HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion III (Lockout Talk)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 01:38 PM
  #51
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
So what's their option? Don't sign a contract?
Sign it with their eyes open. That's the option.

And to me, this whole "honoring the contract" and "rollback" talk is just semantics. It comes down to money. If the owners proposed not to honor those deals, but to make other concessions that had the same net effect to players, it's the same thing. So when the union or the league starts throwing around these issues in a way intended for the public to digest and opine on with some moral high ground, they're just playing games.

Have to say though, on the contract issue, I think the fact that owners signed players to deals this offseason is yet another indictment of the Commissioner. Not only does it reduce their leverage but it also creates this narrative and muddies the waters in this negotiation.

bp13 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 03:06 PM
  #52
duckchobbins
Registered User
 
duckchobbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 24,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossfan View Post
Don't know what to make of Daily's "what's the point in meeting" comment. An attempt to start the NHL's mission to crush and destroy the NHLPA? A message to the Fehrs to prepare some "real" proposals instead of throwing out 2 hastily written proposals and an off the cuff verbal proposal? Although there is a lot of PR gibberish in the NHL's 50/50 proposal it still sounds like the blue plate for both sides to negotiate from.

The biggest problem though is the NHL's position to not honor full value on existing contracts. That is on the owners. Jacobs signed 2 big contracts (Segin and Lucic) and now it is obvious that he did that knowing that part of the NHL's strategy was going to be an immediate roll back on existing contracts. Shame on him and all the other owners that did that.
I would also have to believe that the players/agents knew this was coming, so they negotiated the highest dollar amounts possible this summer, knowing the total value would be knocked down a couple pegs anyway.

duckchobbins is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 03:26 PM
  #53
Buckets and Gloves
10 AVE FREEZE OUT
 
Buckets and Gloves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,370
vCash: 500
owners just dont care... sure players are greedy but owners have played this wrong from day 1 from the ******** initial proposal to now refusing to even meet.... I hope we get hockey soon but if we miss another year i hope 2 or more teams just fold ala expos style... look good on these morons

Buckets and Gloves is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 04:44 PM
  #54
DaveFromNB
Registered User
 
DaveFromNB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Quispamsis, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Howie View Post
owners just dont care... sure players are greedy but owners have played this wrong from day 1 from the ******** initial proposal to now refusing to even meet.... I hope we get hockey soon but if we miss another year i hope 2 or more teams just fold ala expos style... look good on these morons
There is zero chance there will be fewer teams, not sure why people keep harping on this. There are lots of homes for any franchise that wants to move, and the league and certainly the NHLPA don't want fewer teams. And BTW, the Expos moved to Washington, they didn't fold.

DaveFromNB is online now  
Old
10-24-2012, 06:36 PM
  #55
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,775
vCash: 500
The season is doomed.

Quote:

Hockey Buzz Eklund ‏@Eklund

There is NO reason to assume NHL would cancel an entire season. The teams who make the money have only given the OK up to a point. PROMISE

Kate08 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 07:23 PM
  #56
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,623
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Still think this is all scripted even more; owners aren't going to let this go all the way- sure 82 year old Mike Illitch is going to let this go down the drain. Fat Chance.Once his Tigers are done he'll be making comments on his other team. Teams probably make the least amount of money first quarter anyways and owners will save money. They'll start getting serious about the first sign of reduced Halloween candy.

DKH is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 07:26 PM
  #57
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,189
vCash: 500
suppose player A is negotiating with the NHL team 23. team 23 offers the player X dollars. team 24 offers X dollars -Y.

the player signs with one team or the other...

now a CBA gets signed that calls for a rollback.

should the player cry foul that instead of X dollars he is now going to get only X dollars - rollback OR should he be glad he didnt take the KHL or the AHL or the Swiss offer of peanuts???

The NHL negotiates against itself when it gives these players 3-4-5 mill per year. The CBA is a reality. It created an enviroment where the owners were forced to spend way too much on contracts. The competitive nature of the NHL meant that once the CBA was in force, all the teams had to play by those rules. Now the owners want a new CBA. The players will still get way more money then they would in the KHL or any other league. No one needs to worry that even at 50% of revenues that the NHL still wont be the best league to play in by a country mile.

The players were never owed more then 57% of the old system revenues anyhow.. and the old system was propped up with taxpayer contributions. I cant cry for them if their 5-6 mill per year contracts get cut down 10-15%. I just wish to hell that it was going back to the taxpayers and not the stupid owners.

In this equations.. players most wrong... owners next... and taxpayers the ones paying for it

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 08:32 PM
  #58
Looch
B's, C's & Sox
 
Looch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gilford, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
Still think this is all scripted even more; owners aren't going to let this go all the way- sure 82 year old Mike Illitch is going to let this go down the drain. Fat Chance.Once his Tigers are done he'll be making comments on his other team. Teams probably make the least amount of money first quarter anyways and owners will save money. They'll start getting serious about the first sign of reduced Halloween candy.

