Just thought I'd post it in here in case anyone missed it. LOL. I almost feel bad for him, but what's that about a picture being worth a thousand words?
I really wish they didn't start "bargaining" as the season approached. They continued to play and not negotiate in good faith last year and now the NHL is using that to their advantage. I think and I truly believe the best way to please everybody in this would be to just default on more year of the current agreement and figure it out while maintaining a regular season. Both player and owners make money, the previous agreement was enough to get both parties a piece of the pie, **** who gets the bigger piece. The fans would be happy cause right now we feel like absolute garbage
Once a new agreement is reached during the season and the new agreement can replace the old one, now or later and the season played so far can be compensated.
I hate these ******** lock outs
Last edited by JanBulisPiggyBack: 10-26-2012 at 04:31 AM.
Just thought I'd post it in here in case anyone missed it. LOL. I almost feel bad for him, but what's that about a picture being worth a thousand words?
It's not as though the owners are waiting in soup lines themselves, they just tend to be far less public figures traditionally. I don't see why owning an expensive car should keep you from seeking what you feel is a fair deal from people with even deeper pockets than your own. Not saying you're suggesting that, but it is a line of thinking I see out there quite a bit.
I know it will never happen..but I would love on the first game back, for the entire building just to booo. The whole time, from start to finish. Voice your displeasure with the way the owners and players essentially dismissed the fans of the game....AGAIN. If we win? cool. Boo. We lose? Lame. Boo harder.
Something, so these people realize how ****ing annoying it is dealing with this **** at the end of every CBA.
As other people have said, I've moved on from hockey this season. If it happens, it happens. And I did that last time as well. But last time i had some sympathy..the game was flailing, it needed growth, it needed change. Now? The game needs nothing but the players actually playing the ******* game, and they won't even do that.
Jacobs is one of the guys on the negotiating committee, that was his proposal. Hopefully this is us, the Rangers, Toronto, and the other big-money teams (at least, the ones not run by people as cheap as Jacobs) finally saying enough is enough with these proposals laced with terms that screw them over.
The NHL's offer was not nearly as transparent - or fair - as you are giving it credit as being. Both offers are pretty BS and to assign blame to one over the other is biased.
For me, I remind myself that is a lock out and not a strike. The NHL chose to initiate that.
If the last NHLPA offer was so serious, and "transparent", explain how their negotiating committee went forward with proposals where they hadn't done the math or included anything but how revenue would be split. Nothing to do with ELC's, terms, etc.
That NHL offer was a legitimate one, and a reasonable one. IMO. Considering everything.
If the last NHLPA offer was so serious, and "transparent", explain how their negotiating committee went forward with proposals where they hadn't done the math or included anything but how revenue would be split. Nothing to do with ELC's, terms, etc.
That NHL offer was a legitimate one, and a reasonable one. IMO. Considering everything.
I didn't say the NHL PA's offer was transparent. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Perhaps you would like to go back and read the words you have quoted there.
I really wish they didn't start "bargaining" as the season approached. They continued to play and not negotiate in good faith last year and now the NHL is using that to their advantage. I think and I truly believe the best way to please everybody in this would be to just default on more year of the current agreement and figure it out while maintaining a regular season. Both player and owners make money, the previous agreement was enough to get both parties a piece of the pie, **** who gets the bigger piece. The fans would be happy cause right now we feel like absolute garbage
Once a new agreement is reached during the season and the new agreement can replace the old one, now or later and the season played so far can be compensated.
I hate these ******** lock outs
That is why we are here now. The players did not want to negotiate at all. Why would they when they get 57%. Start the season and the players hit 57% and refuse to negotiate during the season, more 12 year deals. Players then offer to have one more year at 57% while they negotiate again.
League realises it's just getting Charlie Browned. Then this time next year we are back here again. All you are doing is postponing the lockout one year.
That is why we are here now. The players did not want to negotiate at all. Why would they when they get 57%. Start the season and the players hit 57% and refuse to negotiate during the season, more 12 year deals. Players then offer to have one more year at 57% while they negotiate again.
League realises it's just getting Charlie Browned. Then this time next year we are back here again. All you are doing is postponing the lockout one year.
If the players were willing to go to 50% next season, in exchange for keeping their rights (FA, contract length, arbitration etc.) do you think they'd have a deal right now?
Right or wrong, the NHLPA feels it would be locked out regardless, no matter what concessions they make short of everything the league wants. That seems pretty consistent with what went on last time and is going on right now, I have a hard time blaming them for that.
If the players were willing to go to 50% next season, in exchange for keeping their rights (FA, contract length, arbitration etc.) do you think they'd have a deal right now?
...
If the players had proposed that, and gave way on a mechanism for the league to stop cap circumvention (maybe contract length), the ink would be dry on the CBA already.
If the players had proposed that, and gave way on a mechanism for the league to stop cap circumvention (maybe contract length), the ink would be dry on the CBA already.
The PA wasn't willing to do that, though.
The players feel, and I agree, that if they came with that offer right now, the league would say "that's great, now just come around on the rest of what we propose and we have a deal"... and they'd still be locked out. You can disagree but nothing the league has done so far, or in the last negotiations, points to them giving up on anything.
