The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Make Whole, Not War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XIX
and that is how union negotiations are solved. Why do you continue to question what people are reading into these negotiations? Do you have information that contradicts any talks between the NHL/NHLPA?
I bet you on Monday we'll see the road to the end on this...today was a breakthrough...with secret meetings..etc and the fact they're close to begin with, it's only a matter of days before this baby is put to bed.
I just don't get how so many people just keep repeating this stuff though. Because the NHL made a proposal, the only thing for a PA to do is sign as-is. If they squawk, they're greedy, not the owners who want more profit for themselves.
Is anyone actually saying that the deal should be accepted as-is?
It appears to me that the vast majority of frustration is directed at the PA's reluctance to negotiate throughout this process, beginning last spring and following through to the most recent revelation that they have not yet responded to a 3-day-old offer.
Is it too much to ask that they negotiate? Or is a completed agreement going to somehow emerge from a season-long staredown?
Quote:
The old CBA doesn't count as a starting point if we're talking concessions and percentage share, but it does count if we're talking about caps and linkage.
I have an idea. Perhaps one of the mods could send out invites to Bettman and Fehr to sign up for HF accounts. Then every time a post with as little content as the one quoted above can be flagged as a personal attack, and mods can deal with the perp as per the usual site policies.
And then, finally, perhaps we could get out from under the tsunami of useless drek that is drowning and killing the BoH forum, and have something resembling substantive discussions.
An excellent idea, Dado! Amazingly, the whole thing is getting tiresome with all the personal sniping going on. It would be refreshing to sweep out the animus and let some new ideas see the light of day!
I'm pro players in all of this, but they look like fools by not grabbing the latest NHL offer and crossing off **** they don't like...at least put it on one proposal...
So you have no answer. Noted...it was an honest question. Not sure why you said I was patronizing.
Because that's not what I was talking about in the post you quoted. If you want to spring off to another direction, don't make it look like that's where I was headed. It was your implication, not mine.
I'm pro players in all of this, but they look like fools by not grabbing the latest NHL offer and crossing off **** they don't like...at least put it on one proposal...
the wheels are in motion to negotiate now.
I think it's too early to conclude anything. Is it actually possible an even likely that they will get more details and that's why there's a meeting tomorrow between the principles? NYC was just shut down for days due to a hurricane! Did that figure into any of the timing issues?
Because that's not what I was talking about in the post you quoted. If you want to spring off to another direction, don't make it look like that's where I was headed. It was your implication, not mine.
It's just about about a little wiggle here and a little wiggle there.
Are you guys reading this from a script?
This is your post - are you implying that the NHL has not given the NHLPA what they have been looking for, which is the covering of contracts out of the owners percentage of the HRR?
Again, a little wiggle here and there is how negotiations are resolved. There is no fish involved.
I asked if you had information that contradicted the quotes from the NHL since you immediately posted a negative retort. If the statements are incorrect, let us know. I want to hear if the NHLPA has stated they believe that the NHL statements were nothing more than rhetoric from a "script".
I bet you on Monday we'll see the road to the end on this...today was a breakthrough...with secret meetings..etc and the fact they're close to begin with, it's only a matter of days before this baby is put to bed.
I am getting far too jaded. As much as I would love to agree, I have trouble not tuning-out the posturing from both sides and taking anything as a sign of good faith by either.
Even worse, as much as I detest the personalization of the attacks, I just can't bring myself to take anything the owners say seriously. I just happen to like the players, and think they're fighting the good fight against the bullying owners.
I guess that's why I was always the kid who got beat-up by the bigger kids two grades ahead of us when they picked on my friends in the playground. I just can't stand the might-is-right argument.
And, you can correctly point out how silly it is to take the part of multi-millionaire players in their purely economic tussle with billionaire owners, but I probably won't be listening. The overall volume is too high, there's too much noise in the joint, and that's just how I feel. Logic be darned.
I'd bet that's pretty much how a lot of other people on both sides of the fence feel too; whether they can't stand the owners, or can't stand the players, or can't stand either the owners or the players. Forget about semantics: too many people like me are just dug-in on one side or the other.
NYC was just shut down for days due to a hurricane! Did that figure into any of the timing issues?
One of the first things that crossed my mind when Dreger broke this story, was that someone was asking the other day how talks were still going on when the NYC-area figures were dealing with the disaster on a personal level.
Even just logistically, I'm curious how this all played out earlier in the week. Perhaps the "verbal" nature of the offer had to do with a lack of access to office resources.
I am getting far too jaded. As much as I would love to agree, I have trouble not tuning-out the posturing from both sides and taking anything as a sign of good faith by either.
Even worse, as much as I detest the personalization of the attacks, I just can't bring myself to take anything the owners say seriously. I just happen to like the players, and think they're fighting the good fight against the bullying owners.
I guess that's why I was always the kid who got beat-up by the bigger kids two grades ahead of us when they picked on my friends in the playground. I just can't stand the might-is-right argument.
And, you can correctly point out how silly it is to take the part of multi-millionaire players in their purely economic tussle with billionaire owners, but I probably won't be listening. The overall volume is too high, there's too much noise in the joint, and that's just how I feel. Logic be darned.
I'd bet that's pretty much how a lot of other people on both sides of the fence feel too; whether they can't stand the owners, or can't stand the players, or can't stand either the owners or the players. Forget about semantics: too many people like me are just dug-in on one side or the other.
