HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 02:41 PM
  #851
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy1814 View Post
It seems like FEHR is willing to throw the third line grinder under the bus so Crosby and Ovie get every dime owed to them.
Isn't that what Bettman is doing by catering to Jacobs and Leopold?

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:47 PM
  #852
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
If you go with what BOTH Daly and Fehr have said, those tweaks only pertained to the "make whole" aspect of the deal.

The NHL was willing to discuss that, IF the players accepted all the contract conditions as well.

I'm only going by what was said, not assumptions.
No, they said that they would be open to discussing the make-whole, provided there were only tweaks to the other terms. Very different.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:50 PM
  #853
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Unfortunately, this time the lesson will be visited upon the owners as well. They players are SO pi$$ed off, that they will not only miss this season, but the next one as well. Yes, they will heed Fehr. This is why they got him. If you think that they owners will simply sit and congradulate Bettman next October when they are not only missing the anciliary revenue that they missed out on this year again, but now they will also be faced with not having ANY revenue from a single sold ticket. And, oh, by the way, that television contract? You will now be staring at having to play they last two years for free.

Once this season goes, yes, the owners will be prepared to wait. But facing the above scenarios next October and November is not what they are prepared to do. Fehr will wait them out. And, while the playes will feel more pain, they are galvanized enough to force the owners to cut their own noses off. This is a poison pill. Fehr will push the owners to either come up with a solution or fold the league.
Fehr may be willing to do that but there is no way the majority of NHL players will. If the owners are cutting their noses off in your scenario the players are cutting off their heads.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:55 PM
  #854
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
I believe that the players will not blink this year. Or next year.
Im to the point now where I dont care either way, so take the next two ****in years. If it takes that long to get it right, then do it. Itll cause short term harm, but its better for the longterm health of the league. Otherwise youre just putting band-aids on every CBA and Bettman's still there. Fehr shouldve been there in 2004 I think.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:10 PM
  #855
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Fehr may be willing to do that but there is no way the majority of NHL players will.
Just remember, the NHLPA got tired of being bent over and showing up to a gun fight with a billy club. They brought in a 50 caliber. They knew what they were getting into and with whom.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:12 PM
  #856
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
Im to the point now where I dont care either way, so take the next two ****in years. If it takes that long to get it right, then do it. Itll cause short term harm, but its better for the longterm health of the league. Otherwise youre just putting band-aids on every CBA and Bettman's still there. Fehr shouldve been there in 2004 I think.
The problem with that is that while there will be irrevocable harm done in canceling this season, if they cancel two, I believe that there is no NHL at that point.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:12 PM
  #857
Grumpy Humphrey
Registered User
 
Grumpy Humphrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,412
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Just remember, the NHLPA got tired of being bent over and showing up to a gun fight with a billy club. They brought in a 50 caliber. They knew what they were getting into and with whom.
.50 caliber guns kick back, HARD

Grumpy Humphrey is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:28 PM
  #858
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
You are greatly underestimating both Fehr and the union. They WILL listen to him. And he LISTENS to them. He is not Goodnow. There is nothing that is being done that he has not communicated to them or been approved by the players.

I believe that the players will not blink this year. Or next year.
Maybe. I'm just saying what I would do if I was a player.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:58 PM
  #859
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
I actually think it was deliberate by the NHL to demonstrate what their share was the final year of this last CBA (57% players/43% owners). I get that it's a big disparity from what was, but how is 43% insulting to the players and not to the owners who actually lived with that % for a year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Bingo. I posted almost this exact thing a few pages back. The offer, while deemed a "smack in the face" was a calculated step. Showing how ridiculously skewed those percentages were. It was antagonistic, but very calculated.
Man, you guys are buying the league rhetoric hard. How can you be insulted by your own offer? Gary forced the 56/44 with a percentage escalator onto the players. He couldn't pass a mic without bragging how great his deal was. Now, by some outrageous logic, he should be insulted about 43% and he chose his first offer to insult the players and send a message? It is universally viewed as a blunder, so essentially he cost his owners $800+m to send a message? Or better yet, it's the owners that should be insulted about the 43% cut he forced onto them? Well, they showed him with multiple contract extensions and raises!

