No, it goes to show you that your beloved unions are not these upstanding organizations that everyones voice is heard and gets informed.
I know you hate unions, but don't you think the idea, in this day and age, of members being held in thrall and deliberately misinformed to be somewhat, oh, I don't know, impossible?
Unless of course you're accepting the NHL's company line. They want to make Fehr look as bad as possible. They want to break the union. And if fans turn against Fehr and the players, that's great for them.
I'm not saying Fehr's in the right. I disagree with him on that point. But I can do that and also understand what the NHL is attempting to do.
bottom line appears to be the greed by the owners to get quick money thru expansion fees has left them with a handful of teams in undesirable locations; these teams are losing money and the dozen so of profitable teams don't want to share that much with them; Fehr appears willing to help but not do a complete bailout. I wonder how much the big markets are really willing to help the smaller- I bet its not much.
The only way this ends well is thru a partnership, revenue sharing, getting these albatross teams to better hockey markets that have a better chance of supporting them- hockey in Phoenix and not Quebec is a joke.
They need to move fast on this- the owners probably have a longer threshold here than the players but its getting nearer to Armagedon each week. This week is crucial to me- allows 64 games and the casual fans haven't noticed
Yes because union heads always look out for their constituents and not for them selves.
Go tell that to the mafia.
Agreed. Anyone that has taken even a basic intro to economics course can tell you that there is plenty of data to suggest that unions create market inefficiencies.
In any walk of life, you can predict a person's behavior by understanding his incentives. Not sure what his comp package is or how it works, but it might well be the case that Fehr's incentives are not perfectly aligned with the labor force here. More likely than not, I would say. I don't see why anyone would fight that point. He is going to do what's best for him which may or may not also be what's best for the union at large.
its been obvious since the day he was hired that Fehr was going to be a problem. I can't wait for the majority of the league who isn't star players and are on 1 or 2 year deals to create an uproar.
I'm a pro union guy. However I don't think it serves any purpose when you are making millions. If Fehr doesn't get his head out of his butt I hope we see replacement players in 2013.
Agreed. Anyone that has taken even a basic intro to economics course can tell you that there is plenty of data to suggest that unions create market inefficiencies.
In any walk of life, you can predict a person's behavior by understanding his incentives. Not sure what his comp package is or how it works, but it might well be the case that Fehr's incentives are not perfectly aligned with the labor force here. More likely than not, I would say. I don't see why anyone would fight that point. He is going to do what's best for him which may or may not also be what's best for the union at large.
Anyone that has taken a US history course can tell you there is plenty of actual examples of no unions creates inefficiencies in human being treatment.
Unions aren't angelic, pious entities, but don't act like the other side is.
I know you hate unions, but don't you think the idea, in this day and age, of members being held in thrall and deliberately misinformed to be somewhat, oh, I don't know, impossible?
Unless of course you're accepting the NHL's company line. They want to make Fehr look as bad as possible. They want to break the union. And if fans turn against Fehr and the players, that's great for them.
I'm not saying Fehr's in the right. I disagree with him on that point. But I can do that and also understand what the NHL is attempting to do.
What Dom is saying about Barch actually happened though. That doesn't strike me as someone getting all the information they should be provided.
I'm sorry, did I call him the devil? Overreaction, much?
Fehr is playing hard ball, which is his job, but from all accounts starting months ago is that he's a pos. Bettman is just as guilty of it. But when we are in serious danger of not having a season at all, and then you've got reports coming out that it was close to being ended but then he starts to play hardball again, what am I supposed to think? It's not one sided, but right now the ball is in Fehr's court and the players need to start thinking about what HAS been discussed.
In the end, yes, it's millionaires talking about millionaires, but enough is enough now and I think Fehr is JUST as guilty as Bettman and right now is pulling a Boras. Sources are even saying he's leaving some information out in the memo's he's giving to players, and why is that? Money.
Either figure this crap out now, or just cancel the whole season. Period.
