Did you read it or do you just not like the author?
The article points out that the league is right about the players needing to take a shave but things have only gotten to this point due to Bettman's bungling.
He bungled the last CBA by allowing long term contracts and an escalator.
He bungled expansion by not understanding the markets he was entering.
And he's bungled fostering any type of relationship with the PA.
At this stage and state of the CBA talks, how can anyone be siding with either sides. They're nothing but a bunch of crybabies and whiners. Reminds me of kids in a playground fighting over who gets to swing on the swings.
I'm all for the idea of gary leaving but i don't think it'll happen in fact i'd love it if fehr were to take a hike as well
@DarrenDreger: Candor and strong opinion are always welcome, however, Ian White calling Gary Bettman an "idiot" is disrespectful and requires an apology.
Oh now were name calling, great job Ian White that'll really hurt Bettman's feelings
I'm all for the idea of gary leaving but i don't think it'll happen in fact i'd love it if fehr were to take a hike as well
@DarrenDreger: Candor and strong opinion are always welcome, however, Ian White calling Gary Bettman an "idiot" is disrespectful and requires an apology.
Oh now were name calling, great job Ian White that'll really hurt Bettman's feelings
This just shows how much of a mickey mouse organization the nhl has become.
I really don't give a **** if there is a season anymore.
The NHL has been the only side to actually bring forward a reasonable proposal. The players should have signed it already.
Its only going to get worse. The "make whole" part of it is likely out the window now. The players keep bringing the same proposal to the table over and over. Not to mention showing up to meetings six hours late. Why would anyone even bother with that nonsense?
It isnt inconceivable that the lockout could go beyond just this season.
I agree the players have been real a** holes throughout this process but the owners walking away from the bargaining table was not a good idea and won't solve their problems. Gary Bettman is being a hypocrite earlier in the lockout he accused the pa' of not showing urgency, and rightfully so the pa' didn't start meeting til it was to late and took far to long to make their first proposal, But now when the level of urgency should be ramping up Bettman calls for a 2 week break in talks
Its difficult to say what happens next but i think the proposals will get better before they get worse i think when talks resume after this 2 or 3 week break the Bettman will return with a final save the season offer once the season is cancelled the owners proposals will get a lot worse for the players imo
I don't think the lockout extends into next season its possible but i think at some point a deal will be
Reached maybe sometime in the spring (if the lockout does go the distance)
The issues separating these two sides should not result in one cancelled season let alone more then that
Did you read it or do you just not like the author?
The article points out that the league is right about the players needing to take a shave but things have only gotten to this point due to Bettman's bungling.
The article pushes an empty, one-sided agenda. Not surprising, given who wrote it.
Quote:
He bungled the last CBA by allowing long term contracts and an escalator.
Allowing?
What Gary got out of that lockout is more than any other league has gotten out of a PA in a single labor dispute. You're seriously suggesting he should have asked for more? That would have been a good way to ensure the lockout went longer than July 2005.
Nevermind that it's a hindsight argument, since long term contracts and front/back loaded deals could only become a serious problem with a rapidly increasing cap - which could only happen with rapidly increasing revenues. Nobody predicted a $1B jump in revenue over the life of that CBA. If the cap were $50 million, we would not have the same problems.
Quote:
He bungled expansion by not understanding the markets he was entering.
Some of these markets are in trouble, but owners got massive expansion fees and players got a hundred plus new jobs. One or two markets on the brink doesn't erase the tangible financial benefit of a thirty club league.
Which, is kind of the primary function of his job as representive of the BoG.
I mean, I could see a point there if "buoying" these teams was actually a serious part of the owners agenda. It's not. It's the PA that's pushing huge revenue sharing, it's the PA that would be ammenable to a soft cap/no floor scenario. The NHL demands some degree of parity, they aren't here to guarantee success, they want a bigger slice of the pie across the board.
Which, every ounce of precedent and common sense says they should.
Quote:
And he's bungled fostering any type of relationship with the PA.
Gary has got to go.
Goodenow was and Fehr is utterly piss poor at the same thing. It's a two way street.
The NHLPA didn't exactly do any favors to the relationship between the Owners and the PA by hiring a man who's biggest claim to fame was ensuring that financial parity remain an impossibility in another league.
Please don't try to tell me we have to take Bill Simmons seriously.
That article from the Journal blog on the Florida Panthers possibly being profitable every year despite officially "losing money" is pretty interesting.
We don't get to see into the teams' books - I wonder how much the players are privy to.
Please don't try to tell me we have to take Bill Simmons seriously.
That article from the Journal blog on the Florida Panthers possibly being profitable every year despite officially "losing money" is pretty interesting.
We don't get to see into the teams' books - I wonder how much the players are privy to.
The PA got a look-in, and have never once claimed that teams are more profitable than the NHL claims.
Please don't try to tell me we have to take Bill Simmons seriously.