Are you intentionally ignoring who created the state of the game or did you forget?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 04:21 PM
  #860
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
ESPN article

Quote:
The lockout will be wrongly described by the sporting press as "labor trouble." It is not. Like other pro lockouts of the very recent past, it is owner trouble, capital trouble, robber baron trouble. It is rich guys in hard times trying to claw back the money they wasted on their hobby when things were fat. And NHL decommissioner Gary Bettman, whose job it has been these last 20 years to make the NHL invisible to casual sports fans, is going to help them do it.


Quote:
To the extent that professional sports ever intersect with real life, this is it. That the franchise deliver on the promises it made when it begged that arena from your city. Any franchise. Any arena. Any city. And that promise was more and better of a bigger pie, of jobs and prosperity and loyalty.

Instead, NHL owners want to be indemnified against their own vanity, weakness and greed. Lockout or bailout, fans and small businesses pay and pay and pay again, and can only stand and watch until the one question capital ever asks comes back around.


http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...ed-nhl-lockout

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:25 PM
  #861
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quite a dilemma in NY regarding the Rangers. Dolan is commonly know as anti-lockout, anti-constraints. As pro-player as you get on the ownership side. Very few complaints about him since the last lockout. I get the reaction from many fans, cancel season tickets, boycott the league, products, Rangers... But he isn't the enemy for me.

Ultimately, I'm not punishing myself. When hockey comes back I will do whatever makes me happy. If its turning on the game so be it. Tickets are too expensive so thats moot. Just sucks for Dolan I guess. Financed the remodel himself, against work stoppages, his team is run top notch. But he won't suffer a back lash... his games will sellout.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:49 PM
  #862
StaalWars
TeaOrrCoffey
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
I'd love to see what's going on behind the scenes with the owners. It's obvious Dolan isn't too dedicated to this lockout but is he actively making that known to his cohorts behind the scenes? What are the other big market owners saying?

StaalWars is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:16 PM
  #863
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Not impressed with that article at all. It's emotional BS trying to tug at the heartstrings of, who exactly? Fans? I think they feel crappy enough on their own.

I love how the writer labels the owners "robber-barons" and likens the cancelation of pre-season games to some Stalinist move without writing one sentence about what is actually going on in the negotiations or how either camp justifies their stance. The owners are "vain," "weak," "greedy" "rich guys." What are the players? A bunch of strong, modest poor people with their priorities in the right places? Please. They're just as vain, just as weak, just as greedy and nearly just as rich.

haveandare is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:48 PM
  #864
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Man, you guys are buying the league rhetoric hard. How can you be insulted by your own offer? Gary forced the 56/44 with a percentage escalator onto the players. He couldn't pass a mic without bragging how great his deal was. Now, by some outrageous logic, he should be insulted about 43% and he chose his first offer to insult the players and send a message? It is universally viewed as a blunder, so essentially he cost his owners $800+m to send a message? Or better yet, it's the owners that should be insulted about the 43% cut he forced onto them? Well, they showed him with multiple contract extensions and raises!

Are you intentionally ignoring who created the state of the game or did you forget?
The players have been at 57% for a while now. I want the system fixed... But even if it isn't, it's time for 50/50. I HATE Bettman. I do. But the players are going to bend, like it or not. If they find a way to make this more about the health of the system and the league then you'll hear me bang the drum even louder FOR them.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:50 PM
  #865
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
The players have been at 57% for a while now. I want the system fixed... But even if it isn't, it's time for 50/50. I HATE Bettman. I do. But the players are going to bend, like it or not. If they find a way to make this more about the health of the system and the league then you'll hear me bang the drum even louder FOR them.
So what? Its been 57% for a while because that was the term Bettman decided in. Each and every detail in the last CBA was dictated by the league. And no one is resisting 50/50. Its hung up on escrow. There is literally one issue that the players haven't bent on. But we know Bettman doesn't settle for anything less than full annihilation. If the CBA sucks, there is no player to blame. It is on the owners and Gary. If the owners hate the CBA, fire Bettman. Don't nickle and dime the players out of spite, to punish them for your ****** agreement. I'm not sitting here saying it was a wonderful CBA for the owners. I'm saying it derives no blame from a single player, which is what I commented on from your earlier post.

