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
10-09-2012, 12:35 PM
  #226
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
This. Last time around I was nearly 100% pro-owner. This time they're just being dicks. That first offer was the proverbial gauntlet to the face of the NHLPA. The NHL has a significant revenue-disparity problem which keeps pulling up the salary cap ceiling & floor; the league doesn't even want to acknowledge it, let alone fix it. I keep coming back to Bettman's comment several weeks ago that the NHLPA's revenue-sharing ideas in their first proposal were "a distraction" - that was the tell. The league has no interest in actually fixing their economics to make their smaller/weaker markets viable. They are using the smaller markets as a pretext with which to beat the crap out of the NHLPA, and perhaps on a personal level, they simply don't want to let Donald Fehr beat them.

This lockout is 100% the owners' fault, specifically the hardliners amongst the owners, the likes of Jacobs & Snider.

We may well lose this season, and probably another one in 5-6 years after whatever new CBA emerges expires, because the hardliners will want to bend the PA over the table again. They're the proverbial scorpions; it's their nature. Until a new, more reasonable group of owners takes control at NHL HQ (and I don't know how, when, or even if that ever happens), the league's behaviour will not change.

I think that first offer with the revenue percentages reversed in the owners favor was to give the PA a little perspective on how it feels when the proverbial shoe is on the other foot.. Judging by what I've read in the media the PA's response was they were insulted by the offer.. If they were insulted with that first offer it had the effect the owners wanted and they should now have some idea how the owners feel about the percentage split from their side. If it was insulting to expect the players to take 43% it's just as insulting to expect the owners to do the same IMO.

sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 12:42 PM
  #227
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
More food for thought.

Eliminate all of the bias you have one way or the other and look objectively where we are at.

Owners - Not earning any hockey revenue from the arenas.
Players - Playing in other Leagues and earning money.
Donald Fehr - Earning **** loads of money regardless of outcome.
Fans - Once again left holding the empty bag.

Drop the bias and dwell on reality.
it's pretty obvious your point of view is tainted by Fehr and should take your own advice of looking at things objectively, because your post is lol.

uiCk is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 01:53 PM
  #228
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,564
vCash: 152
Siding with either side is really a pointless exercise, they're both in the wrong. I only care about the growth and security of the game so if players make 3 mil instead of 4 mil and that's what it takes to do it. cool.

Sure, I side with owners but it's not because i care for them or think they are the victims or whatever. The league just isn't strong enough and if we want the game we love to grow, the owners need more flexibility. Of course, increased revenue sharing and other forms of responsibility should be part of the process as the growth of the game should not be solely a player's responsibility.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 02:12 PM
  #229
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
What bugs me the most is that the owners are refusing to honor contracts they signed. If a player holds out, I blame him, but this time and last time the owners are refusing to live up to their own contractual obligations.

The whole league right now is demanding an immediate rollback. This is the second time they've locked out the players with that as a basic demand. In other words their individual word as management is collectively no good. They don't keep their word, or honour their contracts. There are lots of complex issues at play that that part is a pretty simple moral line right there, and Gary Bettman seems willing to cross it with impunity.

Bullsmith is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 02:16 PM
  #230
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
NHL lockout: Donald Fehr says players are growing unhappy with salary cap

http://m.thestar.com/sports/hockey/n...ith-salary-cap

sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 02:23 PM
  #231
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,564
vCash: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheed36 View Post
NHL lockout: Donald Fehr says players are growing unhappy with salary cap

http://m.thestar.com/sports/hockey/n...ith-salary-cap
lol, all mind games with each other. All tactics to get money.

I sincerely hope if there's no cap and they expect a 'free system' that owners work collectively and low ball players.

