HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Notices

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 10:58 AM
  #776
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Leaving the editorializing out of the Forbes part, I do believe the franchise valuation is accurate and I also believe that most teams lose money or make very little. That's the MEAT OF IT, Fox News notwithstanding. An earlier article on Forbes indicated that 27 teams (outside the top three) lost $44Million it total.
Dunno what to say. If you think Forbes is serious, you probably think Donald Trump is serious. I don't know how you could bring to bear considerable expertise on the accuracy of Forbes when you call something inflation, which has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.

That however was not my point. My point was that even Forbes' solution was the same solution that the players are proposing: 50% split + revenue sharing. You've completely glossed over the single most important point.

Quote:
The owners are attempting to limit inflationary pressures:
- Five-year maximum on player contracts
- Ten seasons in the NHL before a player can become an unrestricted free agent (currently they need seven seasons or to be 27 years old)
- Elimination of salary arbitration
- Five-year term for rookie contracts
FYI pressure on salaries just is the increase in revenues. They're contractually linked, see? Not inflation.

Think for a moment what incentives the above creates. Imagine you're a very good 24 y/o player. You've just ended your 5 year entry level contract. You've got another 5 years before free agency. You are being given a q/o, and you are far apart with your org on a long term deal. Here are your choices: accept your q/o (putting all risk on you, which is what the owner wants) or ... You fly to Russia, take a better one year contract than your q/o, and wait to be traded to a team that will accede to your demands. After all, if you're going to take a risk, you might as well have control.

That's one scenario. What's the other scenario? Well, owners 'discourage' trading for players in salary disputes. We've already heard rumblings about offer sheets being discouraged. This is hardly a leap.

Star players will still get their money, because their lure is too overwhelming. 2nd liners, good defenders, good goaltenders, on the other hand, get screwed.

But, see, here's the thing. The whole system falls down if the NHL had 32 Sathers and Hollands. Restricted players in disputes, like in the NBA, will simply get traded to teams that want them. Collusion is required to hold costs down. We've already heard how this works with offer sheets, so this is hardly a stretch. The NHLPA might as well go to court now, because the owners are making their intentions load and clear.

Quote:
Regardless of Bettman's ploy, I don't see what the players' leverage is at all. I didn't see it in the last CBA either and looking back, I'm shocked the players used to get 73% of revenues (before the last lockout I believe - heard it on Hockey Central if I recall correctly).

Bottom line, Bettman knows the players have no leverage and he knows the strength of the union, relative to the owners, is something they will eventually overcome (bully) - so, until then, we wait.
The players have come down to 50%. Did you miss that? It was kind of news.

My point is that the owner's are counting on fans' stupidity. They're not money-counting machines. They're people too, and they've got pride. The more they get exposed as the bad guys in all this, the faster we get a resolution to the problem.

Don't think the Jacobs story is the last we'll hear in that vein. More will come.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 11:24 AM
  #777
luki here
Registered User
 
luki here's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vienna
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcv2002 View Post
Players have already lost over $500million in paychecks. Whoops. That's way more than they are fighting for. Looks like they are fighting the wrong battle.
A compelling argument that borh sides continue parading.

Renders its significance void in my mind.

luki here is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 12:35 PM
  #778
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Dunno what to say. If you think Forbes is serious, you probably think Donald Trump is serious. I don't know how you could bring to bear considerable expertise on the accuracy of Forbes when you call something inflation, which has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.

That however was not my point. My point was that even Forbes' solution was the same solution that the players are proposing: 50% split + revenue sharing. You've completely glossed over the single most important point.
I don't care what Forbes thinks is a good idea. Forbes is the red herring here, related to my point that TEAMS LOSE MONEY. A lot of teams lose money and there are many other sources that say the same thing, that's the point.

My point about inflation was not "inflation" - it was that if you look at player salaries (both in total, adjusted for inflation, as a percentage of league revenues) over the years, they are WAY farther ahead than they used to be. If you went from making $30k a year and are now making $300k a year, but your company is losing money, would taking a pay cut to $250k be such a travesty?

