HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
10-07-2012, 08:57 PM
  #176
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
I find it's more the players fault than the owners. The owners are the ones taht invested big money to have a team, they should not be forced to pay 57% of revenue to the players.
That is NOT AT ALL what the players are asking.

The players ARE READY to accept a 50/50 split. (Progressive decrease in each year to reach 50/50 in 4-5 years)

The owners want a 51(owners)/49(players) RIGHT NOW. Which mean a 14% salary cut for the players.

Rosso Scuderia is online now  
Old
10-07-2012, 09:36 PM
  #177
Hurricane-JL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
That is NOT AT ALL what the players are asking.

The players ARE READY to accept a 50/50 split. (Progressive decrease in each year to reach 50/50 in 4-5 years)

The owners want a 51(owners)/49(players) RIGHT NOW. Which mean a 14% salary cut for the players.
It is not right. During the 4th year, the players would be at 57% again, well exactly the same CBA as it was last year, which will never be accepted by the NHL. And it will guarantee a lockout again in only 4 years (because NHLPA doesn't want the CBA to be long) and I don't know how it is good for any fans or the NHL itself if there is a chance to have another dispute in a few years after this one resolves.

A good reading below for the NHLPA offer, which is not as good as some people think, and not as bad as some other do (it is from the original offer, the last offer is almost identical as this one, so few changes that it is still considered as the "same" offer):

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/...fehr_proposal/


Last edited by Hurricane-JL: 10-07-2012 at 10:19 PM.
Hurricane-JL is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 09:53 PM
  #178
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
That wasnt the point I was trying to make.

And I even tried typing really, really slowly for you. But, you keep bringing up the strawman argument that I am not even making.

Have fun.
It isn't a strawman. It proves that ticket prices are set by supply and demand (which you reject), and as such refutes your argument that ticket prices are determined by costs.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:13 PM
  #179
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I was responding to posters taking the owners' side simply because they don't like the fact that players are millionaires. What I'm saying is, if you're going against people who make "more than enough money," you might want to look at those whose side you are taking.

As far as "fair" - what do you think is fair? Do you think every owner should be entitled to make a profit every year, regardless of how successfully he operates his team, regardless of which market he and his partners choose to operate in?

I do not hate the players cause they are millionaires. They have every right to seek as much money as possible within the rules of the CBA.

I also do not think that every team is entitled to make profits. But they should have a chance at it.

I had a thought tonight, and someone please corret me if I am wrong but right now the revenue sharing is 10% right?

here is my idea.

bump revenue sharing to 25% AND bump the escrow for the players to a larger % to make sure every team in the NHL at the very least breaks even. Once ALL the teams have all their bills paid then the players get their escrow payments....

Is that a crazy idea???

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:21 PM
  #180
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane-JL View Post
It is not right. During the 4th year, the players would be at 57% again, well exactly the same CBA as it was last year, which will never be accepted by the NHL. And it will guarantee a lockout again in only 4 years (because NHLPA doesn't want the CBA to be long) and I don't know how it is good for any fans or the NHL itself if there is a chance to have another dispute in a few years after this one resolve.

A good reading below for the NHLPA offer, which is not as good as some people think, and not as bad as some other do (it is from the original offer, the last offer is almost identical as this one, so few changes that it is still considered as the "same" offer):

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/...fehr_proposal/
That is not what Darche said on "Le Match" about 2 weeks ago. The NHLPA proposition was that their share would decrease progressively until they reach 50/50 in 4-5 years(considering the revenues keep increasing).

Also, why would the players be a 57% again in the 4th?


Anyway, it would suck if we lose a whole year of hockey for about 1-2% of the total revenue. I know 1% is over 300M$ but when they will settle this up.. it would probably be +/- 1% difference of 50%.

