Am I the only person who always wonders: They know the deal expires on September 15...why do they wait to start making offers until late July? What are they, 10th grade boys procrastinating their math homework??
Am I the only person who always wonders: They know the deal expires on September 15...why do they wait to start making offers until late July? What are they, 10th grade boys procrastinating their math homework??
Fehr took ages before he would get in a room with the NHL, ostensibly to better learn the NHL's situation, but really more as a power play. I haven't followed closely enough to tell you exactly what he's trying to accomplish though.
It's actually funny that they even make this so hard because sooner or later they are going to need to get that CBA in order. The owners have no use for hockey teams without players and the players don't have teams to play for.
****. As soon as hockey seems to be more interesting than in years (for me personally at least), there's going to be a lockout. For Cthulhus sake, just make a deal...
Said it last time and I still think its true. Add some element of a luxury tax, let the rangers and TO overspend to fall short and give it to the have nots. Then get rid of all those ridiculous rules for qualifying for a take of revenue sharing. That second part would likely make a big difference all in its own.
I agree with the rules the league wants to implement to slow a players growth. Longer elc's, a little longer to ufa, these things allow the lower teams to keep their rosters intact longer.
I'm kind of always in the owners corner. The players will lose no matter what, it's a matter of how long they will go without pay. The owners can always hang in longer. The last deal got what the owners wanted but it was obviously going to have to be tweaked. How could they know how to get it right the first time? However they equate revenue isn't right, when the cap keeps going up and now half the league needs to add salary to get to the floor. The top teams make the most money and skew the numbers to show league health that isn't systemic, it's limited to only those top teams.
Fehr was a ****** in the baseball stoppage. Here he is already completely avoiding the issues, smokescreening that he has a better way of doing things while trying to pitt the owners against each other. Get the best deal for the players instead of trying to fix the league. The owners will get their 50/50 revenue split, the big markets won't do enough to change revenue sharing to actually help the little teams very much, the fa rules will split the difference. 4 year elc's, 8 or 9 years to ufa, 7 year deals. I'd bet cash that's where we'll end up when it's all said and done. Stop the dance and lets play.
The only real argument is how to define revenue, how to define who gets it in sharing, and how much each side will get.
Some thoughts on negotiations. The owners and the players have to have the good of the league somewhere in their minds. But think of it from a player’s perspective. He’s been playing hockey for most of his life. He has given up a lot of the “fun” stuff that kids do. He gets drafted. He has a limited shelf life. During that time he would like to make enough money to keep him and his family reasonably comfortable for the rest of his life. Has he really been able to stick to the books and carve out his after hockey career? Probably not. The owners want him to serve an NHL apprenticeship. OK, but unless he is destined to be a super star his life is one big anxiety trip. And now they want to lengthen the apprenticeship. By the time he can make decent money his legs may be gone, he may have had a concussion or two. He wants that money sooner than later because there may not be a later. So the NHLPA has to play some hardball. It always eems to come down to who blinks first
Some thoughts on negotiations. The owners and the players have to have the good of the league somewhere in their minds. But think of it from a player’s perspective. He’s been playing hockey for most of his life. He has given up a lot of the “fun” stuff that kids do. He gets drafted. He has a limited shelf life. During that time he would like to make enough money to keep him and his family reasonably comfortable for the rest of his life. Has he really been able to stick to the books and carve out his after hockey career? Probably not. The owners want him to serve an NHL apprenticeship. OK, but unless he is destined to be a super star his life is one big anxiety trip. And now they want to lengthen the apprenticeship. By the time he can make decent money his legs may be gone, he may have had a concussion or two. He wants that money sooner than later because there may not be a later. So the NHLPA has to play some hardball. It always eems to come down to who blinks first
Some thoughts on negotiations. The owners and the players have to have the good of the league somewhere in their minds. But think of it from a player’s perspective. He’s been playing hockey for most of his life. He has given up a lot of the “fun” stuff that kids do. He gets drafted. He has a limited shelf life. During that time he would like to make enough money to keep him and his family reasonably comfortable for the rest of his life. Has he really been able to stick to the books and carve out his after hockey career? Probably not. The owners want him to serve an NHL apprenticeship. OK, but unless he is destined to be a super star his life is one big anxiety trip. And now they want to lengthen the apprenticeship. By the time he can make decent money his legs may be gone, he may have had a concussion or two. He wants that money sooner than later because there may not be a later. So the NHLPA has to play some hardball. It always eems to come down to who blinks first
The only issue I have with what is said here is what I put in bold:
In this players career I am sure he has made enough money to take the 4 years or so after hockey to get his schooling taken care of at the very least. Just because you get to PLAY a game in the early part of your adulthood does not mean you dont have to work the rest of your life. I am not sure when everybody became ok with that. 40 years ago, Yankees players were working in restaurants in the offseason to make money!! And I am not talking about fringe players either.
