HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2012, 04:59 PM
  #251
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,689
vCash: 500
Right now I should be angry that Jody Shelley is skating(lol*) around in a Flyers jersey, instead I'm wishing I could see Jody Shelley skate(lol*) around in Flyers jersey.

*Its funny cause he can't really skate.

Protest is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:04 PM
  #252
flyersguy33*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,708
vCash: 500
But I thought Shafer told us the lockout was ending so very soon per his sources....

flyersguy33* is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:12 PM
  #253
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 47,111
vCash: 500
I'm straight up stealing this from a Kopistar post on BoH, credit to him:

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
#NHL source: Owners were handed TWO proposals from #NHLPA; third (alleged 50/50) proposal was decribed, & not as 50/50 & more complicated

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
#NHL source: Both first 2 #NHLPA proposals paid out $1.9 billion in '12-13 (more than '11-12) and got to 50-50 in Year 5

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
Essentially, the #NHL source claims the league was never handed any 3rd proposal that was 50/50 AND honoring contracts by Fehr #nhlpa

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:24 PM
  #254
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
This was sooooo orchestrated by the league. Let's put out a somewhat decent offer, then we'll put it on our website to show how we aren't hiding anything. Then, when the first counter offer comes along we'll shoot it down and talk about how disappointed we are with the PA.

Not falling for it one bit.
I understand what you're saying, but until the NHLPA posts up it's counter offers (and I don't expect them to) we have no way of knowing if that is the case.

You're absolutely right that it was orchestrated by the league. In making the terms of their last proposal open to the public, they're essentially leveraging the public opinion into trying to get a deal done; and that is their priviledge.

Considering all the players who have made youtubes, taken to the media and twitter to vent their frustrations at the owners I don't blame them for doing it. In fact it's pure genius. Posting up their offer for all the world to see as if to say; "Am I being unreasonable?"

I'd love for the NHLPA to post up it's counter-offers.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:25 PM
  #255
SolidSnakeUS
Registered User
 
SolidSnakeUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pipersville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,648
vCash: 500
Why the **** wasn't the 3rd proposal given to them? Was it made up or what?

SolidSnakeUS is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:28 PM
  #256
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,591
vCash: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnakeUS View Post
Why the **** wasn't the 3rd proposal given to them? Was it made up or what?
Sounding like it was made up in the elevator up to the meeting on a cocktail napkin.

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:28 PM
  #257
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I'm straight up stealing this from a Kopistar post on BoH, credit to him:

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
#NHL source: Owners were handed TWO proposals from #NHLPA; third (alleged 50/50) proposal was decribed, & not as 50/50 & more complicated

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
#NHL source: Both first 2 #NHLPA proposals paid out $1.9 billion in '12-13 (more than '11-12) and got to 50-50 in Year 5

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
Essentially, the #NHL source claims the league was never handed any 3rd proposal that was 50/50 AND honoring contracts by Fehr #nhlpa
If true, especially the bolded, then yeah I'd call that a big step back.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:37 PM
  #258
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 47,111
vCash: 500
I'm going to steal more from Kopistar, Daly has things to say:

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly on Union's third proposal, which Fehr said called for a 50-50 split of HRR after all contracts are honored:

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
"The so called 50-50 deal, plus honoring current contracts proposed by the NHL Players' Association earlier today is being misrepresented...

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
"It's not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely, a 56 to 57% deal in Yr. 1 and never gets to 50% during the proposed 5-yr term of the agreement.

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
"The proposal contemplates paying the players approximately $650 million outside the players' share. In effect, the Union is proposing...

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
"to change the accounting rules to be able to say 50-50, when really it is not. ...

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
"The Union told us that they had not yet 'run the numbers.' We did." End of Daly quote.



Now, I'm not sure how they ran the numbers that quickly. I was under the impression that the players offered 3 proposals (or two, apparently) pretty close to each other. Perhaps they offered 1, the NHL checked it and said no, and the second was similar enough that they knew what to expect.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:43 PM
  #259
toughfighter83*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
it sounds like they dont want any decrease in salary, which is not going to happen, it's all about greed with the players this time, they dont care about this sport, if they cared at all, they would have taken the deal with a little cut back and everything will be fine but they want more money in which the league cannot give.

feur is a joke, he ruined baseball, now he's ruining hockey.

toughfighter83* is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:46 PM
  #260
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 47,111
vCash: 500
Also, according to a quote Fugu dug up, Bettman says:

"This is the best offer that we have to make," Bettman said of the proposal from the league earlier this week. "The fact is, we're nowhere close to what we proposed."