Rosso Scuderia is online now  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:42 PM
  #181
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,770
vCash: 500
Neither. Both sides handled the situation poorly. It's really unacceptable that there's another lock out.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 10:46 PM
  #182
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
What DA said. I think ragging on millionaire players in the context of, consumers are willing to spend too much money on the highest level of pro sports, is fine. Ragging on how much players make in the context of a labor dispute with owners who are all more wealthy than the players, doesn't work so well.
You might as well argue that personal/individual interest rates are unfairly low considering how much money banks have, and how much larger the returns are on their side of your investment dollar. But on the flip side, poor people aren't excused from robbing banks because banks have "more than enough" money while they don't. So, sometimes it's not about what the money is, but how either side goes about getting it - and the rules that govern that, obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
As far as replacement players go... what would that make the NHL, the 5th or 6th best league in the world? I'd stick with the KHL and junior hockey.
And that assumes, what, that the best up and coming junior players around the world will all continue to boycott the NHL, and won't join whatever group pops up to represent them in the "new NHL"? Say every current player with an NHLPA contract carries on the boycott. What happens when the best, and currently undrafted, 16 year olds hear that they've been selected by Team X in the "new NHL" draft a few years from now? How long before they bring back the interest and quality to the league?

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now  
Old
10-07-2012, 11:27 PM
  #183
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It isn't a strawman. It proves that ticket prices are set by supply and demand (which you reject), and as such refutes your argument that ticket prices are determined by costs.
Damn you are dense. You still do not get what I posted (HINT........I am not ****ing talking about setting ****ing ticket prices) and you built another strawman.

Why dont you start a thread about Montreal tanking and then argue in circles with people like you are doing now.

Wait a minute............

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 11:39 PM
  #184
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
That is not what Darche said on "Le Match" about 2 weeks ago. The NHLPA proposition was that their share would decrease progressively until they reach 50/50 in 4-5 years(considering the revenues keep increasing).

Also, why would the players be a 57% again in the 4th?


Anyway, it would suck if we lose a whole year of hockey for about 1-2% of the total revenue. I know 1% is over 300M$ but when they will settle this up.. it would probably be +/- 1% difference of 50%.
It's not a 50 50 split if you start at 57 and end at 50. It's a 50 50 split if you start at 57 and end at 43.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-07-2012, 11:44 PM
  #185
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
There is a big difference between "owners need more money" and some owners need more money (to be more precise, some owners need more money to consistently make profits). IMO relaxing the league's control of team sales and relocation would be a more effective and sustainable way of solving the problem.
Fanbases emerged with parity, telling them they can save money but putting a weaker product? How does that help. Besides, players can say whatever they like but if no cap then you won't see long term deals anymore as they aren't necessary. You can just overpay free agency all the time. Not to mention, i'd bet the players get less than 57% then, so its an empty threat if they use it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Your rationale being, if the CDN$ drops, Canadian revenue drops while expenses stay the same? I haven't looked it up, but I'm sure revenue must be converted into a single currency before HRR is calculated. If revenues drop because of currency fluctuation, the players' share will drop accordingly
Yes, that is true but you're missing a key element. For instance, Montreal pays their players in USD. If canadian dollar goes down, they still pay in USD. So they get paid in CDN dollar but pay in USD. Think about it. Sure, this is montreal, we'll manage, what about edmonton? Winnipeg? Even Ottawa?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I believe removing guaranteed contracts would only affect hockey operations (the GM's job would be easier), but not the owner's bottom line. If a Gomez is dropped, his share will go to other players, whether through free agency or escrow.
Yes, it MIGHT go to other players, they'd still need to reach the floor but takes habs for instance, didn't really attempt for any major UFA. Drop Gomez, still above cap floor.

Either way, the premise was they can cut costs as necessary, if necessary. 16 mil potential cut.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:01 AM
  #186
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by poetryinmotion View Post
The players side no question about it. Even though I don't really buy their sympathy pitch to the fans about it being entirely the owner's fault that there is a lockout in process.
Suppose the players had staged a strike to put pressure on the owners. Where would your sympathies lie then?

