HFBoards

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

All CBA talk goes here (NHL offers 50/50 deal - 82 game deadline passed)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 03:04 PM
  #926
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
That's not true, and comments like that really don't make me want to continue to discuss this with you.
What a clever way to avoid discussing the points I made.

You're on the players side in this and thats fine. But pointing that out is some how being mean?

joshjull is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 03:38 PM
  #927
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,851
vCash: 500
Its seems like the discussion has now boiled down to, when should the split get to 50/50 and how will that transition take place.

Does anyone else see it that way?

I see that as progress

joshjull is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 03:40 PM
  #928
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
What a clever way to avoid discussing the points I made.

You're on the players side in this and thats fine. But pointing that out is some how being mean?
To say I take the players side in this is correct. To say that I'm a knee jerk apologist is a bit much. I'd like to think that I've thought my position on this through quite a bit.

My point on the Fehr thing is simply that the circumstances are completely different between the 1994 MLB strike, and the current NHL situation.

Look at the timeline.

- September 1992. Fay Vincent forced out for criticizing the owners who were caught colluding to keep player salaries down. Selig effectively becomes acting commissioner, even though he was one of the owners punished in the collusion case. (This action greatly angered the player's union.)

- July 1993. Fehr wants negotiations to start. Threatens a September 1993 strike if they don't. 1993 season completes without a strike.

- December 1993. CBA expires. Players don't strike.

- April 1994. Season starts without a CBA in place.

- June 1994. Owners submit new proposal, which includes a salary cap. Owners also start witholding pension and benefit contributions to the players. These benefits were required under the old CBA, but the owners stated that they were no longer required to pay since the CBA expired.

- July 28th. Players vote to strike on August 12th, and do so.

A strike was almost inevitable. The owners had forced their reasonable commissioner out, and replaced him with someone (Selig) who JUST got nailed for actively stealing money from the players in the collusion case. Selig is also reportedly the one who told the owners to stop paying pensions. The players were being actively and aggressively screwed with then.

Nothing remotely close to that is happening now, and that's why I don't think Fehr would have advised a strike should the involved parties played this CBA out.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 03:40 PM
  #929
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Its seems like the discussion has now boiled down to, when should the split get to 50/50 and how will that transition take place.

Does anyone else see it that way?

I see that as progress
It is progress, but only if both sides actually sit back down and work on it.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 03:43 PM
  #930
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
If we can get a 60 game season going I'll be happy, just dont lockout the season

McTank is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 04:00 PM
  #931
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Its seems like the discussion has now boiled down to, when should the split get to 50/50 and how will that transition take place.

Does anyone else see it that way?

I see that as progress
yes, and yes

Jame is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 04:06 PM
  #932
drinking bleach irl
don't be so serious
 
drinking bleach irl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 11,565
vCash: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
yes, and yes
This.
I'm much more optimistic now.

drinking bleach irl is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 04:18 PM
  #933
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
To say I take the players side in this is correct. To say that I'm a knee jerk apologist is a bit much. I'd like to think that I've thought my position on this through quite a bit.

My point on the Fehr thing is simply that the circumstances are completely different between the 1994 MLB strike, and the current NHL situation.

Look at the timeline.

- September 1992. Fay Vincent forced out for criticizing the owners who were caught colluding to keep player salaries down. Selig effectively becomes acting commissioner, even though he was one of the owners punished in the collusion case. (This action greatly angered the player's union.)

- July 1993. Fehr wants negotiations to start. Threatens a September 1993 strike if they don't. 1993 season completes without a strike.

- December 1993. CBA expires. Players don't strike.

- April 1994. Season starts without a CBA in place.

- June 1994. Owners submit new proposal, which includes a salary cap. Owners also start witholding pension and benefit contributions to the players. These benefits were required under the old CBA, but the owners stated that they were no longer required to pay since the CBA expired.

- July 28th. Players vote to strike on August 12th, and do so.

A strike was almost inevitable. The owners had forced their reasonable commissioner out, and replaced him with someone (Selig) who JUST got nailed for actively stealing money from the players in the collusion case. Selig is also reportedly the one who told the owners to stop paying pensions. The players were being actively and aggressively screwed with then.

