HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-04-2012, 07:41 PM
  #1
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,692
vCash: 500
Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

Obviously, many would argue that they are both to blame for being unable to compromise and draft/ratify a new CBA.

I'm not going to include a "both sides to blame" option in the poll, in order to make the survey results a stark black and white.

Go ahead... pick a side.

The owners, who feel that the player salaries are getting out of control and must be radically reigned in...

or

The players, who won't accept such a massive reduction in pay going forward.

Born in 1909 is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 07:45 PM
  #2
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,140
vCash: 500
I'd go with the NHLPA. How the heck can you declare a lockout as a group of owners and yet hand out contracts like you're doing. And I believe it's really dumb to ask to cut some salaries...the same ones the players received by those poor owners.

Problem with this league is that with the idea of making more money, they accepted more teams that the sport can have. Put that down to 24 teams and accept the sport as it is. If it makes less revenues, so be it, players will have to accept less money. But at the very least, you will eliminate the teams that are most in trouble so that we will never have those lockout/strike talks ever again.

Whitesnake is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 07:59 PM
  #3
dcal64
Registered User
 
dcal64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
I'd go with the NHLPA. How the heck can you declare a lockout as a group of owners and yet hand out contracts like you're doing. And I believe it's really dumb to ask to cut some salaries...the same ones the players received by those poor owners.

Problem with this league is that with the idea of making more money, they accepted more teams that the sport can have. Put that down to 24 teams and accept the sport as it is. If it makes less revenues, so be it, players will have to accept less money. But at the very least, you will eliminate the teams that are most in trouble so that we will never have those lockout/strike talks ever again.
The owners locked out the players because if they didn't, the players would have played the regular season, then went on strike during the playoffs, since they don't get paid and the owners make most of the profits during the playoffs. The owners would have had no leverage, with the players holding all the power.

Please don't listen to Fehr saying the players wanted to play, he didn't mention anything about the players wanting to play in the playoffs without a contract. I find it a joke that rich players are playing in Europe for practically free, taking away the livelyhood of fringe players. I wish they have replacement players, so that the players that lost their jobs with the NHL players going to Europe, come over here and take the NHL players jobs.

dcal64 is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 08:00 PM
  #4
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
I'd go with the NHLPA because they're only millionaires opposed to billionaires. As long as they stop pretending to be normal people suffering without any money.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 08:15 PM
  #5
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,797
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
I'd go with the NHLPA. How the heck can you declare a lockout as a group of owners and yet hand out contracts like you're doing. And I believe it's really dumb to ask to cut some salaries...the same ones the players received by those poor owners.

Problem with this league is that with the idea of making more money, they accepted more teams that the sport can have. Put that down to 24 teams and accept the sport as it is. If it makes less revenues, so be it, players will have to accept less money. But at the very least, you will eliminate the teams that are most in trouble so that we will never have those lockout/strike talks ever again.
Did the owners spend more than the cap? Nope. I don't see how it makes a difference. Molson can give Subban 12 mil per year, it doesn't make a difference as someone else will get less because there is a cap.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 08:19 PM
  #6
WG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 408
vCash: 500
The players, easily.

I cannot even begin to fathom how the NHL owners send Craig Leopold of the Wild into a negotiating session to tell the NHLPA that contract length and overall player salaries are out of whack. The owners gladly forked over the contracts they now claim are kiliing the league.

The NHL and the league owners over the years have happily scooped up expansion and relocation fees to put teams where they are. Now with some teams struggling they want the players to pay for their folly.

I also have little doubt that the owners can and do play games with the books in order to make their situation look as dire as possible. Player salaries, on the other hand are known to the last dollar. The last stand in the negotiaitons, IMO, will be the HRR definition as I'm sure the NHLPA figures the owners are taking in money they aren't telling the PA about.

WG is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 08:20 PM
  #7
Nashy
The Honey Badger
 
Nashy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,914
vCash: 500
Not really on either side, but if I had to choose...it'd be the players.

