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 V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2012, 08:40 PM
  #451
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 33,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
After executive board call, the NHLPA has requested a meeting with the NHL for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/reporterchris/st...16850181943296

Some players want to play. Some players still want to fight. The Russian guys want to stay in Russia. Unity.

Quote:
The #NHLPA has informed the #NHL they are willing to meet Wed or any other date, but without preconditions.
https://twitter.com/michaelgrange/st...18765242445824

Quote:
NHLPA has told NHL it will meet Wed or any other day to resume talks. Awaits answer from league i am told
https://twitter.com/tpanotchCSN/stat...19149486800896

Everyone got the NHLPA email.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:43 PM
  #452
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,772
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
@michaelgrange: The #NHLPA has informed the #NHL they are willing to meet Wed or any other date, but without preconditions.

trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:45 PM
  #453
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,973
vCash: 500
Stephen Whyno ‏@SWhyno
Bill Daly says in email that there is still no meeting scheduled between #NHL and #NHLPA.

Just tweeted a minute ago. Writes for the Caps in the Washington Times.

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
Bill Daly says the union has expressed a willingness to meet but isn't going to table a proposal: "What would we be meeting about?"

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:47 PM
  #454
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 33,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Bill Daly says the union has expressed a willingness to meet but isn't going to table a proposal: "What would we be meeting about?"
https://twitter.com/reporterchris/st...19991480774658

The C.B.A.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:51 PM
  #455
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Maybe NHLPA is going to discuss the make whole provision.

EDIT: nevermind.

RGY is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:51 PM
  #456
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 33,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Bill Daly:"they suggested they were willing to meet. But they also told us they weren't interested in the proposal made last Tuesday."
https://twitter.com/RenLavoieRDS/sta...20969948962816

Quote:
...and that they weren't prepared to make their own proposal. Not sure what we would be meeting about ?"
https://twitter.com/RenLavoieRDS/sta...21140493578240

Even getting a meeting together is a negotiation.

Quote:
Tomorrow could be interesting. Never a dull moment.
https://twitter.com/SunGarrioch/stat...21723006885888

These guys are too much.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:52 PM
  #457
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,973
vCash: 500
David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod
Just told from a high up NHL source that no CBA meetings are scheduled, and the source doubts any will take place this week. #ruhroh

Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange
I would interpret 'preconditions' to mean #NHLPA isn't obligated to bargain of #NHL offer. League would likely interpret that as a no-go.

NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:53 PM
  #458
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 11,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Maybe NHLPA is going to discuss the make whole provision.
Sadly...

Quote:
Bill Daly:"they suggested they were willing to meet. But they also told us they weren't interested in the proposal made last Tuesday."
Quote:
...and that they weren't prepared to make their own proposal. Not sure what we would be meeting about ?"
-RenLavoieRDS 9:50pm via Twitter for BlackBerry




Idiots. Engage on the make-whole.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:55 PM
  #459
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Sadly...




-RenLavoieRDS 9:50pm via Twitter for BlackBerry




Idiots. Engage on the make-whole.
Yeah I edited my original post after I saw the latest tweets. NHL/NHLPA = JOKE.

RGY is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:13 PM
  #460
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
 
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 11,216
vCash: 500
3 work stoppages in 20 years. This is embarrassing.

Rust Heisenberg is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:14 PM
  #461
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,114
vCash: 500
Someone needs to move a little bit.

Quote:
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
When asked if the CBA negotiation is about to go into a deep freeze, B. Daly said "I suspect so. Back to the drawing board. Unfortunate."
Quote:
Rob Rossi ‏@RobRossi_Trib
Bottom line: Deal is within reach. Either #NHL or #nhlpa needs to stretch just a little bit more; otherwise no hockey. But deal IS there.

Jabroni is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:14 PM
  #462
Ih8theislanders
Full-kit ****ers
 
Ih8theislanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 13,811
vCash: 500
What a ****ing joke.

Ih8theislanders is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:15 PM
  #463
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,772
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
**** the NHLPA. 700 morons and 2 lawyers holding this game hostage, and for what?

trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:16 PM
  #464
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Sadly...




