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
11-13-2012, 08:41 AM
  #76
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
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.
Their fighting like hell so they don't lose any though.

I'm not saying they should just give in on every contract demand but elimination of cap-circumventing contracts is a valid concern and a valid issue to resolve.

Increasing the UFA age by a year is not such a bad idea either. I mean the owners could be asking for non-guaranteed performance based contracts in which players would actually have to fulfill their full duties to get the agreed upon full contract amount but they aren't

They just want it so owners have an extra year to evaluate players so undeserving players aren't getting ridiculous contracts. If players don;t do well they still get paid the full amount, if teams don;t do well they lose money. The players make out winners in all scenario's.

I'd keep the year-by-year variance rule and the rules of retiring contracts staying on the books. I'd eliminate the 5 year contract length.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 08:44 AM
  #77
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
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!!
I can see where by Bettman (Owners) tactics they hope to inflict their version of Communist Hockey rule upon the NHLPA by diminishing player rights/say to their own personal gain, but that is the very reason there is a union in order to prevent this type of strong arm tactics from being condoned and enforced, without legal representation to preserve them.

__________________
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
11-13-2012, 08:45 AM
  #78
egd27
#freethebigpicture
 
egd27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,732
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.
Perhaps the Union and a CBA is the major reason the league is unable to abuse their rights or mistreat them. Have you considered that?

egd27 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:02 AM
  #79
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by egd27 View Post
Perhaps the Union and a CBA is the major reason the league is unable to abuse their rights or mistreat them. Have you considered that?
No because it is impossible to know.

I never mentioned anything about abolishing the CBA. Only that the NHLPA should take more of a monitoring role instead of a negotiating role.

But a 50/50 split in an increasing revenue is hardly something that needs to be squabbled over. Also if a business wants to change their own contracting policies who are the employees to tell them different.

What it all boils down to is the player had every right to choose to play in the NHL or not. They chose to play and it is crazy that they know fight against a league trying to rectify problems. It is no secret that there are a number of teams in severe financial hardship and obvious to everyone that something has to be done.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:05 AM
  #80
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I can see where by Bettman (Owners) tactics they hope to inflict their version of Communist Hockey rule upon the NHLPA by diminishing player rights/say to their own personal gain, but that is the very reason there is a union in order to prevent this type of strong arm tactics from being condoned and enforced, without legal representation to preserve them.
The NHL trying to keep a bunch of their teams afloat and maybe even profitable is communist???? Hahaha!!! You better check out the definition of communism.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:28 AM
  #81
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
The NHL trying to keep a bunch of their teams afloat and maybe even profitable is communist???? Hahaha!!! You better check out the definition of communism.
What do you think the Owners would do if there was no union? The HRR pie would be split 95% owners and 5% player salaries, no questions asked.

If it helps, think of Donald Fehr as Robin Hood for the Players Association, robbing from the billionaire Owners and giving to the poorer Players, while standing in the way of taxation without representation for the players.

Since everyone loves an underdog, particularly one that stands in the way of tyranny, by refusing to allow ownership from enforcing their version of Martial Law from being imposed for profitability and personal gain reasons.


Last edited by Mess: 11-13-2012 at 10:17 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:58 AM
  #82
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
What do you think the Owners would do if there was no union? The HRR pie would be split 95% owners and 5% player salaries, no questions asked.

If it helps, think of Donald Fehr as Robin Hood for the Players Association, robbing from the billionaire Owners and giving to the poorer Players, while standing in the way of taxation without representation for the players.

Since everyone loves an underdog, particularly one that stands in the way tyranny, by refusing to allow ownership from enforcing their version of Martial Law from being imposed for profitability and personal gain reasons.
No! It would certainly not be 95% - 5%!! Players would still be able to strike, play overseas or even rival leagues start up. There would still be many avenues for players to be safeguarded. The internal competition between teams would always ensure players got compensated very well. The CBA is just as much there to protect owners from each other than it is to protect players from owners.

Donald Fehr is no Robin Hood! You make it seem as though every owner is making millions off their team. True, every owner is very wealthy from their given outside business ventures. But because their wealthy from their other interests does that mean they shouldn't make money from their hockey team also. That because they have been successful outside of the NHL, the players should get all the NHL money while some owners make nothing or even pay their own money. Some people seem to be confused that the NHL is a not-for-profit charity who's sole responisbility is to provide a hockey team for players to make money off and fans to watch. The NHL is a business and there is nothing wrong with the NHL trying to make it a profitable business for the stake-holders outside of the NHLPA.