Last contract they took a 24% wage rollback and a salary cap.

They gave last contract and it's their turn to get a little bit on this one....or at the very least, not have it shoved up their butts again.

Having said that; once half the season is gone, a good portion of the players are going to be wishing they'd taken a wage rollback.

Nashy is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 08:31 PM
  #8
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,058
vCash: 500
NHLPA. The players aren't the reason we've seen 4 lockouts in 2 decades. They took a rollback the last lockout and are being asked to take another one? Hell, I don't blame them for being pissed.

I'm ashamed to be a fan of this mickey mouse league.

hockeyfan2k11 is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 08:33 PM
  #9
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcal64 View Post
Please don't listen to Fehr saying the players wanted to play, he didn't mention anything about the players wanting to play in the playoffs without a contract. I find it a joke that rich players are playing in Europe for practically free, taking away the livelyhood of fringe players. I wish they have replacement players, so that the players that lost their jobs with the NHL players going to Europe, come over here and take the NHL players jobs.
Yeah, that would work well....with a much lower quality, we'd all be whining about it, and the NHL would have no choice but to give the players what they want based on how the attendance and the attention will be throughout the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Did the owners spend more than the cap? Nope. I don't see how it makes a difference. Molson can give Subban 12 mil per year, it doesn't make a difference as someone else will get less because there is a cap.
So why would they want all the players to reduce their salaries then? Are they lowering the cap as well? Since they won't, what's the point? Lowering the players salaries is clearly not the solution. Changing the philosophy, lowering maybe the 57-43 revenues might be, still I believe that the problem is not that whatsoever. It's a league who loves to pretend they are bigger than they actually are. Once the "minds" all understand this, we won't have any problem whatsover. Better show, less teams in trouble if any.

So it makes no sense for owners to want players to take a salary reduction IF it doesn't mean for them to ask for lowering the cap as well. Last time players took what kind of cut again? And then how many years later and what's the difference? Another lockout. Why the heck would players to that again. I agree with the owners to change the revenue sharing %. But that's about it. Owners whining about teams in trouble? Move them to where they won't be or eliminate them and learn the lesson....

Whitesnake is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 08:50 PM
  #10
sharks9
Registered User
 
sharks9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,893
vCash: 500
The NHLPA because they were willing to continue this season with the previous CBA, whereas the owners went to a lockout as their first resort instead of the last resort.

sharks9 is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:06 PM
  #11
Prairie Habs
Registered User
 
Prairie Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,279
vCash: 500
The owners lose all sympathy when they spend NINE FIGURES in player salary on the last day of the CBA then demand the players give the money back.

Prairie Habs is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:06 PM
  #12
CanadienKid25
Registered User
 
CanadienKid25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 360
vCash: 50
If I had to choose, I choose not to support the players. At some point in their life they no longer played for the joy of the game but started caring about $2,000,000 rather than $1,000,000. Owners are in it for the money, I can understand that.

CanadienKid25 is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:08 PM
  #13
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,377
vCash: 500
NHLPA easely. I can't beleive there's people on the owners side. First of all, it's the players that give their bodies and play the game so that we enjoy. Also, the last time arround, they gave up on everything. They also want to negociate in good will, something the owners don't wanna do. And lastly, the owners are hypocrites, they're the one who wanted a salary cap and they're trying to circumvent it all the time, besides they hand out stupidly lenghty contract all the time... if it's so bad for the league, they should refrain themselves from doing it all the time.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:09 PM
  #14
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadienKid25 View Post
If I had to choose, I choose not to support the players. At some point in their life they no longer played for the joy of the game but started caring about $2,000,000 rather than $1,000,000. Owners are in it for the money, I can understand that.
Yeah you understand why someone would want money, but not someone else. That's so logical.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:13 PM
  #15
CanadienKid25
Registered User
 
CanadienKid25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 360
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by franchise player View Post
Yeah you understand why someone would want money, but not someone else. That's so logical.
I understand the players wanting more money but to me it is greed where I don't want to see it. I do no support the players for that reason.

