When a high profile union leader was selected to negotiate against the owners led by Bettman what other result should we have expected other than a protracted negotiation?
My point: Now is not the time to wonder about the $425 million dollar loss. The Players should have recognized the probabilities when the hired Fehr.
That's the message I received in the off season. Perhaps I erred?
On a side note: Fehr is just doing his job:
"With the NHL locking out at midnight on September 15, 2012, Fehr has become the only Executive Director to be directly involved in work stoppages in two sports. Six of the eight contract negotiations he has been involved in have resulted in work stoppages, including five consecutive negotiations between the MLBPA and Major League Baseball".
The NHL has embraced the PA's proposal regarding the % of the mid point to determine the upper and lower limits
The NHL is filling to be flexible with the 5% increase or decrease but the want 5 year contract term limits.
Quote:
$60 million Cap in Year 1 (with transition rules allowing Clubs to go to $70.2 million for full year) and guaranteed cap of $60 million in Year 2 even though HRR formula would have provided for lower Cap
The PA proposed the cap not decreasing below $67.25M. $60M payroll in 13-14. The Rangers will have a hard time keeping their team together when the Garden is forking over $25M plus into revenue sharing.
The CBA was extended(the 1995 CBA wasn't changed at all) in 2000 because the NHL had 4 expansion teams coming into the NHL at that time. 1998 Nashville. 1999 Atlanta. 2000 Minnesota and Columbus. Bettman didn't want a lockout with 4 ownership groups dished out expansion fees.
Quote:
June 25, 1997: The NHL and NHLPA jointly extend the CBA through 2003-04. This allows the NHL to continue with expansion that nets owners $320 million (from $80-million expansion fees paid by Atlanta, Columbus, Minnesota and Nashville). The NHL says it extends the agreement because the deal is working.
"With the NHL locking out at midnight on September 15, 2012, Fehr has become the only Executive Director to be directly involved in work stoppages in two sports. Six of the eight contract negotiations he has been involved in have resulted in work stoppages, including five consecutive negotiations between the MLBPA and Major League Baseball".
Well you said he was hired to take the owners to the wall. That's very specific and since they have barely asked for a gain I think it's a bit misleading. He was hired to stop excessive bleeding. A weak union head would just lead to a league shutdown until the players panicked and accepted a 47% cut and 5 year contracts. If blood is in the water, these guys will hold out until the best deal is had. Fehr is the best bet of convincing the owners that "this is it".
Also misleading is that wiki link. Fehr wasn't director for all of those stoppage, further down the food chain. Some of those "stoppages" were lapses in agreements that did not lose games. He also had a string of successful negotiations before deadlines.
Well you said he was hired to take the owners to the wall. That's very specific and since they have barely asked for a gain I think it's a bit misleading. He was hired to stop excessive bleeding. A weak union head would just lead to a league shutdown until the players panicked and accepted a 47% cut and 5 year contracts. If blood is in the water, these guys will hold out until the best deal is had. Fehr is the best bet of convincing the owners that "this is it".
Also misleading is that wiki link. Fehr wasn't director for all of those stoppage, further down the food chain. Some of those "stoppages" were lapses in agreements that did not lose games. He also had a string of successful negotiations before deadlines.
Have you become so pro-player that you're defending Donald Fehr now?
Fehr and Bettman are the chief architects to the ONLY 2 cancelled finals thanks to a work stoppage. They are both stubborn idiots and they deserve eachother.
The PA proposed the cap not decreasing below $67.25M. $60M payroll in 13-14. The Rangers will have a hard time keeping their team together when the Garden is forking over $25M plus into revenue sharing.
they could fork over $50 million and not have a problem keeping the team together. what are you talking about?
Well you said he was hired to take the owners to the wall. That's very specific and since they have barely asked for a gain I think it's a bit misleading. He was hired to stop excessive bleeding. A weak union head would just lead to a league shutdown until the players panicked and accepted a 47% cut and 5 year contracts. If blood is in the water, these guys will hold out until the best deal is had. Fehr is the best bet of convincing the owners that "this is it".
Also misleading is that wiki link. Fehr wasn't director for all of those stoppage, further down the food chain. Some of those "stoppages" were lapses in agreements that did not lose games. He also had a string of successful negotiations before deadlines.
Please forgive me but....
Are you surprised that it's mid November and we're not playing hockey?
I'm not.
My point is not whether Fehr is a good or bad union head but that the players should have expected that a prolonged lockout was likely with Fehr as the head. A weak head would probably have had the players playing by now. Was Fehr the right head? Perhaps, but The juries still out.
Therefore: Any player talk of frustration over lost wages is something they should have considered once Fehr took the job. Not now.