Nothing remotely close to that is happening now, and that's why I don't think Fehr would have advised a strike should the involved parties played this CBA out.
Couple of points

1. You're still not seeing the bigger picture. You keep arguing abut the justifications for them going on strike. Its irrelevant to the point I'm making. From an NHL owners pov they see a Union head willing to take whatever actions necessary to do what he feels he needs to do for his members. Regardless of whatever pr heat he or the union will take from those actions. Not to mention the fact that the owners are hardly going to share your take on those events.


2. The old CBA is expired. There is no option it to extend it another year. I have no idea why you think there is.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366

Quote:
The CBA is six years in duration (through the 2010-11 season) with the NHLPA having the option to re-open the agreement after Year Four (after the 2008-09 season). The NHLPA also has the option of extending the CBA for an additional year at the end of the term.
The NHLPA did extend it an additional year which was last season (11-12).

What the NHLPA proposed this summer was the NHL would agree to play another season under the terms of the expiring CBA and the two sides would negotiate a new CBA while the season was going on. Essentially the NHL and NHLPA would agree to a "new" 1 year CBA with the exact terms of the expiring one. It was a pr move by the union that they new the NHL would never go for because the owners aren't idiots. They weren't going to take away the leverage they had of locking out the players and hitting their pocketbooks while the negotiations dragged on. Thats why I said you were being a tad naive earlier if you think this scenario made any sense from an owners pov.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just looking at these things tactically

joshjull is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 05:07 PM
  #934
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
2. The old CBA is expired. There is no option it to extend it another year. I have no idea why you think there is.
Quote:
3.1 Term.
(a) This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 2004 (the
“Effective Date”),and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight New York time
on September 15, 2011, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall deliver to the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.

(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in subparagraph 3.1(a),
the NHLPA shall have the right: (i) to terminate this Agreement as of September 15,
2009 by delivery of written notice of termination to the NHL at least 120 days prior to
September 15, 2009; or (ii) to extend this Agreement for one additional year to
September 15, 2012 by delivery of written notice to the NHL of such election to extend at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011.
Paragraph B states that PA had an early termination option, as well as the single extension option. They obviously took the extension.

However, paragraph A shows that unless either side explicitly opted out, the existing CBA would have automatically re-upped for 1 year terms. The owners chose to take this route, and here we are today.

This is part of my core belief that the players wouldn't strike. The opt out cutoff is May, already into the playoffs. I don't believe, no matter how bad it got, that the players would walk in the middle of a playoff series.

Frankly, in my view, an owner lockout should be a last resort negotiating tool, not a primary tactic. If the owners felt their only leverage to get a fair deal was to lock out, they're morons. They both should have TRIED to negotiate well before the point where a lockout was on the table.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:12 AM
  #935
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,014
vCash: 500
The issue I'm having with this whole lockout is the fact that there is no sense of urgency to get this done. If there was, they would be meeting on most days to negotiate, getting an impartial party to assist through mediation, etc. Look at the difference between this lockout and the NFL lockout. HUGE difference. Both sides have botched this entire situation, and because of this they have been forced to dig their heels in and avoid negotiations. Neither side wants to play hockey. They would rather lose money just to save face.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:20 AM
  #936
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
Paragraph B states that PA had an early termination option, as well as the single extension option. They obviously took the extension.

However, paragraph A shows that unless either side explicitly opted out, the existing CBA would have automatically re-upped for 1 year terms. The owners chose to take this route, and here we are today.

This is part of my core belief that the players wouldn't strike. The opt out cutoff is May, already into the playoffs. I don't believe, no matter how bad it got, that the players would walk in the middle of a playoff series.

Frankly, in my view, an owner lockout should be a last resort negotiating tool, not a primary tactic. If the owners felt their only leverage to get a fair deal was to lock out, they're morons. They both should have TRIED to negotiate well before the point where a lockout was on the table.
I'm admittedly a little hazy, but I'm missing at least one of your points. Notification of non-renewal in May (of a contract expiring in Sept.) doesn't mean striking in May in the middle of the playoffs. They are two separate actions / events, and not done concurrently.