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 01:15 AM
  #187
Ollie Williams
Registered User
 
Ollie Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,141
vCash: 356
The "millionaires vs billionaires" base to take a side, never held any water for me. Billionaire owners are not a product of the NHL as they were billionaires before being owners. Millionaire players are a direct product of the NHL.

I'm on the owner's side on this matter. It's no secret that several teams are in financial difficulty and it's also no secret that the NHL wants to do everything in its power to avoid relocation of said teams. Furthermore, the owners also claim that expenses have gone up since the last CBA was negotiated. If they say they need a higher percentage of HRR to stay profitable, then so be it. If their current proposal is not ludicrous (which it doesn't seem to be) then the players should agree to it and end this stupidity.

At my work, I don't get to negotiate the company's profits. If they want to increase profits, I get laid off.

Ollie Williams is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 09:09 AM
  #188
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
And that assumes, what, that the best up and coming junior players around the world will all continue to boycott the NHL, and won't join whatever group pops up to represent them in the "new NHL"? Say every current player with an NHLPA contract carries on the boycott. What happens when the best, and currently undrafted, 16 year olds hear that they've been selected by Team X in the "new NHL" draft a few years from now? How long before they bring back the interest and quality to the league?
I'm guessing the NHL and CHL have an agreement that would block undrafted juniors from becoming replacement NHL'ers? Anyway, even if Nathan MacKinnon went NHL-B (XHL?), Zetterberg is in Switzerland, Giroux is in Germany, Chara is in the Czech Republic and Ovechkin is in Russia... I don't see the replacement NHL coming close to that kind of quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Fanbases emerged with parity, telling them they can save money but putting a weaker product? How does that help. Besides, players can say whatever they like but if no cap then you won't see long term deals anymore as they aren't necessary. You can just overpay free agency all the time. Not to mention, i'd bet the players get less than 57% then, so its an empty threat if they use it.

Yes, that is true but you're missing a key element. For instance, Montreal pays their players in USD. If canadian dollar goes down, they still pay in USD. So they get paid in CDN dollar but pay in USD. Think about it. Sure, this is montreal, we'll manage, what about edmonton? Winnipeg? Even Ottawa?

Yes, it MIGHT go to other players, they'd still need to reach the floor but takes habs for instance, didn't really attempt for any major UFA. Drop Gomez, still above cap floor.

Either way, the premise was they can cut costs as necessary, if necessary. 16 mil potential cut.
LL, I think those would be really valid points, if not for escrow. The current CBA (which appears to be the template for the next CBA, with different numbers) has accountants crunching all those numbers, coming up with a final revenue figure, comparing it to player contracts, and then paying or charging the difference via escrow payments. So, 57% is exactly 57%, regardless of currency fluctuations, buyouts, cap ceiling/floor. Absolute cost certainty was what the owners were fighting for last time around, and they got it.

You may actually have a point about smaller Canadian markets, if the dollar crashes back to where it was a decade ago. It may sound callous, but I don't think it's necessarily in the interest of the league to try and maintain a team in every current city, even if the market can't support one. I think the Phoenix situation has done real damage, including factors that have contributed to this lockout. Likewise, the league's insistence on keeping a second team out of the GTA. If a weak dollar means the Senators have to move to Seattle and Ottawa has to cheer on the 67s... I can think of worse calamities. Of course, this is all hypothetical, I don't see any signs that the American dollar is ready to take off compared to ours.


Last edited by Roulin: 10-08-2012 at 09:16 AM.
Roulin is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 10:13 AM
  #189
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I'm guessing the NHL and CHL have an agreement that would block undrafted juniors from becoming replacement NHL'ers? Anyway, even if Nathan MacKinnon went NHL-B (XHL?), Zetterberg is in Switzerland, Giroux is in Germany, Chara is in the Czech Republic and Ovechkin is in Russia... I don't see the replacement NHL coming close to that kind of quality.
In the short term, no. Five years down the road though? But backing up, I'd like to know if there is a "no scab agreement" between the CHL and NHL, because the only rules I'm aware of involve age eligibility (who can be drafted, who qualifies for the AHL, who qualifies to be sent back down after camp/10 games/whatever if they don't crack the roster, etc).