Salary cap is really not a problem on the high end of the spectrum.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 02:57 PM
  #232
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 12,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Not sure why you respond to me with the "they have to play WITH a legit CBA" response as in no way am I discussing that. My point was that with Bettman, once you sign a CBA, you know it's never going to be good enough in 5 years as we'd go back in lockout.
that was in response to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
So Bettman and Co puts their players, fans and everyone else on lockout 'cause he wants to sign the best deal.....
with bettman, like you said, it may never be enough, you think so, i don't, but i'd bet my left nut that having fehr and his '94 special coupô has something to do with it. in fact, i'd bet my right nut that if fehr came up with a proposal that was within the same stadium as the owner's and he didn't have the '94 strike baggage, they'd be playing games wight now.

that's my opinion though, not fact

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
you mean product, right ?
then if the 'product' wants a good deal for themselves, they should start their own league - oh wait, they can't. point is: negotiate within the framework the owners and compromise - from both sides, to find a deal that's amiable. but no way should the players - oh sorry, the product, tell the owners what to do with their business. that's not asking them to take it in the ass, that's asking them to work within the framework of the guys spending hundreds of millions buying the franchise and paying their salaries. fehr is essentially saying "we think this would work better". **** off. and if the players are the product, then pretty much every service employee from tech help, to teachers, to policemen are product too. cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
It's not like it never happened before...
see my response to whitesnake

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If the players give the owners everything they want;

If the players accept having another ~24% reduction in their salaries, from 57 to 43% of hockey related revenues;

Then the owners will simply force another lockout in 5 or 6 years demanding the players share be lowered from 43% to 33%.
you don't know that, if fact, i find it kinda ridiculous that you think they would. the league is locked out now because the hockey operations of about half the team in the league are losing money. cap is too high, ceiling is too high, revenue sharing is too low.

if only a handful of teams would be losing money, we wouldn't be here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheed36 View Post
And you think Don and Steve Fehr are any different?
go on the business board, these guys are saints

Quote:
More food for thought.

Eliminate all of the bias you have one way or the other and look objectively where we are at.

Owners - Not earning any hockey revenue from the arenas.

Players - Playing in other Leagues and earning money.

Donald Fehr - Earning **** loads of money regardless of outcome.

Fans - Once again left holding the empty bag.

Drop the bias and dwell on reality.
as usual, you're wrong.

owners - those that control their arenas will fill some dates to make up for homegames and they'll sack employess. they'll be fine. doug mclean said that last lockout, the blue jackets lost around 17 million. that's not chump change, but they'll make it back. on the other hand the players won't be able to.

players - most, and i mean most, will play only for their insurance money and to keep in shape. though some guys like kavalchuck and ovechkin are rumored to have signed hefty contracts... and speaking of that, those guys are being massive dicks for taking the job of other guys.

donald fehr - last i checked and one of my pro-PA brothers correct me if im wrong, but ferh said he wouldn't take any money while there is a lockout. i still think he's full of ****. but it is what it is.

fans - oh you're right on this one

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
What bugs me the most is that the owners are refusing to honor contracts they signed. If a player holds out, I blame him, but this time and last time the owners are refusing to live up to their own contractual obligations.

The whole league right now is demanding an immediate rollback. This is the second time they've locked out the players with that as a basic demand. In other words their individual word as management is collectively no good. They don't keep their word, or honour their contracts. There are lots of complex issues at play that that part is a pretty simple moral line right there, and Gary Bettman seems willing to cross it with impunity.
that's plain ******** and the players shouldn't accept a rollback. what they could do is accept a freeze while revenues catch up to current cap% ( salary freeze for guys with contract now, 55% first year, 53% second year, 50% third year kinda thing). there's ways around this but no ****ing way should they accept any meaningful rollback. now that's just plain insulting

that aside, when they start whining "how would you feel if your boss took 24% of your salary back" i just want to *****-slap them across the face. some people would be in the street or be forced to get a second job if they made 24% less. those guys though? and didn't the owners drop the rollback demands in their last proposal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheed36 View Post
NHL lockout: Donald Fehr says players are growing unhappy with salary cap

http://m.thestar.com/sports/hockey/n...ith-salary-cap
i know it's probably a negotiating tactic, but how brainwashed are these guys exactly?

