HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-25-2012, 03:20 PM
  #626
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
There is no reason for the player to have to give up $ on a contract that has been signed. Will the player get the right to walk away from said contract if $ is cut from it. I for one think that would only be fair. This way if the owners want to cut there pay rate from a contract already signed they can choose if they want to become a FA and sign elsewhere.
I thought about this quite a bit.

It hurts players like Dipietro. It may even hurt big money free agents (who might not get such great deals under tighter caps).

But the people the rollback really screws are people like Stamkos and Tavares - players who give up UFA years on a long-term deal. It is *not* fair to those guys.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:27 PM
  #627
scott99
Registered User
 
scott99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
I thought about this quite a bit.

It hurts players like Dipietro. It may even hurt big money free agents (who might not get such great deals under tighter caps).

But the people the rollback really screws are people like Stamkos and Tavares - players who give up UFA years on a long-term deal. It is *not* fair to those guys.

Cheers,

Dan-o
I really don't give a **** about who it's fair to. You're talking billionaires vs millionaires, let these ******** spend one day in my shoes, and they'll sign on the dotted line tomorrow. Greedy rich ********, **** em all.

scott99 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:30 PM
  #628
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott99 View Post
I really don't give a **** about who it's fair to. You're talking billionaires vs millionaires, let these ******** spend one day in my shoes, and they'll sign on the dotted line tomorrow. Greedy rich ********, **** em all.
Tantrums don't bear on contracts, much. Neither do comparisons between you or me and professional athletes.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:38 PM
  #629
scott99
Registered User
 
scott99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Tantrums don't bear on contracts, much. Neither do comparisons between you or me and professional athletes.

Cheers,

Dan-o
And your response bears absolutely nothing.

Cheers,

Scott99

scott99 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:51 PM
  #630
redbull
game on
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
There is no reason for the player to have to give up $ on a contract that has been signed. Will the player get the right to walk away from said contract if $ is cut from it. I for one think that would only be fair. This way if the owners want to cut there pay rate from a contract already signed they can choose if they want to become a FA and sign elsewhere.
They are taking a paycut each time a game is cancelled though.

Players need to understand they either take the cut or they take the cut through lost games (and/or season)

I like the "walk away" aspect and frankly, changing the terms of a contract is essentially breaking the contract and it's probably something that should be discussed further.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
It hurts players like Dipietro. It may even hurt big money free agents (who might not get such great deals under tighter caps).

But the people the rollback really screws are people like Stamkos and Tavares - players who give up UFA years on a long-term deal. It is *not* fair to those guys.
I think the players need to understand a bit of the bigger picture on this though. Of course with ANY CBA there will be some players disproportionally hurt and other who may benefit. Jeremy Roenick talks about how he "LOST 8.5 MILLION DOLLARS" the year they were locked out.

Bigger picture, Grabs can talk about "signing a contract, and honoring it" - which is wonderful....but sometimes, companies shut the doors because they can't make ends meet.

Grabs signed for $3Million a year average over 5 years....a year before that, he was looking like a player who wouldn't make the NHL at all.

Players salaries have been increasing drastically over the years, at the same time as several franchises have been losing money, teams playing in front of empty crowds, TV money being non-existent compared to NFL, NBA, MLB.

The same player who was making $1MM in 2004 is now making $3MM, so is a "rollback" really such a huge deal, in that context? Knowing that it's going to happen ANYWAY with cancelled games or season?

The NHL needs to have sustainable franchises in all the markets which it CHOOSES to operate in. (AND THEY CAN CHOOSE). The BOTH bear the responsibility, collectively, to have healthy, profitable franchises.

This scenario CANNOT rely on revenue sharing, which is essentially having the rich support the poor, especially with that money NOT necessarily going to guarantee a profitable franchise NOR a winning franchise.

Operating costs, per player, needs to drop.

Players need to get over themselves a bit and simply accept THAT PART of the NHL proposal or else they CANNOT move forward and will likely lead to a cancelled season.

