HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

What Do You Think About Toews' Lockout Comments?

View Poll Results: What Do You Think About Toews' Lockout Comments?
I Agree With What He Says 6 25.00%
I Don't Agree With What He Says 13 54.17%
Other (Please Specify) 5 20.83%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-02-2012, 02:33 PM
  #51
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoil View Post
See, that's part of the problem. In corporate America, this **** doesn't happen, for the most part, at least it's very rare. When Unions threaten to go on strike, MOST of the time right now, they continue to work on the terms of their existing agreements and negotiate in good faith. Business goes on, a deal gets done, and that's that. These days that's mainly because of the poor economy and workers not wanting to take chances at losing their jobs, but the corporations don't end up overly screwing the Unions either.

But not in sports.

In sports these days, it's common practice for a lockout (the opposite of a strike). NBA, NFL, NFL Refs, and the NHL now. Sides don't even start TALKING until a lockout is in place. It's an abysmal way to run a successful business, especially one that is so dependent on the public eye. I'm fed up with professional sports in general for this stance. There is ZERO reason the fans should get caught in the middle. Keep working on the terms of your old CBA until you figure your **** out.

The fact that makes this even less tolerable is exactly the point the prior poster made: It's Millionaires vs Billionaires. Well you know what? **** THEM ALL. They are all greedy, whiny *****es, who have more money than any of us would hope to have (even the fringe players do pretty damn well) and they are here to ENTERTAIN US. That's why they exist. Watching them squabble and do nothing with their millions is pathetic. Keep working. Keep the fans happy. Work under your prior terms, and negotiate behind closed doors instead of in front of the media. That should be how these get done in the future.

(yea....right...that's going to happen)
Agree with all of this, although I have to add again that calling a lockout the opposite of a strike is too technical - for all intents and purposes, they are the same thing, i.e. at least one side refusing to continue working.

But now I'm contradicting myself since I said I hate technical arguments, so I'll just leave that there

Anyway, I couldn't agree more with your post. I am sick of this.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:01 PM
  #52
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deytookerjaabs View Post
I mean call the bluff in the sense that cutting a bit more off the players share to decrease payroll a bit isn't going to fix the huge gap in ticket sales/prices and popularity for the southern teams. Sure, out of 30 there will always be a few bad apples, but there is certainly a trend in the league's current problem. That's what's pathetic and it has nothing to do with the players.

I want to see the league actually make a serious effort in the south rather than just trying to cut payroll.
I think most everyone agrees with you but the players don't have a say on how the business side of the NHL is run.... and this is not what the new CBA is about. There's no question that Bettman has hung onto Coyotes for too long and spent way too much in doing so, for example, but the players can't do anything about that. After this ... Bettman really needs to re-examine all of the franchises that are consistently losing money. This lockout is doing more damage in that regard and if the players don't move, ironically, that may be the only thing that saves this season. The issue of losing sponsors is also a big factor and I'd wager that Fehr is banking that the pressure on Bettman will finally force the NHL to move closer to the players position. It's a helluva gamble though..

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:12 PM
  #53
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoil View Post
See, that's part of the problem. In corporate America, this **** doesn't happen, for the most part, at least it's very rare. When Unions threaten to go on strike, MOST of the time right now, they continue to work on the terms of their existing agreements and negotiate in good faith. Business goes on, a deal gets done, and that's that. These days that's mainly because of the poor economy and workers not wanting to take chances at losing their jobs, but the corporations don't end up overly screwing the Unions either.

But not in sports.

In sports these days, it's common practice for a lockout (the opposite of a strike). NBA, NFL, NFL Refs, and the NHL now. Sides don't even start TALKING until a lockout is in place. It's an abysmal way to run a successful business, especially one that is so dependent on the public eye. I'm fed up with professional sports in general for this stance. There is ZERO reason the fans should get caught in the middle. Keep working on the terms of your old CBA until you figure your **** out.

The fact that makes this even less tolerable is exactly the point the prior poster made: It's Millionaires vs Billionaires. Well you know what? **** THEM ALL. They are all greedy, whiny *****es, who have more money than any of us would hope to have (even the fringe players do pretty damn well) and they are here to ENTERTAIN US. That's why they exist. Watching them squabble and do nothing with their millions is pathetic. Keep working. Keep the fans happy. Work under your prior terms, and negotiate behind closed doors instead of in front of the media. That should be how these get done in the future.