It's not just you. It's the common theme throughout these threads.
And what would the advantage be to Fehr actually obstructing information from getting to the players? Last I checked, he works FOR them, not against them.
I also don't see any evidence of him playing any harder ball than what has happened since the beginning of negotiations.
Don't get me wrong - Fehr is a dick. And this process has been anything but amiable. I just tire of one side getting more of their share of the flack for WHY... Especially when that side is the only one that has "given" anything in negotiations thus far.
Anyone that has taken a US history course can tell you there is plenty of actual examples of no unions creates inefficiencies in human being treatment.
Unions aren't angelic, pious entities, but don't act like the other side is.
They served a purpose historically. We don't live in that world anymore. Plenty of reasons why and not the least of which is our very litigious society and comprehensive legal and regulatory system.
They served a purpose historically. We don't live in that world anymore. Plenty of reasons why and not the least of which is our very litigious society and comprehensive legal and regulatory system.
Right, we don't live in a world where non-unionized workers are exploited. It's called fantasyland.
bottom line appears to be the greed by the owners to get quick money thru expansion fees has left them with a handful of teams in undesirable locations; these teams are losing money and the dozen so of profitable teams don't want to share that much with them; Fehr appears willing to help but not do a complete bailout. I wonder how much the big markets are really willing to help the smaller- I bet its not much.
The only way this ends well is thru a partnership, revenue sharing, getting these albatross teams to better hockey markets that have a better chance of supporting them- hockey in Phoenix and not Quebec is a joke.
They need to move fast on this- the owners probably have a longer threshold here than the players but its getting nearer to Armagedon each week. This week is crucial to me- allows 64 games and the casual fans haven't noticed
Love the idea of a partnership- if ownership is going to make players pay for the mistakes of league management, they need to at least give them a voice in the decision making process going forward.
bottom line appears to be the greed by the owners to get quick money thru expansion fees has left them with a handful of teams in undesirable locations; these teams are losing money and the dozen so of profitable teams don't want to share that much with them; Fehr appears willing to help but not do a complete bailout. I wonder how much the big markets are really willing to help the smaller- I bet its not much.
The only way this ends well is thru a partnership, revenue sharing, getting these albatross teams to better hockey markets that have a better chance of supporting them- hockey in Phoenix and not Quebec is a joke.
They need to move fast on this- the owners probably have a longer threshold here than the players but its getting nearer to Armagedon each week. This week is crucial to me- allows 64 games and the casual fans haven't noticed
We the fans must make them pay for this. If you attend a game after this ends, you're a scab to me and part of the problem. The fans need to become a union
I love your posts and your user name but I will attend. Hockey is the only sport I follow and I miss it .
I know many STH and all are disappointed and pissed off but I only know of a couple that are threatening to "give up" their ST ( and I have a feeling they are just saying that and will hold on to their seats once the season starts).
Guess what...there is a waiting list and they could care less if a few STH give up their seats.
I am not laying blame on the players and I am looking forward to whenever the B's start up so I can have a life beyond working too much.
I hope they get the deal signed soon. The thought of having no hockey sucks.
these are two groups with many, many, many individuals involved with a lot to lose by not playing
Fehr and Betman represent the best interests of their clients- they work for them; they do not own them- they represent just like a lawyer may represent you; you can also fire the lawyer
they are meeting right this minute- Steve Fehr and Bill Daley over lunch with brief cases (I'm sure its not to steal the rolls, but you never know)
You are or were recently in college. Take emotion out of this and think consciously. There is ZERO good that can come out of turfing the season. It will put a hurt that wont come back for generations. Its the meaning of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on you.
Yes, I believe they get it done this week or shortly thereafter- the heat is coming on from players who have a history of what happened last time. Owners are getting more and more antsy with this process and the middle ground is shifting towards the doves.
They get this done in this month they can get in 64 games and have a semblence of a season- they wait till January 1st to start its 48 or so and the players have lost a huge chunk of their pay and the season is a joke.