So, if that's the best offer they have to make...why listen to what the NHLPA had to say today? Were they just assuming Fehr would show up to surrender? Hopefully they're willing to adjust if needed. I don't think they need to give very much more, but some flexibility is still needed from them...once the players move a little closer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
it sounds like they dont want any decrease in salary, which is not going to happen, it's all about greed with the players this time, they dont care about this sport, if they cared at all, they would have taken the deal with a little cut back and everything will be fine but they want more money in which the league cannot give.

feur is a joke, he ruined baseball, now he's ruining hockey.
The original deal was not a "little" cut back, it was a huge cut back. The players' proposed deals apparently descend every year from something greater than 57%, down to 50%...that's a paycut. So clearly they are willing to take a hit, they just don't want to take it all at once which is reasonable. The idea is to keep their salaries at about the same level over time, instead of dropping them down suddenly and waiting for them to rise again.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:50 PM
  #261
toughfighter83*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
i dont care, the players are greedy bottom line, if you care about the sport and not about money, then you would take a fair deal, obviously they dont care about the sport, they are using it for money grabbers.

toughfighter83* is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:52 PM
  #262
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 47,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
i dont care, the players are greedy bottom line, if you care about the sport and not about money, then you would take a fair deal, obviously they dont care about the sport, they are using it for money grabbers.
Clearly they don't think the deals offered are fair. In a lot of ways, they aren't. So far, even the best deal has a large paycut for the players AND cuts their FA rights. The NHL hasn't given them much incentive to accept yet. Conversely, the players are still pretty far off with their proposals based on rumored demands.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:53 PM
  #263
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Also, according to a quote Fugu dug up, Bettman says:

"This is the best offer that we have to make," Bettman said of the proposal from the league earlier this week. "The fact is, we're nowhere close to what we proposed."

So, if that's the best offer they have to make...why listen to what the NHLPA had to say today? Were they just assuming Fehr would show up to surrender? Hopefully they're willing to adjust if needed. I don't think they need to give very much more, but some flexibility is still needed from them...once the players move a little closer.



The original deal was not a "little" cut back, it was a huge cut back. The players' proposed deals apparently descend every year from something greater than 57%, down to 50%...that's a paycut. So clearly they are willing to take a hit, they just don't want to take it all at once which is reasonable. The idea is to keep their salaries at about the same level over time, instead of dropping them down suddenly and waiting for them to rise again.
Right. The NHL deal was a 12 percent cut with the possibility of some player-to-player transfer later to make some of it up. THat's tough. Maybe doable with a bit oh phasing in, but probably not without, or with the new contract restrictions. With the dangers of the sport, a you need to be careful with contract limits. Players have good reason to be concerned that their long-term welfare is accounted for.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:54 PM
  #264
flyershockey
Registered User
 
flyershockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
i dont care, the players are greedy bottom line, if you care about the sport and not about money, then you would take a fair deal, obviously they dont care about the sport, they are using it for money grabbers.
What would be your educated opinion on to what sort of deal the players should accept? I stress educated, you know... like facts and stuff. I think all can agree that both sides have been insanely greedy at times, but nobody can definitively blame the lockout on one side or the other.

flyershockey is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:55 PM
  #265
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
i dont care, the players are greedy bottom line, if you care about the sport and not about money, then you would take a fair deal, obviously they dont care about the sport, they are using it for money grabbers.
And the owners aren't greedy? And you and I aren't greedy? We all want what's best for ourselves do we not? If someone offered me an insane amount of money I wouldn't be worrying about their bottom line, and that's whats been happening here for years, the league insisted on a cap and said they'd never be able to survive without one. Year after year the cap went up, salaries went up, some really stupid contracts were handed out from a ton of teams and now the owners are suddenly crying poor?

MsWoof is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:56 PM
  #266
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 114,583
vCash: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
i dont care, the players are greedy bottom line, if you care about the sport and not about money, then you would take a fair deal, obviously they dont care about the sport, they are using it for money grabbers.
'Fair deal' is not exclusive to 'the middle.' The owners are trying to take back ~13% when they JUST spent umpteen million dollars on contract extensions (let alone free agency) 6 seconds before the lockout began.

They are the product, and thus should be compensated justly according to revenues. No different whatever you do at your job.

