Oh dear,
hear comes that feeling of optimism creeping in. again. I wonder if it'll be another disappointment.
Got to say though, it MAY be the step that was urgently needed from the PA. Them moving off the de-linking of league revenue and players' share. For once I feel the PA has made a substantive move. Good on them.
If nothing else it shows where the PA is willing to negotiate from and we already knew where the owners were willing to start at. So it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps now they can actually START negotiating a deal instead of the childish temper tantrums they've been throwing over the last couple months. Funny how that works out when both sides work together...
Helene Elliott @helenenothelen
Threat #1 from the NHL: RT @reporterchris: Gary Bettman says some owners want him to take the league's latest offer off the table.
Ian Mendes @ian_mendes
Bettman also said the PR and rhetoric is pointless; he did not appreciate Fehr speaking to media this AM -- before NHL responded to offer.
Quote:
Chris Botta @ChrisBottaNHL
Bettman would not give a deadline for a deal to be done to save this season.
Quote:
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Expect All Star festivities in Columbus to be cancelled on Friday.
League and union expected to talk again on Friday. PA said it it would get back to NHL end of week.
Damien Cox @DamoSpin
Biggest NHL failure so far: Bettman and Co. have failed to make a clear case that the state of their business requires economic adjustments.
I presume NHLPA members will now resume winning strategy of name-calling and tweeting under the influence.
I'll see your Ian White and Kris Versteeg, and raise you a Jeff O'Neill.
I don't side with either, Quattro, but you have to realize the economics of the situation. Too many teams cannot continue to operate at a loss.
Bottom line, the owners own the team. The players play for them. And if they choose not to play, then the NHL will eventually go the way of Hostess.
It really is that simple. Side with the players all you want, and if they continue to resist we will not have hockey.
With all do respect, if the owners can't afford the players then they should not sign them with the intentions of not giving them what was agreed upon a month later. When I owned my business I made my business decisions based off what I can afford and what I projected in order for my business to grow. This is an owner versus owners issue and since they can't beat eachother they turn to those that can bail them out.
Oh, and what happened to 7 years ago when they agreed to a new CBA and GB came out and said that from there on out owners and players are partners. It was actually him just parading his victory.
With all do respect, if the owners can't afford the players then they should not sign them with the intentions of not giving them what was agreed upon a month later. When I owned my business I made my business decisions based off what I can afford and what I projected in order for my business to grow. This is an owner versus owners issue and since they can't beat eachother they turn to those that can bail them out.
Seems to me due diligence is paramount and that the players no doubt will get a letter of credit from the team's financial institution in regard to a large-money contract.
Quote:
Oh, and what happened to 7 years ago when they agreed to a new CBA and GB came out and said that from there on out owners and players are partners. It was actually him just parading his victory.
Come on, that's just rhetoric. The owners own the team and the players play for them. Even the most dense player understands that.
Seems to me due diligence is paramount and that the players no doubt will get a letter of credit from the team's financial institution in regard to a large-money contract.
Come on, that's just rhetoric. The owners own the team and the players play for them. Even the most dense player understands that.
You know, it is quite difficult for me to side with the owners when just this past summer they dished out record breaking long term contracts to several of the premier free agents. On one hand, the owners argue the current financial structure is broken, and not working; and on the other, they agree to 100 million dollar deals. Minnesota and Nashville no less, not exactly the "big markets," are they? So what seems to have happened here is the owners are getting talent at a price they never intended on paying, and they get to use the inflated prices as part of their rationale that they are losing money (which I'd be really skeptical about if I were a player). It's a win-win from the owner's perspective.
In the meantime the PA now has agreed to drop their annual % of HRR down to 50%, lowered their demands on the amount of the "make whole" provision, tentatively agreed on teams stashing money in the minors and back-loaded contracts used to circumvent the cap (although the two sides have not agreed on the amounts yet), and have received really no concessions from the other side on ANY issue. Instead, besides all the significant gaps that remain on the issues outlined above, the owners want to also limit contract lengths, significantly alter the arbitration process, and extend the amount of time needed to hit UFA status. The league agreed to back off of only one earlier request. They decided they would be able to keep the Entry Level System at 3 years, instead of their earlier proposed 2. Can any of you "pro-owner" sympathizers explain to me how this has been a negotiation, and how the PA has in your minds been negotiating in "bad faith?" Frankly, it seems extremely one-sided to me at this point.