The players feel they are being bullied, because they ARE being bullied. But they are digging their heels into something they have zero control over, a strategic fail by Fehr. Frankly, Donald Fehr really can't win this battle and Bettman knows it. So let the bullying continue.

redbull is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:51 PM
  #631
Riddick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
There is no reason for the player to have to give up $ on a contract that has been signed. Will the player get the right to walk away from said contract if $ is cut from it. I for one think that would only be fair. This way if the owners want to cut there pay rate from a contract already signed they can choose if they want to become a FA and sign elsewhere.
Every player signed their contract knowing that it applies to the conditions of the current CBA. If they weren't aware of this when they signed then their agent should be fired.

In fact, since players share has been tired to league revenue, in the last two years they've made MORE than their contract stipulates.

Riddick is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:59 PM
  #632
redbull
game on
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott99 View Post
I really don't give a **** about who it's fair to. You're talking billionaires vs millionaires, let these ******** spend one day in my shoes, and they'll sign on the dotted line tomorrow. Greedy rich ********, **** em all.
This is true.

The amount of money, I think, has given the players a distorted sense of entitlement and Fehr is pushing that agenda to gain player solidarity on a fight that's simply not winnable.

If the players want to win this battle, it will require another league, that's run by the players association. That's the only way to eliminate the player vs. owner battle that will happen in any other type of league.

How feasible is this?

Imagine a full PPV-type league (or some TV contract negotiation), finding venues for the number of teams the league would start with. They would have to find venues to play in, negotiate leases. Find an equitable way to distribute salaries based on HRR.

take the lockout to the extreme and just walk away from the NHL.

Would the players ever do this?

It's impossible.
The earning potential of each player, over their prime earning years, will just cave.

I heard on radio that some high-profile owners think their next move should be cancel the whole season and just "open for business" next year - essentially trying to break the union.

And I think it's a real possibility and a ballsy move that Bettman can convince the owners to do.

And even that, is by no means, a long term solution to any of this.

The only solution is a partnership, built on transparency and negotiating in good faith - which, as you said, these owners and players are unable to do.

redbull is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:12 PM
  #633
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
There is no reason for the player to have to give up $ on a contract that has been signed. Will the player get the right to walk away from said contract if $ is cut from it. I for one think that would only be fair. This way if the owners want to cut there pay rate from a contract already signed they can choose if they want to become a FA and sign elsewhere.
In the real world (not the lala land of pro sports), if I sign an employment contract there are almost always non-performance provisions and other out clauses should the employer deem my services not up to par or no longer required or they can't afford to pay me anymore.

The nature of employment should always favour the employer. They are the ones paying for the service. The employee obviously has and needs rights and protections, but the arrangement must be to the employer's benefit or their business ceases and the employment ceases with it.

So let's try not to get over zealous about the pious and sanctimonious nature of the very cushy SPC that NHL players sign and the "contract is a contract" argument some make when the owners propose a roll back.

In a perfect world it would be like the NFL. Pay for play or you get cut. I.e., deliver the value you promised for the price, or someone else will. NHL players have it pretty good already.

JKP is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  #634
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riddick View Post
Every player signed their contract knowing that it applies to the conditions of the current CBA. If they weren't aware of this when they signed then their agent should be fired.
Which is why the vultures, er, agents, were all frontloading contracts in the years prior to the lockout, to get the $$ in case of a roll back...

JKP is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:05 PM
  #635
scott99
Registered User
 
scott99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,980
vCash: 500
It basically doesn't matter anymore. owners are taking their last offer off of the table after today's deadline gets missed. Obviously the Players will not receive another offer as good as that. The season is over. No way this gets resolved.

scott99 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:43 PM
  #636
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Bigger picture, Grabs can talk about "signing a contract, and honoring it" - which is wonderful....but sometimes, companies shut the doors because they can't make ends meet.
You and I both know that a comparison between a legalized cartel like the NHL and an ordinary company is nonsense. Professional sports federation require unions. Without them, they merely collude. There is a system, and talking about fairness and precedent matters within that system. Without it, there is illegality or lawlessness - nothing in between.