CanadienKid25 is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:15 PM
  #16
overlords
Global Moderator
Jack Arse
 
overlords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,122
vCash: 500
One of those questions I just can't answer in a black and white fashion. The owners are idiots for pushing so hard only a few years ago for an agreement that is supposedly sinking them now, and the PA are a bunch of idiots for not negotiating.

__________________



"overlords is one of my favorite people on this entire site." - Hfboards
overlords is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:15 PM
  #17
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,284
vCash: 500
Players, becaus they are not responsible for bad speculation of hockey markets; e.g. Phx, Nsh, Fla, TB etc. Which is the main and ONLY reason why the league is in "financial problems"

2nd reason, being the contracts they were handing out, while crying that they aren't making money. Lets face it, neither TO nor MTL, two of the "biggest money makers" in the league were giving out ridiculous contracts ala Minnesota.

i don't see any reasons to support the owners, they are the risk takers and they are the ones who forced a 1 season lock out and changed CBA to their liking. Which less then 10 years later, they seem to have a problem with.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:17 PM
  #18
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadienKid25 View Post
If I had to choose, I choose not to support the players. At some point in their life they no longer played for the joy of the game but started caring about $2,000,000 rather than $1,000,000. Owners are in it for the money, I can understand that.
This make absolutely no sense.

Rosso Scuderia is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:22 PM
  #19
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
I've done high level collective bargaining, and to me the owners sent a very clear signal from the beginning - they wanted to start cancelling games as a pressure tactic before they would enter good faith bargaining. There's nothing immoral about that as a business practice, it's a tactic. However, as a fan, I place far more blame on the league than the players for there being a lockout. The players never threatened to strike in the current situation, and since they were working off a CBA the league had loudly and consistently said was the model they wanted, I blame the league for having apparently lied every time they said that.

Frankly, I think Bettman is entirely to blame. He inflated revenues by accepting massive losses, and boosted his compensation and his power by doing so. The simple fact is by expanding into weak markets he inflated gross revenues but almost all those teams lose money, so at the same time as he inflated revenues he inflated losses more. Now he wants the players to take the blame for them. How many franchises that he brought into the league are making a profit? Isn't that the key complaint, that Bettman's babies were built on a failed business model? But it's the player's greed that is the problem?

Bottom line, he's put the league in a mess of his own creation, and is willing to hold the fans hostage to force the players to make his failed business model work. He says too many teams are losing money, but he's the father of expansion. If it's all about gross revenues and having teams in the sunbelt to get national tv deals, then it's up the league to share revenues to make that business strategy viable. Sure a cap and revenue sharing are fair things to negotiate, hard cap or soft, and the owners can push for lower salaries. Not saying the players are saints by any means, not at all, but it's Bettman and the league who are willing to shut down hockey again and again and again, not the players. Both sides want to grab all the money they can, but ONLY Bettman is sacrificing games to do it.

Also, the owners signed contracts with the players and their collective bargaining stand now is they don't want to honour them, they want immediate cuts to already signed deals, some of the biggest ones signed in the last few weeks before the lockout. If that's not bad faith, I don't know what is.


Last edited by Bullsmith: 10-04-2012 at 09:34 PM.
Bullsmith is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:26 PM
  #20
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharks9 View Post
The NHLPA because they were willing to continue this season with the previous CBA, whereas the owners went to a lockout as their first resort instead of the last resort.
Then the habs go on a 21-0-0 stretch and the seasons stop because there's no agreement. Bettman gets bombed.