Hey, maybe the first offer was an intentional insult. Then that's who is running the league and this lockout shouldn't be a surprise.

The players offered to work with the league on a new system, they were rejected. They are willing participants on the league's fumbling effort to fix this mess. The only request is to mitigate escrow. But the players apparently have too much penance for the last CBA to deserve a single concession. Thanks to the decommissioner for not getting a single thing right in 20 years. You managed to **** this gift of situation up. Through no competence of your own, the league rebounded to unprecidented heights and you found probably the only way to avoid labor peace. Bravo.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:58 PM
  #866
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,486
vCash: 500
This was supposed to be a CBA where there was only a very slim chance that there would be a lockout.

In 2004 the odds were highly in favor of a lockout and we all expected it. This time was supposed to be different.

WhipNash27 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:27 PM
  #867
Jabroni
Moderator
The Corporate Mod
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
"@ChrisKuc: NHLPA's Donald Fehr said he has "regular, on-going communication" with NHL. "There was today." No formal discussions planned. #Blackhawks"

Jabroni is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:49 PM
  #868
Jabroni
Moderator
The Corporate Mod
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
Q&A with Fehr today.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...nald-fehr-cha/

Quote:
On cancellation of November games
“Nothing they've done over the past several weeks is very much of a surprise. One thing sort of follows another; it looks like more or less what's been done in the other disputes in the other sports. It's a shame, I think. And hopefully we'll finally get down to serious negotiations one of these days. But we're not there yet.”

What will it take to get to serious negotiations?
“Somebody has to be willing to talk about things seriously. So far, the league's position is essentially, we got billions of dollars from the players last time, and we've had nothing but record revenues ever since, so let's try go and get another billion or two. And that's hard. It's really hard to do. I'll just ask all of you: What is the articulated reason the concessions are being asked for. Except, well, this is what happened in basketball. OK, so? Or the other one is, we want an opportunity for everybody to make a fair profit. What's a fair profit? Who's not making it and if that's the issue, why is the proposal to lower salaries on Toronto at the same time you do it on Phoenix?”

Jabroni is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:51 PM
  #869
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
So what? Its been 57% for a while because that was the term Bettman decided in. Each and every detail in the last CBA was dictated by the league. And no one is resisting 50/50. Its hung up on escrow. There is literally one issue that the players haven't bent on. But we know Bettman doesn't settle for anything less than full annihilation. If the CBA sucks, there is no player to blame. It is on the owners and Gary. If the owners hate the CBA, fire Bettman. Don't nickle and dime the players out of spite, to punish them for your ****** agreement. I'm not sitting here saying it was a wonderful CBA for the owners. I'm saying it derives no blame from a single player, which is what I commented on from your earlier post.

Hey, maybe the first offer was an intentional insult. Then that's who is running the league and this lockout shouldn't be a surprise.

The players offered to work with the league on a new system, they were rejected. They are willing participants on the league's fumbling effort to fix this mess. The only request is to mitigate escrow. But the players apparently have too much penance for the last CBA to deserve a single concession. Thanks to the decommissioner for not getting a single thing right in 20 years. You managed to **** this gift of situation up. Through no competence of your own, the league rebounded to unprecidented heights and you found probably the only way to avoid labor peace. Bravo.
It's hung up on two things. The owners wanting 50/50 IMMEDIATELY.

And the players wanting their current contracts honored, in FULL with no risk, no linkage and no escrow.

Those principles are NOT mathematically possible. The players WILL lose. Why? Because the Owners want something else. They "own" the teams/league... They will get what they want... Eventually. It's my contention that the players have been making well over 50/50 for a while now. If they don't make their entire 57% for the contracts going forward then so be it.