Tyranny and Martial law????? I see the NHL funding the Phoenix Coyotes so that those players even have a team to play on. I see revenue sharing from the richer teams so that the troubled teams can even ice a hockey team. Their is no tyranny or Martial law!! Since when is 50/50 split of revenues considered tyranny??? The NHL is doing everything to maintain the league and ensure these players can even play, yet they are considered villains because they want a 50/50 split like every other sport and want to keep some profits for themselves. The players are no victims unless they keep letting their so-called principals get in the way and then they will only be victims of theirselves when teams start folding.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 10:27 AM
  #83
egd27
#freethebigpicture
 
egd27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
No because it is impossible to know.

I never mentioned anything about abolishing the CBA. Only that the NHLPA should take more of a monitoring role instead of a negotiating role.

But a 50/50 split in an increasing revenue is hardly something that needs to be squabbled over. Also if a business wants to change their own contracting policies who are the employees to tell them different.

What it all boils down to is the player had every right to choose to play in the NHL or not. They chose to play and it is crazy that they know fight against a league trying to rectify problems. It is no secret that there are a number of teams in severe financial hardship and obvious to everyone that something has to be done.
The employees, in this case, are exercising their rights as union members under the labor laws established. They are entitled to bargain for the best deal they can get as much as the owners are entitled to bargain for their best deal.

You are correct that each player had a choice to play in the NHL or not, however, you neglect to mention that there are businessmen that had every right to not purchase teams in markets like, Nashville, Phoenix, Miami, Columbus, etc.

They also complete against each other for the ability to sign players to play on their teams, which resulted in the escalation of salaries in the first place.

I don't really care who "wins" in this negotiation, but I don't agree that the ills of the NHL rest solely on one side.

egd27 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:52 AM
  #84
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by egd27 View Post
The employees, in this case, are exercising their rights as union members under the labor laws established. They are entitled to bargain for the best deal they can get as much as the owners are entitled to bargain for their best deal.

You are correct that each player had a choice to play in the NHL or not, however, you neglect to mention that there are businessmen that had every right to not purchase teams in markets like, Nashville, Phoenix, Miami, Columbus, etc.

They also complete against each other for the ability to sign players to play on their teams, which resulted in the escalation of salaries in the first place.

I don't really care who "wins" in this negotiation, but I don't agree that the ills of the NHL rest solely on one side.
What labour laws??

There's a big difference between a player deciding to play in the NHL and an owner deciding to buy a team. The main difference is no matter what that player will get paid and never lose out and never have to share in the risk. He sits back and reaps the reward in those cities while that owner shells out of his own pocket. You never hear the players complaining about those teams being there, because it created more jobs for them. Donald Fehr is widely reported as revenue sharing being one of his top issues meaning they know there is a problem they just don;t want to help fix it and feel the other teams should. The players reap every reward and share no negative reprecussions or risks dealt with owning or running an NHL franchise.


With owners competing to sign players, players will always be assured to be well-compensated which is why having a union is redundant. The CBA is for a large part protection for the owners from each other. What is wrong with containing salaries when revenues keep growing. Some owners have been losing out for quite awhile yet kept their team going. Why is it not time for them to cap the salary growth momentarily so that they too can share in the increased revenue??? All the owners want is to make money like the players make money. Their demands are far from unreasonable and will go to making this a more entertaining league. The players need to accept the 50/50 and some of the contract limits and move on. It is for the good of everyone!

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:30 PM
  #85
GoodHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 32
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
What labour laws??
There are labour laws that prevent a company from 'owning the rights to workers'. Major League Baseball was granted an exemption to those laws, so that they could maintain a league that developed players under one team. But they were required to negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players' union in exchange for the exepmtion. This happened back in the 1970s, lead by Curt Flood, who refused to be traded, and ultimately became the first free agent.

GoodHockey is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:35 PM
  #86
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodHockey View Post
There are labour laws that prevent a company from 'owning the rights to workers'. Major League Baseball was granted an exemption to those laws, so that they could maintain a league that developed players under one team. But they were required to negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players' union in exchange for the exepmtion. This happened back in the 1970s, lead by Curt Flood, who refused to be traded, and ultimately became the first free agent.
Well that's a pretty damn good explanation to what labour laws.

