HFBoards

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

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part IV (UPDATE: "The Union took a step backward")

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 01:02 AM
  #901
dccuse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
you CAN"T get to a 50/50 split out the gate AND honor existing contracts. Its idiotic to even say that. its mathematically impossible. it's like listening to mitt romney explain his damn tax plan. Math Mr. Fehr...it's important.
Clearly someone who understands neither. 50/50 with existing contracts is possible if you can increase revenue. But like romneys plan, that would require jobs. And like American problem, right now no one is working.

dccuse is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:52 AM
  #902
GregNYR19
agitator
 
GregNYR19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fair Lawn, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,059
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to GregNYR19
its not even the end of october and ive lost about 90% of hope

GregNYR19 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:41 AM
  #903
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
“@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Fehr says No 2 proposal gets owners down to 50 percent with "only five percent growth"”
NHL gets it's 50/50 with normal growth, and the PA is at fault????

Ola is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:43 AM
  #904
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
“@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Fehr on No 3 proposal - players to go 50/50 as long as owners promise to honor all contracts that were signed by players”
50/50 from the get go, but owners who signed insane contracts have to honor their word. And the PA is at fault???

Ola is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:46 AM
  #905
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,786
vCash: 500
How can we expect a somewhat robust negotiation when one side can get away with anything and still get the other side hit by a sledgehammer?

TSN and co is creating a monster.

Ola is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:53 AM
  #906
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,786
vCash: 500
Players have agreed to 50/50. The only question is how to get there.

And Bettman stands up and leaves the room after 10 minutes or whatever. And Canadian media goes after the PA with a sledgehammer and completely tears them apart.

Yiiii I wonder why the NHL have labor problems. Thanks Bobby Mac and Dregs...

Ola is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 05:59 AM
  #907
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
They can't come up with a system which guarantees the existing contracts. Existing contracts. Not the future contracts. When the contracts expire,they are treated as part of the new CBA. If some owners don't like that because they gave a player 13 years,that's their problem.

Quote:
The CAW just negotiated a deal with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors that saw its workers divided into two "tiers." New hires begin at lower hourly rate and with a different pension setup.

Now that the NHLPA has opened the door, why wouldn't that philosophy work? Every contract signed from this moment until forever is ruled by whatever new guidelines are created by both sides (escrow, terms, salary arbitration, etc.) at a 50/50 revenue split.

As for the current contracts, here's what they could do. The players say an immediate cut to 50/50 means a 12 per cent escrow haircut, which they don't want. So create a separate equation for those players.

Maybe next year it's 53/47, moving down towards 50/50. Maybe it's a guaranteed minimum and maximum loss for these players. And every time one of them finishes their contract, they are subject to the "new rules" and 50/50. All of the math wizards on both sides are paid handsomely to figure out a way to make this work. Perhaps there's a better way of doing it I can't think of right now.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-industry.html

Cap on escrow is another solution.

The NHL proposes a deferred system which comes out of the end from future players. Why won't the NHL fund that system from their end?

The NHL is 3 for 3 in lockouts under Bettman. That's not Fehr's fault. Fehr negotiated 2 CBAs without losing an inning.

You people support Jeremy Jacobs

Quote:
Jacobs, the board chairman who is believed the league’s most extreme hardliner, did provide moments of the most levity in the meeting even if unintentionally so, when, according to one player, the Boston owner announced that Bettman has the most difficult job imaginable.

“Gary has the hardest job because he represents both the players and the owners,” Jacobs is reported to have said.

That, according to our mole, prompted Fehr to ask, “Does that mean we can fire him?”
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...s&utm_content=

You support the NHL's position. You support Jacobs.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:36 AM
  #908
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
People are not pro-NHL to the extent that they support a hardliner like Jacobs who opposes revenue sharing. They are less pro-NHL and much more "pro-deal". Ever see the episode of South Park where they have to elect a new mascot? Its like that.

The PA's plan to honor existing contracts and have a 50/50 split would require a ridiculous amount of growth this year. About the only argument I could see for that is that the value of the US dollar won't be coming back any time soon. Additionally, if their contracts were honored in full regardless of revenues, the owners would bear 100% of the risk of lockout fallout (players get paid either way). Finally, the players have not been guaranteed every dollar of their deals since 2004. They are essentially proposing de-linkage.

