HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHLPA Responds to Owners Withdrawing Latest Proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 11:32 AM
  #151
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hek View Post
And to continue this self-righteous indignation over the owner's first offer is very selective.
But they have made no other offer that provides for any give and take.

The current offer is a slight alteration to their initial offer which is still take backs across the board.

self righteous indignation?

Give the players SOMETHING.

Let the NHL propose something where you don't take back EVERYTHING the players bargained for in the last agreement and you would see more movement from the players.

Negotiate on the Make Whole provision WITHOUT the precondition of accepting every other aspect of the offer.

Owners need to chill with the strong arm tactics. They offer nothing but acceptance of concessions across the board from the players, but it's the players that should continue to grab their ankles all the while saying "Thank you!"

screw that.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:37 AM
  #152
Retail1LO
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Interesting. He said Fehr talked to the NHL over the weekend to say they could discuss the Make Whole proposal and accept 50/50, but the other (noneconomic... my understanding) terms weren't acceptable to the players.

The NHL indicated that there would be no point in meeting then, that the only point they'd discuss is Make Whole, but the other items were to remain.

Do people still believe the UFA age, ELC, term limits, and NHL contracts being paid to players in other leagues to count against the cap aren't points the league wants?
I said it when this started. The % HRR isn't where the NHL was going to take its stand. It was on all of these other points. I think the league sees these other items as the true avenue to create cost certainty.

Entry level contracts are usually the lowest salary a player makes. The league wants that period of time to last longer. They save more money. The want the return of the second contract. Save more money. They want to retain the rights of the players they drafted longer before they turn UFA. Makes sense when you want your team to have it's best chance to become and remain competitive through drafting. They want 5 year max contracts with annual salary paid and cap hit being equal. Keeps players from getting too comfortable or complacent....or basically retiring early while they're still playing. Elimination of player elected salary arbitratio. Another cost control measure. I think the league would be MORE than willing to move off of 50-50 if all of these things were in place.

In the end, I see one thing happening... If the players DO not sign this deal... The league is going to go truly nuclear and just say "That's it. Your contracts are no longer guaranteed. " We haven't EVEN seen ugly yet.

Retail1LO is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:46 AM
  #153
Retail1LO
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
But they have made no other offer that provides for any give and take.

The current offer is a slight alteration to their initial offer which is still take backs across the board.

self righteous indignation?

Give the players SOMETHING.

Let the NHL propose something where you don't take back EVERYTHING the players bargained for in the last agreement and you would see more movement from the players.

Negotiate on the Make Whole provision WITHOUT the precondition of accepting every other aspect of the offer.

Owners need to chill with the strong arm tactics. They offer nothing but acceptance of concessions across the board from the players, but it's the players that should continue to grab their ankles all the while saying "Thank you!"

screw that.
How about their jobs and livelihoods? How about everything they have in life right now.

I don't give a flying **** on a rolling doughnut how the PA perceives the last CBA to have gone down. Won...lost...who gives a ****. What HAPPENED... is that they've all made more money than they ever have in their life. The average salary has SKYROCKETED. The owners didn't take anything back...they created a situation that made everyone wealthy beyond their wildest dreams! MEANWHILE...some teams were taking it in the teeth. I don't care whose fault it is, and they don't either. The owners want a chance at making a ton of money this time. It's THEIR turn. Who cares what the reasons are. It's their league, they dish out the money, the take the risk, they spend the money on top notch accommodations, training, facilities, travel, etc. Give the owners a crack at "Hey...this making money thing is really ****ing cool" koolaid. I mean...god FORBID the players be allowed to be made rich while the owners run a healthy GD league.

WOW. The players and Fehr are SO disconnected. They're going to lose their salaries, AND the court of public opinion. They are all stabbing themselves gleefully in the face. This is SO absurd.

Retail1LO is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:47 AM
  #154
Buttonwood
$$$
 
Buttonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,580
vCash: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO View Post
I said it when this started. The % HRR isn't where the NHL was going to take its stand. It was on all of these other points. I think the league sees these other items as the true avenue to create cost certainty.

Entry level contracts are usually the lowest salary a player makes. The league wants that period of time to last longer. They save more money. The want the return of the second contract. Save more money. They want to retain the rights of the players they drafted longer before they turn UFA. Makes sense when you want your team to have it's best chance to become and remain competitive through drafting. They want 5 year max contracts with annual salary paid and cap hit being equal. Keeps players from getting too comfortable or complacent....or basically retiring early while they're still playing. Elimination of player elected salary arbitratio. Another cost control measure. I think the league would be MORE than willing to move off of 50-50 if all of these things were in place.

In the end, I see one thing happening... If the players DO not sign this deal... The league is going to go truly nuclear and just say "That's it. Your contracts are no longer guaranteed. " We haven't EVEN seen ugly yet.
I guess I was wrong. I was under the opposite assumption, that the owners (not the GMs) who essentially say: here's your ~50% piece of the pie players, divide it up among yourselves. We don't care if it goes to the guys on ELCs, UFAs, 2nd contracters, we just know you can have that much pie and let my GM worry about it.