But, then again, there are still plenty of other junior leagues around the world producing top hockey players as well.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now  
Old
10-08-2012, 10:36 AM
  #190
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
In the short term, no. Five years down the road though?
Five years down the road, that's an interesting hypothetical situation... without putting too much thought into it, my guess is a major North American league would have been started by that time, to compete with the NHL?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
But backing up, I'd like to know if there is a "no scab agreement" between the CHL and NHL, because the only rules I'm aware of involve age eligibility (who can be drafted, who qualifies for the AHL, who qualifies to be sent back down after camp/10 games/whatever if they don't crack the roster, etc).

But, then again, there are still plenty of other junior leagues around the world producing top hockey players as well.
Right, I was thinking about age eligibility. Maybe some 18 and 19 year olds cross the picket lines. Best case scenario (for the owners) is, you basically have an across the board promotion of the AHL, plus some of the better juniors. But I don't think it would be worthwhile for surefire future NHL'ers to risk future exclusion from the NHLPA. Maybe some borderline talents like Gabriel Dumont and Brendon Nash take the opportunity?

I don't know, there are a couple of good players on this list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...cement_players - but nothing to compete with the stars that the NHL lockout has spread around the world.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 11:43 AM
  #191
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Five years down the road, that's an interesting hypothetical situation... without putting too much thought into it, my guess is a major North American league would have been started by that time, to compete with the NHL?
How many franchises do you think will be able to start up and compete against the existing group of 30 owners who will be looking for players? Safe bet is that the "best" league with the highest salaries will be started up by whichever group of them decides to continue with hockey. And realize that it means there will likely be a team playing once again in Montreal, and because the league owns all the rights and trademarks they could still even be called the Canadiens (and the Maple Leafs in Toronto, etc), and if that's the best hockey in Montreal(/Toronto), do you really think people won't go... at all... eventually?

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now  
Old
10-08-2012, 11:59 AM
  #192
fufonzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,548
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to fufonzo Send a message via MSN to fufonzo
I'm with the owners.

I don't see the players having much of a leg to stand on. They just play the game. Owners take all the risk and are the reason a certain city even has a team to watch.

All the NHL players in the world could die tomorrow, and they'd just end up replacing them with the next best players and we'd all still watch. The players themselves really don't matter in the end.

The skill level in hockey even 30 years ago was awful in comparison and people still watched and were just as into it as they are now (if not moreso).

fufonzo is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:03 PM
  #193
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,273
vCash: 500
Interesting poll results thus far.. The NHLPA is @ 57.89% and the owners @ 42.11% support.. Pretty much like the revenue % that's at the heart of this BS.

sheed36 is online now  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:14 PM
  #194
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,773
vCash: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Williams View Post
I'm on the owner's side on this matter. It's no secret that several teams are in financial difficulty and it's also no secret that the NHL wants to do everything in its power to avoid relocation of said teams. Furthermore, the owners also claim that expenses have gone up since the last CBA was negotiated. If they say they need a higher percentage of HRR to stay profitable, then so be it. If their current proposal is not ludicrous (which it doesn't seem to be) then the players should agree to it and end this stupidity.

At my work, I don't get to negotiate the company's profits. If they want to increase profits, I get laid off.
Why the heck would they want to avoid relocation? 'Cause they'd look bad? When your ego is a priority over the health of your business, you don't deserve to be on top of it.

And we have to stop with "at my work" comparisons. This NHL is a unique type of business. Your name, my name or whoever's name isn't Crosby or Malkin. They won't be laid off. The only comparisons we can make now are the 35-year old guys and up. They are more expendable. But they are obviously not the point of this matter. Nobody cares about them and most likely, teams have no problem replacing Darche by Gallagher. But the real majority isn't that easily replaceable. Compared to you or me for example....

