HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Notices

NHL vs. NHLPA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-20-2012, 01:41 AM
  #76
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,616
vCash: 50
I'm not going to choose a side in this because I find it a little hard to pick between billionaires owners and millionaire players fighting over how to divide revenues.

That being said, if I had to, I'm leaning towards the players because say what you want about the NHLPA or Fehr or whatever, their proposal looks to treat the disease and not just the symptoms as the NHL is trying to do.

But really, the only thing I'm interested in is seeing if the league is willing address the indisputable decline in the quality and entertainment value of the game over the last couple of years. I'll admit, my view is probably a little biased after having to endure Sutter's tepid and uninspiring tactics for the last little while, but even then, aside from the brilliant series between the Penguins and the Flyers these last playoffs, there's very little that stands out from an entertainment perspective. Honestly, these last couple of playoffs were some of the worst I ever seen; the games weren't just boring, they were borderline unwatchable. And if there's a silver lining to the lockout, it might just come in preventing the league from mimicking the style of hockey used by the Kings in their road to the Cup.

Obstruction is creeping back into the game mirroring pre-2005 lockout gameplay while refs are virtually letting everything go. It seems like most teams are now employing more conservative tactics. Rather than trying to score and playing aggressively, they hold back and wait until the other team makes a mistake and then try to capitalize. It's bad enough when one team does this, but when both do it, the product becomes simply unwatchable. I understand those kind of coaching tactics win games but they're just not fun to watch from a casual perspective. I see it in full effect in Phoenix; despite having some solid regular seasons and going deep into the playoffs, no one wants to watch their games. It's not the only factor in the organizations struggle to find an audience and make money, but it's certainly a reason.

The economics of the game are important and need to be addressed, but the product on the ice is just as valuable in attracting fans and growing the game. If the powers that be do nothing to address these problems, it won't matter if the split becomes fairer, fans will get bored and find other ways to be entertained.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 10:27 AM
  #77
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,737
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calculon View Post
I'm not going to choose a side in this because I find it a little hard to pick between billionaires owners and millionaire players fighting over how to divide revenues.

That being said, if I had to, I'm leaning towards the players because say what you want about the NHLPA or Fehr or whatever, their proposal looks to treat the disease and not just the symptoms as the NHL is trying to do.

But really, the only thing I'm interested in is seeing if the league is willing address the indisputable decline in the quality and entertainment value of the game over the last couple of years. I'll admit, my view is probably a little biased after having to endure Sutter's tepid and uninspiring tactics for the last little while, but even then, aside from the brilliant series between the Penguins and the Flyers these last playoffs, there's very little that stands out from an entertainment perspective. Honestly, these last couple of playoffs were some of the worst I ever seen; the games weren't just boring, they were borderline unwatchable. And if there's a silver lining to the lockout, it might just come in preventing the league from mimicking the style of hockey used by the Kings in their road to the Cup.

Obstruction is creeping back into the game mirroring pre-2005 lockout gameplay while refs are virtually letting everything go. It seems like most teams are now employing more conservative tactics. Rather than trying to score and playing aggressively, they hold back and wait until the other team makes a mistake and then try to capitalize. It's bad enough when one team does this, but when both do it, the product becomes simply unwatchable. I understand those kind of coaching tactics win games but they're just not fun to watch from a casual perspective. I see it in full effect in Phoenix; despite having some solid regular seasons and going deep into the playoffs, no one wants to watch their games. It's not the only factor in the organizations struggle to find an audience and make money, but it's certainly a reason.

The economics of the game are important and need to be addressed, but the product on the ice is just as valuable in attracting fans and growing the game. If the powers that be do nothing to address these problems, it won't matter if the split becomes fairer, fans will get bored and find other ways to be entertained.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 12:17 PM
  #78
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,834
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
It's not Fehr who made the video... How is Gabriel Landeskog's time better spent where he can stop this lock-out? If anything, I'd argue that by the player's putting enough pressure on the owner's to accept the player's proposal, then the player's time is best spent placing blame for the lock-out.
It pisses me off because the players are playing the poor me card and yet they delayed the negotiations, they are the ones that have yet to changed their proposal, and they want to continue under the old cba so they can make more money but act like it is for the love of the game. The players want the owners to put faith in them to play under the old cba and discuss a new one but Fehr has called a strike before playoffs before and players are not negotiating now why would they in a month. It pisses me off because the players want the fans sympathies for this lockout even tho they are at least equally to blame.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:24 PM
  #79
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,834
vCash: 354
So I found this and thought it was interesting over the last 3 years 15 teams have had a net loss between operating revenue and expenses. Now in this teams are of course Phoenix and Columbus which is not a big surprise but teams like the Washington Capitals, San Jose Sharks, and the Ottawa Senators have lost money. More importantly in 2011 (last year of the figures) 18 teams had a loss including playoff teams like the Capitals, the Penguins, the Sharks, the Sabres, the Coyotes (obviously), the Lightning, the Predators, the Ducks. So even tho said teams iced a competitive product they lost money, in other words the nhl simply cannot run on the current cba as the teams are losing money.

