I would like to say though that even though it is officially a lockout, the more important date is somewhere around October 1st.
Bettman mentioned in one of his recent press conferences that the cost of a "brief lockout" to the players would exceed the revenue share differential between what the league is now offering and the old CBA.
I'm quite sure the players have a lot more to lose, but essentially I agree with you - sometime in the month of October (possibly early November) the players will face up to this reality and we'll see progress.
Ok no problem. Run the season with the same one as last year until you agree on the new one... If it's needed for the full season, so be it
Do they really think they would lose more money (because after all, it's all about money) using the old CBA than go on a freaking lockout? What the hell?
What was so bad about the last CBA? Use it until you get a new agreement, it's not complicated
Extend it for one year if needed, get the negociations rolling all year if you want, so maybe you'll be ready next summer :
Damn fsughrbgsjbvsrjh"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by source
Bettman mentioned in one of his recent press conferences that the cost of a "brief lockout" to the players would exceed the revenue share differential between what the league is now offering and the old CBA.
Yup and it's called pressure means (moyens de pression). Owners don't really care, they don't live off hockey, it's just a passion/hobby for most of them. They're thinking long-term. Players can't think that long-term.
So hockey players are about to realize that they have bosses too? Oh poor little millionnaires
Again, since a lockout happens every decade, they should some sort of rule that if players and owners can't get a new agreement before September 15th, they'll have to use the latest version of the CBA for the upcoming season.
The players feel that they gave in last time and now they are right back to the same place.
He also mentioned that there was about 20% of the league signed at the time of the 2005 lockout, and now there are about 80% so they won't accept any salary rollback.
Nor should they.
The league does need to improve the revenue sharing, and quit crying poor and then acting foolishly with 13, 15 and 17 year contracts to get around the salary cap they so desperately needed last time.
I'm with the players on this one. Everybody wants to see hockey, but in my opinion it looks like the league is the bad guy this time around.
The players feel that they gave in last time and now they are right back to the same place.
He also mentioned that there was about 20% of the league signed at the time of the 2005 lockout, and now there are about 80% so they won't accept any salary rollback.
Nor should they.
The league does need to improve the revenue sharing, and quit crying poor and then acting foolishly with 13, 15 and 17 year contracts to get around the salary cap they so desperately needed last time.
I'm with the players on this one. Everybody wants to see hockey, but in my opinion it looks like the league is the bad guy this time around.
Both sides are pissing me off equally. Just a big ol' bunch of whiny rich babies. Pretty tough to pick a side.
Both sides are pissing me off equally. Just a big ol' bunch of whiny rich babies. Pretty tough to pick a side.
On the side of the owners myself.
The players take in 57% of the revenue and, according ro Fehr, used to get their hands on 70% of the revenue before the cap was implemented.
Some people say the owners are the cause of the problem and they are right: the rollback from 2004 needed to be closer to 50%!
This is BS because they are just fighting over the money.
They'll work it out. The owners will get hurt in their pocketbooks. No gate receipts, no concession sales, probably not much merchandise will move during a lockout either.
I also can't imagine that their TV deals won't be affected. Bettman JUST got a decent US TV deal. This is not the time for a lengthy lockout.
The owners will get hurt in their pocketbooks. No gate receipts, no concession sales, probably not much merchandise will move during a lockout either.
But they don't have to pay players any salary, so isn't the worse case for owners is that they make no money (good for teams that lose money, bad for teams that are profitable)? Owners own teams as a plaything, but players hockey to make money. Owners will probably never give in.
I'm with the players on this one. Everybody wants to see hockey, but in my opinion it looks like the league is the bad guy this time around.
Of course the league is the bad guy. They get the deal they wanted last time and now they're whining that they can't make it work. The guy who promised us a system for 30 healthy franchises long term has either failed miserably or is lying. But yet Bettman, despite being either a failure or a complete liar, is still in charge of the league.
How can anyone with any semblance of intelligence support a side that continues to have Bettman running things? Do they like being made a fool of?
Because he's made them a ******** of money in his tenure as Commissioner.
The league is the strongest it has ever been, things really couldn't be better from the US TV deal, to fan interest in the US. Having L A win the Cup was huge for the league.
Why would the owners want to get rid of Bettman? Why would you fire a guy that has made you a ton of money and given you everything that you want? Expansion fees, a player salary cap, previous to that there was the rookie cap, the US TV deal that he just brokered is massive for the league in the US.
The future of the league is in the US. That is where the people and money is. They have 10 times the population we do.
Obviously there are problem markets, but overall, I suspect that the owners are VERY pleased with the job Bettman has done for them.
Second note, I really don't buy into this delusional belief that the owners don't care if they lose money or not. Nobody that is rich enough to own an NHL team got that way by not caring about losing money.
The building are essentially losing their major tenant in most markets. Yes the owners aren't paying the players their salaries, but they also aren't getting their 43% or whatever number they float out there that you choose to believe.
The league just got a huge US TV deal, the 2nd biggest market in the USA just won the Cup. This is absolutely the wrong time to disrupt that momentum.
Because he's made them a ******** of money in his tenure as Commissioner.
The league is the strongest it has ever been, things really couldn't be better from the US TV deal, to fan interest in the US. Having L A win the Cup was huge for the league.
Why would the owners want to get rid of Bettman? Why would you fire a guy that has made you a ton of money and given you everything that you want? Expansion fees, a player salary cap, previous to that there was the rookie cap, the US TV deal that he just brokered is massive for the league in the US.
Then why is there a lockout? Oh, because the owners are greedy and don't care if they annoy the suckers that follow their league?
I'm with the players too on this one. Nobody put a gun to the owners' heads and asked them to pay those high salaries to their players. It's called a budget, use it! If differences in budgets lead to inequities between teams, then, as the union is saying, use some kind of revenue sharing like in baseball to help the poor teams.
As for the "hardcore fan" notion, if anything it's some of the biggest fans who are the most disappointed ones and who are capable of punishing their favorite team (and themselves in the process) by withholding their spending and their attention. The casual fan just doesn't care enough to be angry, and will just go to a game from time to time regardless of the bargaining context.
Although its popular right now to rip Bettman he is the one I have the most respect for .
Between the owners and the PA and a mostly hostile media it's like juggling scissors, and he has taken a lot of personal attacks but in my opinion he is the one who is fighting for the good of the league.
This is a description by Ken Dryden of how Bettman tried to tame the owners habit of overspending. Doug Maclean explained it in pretty much the same way:
Although its popular right now to rip Bettman he is the one I have the most respect for .
How can anyone respect someone who lies so often that it is almost pathological? He's the epitome of a sleazy lawyer.
Quote:
Between the owners and the PA and a mostly hostile media it's like juggling scissors, and he has taken a lot of personal attacks but in my opinion he is the one who is fighting for the good of the league.
Good of the league? Seriously? More like the good of the owners bank accounts. Too many games have been lost under the direction of this weasel.
:
The owners have no reason to cave. They won't.