That article from the Journal blog on the Florida Panthers possibly being profitable every year despite officially "losing money" is pretty interesting.
We don't get to see into the teams' books - I wonder how much the players are privy to.
Willis's article is pretty misleading. The arena profit he quoted did not factor in the hockey losses. Arena deals mitigate the losses. I seriously doubt they entirely offset them for the sunbelt teams.
The article pushes an empty, one-sided agenda. Not surprising, given who wrote it.
Allowing?
What Gary got out of that lockout is more than any other league has gotten out of a PA in a single labor dispute. You're seriously suggesting he should have asked for more? That would have been a good way to ensure the lockout went longer than July 2005.
Nevermind that it's a hindsight argument, since long term contracts and front/back loaded deals could only become a serious problem with a rapidly increasing cap - which could only happen with rapidly increasing revenues. Nobody predicted a $1B jump in revenue over the life of that CBA. If the cap were $50 million, we would not have the same problems.
You have a case for the escalator. Can you name one other cap sport that allows for long-term guaranteed contracts? It was easily foreseeable that they would be used as a method of cap circumvention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13
Some of these markets are in trouble, but owners got massive expansion fees and players got a hundred plus new jobs. One or two markets on the brink doesn't erase the tangible financial benefit of a thirty club league.
Which, is kind of the primary function of his job as representive of the BoG.
I mean, I could see a point there if "buoying" these teams was actually a serious part of the owners agenda. It's not. It's the PA that's pushing huge revenue sharing, it's the PA that would be ammenable to a soft cap/no floor scenario. The NHL demands some degree of parity, they aren't here to guarantee success, they want a bigger slice of the pie across the board.
Which, every ounce of precedent and common sense says they should.
How do those expansion fees stack up to what could be two seasons of lost operations? If the BoG had no concern for struggling franchises we'd be watching NHL games right now. I do agree that real revenue sharing needs to be introduced. At least here the league has taken a step in the right direction with its most recent proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13
Goodenow was and Fehr is utterly piss poor at the same thing. It's a two way street.
The NHLPA didn't exactly do any favors to the relationship between the Owners and the PA by hiring a man who's biggest claim to fame was ensuring that financial parity remain an impossibility in another league.
The PA was incredibly foolish to fire Kelly and hire Fehr. Generally speaking a union full of millionaires shouldn't take advice from Buzz Hargrove.
You have a case for the escalator. Can you name one other cap sport that allows for long-term guaranteed contracts? It was easily foreseeable that they would be used as a method of cap circumvention.
Yes, but it was difficult to see how that circumvention could have become the problem it did with a 39M cap/7.8M max salary. The NHL could have gone after guaranteed contracts or term limits (they're going after term limits now) but again, that's as contentious an issue as any and would only contribute to a longer work-stoppage.
Quote:
How do those expansion fees stack up to what could be two seasons of lost operations? If the BoG had no concern for struggling franchises we'd be watching NHL games right now. I do agree that real revenue sharing needs to be introduced. At least here the league has taken a step in the right direction with its most recent proposal.
I'm saying that if you think this lockout is about the struggling teams (from the NHL's perspective), you aren't looking hard enough. The NHLPA's proposals have been far more weighted towards buoying the struggling teams with revenue sharing. The NHL isn't in a lockout because they want Florida and Phoenix to make money, they're in a lockout because they want stricter contract rights and a 7% increase in revenue across the board.
Which, at least the latter, is the precedent set by the recent NBA and NFL agreements.
Quote:
The PA was incredibly foolish to fire Kelly and hire Fehr. Generally speaking a union full of millionaires shouldn't take tactical advice from Buzz Hargrove.
You can see it as a reaction to Bettman being "the killer", but that would be counterproductive to the argument that Bettman isn't good at his job. I suppose my perspective is the owners. I feel that, whether or not they're in touch with the fans or behind us or whatever, that ultimately an owners win improves the game of hockey and the quality of the NHL. The last lockout was worth it, and what they're asking for now benefits us all by ensuring greater sustainability and a more sane free agency.
Yes, but it was difficult to see how that circumvention could have become the problem it did with a 39M cap/7.8M max salary. The NHL could have gone after guaranteed contracts or term limits (they're going after term limits now) but again, that's as contentious an issue as any and would only contribute to a longer work-stoppage.
I'm saying that if you think this lockout is about the struggling teams (from the NHL's perspective), you aren't looking hard enough. The NHLPA's proposals have been far more weighted towards buoying the struggling teams with revenue sharing. The NHL isn't in a lockout because they want Florida and Phoenix to make money, they're in a lockout because they want stricter contract rights and a 7% increase in revenue across the board.
Which, at least the latter, is the precedent set by the recent NBA and NFL agreements.