I hope to God all the overemotional moaning doesn't make it to the negotiations. Because if the negotiators are like the people on this board, nothing gets done. Still, the idea that the NHL could merely open for business without the union is an injunction away from another lost season for the court fight.

I like to think they're smarter than that.

Now, that doesn't mean that the owners won't hold out in the hope the union buckles. But they're not stupid enough to reject a good deal just because they deem it too late, and go for a wholesale breaking of the union. The NHL *needs* the union. Don't you all see that? Without the union to settle disputes, this all goes to court. Is that what y'all prefer? Honestly?

Those of you who wish for that, because you want players or whomever to 'walk a mile in your shoes', well, then you want schadenfreude. That's a very weak kind of satisfaction. Enjoy it if you like. But don't pretend that this entitlement the owners have, and the entitlements the players have is unrelated to what you want. If you were't a fanatic, they wouldn't feel entitled.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:48 PM
  #637
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,144
vCash: 500
President Obama chimes in

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408107

nothing groundbreaking or anything, but he commented on it.

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 08:12 PM
  #638
A Pointed Stick
There Is Always...
 
A Pointed Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,861
vCash: 250
Any word on allowing a one time buyout in any of the proposals?

A Pointed Stick is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 08:25 PM
  #639
redbull
game on
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
You and I both know that a comparison between a legalized cartel like the NHL and an ordinary company is nonsense. Professional sports federation require unions. Without them, they merely collude. There is a system, and talking about fairness and precedent matters within that system. Without it, there is illegality or lawlessness - nothing in between.

I hope to God all the overemotional moaning doesn't make it to the negotiations. Because if the negotiators are like the people on this board, nothing gets done. Still, the idea that the NHL could merely open for business without the union is an injunction away from another lost season for the court fight.

I like to think they're smarter than that.

Now, that doesn't mean that the owners won't hold out in the hope the union buckles. But they're not stupid enough to reject a good deal just because they deem it too late, and go for a wholesale breaking of the union. The NHL *needs* the union. Don't you all see that? Without the union to settle disputes, this all goes to court. Is that what y'all prefer? Honestly?

Those of you who wish for that, because you want players or whomever to 'walk a mile in your shoes', well, then you want schadenfreude. That's a very weak kind of satisfaction. Enjoy it if you like. But don't pretend that this entitlement the owners have, and the entitlements the players have is unrelated to what you want. If you were't a fanatic, they wouldn't feel entitled.

Cheers,

Dan-o
There is some collusion already, regarding RFAs, as Devellano has said, but I don't think that's collusion because RFAs simply forces salaries higher than market value and the team rarely gets the player.

I agree that the NHL functions better with a union, but they want a union they can steamroll, or at least that's how they are coming across. Just because they hold the cards, doesn't mean they should bully their way, posturing, grandstanding whenever they can, all the drama of my daughter when her outfit doesn't meet her expectations. Holy childish.

This is like a married couple where the woman (Bettman) makes all the money and feels she can tell her husband (Fehr) what to buy, what they eat, and publicly humiliate the poor *******. Damn, I should have married rich. The owners don't negotiate in good faith, they bully and have a take take take approach.

And although the players want to play, I don't think all the owners want that. The owners NEED terms that can sustain profitability in their market. And the reality is, most teams lose money, even with a salary rollback and 50/50. I think the players need to forget about the rollback and see that they are still paid extremely well, have guaranteed contracts (yes, even Redden and DiPietro) and make far more now than they did 10 years ago, 5 years ago, far above inflation and revenue growth (hrr).

It should resonate with the union that owners are willing to throw out a whole season, again, just to have better terms.

If the owners just treated them with respect, privately and publicly, this would be done by now.

This is a simple problem with a simple solution if both sides are transparent and trust one another.

The complexities arise when you let ego and emotions take over.

I mean, if teams lose money in the markets they are in, you move them. Just like McDonalds and Starbucks. If you have too many, you contract. If there are more markets, you expand.

