HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-10-2012, 01:28 PM
  #51
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
What part of it? Fehr's uncompromising offers and failure to attempt to reach a middle ground with the owners? Or that he expects players to get paid for 82 games for a 66 game season? Or that every meeting 'didn't go well' because the owners aren't dropping down to the PA's level?
The Owners self inflicted the lockout on themselves by their own actions of locking out the players and taking away their keys. If the Owners lose money in the process of those actions, then why should the NHLPA be flipping the bill of those costs?.

NHLPA has stated many times they would continue to play right now under their current legal binding contracts (just like last year, and the year previously etc) until a settlement is reached and no damage of lost HRR would be occurring, if they had their way or any say in the matter.

If the Owners decided they're willing to play a shortened season, that is their prerogative to do so as its their building.. However a players contract states he earns XX $$ for the 2012-13 season, then the number of games played is a non factor in that as its not a per game salary but rather per year/season instead.

While Fehr is likely not going to hold firm on this demand long-term, he is strategically using it as a bargaining chip against Bettman who in addition to a 50/50 HRR split is seeking numerous player contract claw-back rights (UFA status age, Contract lengths, Arbitration rights,etc) all to the NHL favour and advantage.

Fehr is of the belief that since the players are willing to meet the owners at 50/50 (-12% reduction for them) they don't need to cave into all these other Bettman league demands also.. Agreeing to eventually pro-rate salaries for lost games and splitting the lockout cost 50/50 also is an offset to Bettman relinquishing his demands in player contract infringement areas (which the players currently own) to get a final deal done.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 01:29 PM
  #52
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Naz View Post
I think the PA is being fair. They are willing to go to 50/50 eventually, but Bettman won't accept a deal that isn't an absolute win for the owners. It seems petty to me. Why not take the gradual slide of honouring the contracts they signed and call it a win. I think it's very fair.

Just because we are desperate for hockey (I sure as hell am) doesn't mean we need to believe everything said in the media. The media controlled by the owners. Don't forget who owns the leafs and what media outlets they have in their empire.
If Sportsnet (Owned by Rogers Media, partial owners of MLSE and thus the Toronto Maple Leafs) are the ones saying that Bettman was lying about the players being left in the dark, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Bettman is the spokesperson for the owners but one of the owner's station is saying Bettman was lying?

I don't know what to believe.

Edit: My previous post should clear up your post, Mess. Regarding players 'really really wanting to play hockey but those nasty owners won't let them'

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!

Last edited by Mess: 11-10-2012 at 01:42 PM.
Hurt is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 01:40 PM
  #53
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
Edit: My previous post should clear up your post, Mess. Regarding players 'really really wanting to play hockey but those nasty owners won't let them'
If Bettman handed Fehr a proposal that was identical in every way to the current/recently expired one, Fehr would sign off on it by this afternoon, and we could have hockey tomorrow. Thus the belief that players would be playing right now if given the choice.

The Owners are not willing to play under the old CBA and thus we have a lockout.

Mess is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 01:42 PM
  #54
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
If Bettman handed Fehr a proposal that was identical in every way to the current/recently expired one, Fehr would sign off on it by this afternoon, and we could have hockey tomorrow. Thus the belief that players would be playing right now if given the choice.

The Owners are not willing to play under the old CBA and thus we have a lockout.
I understand that, Mess. But the old CBA was far too leaning towards the players. There needs to be an equilibrium between the people who own the teams and are putting THEIR money on the line and the people who are employees.

Hurt is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 01:47 PM
  #55
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
I understand that, Mess. But the old CBA was far too leaning towards the players. There needs to be an equilibrium between the people who own the teams and are putting THEIR money on the line and the people who are employees.
Fehr has agreed in his own NHLPA proposal to meet Owners at 50/50% HRR split, just as Bettman asked in his.

NHLPA is willing to give back just as requested in this area to help the Owners and game out.

So why aren't the Owners signing off on a deal, and lifting the lockout that gives them their desired equilibrium of revenue splitting?

Mess is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 01:54 PM
  #56
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Fehr has agreed in his own NHLPA proposal to meet Owners at 50/50% HRR split, just as Bettman asked in his.

NHLPA is willing to give back just as requested in this area to help the Owners and game out.

So why aren't the Owners signing off on a deal, and lifting the lockout that gives them their desired equilibrium of revenue splitting?
Isn't the 50/50 HRR split after 3 years?

Hurt is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 01:57 PM
  #57
The Naz
With God given hands
 
The Naz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
Isn't the 50/50 HRR split after 3 years?
What's so wrong with that? That's a MASSIVE concession in itself. I'm sure a large number of owners are cool with that. As some would be cool with the expired CBA.