The only thing I was ever with the players about was base pay. Last lockout the players won a major concession when minimum pay became a little over 500k a year. The only true injustice was guys playing all season for high end ahl pay. The fact that the worst player in the league makes half a mill eliminates my only player concern. Now if you spend one year at the top you can have a home for your family, something to show for your career. These guys make good money playing a kids game. I could give two poops about anyone making over a million. I could care less about their "rights". You're getting paid well, every single one of you. If the owners want to keep the upper half from making too much I'm fine with it.
There is nothing 'playing a kids game' about professional sports. It's something players say to fans in their "I'm just happy to be here, and hope I can help the ball club" speeches.
The only thing I was ever with the players about was base pay. Last lockout the players won a major concession when minimum pay became a little over 500k a year. The only true injustice was guys playing all season for high end ahl pay. The fact that the worst player in the league makes half a mill eliminates my only player concern. Now if you spend one year at the top you can have a home for your family, something to show for your career. These guys make good money playing a kids game. I could give two poops about anyone making over a million. I could care less about their "rights". You're getting paid well, every single one of you. If the owners want to keep the upper half from making too much I'm fine with it.
If you suffer physically from a "game" that millionaires make more millions, does that change things? What if you suffer to the extent that it causes you to commit suicide? I'm just not so sure about this simplified characterization of their involvement in professional hockey.
If the Carolina Hurricanes ice a team full of Patrick Dwyers, how many will pay to see that? How much more excited does the fanbase become about buying tickets to see Jordan Staal and Alex Semin join the team? That directly translates into the team getting more revenue. Those top-end players don't deserve a piece of that? "If you build it, they will come" only gets you so far...they can always find another place to play, and that's where the fans will go.
There's no right answer...you simply make adjustments to get it to the point where it works for everyone. However, seems like NHL owners never want to make "adjustments"...they always want to set fire to the current CBA, even one that they themselves were successful in getting put into place.
Here's what I'm confused about. The owners and players have two different proposals that appear to have completely different frameworks and neither appear to be anywhere near on the same page. So what the **** were they doing in those negotiations/bs sessions in Toronto? Both sides acted like they were unpleasantly surprised with the others proposals. Shouldn't they have been talking about this stuff in those meetings?
Here's what I'm confused about. The owners and players have two different proposals that appear to have completely different frameworks and neither appear to be anywhere near on the same page. So what the **** were they doing in those negotiations/bs sessions in Toronto? Both sides acted like they were unpleasantly surprised with the others proposals. Shouldn't they have been talking about this stuff in those meetings?
That'd make too much sense when money is on the line.
I'm interested to know what proposal they are going to try to work from.
Yeah, it appears the NHL wants a response to the proposal they presented. To build off that one. The NHLPA feels their proposal is a better starting point.
It's sad when they can't even find a place to begin the negotiations.
New idea:
Fehr vs. Bettman in a shootout. First the hockey kind, then if necessary, the Wild West kind.
Whoever wins, that's the proposal we're starting with.
If you suffer physically from a "game" that millionaires make more millions, does that change things? What if you suffer to the extent that it causes you to commit suicide? I'm just not so sure about this simplified characterization of their involvement in professional hockey.
If the Carolina Hurricanes ice a team full of Patrick Dwyers, how many will pay to see that? How much more excited does the fanbase become about buying tickets to see Jordan Staal and Alex Semin join the team? That directly translates into the team getting more revenue. Those top-end players don't deserve a piece of that? "If you build it, they will come" only gets you so far...they can always find another place to play, and that's where the fans will go.
There's no right answer...you simply make adjustments to get it to the point where it works for everyone. However, seems like NHL owners never want to make "adjustments"...they always want to set fire to the current CBA, even one that they themselves were successful in getting put into place.
I'm a city paramedic. We run approx 100k calls a year with 150 medics. The whole what if your job makes you suffer so much you commit suicide rings hollow to me. This IS a game. A lucky and hard working few can make a living off it, and I don't begrudge them for it at all. Look at the contracts ruutu and Gleason got for not particularly spectacular play. What can the players say that makes you feel something is being "taken" away from them? Things are amazing for the players, and every one of them is well paid. If they compromised with the owners offer this would over and it would be a fair market still. You aren't gonna get the owners to change how they think the way fehr is posturing they should. He knows that too.
So the NHLPA wants draft picks redistributed to poor teams? lol
The more that comes about the proposal, the more ridiculous it looks.
Great PR by the NHLPA though, the media just lapped it up like they always do. The NHL should take note, not even bother to make a full proposal, then release a few points of their plan that will get retweeted by ten billion people.
I believe the idea was that teams in financial trouble would be given a draft pick only if both the NHLPA/NHL agreed on it and only as a last resort.
Pretty much what happened with Pittsburgh and Crosby.
Not sure how they'd work out where the draft pick would be, but it's simply another tactic to split the owners. Smaller market owners (those that may be/are currently in financial trouble) would love the idea of getting a Crosby to save the franchise, larger market owners would reject it.