A collaborative owner-player relationship makes the game healthier and better, at least they can focus on important things like player health, concussions, speed of play, goal scoring, selling the game better, etc.

But this is a joke. This is like two parents arguing over whether they should have steak or lobster, while the kids sit and starve right in front of them. (That's right, we are the hungry kids)

redbull is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:25 PM
  #640
seafoam
 
seafoam's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 36,361
vCash: 446
Millionaires or not, players commit countless hours of hard work to get where they are today and I know that if I worked hard everyday to get to the professional level of any sport,I would try to squeeze every penny I could. I wouldn't be honoring myself if I didn't try to get the most money possible. I'm just playing devils advocate.

seafoam is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:26 AM
  #641
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seafoam View Post
Millionaires or not, players commit countless hours of hard work to get where they are today and I know that if I worked hard everyday to get to the professional level of any sport,I would try to squeeze every penny I could. I wouldn't be honoring myself if I didn't try to get the most money possible. I'm just playing devils advocate.
Of course, but if it means your employer is losing money paying you, then something is wrong and must be done. Even if the players are made to suffer a little they certainly won't be atraving anytime soon or wondering if they can pay the electrics bill next month...

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:35 AM
  #642
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seafoam View Post
Millionaires or not, players commit countless hours of hard work to get where they are today and I know that if I worked hard everyday to get to the professional level of any sport,I would try to squeeze every penny I could. I wouldn't be honoring myself if I didn't try to get the most money possible. I'm just playing devils advocate.
Well, most players will lose out on this deal if the lockout lasts much longer. Rational thinking will not be applied here imo.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:28 AM
  #643
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
There is some collusion already, regarding RFAs, as Devellano has said, but I don't think that's collusion because RFAs simply forces salaries higher than market value and the team rarely gets the player.
No, you miss my point. The point is that the NHL simply cannot establish governing rules for its franchises with respect to labor (the players) without the union. The union is indispensable.

In the long run, busting the union could be the best thing ever for star players. Detroit, The Rangers, Toronto, etc. would have no reason to play by the rules of the poorer NHL clubs. The NHL would be completely toothless to deal with rogue franchises, who collect massive amounts of talent for dynasties we haven't seen since the 70's. The rest of the franchises would have to compete. It would be a true, unconstrained, free market.

Quote:
But this is a joke. This is like two parents arguing over whether they should have steak or lobster, while the kids sit and starve right in front of them. (That's right, we are the hungry kids.
No, they are arguing about whether relative salary reductions will occur over a period of years or immediately. Governments have been shut down (or almost shut down, see US, debt ceiling deal, pending budgetary sequestration) over such issues.

The owners are figuring that they'd rather not have hockey than lose the money in the few years it takes to get to get salaries down. Fehr is hoping the union sticks, because once the union buckles on salary rollbacks twice, it seems inevitable that it will happen again.

I believe both points of view are legitimate. I just happen to think one side (the side that got the revenue allocation they asked for) is, pretty obviously, wrong.

Redbull, I'd like to ask you one question that determines if this is really about emotion and respect:

Q: If the owners get an immediate rollback on this CBA, do you think they will expect the same in the next CBA? Why or why not?

If the answer is 'Yes', then it is pretty clear why this lockout continues. If the answer is 'No', then the whole thing looks petty and easy to solve: merely add a clause to the new CBA that the NHL will not seek any gross salary rollbacks in the next CBA negotiations. Have that clause have a serious penalty for the owners of some sort. For example, give all players the option of becoming immediate unrestricted free agents.

The amount the players lose by losing the season exceeds any rollback. So the issue of established precedent is logically the only remaining issue. We should all be able to agree on that.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:19 AM
  #644
redbull
game on
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
No, you miss my point. The point is that the NHL simply cannot establish governing rules for its franchises with respect to labor (the players) without the union. The union is indispensable.