So Bettman and Co puts their players, fans and everyone else on lockout 'cause he wants to sign the best deal.....yet everytime, it's never good enough 'cause they have to go to lockout once more. 'Cause the game changed that much? There are more teams in trouble? That's BS to me. The teams in a trouble now are the same teams in trouble then. They are just MORE in trouble now....but it was easily predictable. This NHL is NOT a league that could contain a 30-team league mostly played in the US where the sport is often behind fishing when it's played on TV. It makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, Bettman works real hard to be remembered as THE GUY WHO MADE THE NHL A MAJOR SPORT IN THE US.....Sorry....will not work. But I guess he'll realize it in 30 years....after his 8th or 9th lockout.....

If the idea from the owners and Bettman is that they absolutely have to keep the remainding teams as it is with maybe even adding a couple of teams down the road like Quebec and Co, yet, if the idea is to take the salary cap to 40 M$ for something like that to happen well so be it......But they better do it the right way this time which might mean 1, 2 or 3 years of lockout till the NHLPA comes begging to come back under whatever condition. Then, maybe, we'd have a system in place so that the owners and Co won't go back in a lockout yet again. But if something like that can't happen, somebody please tell me how we will come to an agreement that will not put us back in a 1-year lockout mode in 5 years?

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:36 PM
  #195
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fufonzo View Post
I'm with the owners.

I don't see the players having much of a leg to stand on. They just play the game. Owners take all the risk and are the reason a certain city even has a team to watch.

All the NHL players in the world could die tomorrow, and they'd just end up replacing them with the next best players and we'd all still watch. The players themselves really don't matter in the end.

The skill level in hockey even 30 years ago was awful in comparison and people still watched and were just as into it as they are now (if not moreso).
If this is the case then the owners could easily drive the players salaries down to AHL levels and exploit them. Then why don'y they?

Because the value of an NHL franchise has been determined by a market that knows the NHL to provide the highest quality product available. The players are that product. End of story. You can't substitute it for a lesser one without destroying the created value.

The owners are investors who have the capital to put hockey on the largest scale possible. If they want to give it a go with junior hockey players they will find their franchises worth pennies on the dollar. THEY know this.

Having said that these 2 parties have to revisit their relationship from time to time and make adjustments if one or both sides aren't happy. I haven't seen the owners argument for the drastic adjustment they are demanding.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 12:52 PM
  #196
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 11,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Why the heck would they want to avoid relocation? 'Cause they'd look bad? When your ego is a priority over the health of your business, you don't deserve to be on top of it.

And we have to stop with "at my work" comparisons. This NHL is a unique type of business. Your name, my name or whoever's name isn't Crosby or Malkin. They won't be laid off. The only comparisons we can make now are the 35-year old guys and up. They are more expendable. But they are obviously not the point of this matter. Nobody cares about them and most likely, teams have no problem replacing Darche by Gallagher. But the real majority isn't that easily replaceable. Compared to you or me for example....

So Bettman and Co puts their players, fans and everyone else on lockout 'cause he wants to sign the best deal.....yet everytime, it's never good enough 'cause they have to go to lockout once more. 'Cause the game changed that much? There are more teams in trouble? That's BS to me. The teams in a trouble now are the same teams in trouble then. They are just MORE in trouble now....but it was easily predictable. This NHL is NOT a league that could contain a 30-team league mostly played in the US where the sport is often behind fishing when it's played on TV. It makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, Bettman works real hard to be remembered as THE GUY WHO MADE THE NHL A MAJOR SPORT IN THE US.....Sorry....will not work. But I guess he'll realize it in 30 years....after his 8th or 9th lockout.....