/rant off

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 04:55 PM
  #233
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
More food for thought.

Eliminate all of the bias you have one way or the other and look objectively where we are at.

Owners - Not earning any hockey revenue from the arenas.
Players - Playing in other Leagues and earning money.
Donald Fehr - Earning **** loads of money regardless of outcome.
Fans - Once again left holding the empty bag.

Drop the bias and dwell on reality.
Actually, fans are making billions of dollars from this lockout.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 05:35 PM
  #234
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
it's pretty obvious your point of view is tainted by Fehr and should take your own advice of looking at things objectively, because your post is lol.
Are games being played right now in Bell Centre or any other NHL arena?

Are you watching any NHL games live now?

Are players getting paid now to play in other Leagues?

Is Donald Fehr getting paid now? (Edit for the semantics police.......Fehr will get his salary paid)

If you answer anything other than No, No, Yes, Yes, you are the lol.

But hell, maybe one of the NHL players (his assistant) might respond to one of your tweets and make you feel important.


Last edited by SouthernHab: 10-09-2012 at 05:45 PM.
SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 05:42 PM
  #235
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Actually, fans are making billions of dollars from this lockout.
You are amazing.......

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 05:59 PM
  #236
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You are amazing.......
fact is fact. The fans are not the ones "losing" from this lockout, it's the players and owners who are losing money like idiots. The fans come out ahead relative to owners and players.

If, as a fan, you feel severely cheated by the lockout, you should take this opportunity to get more of a life.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-09-2012 at 06:17 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 07:26 PM
  #237
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheed36 View Post
And you think Don and Steve Fehr are any different?
In comparison, yes they are. It's like the choice of stepping in a pile of dog poop (Fehr) or eating it (Bettman and Daly). Preferably, it's better to avoid it all together but between the two, I'd rather step in it.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 08:06 PM
  #238
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
fact is fact. The fans are not the ones "losing" from this lockout, it's the players and owners who are losing money like idiots. The fans come out ahead relative to owners and players.

If, as a fan, you feel severely cheated by the lockout, you should take this opportunity to get more of a life.
Obviously fans don't lose any cash, I don't think anybody suggested otherwise. Fans lose their winter entertainment, it is after all just a spectacle. People watch it because it entertains them. So ya, they lose that.

Players don't lose money. Well, some may, others go play in Europe and some may get even more cash, like the ones that play in Russia, seeing how they don't pay taxes.

The owners are the big losers.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 08:56 PM
  #239
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
NHLPA rhetoric heating up as labour talks near.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/10/09/...our-talks-near

Quote:
If the NHL owners ever wanted to get into the "back to the future" type of threat employed repeatedly by Fehr, how about a new system that doesn't have guaranteed contracts? It seems to work for the NFL.

sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 09:27 PM
  #240
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Obviously fans don't lose any cash, I don't think anybody suggested otherwise. Fans lose their winter entertainment, it is after all just a spectacle. People watch it because it entertains them. So ya, they lose that.

Players don't lose money. Well, some may, others go play in Europe and some may get even more cash, like the ones that play in Russia, seeing how they don't pay taxes.

The owners are the big losers.
I'd be surprised if the contracts in Switzerland, etc are comparable to NHL contracts. I'd expect the average player loses ~80% of his salary or more.

Fans are losing winter entertainment, but most of us are resourceful and will get our entertainment some other way. For the owners and players, it's a total loss, unless they win the labour deal.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 12:41 AM
  #241
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'd be surprised if the contracts in Switzerland, etc are comparable to NHL contracts. I'd expect the average player loses ~80% of his salary or more.

Fans are losing winter entertainment, but most of us are resourceful and will get our entertainment some other way. For the owners and players, it's a total loss, unless they win the labour deal.
Well, you can expect or assume whatever you want about players in Switzerland, or wherever else. Bottom line is they're getting some money, and they're not getting paid 10-15$/h.