In the long run, busting the union could be the best thing ever for star players. Detroit, The Rangers, Toronto, etc. would have no reason to play by the rules of the poorer NHL clubs. The NHL would be completely toothless to deal with rogue franchises, who collect massive amounts of talent for dynasties we haven't seen since the 70's. The rest of the franchises would have to compete. It would be a true, unconstrained, free market.
I don't disagree with the governing rules but breaking the union and having no governing rules would be chaotic for the league and the players. I don't think anyone wants that.

The owners want a union they can control (or "guide") more. But it's that nuance, that's more than semantics, that I believe, is causing much of the stand-off.

Quote:

No, they are arguing about whether relative salary reductions will occur over a period of years or immediately. Governments have been shut down (or almost shut down, see US, debt ceiling deal, pending budgetary sequestration) over such issues.

The owners are figuring that they'd rather not have hockey than lose the money in the few years it takes to get to get salaries down. Fehr is hoping the union sticks, because once the union buckles on salary rollbacks twice, it seems inevitable that it will happen again.

I believe both points of view are legitimate. I just happen to think one side (the side that got the revenue allocation they asked for) is, pretty obviously, wrong.

Redbull, I'd like to ask you one question that determines if this is really about emotion and respect:

Q: If the owners get an immediate rollback on this CBA, do you think they will expect the same in the next CBA? Why or why not?
YES they would - IF, the costs don't spiral out of control again, regardless of who's "fault" it is (the agents, the loopholes Gary missed, etc).

It's a bit disingenuous for the players (and fans) to say "well, the owners signed those contracts" because that's really not the point. The point is, the cost-revenue structure isn't one that sustains healthy franchises and it's up to BOTH parties to "fix" that.

So, when the next loopholes are figured out, IF the salaries AGAIN climb to (what-owners-say-is) an unmanageable level, then of course they can/will ask for a roll-back, especially if they got it TWICE already.

I think it's unrealistic for a union to expect "no rollback" for a league such as the NHL. So much depends on factors that cannot be foreseen, not unlike any company in that way.

If the game becomes so boring and nobody cares any more, seats are empty, private boxes go unsold, TV money falls - can anyone (either party) really make a case for "no rollbacks?"


Quote:
The amount the players lose by losing the season exceeds any rollback. So the issue of established precedent is logically the only remaining issue. We should all be able to agree on that.
While this is true, in order to make the point of "no rollbacks, not again", Fehr is wanting the union to stand together on that single point, which, in my opinion, is a shaky one and doomed to fail (whatever "fail" even means in this case)

This is too much in the owner's favour since the players that are lobbying so hard are the ones that lose a year of their earning potential THAT THEY WON'T GET BACK. They'll just get a year older and closer to retirement. It's only the players after them that may benefit.

So their salary loss this year and extra clause they get in the CBA because of their stance, only serves to benefit other players, down the road. NHL players have short careers, unlike other unions in other industries where people might stay in a job over a 15-20-30 year period -- and those are very few and far between nowadays.

redbull is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:58 AM
  #645
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
This is too much in the owner's favour since the players that are lobbying so hard are the ones that lose a year of their earning potential THAT THEY WON'T GET BACK. They'll just get a year older and closer to retirement. It's only the players after them that may benefit.
This proves too much. Back in the heyday of the labor movement, the length of workers careers were similarly short. They had the same risks, and yet they held together.

There may be other factors that will doom the union in this case. (I think there is: the heterogeneity of the players). But you haven't said what they were.

You're arguing what the players have to do if they're merely rational self-interested agents, while at the same time you're arguing that the owners and players are behaving irrationally. You're all tied up in knots.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 04:01 PM
  #646
CDirt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 426
vCash: 500
The "revenue structure" doesn't matter at this point. This league is sustaining such heavy damages at this point it's going to take at least a decade to right it. This looks like a complete joke.

Interesting quote would apply here and it come from Marx "Capitalism contains within it the seeds to it's own destruction". Of course this quote pertains to other elements of it when it comes to borrowing huge sums of money to put off major crashes leading to even bigger ones. But the "seed" here is just pure, unbridled greed.