Therefore: Any player talk of frustration over lost wages is something they should have considered once Fehr took the job. Not now.
Fehr was brought in because they were take to the cleaners last time. How it turned out, is a different story. But the players were the only ones who gave anything last time. And are now, being demanded upon to be the only ones to give again. This is why Fehr was brought in. That and the fact that he represented the perfect opponent to Bettman's bullying tactics.
Have you become so pro-player that you're defending Donald Fehr now?
Fehr and Bettman are the chief architects to the ONLY 2 cancelled finals thanks to a work stoppage. They are both stubborn idiots and they deserve eachother.
Die-hard hockey fans dont deserve them, however.
I'm saying the lockout unavoidable. It was cinched with the initial offer. The NHL was canceling games unless it was accepted. Its their SOP and they'll bargain games against a slightly better deal.
If Bettman is getting a pass, or if hypocritical attacks are laid out, I'll point it out... and I was responding to posts of that brand.
Fehr is a direct result of the last lockout. The 24% rollback garbage, attacking Goodenow, working backdoor with his subordinates.. the league essentially admits to having no intention of reaching a deal that year. To expect the players to not seek out a strong leader... I don't know.
There is blame to go around. But the ire directed at the ONE side making concessions to the side that is just reducing the ransom is staggering. Being guilty of not bending over is the worst crime apparently.
The CBA was extended(the 1995 CBA wasn't changed at all) in 2000 because the NHL had 4 expansion teams coming into the NHL at that time. 1998 Nashville. 1999 Atlanta. 2000 Minnesota and Columbus. Bettman didn't want a lockout with 4 ownership groups dished out expansion fees.
Gary is 3 for 3 in CBA expirations. The 1995 CBA was expiring after 99-00. Re-opener after 3 years.
If the NHL wanted to extend the 2005 CBA for another 4 years,Fehr would have agreed.
Those expansion fees aren't part of HRR.
I don't understand why extending the CBA in 2000 wouldn't count. What's the difference between that and the successful negotiations in MLB? Why does Fehr get credit but not Bettman?
Fehr was brought in because they were take to the cleaners last time. How it turned out, is a different story.
How does that even remotely make sense?
The perception at the time of the last CBA was that the players got taken to the cleaners. The reality is that they've made out like bandits over the past few years.
Perception does not equal reality in this instance. Why are the players hellbent on exacting revenge on something that wound up being a windfall for them?
Are you surprised that it's mid November and we're not playing hockey?
I'm not.
My point is not whether Fehr is a good or bad union head but that the players should have expected that a prolonged lockout was likely with Fehr as the head. .
I'm with you until the end. Weak leader: see last time. They were victimized (not literally).
Strong leader: lockout but they are in a better position.
The NHL is receptive to an awful lot of union ideas. Yet they are always negative. Maybe its to demoralize the players/fans. Maybe its negotiating tactics. My guess is we'll see their true colors this week.
If, a big if, this offer leads to a deal, i think much animosity today is premature. I say that with the belief that this lockout is embarrassingly scripted.
Perception does not equal reality in this instance. Why are the players hellbent on exacting revenge on something that wound up being a windfall for them?
This is ironic. The perception is revenge. What's reality? Have they tried to get their losses back? Haven't they conceded 50%? Maybe they haven't done enough but its not out of spite. There is bitterness for sure but I'm just not seeing revenge. If anything, their is anger over losing a year over a deal ownership hates. And ownership had a major hand in circumventing that deal. I'm not seeing a deal held up over revenge and spite though.
This is ironic. The perception is revenge. What's reality? Have they tried to get their losses back? Haven't they conceded 50%? Maybe they haven't done enough but its not out of spite. There is bitterness for sure but I'm just not seeing revenge. If anything, their is anger over losing a year over a deal ownership hates. And ownership had a major hand in circumventing that deal. I'm not seeing a deal held up over revenge and spite though.
Reality certainly isnt that the players "have conceded 50/50." Thats some pretty creative cherrypicking of sketchy news reports. Nearly every player proposal fixes the dollar amount that players are guaranteed, no matter what happens to league revenues. That is ridiculous.
It sure does seem like the players are less concerned about the true financial landscape of the league, and more concerned about making sure they don't "lose" these negotiations, as was the perception of 2004-2005. When, in reality, that deal stuffed the player's pockets beyond their wildest dreams.
I have a feeling we'll have to try and move Gaborik next off-season or if we tank/fail this season (if we have one) he'll be traded if there is a deadline. Gotta open up some salary cap space for next season if it's set at 60 million with Stepan, McDonagh, Hags, Sauer all RFA's and still waiting to see what Del Zotto gets this year.