You can see it as a reaction to Bettman being "the killer", but that would be counterproductive to the argument that Bettman isn't good at his job. I suppose my perspective is the owners. I feel that, whether or not they're in touch with the fans or behind us or whatever, that ultimately an owners win improves the game of hockey and the quality of the NHL. The last lockout was worth it, and what they're asking for now benefits us all by ensuring greater sustainability and a more sane free agency.
From the NHL's perspective I think the lockout is about paying players a more fair share of revenue. They have a lot of conviction about the necessity of this because many teams are struggling.
I agree with you that it is in the best interest of the game to get the players wages down to a sustainable level. I just think the execution has been very poor for the past 20 years and the BoG should offer the PA Bettman's head on a stake as a consolation prize for this fight they are about to lose.
From the NHL's perspective I think the lockout is about paying players a more fair share of revenue. They have a lot of conviction about the necessity of this because many teams are struggling.
I agree with you that it is in the best interest of the game to get the players wages down to a sustainable level. I just think the execution has been very poor for the past 20 years and the BoG should offer the PA Bettman's head on a stake as a consolation prize for this fight they are about to lose.
Where I think it's fair to criticize Gary Bettman is within the purview of "fan relations". But ultimately, he wins these fights, and everybody (but greedy players who want the biggest slice of pie possible) win with him. Fans don't want to see that because he's a weasely little lawyer who "doesn't love the game" and isn't good at appeasing them.
Replacing Gary Bettman will only serve the fans if they replace him with a commissioner who will fight off the Fehr's and win these disputes. Economic disparity is far more damaging to a sport than any lockout ever will be.
Horrible article, bunch of emotional ranting with little or no basis in reality.
Blames Bettman for expansion into bad markets, something initiated, planned, and half executed before he was even hired.
Plays a half-assed game of hindsight(everyone but bettman knew they should have limited contract lengths during the last lockout, what an idiot!)
Implies Bettman is maliciously scuttling the league for his old bosses.
Oh, and props the players on a completely undeserved pedestal, and absolves the NHLPA of all responsibility for both lockouts. Which is a laughable stance considering they hired someone with Fehr's reputation to represent them, and easily disprovable with even a cursory glance at the PA's bargaining efforts during this lockout.
As an article - it's a media troll attempt for hits and visability at it's best, or a PA puff piece with insight into the NHLPA's delusional persecution complex at it's worst.
Is this the thread created for venting? I'm getting so sick of this, a baseball and basketball guy negotiating our game? Has any of those guys even thought about the casual fans saying forget it? Most posters on here are not casual fans but I can see lots of people saying forget it. Ughhhh this is getting ridiculous
So, when is the cancellation of the season going to be announced?
Man, Im not even intersted in a half season. I could've dealt with 62 games or a late 82 game schedule...but if they put on a season of < 40 games, then that is embarrassing.
Did you read it or do you just not like the author?
The article points out that the league is right about the players needing to take a shave but things have only gotten to this point due to Bettman's bungling.
He bungled the last CBA by allowing long term contracts and an escalator.
He bungled expansion by not understanding the markets he was entering.
And he's bungled fostering any type of relationship with the PA.
Gary has got to go.
Actually I think Gary Bettman is a good and reasonable negotiator.
By what he says and how he comports himself he obviously takes into account the best points in other peoples side. Unfortunately, when you are used to getting your way, when somebody is finally saying no, that reasonable behaviour is seen as belligerence.
I agree the players have been real a** holes throughout this process but the owners walking away from the bargaining table was not a good idea and won't solve their problems. Gary Bettman is being a hypocrite earlier in the lockout he accused the pa' of not showing urgency, and rightfully so the pa' didn't start meeting til it was to late and took far to long to make their first proposal, But now when the level of urgency should be ramping up Bettman calls for a 2 week break in talks
Its difficult to say what happens next but i think the proposals will get better before they get worse i think when talks resume after this 2 or 3 week break the Bettman will return with a final save the season offer once the season is cancelled the owners proposals will get a lot worse for the players imo
I don't think the lockout extends into next season its possible but i think at some point a deal will be
Reached maybe sometime in the spring (if the lockout does go the distance)
The issues separating these two sides should not result in one cancelled season let alone more then that
Fehr asked him to walk away by his demands and his rhetoric.
Horrible article, bunch of emotional ranting with little or no basis in reality.
Blames Bettman for expansion into bad markets, something initiated, planned, and half executed before he was even hired.
Plays a half-assed game of hindsight(everyone but bettman knew they should have limited contract lengths during the last lockout, what an idiot!)
Implies Bettman is maliciously scuttling the league for his old bosses.
Oh, and props the players on a completely undeserved pedestal, and absolves the NHLPA of all responsibility for both lockouts. Which is a laughable stance considering they hired someone with Fehr's reputation to represent them, and easily disprovable with even a cursory glance at the PA's bargaining efforts during this lockout.
As an article - it's a media troll attempt for hits and visability at it's best, or a PA puff piece with insight into the NHLPA's delusional persecution complex at it's worst.