The "revenue structure" that was set up after the last lockout was supposed to sustain the league and most likely would have. The owners found a way to circumvent that and destroyed it themselves. It's really a matter of behavior.

They wrote their own rules, dictated the terms and violated them on their own.

CDirt is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 04:52 PM
  #647
redbull
game on
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
This proves too much. Back in the heyday of the labor movement, the length of workers careers were similarly short. They had the same risks, and yet they held together.

There may be other factors that will doom the union in this case. (I think there is: the heterogeneity of the players). But you haven't said what they were.

You're arguing what the players have to do if they're merely rational self-interested agents, while at the same time you're arguing that the owners and players are behaving irrationally. You're all tied up in knots.

Cheers,

Dan-o
Owners are perfectly rational - just being too pushy, forceful, bullying (at least how they appear, publicly. Not sure if that's just a story that Fehr or the media are conveying, but I see it that way)


Players are perfectly rational, standing by a principle (no roll-back), but that principle is a weak one, doomed to fail. They cannot rally on that point since they don't control it. If the owners/league lock-out the players and they lose 40 games or a full season, that's essentially the same thing as a rollback.

It's the self-interest piece that will cause them to cave, sooner rather than later. The vast majority of players that have 2-3 years left, maybe, will suffer far more by losing a year of salary, especially if there's no end game for these guys.

It's not heterogeneity (not sure if you meant by player demography/nationality or the fact they have such a diverse range of salary/years/term/etc) because I don't think that's significantly different than it was years ago. There are more rival leagues (seemingly) with the KHL and more free-flowing players throughout the world and other leagues, but again, I don't see that as a big factor.

I believe that the union will cave because they really have no leverage. They've come a long way as a player union and they are making a lot of money. I heard on radio that before the last rollback, players were making 73% of HRR, which is completely absurd.

This isn't the 50s when the owners may have been truly abusing their power.

These are very rich owners that are willing to throw out a year. They clearly believe they have a cost issue that needs to be addressed and they EXPECT the players to account for that. Are they asking for too much?

Fehr thinks so. The players think so.

Are they asking as partners? or bullies? I think it's the latter and that's the reason why they aren't negotiating. On that, I think it's personal and ego and "who blinks first"

The players are digging their heels on FALSE principles.
The owners are refusing to move, knowing that "it's just a matter of time" and they're right.

This is a power play by people more than issues. Because there is agreement on some aspects, enough to negotiate through, but not when there's a refusal to talk, by both sides.

redbull is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 04:30 PM
  #648
Augscura
Registered User
 
Augscura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,752
vCash: 500


**** like this makes me so mad.

Augscura is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:49 PM
  #649
Dutch Frost
Battle Level
 
Dutch Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
This is true.

The amount of money, I think, has given the players a distorted sense of entitlement and Fehr is pushing that agenda to gain player solidarity on a fight that's simply not winnable.

If the players want to win this battle, it will require another league, that's run by the players association. That's the only way to eliminate the player vs. owner battle that will happen in any other type of league.

How feasible is this?

Imagine a full PPV-type league (or some TV contract negotiation), finding venues for the number of teams the league would start with. They would have to find venues to play in, negotiate leases. Find an equitable way to distribute salaries based on HRR.


take the lockout to the extreme and just walk away from the NHL.

Would the players ever do this?

It's impossible.
The earning potential of each player, over their prime earning years, will just cave.

I heard on radio that some high-profile owners think their next move should be cancel the whole season and just "open for business" next year - essentially trying to break the union.

And I think it's a real possibility and a ballsy move that Bettman can convince the owners to do.

And even that, is by no means, a long term solution to any of this.

The only solution is a partnership, built on transparency and negotiating in good faith - which, as you said, these owners and players are unable to do.
Bain Capital wanted to buy the NHL back in 2004 and create a league similar to that of MLS. I feel that if they do create a league and center it around the on ice product a huge leverage buy out company would be the best way to go.

Dutch Frost is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 06:45 PM
  #650
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 15,592
vCash: 500
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-refrains.html

__________________
Homeland Security 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 09:06 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.