If the PA had approached the exact same goal by asking for 55-56% of HRR in year one and 53-54% in year two to get to 54%/52% in the owners' framework reactions would be different.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:41 AM
  #909
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
People are not pro-NHL to the extent that they support a hardliner like Jacobs who opposes revenue sharing. They are less pro-NHL and much more "pro-deal". Ever see the episode of South Park where they have to elect a new mascot? Its like that.

The PA's plan to honor existing contracts and have a 50/50 split would require a ridiculous amount of growth this year. About the only argument I could see for that is that the value of the US dollar won't be coming back any time soon. Additionally, if their contracts were honored in full regardless of revenues, the owners would bear 100% of the risk of lockout fallout (players get paid either way). Finally, the players have not been guaranteed every dollar of their deals since 2004. They are essentially proposing de-linkage.

If the PA had approached the exact same goal by asking for 55-56% of HRR in year one and 53-54% in year two to get to 54%/52% in the owners' framework reactions would be different.
Actually, if the PA gets 55% this season and 52.5% next season and than 50/50 down the road, you accomplish that. And that's basically what the PA offered.

Ola is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:42 AM
  #910
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,700
vCash: 910
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Sather View Post
How can you support the players in this?

I mean, I couldn't find any reason to BEFORE this week, but now its really no contest.
How? Nothing has changed throughout these negotiations. The owners created a ****** system 7 years ago, and to try to fix it, they're looking to **** the players even harder this time. This is a one-sided negotiation. One side is getting everything and one side is making all the concessions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Solidarity?

How is it showing Solidarity that the stars are fleeing to Europe for $$$ and other half of union will have no job or income since they wont be gifted a roster spot in Europe?
This isn't the Memphis sanitation strike. This isn't Flint, Michigan. This is a labor dispute in the 21st century. Millionaire employees. Frank Luntz running focus groups. A 24-hour news cycle with instant information. Public bargaining. A global economy. This is how modern negotiations work.

If I take a group of my members out on strike, or if a group of my employees are locked out, I'm thrilled if I get a 50% participation rate. I'm thrilled if I don't have a group of members out talking to the press about how the union is incompetent and interfering with their ability to work. THRILLED. You can't please everyone all the time. People will go elsewhere for work, people will ***** and moan, criticize their own union, etc. There's no such thing as "true" solidarity now. A portion of the membership will always be disgruntled and find some reason to not support their sisters and brothers.

Just like "full employment" is some percentage of unemployment greater than zero, "full solidarity" accounts for a percentage of members that aren't behind you. Not on message, not supportive. It's impractical and unrealistic to expect 100% of the membership to be in lockstep. What we're seeing from the NHLPA in these negotiations is as close to full solidarity as a union can attain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Sather View Post
Not to mention some players tweeting that they saw promising signs in the NHL proposal while some tweet that its a bad offer.

They aren't united at all.
Again, that's just the reality of the times. If the air traffic controllers had Twitter back in 1981 you'd find the same thing. It's impossible to keep everyone on message when you have a bunch of famous athletes with thousands of eyes and ears focused on them at all times, and convenient outlets for them to take 30 seconds to share their thoughts.

What you DON'T see are dozens of players taking to the airwaves and internet to criticize their union leadership. You DON'T see guys holding pressers, taking a disassociated approach, urging their union and management to "just get something done" so they can go back to work.

I negotiate labor contracts and represent workers for a living. It's all I do. If I'm Don Fehr, I'm ecstatic at the level of solidarity I'm seeing from the membership. And clearly he is, since he's still bargaining from a hardline stance. He's a professional that's incredibly good at what he does--he has the pulse of his membership, and if he detected cracks in solidarity, he wouldn't be as aggressive in negotiations as he is.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:01 AM
  #911
bubba5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,015
vCash: 500
If the PA does not take the deal,they get zero revenue and approx. 100 players will never see the NHL again if this goes on for a year. Like the last lockout, ask those players who never saw the NHL again.

bubba5 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:10 AM
  #912
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Actually, if the PA gets 55% this season and 52.5% next season and than 50/50 down the road, you accomplish that. And that's basically what the PA offered.
it is basically what the PA offered, but without linkage. if its has linkage involved then there's more traction and a deal can get done. what happens if revenue tanks and goes down to $2billion (extreme i know, but hear me out).

well with the PA's proposal, they would still get $1.8 billion in revenues. so that would be fair for the PA to get 90% of the revenues in this extreme case?

even if revenues went down to 3 billion, they'd still get 62.7% of revenues. so that all has to come out of the owners end?

if there is linkage, there's a deal to be made.