-RenLavoieRDS 9:50pm via Twitter for BlackBerry




Idiots. Engage on the make-whole.
This is garbage talk. They don't need to make another big proposal and they don't need to work exactly off the NHL's proposal. Maybe they do want to talk about the "make whole" or some version of it but are saying "that doesn't mean we're accepting the rest of the offer, we just want to discuss this other issue you said you were open to"

If the NHL isn't even willing to engage on "make whole" without the NHLPA accepting everything else then the NHL is being unreasonable.

Not that I know for sure that's what is happening but there is certainly plenty of ways they could talk about things without making a new proposal or working exclusively off the old proposal

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:31 PM
  #465
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
 
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 11,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
**** the NHLPA. 700 morons and 2 lawyers holding this game hostage, and for what?
I respect them. They got ****ed last time around, good for them.

Rust Heisenberg is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:31 PM
  #466
NYRangers16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Westchester
Posts: 1,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrangerfan View Post
I understand your points. I understand that the players are attempting to receive their contracts in full. I suspect they believe that if they show the owners they are committed to the end the owners will have to take this new reality into their thinking.
I think the same thing, especially given how the last negotiation went. I don't know if it will work...


Quote:
Yes, the owners do have franchise values on the line. I believe these values are a bit over 7 billion. Clearly, not playing any games will cost the owners a bit of cash flow now and could very well put a dent into their asset values. What is a business worth without any games? The owners do have far greater assets to support any losses rather easily. The players are in a far more difficult spot. The trick for the players is to find the number that will force the owners to concede but not to cost them too much that will force them to close down the league.
I don't know about that. The stars are playing overseas... and Fehr is a vet negotiator. I think the teams might have more to lose here given how the sport has grown and given how willing the players have been to play in other leagues. Obviously this excludes the lower level guys...but we'll see how much pressure they put on Fehr.

Quote:
I do not view the players as employees. My view is that the CBA makes them quasi partners with the owners. As the revenues rise the pot for the players increases. If profitability continues to shrink, over the next few years, the owners will offer a lower cut to the players in the next CBA. It's a given. In the past number of years we saw many owners lose all discipline when signing players. Winning is everything. The players were the beneficiaries. They are currently receiving higher compensation than they would if the teams were all run as a business. On one hand the players are the beneficiary of the spending sprees and on the other hand they would be complaining about their compensation if the owners paid them more in line with their profitablity (say 30% lower pay?).
A lot of this depends on your starting point. Many players haven't forgotten the cap, the rollbacks, and everything else they lost in the last cba. The fact that they did pretty well over the course of it I don't think removes the fact that they made major concessions. And I think they are bitter about how that happened and don't want it to happen again. This goes for the dollars involved and the systems issues. And then add on top of this the further cuts owners want to make. The fact that the players are willing to fork over 7% of the revenue for nothing in return is actually, in itself pretty remarkable. But all the owners can say is "it's not good enough." This after forcing everything they wanted on the players last time. I don't care how you define the relationship...do businesses blame their employees for the business plan tanking? And if they are partners, then one side shouldn't be screwing over the other side repeatedly. If the owners hadn't been so hardline last time maybe the players would be more likely to give now?? There are consequences to negotiations for everyone.

Quote:
The unions are at their strongest when industry is at it's height of growth and profitability. The key is to have a work stoppage when ownership has as much to lose as the members. Right now I believe the NHL has most of the cards since the money is moving heavily in the players direction. The owners aren't netting 1.7 billion. Forbes last report shows the teams netting 180 million.
Agree that it's in everyone's best interests for the sport to be healthy(this is hockey's future after all), but last time the owners blamed the players and now the players are saying "we took your system last time and it didn't work." So this time they want to ensure that they aren't the ones shouldering all the financial costs for the health of the industry. And this makes sense. If teams are pulling in 7b and only netting 180m, that's horrible horrible management. And you can't blame the players when they are getting 57%. How does the NHL make so little off the 3.3b that isn't going to the players? This is the real question. Look at all the awful markets, the lack of sales, the empty arenas, the perpetually sucky teams, the horrible management in place in many teams, etc. If you are pulling in 3.3b and only making .2 b back, you have much bigger issues than revenue. And so really, does increasing revenue to the owners really help grow the sport if their profit margins are so horrible?

