HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 03:50 PM
  #351
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,389
vCash: 500
NHL mediator canned over Twitter controversy

Quote:
Guy Serota, one of three mediators assigned to oversee the NHL lockout, has been removed from the case due to a Twitter controversy.Shortly after being named a mediator on Monday, it was discovered Serota had a Twitter account (@GuySerota) containing several vulgar and unprofessional tweets.

Serota quickly deleted the account, but a new profile under the same name reappeared shortly after. According to ESPN's Pierre Lebrun, who reached Serota via email, the mediator claims his account was hacked and that the new profile is an imposter.

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service director George Cohen issued a statement shortly after dismissing Serota from his role. "Within one hour after I issued a press release announcing that further negotiations between the NHL and NHLPA would be conducted under the auspices of the FMCS, it has been called to my attention that there are issues involving an allegedly hacked Twitter account associated with Commissioner Guy Serota, one of the mediators I assigned.

"Accordingly, in order to immediately dispel any cloud on the mediation process, and without regard to the merits of the allegations, I have determined to take immediate action, namely to remove Commissioner Serota from this assignment."

Full Story continued: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...%20controversy

__________________
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
11-27-2012, 03:54 PM
  #352
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 70,492
vCash: 500
Well then...that's off to a good start

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 04:49 PM
  #353
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Rocket View Post
Well then...that's off to a good start
Just a continuation of the way things have been going.

One step forward two steps back.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 05:15 PM
  #354
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 70,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliolemieux View Post
Just a continuation of the way things have been going.

One step forward two steps back.
Well it's almost december now and safe to say no season lol.

Leaf Rocket is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:01 PM
  #355
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,490
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410388

NHLPA should decertify and buy this thing and move it.

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

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:37 PM
  #356
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Believing a deal is there to be had, several team executives have told The Post of their frustration with the league’s refusal to negotiate off the PA’s proposal of last Wednesday and with the NHL’s all-or-nothing approach to bargaining.

Team executives — with the apparent exception of militant Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke — have all but been eliminated from the process by the hard line Board negotiating committee.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...nt=More+Sports

Anybody have any theories on why Burke is (reportedly) so staunchly behind Gary Bettman and the lockout? What do the Leafs have to gain, other than continuing to alienate an already pissed off fan base and forfeiting tens of millions in profits by not playing? Is Burke going against ownership? Is he and/or the team after influence within the BoG?

htpwn is offline  
Old
11-27-2012, 06:59 PM
  #357
DirtyDion03
**** Brooklyn
 
DirtyDion03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,999
vCash: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...nt=More+Sports

Anybody have any theories on why Burke is (reportedly) so staunchly behind Gary Bettman and the lockout? What do the Leafs have to gain, other than continuing to alienate an already pissed off fan base and forfeiting tens of millions in profits by not playing? Is Burke going against ownership? Is he and/or the team after influence within the BoG?
Because Burke is a really good lawyer? Pretty sure he went to Harvard.

__________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/28b4abo.jpg
DirtyDion03 is online now  
Old
11-27-2012, 07:09 PM
  #358
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...nt=More+Sports

Anybody have any theories on why Burke is (reportedly) so staunchly behind Gary Bettman and the lockout? What do the Leafs have to gain, other than continuing to alienate an already pissed off fan base and forfeiting tens of millions in profits by not playing? Is Burke going against ownership? Is he and/or the team after influence within the BoG?
Burke is auditioning for his next job to work in the NHL head office with Bettman and Daly.

Its not in Toronto's best interest in this battle, but it would be in Burke's in that scenario.

Burke has been pushing short-term 5 year player contracts from the start, and while MLSE would have no issue handing out longterm deals, Burke is pushing his own agenda here as its a major issue that the NHLPA is against in this lockout.

Bettman needs Burke's larger then life persona in the room to help offset Fehr, keeping him in check and preventing him from running all over Bettman in the negotiations. So while Burke's not representing MLSE interests he is towing the NHL's company line for the group overall.


