HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 10:28 PM
  #451
Larry44
FlyersTankNation
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
The lockout. The owners already bended. Why not wait them out to see if they will bend again?
Huh? A starting point, in the latest offer, of an immediate 12%+ rollback plus the other concessions?

The owners can't really expect the players to accept all the pain for their incompetence, but they are trying...

Larry44 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:29 PM
  #452
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
As far as I know, the owners have yet to present a proposal that grants a single concession from the existing system on any matter of significance. Is that correct?
The players were earning beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. Why should the owners concede anything? The players need to come down-- not the owners.

It reminds me of a situation wherein someone was costing me personally more money due to their actions. I asked them to cease said actions and they came back with: "Oh yeah? What are you going to give me instead?"

A big fat nothing.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:36 PM
  #453
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
The players were earning beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. Why should the owners concede anything? The players need to come down-- not the owners.

It reminds me of a situation wherein someone was costing me personally more money due to their actions. I asked them to cease said actions and they came back with: "Oh yeah? What are you going to give me instead?"

A big fat nothing.
It reminds me of a spoiled-rich college kid complaining to me that because of the "state of the economy" their parents are cutting their "allowance money."

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:38 PM
  #454
BleedOrange
Future Star
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,911
vCash: 500
Owners or the NHLPA cave and give in tomorrow

BleedOrange is online now  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:41 PM
  #455
GoneFullHolmgren
def. hockey FAIL
 
GoneFullHolmgren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 29,734
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
The players were earning beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. Why should the owners concede anything? The players need to come down-- not the owners.

It reminds me of a situation wherein someone was costing me personally more money due to their actions. I asked them to cease said actions and they came back with: "Oh yeah? What are you going to give me instead?"

A big fat nothing.
what should the players "come down to" only NFL players earn less then NHL players.

GoneFullHolmgren is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:44 PM
  #456
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 4,681
vCash: 500
Never seen this before, but this is an anonymous, supposedly verified, NHL exec having a Q&A on ****** about the lockout and miscellaneous stuff...

http://www.***********/r/IAmA/comment...out/?limit=500

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:57 PM
  #457
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
The players were earning beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. Why should the owners concede anything? The players need to come down-- not the owners.

It reminds me of a situation wherein someone was costing me personally more money due to their actions. I asked them to cease said actions and they came back with: "Oh yeah? What are you going to give me instead?"

A big fat nothing.
I think you missed the point--and that's a fairly simplistic way of putting it, no? The owners are spending beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. The economics of the situation are shaped by the NHL's decision to continue a fool's errand in some losing markets, etc.

All I was saying is, for all the NHL's posturing, the owners have yet to make a single concession from the current system on ANYTHING (not just the revenues)--yet it keeps presenting itself as the pliable party. Of course the revenue needs to be redistributed--everyone knows that, and the players latest proposal reflected that as well.

But on top of those splits, the NHL is seeking pretty tough restrictions on contract terms, less flexibility in free agency, etc. At minimum, it needs to punt on those issues, allow the players to keep the current terms there.

Anyway, my question still stands: has the NHL made a single concession from the existing system in exchange for the dramatic cutbacks and restrictions its asking the players to take?

Jack de la Hoya is online now  
Old
10-24-2012, 11:42 PM
  #458
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I think you missed the point--and that's a fairly simplistic way of putting it, no? The owners are spending beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. The economics of the situation are shaped by the NHL's decision to continue a fool's errand in some losing markets, etc.

All I was saying is, for all the NHL's posturing, the owners have yet to make a single concession from the current system on ANYTHING (not just the revenues)--yet it keeps presenting itself as the pliable party. Of course the revenue needs to be redistributed--everyone knows that, and the players latest proposal reflected that as well.

But on top of those splits, the NHL is seeking pretty tough restrictions on contract terms, less flexibility in free agency, etc. At minimum, it needs to punt on those issues, allow the players to keep the current terms there.

Anyway, my question still stands: has the NHL made a single concession from the existing system in exchange for the dramatic cutbacks and restrictions its asking the players to take?
In the NHL's latest proposal I believe they made ELC's 2 years instead of 3?

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:01 AM
  #459
toughfighter83*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
The players were earning beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. Why should the owners concede anything? The players need to come down-- not the owners.

It reminds me of a situation wherein someone was costing me personally more money due to their actions. I asked them to cease said actions and they came back with: "Oh yeah? What are you going to give me instead?"

A big fat nothing.
your right, when greed gets to players heads, they dont want to give nothing away especially for the teams that need the money in order to save their franchises, at least they should have some consideration to do that, i would, i would give half my salary to save the nhl because i know hockey is most important to me rather than abusing it for money because i would rather have work than have nothing at all because when money runs out when you have no work/hockey, you would on the street living in a cardboard box or a shelter trying to beg for food stamps.

toughfighter83* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:44 AM
  #460
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
In the NHL's latest proposal I believe they made ELC's 2 years instead of 3?
You might be right--but that's a tricky thing. The player gets a bump a year earlier, but it also makes it more likely the second contract is a lower number.