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...the-bottom-up/

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:44 PM
  #80
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
It pisses me off because the players are playing the poor me card and yet they delayed the negotiations, they are the ones that have yet to changed their proposal, and they want to continue under the old cba so they can make more money but act like it is for the love of the game. The players want the owners to put faith in them to play under the old cba and discuss a new one but Fehr has called a strike before playoffs before and players are not negotiating now why would they in a month. It pisses me off because the players want the fans sympathies for this lockout even tho they are at least equally to blame.
It seems like you're brewing up a complex potion using no ingredients. The video doesn't say all that. It's basically a few player's -- who aren't needed for negotiations -- claiming that the players want to play hockey, while the owner's want to lock out hockey. It's an oversimplification for sure, but they're not wrong.

So the player's haven't changed their proposal, so they are at least equally to blame? But had the player's put together an offer equal to the owner's proposal, we'd have a much bigger gap of revenue being negotiated right now, so in turn, the players are negotiating fairly. For example, if the player's emulated the owner's offer and proposed 70+% of HRR, I guarantee they would've moved from that postion during this negotiation period back to at least 57%. But they never asked for concessions from the owners! Similiarly, had the owner's said we'll take 43% HRR long-term, but need concessions now, then the owner's would look like they haven't changed their proposal. So when moving from bloody slaverly to only "dictatorship" appears like movement in negotiations, it's still no better than those moving from dictatorship to more dictatorship.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:50 PM
  #81
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
So I found this and thought it was interesting over the last 3 years 15 teams have had a net loss between operating revenue and expenses. Now in this teams are of course Phoenix and Columbus which is not a big surprise but teams like the Washington Capitals, San Jose Sharks, and the Ottawa Senators have lost money. More importantly in 2011 (last year of the figures) 18 teams had a loss including playoff teams like the Capitals, the Penguins, the Sharks, the Sabres, the Coyotes (obviously), the Lightning, the Predators, the Ducks. So even tho said teams iced a competitive product they lost money, in other words the nhl simply cannot run on the current cba as the teams are losing money.

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...the-bottom-up/
That's why the problem needs to be fixed properly. If you try to deduce what the writer is saying, and I quote:

Quote:
You have a chief executive, the commissioner, who is deeply committed to selling hockey in places where not enough people want to buy it.
Then it's fair to say that some of the problems is in part due to the overall system. If they couldn't run on the current CBA, then why the **** did they lock-out the league last time to obtain it?

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 03:11 PM
  #82
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,737
vCash: 1200
SNet Magazine has an article that outlines the pros & cons of one Gary Bettman, which if anything was an interesting read.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/magazine/201...man_arguments/

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:14 PM
  #83
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,834
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
It seems like you're brewing up a complex potion using no ingredients. The video doesn't say all that. It's basically a few player's -- who aren't needed for negotiations -- claiming that the players want to play hockey, while the owner's want to lock out hockey. It's an oversimplification for sure, but they're not wrong.

So the player's haven't changed their proposal, so they are at least equally to blame? But had the player's put together an offer equal to the owner's proposal, we'd have a much bigger gap of revenue being negotiated right now, so in turn, the players are negotiating fairly. For example, if the player's emulated the owner's offer and proposed 70+% of HRR, I guarantee they would've moved from that postion during this negotiation period back to at least 57%. But they never asked for concessions from the owners! Similiarly, had the owner's said we'll take 43% HRR long-term, but need concessions now, then the owner's would look like they haven't changed their proposal. So when moving from bloody slaverly to only "dictatorship" appears like movement in negotiations, it's still no better than those moving from dictatorship to more dictatorship.
I said it pisses me off because they act like they aren't equally at fault when they wouldn't negotiate last season and Fehr has left the negotiations multiple times so I don't feel bad for them and I am tired of them acting like the victim.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:18 PM
  #84
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,834
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
That's why the problem needs to be fixed properly. If you try to deduce what the writer is saying, and I quote:



Then it's fair to say that some of the problems is in part due to the overall system. If they couldn't run on the current CBA, then why the **** did they lock-out the league last time to obtain it?
I agree Phoenix has to move it is a very poor market to be in, but when teams like Washington, San Jose, Buffalo, St. Louis, Anaheim, Ottawa and recently Pittsburgh and LA are losing money and icing at least decent teams then the system clearly doesn't work and the players offer does little to fix this.