Any chance once the Tigers are done we see him doing some pizza pizza commercials? a la Papa John?

__________________
BuddysTickets@gmail.com
Looch is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:04 PM
  #59
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
suppose player A is negotiating with the NHL team 23. team 23 offers the player X dollars. team 24 offers X dollars -Y.

the player signs with one team or the other...

now a CBA gets signed that calls for a rollback.

should the player cry foul that instead of X dollars he is now going to get only X dollars - rollback OR should he be glad he didnt take the KHL or the AHL or the Swiss offer of peanuts???

The NHL negotiates against itself when it gives these players 3-4-5 mill per year. The CBA is a reality. It created an enviroment where the owners were forced to spend way too much on contracts. The competitive nature of the NHL meant that once the CBA was in force, all the teams had to play by those rules. Now the owners want a new CBA. The players will still get way more money then they would in the KHL or any other league. No one needs to worry that even at 50% of revenues that the NHL still wont be the best league to play in by a country mile.

The players were never owed more then 57% of the old system revenues anyhow.. and the old system was propped up with taxpayer contributions. I cant cry for them if their 5-6 mill per year contracts get cut down 10-15%. I just wish to hell that it was going back to the taxpayers and not the stupid owners.

In this equations.. players most wrong... owners next... and taxpayers the ones paying for it
You keep bringing up taxes in conjunction with the CBA

The City of Glendale is the only government that has put in even a dime of taxpayers money that has a net effect on the CBA

They put in $25 million to cover losses for a guarantee that the team would stay in Glendale for that season. Every Coyotes game generated $1.2 million to the Glendale economy (outside of the hockey itself). Not to mention the jobs it created and the taxes generated by those businesses that depend on the game to stay in business. Would you spend $100 to make $175 net effect ?

The tax dollars they used for new arenas are also revenue generator's for the cities that choose to do so, but not every city/level of government get involved. Plenty of the arena's are built with private dollars. But they have nothing to do with the CBA so I fail to see why you keep bringing up these "massive" amounts of tax dollars.

The Canadiens pay $8 million in land taxes alone every year not to mention all the other taxes they pay. The Air Canada Center was built with private $$ and it is estimated that every Leaf home game generates over $4 million per home game for the Toronto economy ( again doesn't include the game itself).

So without the Glendale example because I am well aware of it, please tell me what these "massive" amounts of tax payers money are that you keep bringing up that have any effect on the CBA. Because no other government that I am aware of is propping up NHL franchises. In fact the Canadian government flat out rejected all Canadian teams asking for financial help when the dollar was low.

It's a serious question, because I really want to be informed and would like to know. Will anxiously await.

Thanks

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:47 PM
  #60
Kelly23
Pedroia and Drew
 
Kelly23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 5,362
vCash: 500
I have been and still remain in the state of mind we are looseing a full season, now how is this long long layoff of 2 years going to effect players not able to get jobs overseas.

Horton who is not planning to play over in Europe will be out of the game of hockey for a very long time is the game going to see a steep decline in the level of play with all the rust?

Well the Hamilton should he be NHL or juniors is sorting itself out and he will develop better in the long run, he is taking the same path a pieterangelo of Stl. he turned out just fine.

The worst part by far is how the people who need every bit of money they make off of the NHL being in the city helping them get jobs to get by are now ****ed over becuase selfish millionares who do not need to make another penny in there life can not give up a paycut, and infact a good percent still make millions on investments and playing overseas, renting the building to the NBA team, conerts, and any other way.

Kelly23 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:49 PM
  #61
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Howie View Post
owners just dont care... sure players are greedy but owners have played this wrong from day 1 from the ******** initial proposal to now refusing to even meet.... I hope we get hockey soon but if we miss another year i hope 2 or more teams just fold ala expos style... look good on these morons
You know I find it interesting fans keep complaining about the NHL initial offer but when Fehr himself was asked he said it was what he expected.

PS. Just so you know the NBA's initial offer to it's player was even worse than the NHL's

Orrthebest is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:55 PM
  #62
Shaun
Registered User
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 22,161
vCash: 500
Naoko Funayama ‏@NaokoFunayama
GM Chiarelli also says he did not talk to any players during the 48-hour window. Says no one called. Complete interview on @NESNDaily

Shaun is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 06:04 AM
  #63
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 15,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
suppose player A is negotiating with the NHL team 23. team 23 offers the player X dollars. team 24 offers X dollars -Y.

the player signs with one team or the other...

now a CBA gets signed that calls for a rollback.

should the player cry foul that instead of X dollars he is now going to get only X dollars - rollback OR should he be glad he didnt take the KHL or the AHL or the Swiss offer of peanuts???