As to the last paragraph, what other leverage do the owners have to force negotiation? (I ask this innocently.) Perpetually extending a contract with terms not favorable to them (in their view) doesn't seem like a tactic the owners could use to get the union to sit down.

brian_griffin is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:25 AM
  #937
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
The issue I'm having with this whole lockout is the fact that there is no sense of urgency to get this done. If there was, they would be meeting on most days to negotiate, getting an impartial party to assist through mediation, etc. Look at the difference between this lockout and the NFL lockout. HUGE difference. Both sides have botched this entire situation, and because of this they have been forced to dig their heels in and avoid negotiations. Neither side wants to play hockey. They would rather lose money just to save face.
I see it a little differently. Both sides want to play hockey. Neither side wants to play hockey in the short term by agreeing to conditions which have exce$$ opportunity co$t in the long term. Both sides are willing to lose money (player paycheques, owner revenue) in the short term, in order to retain more money in the long term. That's not just saving face, it's protecting future income streams.

It's like refinancing a mortgage. Payback doesn't come until later in time.

brian_griffin is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:32 AM
  #938
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian_griffin View Post
I see it a little differently. Both sides want to play hockey. Neither side wants to play hockey in the short term by agreeing to conditions which have exce$$ opportunity co$t in the long term. Both sides are willing to lose money (player paycheques, owner revenue) in the short term, in order to retain more money in the long term. That's not just saving face, it's protecting future income streams.

It's like refinancing a mortgage. Payback doesn't come until later in time.

The thing is, its not about hockey for them. Its about money. I can understand that they want to secure financial stability for the future, but they can't want it too much considering all the time they are wasting. If they honestly cared about getting a deal done, they'd be meeting at least 4-5 times a week to negotiate. But they aren't. They're content to sit around, point fingers and run to the media saying "its THEIR fault not MINE" instead of actually making progress.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:39 AM
  #939
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Its seems like the discussion has now boiled down to, when should the split get to 50/50 and how will that transition take place.

Does anyone else see it that way?

I see that as progress
Possibly. However, we can't lose sight of the fact that, from the players' perspective, there is a lot more than just the 50/50 issue not to like about the last offer from the owners. There are a number of contract/free agency etc.. issues to also hash out, and I haven't seen much flexibility by the NHL in negotiating those issues.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:41 AM
  #940
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
The thing is, its not about hockey for them. Its about money. I can understand that they want to secure financial stability for the future, but they can't want it too much considering all the time they are wasting. If they honestly cared about getting a deal done, they'd be meeting at least 4-5 times a week to negotiate. But they aren't. They're content to sit around, point fingers and run to the media saying "its THEIR fault not MINE" instead of actually making progress.
I think that Bettman and Fehr are playing a big game of chicken right now, and that is why we are not seeing much negotiation. I agree that it is frustrating.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 10:17 AM
  #941
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
Possibly. However, we can't lose sight of the fact that, from the players' perspective, there is a lot more than just the 50/50 issue not to like about the last offer from the owners. There are a number of contract/free agency etc.. issues to also hash out, and I haven't seen much flexibility by the NHL in negotiating those issues.
I think those issues are largely secondary and will get resolved relatively quickly if they can figure out the HRR definition, the revenue split formula, and whether players will see 100% of the value of contracts that are already on the books today.

Once they agree on those three main topics, I think the rest of the stuff will take a few days to get to the handshake deal stage that would start up the season.

How long it takes to get agreement on those three issues is anyone's guess....

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 10:45 AM
  #942
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
Possibly. However, we can't lose sight of the fact that, from the players' perspective, there is a lot more than just the 50/50 issue not to like about the last offer from the owners. There are a number of contract/free agency etc.. issues to also hash out, and I haven't seen much flexibility by the NHL in negotiating those issues.
Yeah, I agree with the poster above, nobody is negotiating for these issues yet. Players proposals don't even mention them. Can't say the NHL is being inflexible on them when all they've done is put forward their wish list.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:52 AM
  #943
flyingpig
Pay the Troll Toll
 
flyingpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pay the troll toll
Posts: 1,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
I think that Bettman and Fehr are playing a big game of chicken right now, and that is why we are not seeing much negotiation. I agree that it is frustrating.
Bettman pulled the ultimate "Chicken" card yesterday when saying the owners werent even willing to agree to come to the table. That is a signal that the Owners will not move until the players send an offer that matches or is significantly closer to their 50/50 split proposal. Other issues will have to wash out only if they get closer and get talking.

flyingpig is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 01:08 PM
  #944
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
From a voice of the past, LeBrun has Larry Quinn's comments:

Quote:
Enter Larry Quinn, former president, managing partner and minority owner with the Buffalo Sabres.

He was with the Sabres during the last lockout, which wiped out an entire season, and simply shakes his head at what he’s seeing eight years later.