The numbers show that over the last 3 years only the Leafs, Canadians, Rangers, Canucks, Oilers, Red Wings, and BlackHawks have made more than 20 million in operating revenue in 3 years combined. This shows that when people talk about the nhl making Billions of dollars in reality that large income is only coming to 23% of the teams while the other teams see little of that money.


Last edited by TheHudlinator: 09-21-2012 at 01:24 PM.
TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:35 PM
  #85
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
I agree Phoenix has to move it is a very poor market to be in, but when teams like Washington, San Jose, Buffalo, St. Louis, Anaheim, Ottawa and recently Pittsburgh and LA are losing money and icing at least decent teams then the system clearly doesn't work and the players offer does little to fix this.

The numbers show that over the last 3 years only the Leafs, Canadians, Rangers, Canucks, Oilers, Red Wings, and BlackHawks have made more than 20 million in operating revenue in 3 years combined. This shows that when people talk about the nhl making Billions of dollars in reality that large income is only coming to 23% of the teams while the other teams see little of that money.
Listen, I believe the owners need to be profitable to sustain a viable league, but I will say this: The Forbes magazine (cited by the article you provided) claims that the Edmonton Oilers have an operating income of 17.3 million, whereas Daryl Katz has said that he's operating at a loss.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...ally-happened/

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/

In all honesty, nobody knows, including Forbes, which teams are profitable and which aren't. The players know, and the League office knows. That's it. All those numbers and teams you were talking about might not be accurate, according to Daryl Katz anyways. This league has been operating for 100 years now, so I'm sure it's not as dire as you claim it is. I believe the disparity right now is the difference between the American recession in some regions and the the rest of the regional economies.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:50 PM
  #86
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calculon View Post
I'm not going to choose a side in this because I find it a little hard to pick between billionaires owners and millionaire players fighting over how to divide revenues.

That being said, if I had to, I'm leaning towards the players because say what you want about the NHLPA or Fehr or whatever, their proposal looks to treat the disease and not just the symptoms as the NHL is trying to do.

But really, the only thing I'm interested in is seeing if the league is willing address the indisputable decline in the quality and entertainment value of the game over the last couple of years. I'll admit, my view is probably a little biased after having to endure Sutter's tepid and uninspiring tactics for the last little while, but even then, aside from the brilliant series between the Penguins and the Flyers these last playoffs, there's very little that stands out from an entertainment perspective. Honestly, these last couple of playoffs were some of the worst I ever seen; the games weren't just boring, they were borderline unwatchable. And if there's a silver lining to the lockout, it might just come in preventing the league from mimicking the style of hockey used by the Kings in their road to the Cup.

Obstruction is creeping back into the game mirroring pre-2005 lockout gameplay while refs are virtually letting everything go. It seems like most teams are now employing more conservative tactics. Rather than trying to score and playing aggressively, they hold back and wait until the other team makes a mistake and then try to capitalize. It's bad enough when one team does this, but when both do it, the product becomes simply unwatchable. I understand those kind of coaching tactics win games but they're just not fun to watch from a casual perspective. I see it in full effect in Phoenix; despite having some solid regular seasons and going deep into the playoffs, no one wants to watch their games. It's not the only factor in the organizations struggle to find an audience and make money, but it's certainly a reason.

The economics of the game are important and need to be addressed, but the product on the ice is just as valuable in attracting fans and growing the game. If the powers that be do nothing to address these problems, it won't matter if the split becomes fairer, fans will get bored and find other ways to be entertained.
What would you propose to improve the entertainment of the game? Personally I believe hockey is pretty good, including teams that employ defensive systems. As someone who watches basketball, a point/goal/offensive-objective is watered down when it's too frequent. I get far more excited when a hockey goal is made than when a basket is made. It simply has more meaning. I mean the common stereotype around watching basketball is to tune into the last 10 minutes and that's good enough. That's not exactly false and I don't want that to be hockey. Yes defensive hockey can seem like soccer, but it's fundamental hockey and it wins championships.

How far do you go to entertain people? What lengths should you go to continually grow the game and when is enough fans really enough?