I do agree some practices have been inflationary, but I do kind of like that 'game' within the cap.

Buttonwood is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:52 AM
  #155
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
They did do something stupid. They all started paying an absurd amount of money to the players. They started working against themselves, and now the players have a high expectation of being mega millionaires.
Remember the Philadelphia offer to Weber ? Forcing Nashville to either let him go or pay the bill. Owners vs owners right there. And to think that Philadelphia owner is one of the 4 on NHL Neg. Commitee yay.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:53 AM
  #156
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO View Post
I said it when this started. The % HRR isn't where the NHL was going to take its stand. It was on all of these other points. I think the league sees these other items as the true avenue to create cost certainty.

Entry level contracts are usually the lowest salary a player makes. The league wants that period of time to last longer. They save more money. The want the return of the second contract. Save more money. They want to retain the rights of the players they drafted longer before they turn UFA.
If HRR % is constant, saving money on entry level contracts or 2nd contracts would only mean spending more money on veterans. I can see low end budget teams asking for that (since they could refrain from signing any veteran and still have a lower budget team) but otherwise if it's the main sticking point from the NHL then they're just as dumb as the players.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:54 AM
  #157
njdevil26
Registered User
 
njdevil26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clark, NJ
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,864
vCash: 500
He's contradicting himself... he says the Make Whole section was the only thing they disagreed with...


But then goes on to say that they don't agree with anything else in the league's latest proposal.

njdevil26 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:58 AM
  #158
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Solomon View Post
"We'll go to 50/50" yeah, if theres no 50/50.

"Take take take on the owners side, give give give, on the players side".. 30% increase in salaries with the last CBA. Small rollback to 50/50 is "not fair." Whatever. You win either way, stop trying to bleed the league and fans dry, stop trying to manipulate the message and start being part of the solution.

If you lose the season, your salary gets rolled back anyways because you didn't work. It's a no win scenario. The league isn't going to give in like the MLB. You know this. History has shown it to be the case.
No offense but you need to go back and read a little more about the last CBA before you comment on this one. You are actually only off by about 54 percentage points when you talk about the last CBA!

Number8 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:58 AM
  #159
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO View Post
How about their jobs and livelihoods? How about everything they have in life right now.

I don't give a flying **** on a rolling doughnut how the PA perceives the last CBA to have gone down. Won...lost...who gives a ****. What HAPPENED... is that they've all made more money than they ever have in their life. The average salary has SKYROCKETED. The owners didn't take anything back...they created a situation that made everyone wealthy beyond their wildest dreams! MEANWHILE...some teams were taking it in the teeth. I don't care whose fault it is, and they don't either. The owners want a chance at making a ton of money this time. It's THEIR turn. Who cares what the reasons are. It's their league, they dish out the money, the take the risk, they spend the money on top notch accommodations, training, facilities, travel, etc. Give the owners a crack at "Hey...this making money thing is really ****ing cool" koolaid. I mean...god FORBID the players be allowed to be made rich while the owners run a healthy GD league.

WOW. The players and Fehr are SO disconnected. They're going to lose their salaries, AND the court of public opinion. They are all stabbing themselves gleefully in the face. This is SO absurd.
I still think Players and Owners are business partners and should act like that. Currently they are not.

Tho, Owners need players as well. Jobs...it's not everything. You're a Blackhawks fan. Why does your owner sells a blank Hawks jersey to you for $120 but the one with name and number of the player for $240 ? (And let's be honest, the difference and cost to stick the numbers and letters is about $10).

See, for the owner (or the league) to make more money, they need the guys like Toews and Hossa because no one is going to buy a jersey with Bickell's name on it or at least not nearly as much nor for the price they would pay for Toews and Hossa.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:59 AM
  #160
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevil26 View Post
He's contradicting himself... he says the Make Whole section was the only thing they disagreed with...


But then goes on to say that they don't agree with anything else in the league's latest proposal.
No, he said it was one of the things they didn't agree with, but that it was something the PA felt could be discussed as a starting point with possibility of reaching some agreement on that.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:10 PM
  #161
Turbofan
Just shoot it Toby!!
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,859
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And yet, even after a year-long lockout last time, in which in the end you'd think the owners would've had the upperhand in negotiations, they couldn't come up with a CBA that didn't work to their own detriment. It seems that the non-college educated players have done fairly well for themselves, compared to the these business savvy billionaire owners who have gotten themselves into economic hot-water.
College degree or no, business savvy or not, who can accurately predict the business climate of professional sports nowadays? Nobody really. Not regarding this league, or the MLB, NBA, or NFL. Re: the many work stoppages that have occurred in the last 20 years in every major sport. The climate can change from year to year.

Owners have a foggy crystal ball at best, and aren't infallible. Back when the old CBA was penned, the NHL was struggling, Crosby and Ovechkin were not household names, the Pens, Caps, and Bruins were bottom barrel teams, that all missed the playoffs, etc.

Will they fix things this time? Who the hell really knows, but what the hell give it a shot.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:10 PM
  #162
Retail1LO
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,684
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
I still think Players and Owners are business partners and should act like that. Currently they are not.

