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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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
Can you tell me why you believe that Bettman is at fault for any of the lockouts?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
)