If the idea from the owners and Bettman is that they absolutely have to keep the remainding teams as it is with maybe even adding a couple of teams down the road like Quebec and Co, yet, if the idea is to take the salary cap to 40 M$ for something like that to happen well so be it......But they better do it the right way this time which might mean 1, 2 or 3 years of lockout till the NHLPA comes begging to come back under whatever condition. Then, maybe, we'd have a system in place so that the owners and Co won't go back in a lockout yet again. But if something like that can't happen, somebody please tell me how we will come to an agreement that will not put us back in a 1-year lockout mode in 5 years?
just one thing: bettman and the owners don't really have a choice but to lock the players out. invited a year ago to negotiate? nothing. taking two weeks to receive a counter proposal? still nothing...

fehr is ****ing around because they are getting an escrow paycheck this month and his next best point of leverage is the winter classic.

and the players that are saying "yeah, we'll just play without a CBA, then we can figure something during the season" need to get shot in the face to save humanity's gene pool. it an absolutely moronic thing to say and when they're saying that, they are either lying through their teeth, or they have been so brainwashed by fehr that you could probably shoot a remake of dawn of the dead in the PA's office right now...

the owners don't want to play without a CBA because one: it gives all the leverage to the players, and two: fehr will just pull the stunt he pulled in 94, going on strike before the playoff.

the owners have a framework in place that needs tweaking - not reworking, tweaking. this is the same framework that has the league pulling record REVENUES (for the economically ******** challenged, revenues does not equal profits), most of which is spent on player salaries anyways - salaries which have never been higher by the way! the players have benefited tremendously from the last CBA and now they refuse to propose a plan within the same framework as the last one? **** right off. and besides, the day employees start dictating to the employers how to structure their business is the day richard simmons suddenly acts macho, i like strawberry ice cream and the boston bruins (precisely in that order)

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 01:15 PM
  #197
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fufonzo View Post
I'm with the owners.

I don't see the players having much of a leg to stand on. They just play the game. Owners take all the risk and are the reason a certain city even has a team to watch.

All the NHL players in the world could die tomorrow, and they'd just end up replacing them with the next best players and we'd all still watch. The players themselves really don't matter in the end.

The skill level in hockey even 30 years ago was awful in comparison and people still watched and were just as into it as they are now (if not moreso).
Phoenix, right? I know you're not talking about Montreal, as Peladeau and Bronfman were willing to spend tons of cash if Molson wasn't.

There are many potential owners. If the current BOG come to their senses, they can have groups purchasing teams to relocate to Quebec and the GTA in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 01:24 PM
  #198
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
How many franchises do you think will be able to start up and compete against the existing group of 30 owners who will be looking for players? Safe bet is that the "best" league with the highest salaries will be started up by whichever group of them decides to continue with hockey. And realize that it means there will likely be a team playing once again in Montreal, and because the league owns all the rights and trademarks they could still even be called the Canadiens (and the Maple Leafs in Toronto, etc), and if that's the best hockey in Montreal(/Toronto), do you really think people won't go... at all... eventually?
I do think there are some very wealthy people (especially in Canada) who would love to own a team featuring some of the best players in the world, who don't have much chance of ever getting into Bettman's club. Even a 6 or 8 team competing league could become big business in a hurry.

Also - how would a replacement player NHL be structured? According to rules set by the owners? Under a CBA signed by owners and a new union - NHLRPA? I don't believe this is possible during a lockout. During a strike is one thing, replacement players could be hired under the CBA rejected by the real players, but I can't imagine a legal structure set up by owners during a lockout. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 02:28 PM
  #199
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Phoenix, right? I know you're not talking about Montreal, as Peladeau and Bronfman were willing to spend tons of cash if Molson wasn't.

There are many potential owners. If the current BOG come to their senses, they can have groups purchasing teams to relocate to Quebec and the GTA in two shakes of a lamb's tail.
I think the BOG's plan was to sell new franchises for big money in the Southern Ontario market and maybe one other franchise at a more reasonable price to a place like Seattle.

They didn't want to allow another team to relocate in the Southern Ontario market because they wanted to start a new franchise there instead which was why they refused to allow Balsille to move a team there.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 04:00 PM
  #200
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
I'm with the fans, sick of this **** crap league.

Myron Gaines* 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 01:02 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.