HFBoards

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

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 09:51 PM
  #826
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Told that PA proposed that players get last year's share plus 5 pct this yr regardless of schedule length/actual revenue...

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Last year's share was 1.883B...plus 5 pct would be $1.977B...would likely eat 65-67 pct of revenue in 66-68 game season.
Irresponsible reporting. Told be who? No need to name names, but if you aren't going to clarify which side / what level, you're just someone's stooge, or just incompetent.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 09:53 PM
  #827
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevUpThoseGolfCarts View Post
Can the players vote to fire this ****? Or are they stuck with him negotiating everything? Or do they really not care about hockey?

EDIT: Can't believe I used the word "negotiating" when discussing this...
The players can remove Fehr at any time.

Those demands are so absurd that I really can't think they are true

I'll wait until there's a bit more. Right now it seems like fairly transparent leaks designed to proactively shift blame before this all goes to ****.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 09:58 PM
  #828
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Irresponsible reporting. Told be who? No need to name names, but if you aren't going to clarify which side / what level, you're just someone's stooge, or just incompetent.
Brooks has been NHLPA mouthpiece thru this lockout

So if he is confirming it then it is from his sources which have been player this entire time

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 10:01 PM
  #829
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Irresponsible reporting. Told be who? No need to name names, but if you aren't going to clarify which side / what level, you're just someone's stooge, or just incompetent.
Brooks absolutely hates the NHL and would never post anything to badmouth the PA unless it was true

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 10:17 PM
  #830
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Just to put it out there, but the NHL's interests are best served by a massive public backlash against Fehr.

There were a half dozen players in the room the last few days, right? This doesn't add up.

Someone clarified it as the NHL was upset with Fehr for saying there was still a significant gap in the memo, therefore they believed he wasn't telling them everything.

Tonight Fehr comes out and says that they're not as far apart on economic issues as the NHL says.

So which is it Fehr? He's talking out of both sides of his mouth, and his ass.

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 10:19 PM
  #831
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Someone clarified it as the NHL was upset with Fehr for saying there was still a significant gap in the memo, therefore they believed he wasn't telling them everything.

Tonight Fehr comes out and says that they're not as far apart on economic issues as the NHL says.

So which is it Fehr? He's talking out of both sides of his mouth, and his ass.
I don't really see a double standard. Both things can be true, right?

There can be a significant gap that is less than the NHL believes, no?

Both sides are guilty of plenty of double-speak. I'm just trying to figure out what actually happened today to set off this flurry on NHL-side leaks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Brooks has been NHLPA mouthpiece thru this lockout

So if he is confirming it then it is from his sources which have been player this entire time
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Brooks absolutely hates the NHL and would never post anything to badmouth the PA unless it was true
Are you suggesting that came from the NHLPA? Because that seems unlikely.

I'm not sure there's much objective truth in either side at this point, I'm just saying, an actual, you know, reporter, doesn't drop blindly-sourced information with that kind of impact.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 10:23 PM
  #832
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I don't really see a double standard. Both things can be true, right?

There can be a significant gap that is less than the NHL believes, no?

Both sides are guilty of plenty of double-speak. I'm just trying to figure out what actually happened today to set off this flurry on NHL-side leaks.
I don't know, I'm just done reading about this crap. (my tweeter feed crap, not you guys )

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 02:59 AM
  #833
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuchySays View Post
Fehr is a clown. Season is over.
Fehr and Bettman are both stubborn jackasses.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 04:45 PM
  #834
FlyersFanz
aut viam inveniam au
 
FlyersFanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BlkVanOutsideUrHouse
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,020
vCash: 500
Can anyone tell me why Bettman still has a job in the NHL? 3 lockouts in 20 years and almost 900 million lost this season in revenue and the teams are still sticking with this jackass.

