?
This whole thing about the league not being able to operate in the current situation is garbage. The owners just saw the NBA and NFL owners make their cash grab so now they want theirs too. Real structural problems can only be fixed by revenue sharing, which is what the players are proposing. As Rangerboy has pointed out, Bettman is disingenuously leaving out that revenue sharing was a major part of the new NBA CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish
Not proposing any changes to contract negotiations, which are at an all time disgrace level for the NHL...of course, this is the owner's fault, but it needs to be addressed and changed
Once again this is a problem only in that the owners don't want to pay, not that they can't pay. There's no reason for the players to make concessions on this front, especially not until the owners make some of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish
These are just a few, and it's just my opinion, but both parties are absolutely at fault.
The players are not at fault. This comes down to the fact that the owners don't want to take the union seriously. For the first time the players have a real union leader in Fehr. He's presenting a united front and isn't going to just back down. The owners don't want to acknowledge that.
The owners got everything they wanted in the last CBA, claiming it had to be done to fix the league. Now they're claiming the league's broken. The owners don't really want a fair deal or a better system. This is just a cash grab, plain and simple.
There is quite a bit wrong with it. First and foremost, travel expenses. Western conference teams are obviously going to have higher expenses in that department. Why should they be punished for it?
Then you have trainer salaries which can fluctuate in different markets dramatically. Not to mention, overhead, leases(which vary enormously for each franchise) etc etc.
MSG just spent billions in trying to renovate. Does that count as Non-player expenses? So franchises are going to have to limit how they run facilities. Facilities that players benefit from and don't have to spend a dime to support?
Yeah, there is massive problems with it, and its never going to fly. Especially if the new CBA requires bigger markets to take more of the burden in revenue sharing.
Last edited by Blueshirt Believer: 08-15-2012 at 09:03 PM.
People are making way too much of an issue of the NHLPA taking a month to respond. That's so typical of contract negotiations. Things are usually accomplished during the eleventh hour. Both parties will take their sweet ass time and posture endlessly until you actually get down to crunch time.
There is quite a bit wrong with it. First and foremost, travel expenses. Western conference teams are obviously going to have higher expenses in that department. Why should they be punished for it?
Then you have trainer salaries which can fluctuate in different markets dramatically. Not to mention, overhead, leases(which vary enormously for each franchise) etc etc.
MSG just spent billions in trying to renovate. Does that count as Non-player expenses? So franchises are going to have to limit how they run facilities. Facilities that players benefit from and don't have to spend a dime to support?
Yeah, there is massive problems with it, and its never going to fly. Especially if the new CBA requires bigger markets to take more of the burden in revenue sharing.
Has anyone seen any details on the NHLPA proposal regarding limiting non-player expenditures, or are we all just speculating? I'm guessing the latter.
That MSG hypothetical you proffered is silly on a number of levels.
I think it's safe to assume that this "limit" is a safeguard against owners pocketing revenue sharing dollars. The NHLPA wants more revenue sharing, but also want to make sure that redistributed revenue is invested in the on-ice product. It is/was an issue in baseball, where teams were receiving large amounts of revenue sharing money but keeping payrolls extremely low. Padding their bottom line rather than attempting to produce a better product. Fehr has seen this firsthand. Revenue sharing does the NHLPA no good if the owners won't spend the money on the players.
We don't know if it's a hard number, or something proportional. You could establish a system wherein a team must devote a certain percentage of their operating budget to player expenses. 40/60 or something. Maybe the team is disqualified from receiving revenue sharing if they don't hit that threshold. Just an idea. We have no idea how the Players Association structured their proposal. Plenty of reasonable scenarios though.
Of course, I'm assuming as well, though based on past history and personal experience. I'll wait to learn more details before criticizing this aspect of the deal.
Has anyone seen any details on the NHLPA proposal regarding limiting non-player expenditures, or are we all just speculating? I'm guessing the latter.
That MSG hypothetical you proffered is silly on a number of levels.
Ok, so lets say arena renovations or facility upkeep isn't apart of non-player spending. We don't know this for sure, but lets speculate.
Well it will include travel expense, marketing, scouting, trainers, coaches, front office. All of those things are going to vary GREATLY based on location. A trainer living in Columbus ohio is not going to make the same as someone living in NYC. Nor should they.
Last edited by Blueshirt Believer: 08-15-2012 at 09:29 PM.
I think it's safe to assume that this "limit" is a safeguard against owners pocketing revenue sharing dollars. The NHLPA wants more revenue sharing, but also want to make sure that redistributed revenue is invested in the on-ice product. It is/was an issue in baseball, where teams were receiving large amounts of revenue sharing money but keeping payrolls extremely low. Padding their bottom line rather than attempting to produce a better product. Fehr has seen this firsthand. Revenue sharing does the NHLPA no good if the owners won't spend the money on the players.
But MLB is a luxury tax system with no cap floor. I don't see the correlation with that to what the NHLPA proposed.
But MLB is a luxury tax system with no cap floor. I don't see the correlation with that to what the NHLPA proposed.
The cap floor mitigates a team's ability to pocket revenue sharing cash rather than investing it on payroll, but it far from eliminates the possibility.
The cap floor mitigates a team's ability to pocket revenue sharing cash rather than investing it on payroll, but it far from eliminates the possibility.
Can you tell me what exactly the NHLPA proposed?
Considering I don't have the document in front of me, no. But what pieces I have read from journalists non-player spending includes travel expenses, marketing, front office, coaches, trainers etc.
Considering I don't have the document in front of me, no. But what pieces I have read from journalists non-player spending includes travel expenses, marketing, front office, coaches, trainers etc.
Where did you read that? All I saw was one tweet saying that the NHLPA proposed some sort of cap, followed by a few posters speculating as to what that would include. If I missed something legitimate, please point me to it.