Last edited by Mess: 11-27-2012 at 07:44 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:40 AM
  #359
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...nt=More+Sports

Anybody have any theories on why Burke is (reportedly) so staunchly behind Gary Bettman and the lockout? What do the Leafs have to gain, other than continuing to alienate an already pissed off fan base and forfeiting tens of millions in profits by not playing? Is Burke going against ownership? Is he and/or the team after influence within the BoG?
He does have an interest in seeing those teams punished for cap circumventing contracts. He came out pretty hard against them and took a pretty big stance. If the teams are punished for the contracts then he's going to look pretty smart.

Now do I honestly believe Burke is 100% behind Bettman? No! He has to be as he can't say any different. I believe Burke rather be playing but with Bettman's policies about people speaking their minds Burke has to support him publicly.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:56 AM
  #360
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,446
vCash: 500
Maybe Burke is considered a staunch supporter because he's the only GM that's reportedly shown up to the meetings. I can see him pushing some elements of the contracts. Not sure he'd staunchly be behind the 5 year limit suggestion as the years don't necessarily speak to cap circumvention, but it's the structure of the deal that suggests that it's cap circumvention in spirit.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:03 AM
  #361
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...nt=More+Sports

Anybody have any theories on why Burke is (reportedly) so staunchly behind Gary Bettman and the lockout? What do the Leafs have to gain, other than continuing to alienate an already pissed off fan base and forfeiting tens of millions in profits by not playing? Is Burke going against ownership? Is he and/or the team after influence within the BoG?
Maybe it is to keep some sort of reasonableness in the room. If the same old upper deck boys are running this show again we're likely talking about old money who believe their rights are greater than anyone who has to work for a living. If this was 1800's England they'd fit right in with the Royals (in their minds).

I've worked for some of these types and I wouldn't pee on them if they were on fire.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:52 AM
  #362
Hurt
Global Moderator
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,362
vCash: 500
So what time is the meeting today?

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:42 AM
  #363
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
So what time is the meeting today?
The National Hockey League and the NHL Players' Association go back to the bargaining table this afternoon at 1pm et after both sides agreed to the inclusion of federal mediation in ongoing CBA negotiations. The parties haven't met since last week, when the union tabled a proposal that commissioner Gary Bettman quickly labelled as one that left the sides "far apart." Full Story.

Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:59 AM
  #364
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Maybe Burke is considered a staunch supporter because he's the only GM that's reportedly shown up to the meetings. I can see him pushing some elements of the contracts. Not sure he'd staunchly be behind the 5 year limit suggestion as the years don't necessarily speak to cap circumvention, but it's the structure of the deal that suggests that it's cap circumvention in spirit.
That is one thing that should be resolved easily.

NHL drop the term limit on contracts.

NHLPA accept 5% variance rules and the retiring cap hit rules or whatever it was.

Front-loading is great but should not be a season-ending sticking point for the players.

The NHL should limit itself to the core-economic issue and give up on the contracting issues as GM's should be able to manage themselves and teams getting into cap trouble is part of the game. The game I feel is played as much in the boardroom as it is on the ice.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:06 AM
  #365
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
That is one thing that should be resolved easily.

NHL drop the term limit on contracts.

NHLPA accept 5% variance rules and the retiring cap hit rules or whatever it was.

Front-loading is great but should not be a season-ending sticking point for the players.

The NHL should limit itself to the core-economic issue and give up on the contracting issues as GM's should be able to manage themselves and teams getting into cap trouble is part of the game. The game I feel is played as much in the boardroom as it is on the ice.
Player contracting issues like term and amount etc. should be managed by the NHLPA and not NHL Owners as to how the players portion of HRR is divided among themselves.

When its coming out of the NHLPA share it has no effect on Owners profitability, as that is determined by their own share of HRR as they divide it up.

So why should owners care, when it doesn't effect their bottom lines financially, and why are they holding the NHL hostage with their lockout fighting over this?

Besides its not like they don't have a say in this matter anyways as each individual Owner & GM can set their own internal rules on contract lengths and amounts, as they're the ones offering the contracts for the players to sign in the first place. Its really no different a concept than owners playing on internal budgets and not governed/forced to play at the salary cap ceiling, just because its there.

Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:11 AM
  #366
TmlHockeyFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,745
vCash: 500
I wonder who actually believes something will get done anytime. Who exactly thinks that there will be a season?

TmlHockeyFan is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:13 AM
  #367
Kirkpatrick
Registered User
 
Kirkpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsman View Post
That is one thing that should be resolved easily.