As for the fans, you're completely missing the point. People aren't going to commit suicide and roll their thumbs over what to do on a saturday night because hockey is out. They will find other things to do, just like I'm sure 99% of fans don't watch the 82 games and even find themselves doing other things during games when there isn't a lockout. But they won't have that option to watch the games or not. It's annoying not to be able to watch something you love. Not sure why I have to explain this to you. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should get a life, or find another hobby.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 02:14 AM
  #242
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,564
vCash: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
In comparison, yes they are. It's like the choice of stepping in a pile of dog poop (Fehr) or eating it (Bettman and Daly). Preferably, it's better to avoid it all together but between the two, I'd rather step in it.
I'd suggest the difference is merely if you're willing to eat it for lunch or supper.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 02:32 AM
  #243
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Well, you can expect or assume whatever you want about players in Switzerland, or wherever else. Bottom line is they're getting some money, and they're not getting paid 10-15$/h.

As for the fans, you're completely missing the point. People aren't going to commit suicide and roll their thumbs over what to do on a saturday night because hockey is out. They will find other things to do, just like I'm sure 99% of fans don't watch the 82 games and even find themselves doing other things during games when there isn't a lockout. But they won't have that option to watch the games or not. It's annoying not to be able to watch something you love. Not sure why I have to explain this to you. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should get a life, or find another hobby.
I agree that it would be more fun to be able to watch the games. However, relative to what the owners and players are losing from this lockout, I think it's clear that the fans are losing less and get the best deal out of the lockout, relative.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 06:56 AM
  #244
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
that's plain ******** and the players shouldn't accept a rollback. what they could do is accept a freeze while revenues catch up to current cap% ( salary freeze for guys with contract now, 55% first year, 53% second year, 50% third year kinda thing). there's ways around this but no ****ing way should they accept any meaningful rollback. now that's just plain insulting
Which is where we are today, and why I support the players. The owners have offered nothing but a rollback on their salaries, beginning next year. Now the players haven't offered a freeze, but they did offer a 2% raise, which is pretty close to a freeze, and probably something that could have been negotiated off of, had the owners decided to go that way. But instead they offered 49%, dropping to 46%.

So why don't the players offer a freeze? For the very same reason some people supported the owners and their initial 43% offer; "Oh," they said, "That's just the first offer... you never make your best offer that early in the process." If the players offer say 54% now (or whatever the equivalent percentage would be to be an actual "freeze" in salaries) the owners would come back and say "that sounds great, nice first offer, why don't we cut that by a little more down to 50%, and then 49%, and then..."

As Bob Goodenow learned you can't put something on the table and then take it off after. If Fehr offers a wage freeze then that becomes the defacto starting point for future negotiations, not the finishing point. Obviously he doesn't want that, because, as you said, "no ****ing way should they accept any meaningful rollback." Fehr needs to get to a point where the owners accept a wage freeze as the final offer, not as a basis to continue negotiations.

Once that happens the deal will be signed, in my opinion.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 07:30 AM
  #245
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 12,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
Which is where we are today, and why I support the players. The owners have offered nothing but a rollback on their salaries, beginning next year. Now the players haven't offered a freeze, but they did offer a 2% raise, which is pretty close to a freeze, and probably something that could have been negotiated off of, had the owners decided to go that way. But instead they offered 49%, dropping to 46%.

So why don't the players offer a freeze? For the very same reason some people supported the owners and their initial 43% offer; "Oh," they said, "That's just the first offer... you never make your best offer that early in the process." If the players offer say 54% now (or whatever the equivalent percentage would be to be an actual "freeze" in salaries) the owners would come back and say "that sounds great, nice first offer, why don't we cut that by a little more down to 50%, and then 49%, and then..."

As Bob Goodenow learned you can't put something on the table and then take it off after. If Fehr offers a wage freeze then that becomes the defacto starting point for future negotiations, not the finishing point. Obviously he doesn't want that, because, as you said, "no ****ing way should they accept any meaningful rollback." Fehr needs to get to a point where the owners accept a wage freeze as the final offer, not as a basis to continue negotiations.