FlyersFanz is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 05:01 PM
  #835
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFanz View Post
Can anyone tell me why Bettman still has a job in the NHL? 3 lockouts in 20 years and almost 900 million lost this season in revenue and the teams are still sticking with this jackass.
Can you tell me why you believe that Bettman is at fault for any of the lockouts?

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 05:04 PM
  #836
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFanz View Post
Can anyone tell me why Bettman still has a job in the NHL? 3 lockouts in 20 years and almost 900 million lost this season in revenue and the teams are still sticking with this jackass.
Because the majority of the league's owners believe he has served their interests well?

Bettman's job isn't to protect the sport, its to protect the owners' bottom line.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 05:27 PM
  #837
Flyotes
DownieFaceSoftener
 
Flyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Because the majority of the league's owners believe he has served their interests well?

Bettman's job isn't to protect the sport, its to protect the owners' bottom line.
You're always good for rhetoric.

The owners know that getting a reasonable CBA protects their interests and by extension, the sport.

Flyotes is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 05:30 PM
  #838
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
You're always good for rhetoric.

The owners know that getting a reasonable CBA protects their interests and by extension, the sport.
I'm not sure what you mean,

Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you have some other explanation for why Bettman is still around?

The poster asked why the owners have stood by Bettman despite his poor labor relations record. I simply suggested that, in essence, the majority of owners were with him at every turn.

Getting a reasonable CBA protects both sides interests long-term, but that doesn't answer the poster's question, which is more about the past, right?

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 05:38 PM
  #839
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFanz View Post
Can anyone tell me why Bettman still has a job in the NHL? 3 lockouts in 20 years and almost 900 million lost this season in revenue and the teams are still sticking with this jackass.
First : They didn't lose any money because it was not guaranteed to them. That's like game companies using illegal downloads as lost sales.

Second : He has done his job. Making the league a ton of money. If you can't see that, I suggest you read some of the stickied threads on the business board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Can you tell me why you believe that Bettman is at fault for any of the lockouts?
uninformed person going along with the masses

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 07:43 PM
  #840
Flyotes
DownieFaceSoftener
 
Flyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I'm not sure what you mean,

Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you have some other explanation for why Bettman is still around?

The poster asked why the owners have stood by Bettman despite his poor labor relations record. I simply suggested that, in essence, the majority of owners were with him at every turn.

Getting a reasonable CBA protects both sides interests long-term, but that doesn't answer the poster's question, which is more about the past, right?
No, what happened is that a poster assumed that Bettman was the cause of numerous lockouts and instead of looking at the situations he was in, you made a baseless claim about owner's motivations -- that they care about the bottom line instead of the sport.

I pointed out it is both.

You jumped on someone's comment to make a real point: They believe he is serving their interests.

Then stuck a speculative barb in about the nature of those motivations. "Bettman's job isn't to protect the sport, its to protect the owners' bottom line."

C'mon brutha. It's a dig and completely unable to be proved. Hallmark of nonsense -- and dishonest people. It's also dishonest that your claiming your legitimate point was the only comment you made. I mean, c'mon, how could I be upset with your reasonable point... as if that is where your commenting ended.

Flyotes is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 08:16 PM
  #841
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
No, what happened is that a poster assumed that Bettman was the cause of numerous lockouts and instead of looking at the situations he was in, you made a baseless claim about owner's motivations -- that they care about the bottom line instead of the sport.

I pointed out it is both.

You jumped on someone's comment to make a real point: They believe he is serving their interests.

Then stuck a speculative barb in about the nature of those motivations. "Bettman's job isn't to protect the sport, its to protect the owners' bottom line."

C'mon brutha. It's a dig and completely unable to be proved. Hallmark of nonsense -- and dishonest people. It's also dishonest that your claiming your legitimate point was the only comment you made. I mean, c'mon, how could I be upset with your reasonable point... as if that is where your commenting ended.
I don't really see you're point, to be honest. I'm trying, but I can't. Perhaps it was buried underneath the insults. Are you disagreeing with me when I say that the owners continue to support Bettman because he has served their economic interests? Is there some other consideration I've missed?