The Naz is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 01:59 PM
  #58
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Naz View Post
What's so wrong with that? That's a MASSIVE concession in itself. I'm sure a large number of owners are cool with that. As some would be cool with the expired CBA.
The last CBA lasted 7 years? 3 years is almost halfway to that. To reach optimal levels for the owners, it would take 3 years? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Hurt is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 05:30 PM
  #59
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
The way I see it is: I as a worker do not agree with the boss about a contract deal. The boss tells me I can't work till there's a deal in place; fair enough at 9AM in the morning. We eventually reach a deal at 1PM and work goes till 5PM. I walk in to the boss's office and say "Hey. I should get paid from 9-5 because we couldn't reach a deal and you told me I can't come in!" Wouldn't I get laughed out of the office?

It takes two to tango, and the NHLPA clearly didn't have an interest in playing all 82 games in the first place. If anything, the NHL even wanted a full season starting November 1st. That seems like having an interest in a full season to me. Are the NHLPA that much better and of higher value than us 'regular folks' that they should get paid for something they DIDN'T participate in i.e. 82 games?
I agree they should be paid pro-rated based on the games played.

However, how about this?

You don't have a contract (the players do but that's besides the point) and the boss says come in at 8 and discuss it.

He says you can have your old job but at 60% of what I used to pay you. You decline but he says come in tomorrow and discuss this further.
Next day he offers you 62%. No thanks.
This goes on for 3 weeks where you've been lowballed.

You get offered 90%, but half hour lunches, and longer hours, and reduced benefits, and no pension plan but since you really don't have a lot of worth you take it.

Now after the fact he says you owe him his loss of revenue because he was willing to hire you 3 weeks ago. So not only are you making 90% with less benefits, he's going to hold back money from you because he lost 3 weeks of revenue that you caused because you wouldn't sign for 60%.

Sounds about right.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 07:54 PM
  #60
Leafs For Life*
Nothing
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,636
vCash: 500
Didn't the NHL offer back in 2005 a 50 year CBA with about 70/30 in favor of the PA+adding salary cap, PA countered with 57/43 and then NHL signed on a shorter term with both? If true, damn I wish we signed that.

Leafs For Life* is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:22 AM
  #61
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Is it me or is anyone else a little puzzled as to why the hell NHL players even have a union????

I thought trade unions were implemented to protect workers from unfair work practices. They were designed so employers can not take advantage of employees and to give the little guy power.

Here we have a trade union fighting to protect an employee's "Bargaining power"???? Who gives a **** about a players bargaining power!! Seriously! The union in this circumstance is just getting in teh way. The players have never been mistreated or abused or taken advantage of (In the modern era anyway). They have actually been pampered and treated too well to a point that has become detrimental to the league.

The union is standing in the way of a necessary shift in the business model of the league that is needed to preserve it's health and longterm growth. The union should step aside and only intervene if it feels players are being abused or mistreated. Single hotel rooms on road games is not mistreatment of employees and not a issue fort the union. Union's have forgotten their role and are steeping out of their grounds.

The league wants to lower revenue because it feels it is necessary. Players should either agree or walk.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:26 AM
  #62
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
Is it me or is anyone else a little puzzled as to why the hell NHL players even have a union????

I thought trade unions were implemented to protect workers from unfair work practices. They were designed so employers can not take advantage of employees and to give the little guy power.

Here we have a trade union fighting to protect an employee's "Bargaining power"???? Who gives a **** about a players bargaining power!! Seriously! The union in this circumstance is just getting in teh way. The players have never been mistreated or abused or taken advantage of (In the modern era anyway). They have actually been pampered and treated too well to a point that has become detrimental to the league.

The union is standing in the way of a necessary shift in the business model of the league that is needed to preserve it's health and longterm growth. The union should step aside and only intervene if it feels players are being abused or mistreated. Single hotel rooms on road games is not mistreatment of employees and not a issue fort the union. Union's have forgotten their role and are steeping out of their grounds.

The league wants to lower revenue because it feels it is necessary. Players should either agree or walk.
No I think you're all alone on your own island on this one.

Always interesting to hear/read new innovate ideas and beliefs, and this one certainly applies here to to ending this labour dispute.

Seriously, No players union ?

Mess is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:11 AM
  #63
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
Is it me or is anyone else a little puzzled as to why the hell NHL players even have a union????

I thought trade unions were implemented to protect workers from unfair work practices. They were designed so employers can not take advantage of employees and to give the little guy power.

Here we have a trade union fighting to protect an employee's "Bargaining power"???? Who gives a **** about a players bargaining power!! Seriously! The union in this circumstance is just getting in teh way. The players have never been mistreated or abused or taken advantage of (In the modern era anyway). They have actually been pampered and treated too well to a point that has become detrimental to the league.

The union is standing in the way of a necessary shift in the business model of the league that is needed to preserve it's health and longterm growth. The union should step aside and only intervene if it feels players are being abused or mistreated. Single hotel rooms on road games is not mistreatment of employees and not a issue fort the union. Union's have forgotten their role and are steeping out of their grounds.

The league wants to lower revenue because it feels it is necessary. Players should either agree or walk.
Along those lines, the NHL could just fold and tear up all the contracts.

A new league could be formed and the players and owners who want a partnership could do so.