NHL drop the term limit on contracts.

NHLPA accept 5% variance rules and the retiring cap hit rules or whatever it was.

Front-loading is great but should not be a season-ending sticking point for the players.

The NHL should limit itself to the core-economic issue and give up on the contracting issues as GM's should be able to manage themselves and teams getting into cap trouble is part of the game. The game I feel is played as much in the boardroom as it is on the ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Player contracting issues like term and amount etc. should be managed by the NHLPA and not NHL Owners as to how the players portion of HRR is divided among themselves.

When its coming out of the NHLPA share it has no effect on Owners profitability, as that is determined by their own share of HRR as they divide it up.

So why should owners care, when it doesn't effect their bottom lines financially, and why are they holding the NHL hostage with their lockout fighting over this?
I think the 5 year limit could be more of a sticking point than we might think. I believe that previously owners could only get contracts insured for a max of 7 years, but that that has been lowered now to 5 years.

Having to pay out those contracts without insurance could be a serious financial consideration, and could easily affect parity just like cap-circumventing deals.

Kirkpatrick is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:14 AM
  #368
DirtyDion03
**** Brooklyn
 
DirtyDion03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,999
vCash: 166
It just bugs me that it takes until November and hundreds of games cancelled, billions of dollars lost and it still seems like they aren't serious about a deal. This proves what the fans mean to them, and what their money really does.. It's a shame.

DirtyDion03 is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:16 AM
  #369
ACC1224
Burke was right.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 27,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Burke is auditioning for his next job to work in the NHL head office with Bettman and Daly.

Its not in Toronto's best interest in this battle, but it would be in Burke's in that scenario.

Burke has been pushing short-term 5 year player contracts from the start, and while MLSE would have no issue handing out longterm deals, Burke is pushing his own agenda here as its a major issue that the NHLPA is against in this lockout.

Bettman needs Burke's larger then life persona in the room to help offset Fehr, keeping him in check and preventing him from running all over Bettman in the negotiations. So while Burke's not representing MLSE interests he is towing the NHL's company line for the group overall.
Isn't Burke just being a good Team player the opposite of your view of Hamrlik

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:18 AM
  #370
ACC1224
Burke was right.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 27,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmlhockeyfan View Post
I wonder who actually believes something will get done anytime. Who exactly thinks that there will be a season?
Right here.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:30 AM
  #371
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick View Post
I think the 5 year limit could be more of a sticking point than we might think. I believe that previously owners could only get contracts insured for a max of 7 years, but that that has been lowered now to 5 years.

Having to pay out those contracts without insurance could be a serious financial consideration, and could easily affect parity just like cap-circumventing deals.
Like a said earlier, its in the Owners control and if they don't want to hand out contracts > than 5-7 years then don't hand them out by not offering them.

If its insurance or any other reason it really doesn't matter as they control their own destiny in this matter and it doesn't matter if the CBA has restrictions or not.

If someone buys an item they're offered an extended warranty, and the purchaser can decide if they want to be covered or take the risk themselves. Player contract insurance is a similar concept that if its important for a franchise to be covered for financial reasons then Insurance term is more important than CBA contract term to them and they should conduct business accordingly to fit their own needs best.. Insurance agencies are not obligated to honour what the CBA rules are for the sport, and vice versa an Owner isn't either if the upper limits exist beyond their comfort zones.

A player can't sign a contract unless first the Owner is offering it and willing to pay it, so destiny and control always lies in their own hands regardless of the CBA.

Despite the current CBA having unlimited term, Burke for example as an employee of MLSE doesn't believe in the risk and therefore doesn't offer them as is his/company's right. Why should he care if another teams GM with their Owners approval hands them out, as long as cap circumventing is dealt with appropriately so as not to give unfair advantages to teams?

Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:38 AM
  #372
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
Isn't Burke just being a good Team player the opposite of your view of Hamrlik
The CBA is an agreement between the Owners and the Players, while Burke is simply an employee and doesn't even have a vote nor dog in this fight, being neither in this issue.