I don't want to see hockey players wearing rockets on their skates, and have a metal puck with magnetic stick blades, and have MMA altercations, and whatever other cirque du soleil gimmick the league can think of to sustain the attention of today's ADHD minds for more than 2 seconds. Hockey isn't for everybody and that's OK too.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 03:49 PM
  #87
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 67
As a Flames fan, I'm really hoping that the Alberta Labour Relations Board rules in favor of the players. This would allow the Flames to have a training camp, start practicing and generating chemistry. I would expect the Flames to come out the gate winning games.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 04:19 PM
  #88
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,737
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
As a Flames fan, I'm really hoping that the Alberta Labour Relations Board rules in favor of the players. This would allow the Flames to have a training camp, start practicing and generating chemistry. I would expect the Flames to come out the gate winning games.
Me too, actually.

Not sure how that would work without a CBA structure in place though. The CBA does provide direction for things like preseason, training camp, player insurance, pension contributions, etc. I guess the LRB could require them to use the expired CBA until a new one is agreed to.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2012, 05:38 PM
  #89
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,616
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
What would you propose to improve the entertainment of the game? Personally I believe hockey is pretty good, including teams that employ defensive systems. As someone who watches basketball, a point/goal/offensive-objective is watered down when it's too frequent. I get far more excited when a hockey goal is made than when a basket is made. It simply has more meaning. I mean the common stereotype around watching basketball is to tune into the last 10 minutes and that's good enough. That's not exactly false and I don't want that to be hockey. Yes defensive hockey can seem like soccer, but it's fundamental hockey and it wins championships.

How far do you go to entertain people? What lengths should you go to continually grow the game and when is enough fans really enough?

I don't want to see hockey players wearing rockets on their skates, and have a metal puck with magnetic stick blades, and have MMA altercations, and whatever other cirque du soleil gimmick the league can think of to sustain the attention of today's ADHD minds for more than 2 seconds. Hockey isn't for everybody and that's OK too.
I wasn't suggesting artificial changes or cheap gimmicks to bring in more fans. My complaint lies with the pace of games and the style of hockey employed by most coaches today, not the number of goals.

I understand the use of defensive first hockey and I'm not unaware of the success it's had over the last two decades. All the same, I dislike watching two teams actively trying not to score a goal. It doesn't matter if they actually succeed in scoring, because as I'm sure most people would agree, a big save is just as entertaining as a big goal, all that matters is that they try. I would much rather see players allowed to play aggressively and be given the freedom to utilize the skills they have in the pursuit of success rather than have them neutered to the point of dump and chase.

Watching the WHL last season (mainly due to Baertschi), the difference between it and the NHL was stark. The WHL was by leaps and bounds more entertaining then what the NHL was putting out there. And to me, it seemed like the biggest difference was that teams in the WHL were playing to win while so, so many teams in the NHL were playing not to lose.

I would hope the NHL would try to do something, anything, to curtail the passive brand of hockey, but I do realize it's something that can't easily be fixed. One simple idea though, is to get the refs to call the game by the actual rulebook. I know, it's a novel idea, but still, if the refs would actually start calling obstruction, the bear hugs, the fighters after a big hit, and so on, the product would already be much improved in my mind.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 02:26 PM
  #90
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,737
vCash: 1200
Damn.

Quote:
Eight years after becoming the first North American sports league to have a season wiped out by a labour dispute, the NHL is missing meaningful games again.

The league announced Thursday that it had cancelled the first two weeks of the 2012-13 schedule — wiping out 82 games through Oct. 24.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...d.html?cmp=rss


I'm putting $50 into a jar for every Flames game that is missed - money that I would have spent on going to a game, or watching at a pub. Should pay for a nice vacation come April...

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 02:33 PM
  #91
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,177
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Damn.



http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...d.html?cmp=rss


I'm putting $50 into a jar for every Flames game that is missed - money that I would have spent on going to a game, or watching at a pub. Should pay for a nice vacation come April...
Damn, good plan though. I may do something similar.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 03:59 PM
  #92
BubbA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinityIggy View Post
Damn, good plan though. I may do something similar.
Well it has come to this. The NHL cancelled games till the end of October. As far as I am concerned, it is the owners that are causing all of this. Bad PR or not bad PR by the players. The NHLPA put a compelling proposal on the table. They will take less money, but the extra profits by the "have" teams go to the "have not" teams.. I think this makes a ton of sense. The players get less, the poorer teams get more revenue sharing. The question I have is the following. Mr. Bettman, why on heaven's earth would the "poor" owners not want this???? My speculation is that the rich teams don't want to share......and that is the bottom line. This is joke. This has collusion written all over it.

BubbA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 11:49 AM
  #93
Janko Unchained
Flames CBA Guy
 
Janko Unchained's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 240
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
NHL makes much needed proposal. 50-50 split in rev. More details will surface. Await NHLPA response.