To many reasonable human beings involved here not to get done- they will rise and eventually lead to a settlement.
To not play this game makes everyone a loser- the players short term the owners and the game long term.
Last time was a war- minimal talking and you knew, this time they are talking, its a battle and the owners need to deal with each other and figure out a way.
Heck, man has put a man on he moon, built the Golden Gate Bridge, and come up with more neat gadgets imaginable.
Use common sense and imagination and it can be done by this evening; sooner or later one of these bright minds will step forward
They served a purpose historically. We don't live in that world anymore. Plenty of reasons why and not the least of which is our very litigious society and comprehensive legal and regulatory system.
I am a pessimist by nature (blame upbringing). When these dolts managing the negotiation process are dealing as they have I see no end in sight for the season. Interesting to see the rosy outlook of Dan and others but I just dont see it. Knowing that Fehr is hardballing to the point of prorata 2012 salaries and deferring that to when they work out the economics... No way. Too many common sense issues still being discussed and debated which for any reasonable person you just agree and move on.
As for greedy owners with expansion fees etc, when the players take an equity stake in the teams they can reap the benefits. I see little reason why they shpuld both get the expanded jobs, payroll, and a cut of the fees. They take no financial risk anywhere so no risk, no reward there.
Shermans march has begun with these 2 ********.
Right, we don't live in a world where non-unionized workers are exploited. It's called fantasyland.
More sarcasm. Sad, really.
Anyway, none of the NHL players are being exploited. With no union, if players felt they were being exploited, they would join a rival competitor league. Competition and the free market have a way of working these things out. Inefficiencies are exploited, not the workforce.
Anyway, none of the NHL players are being exploited. With no union, if players felt they were being exploited, they would join a rival competitor league. Competition and the free market have a way of working these things out. Inefficiencies are exploited, not the workforce.
Here's what you said:
Quote:
They served a purpose historically. We don't live in that world anymore. Plenty of reasons why and not the least of which is our very litigious society and comprehensive legal and regulatory system.
There's nothing in there about hockey players. You were obviously referring to unions in general. If you actually believe there is no need for unions in today's world, you're deluded. No sarcasm intended.
There were many conflicting reports Friday night. The NHL agreed to take ownership of $211 million US for the "make-whole" provision over the next two years. The PA responded that simply didn't make everyone whole.
Meanwhile, Larry Brooks of The New York Post tweeted the NHLPA asked for a revenue guarantee that "would likely eat 65-67 pct of revenue in 66-68 game season."
That was immediately disputed. Here's the problem:
From what I understand, the NHLPA's proposal is based on an 82-game season. That sounds preposterous, and looking for an explanation, I was told, "We decided to work on the overall framework first, and adjust for a shortened season after."
The NHL's position includes provisions for a loss in overall revenue for 2012-13.
"We're not looking at a $3.3 billion business anymore," one governor said to me, referring to the effect of a compressed schedule.
Anyway, none of the NHL players are being exploited. With no union, if players felt they were being exploited, they would join a rival competitor league. Competition and the free market have a way of working these things out. Inefficiencies are exploited, not the workforce.
Exactly, that's why boxing is the most efficient and least exploitive professional sport out there- no unions and plenty of different organizations to choose between.
From what I understand, the NHLPA's proposal is based on an 82-game season. That sounds preposterous, and looking for an explanation, I was told, "We decided to work on the overall framework first, and adjust for a shortened season after."
This statement at face value makes sense, doesn't it? Agree on the overall framework and then adjust for a shortened season. I see nothing wrong there and if the NHL is balking at that because they think that the players are asking for full value based on 82 games then there is a failure to communicate and something is not being explained properly.
Ah well, I'm going to do what I'm sure the owners and players are doing with us.......Forget about them and head out to enjoy my Saturday night.
Exactly, that's why boxing is the most efficient and least exploitive professional sport out there- no unions and plenty of different organizations to choose between.