Jack de la Hoya is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 06:13 AM
  #461
Larry44
FlyersTankNation
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
You might be right--but that's a tricky thing. The player gets a bump a year earlier, but it also makes it more likely the second contract is a lower number.
And on top of that, the 5 year contract limit and age 28 UFA means that you could never get to UFA after your second contract.

These things are negotiable, but I still haven't understood how the owners can justify signing guys to contracts on the eve of the CBA expiring, then thinking it would be OK to try to dishonour those same contracts the next day.

The players offer to work to a 50/50 split while honouring legally negotiated and signed contracts, while foregoing future increases makes much more sense than the league's demands for the players to compensate them for their own inability to control spending.

Larry44 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 06:19 AM
  #462
shipwreck
HFBoards Sponsor
 
shipwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post

These things are negotiable, but I still haven't understood how the owners can justify signing guys to contracts on the eve of the CBA expiring, then thinking it would be OK to try to dishonour those same contracts the next day.
I agree with this. It's ridiculous

shipwreck is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:29 AM
  #463
Pelle31
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
your right, when greed gets to players heads, they dont want to give nothing away especially for the teams that need the money in order to save their franchises, at least they should have some consideration to do that, i would, i would give half my salary to save the nhl because i know hockey is most important to me rather than abusing it for money because i would rather have work than have nothing at all because when money runs out when you have no work/hockey, you would on the street living in a cardboard box or a shelter trying to beg for food stamps.
Maybe the owners should rethink about guaranteed contracts like the NFL got rid of or they should find 4 owners who are fed up losing money and get rid of those franchises. If that took place then 100 players would be out of NHL jobs. Both sides are screwed up, the owners want a full proof cba that protects them from themselves when it comes to handing out contracts. The players don't want to lose the gravy train they have no matter how much some teams are losing each year. The big question is how many die-hard fans is the NHL going to lose with this round of stupidity.

Pelle31 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:32 AM
  #464
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
your right, when greed gets to players heads, they dont want to give nothing away especially for the teams that need the money in order to save their franchises, at least they should have some consideration to do that, i would, i would give half my salary to save the nhl because i know hockey is most important to me rather than abusing it for money because i would rather have work than have nothing at all because when money runs out when you have no work/hockey, you would on the street living in a cardboard box or a shelter trying to beg for food stamps.
Both sides want as much as they can get from the other side.

To play devils' advocate, why should players have to take huge pay cuts because the NHL decided that cities that don't support the game, and some that will likely never support the game, should continue to have an NHL team?

And when they have proven over and over that they're not going to be successful in that market, and the NHL continues to funnel money into that franchise out of sheer stubborness and the inability to admit a mistake, why should players foot that bill? At what point is the NHL going to admit defeat and move the damn thing to a place where it can be financially viable at worst and wildly successful at best?

How can the players be held at fault for piss poor business decisions by the league?

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 10:03 AM
  #465
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,483
vCash: 500
Both sides are to blame here. The owners are making reasonable offers, but they're making what are essentially take it or leave it offers. They don't want the movement on their original offers to be taken and used against them.

The players IMO, were clearly trying to frustrate the owners with their counter offers. Attempting to change the definition of HRR (according to that ****** AMA, which is a good read for those of you who havent' yet), and 2 single sheet proposals that touched only on HRR.

We've had some movement, but now we're at another impasse where both sides feel they've made a good offer and it's on the other side to come forward with something new.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 10:44 AM
  #466
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I think you missed the point--and that's a fairly simplistic way of putting it, no? The owners are spending beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. The economics of the situation are shaped by the NHL's decision to continue a fool's errand in some losing markets, etc.
The 2-3 teams are probably not very salvageable, but the rest of the league can be brought up by adjusting the player's salaries. I think the NHL is right to focus on that. Helping almost all the teams instead of a few. Moving a team is a bigger project than settling a CBA.

The core of the NHL economic situation revolves around getting to 50/50 so that 7% back in team's pockets brings up the majority of the league, not 2-3 teams.

Quote:
All I was saying is, for all the NHL's posturing, the owners have yet to make a single concession from the current system on ANYTHING (not just the revenues)--yet it keeps presenting itself as the pliable party. Of course the revenue needs to be redistributed--everyone knows that, and the players latest proposal reflected that as well
Sure, but honestly, I think they are holding onto those concessions for the moment. Perhaps a shorter distance towards UFA gets the players to come down to 50% sooner (say in a 54% year 1, 52% year two, and 50% year three and forward). Using those concessions which you want to see from the NHL's side (I agree) is part of future discussion when the proposals get closer.