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
League offer of 50/50 split would begin in Year 1. No phasing in

Edit:

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
Fehr to meet w/media in 10-15 minutes.

Hopefully something good comes out of this?

Janko Unchained is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 11:50 AM
  #94
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,737
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brostopolous View Post
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
NHL makes much needed proposal. 50-50 split in rev. More details will surface. Await NHLPA response.

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
League offer of 50/50 split would begin in Year 1. No phasing in

Edit:

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
Fehr to meet w/media in 10-15 minutes.

Hopefully something good comes out of this?
I have a feeling the PA will come back with "we will not accept any cuts in any form", but I really hope I'm wrong...

Edit: I was.

Fehr's responses (about 15 minutes ago)
''improvement in some aspects, in others...not sure.''
"still things we have to wade through, still have much to learn about NHL offer"
"their proposal is at least a six year term"

Aaron Ward Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl
Quote:
NHLPA has called a 5 PM (Eastern) conference call for the Executive Board and the Negotiating Committee. #TSN
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
Quote:
NHL intends on calculating lost salary in getting to 50-50 and will pay the players back over time.
Optimism achieved.


Last edited by Stewie Griffin: 10-16-2012 at 12:31 PM.
Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 02:40 PM
  #95
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,599
vCash: 50
It sounds as though hockey will at least return this year and hopefully sooner than later. Kudos to the owners for stepping up and making a really good offer.

Johnny Hoxville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:18 PM
  #96
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,820
vCash: 67
Bettman played a very smart move pubically. Now this will blame the players if any part of the season lost. People won't care what took place up until now, they'll only remember a "fair" offer that saves hockey, offered by your friendly neighbourhood commissioner!!

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:41 PM
  #97
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,177
vCash: 133
Giant leap in the right direction, I would say we went form 5% of the way to a new CBA to 25% of the way. This should bring everyone around the table, to start chipping away at the other issues.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 05:01 PM
  #98
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,834
vCash: 354
If the players don't take this offer or at least accept the major structure of this deal there won't be a season, they simply have no choice at this point.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:22 AM
  #99
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,599
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Bettman played a very smart move pubically. Now this will blame the players if any part of the season lost. People won't care what took place up until now, they'll only remember a "fair" offer that saves hockey, offered by your friendly neighbourhood commissioner!!
I read an article a couple of days ago in the Sun about how the owners hired some hot shot PR firm that's done work with government and other huge firms. Apparently they ran a test info seminar to gauge if the groups opinion would change in favor of the owners.

Anyways, I feel your assessment is bang on. This whole thing is very strategic from the owners. Really though (and I said this a while ago), this is the kind of offer that is fair from both sides and should of been on the table a long time ago. If the players don't accept this they will not be held in a favorable perception by the public. However, I don't expect that to happen. I'm optimistic now that there will still be 82 games played.

Johnny Hoxville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 02:39 AM
  #100
Some Other Flame
Registered User
 
Some Other Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
I read an article a couple of days ago in the Sun about how the owners hired some hot shot PR firm that's done work with government and other huge firms. Apparently they ran a test info seminar to gauge if the groups opinion would change in favor of the owners.

Anyways, I feel your assessment is bang on. This whole thing is very strategic from the owners. Really though (and I said this a while ago), this is the kind of offer that is fair from both sides and should of been on the table a long time ago. If the players don't accept this they will not be held in a favorable perception by the public. However, I don't expect that to happen. I'm optimistic now that there will still be 82 games played.
The PA isn't going to accept the deal as is, and rightly so. Frankly, they'd be idiots to do so.

What they should and probably will do, is negotiate on the framework of the deal, which is essentially, a 50/50 split with no change to the definition of HRR or players being short changed on existing contracts.

It's been reported that the PA's preparing to present a counter offer on Thursday after they get more details on the NHL's proposal on Wednesday. I suspect they'll counter with a gradual decline in the revenue split instead of an immediate fall, greater revenue sharing from the rich teams, any and all monies going from players escrow accounts that are a result of a decreased percentage split being put in a revenue sharing pot so rich teams like Toronto and Rangers don't profit from the salary reduction, and of course, haggling over the UFA age, ELC duration, etc.

Then the League will counter that proposal and so on, and both sides will likely end up agreeing to a deal for a November 2nd start and a full 82 game schedule. There's no need to rush; Bettman's already come out and said that they have 9 or ten days to get things finalized and signed. And since not even he expected the players to accept the proposal as is, I'm not sure why fans expect the PA to do so.

Some Other Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:03 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.