How does that relate to hockey? Same exemption? What about RFA status, does that not play a role?

Thanks for the info, I was fully unaware! Kodos!

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:19 PM
  #87
GoodHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 32
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
Well that's a pretty damn good explanation to what labour laws.

How does that relate to hockey? Same exemption? What about RFA status, does that not play a role?

Thanks for the info, I was fully unaware! Kodos!
I cannot claim to be anywhere near an expert on the topic. But the main labour laws which MLB was given an exemption were the anti-trust laws in the US. There is a long history of law suits in MLB that go back to late 1800's even. Many of the law suits were centered around the restrictions on players' freedoms that owners implemented to keep salaries down, and to hold onto players (or to sell them off c.f. Babe Ruth), and to fight off rival leagues (AL vs NL).
At the time MLB was the only truly professional league, but I believe the other sport leagues were given equivalent status once they come into the scene.
I think the topics of RFA status, and duration until UFA status, are essentially the restrictions that players collectively give up in order to have the collective benefits of a stable league - which is presumably supposed to be higher salaries - but that could be debatable...

Curt Flood is a very interesting case study. I believe he sat out a year following his trade to Phillies, in protest. He eventually won his lawsuit, and achieved free agent position. I don't think he played much longer after that.

GoodHockey is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:54 PM
  #88
p.l.f.
mvp
 
p.l.f.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 34,909
vCash: 500
we need another meeting soon

p.l.f. is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 09:32 AM
  #89
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.l.f. View Post
we need another meeting soon
There really is no value in meeting as long as Bettman and Owners are not prepared to negotiate, but rather simply making take it or leave it offers to the NHLPA, as that is a one sided tactic with no potential resolution.

The NHL wants to be 50/50 partners and the NHLPA is willing to meet them there for financial prosperity for the league. But Bettman also wants not only an equal split, he wants to dictate through players contracting rights/restrictions how the NHLPA will split their 50% among themselves, which really is none of his business.

Mess is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:53 AM
  #90
egd27
#freethebigpicture
 
egd27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
There's a big difference between a player deciding to play in the NHL and an owner deciding to buy a team. The main difference is no matter what that player will get paid and never lose out and never have to share in the risk. He sits back and reaps the reward in those cities while that owner shells out of his own pocket.
Why should the player share in the risk? The owner took on that burden when he decided to purchase and operate a team. This is one of the things I shake my head at. The owner took on a risk, and now that there are negative consequences associated with that risk, they are looking for someone to bail them out. (Either revenue sharing or trying to reduce the implications of contracts that they themselves entered into)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
You never hear the players complaining about those teams being there, because it created more jobs for them. Donald Fehr is widely reported as revenue sharing being one of his top issues meaning they know there is a problem they just don’t want to help fix it and feel the other teams should. The players reap every reward and share no negative repercussions or risks dealt with owning or running an NHL franchise.
I would argue that the players have been willing to make concessions in order to “fix” a problem, however, they don’t want the entire “fix” coming out of their pockets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
With owners competing to sign players, players will always be assured to be well-compensated which is why having a union is redundant. The CBA is for a large part protection for the owners from each other.
The union is what opened up the possibility for owners to compete to sign players. Prior to PA and a CBA, a team held the rights of a player forever without arbitration rights. So whatever a team offered a player was basically a “take it or leave” proposition. Sound like a familiar negotiating tactic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
What is wrong with containing salaries when revenues keep growing? Some owners have been losing out for quite awhile yet kept their team going. Why is it not time for them to cap the salary growth momentarily so that they too can share in the increased revenue??? All the owners want is to make money like the players make money.
Then perhaps they should be employees instead of being owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
Their demands are far from unreasonable and will go to making this a more entertaining league. The players need to accept the 50/50 and some of the contract limits and move on. It is for the good of everyone!
That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but I feel you being clouded by the “they make too much anyway” argument and not looking at both points of view.

egd27 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 06:54 PM
  #91
p.l.f.
mvp
 
p.l.f.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 34,909
vCash: 500
well if they dont start talking again soon the season could be done

p.l.f. is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 07:20 PM
  #92
Hurt
Global Moderator
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.l.f. View Post
well if they dont start talking again soon the season could be done
Well things could happen very quickly but I wouldn't be holding my breath. Too many issues and not enough compromise from either side. Mark Recchi tweeted something along the lines of that the longer that this lockout drags on, the worse the offers will get.