The NHL negotiates against itself when it gives these players 3-4-5 mill per year. The CBA is a reality. It created an enviroment where the owners were forced to spend way too much on contracts. The competitive nature of the NHL meant that once the CBA was in force, all the teams had to play by those rules. Now the owners want a new CBA. The players will still get way more money then they would in the KHL or any other league. No one needs to worry that even at 50% of revenues that the NHL still wont be the best league to play in by a country mile.

The players were never owed more then 57% of the old system revenues anyhow.. and the old system was propped up with taxpayer contributions. I cant cry for them if their 5-6 mill per year contracts get cut down 10-15%. I just wish to hell that it was going back to the taxpayers and not the stupid owners.

In this equations.. players most wrong... owners next... and taxpayers the ones paying for it
I thought ownership claimed that they were paying close to 75% of revenues on player salaries under the old pre- cap system.

JMiller is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 08:21 AM
  #64
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
suppose player A is negotiating with the NHL team 23. team 23 offers the player X dollars. team 24 offers X dollars -Y.

the player signs with one team or the other...

now a CBA gets signed that calls for a rollback.

should the player cry foul that instead of X dollars he is now going to get only X dollars - rollback OR should he be glad he didnt take the KHL or the AHL or the Swiss offer of peanuts???

The NHL negotiates against itself when it gives these players 3-4-5 mill per year. The CBA is a reality. It created an enviroment where the owners were forced to spend way too much on contracts. The competitive nature of the NHL meant that once the CBA was in force, all the teams had to play by those rules. Now the owners want a new CBA. The players will still get way more money then they would in the KHL or any other league. No one needs to worry that even at 50% of revenues that the NHL still wont be the best league to play in by a country mile.

The players were never owed more then 57% of the old system revenues anyhow.. and the old system was propped up with taxpayer contributions. I cant cry for them if their 5-6 mill per year contracts get cut down 10-15%. I just wish to hell that it was going back to the taxpayers and not the stupid owners.

In this equations.. players most wrong... owners next... and taxpayers the ones paying for it
After doing some research, I'll add the following.

You're Canadian and from Alberta. so here's how your own personal tax has helped an NHL franchise.

Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa arena's were all built with private funds. Rod Bryden, then owner of the Senators even had to pay for his own off ramp to the arena from the highway when he built Scotia Bank Place.

The MTS Centre cost $153 million with 70% of that coming from private funding. The city has recouped most of their investment with just one season of the Jets being there

The Saddledome in Calgary was built with government money for the 1988 Calgary Olympics, 8 years after the Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary so the arena was being built whether the Flames existed or not.

Rexall Place was built in 1974 by the City of Edmonton and is still owned by the city, 5 years before the Oilers joined the NHL.

In Quebec City, the city and the Province are building the new arena there and the majority of taxpayers there are saying damn straight we'll pay if it brings an NHL franchise. ( No Federal Funding so none of your money - so if that's the way those taxpayers want to spend their money, you shouldn't complain )

The USA is a different breed however. The average cost to build an NHL arena in the USA is $163 million. Less then half, 43% on average, was funded by any level of government in the USA.

Again, it's different then in Canada. The US has/had major markets salivating at the thought of an NHL franchise. They out number Canadian cities tenfold in terms of size that should be able to support an NHL franchise, and the city officials used every means available to try and lure them to their town. And that included funding an arena, or part of it, and in some cases having an arena before an NHL franchise.

I would venture to say that most of those US cities have recouped a majority of their investments.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 08:45 AM
  #65
BlackNgold 84
Known Kellyist
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
After doing some research, I'll add the following.

You're Canadian and from Alberta. so here's how your own personal tax has helped an NHL franchise.

Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa arena's were all built with private funds. Rod Bryden, then owner of the Senators even had to pay for his own off ramp to the arena from the highway when he built Scotia Bank Place.

The MTS Centre cost $153 million with 70% of that coming from private funding. The city has recouped most of their investment with just one season of the Jets being there

The Saddledome in Calgary was built with government money for the 1988 Calgary Olympics, 8 years after the Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary so the arena was being built whether the Flames existed or not.

Rexall Place was built in 1974 by the City of Edmonton and is still owned by the city, 5 years before the Oilers joined the NHL.

In Quebec City, the city and the Province are building the new arena there and the majority of taxpayers there are saying damn straight we'll pay if it brings an NHL franchise. ( No Federal Funding so none of your money - so if that's the way those taxpayers want to spend their money, you shouldn't complain )

The USA is a different breed however. The average cost to build an NHL arena in the USA is $163 million. Less then half, 43% on average, was funded by any level of government in the USA.