(yea....right...that's going to happen)
Probably the most sensible thing said about the lockout on this board so far.

Bettman said they only need to make minor tweeks before the old CBA was up. So why can't they continue to play under the old terms and figure it out over the course of time?

Lately, I just don't care anymore. Get this thing done and start playing hockey. The teams are going to lose money even if they do go 50/50 because they have royally ****ed the game over with this lockout.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:30 PM
  #54
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
**** You, Duthie
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 44,123
vCash: 500
I'm not from the board, just perusing. But I feel I should point out that the NHLPA stated they would've continued playing this year under the terms of the previous CBA, so I don't see how anyone could legitimately call what's happening now a "strike".

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:38 PM
  #55
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
I'm not from the board, just perusing. But I feel I should point out that the NHLPA stated they would've continued playing this year under the terms of the previous CBA, so I don't see how anyone could legitimately call what's happening now a "strike".
This has been addressed numerous times. The players would have simply refused to play in the playoffs.
It was a garbage tactic that the owners did not buy.
Fehr has had his unions do that before.

So yes, it might as well be a strike.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:58 PM
  #56
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deytookerjaabs View Post
I mean call the bluff in the sense that cutting a bit more off the players share to decrease payroll a bit isn't going to fix the huge gap in ticket sales/prices and popularity for the southern teams. Sure, out of 30 there will always be a few bad apples, but there is certainly a trend in the league's current problem. That's what's pathetic and it has nothing to do with the players.

I want to see the league actually make a serious effort in the south rather than just trying to cut payroll.
I think I see where you were taking it now, thanks for clearing it up. Now that Hicks, Atlanta Spirit, Palace S&E (and the clowns that bought from them), a chunk of Karmanos, Moyes, Checketts, etc. are out of the way, I think the league and individual franchises can focus on growth instead of just focusing on debt and overhead. If this agreement can somehow get the big boys to contribute more to revenue sharing, I think things in the smaller and southern markets will improve significantly.

I agree that it has nothing to do with the players and I agreed with their idea of greatly increasing the profit sharing with the smaller clubs. Unfortunately, players on the individual level or PA level do almost nothing to grow the sport in the states (compared to other big sports) so their input on the topic will fall on deaf ears. That will be the case even more so now that the players seem to be focusing primarily on keeping the existing contracts.

Anyway, to make a long post longer, I think most the new small market owners are better now than in 2004, and that may be because Gary promised all of them a very favorable CBA in order to secure the sales. If that is/was the case we probably never had a chance at close to a full season, but when hockey resumes, the chances of success with the smaller franchises/non-traditional hockey markets will be greatly improved down the road in my opinion.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 04:01 PM
  #57
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
The owners locked them out and the players made sure they were going to get themselves lockedout by extending the last CBA and never meeting with the owners to work on a new agreement after the 2011 season.
Technically, it is a lockout, but the term is a little misleading when determining how everything got to this point. Same with the 2 strikes and previous lockout.

I think calling it a stoppage would be appropriate?

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 05:29 PM
  #58
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
**** You, Duthie
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 44,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
This has been addressed numerous times. The players would have simply refused to play in the playoffs.
Not necessarily. Of course, if negotiations hadn't gotten anywhere by spring, there would be extra pressure for the owners to come to a compromise.

Quote:
So yes, it might as well be a strike.
And yet, it's not. The bottom line is that if it were up to the players, there would be NHL hockey right now.


Last edited by Rowdy Roddy Peeper: 11-03-2012 at 05:39 PM.
Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 05:38 PM
  #59
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
People calling for the league the continue under the old CBA while negotiating to a new CBA are delusional. If you think the players would have negotiated a deal while playing in the league after not negotiating for almost 2 years after the owners first asked your kidding yourself. Sadly the only way to negotiate this was the lockout the players since they refused to early. I just wish both sides had more of a sense of urgency instead of playing these games of meeting, not meeting, saying this or that. Get in a room and get it done like the NBA did with 15 straight hours of meeting.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 09:12 PM
  #60
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
Not necessarily. Of course, if negotiations hadn't gotten anywhere by spring, there would be extra pressure for the owners to come to a compromise.
Do you understand who Donald Fehr is? Are you aware of his history heading a union that is playing a season without a CBA agreement in place?