Frankly, it seems extremely one-sided to me at this point.
Exactly, you finally get it. The owners own the teams, and the players play for them.
As I said before, I am not pro-owner, nor am I pro-player. I am pro-hockey.
I am also a realist. And the reality of the situation is that this is a lockout, and the owners own the pucks. As I said above, it really is as simple as that, and enumerating where the owners are and where the players are in the "negotiating" process is pointless.
Exactly, you finally get it. The owners own the teams, and the players play for them.
As I said before, I am not pro-owner, nor am I pro-player. I am pro-hockey.
I am also a realist. And the reality of the situation is that this is a lockout, and the owners own the pucks. As I said above, it really is as simple as that, and enumerating where the owners are and where the players are in the "negotiating" process is pointless.
Sorry, but you are confusing professional sports and mom and pops businesses. Players unions and owners are a partnership. They have been referred to partnership in every sport. GB reffered to them as a partnership. Owners do not make money without the players and the players do not get paid for their skills without the owners. It's a symbiance.
There is give and take in ever CBA. Every sport has a winner and a loser every year. It goes back and forth because they both can't make it without the other. It's worse in the NHL because 10 owners ruin in for the rest of the league. These 10 owners can't get along with the other owners and are irrationale in spending, thus making the others desperate. 15 or so team do not make money or lose money because of this so they don't care if they lock out. NHL is broken because of the owners, not the players who bargain for the top dollar in the contract.
Sorry, but you are confusing professional sports and mom and pops businesses. Players unions and owners are a partnership. They have been referred to partnership in every sport. GB reffered to them as a partnership. Owners do not make money without the players and the players do not get paid for their skills without the owners. It's a symbiance.
There is give and take in ever CBA. Every sport has a winner and a loser every year. It goes back and forth because they both can't make it without the other. It's worse in the NHL because 10 owners ruin in for the rest of the league. These 10 owners can't get along with the other owners and are irrationale in spending, thus making the others desperate. 15 or so team do not make money or lose money because of this so they don't care if they lock out. NHL is broken because of the owners, not the players who bargain for the top dollar in the contract.
Agreed. Professional sports is not a typical business where the employees have very little leverage over their employers. Without the players, there is no league, and there are no replacements. It has been, and always will be a partnership. How you want to define the word partnership in your own mind is up to you. But it is a partnership, there is no doubt about that.
The fact is, every other sports league when entering into negotiations seems to be able to provide some kind of give and take for both sides. The NBA in their last lockout lowered the % of the players share, but did not institute a hard salary cap. During the NFL negotiations, a very significant amount of money was given for retired player benefits, free agency was shortened. The point is, every other league realizes that there needs to be some kind of give and take from both sides. The NHL on the other hand, continues to ask for more and more concessions during every work stoppage, and provides no incentives to the players to come to some sort of agreement. The owners, like you I suppose, believe they should be thanking their lucky stars for the position that they are in, and thus should cave on every single significant issue. That is not how you run a successful professional sports league, by alienating your entire fan base every 6 years because you feel you should be entitled to a bigger % of the profits.
Agreed. Professional sports is not a typical business where the employees have very little leverage over their employers. Without the players, there is no league, and there are no replacements. It has been, and always will be a partnership. How you want to define the word partnership in your own mind is up to you. But it is a partnership, there is no doubt about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no name
Sorry, but you are confusing professional sports and mom and pops businesses. Players unions and owners are a partnership. They have been referred to partnership in every sport. GB reffered to them as a partnership. Owners do not make money without the players and the players do not get paid for their skills without the owners. It's a symbiance.
I have never seen one partner lock out another partner in a viable partnership.