Quote:
Anyway, my question still stands: has the NHL made a single concession from the existing system in exchange for the dramatic cutbacks and restrictions its asking the players to take?
Again, do they have to? Not really. Plus, from a negotiating standpoint, they should hold onto those concessions until a better deal is put forward by the players.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 10:45 AM
  #467
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
Again, do they have to? Not really. Plus, from a negotiating standpoint, they should hold onto those concessions until a better deal is put forward by the players.
And the players should hold on to their concessions re: revenue splits until a better deal is put forward by the owners...

that's how we got to this stalemate, isn't it?

Jack de la Hoya is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 10:55 AM
  #468
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
that's how we got to this stalemate, isn't it?
Sounds good.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:00 AM
  #469
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,483
vCash: 500
The players haven't made any real concessions either, none of their proposals result in them taking less money then the 1.87B they made last year. The NHL proposed a plan that deferred some of the money that would be lost by the immediate cut down to 50%, and the NHLPA didn't want any part of that. They could have come back with 52-50-50-50-50 and left the make whole provision in, or even adjusted it. The third proposal indicates to me that their response was purely designed to go ehhhh if you guys are so desperate for the 82 game season these are our terms.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:49 AM
  #470
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
AICMAM
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 33,833
vCash: 156
I may submit my own proposal to both parties.

-Shut the hell up and have a season starting next week
-Gamecenter is fixed, and is half price for two years due to this lockout BS. After that point it may slowly roll up to pre-lockout price over the course of the CBA
-Every fan gets one free ticket next year. You want to thank us for being so great? Free crap is a great way to make up.
-All seats will have a small kegerator installed with a line directly to the occupant's mouth.
-All #1 defensemen and starting goalies in the league may only sign with the Flyers. Their cap hit will not count.
-Goals scored by any other Atlantic Division team only counts as 1/3 of a goal.

Seems reasonable to me.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 11:58 AM
  #471
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I may submit my own proposal to both parties.

-Shut the hell up and have a season starting next week
-Gamecenter is fixed, and is half price for two years due to this lockout BS. After that point it may slowly roll up to pre-lockout price over the course of the CBA
-Every fan gets one free ticket next year. You want to thank us for being so great? Free crap is a great way to make up.
-All seats will have a small kegerator installed with a line directly to the occupant's mouth.
-All #1 defensemen and starting goalies in the league may only sign with the Flyers. Their cap hit will not count.
-Goals scored by any other Atlantic Division team only counts as 1/3 of a goal.

Seems reasonable to me.
The flyers are automatically spotted a 1-0 lead in shootouts?

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:05 PM
  #472
toughfighter83*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
Both sides want as much as they can get from the other side.

To play devils' advocate, why should players have to take huge pay cuts because the NHL decided that cities that don't support the game, and some that will likely never support the game, should continue to have an NHL team?

And when they have proven over and over that they're not going to be successful in that market, and the NHL continues to funnel money into that franchise out of sheer stubborness and the inability to admit a mistake, why should players foot that bill? At what point is the NHL going to admit defeat and move the damn thing to a place where it can be financially viable at worst and wildly successful at best?

How can the players be held at fault for piss poor business decisions by the league?
it just seems you dont care about hockey, you want players have all the money and with hockey you could care less if it's gone as long as the players get everything and companies get nothing.

toughfighter83* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:19 PM
  #473
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
AICMAM
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 33,833
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
The flyers are automatically spotted a 1-0 lead in shootouts?
Realistically we need two. And maybe the ability to use more than one goaltender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
it just seems you dont care about hockey, you want players have all the money and with hockey you could care less if it's gone as long as the players get everything and companies get nothing.
What part of her post indicates anything even remotely close to what you just said? I don't know if you've seen CG post much, but I assure you she cares a hell of a lot about hockey.

Here's a hint: People who spend years discussing and debating hockey on a hockey forum probably care a lot about hockey.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:39 PM
  #474
orangecrush8
Registered User
 
orangecrush8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
it just seems you dont care about hockey, you want players have all the money and with hockey you could care less if it's gone as long as the players get everything and companies get nothing.
Devils advocate - a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.

Reading is fun

orangecrush8 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 01:10 PM
  #475
GoneFullHolmgren
def. hockey FAIL
 
GoneFullHolmgren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 29,734
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
it just seems you dont care about hockey, you want players have all the money and with hockey you could care less if it's gone as long as the players get everything and companies get nothing.
LOL.
pot meet kettle. kettle meet pot.
you might be one most blinded by your pro-owners stance more then anyone on this board. and thats saying something with Krishna's anti-NHLPA stance.
people like you would love it if there was no NHLPA, no free agency and the players had to take a take it or leave it contract offer from the owners. Because hey after all its only the players who are being ****ing greedy in all this right? its the players who are the only ones not willing to negotiate right? give me a ****ing break.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 10-25-2012 at 01:12 PM. Reason: cleanup
GoneFullHolmgren 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 10:02 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.