Like I said, if the players said "Keep our 7% but it must go to revenue sharing for the weakest teams" or something thereabouts... I'm on their side and HAPPY to be so. I hate being on the owners' side. I HATE Bettman.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:40 PM
  #870
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
It's hung up on two things. The owners wanting 50/50 IMMEDIATELY.

And the players wanting their current contracts honored, in FULL with no risk, no linkage and no escrow.
Can you please explain why, from a league's respective, it is impossible to graduate into a 50/50? Why is it impossible to honor the contracts that were signed, at times, a day or so before the lockout?

Where is it written that ALL business MUST be cash flow positive? Why is it that the owners of NHL franchises feel that they need to be indemnified from loosing money? Because here's the thing. If you are in a Bettman expansion southern market, you will continue to loose money, over and over again. I am not sure why the owners of this league feel like they are all ENTITLED to be in the green. It certainly does not happen in any other sport.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:03 AM
  #871
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Can you please explain why, from a league's respective, it is impossible to graduate into a 50/50? Why is it impossible to honor the contracts that were signed, at times, a day or so before the lockout?

Where is it written that ALL business MUST be cash flow positive? Why is it that the owners of NHL franchises feel that they need to be indemnified from loosing money? Because here's the thing. If you are in a Bettman expansion southern market, you will continue to loose money, over and over again. I am not sure why the owners of this league feel like they are all ENTITLED to be in the green. It certainly does not happen in any other sport.
I can't explain anything from the league's side. They're billionairs and I live paycheck to paycheck for the most part.

I can say that they wanted a cap in '04... They thought (incorrectly) that it would solve a good deal of their issues (as far as solvency). It didn't. The reason they surmise is that a cap without linkage is darn near useless. In other words, what good is a salary cap if you dont link that number to a revenue? Part can be "what constitutes revenue?" But the fact that the players were getting 57% of whatever they were calling revenue is outlandish. It's impossible for the league to make $ paying out 57% for salary. Which is probably true.

My best guess as to where we stand at the moment is
A) the league is done paying ANYWHERE over 50% because they have been for so long. Therefore they feel 50/50 immediately is fair, given the lopsided rate for the years prior.

And

B). The players want their 100% guaranteed contract amount for all contracts currently singed. Contracts signed by both sides.

Mathematically you can't have both.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:45 AM
  #872
JDMSG
Registered User
 
JDMSG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bergen County, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
All I see happening is a few months (or more?) down the line the players taking it up the rear, and then a few seasons later saying it was pointless to lockout and they lost money that they will never get back etc.

JDMSG is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:47 AM
  #873
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
Richie--the players' share decreased substantially in the CBA that just expired (it was well over 70% the last year before the lockout). and the percentage that the players received was linked to the growth in revenue. I don't remember exactly what % the players started out with (it was closer to 50% than 55%), but it increased to 57% because of the growth in revenue since the last lockout. I'll try and dig up an article to back up the numbers, but right now I'm too tired.


Last edited by Brooklyn Ranger: 10-27-2012 at 12:57 AM.
Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:06 AM
  #874
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
Richie--the players' share decreased substantially in the CBA that just expired (it was well over 70% the last year before the lockout). and the percentage that the players received was linked to the growth in revenue. I don't remember exactly what % the players started out with (it was closer to 50% than 55%), but it increased to 57% because of the growth in revenue since the last lockout. I'll try and dig up an article to back up the numbers, but right now I'm too tired.
I can back you up on that. It was 53% they started out IIRC and hit 57% last year. Even if the 53% number isn't correct, it was something similar.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:20 AM
  #875
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipNash27 View Post
This was supposed to be a CBA where there was only a very slim chance that there would be a lockout.

In 2004 the odds were highly in favor of a lockout and we all expected it. This time was supposed to be different.
I remember hearing like a year ago that many people were expecting this one to be a lockout.

But the standard line I had always heard was it would be a short one. Not too late for that to be the case.

mschmidt64 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 04:41 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.