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 03:15 AM
  #61
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
**** You, Duthie
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 44,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Do you understand who Donald Fehr is? Are you aware of his history heading a union that is playing a season without a CBA agreement in place?
Yes. But the party which makes the preemptive move is still responsible for it, and the simple fact is that if it were up to the players there would be NHL hockey right now. With the owners' decision, there can't be.

There's also the matter of the MLB's collusion and unfair labor practices which precipitated the baseball strike and aren't applicable to the current NHL situation, so the two stoppages have some very notable differences that may have led this negotiation down a different path.

But we never got the opportunity to see if it could have.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 03:39 AM
  #62
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
Yes. But the party which makes the preemptive move is still responsible for it, and the simple fact is that if it were up to the players there would be NHL hockey right now. With the owners' decision, there can't be.

There's also the matter of the MLB's collusion and unfair labor practices which precipitated the baseball strike and aren't applicable to the current NHL situation, so the two stoppages have some very notable differences that may have led this negotiation down a different path.

But we never got the opportunity to see if it could have.
Why would the owners agree to go on and play a season with the current CBA, knowing full well what Fehr has done in the past with his unions?
It would be idiocy.
(Please don't make me defend either of these sides - I can't stand the crap both of them are making us fans deal with. Again).

Fehr, his hardlining, and his evident utter dominance of the player's union strongly suggest the NHLPA would have done the same thing as the MLBPA did under his guidance. I don't imagine many people at all who have followed him since his days there would disagree.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 03:44 AM
  #63
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Maybe it's time the NHLPA do what the NBAPA did and disband. The NBA players cut out the middle man and got a deal done. Maybe the players should do the something since Fehr doesn't care if there is hockeyes or not and they do.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 07:52 AM
  #64
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Maybe it's time the NHLPA do what the NBAPA did and disband. The NBA players cut out the middle man and got a deal done. Maybe the players should do the something since Fehr doesn't care if there is hockeyes or not and they do.
If nothing gets done in the next week, I agree. Fire his sorry ass.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 10:20 AM
  #65
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
if it were up to the players there would be NHL hockey right now. With the owners' decision, there can't be.
Of course there would be. By the end of the 2010 season the owners didn't want to play under the CBA because it heavily favored the players the last 2 years. It's similar to saying there would have been a whole season in 95' if it were up to the owners.

Neither side would agree to extend an agreement that wasn't working for one side for more than 2 years previous.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 10:42 PM
  #66
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
**** You, Duthie
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 44,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Why would the owners agree to go on and play a season with the current CBA, knowing full well what Fehr has done in the past with his unions?
It would be idiocy.
(Please don't make me defend either of these sides - I can't stand the crap both of them are making us fans deal with. Again).
Well, there would certainly be a lot more hockey this year if they had, for one. And as I pointed out, there were extenuating circumstances in the MLB strike that aren't in play for the NHL.

In the end, the people who actually initiate the stoppage are the ones who should be held accountable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Of course there would be. By the end of the 2010 season the owners didn't want to play under the CBA because it heavily favored the players the last 2 years. It's similar to saying there would have been a whole season in 95' if it were up to the owners.

Neither side would agree to extend an agreement that wasn't working for one side for more than 2 years previous.
Benefits the players a little too much for the owners' liking, anyway.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 11:04 PM
  #67
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,339
vCash: 500
No, the people who prolong the work stoppage with minimal actual negotiating spirit should be the ones held accountable. And that is both the players and the owners.

Why hockey fans insist on taking sides when both have shown an almost hilarious lack of any semblance of caring about them... it's just depressing.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 11:38 PM
  #68
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
Benefits the players a little too much for the owners' liking, anyway.
That's the point, it's their perspective that matters, not ours. In terms of the players offering to play under the previous agreement, their opinion doesn't matter to the owners at that point either.

Quote:
In the end, the people who actually initiate the stoppage are the ones who should be held accountable.
Yes, this chain of events has been more than 2 decades (arguably more than 3) in the making. Both sides have exchanged blows for years on each other. Both groups should be held accountable, but I think that's unlikely.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 03:04 AM
  #69
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
No, the people who prolong the work stoppage with minimal actual negotiating spirit should be the ones held accountable. And that is both the players and the owners.