Quote:
If the CBA didn't exist I would look at the players as being simple employees. If my current understanding is right higher league revenues above contracts would accrue to the players. At least that's how the system should work. That's how loose partnerships work.
This makes sense, but the players see it as giving the owners 7% of their share and getting nothing in return. And it's not like they can trust the owners not to ******* it up and then come back crying next time for more. And I don't see how anyone can blame them.

NYRangers16 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:44 PM
  #467
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,772
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenjets36 View Post
I respect them. They got ****ed last time around, good for them.
they got ****ed last time around? you're kidding me right? look how well this cba turned out for them


Last edited by trueblue9441: 10-23-2012 at 09:50 PM.
trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:58 PM
  #468
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,703
vCash: 500
The league is being just as unreasonable as anything the players are doing. Not being willing to negotiate and throwing out take it or leave proposals is a joke

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:02 PM
  #469
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,772
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
The league is being just as unreasonable as anything the players are doing. Not being willing to negotiate and throwing out take it or leave proposals is a joke
how when the pa's proposals arent even worthwhile to listen to? if linkage is on the table, there's a deal to be made.

extreme scenario, but under all the players proposals if league revenues fell to 2 billion theyd still get 1.8 billion. that makes no business sense at all to even consider that deal.

if linkage is on the table from the PA then i bet there's a deal done.

trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:20 PM
  #470
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenjets36 View Post
I respect them. They got ****ed last time around, good for them.
Last time I checked, player salaries are higher now than they were before the last lockout. So how exactly did they get ****ed?

WhipNash27 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:31 PM
  #471
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 11,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
This is garbage talk. They don't need to make another big proposal and they don't need to work exactly off the NHL's proposal. Maybe they do want to talk about the "make whole" or some version of it but are saying "that doesn't mean we're accepting the rest of the offer, we just want to discuss this other issue you said you were open to"

If the NHL isn't even willing to engage on "make whole" without the NHLPA accepting everything else then the NHL is being unreasonable.

Not that I know for sure that's what is happening but there is certainly plenty of ways they could talk about things without making a new proposal or working exclusively off the old proposal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
The league is being just as unreasonable as anything the players are doing. Not being willing to negotiate and throwing out take it or leave proposals is a joke
Except that you do have to agree to the form off the document before you can even approach crafting a final deal. Every single contract I've ever negotiated has gone off of redlines back and forth. As long as both sides are submitting entire new proposals and aren't willing to engage on one structure, the deal is stuck in the mud.

Having said that, I agree that the PA's response to the league's question didn't have to be a verbatim, "yes, we will negotiate every single clause point by point according to your language." But a constructive response could have been something like "we want to discuss the make whole concept you've proposed" or "we have some thoughts on how X could be adjusted."

If they did indeed respond with some vague BS like "we just want to keep an open dialogue", which is what some of the players have said was the reason for the request, then my guess is that the Fehrs only reached out as a sop to those players that had pushed to reopen negotiations on the call today.

This is the digital age. We have phones and email. The sides don't actually have to be in the same room to make progress. Meetings are primarily for the cameras and, on the PA's side, where the leadership has to keep 700 guys in line, to play to their own membership. Given where we are in the process and the deadlines approaching, it is actually entirely appropriate to say "look, are we negotiating off of our doc and/or do you have a new form to propose? Because there's no point in getting together if you're sticking to your original proposals and I certainly have no interest in helping you appease your membership. You've got my number - call me when you want to discuss substantive points."

EDIT: to trueblue9441's point, I do not believe the league will EVER engage on a deal that includes cost certainty for the players. That is why I believe it is incumbent upon the PA to express willingness to explore forms of linkage - a.k.a. agree, to one degree or another, to negotiate off of the owners' form.


Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 10-23-2012 at 10:40 PM.
BrooklynRangersFan is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:03 PM
  #472
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
Legally they do, but it's not moral and the players have every right to be angry. If I signed a contract for a specified amount and honor my end, I would expect to be paid that amount. It's not the players fault that certain teams can't support themselves.
Why is it not moral?

Do you think the players signed those contracts without being told that a new CBA could limit the amounts they received?

It would be ridiculously negligent on the part of whoever was advising these players not to inform them of that fact.

So much so, that I refuse to believe that it was not discussed as part of the basis for whatever contract they signed. What I mean to say is, when Ryan Suter signed that $98 million contract, I would be shocked if it was not told to him explicitly at some point, "Now Ryan.... you know that if the cap goes down with the next CBA, you WILL NOT get this full $98 million."

It's only immoral if this was somehow kept from them and it's completely blindsiding the players who thought they were going to get their full contracts.

Since the exact opposite is almost certainly the truth (that the players would have absolutely known and been told by their agents and lawyers that the CBA controls their contracts, since that is what happened in 2004 and frankly, is just "the way that it is"), I can't possibly agree that it's immoral.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:09 PM
  #473
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Uh-huh, and every single agent going into those negotiations - especially the flurry of down to the wire deals this summer - didn't know that the owners on the other side were counting on some relief from the forthcoming CBA negotiations and didn't then leverage that assumption to score their clients deals that otherwise wouldn't have been on the table (either in terms of dollars or years)? They didn't have very frank conversations with their clients explaining this fact?

I know if I were a player's agent I would've been saying something like: "listen Tyler, this is a deal that's only on the table because the CBA is expiring. Under a new CBA, this wouldn't be nearly this easy. You wouldn't be looking at $35MM and a NTC; heck, you might not even be able to score your big money long term deal until your third contract. The reason Jacobs is willing to give you this deal is that he'll be able to get some of it back in the new CBA. And you know what? That's fine. You may lose 3-5% of the first couple of years. Who cares? You're still locking in something like $33MM guaranteed. Under the new CBA, everyone may do business like the Rangers when it comes to second contracts. Take the deal and run."

I am so tired of the "moral" argument about the "sanctity" of the players' contracts. 1) Legally they are all subsidiary to the CBA, 2) everyone involved in negotiating them knows this and 3) everyone who negotiated a deal in the last two years - on both sides - was factoring the pending CBA battle into their thinking.
Absolutely right.

If I was a person signing a contract, and I had an attorney representing me, and he failed to tell me that this contract I signed could be cut by 25% pending a different contract by two other parties within the next year.... uh, I'd sue him for malpractice.

It'd be ridiculously negligent not to tell a client that.

As such, I cannot possibly believe that the players didn't know about this. Not only that, but any contract they negotiated, the impending CBA reduction would have been part of the understanding of the deal.

As you astutely and correctly point out, getting those megadeals in under the wire is actually a benefit to the players because of the uncertainty of the upcoming CBA. There is no legitimate claim to be made that it's immoral to reduce those contracts when they PLAYERS were the ones who had the incentive to sign off before the old CBA expired.

It's only immoral if this was somehow a surprise to everyone. It's not -- it was expected and all those recent contracts were negotiated with the foreknowledge of it.

In fact, it's bordering on dishonesty to claim that those contracts SHOULD be honored, IMO (dishonesty or ignorance, anyway).

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:15 PM
  #474
GregNYR19
agitator
 
GregNYR19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fair Lawn, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,060
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to GregNYR19
bye bye nhl season

GregNYR19 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 12:57 AM
  #475
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bialystok, Poland
Country: Iceland
Posts: 6,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregNYR19 View Post
bye bye nhl season
Nope. Bettman is a lying, nasty, conniving, despicable SOB of a weasel with no morals or holdbacks - but he is certainly not dumb enough to let that happen. As that would NOT be in the owners or leagues interest. Or his own. This is just going down to the wire in a chicken race of epic proportions. Surprise surprise is most likely coming up...

BBKers 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 05:01 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.