Anyway, I guess we just disagree. I believe that Bettman's principle responsible is to protect the owners' interests, and that those interests are, above all, economic. "Bottom-line" seemed like a reasonable short-hand for that. He's not invested with something so grand as stewardship over the sport, and whenever he (or the NHLPA, to be fair) claims so, it strikes me as dishonest.

I don't dispute that the owners care about the sport of hockey--most people don't invest in athletic clubs solely for the potential profits involved. They care about the sport, but not to the point of sacrificing their bottom lines. Otherwise, we'd be seeing pucks right now, no?

Similarly, the players care about the sport, but not to the exclusion of their own economic situations.

Anyway, no reason to hijack this thread by trying to resolve (identify?) whatever your issue is with me. (I'm always "good for rhetoric?" )

If you care to, I'm happy to take it up via PM. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree, on whatever it is that we are agreeing or disagreeing about.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 01:48 PM
  #842
sa cyred
Yea....the Flyers...
 
sa cyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Traveling...
Country: Cuba
Posts: 15,768
vCash: 500
Well, positive thing is that they are meeting again today.

sa cyred is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 03:43 PM
  #843
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,891
vCash: 500
As an alternative to max contract lengths, couldn't the CBA instead stipulate that a player's pay over the course of a contract can never drop below 50% of the first year?

You'd get rid of heavy front loading and also make it impossible to tack on BS years at league minimum, or at a huge discount compared to cap hit.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 03:53 PM
  #844
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
As an alternative to max contract lengths, couldn't the CBA instead stipulate that a player's pay over the course of a contract can never drop below 50% of the first year?

You'd get rid of heavy front loading and also make it impossible to tack on BS years at league minimum, or at a huge discount compared to cap hit.
Isnt it already like that?

And that still leaves situations like this :

15 year contract at 112m

6m
14m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
3m
3m
3m
3m
3m
3m


it never drops below 50% of the first year

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 04:15 PM
  #845
thelos
Bunk
 
thelos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Isnt it already like that?

And that still leaves situations like this :

15 year contract at 112m

6m
14m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
3m
3m
3m
3m
3m
3m


it never drops below 50% of the first year
You definitely would not be able to increase by over 50% either is such a rule existed

thelos is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 05:28 PM
  #846
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
As an alternative to max contract lengths, couldn't the CBA instead stipulate that a player's pay over the course of a contract can never drop below 50% of the first year?

You'd get rid of heavy front loading and also make it impossible to tack on BS years at league minimum, or at a huge discount compared to cap hit.
There is an easier solution. The cap hit is always the highest salary point for one year during the deal.

6.5, 6.5, 6.5, 6.5, 1

Salary for the fifth year is 6.5. Simples. Owners can front load the **** out of it, not going to get them anywhere.

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 05:31 PM
  #847
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,093
vCash: 500
Yeah, that's not a very good solution.

Ryker is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 06:46 PM
  #848
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
You going to provide any insight? or just go with that.

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:00 PM
  #849
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,093
vCash: 500
All contracts would then end up having players being paid the same throughout the whole deal, and I don't think any of the two sides would agree to such inflexibility, much less push for it in contract negotiations.

Ryker is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:40 PM
  #850
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
As an alternative to max contract lengths, couldn't the CBA instead stipulate that a player's pay over the course of a contract can never drop below 50% of the first year?

You'd get rid of heavy front loading and also make it impossible to tack on BS years at league minimum, or at a huge discount compared to cap hit.
What about using an average of the 3 highest paid years, or something like that? Teams would have to smooth out salary, otherwise they'd have a player getting like a $11 mil cap hit for the duration of his deal.

EDIT: I think that solves one problem, but creates another. I don't think that would work.


Last edited by Protest: 11-11-2012 at 07:47 PM.
Protest 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 05:53 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.