The players feel, and I agree, that if they came with that offer right now, the league would say "that's great, now just come around on the rest of what we propose and we have a deal"... and they'd still be locked out. You can disagree but nothing the league has done so far, or in the last negotiations, points to them giving up on anything.
It's all about the economics this time, though. If the players agreed to the economics, the rest would fall into place in no time. Once a fixed percentage is agreed upon, nothing else matters much. Altering ELC and FA at that point just changes the distribution of salaries amongst the players. The net value is always the same percentage and dollar wise; therefore the owners would have no reason to care much about changing these things. For the same reason, the PA likely doesn't really care all that much either.
It's all about the economics this time, though. If the players agreed to the economics, the rest would fall into place in no time. Once a fixed percentage is agreed upon, nothing else matters much. Altering ELC and FA at that point just changes the distribution of salaries amongst the players. The net value is always the same percentage and dollar wise; therefore the owners would have no reason to care much about changing these things. For the same reason, the PA likely doesn't really care all that much either.
It's only about $$$ for both sides.
I think you're really underestimating what these other concessions mean to the players. Going from unlimited contract length to 5 years is a huge concession, to go along with losing hundreds of millions in contracts that the owners signed in good faith.
I'm not sure what makes you think the league would bend on these issues, they weren't even on the table after their last offer. The only thing the league was willing to negotiate off that offer was how the players can make themselves whole.
I think you're really underestimating what these other concessions mean to the players. Going from unlimited contract length to 5 years is a huge concession, to go along with losing hundreds of millions in contracts that the owners signed in good faith.
I think I said that the term length would be the only one the NHL likely fights for, but if an alternate mechanism for avoiding cap-circumvention could be found, then they'd likely accept that. But fundamentally this is a competition thing, not a money thing. The pool of dollars paid out doesn't change because of these deals, it just allows the big teams to spend more in comparison to their poorer sisters.
The PA probably would go along with the term length change anyway, because those deals only benefited a handful of stars, a tiny fraction of their membership, and at the expense of the rest, who had to help fund these deals out of their own escrow accounts.
And the only faith under which both sides agreed to contracts was faith in the CBA being renegotiated, which had the potential for altering the terms of contracts all along. Why else would those mega deals have included outrageous signing bonuses? It makes for nice press when Fehr stands up and cries unfair, but both sides knew what was coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr
I'm not sure what makes you think the league would bend on these issues, they weren't even on the table after their last offer. The only thing the league was willing to negotiate off that offer was how the players can make themselves whole.
They were likely only put in there so the PA could be seen as getting some 'wins' for their membership. The NHL has to pretend to put up a good fight or the whole charade is worthless.
They were likely only put in there so the PA could be seen as getting some 'wins' for their membership.
That would make sense if they were even willing to meet with the PA on those issues... they're not.
Why is cap circumvention a player problem? If the league has issues with how their teams are working contracts the problem needs to be fixed on their end, not the players.
That would make sense if they were even willing to meet with the PA on those issues... they're not.
The NHL was unwilling to meet because the PA was unwilling to negotiate economic issues within the framework of the league's offer, which happens to be the same framework under which the existing CBA was structured. This is the only part of the deal that matters. Why would the NHL give the PA its carrot before getting the main course settled?
In fact, the PA didn't even bother to address contract rights in its offers. It doesn't seem to be concerned much with them in any case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr
Why is cap circumvention a player problem? If the league has issues with how their teams are working contracts the problem needs to be fixed on their end, not the players.
Cap loopholes are a CBA system issue, and the CBA must be designed in concert with the players. Therefore it is an issue that involves the PA. And as I outlined above, addressing it is in the interests of the vast majority of players under a linked HRR/escrow system. Judging by Fehr's bargaining thus far, escaping that system is the PA's primary objective.
It's not as though the owners are waiting in soup lines themselves
nah, guys like Katz are just looking for "handouts" from the taxpayers. I mean he must be tapped out giving that bri....errr donations to a certain political party.
Every now and then, you see a situation where both sides have seriously miscalulated the consequences of their position.
This seems to me to be one of those times.
I do not beleve for one second the NHL will cancel the Winter Classic next week. That is way too premature. But it could happen by the end of November.
And I will state the obvious here: this is not 2004.
Fans are not going to put up with a lost season near so easily this time. Hockey is central to the Candaian identity, but there is lots of hockey for fans to get involved in.
Hockey is a minor blip on the sports radar in the US. Those fans will drift away from the game and it could take years, if ever, for them to come back.
It is my prediction, here on October 26, 2012 is that the financial consequences for the game will be catastrophic.
Franchises on the bubble will be forced to move. The league will be in disarray. The KHL and other European leagues will beneifit over a period of time.
I am an optimist by nature and I believe we will see hockey before the end of this calandar year.
But if these dummies sink the season, they will regret it for the rest of their miserable lives.
nah, guys like Katz are just looking for "handouts" from the taxpayers. I mean he must be tapped out giving that bri....errr donations to a certain political party.
I'm a property owner in Edmonton, don't get me started.