"I really believe there’s a deal to be made here,” Quinn told ESPN.com this week. "And I’m shocked that given the money involved ... I mean, the person that gets hurt the most in this is the player. You’ve got a diminishing asset and, unlike the owners, everything they make is a profit and it cannot be replaced. That’s just the nature of the beast. The fact that their limited livelihood would be jeopardized once again, something is just wrong. It makes you wonder what interests are being represented and why."

Quinn and the small-market Sabres were a big supporter last time around of the league’s efforts to secure a salary cap. The Sabres emerged from that lockout as one of the great stories early on, going to back-to-back conference finals in 2006 and 2007, while playing an entertaining brand of hockey. But when salaries once again began to rise despite the cap system, Buffalo lost the likes of Danny Briere and Chris Drury to free agency.

The point being, Quinn says, salaries in the NHL have always gone in one direction.
Quote:
"I think the biggest disappointment in this negotiation, now that I’m a fan, as far as I can tell there has been no energy devoted in these negotiations to figuring out how to improve the game," Quinn said. "To me, the quality of the game and how it’s played and how much entertainment it provides is the thing that makes everybody money. And it’s the only thing that makes everybody money. And the people that are given the responsibility for running this game -- both sides -- have not been able to spend enough time on it. To me, that’s the greatest tragedy of the whole thing."
Quote:
"You know who I feel the worst for? It’s the players," Quinn said. "I just see them getting hurt once again for no reason."
This part evoked a chuckle:

Quote:
The Sabres, under Quinn, always came up with new and innovative ideas at GM meetings and Board of Governors meetings, forcing people to think outside the box. They came up with their own model for an enlarged net when goal-scoring was an issue in the NHL.
Pierre forgot to add in the "innovative" blue ice that Quinn lobbied for and the slug logo jerseys he endorsed....

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...-cba-stalemate

Sabretip is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 01:12 PM
  #945
Myllz
ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 13,407
vCash: 500
Quinn is innovative and a fan of hockey? You learn something new every day, I guess.

Myllz is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 01:17 PM
  #946
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myllz View Post
Quinn is innovative and a fan of hockey? You learn something new every day, I guess.
Hey, he invented shovels.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 01:53 PM
  #947
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,125
vCash: 500
The one thing I will give Quinn credit for was the Winter Classic and the WJCs.

But everything else he can go to hell for.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 02:26 PM
  #948
flyingpig
Pay the Troll Toll
 
flyingpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pay the troll toll
Posts: 1,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
From a voice of the past, LeBrun has Larry Quinn's comments:







This part evoked a chuckle:



Pierre forgot to add in the "innovative" blue ice that Quinn lobbied for and the slug logo jerseys he endorsed....

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...-cba-stalemate
I like what Quinn said here, until the part about feeling sorry for the players.

flyingpig is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:48 PM
  #949
Afino
The Juice
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orchard Park, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,141
vCash: 500
The biggest question is, who gives a **** about Larry Quinn?

Afino is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:50 PM
  #950
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
Paragraph B states that PA had an early termination option, as well as the single extension option. They obviously took the extension.

However, paragraph A shows that unless either side explicitly opted out, the existing CBA would have automatically re-upped for 1 year terms. The owners chose to take this route, and here we are today.

This is part of my core belief that the players wouldn't strike. The opt out cutoff is May, already into the playoffs. I don't believe, no matter how bad it got, that the players would walk in the middle of a playoff series.

Frankly, in my view, an owner lockout should be a last resort negotiating tool, not a primary tactic. If the owners felt their only leverage to get a fair deal was to lock out, they're morons. They both should have TRIED to negotiate well before the point where a lockout was on the table.
Thanks for this info.


I'm baffled you think it would makes sense for the owners to play another season under this current CBA and negotiate. The players would have absolutely zero pressure on them and the owners would have little to no leverage.

From a tactical pov it would have been incredibly stupid for the owners to not lockout the players and force negotiations. The players know they will be losing things in the next CBA so why would they come to the table and make concessions until they are forced to do so? Even with the owners forcing talks with the lockout, the players side is still understandably holding out for better terms. What do you think the NHLPA would be doing if the season was being played? They would have zero incentive to talk because they know ultimately they are going to lose things in the next CBA.


There were never going to be serious negotiations until games and money were lost.


Last edited by joshjull: 10-25-2012 at 05:23 PM.
joshjull 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 05:06 AM.

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.