Third paycheques being missed tomorrow for the players.

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 08:09 PM
  #93
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
Well things could happen very quickly but I wouldn't be holding my breath. Too many issues and not enough compromise from either side. Mark Recchi tweeted something along the lines of that the longer that this lockout drags on, the worse the offers will get.

Third paycheques being missed tomorrow for the players.
Well if they wait long enough there won't be any players left to worry about.

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

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:03 AM
  #94
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
BETTMAN SUGGESTS TO NHLPA SIDES TAKE A BREAK IN NEGOTIATIONS
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409553

No concern about getting the season started.

Quote:
"We believe that it is more likely that we will make progress if we meet than if we don't," NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr said in a statement. "So we are ready to meet. If indeed they do not want to meet, it will be at least the third time in the last three months that they have shut down the dialogue, saying they will not meet unless the players meet their preconditions.

"What does that tell you about their interest in resolving this?"
Is there any constant in these labour disputes?

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:27 AM
  #95
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Damien Cox: Maple Leafs might be better off without a season

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...t-a-season-cox

Quote:
Obviously, it would be the worst way for Bell and Rogers to begin their stewardship of English Canada’s most famous franchise. Then again, these companies are so big they might barely notice.

But what about on the ice?

You can construct a case — not that Brian Burke would buy it — that missing the season wouldn’t be a bad thing at all for the Toronto hockey club.

For example, it would save the team from a chronic and self-destructive habit that has long bedevilled the team, and that’s rushing young players to the NHL without adequate training.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:00 PM
  #96
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
EuroVision: Leafs' Lupul slams Bettman's break

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...k_mike_keenan/

Quote:
The Toronto Maple Leafs star, who has never been shy about sharing his frustration with the lockout, responded to the news that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested the players and owners take a two-week break from negotiations.

Joffrey Lupul
@JLupul
Ya lets take 2 weeks off negotiating. Great approach. 10,000+ people out of a job because of this and we want to take a 2 week break. #nhl

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:23 PM
  #97
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,617
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409693

Quote:
According to Seravalli, Snider - who serves on the executive committee of the NHL's Board of Governors - is essentially of the opinion that the final deal that the owners will eventually get on revenue division and players' contract rights will not be as good as what NHL commissioner Gary Bettman originally envisioned. That being the case, writes Seravalli, the owners may only win the battle for a better revenue split, and still have to accept an angry fan base and sponsorship woes following a lockout that is in its third month.
So Bettman is the hold up on negotiations?

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:58 PM
  #98
The Naz
With God given hands
 
The Naz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409693



So Bettman is the hold up on negotiations?
I always ask this, but where is Seravalli's credibility at? There is a lot of hack writers out there. Either way, that makes sense. I'm sure if Bettman asked all the owners of the richer teams, he'd get a response similar to this.

It's not constructive to sit out this long for a deal like that. Not for what amounts to a temporary weening to what you really want. The amount they stand to lose over a lost season or even if they start Jan 1st, is far more compared to 2-3% of the HRR over 2-3 years.

Sponsorships, ticket sales, lost ground in new markets. Not worth it.

The Naz is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:10 PM
  #99
The Naz
With God given hands
 
The Naz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,372
vCash: 500
I've decided this year that I'm doing my own little protest to the NHL by not spending a penny on it for a year. I already have your standard HD cable package, so I will watch what I can, but I've cancelled LeafsTV, and won't be going to any games this year, won't be buying myself or my son any leaf gear.

After the last lockout ended I ran out like girl with Daddy issues and bought tickets for me and my (then) new wife to 2 games. Buying right in and forgiving right away. Not again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Or as a wise man once fumbled......


The Naz is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:02 PM
  #100
asdf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
Lupul is coming across as a real ****** during this lockout.

The toolbox executive director that you guys hired doesn't do anything until August despite requests by the league to start negotiating a year ago. Now, because the league suggests that they take a 2 week break, you go and act like a sarcastic twit on Twitter.

Lupul is reminding me a lot of McCabe during the last lockout.

asdf 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 12:24 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.