Getting involved in matters he is not a direct part of is more meddling then being a team player. IMO

As an employee of MLSE, he as a team player should be doing what is in the best interest of his own team that pays his salary, first and foremost.. Clearly being employed by one of the riches teams, the best interest of the Leafs is not to reduce their financial advantage further beyond the salary cap limits themselves, which limiting player contract terms and amounts is all about. Since MLSE has the financial wherewithal, to take advantage of long term deals that smaller market budget teams can't afford to, therefore he should actually be against these short term contracts on principle as to what is best for the Leafs team in this battle.

How the HRR pie is divided is really none of his business as he has ZERO $$ financial investment in the process as simply management.. As a GM he is only obligated when doing his job to abide by what his Owner has signed off on a completed CBA that sets the rules & regulations of the sport.


Last edited by Mess: 11-28-2012 at 11:49 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:40 AM
  #373
Kirkpatrick
Registered User
 
Kirkpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Like a said earlier, its in the Owners control and if they don't want to hand out contracts > than 5-7 years then don't hand them out by not offering them.

If its insurance or any other reason it really doesn't matter as they control their own destiny in this matter and it doesn't matter if the CBA has restrictions or not.

If someone buys an item they're offered an extended warranty, and the purchaser can decide if they want to be covered or take the risk themselves. Player contract insurance is a similar concept that if its important for a franchise to be covered for financial reasons then Insurance term is more important than CBA contract term to them and they should conduct business accordingly to fit their own needs best.. Insurance agencies are not obligated to honour what the CBA rules are for the sport, and vice versa an Owner isn't either if the upper limits exist beyond their comfort zones.

A player can't sign a contract unless first the Owner is offering it and willing to pay it, so destiny and control always lies in their own hands regardless of the CBA.

Despite the current CBA having unlimited term, Burke for example as an employee of MLSE doesn't believe in the risk and therefore doesn't offer them as is his/company's right. Why should he care if another teams GM with their Owners approval hands them out, as long as cap circumventing is dealt with appropriately so as not to give unfair advantages to teams?
As I said, the ability of some teams to offer large, uninsured contracts "could easily affect parity just like cap-circumventing deals". It would be like the backdiving contract situation all over again.

Whether it's worth holding out for or not, it's certainly an understandable position for the league to aim for in terms of trying to create a somewhat level playing field for free agency.

Kirkpatrick is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:42 AM
  #374
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Like a said earlier, its in the Owners control and if they don't want to hand out contracts > than 5-7 years then don't hand them out by not offering them.

If its insurance or any other reason it really doesn't matter as they control their own destiny in this matter and it doesn't matter if the CBA has restrictions or not.

If someone buys an item they're offered an extended warranty, and the purchaser can decide if they want to be covered or take the risk themselves. Player contract insurance is a similar concept that if its important for a franchise to be covered for financial reasons then Insurance term is more important than CBA contract term to them and they should conduct business accordingly to fit their own needs best.. Insurance agencies are not obligated to honour what the CBA rules are for the sport, and vice versa an Owner isn't either if the upper limits exist beyond their comfort zones.

A player can't sign a contract unless first the Owner is offering it and willing to pay it, so destiny and control always lies in their own hands regardless of the CBA.

Despite the current CBA having unlimited term, Burke for example as an employee of MLSE doesn't believe in the risk and therefore doesn't offer them as is his/company's right. Why should he care if another teams GM with their Owners approval hands them out, as long as cap circumventing is dealt with appropriately so as not to give unfair advantages to teams?
I'm not sure what your saying with your last posts?

Are you against any rules whatsoever on contracts such as variance, term, non-frontloading, retirement cap hits, etc??

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:44 AM
  #375
ACC1224
Burke was right.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 27,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
The CBA is an agreement between the Owners and the Players, while Burke is simply an employee and doesn't even have a vote nor dog in this fight.

Getting involved in matters he is not a direct part of is more meddling then being a team player.

As an employee of MLSE he as a team player should be doing what is in the best interest of his own team that pays his salary, first and foremost.. How the HRR pie is divided is really none of his business as he has ZERO financial investment in the process.. As a GM he is only obligated when doing his job to abide by what his Owner has signed off on a completed CBA that sets the rules & regulations of the sport.
If he's meddling why would they allow him in the room? You'd think they'd have some type of Security so only those wanted/needed would be allowed in.

ACC1224 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 08:26 PM.

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.