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:21 AM
  #913
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Shows just how little the NHLPA wanted to end this lockout. They went into meeting with 3 plans that had no chance of success

Also plan #3 the one players are harping on is impossible to achieve 50/50 split
That is absolutely ridiculous. Why is it a crime to be compensated for EXCACTLY what was promised to you and signed in a legal document?

Yes, by HONORING existing LEGAL contracts, the 50/50 split does not work THIS year. But it DOES get there, within several years.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:29 AM
  #914
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCally View Post
I blame Fehr. I'm sure the majority of the players want to get a deal done but with Fehr at the helm it seems hopeless they will play this season.

I agree the players shouldn't have to get bent over here, but with the majority of NHL teams operating in the red, I don't see how they can pretend like they don't make enough money these days.
No offense, but this is another ludicrous statement. Blame Fehr? The NHLPA HIRED him for JUST this reason. They WILL NOT get bent over again. He is doing EXCACTLY what the players want. This is not Goodenow, who threw a 24% player salary reduction without telling the union about it. There is NO move that Fehr makes without the players knowing AND AGREEING to every last detail. This is why the MLB players union loved him. He will not have Bettman run circles aroudn him. And what the owners and players need to feer is just HOW united Fehr has the players.

Don't want to honor the contracts that you signed? Fine. What the owners did not bargain for is that the players WILL loose a year for the money that the owners owe to them. In fact, I believe that they will be loose two.

As for operating in the red, again, I understand that record revenues do not mean record profits. However, then I expect the owners to operate in such a manner and not hand out contracts that they cannot afford.

The players are more than willing to do the 50/50 but it has to be gradual, as the contracts should be honored.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:33 AM
  #915
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubba5 View Post
If the PA does not take the deal,they get zero revenue and approx. 100 players will never see the NHL again if this goes on for a year. Like the last lockout, ask those players who never saw the NHL again.
Good. I hope that happens.

Good luck earning 26-30k (if you are lucky) in the real world while trying to support a family.

See them begging to go back to their cushy 300+k "minimum wage" "jobs" playing a game, while being pampered by billion dollar companies.

I ****ing hate the owners, but i just about had it with the bratty players, as well.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:37 AM
  #916
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
How's this for a clause:

Players want full value of their contracts, salary cap and full rosters be damned?

Every year they have to donate a percentage of their yearly earnings to children's cancer research.

And the owners have to donate a percentage of their revenue to the same cause.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:40 AM
  #917
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leetch66 View Post
I think the owners should lock them out for 3 years and start with complete new rosters . The union will fall...and eventually the players will come back . I'm sure every team could fill out a roster of willing fellows that want a shot at playing in the NHL and I bet that the hockey would be very exciting and entertaining like it was in the 70's !
I am curious. How old are you? Do you remember the baseball lock out?

First of all, no 3 years and the NHL is done for good. Period. There is no comeback. I am not sure that they can survive 1 year, let alone 2 or 3. Second of all, by attempting to break teh union with scab players, the NHL would play directly into Fehr's hands. He would love nothing more than to have Bettman make that mistake. Basebal tried, he took them to court and the courts ruled in his favor. The courts FORCED the much richer baseball owners to send replacment players packing and, as apparently the lock out was ended by that act, to bring the real players back into camp. Imagine Bettman and the owners tring to wipe such an egg off of their face.

There is no part of labor law that Fehr is unfamiliar with. And, the owners biggest nightmare, is that Fehr is smarter than any previosu union head. The only way Bettman has functioned has been as a bully. Not outsmarting the opponent. Fehr is smarter and will not be bullied.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:57 AM
  #918
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
first off, double standards. The NHL can put out insulting deals, and players are expected to negotiate off that to get to the middle. The players make moderate proposals and they are greedy ****** because it isn't the middle. Why can't the league counter a union proposal. Gary stole parts of the last CBA from the union, he can incorporate elements of these offers. These guys are getting pushed and they are willing to go for the ride, but for some reason no one wants them to get a say on how fast. Why can't Gary come back and say, "we'll cap escrow, or we'll phase the cap to 50/50". He gets a pass when he conceives these snake-like deals. Its on the union to work with that, but the league can't figure out a way to honor contracts. Its so one way on this board... for the simple fact that the players can just cave in so fans get their fix.