Tho, Owners need players as well. Jobs...it's not everything. You're a Blackhawks fan. Why does your owner sells a blank Hawks jersey to you for $120 but the one with name and number of the player for $240 ? (And let's be honest, the difference and cost to stick the numbers and letters is about $10).

See, for the owner (or the league) to make more money, they need the guys like Toews and Hossa because no one is going to buy a jersey with Bickell's name on it or at least not nearly as much nor for the price they would pay for Toews and Hossa.

LOL "My owner" doesn't sell any of that crap to me. I don't buy it. I don't pay $120 for a shirt, or $240 ($120 for a shirt, and $120 for a name & number). That's a league wide practice. By the way...speaking of which...all of that goes into leaguewide revenues, no? The fact that the cost of a jersey with Toews name on it is more than any other player's is ridiculous by itself. It costs the same to name and number one jersey as any other. Another reason I won't pay for that nonsense. Barking up the wrong tree on this topic.

Retail1LO is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:14 PM
  #163
Turbofan
Just shoot it Toby!!
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,859
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
I still think Players and Owners are business partners and should act like that. Currently they are not.

Tho, Owners need players as well. Jobs...it's not everything. You're a Blackhawks fan. Why does your owner sells a blank Hawks jersey to you for $120 but the one with name and number of the player for $240 ? (And let's be honest, the difference and cost to stick the numbers and letters is about $10).

See, for the owner (or the league) to make more money, they need the guys like Toews and Hossa because no one is going to buy a jersey with Bickell's name on it or at least not nearly as much nor for the price they would pay for Toews and Hossa.
Toews would have gotten 57% of the revenue from that jersey, you know. Well, not him solely, but you get my drift.

My jersey is an authentic with no name on it. Actually from my experience it doesn't matter; if Toews wasn't on the Hawks fans would just pick some other guy to have on their jersey. By default it's usually the captain or whoever has the most points, or the goaltender. Or they do like I do - nameless.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:17 PM
  #164
HockeyShack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 365
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
They did do something stupid. They all started paying an absurd amount of money to the players. They started working against themselves, and now the players have a high expectation of being mega millionaires.
You act like the owners have a choice. They have to spend to a certain limit based on revenue.

HockeyShack is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:20 PM
  #165
Guru Meditation
Service Unavailable
 
Guru Meditation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Ethically focused, not morally focused.
When we study what is right to do, we study Ethics. Ethics is the study of systems of moral principles.

If there ever was a concrete distinction in definition, it is certainly not made any more. Ethical was often used to refer to an act that breaches a constructed code of right and wrong, while moral was used to refer to a "more basic" form of wrong. The problem with that is it assumes a basic form of morality. In reality, things tend to be wrong with respect to your adopted code of right and wrong (your ethics). Morality comes to be a silly word, which is why it's now just a synonym. For the most part, if we want to talk about the "most basic" form of moral feeling, we talk about intuition. That's a different story, though.

To be more specific, your statement was a normative one. That's when you use should, ought, etc. as opposed to a statement like "the cat is black," which is a descriptive one, describing how things are.

When you speak normatively, you're speaking in terms of what is moral or ethical. In your case, you were making a claim that the owners are morally entitled by some economic right to use replacement players. You made a moral claim.

Is that political? That's probably the closest approximation to it. I think The Wheeled Winger was trying to get away from arguing about whether it's moral for owners in general to have that right.


Last edited by Guru Meditation: 10-26-2012 at 12:28 PM.
Guru Meditation is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:31 PM
  #166
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eerie Hurdler View Post
... Is that political? That's probably the closest approximation to it. I think The Wheeled Winger was trying to get away from arguing about whether it's moral for owners in general to have that right.
... getting caught up on the thread huh? Read that yesterday, and ya, I think WingedWheeler was wise to steer clear of that debate. It is however one thats on the horizon, as the longer this plays out, the little guys, politico's constituents suffer economically as a result. Obamas' already waded in. Just a matter of time before City Councillors, Mayors', MPP's & MP's, & State & Federal Senators etc start ratcheting it up.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:36 PM
  #167
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,220
vCash: 500
The two things I don't see the league budging much on is the 50/50 split and the contract length limits, though I can see those going upwards of 7 or 8 years.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:29 PM
  #168
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,464
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
Right, but literally the sentence before, he said the only thing bothering the PA about the NHL's offer is the make whole aspect.
No, he didn't. You chopped a key part of the quote out that makes it sound completely different.

What he really said is that the NHL told the NHLPA "Listen, if you accept all the other terms of the agreement, we can talk about the make whole provision"

The NHLPA responded by saying "We'd love to talk about the make whole, but we don't want to make you believe we're accept the other stuff. However, we still think it's valuable to meet and at least make progress on the make whole situation.

The NHLPA absolutely did not say that they accepted the other terms, in fact, they told the NHL the opposite.

Nice try chopping up the quote though.

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 01:41 PM
  #169
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,099
vCash: 500
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5#post55301035


Moving the discussion to the latest official NHLPA statement by Don Fehr.

Fugu 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 04:01 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.