Why hockey fans insist on taking sides when both have shown an almost hilarious lack of any semblance of caring about them... it's just depressing.
The only reason I side with the owners on this issue is if where up to the owners a new CBA would have been done 2 years ago when they tried to start negotiating with the PA. The players are the ones who refused to negotiate until the final hour and now we have this and now both are at fault, however if the players had negotiated when the owners first asked all this could have easily been avoided.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 08:18 AM
  #70
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
The only reason I side with the owners on this issue is if where up to the owners a new CBA would have been done 2 years ago when they tried to start negotiating with the PA. The players are the ones who refused to negotiate until the final hour and now we have this and now both are at fault, however if the players had negotiated when the owners first asked all this could have easily been avoided.
why do you think that? this current situation is not a result of not having sufficient time to negotiate things. if anything, even after they started to negotiate, the talks suffered from a lack of urgency by both sides.

i think that negotiations during the season would have been horrible - they would have been a huge distraction to the players. and long term negotiations would have presented an even great opportunity for the sides to get entrenched in their positions and hate each other.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 09:15 AM
  #71
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
i think that negotiations during the season would have been horrible - they would have been a huge distraction to the players. and long term negotiations would have presented an even great opportunity for the sides to get entrenched in their positions and hate each other.
I think closed door meetings would have been very appropriate after the 2011 season, open meetings maybe less so. I don't think labor negotiations are any more distracting than the speculation of a trade or impending free agency or contract extension talks.

Given the righteous indignation displayed by the players, I don't things would have been any worse. It would have been a great distraction during that 9 game losing streak too.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 05:07 PM
  #72
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
why do you think that? this current situation is not a result of not having sufficient time to negotiate things. if anything, even after they started to negotiate, the talks suffered from a lack of urgency by both sides.

i think that negotiations during the season would have been horrible - they would have been a huge distraction to the players. and long term negotiations would have presented an even great opportunity for the sides to get entrenched in their positions and hate each other.
It wouldn't be anymore of a distraction then the impending lockout this year.

Plus if negotiations had started sooner, when the owners first asked, the owners would not have asked for salary rollbacks which is one of the biggest issues right now. They agreed on a 50-50 split it's the other issues.

I think if they started negotiating 2 years ago, they get to a 50-50 split starting right then but all current contracts stay in place. The issue was 2 years of 57% contracts later drug some teams too far part the point of no return.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 06:10 PM
  #73
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,840
vCash: 500
I think the delay was a factor in precipitating the lowball original offer from the NHL, which got things off to a poor start. And if Fehr was at all serious about changing the whole structure of the deal, negotiations needed much more time than a couple of months to have anything in place at crunch time. He was dreaming as was the NHL in offering 43 percent out of the gate. Hopefully we'll soon be discussing this in the past tense.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 03:40 AM
  #74
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,884
vCash: 500
Toews is apparently finalizing his decision re: playing in Europe - don't know if it's genuine or if it's PA gamesmanship:

Hawks' Toews nearing Europe decision

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,1529707.story

Quote:
With no end in sight to the lockout that began Sept. 15 and no formal talks scheduled, the captain is poised to join a European team.

"It’s always on my mind," Toews said Wednesday after an informal workout with several Hawks teammates and other NHL players at Johnny's IceHouse in Chicago. "We’ll see what happens the next couple of weeks. We’re really getting to that point where enough is enough and if nothing happens, then decisions have to be made. We’ve hung tight long enough so we’ll see."
also, toews discussed his ongoing concussion issues:

Lockout helps Toews' mending process

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,4958451.story

(there are a bunch of quotes from him in the article i didn't paste here...so read for yourself!

Quote:
The Blackhawks captain wasn't 100 percent healed in July. Or October. In fact, it wasn't until late last week that Toews was convinced he's completely over the concussion that caused him to miss the final two months of the 2011-12 regular season before he returned in the postseason against the Coyotes.

While Toews was symptom-free and had cleared all the NHL-imposed concussion protocols before returning to the Hawks' lineup, there were lingering effects from the injury that even the 24-year-old center didn't realize were affecting him. They included balance and eyesight issues that were discovered and solved during a five-day stint at an Atlanta-area chiropractic neurology facility last week.
Quote:
Toews returned Saturday after spending time undergoing a battery of tests and corrective methods at the Carrick Institute at Life University in Marietta, Ga. The institute has treated other high-profile athletes, including the Penguins' Sidney Crosby, who has had his career threatened by concussions.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 06:36 AM
  #75
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,503
vCash: 500
a team he prefers or a country he wants to play?

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:58 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.