I too will be glad when this is over.
As time goes on, both sides look like they are in this battle for their own personal wealth.
I think it's too early to conclude anything. Is it actually possible an even likely that they will get more details and that's why there's a meeting tomorrow between the principles? NYC was just shut down for days due to a hurricane! Did that figure into any of the timing issues?
WC was stated to be cancelled days ago on Friday...long before Sandy.
Does anyone else wonder if hockey fans are at each others' throats with animosity towards the owners, the players or both, whether attendance really will pick-up where it left off before the work stoppage?
With the last lock-out at least there was some rhyme or reason. When it ended the NHL emerged with a new system, new hope for better competitive balance, new enforcement of holding and grabbing, and new young stars to carry the play.
This time, when it ends there will be none of that. Just a different division of the same and probably smaller pie.
What is it that would draw fans back, in Canada or the US?
The Raptors do look interesting this year. More and more of us are learning to enjoy life without (NHL) hockey. Lots of other avenues to enjoy
I've read through all these threads all these days keeping silent, but I have to ask a question in context of the cancellation of the winter classic. Does anyone believe that the cancellation of the Winter Classic may have been done as a way to bring down potential revenue for a shortened season, thus reducing the player's share further? I'm unsure how previous Winter Classic revenue is split or distributed amongst teams.
Also: Kudos to the mods and admins here. It's not an easy job in the best of times.
I have to wonder why the owners wouldn't come with this sooner? Few days at least? Just seems odd to cancel the winter classic and then the very same day make a concession
It's just about about a little wiggle here and a little wiggle there.
Are you guys reading this from a script?
This is your post - are you implying that the NHL has not given the NHLPA what they have been looking for, which is the covering of contracts out of the owners percentage of the HRR?
Again, a little wiggle here and there is how negotiations are resolved. There is no fish involved.
I asked if you had information that contradicted the quotes from the NHL since you immediately posted a negative retort. If the statements are incorrect, let us know. I want to hear if the NHLPA has stated they believe that the NHL statements were nothing more than rhetoric from a "script".
No, my comments had nothing to do with anything you posted here. What it had to do with was the implication that there was only one more issue outstanding. Not only do we not know what the NHL proposed, we still didn't know the core issues to the two sides on the other points.
I've read through all these threads all these days keeping silent, but I have to ask a question in context of the cancellation of the winter classic. Does anyone believe that the cancellation of the Winter Classic may have been done as a way to bring down potential revenue for a shortened season, thus reducing the player's share further? I'm unsure how previous Winter Classic revenue is split or distributed amongst teams.
Also: Kudos to the mods and admins here. It's not an easy job in the best of times.
Doesn't make sense because it would bring the owner's share down as well. I take it more that the NHL doesn't want to spend money on something that may not happen. It is not just the cost of the stadium but the sponsors invest money in ads and promotions and give aways. Can't have player X selling tires for 3 months if there is no game. Can't have HBO doing 2 months of promo
Kudos to the mods and admins here. It's not an easy job in the best of times.
Yes, and much thanks to them for keeping the boards as readable as possible. It's a lot of work, and I'm sure it wouldn't take much for this to degenerate into a virtual food-fight.
I have to wonder why the owners wouldn't come with this sooner? Few days at least? Just seems odd to cancel the winter classic and then the very same day make a concession
They released this today. Dreger stated it has been on the table for three days.
I have to wonder why the owners wouldn't come with this sooner? Few days at least? Just seems odd to cancel the winter classic and then the very same day make a concession
It's like waiting for cheese to ripen. You know it's going to take some time, and it's just a matter of judgement as to when it stinks enough to be ready.
Here, the point of both sides might be to stink the joint up as much as possible, just hoping the other side will gag first.
I'm not expecing anything that happens to make much sense beyond that. If the owners can make life a little more miserable for the players by cancelling the Winter Classic, I'm sure they're all for that whether it's sooner or later.
That's a second snarky, useless response to a pretty logical point in a row.
Can I get an answer to my request for clarification, now? Why is it, exactly, that testing the water for what Dreger describes would not have been far more constructive in seeking a future deal than showing up late with a worse offer than your previous ones claiming you haven't "run the numbers yet?" Why, exactly, would thinking it is a more constructive course of inaction make one a, ahem, "sockpuppet."
Is that something you can answer, or is the next step to accuse me of some new weird thing.
I've read through all these threads all these days keeping silent, but I have to ask a question in context of the cancellation of the winter classic. Does anyone believe that the cancellation of the Winter Classic may have been done as a way to bring down potential revenue for a shortened season, thus reducing the player's share further? I'm unsure how previous Winter Classic revenue is split or distributed amongst teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyalad
Doesn't make sense because it would bring the owner's share down as well. I take it more that the NHL doesn't want to spend money on something that may not happen. It is not just the cost of the stadium but the sponsors invest money in ads and promotions and give aways. Can't have player X selling tires for 3 months if there is no game. Can't have HBO doing 2 months of promo
I think it was a logistical issue, and one the NHL had a fixed deadline set (in their own circle, of course). As onlyalad points out, it's a huge event with all sorts of co-marketing and sponsorship issues. Several other leagues and venues are involved, travel has to be set up, and so on.
Not sure about the timing of the announcement and the hints of movement on Make Whole. It may be as simple as the weather, or as complex as a PR and negotiating tactic.