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 06:36 PM
  #267
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
The original deal was not a "little" cut back, it was a huge cut back. The players' proposed deals apparently descend every year from something greater than 57%, down to 50%...that's a paycut. So clearly they are willing to take a hit, they just don't want to take it all at once which is reasonable. The idea is to keep their salaries at about the same level over time, instead of dropping them down suddenly and waiting for them to rise again.
As long as HRR increases equal to or greater then the yearly reduction in the players share, they will not be taking a pay cut. Their salaries will simply stagnate until they hit 50% and then increase from there.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 06:50 PM
  #268
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,644
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
I don't think either side is "greedy." Both sides want the best deal possible for itself. The owners don't care what the players are losing. The players don't care what the owners are losing. Each side wants what is best for itself. Just like if you were negotiating something you had a stake in, you would want the best deal for yourself. I want this deal to get done as much as anyone, but saying one side is right and one is wrong or one is greedy etc is just silly. This is business. We suffer because of this, but that's the nature of the beast.

My biggest problem is why didn't they start the negotiations long ago? That way if they reached a bump in the road after a month of negotiations, they wouldn't be now missing out on $$$ and would still have time to work things out.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:07 PM
  #269
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 47,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
As long as HRR increases equal to or greater then the yearly reduction in the players share, they will not be taking a pay cut. Their salaries will simply stagnate until they hit 50% and then increase from there.
They're going to be making less total overall on the new deal than they are on this one since their share will decrease. I consider that a cut; the players will have less money in the long run than they would if the current plan continued. The difference is they'd see stability in their salary while the cut gradually occurs, which is nice.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:25 PM
  #270
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
As long as HRR increases equal to or greater then the yearly reduction in the players share, they will not be taking a pay cut. Their salaries will simply stagnate until they hit 50% and then increase from there.
Look, that's what's going to happen, we all know that.

But if you boil it down, that argument basically is this: if you continue to play your vital, critical role in growing the sport and increasing revenues, we might give you what you have now, while pocketing the difference.

I realize where the final deal is going to end up, but I also get while that's a bit tricky to swallow.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:42 PM
  #271
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
They're going to be making less total overall on the new deal than they are on this one since their share will decrease. I consider that a cut; the players will have less money in the long run than they would if the current plan continued. The difference is they'd see stability in their salary while the cut gradually occurs, which is nice.
Right now they stand to make no money because the deal they had expired and it's a deal that gave the players too much money. I don't fault the players for wanting to lessen the blow to 50%, and I don't fault them for wanting to negotiate some of the contract rules. However the NHL offered 50/50 in the first year, they offered 50/50 in the last year so clearly the sides have some room to negotiate. However the ridiculous "3rd proposal" that they clearly didn't take seriously enough to run the numbers on because they knew it would be thrown out? What's the point?

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:55 PM
  #272
SuchySays
Registered User
 
SuchySays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Poconos
Country: United States
Posts: 2,715
vCash: 500
Braydon Coburn ‏@BraydonCoburn
Wow. The NHL and NHLPA have agreed to a deal tonight!! Announcement coming shortly from Bettman and Fehr!


I think he was hacked again

SuchySays is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:56 PM
  #273
Flyersfan1493
Formerly Go For It
 
Flyersfan1493's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuchySays View Post
Braydon Coburn ‏@BraydonCoburn
Wow. The NHL and NHLPA have agreed to a deal tonight!! Announcement coming shortly from Bettman and Fehr!


I think he was hacked again
It would be awesome if he wasn't, but most likely.

What happened last time?

Flyersfan1493 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:33 PM
  #274
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slap Happy View Post
But I thought Shafer told us the lockout was ending so very soon per his sources....
No, I didn't. This is what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
There's talk going around that with injuries getting involved, Ed Snider is about to put his foot down.

Take from it what you will, but there's buzz that the lockout may end sooner rather than later at best or will at the very least make some significant motions by the end of next week at worst.
And there is significant motion, far more than there was before.

Whether or not my source got overexcited because he possibly, like all of us, saw the NHL's offer as a starting point for real discussions about a fair CBA moving forward.

But yeah, we've gone from no talks to realistic discussion and a potential full 82-game season starting in November since I told everyone about what I heard.


So I lied. My bad guys. Sorry that I told you all the lockout would be over by now even though I really didn't. ****, my bad for sharing information.

CS is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 11:02 PM
  #275
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,147
vCash: 500
The NHLPA dont want to play 82 gms if they did they would have worked of the NHL offer. The NHLPA should take the deal and lose 5 % now if the NHL starts canceling gms the % in loses for the players will start to go up fast.

BleedOrange 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 04:35 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.