Mrb1p is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:34 PM
  #21
Lshap
Registered User
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharks9 View Post
The NHLPA because they were willing to continue this season with the previous CBA, whereas the owners went to a lockout as their first resort instead of the last resort.
The owners intended to have a lockout from the beginning, because it's the single most powerful negotiating weapon they have to ultimately get what they want. Turn off the NHL tap and the players' salaries stop; turn it off long enough and the players will cave. This lockout isn't the result of unresolved negotiating terms, it IS the negotiation term. This is their leverage and it's exactly what the owners wanted. This is big-ass muscle flexing by 30 men who are showing 700 younger men who's running the show.

It's the same leverage they have with the fans, who will not only come back, but pay more for the privilege.

So yeah, that puts me on the side of the NHLPA. But don't misunderstand -- I don't dislike the owners for using a good business model. It's smart and it's how things work. And let's be honest, the players are still millionaires and we fans volunteer to buy ridiculously-overpriced tickets. There are no real victims here. I just hope the players get what's fair.


Last edited by Lshap: 10-04-2012 at 09:40 PM.
Lshap is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:35 PM
  #22
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,797
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
So why would they want all the players to reduce their salaries then? Are they lowering the cap as well? Since they won't, what's the point? Lowering the players salaries is clearly not the solution. Changing the philosophy, lowering maybe the 57-43 revenues might be, still I believe that the problem is not that whatsoever. It's a league who loves to pretend they are bigger than they actually are. Once the "minds" all understand this, we won't have any problem whatsover. Better show, less teams in trouble if any.

So it makes no sense for owners to want players to take a salary reduction IF it doesn't mean for them to ask for lowering the cap as well. Last time players took what kind of cut again? And then how many years later and what's the difference? Another lockout. Why the heck would players to that again. I agree with the owners to change the revenue sharing %. But that's about it. Owners whining about teams in trouble? Move them to where they won't be or eliminate them and learn the lesson....
Since the cap is based on revenues, then yes...a reduction in player % means lower cap and lower floor.

The players lost 24% but salaries increased what, 50%? Players won.

Whatever, I agree reducing salaries won't fix that much but I feel if salaries are reduced, there should be more revenue sharing in consequence. Small market teams will never be able to catch up to us. The better the habs, leafs, rangers, etc... do, no matter how well nashville does, they will still be small market(at this canadian dollar anyway).

There is a deal to be made for the long term success of the league and it's a reduction for players and more money in revenue sharing. I've heard owners have considered revenue sharing ideas yet players have not considered a reduction.

There's talk about "we'll lose X amount of money" at this estimate growth. Load of crap. I don't like that.

In fact I feel players should be given a % of the cap. This way if cap increases so does your pay. Essentially, the growth of the game helps players too. It's like a partnership.(ex: player gets 5% of 50 mil=2.5 mil. Cap goes up to 60 mil he gets 3 mil.)

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:36 PM
  #23
Westcoasthabsfan
Registered User
 
Westcoasthabsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In Pandoras Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,246
vCash: 500
I support neither side because in the end they only hurt the fans....poor rich players and boo hoo rich owners....

Westcoasthabsfan is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:36 PM
  #24
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,797
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
This make absolutely no sense.
Makes sense to me. You expect owners to be businessmen. Now when players are crying over a few thousand dollars when they make millions, what happened to being humble? Now suddenly they are businessmen too. Funny how that works.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:39 PM
  #25
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,797
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by franchise player View Post
NHLPA easely. I can't beleive there's people on the owners side. First of all, it's the players that give their bodies and play the game so that we enjoy. Also, the last time arround, they gave up on everything. They also want to negociate in good will, something the owners don't wanna do. And lastly, the owners are hypocrites, they're the one who wanted a salary cap and they're trying to circumvent it all the time, besides they hand out stupidly lenghty contract all the time... if it's so bad for the league, they should refrain themselves from doing it all the time.
How is pushing back negotiations till last minutes 'good will'.

I don't think the owners are complaining about the contracts or their lengths. I haven't see bettman said that. They are arguing the share, aka the max cap and the floor.

LyricalLyricist 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 09:21 PM.

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.