Once that happens the deal will be signed, in my opinion.
actually, i could be wrong, but last i read on the business board and tsn.ca (sorry, don't remember the link), the owners didn't have a rollback in their last offer. they had replaced with something involving escrow i think, which would essentially be a minuscule rollback or something to that effect.

MasterDecoy is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 08:15 AM
  #246
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
actually, i could be wrong, but last i read on the business board and tsn.ca (sorry, don't remember the link), the owners didn't have a rollback in their last offer. they had replaced with something involving escrow i think, which would essentially be a minuscule rollback or something to that effect.
Which is just a disguised rollback. Instead of rolling back the salaries right away, you put the money in escrow, which would then go to the owners at the end of the year, once revenues are calculated.

Extreme example;

Players get 10%, owners get 90%, but there is no rollback. The owners say they will "honor" all contracts, but at the end of the year league-wide revenues will be calculated and if the players existing contracts total more than 10% then all that money they put into escrow will go to the owners. So yes, technically there is no "rollback" but the players aren't going to get their money anyways. Call it a "payback" instead. It's the difference between the players paying at the beginning of the year, or paying at the end of the year. Either way they are paying.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 09:06 AM
  #247
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I agree that it would be more fun to be able to watch the games. However, relative to what the owners and players are losing from this lockout, I think it's clear that the fans are losing less and get the best deal out of the lockout, relative.
Well that's because you're only looking at money. Sure, financially, fans won't get hurt in the least, might even save some money.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 06:55 PM
  #248
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Well that's because you're only looking at money. Sure, financially, fans won't get hurt in the least, might even save some money.
No.

Let's try again.

Hockey fans will not be spending much on the NHL this year. Since they still want to be entertained, they'll be spending that money on other things. Since we live in a diverse and exciting world, they might be spending an equivalent amount of money, but they'll lose the marginal fun value of the new hobby versus NHL fandom. Since that's probably not huge, they're not losing much "value".

In contrast, players and owners, who are in it for money and not entertainment, cannot have their money replaced the way fans can have their entertainment replaced. They should lose 80-90% of the value they would otherwise get this year.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 01:28 AM
  #249
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
I'm anti-owner on this one. The players were basically told to take a pay cut and accept the new terms or else face a lockout. Of course the players are going to react to Bettman's ultimatum on the principle of honour. This is probably the most unnecessary lockout in professional sport. The only owners that are suffering are Bettman's southern expansion teams. How about lock them out? No-one is going to notice in Phoenix, Miami or Tennessee anyway
The NHL made a stupid, stupid opening offer. It put the players on the defensive immediately, and instantly removed trust from the negotiations.

Bettman only represents the owners, who are mostly lucky, avaricious, or inherited wealth idiots, and he should never have allowed that first NHL offer to go through. It has ruined the talks.

Bettman is an idiot for allowing that first offer to go through. He is unbelievable. No advice for the owners, none. Follows orders like a puppy dog.

My job is to help my clients, often on very expensive projects. They often give me stupid and dangerous instructions. It is part of my job to advise them that the instructions are not in their interest. That is what Bettman has failed to do. He has to go.


Last edited by bsl: 10-11-2012 at 01:37 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
10-11-2012, 01:33 AM
  #250
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post

then if the 'product' wants a good deal for themselves, they should start their own league - oh wait, they can't. point is: negotiate within the framework the owners and compromise - from both sides, to find a deal that's amiable. but no way should the players - oh sorry, the product, tell the owners what to do with their business. that's not asking them to take it in the ass, that's asking them to work within the framework of the guys spending hundreds of millions buying the franchise and paying their salaries. fehr is essentially saying "we think this would work better". **** off. and if the players are the product, then pretty much every service employee from tech help, to teachers, to policemen are product too. cool.
couldnt be more wrong... seriously.

ECWHSWI 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 08:09 AM.

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.