News flash folks, this cycle won't end until the owners find a modicum of respect for the power of the union. The league botched this with the first offer then locks out.
As far as I'm concerned an excellent post. Minnesota--always a cheapskate organization gives Suter and Parise outrageous contracts and then wants to get some of the money back--ditto with Snyder in Philadelphia always a hardliner as far as owner's go signing his players to super long term deals--trying to poach Weber with a cap circumventing deal. The owners got the CBA they wanted and from day one have been trying to outdo each other figuring out ways to get around it. Whenever a new deal gets worked out--there is no reason to believe they're all of a sudden going to be able to control themselves--to honor the deal that they made.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:02 AM
  #919
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
Honestly it looks like we'd have a deal already if the owners hadn't given out a bunch of contracts and then basically outright said they didn't intend to pay full value on them. That's really damn insulting to the players and seems to be their big sticking point. They don't appreciate being treated like suckers in that instance. The league as usual is its own worst enemy

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:06 AM
  #920
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,660
vCash: 500
People are making Fehr out to be this God of negotiating... Obviously he's damn good. However, "We haven't run those numbers as of yet" (in regards to the 3rd prop) isn't an acceptable answer and it makes him, & the players he represents look unprepared at best and at worst, potentially conniving.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:13 AM
  #921
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dccuse View Post
Clearly someone who understands neither. 50/50 with existing contracts is possible if you can increase revenue. But like romneys plan, that would require jobs. And like American problem, right now no one is working.
this year would be based on last year's revenue. only way to increase last years revenue would be to change the way it is calculated and add in more things that aren't being counted now...or a time machine lol

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:20 AM
  #922
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,562
vCash: 500
It's all part of the negotiations. The NHL ***** on the players counter offer to put even more public pressure on them. The amount of people saying the NHL's deal is "fair" is absolutely astonishing. Even on the radio the other day here in Pittsburgh, Mark Madden was preaching to his yinzer army about how sweet of a deal it was for the players and that if they didn't take it they're just greedy punks.

The NHL is working from it's original proposal, and the NHLPA is working from their original proposals towards an agreement. Obviously the NHL is trying to force them to bargain from their proposals only.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:24 AM
  #923
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
it is basically what the PA offered, but without linkage. if its has linkage involved then there's more traction and a deal can get done. what happens if revenue tanks and goes down to $2billion (extreme i know, but hear me out).

well with the PA's proposal, they would still get $1.8 billion in revenues. so that would be fair for the PA to get 90% of the revenues in this extreme case?

even if revenues went down to 3 billion, they'd still get 62.7% of revenues. so that all has to come out of the owners end?

if there is linkage, there's a deal to be made.
yep. add in a condition that guarantees the 5% growth by reducing players share if it falls below that and you might have something

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:29 AM
  #924
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,304
vCash: 500
the problem with separate rules for old and new contracts is how do you determine what the remain share is for the new contracts?

you can do that with the individual contract rules, redden rule only applies going forward, etc.

but when it comes to the overall 50/50 split...lets say next year (year 2 of cba) the existing contracts account for $1.6 bil and after a 5% increase the players 50% share is $1.8 bil, does that mean there is only $200m for all of the free agents? and if so then you really aren't applying different rules, you are still fighting everyone under the 50%

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:32 AM
  #925
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
this year would be based on last year's revenue. only way to increase last years revenue would be to change the way it is calculated and add in more things that aren't being counted now...or a time machine lol
Escrow is calculated at the end of the year. The owners would get money back at that point

e: that is to say, the real money calculation (which is realistically what the owners care about) comes at the end of the season and is based on the money generated during the season. If next year had a big revenue growth, the league could end up splitting things closer to 50-50 (more realistically like around 54-46 players if it was a good increase) and still pay the value of the players contracts, especially since they would no longer be required by the CBA to give back money to get the split up to 57% for the players

that's why the players are saying "we'll go to 50-50 if you honor the contracts", because you can get to 50-50 in a couple of seasons if you assume good revenue growth and not requiring the owners to pay 57% of the revenue no matter what. It would basically be a 50-50 split on the revenue for next year and then if that's not enough to pay the existing contracts then the league gives back more until it does. That could theoretically come in under the old 57% number (not really sure what the numbers are), and would definitely be closer to 50-50 in year two, and almost certainly 50-50 in the 3rd year. Hell, there could even be room to calculate some certain cap on how much the league would pay back in year one, like it can't be over X percentage or something.


Last edited by Levitate: 10-19-2012 at 09:44 AM.
Levitate 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 05:46 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.