Again, it's different then in Canada. The US has/had major markets salivating at the thought of an NHL franchise. They out number Canadian cities tenfold in terms of size that should be able to support an NHL franchise, and the city officials used every means available to try and lure them to their town. And that included funding an arena, or part of it, and in some cases having an arena before an NHL franchise.

I would venture to say that most of those US cities have recouped a majority of their investments.


I'm sure i could get these numbers if i did a quick google search.. but the fact that you have them still blows my mind, sir.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:47 AM
  #66
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 29,623
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looch View Post
Any chance once the Tigers are done we see him doing some pizza pizza commercials? a la Papa John?
Maybe Hair Club for men. Didn't realize he was quite a ballpayer in his day.

I'm picking three weeks from today November 15th as the day the lockout is done; so Quaider if you are out there this is it.

This is my date some of the owners start getting a bit fearful

DKH is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:02 PM
  #67
DarrenBanks56
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,472
vCash: 500
there is no way they let a det/tor winter classic not happen.

DarrenBanks56 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:08 PM
  #68
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenBanks56 View Post
there is no way they let a det/tor winter classic not happen.
I think you underestimate their stupidity.

patty59 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:13 PM
  #69
ReggieMoto
Registered User
 
ReggieMoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 4,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ReggieMoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
I think you underestimate their stupidity.
Exactly right. I wouldn't count out a lost season, either. This thread has some close parallels to the thread during the last lockout season and we all know how that season turned out.

Sure, hind-sight is 20/20 but only if you pay attention and learn from past mistakes. There's very little evidence of that on display during this lockout so far.

ReggieMoto is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:55 PM
  #70
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Easthampton, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 13,182
vCash: 500
Disagree, last lockout they fundamentally disagreed.

This time they have a civil understanding about the main issues

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 02:45 PM
  #71
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,132
vCash: 500
*crickets*


I had some hope last week, but that's all but gone now.


Looks like we're in for the long haul.

patty59 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 02:54 PM
  #72
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
*crickets*


I had some hope last week, but that's all but gone now.


Looks like we're in for the long haul.
Dude, I am so ****ing disappointed. There's really no need for this.

Exhausted with the conversation (most of which sees the need to pin blame, which is anything but productive)... I know this is a post without substance. But I don't know what to say anymore. The method employed in solving this issue is so destructive, so counter-intuitive to me.

I'm at a loss. I'm tired.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 02:54 PM
  #73
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 15,043
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
*crickets*


I had some hope last week, but that's all but gone now.


Looks like we're in for the long haul.
I have been thinking of it.. at apparently the thought of losing games does not scare the NHLPA membership because until it is not possible to play an 82 games season, you still can.

Today or tomorrow the NHL needs to officially cancel 15-20 games and tell the NHLPA that they are not getting those back. That is a 20-25% cut in the players pay for this season. Meaning for 75% of the NHL it is a minimum 10% or 20% cut in their pay over the life of their contracts.

I bet when they look in the mirror, they would wish they tool the 12% and got to play a full 82 games.

Morris Wanchuk is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:01 PM
  #74
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
I have been thinking of it.. at apparently the thought of losing games does not scare the NHLPA membership because until it is not possible to play an 82 games season, you still can.

Today or tomorrow the NHL needs to officially cancel 15-20 games and tell the NHLPA that they are not getting those back. That is a 20-25% cut in the players pay for this season. Meaning for 75% of the NHL it is a minimum 10% or 20% cut in their pay over the life of their contracts.

I bet when they look in the mirror, they would wish they tool the 12% and got to play a full 82 games.
I was thinking the same way, the PA knows full well they could have played 82 games, so the actual start date never mattered. They also think that they can squeeze one in after Nov. 2, so it appears they don't really care about that deadline either.

End of the day, I don't think either side will budge until actual real money is lost.

I think your idea of the NHL cancelling games is the best way, but these guys have a way of surprising and if you listen to what some of them are saying, it would seem that they are willing to lose money to get a deal that is better. There calculators must be different than mine, because I see no way they can ever recoup that money. But hey, it's their decision I guess.

If they do lose the whole year, I think it could spell the end of the NHLPA as we know it. Which might not be a bad thing either.

patty59 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:03 PM
  #75
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Dude, I am so ****ing disappointed. There's really no need for this.

Exhausted with the conversation (most of which sees the need to pin blame, which is anything but productive)... I know this is a post without substance. But I don't know what to say anymore. The method employed in solving this issue is so destructive, so counter-intuitive to me.

I'm at a loss. I'm tired.
I think the PA thinks the NHL is bluffing and they are calling them on it.

We shall see, but in the end they will all lose money. The players stand to lose the most IMO.

patty59 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 07:05 AM.

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.