Owners think they're living in an age where human beings aren't allowed to stand up for themselves. Maybe they should move to China.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:54 PM
  #64
trellaine201
Registered User
 
trellaine201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Left coast
Posts: 6,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
Is it me or is anyone else a little puzzled as to why the hell NHL players even have a union????

I thought trade unions were implemented to protect workers from unfair work practices. They were designed so employers can not take advantage of employees and to give the little guy power.

Here we have a trade union fighting to protect an employee's "Bargaining power"???? Who gives a **** about a players bargaining power!! Seriously! The union in this circumstance is just getting in teh way. The players have never been mistreated or abused or taken advantage of (In the modern era anyway). They have actually been pampered and treated too well to a point that has become detrimental to the league.

The union is standing in the way of a necessary shift in the business model of the league that is needed to preserve it's health and longterm growth. The union should step aside and only intervene if it feels players are being abused or mistreated. Single hotel rooms on road games is not mistreatment of employees and not a issue fort the union. Union's have forgotten their role and are steeping out of their grounds.

The league wants to lower revenue because it feels it is necessary. Players should either agree or walk.

You mean players association. Big difference!

trellaine201 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 06:01 PM
  #65
crump
~ ~ (ړײ) ~ ~
 
crump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ontariariario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,277
vCash: 671
Burke quiet about talks. Gag order....

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...ks-to-himself/

Two sides sound far apart still. Either a half season or none at all IMHO.

crump is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:28 PM
  #66
The Naz
With God given hands
 
The Naz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,563
vCash: 500
Surprised no one talking about this:

http://sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-locko..._mark_spector/

Quote:
It has come to this:

Even people on Gary Bettman's side no longer know what they're fighting for.

Three league executives contacted Monday all gave the same general answer when we asked why Gary Bettman should care how the players' money gets split up, as long as he gets them to 50-50 with the players.

To a man, the three voices echoed the same sentiment (and we paraphrase): "Get rid of the back-diving contracts, because those work against the spirit of the cap. After that, player contracting rights matter very little to me."

The Naz is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:49 PM
  #67
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,712
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409338

Quote:
"You kind of hear the same things coming out of the meetings all the time. Just waiting to hear something new from their side. It's almost to the point where you don't want to ask because you know you're going to get the same answer you got a week before."
Wonder how long before Sid goes overseas?

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:54 PM
  #68
HOCKEYGOON
Registered User
 
HOCKEYGOON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Penalty Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409338



Wonder how long before Sid goes overseas?
It's almost impossible for him to go overseas.... he would need to pay $400K per month in insurance.

HOCKEYGOON is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:57 PM
  #69
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409338



Wonder how long before Sid goes overseas?
Sidney at home right now



I doubt he CAN go overseas. Probably costs too much.

Hurt is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:04 PM
  #70
p.l.f.
mvp
 
p.l.f.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 36,156
vCash: 500
where's a mediator when you need one ?

p.l.f. is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:05 PM
  #71
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
Sidney at home right now


I doubt he CAN go overseas. Probably costs too much.
He's in a poor situation, wouldn't want to screw up his guaranteed money by playing for free but it might put some more pressure on the Penguins if he did.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 08:29 AM
  #72
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Along those lines, the NHL could just fold and tear up all the contracts.

A new league could be formed and the players and owners who want a partnership could do so.

Owners think they're living in an age where human beings aren't allowed to stand up for themselves. Maybe they should move to China.
What are they standing up against??? A 50/50 split? Maintaining their bargaining power???

If the owners were mistreating or abusing the players then I would completely stand behind them! But the league trying to realign itself for the longterm good of the game??? Hardly something the players should be standing up against.

Seems to me that this is a necessary step and the PA getting in the way is just costing us a season!!

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 08:33 AM
  #73
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
No I think you're all alone on your own island on this one.

Always interesting to hear/read new innovate ideas and beliefs, and this one certainly applies here to to ending this labour dispute.

Seriously, No players union ?
The players union shoudl be involved when the league is abusing the rights of the player or mistreating them.

Increased bargaining power is not a right!

If my employer wants to change the promotion structure in teh office to ensure only people deserving of promotions receive one then by all means that is his right to do so. Owners want to change some of the contract issues to protect their investments. They invest alot of time and money into players and their teams so it is their right to ensure policies help them in this.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:08 AM
  #74
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
The players union shoudl be involved when the league is abusing the rights of the player or mistreating them.

Increased bargaining power is not a right!

If my employer wants to change the promotion structure in teh office to ensure only people deserving of promotions receive one then by all means that is his right to do so. Owners want to change some of the contract issues to protect their investments. They invest alot of time and money into players and their teams so it is their right to ensure policies help them in this.
The owners locked them out and are trying to decrease everything the players have.

Players didn't walk out demanding more. You have it all wrong, they aren't trying to increase their bargaining power whatsoever.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:30 AM
  #75
gabeliscious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
couldnt they just extend the old cba for 1 year so that hockey can go on while they negotiate?

why didnt they just start negotiating sooner?

gabeliscious 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 12:43 PM.

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.