The free agency system, as it was, is not exactly a healthy free market. It only makes a few players available each year, forcing all the competitive teams who are looking to improve, to over-pay for those players. Causing "inflationary" pressures on subsequent arbitration cases, and free agents, and so on. The system made Jason Blake rich and forced the Islanders to replace him with someone CHEAP. That's not a healthy league either.

50/50 is PART of a solution to helping that and agreement on that ONE ISSUE (timing notwithstanding) is a big part of this...but so are the other things.

Quote:
FYI pressure on salaries just is the increase in revenues. They're contractually linked, see? Not inflation.

Think for a moment what incentives the above creates. Imagine you're a very good 24 y/o player. You've just ended your 5 year entry level contract. You've got another 5 years before free agency. You are being given a q/o, and you are far apart with your org on a long term deal. Here are your choices: accept your q/o (putting all risk on you, which is what the owner wants) or ... You fly to Russia, take a better one year contract than your q/o, and wait to be traded to a team that will accede to your demands. After all, if you're going to take a risk, you might as well have control.

That's one scenario. What's the other scenario? Well, owners 'discourage' trading for players in salary disputes. We've already heard rumblings about offer sheets being discouraged. This is hardly a leap.

Star players will still get their money, because their lure is too overwhelming. 2nd liners, good defenders, good goaltenders, on the other hand, get screwed.
THESE are the real issues that I'm referring to, far bigger than the 50/50. The scenarios are valid and BOTH parties should care and truly "negotiate" - back and forth. The NHL does NOT want players fleeing to rival leagues, especially the better ones, since it makes for a lesser product. But the players shouldn't want to command such high salaries to weaken the strength of the league either. Some "parameters" around salaries is something both parties should be able to come to an agreement on, without all this public sensationalized nonsense in the media (including Forbes).

Big picture, these are the best hockey players in the world, they CAN make money playing hockey, not JUST in the NHL. This whole "short career thing" is also crap. Mark Parrish just retired. Since when does "making a fair living" have to mean contract rights and free markets that compromises the profitability of more than half the league, which is the case today. I'm not suggesting it's ONLY the players responsible for this, but it's not just the owners, it's BOTH.

There is a compromise that is to be negotiated in this area and this is where I'm shocked no progress has been made. Changing the ELC to FOUR years is a compromise, probably worth conceding to save a few bucks in lost games. Changing arbitration rules for those second contracts is also fixable with discussion.

One might argue that second liners and good defenders are already getting screwed. There are a dozen or so teams in the league that cannot afford these players because the salary demands are so high, so they end up with Jeff Reese, Andrew MacDonald, Jack Hillen, Bruno Gervais, hoping they can fill the gap since John Tavares makes so much money. So who's getting screwed? is it the mid-level dman who gets overpaid in a "free" market, where the richer teams overpay?

Is it a better league when Parenteau commands $16Million?

The league is a sick one. It's broken on both sides.

Quote:
But, see, here's the thing. The whole system falls down if the NHL had 32 Sathers and Hollands. Restricted players in disputes, like in the NBA, will simply get traded to teams that want them. Collusion is required to hold costs down. We've already heard how this works with offer sheets, so this is hardly a stretch. The NHLPA might as well go to court now, because the owners are making their intentions load and clear.
I don't buy into the collusion argument. The reality is, and several GMs have said this over the years, offer sheets don't work because the team RARELY gets the player. In the rare cases they do, the price-tag is so high that it's not worth it and only inflates salaries across the league.

Collusion shouldn't be required to keep costs down. But free agency, arbitration, and other negotiated rights/rules shouldn't drive costs up and out of control either (see Suter/Parise, most recently). Those faux-free-market dynamics are definitely inflationary and it's easy to "blame the owners" but the $200Million bucks was probably not much higher (relatively speaking) than the second or third or fourth highest bidders.


Quote:
The players have come down to 50%. Did you miss that? It was kind of news.

My point is that the owner's are counting on fans' stupidity. They're not money-counting machines. They're people too, and they've got pride. The more they get exposed as the bad guys in all this, the faster we get a resolution to the problem.
That's partly news, it addresses the "right now" problem, and not even now, it's over a few years. What it doesn't address is the inflationary dynamic created around the supply/demand issues of free agency, post ELC contract demands and arbitration, the very things that cause the high salaries to begin with.

The 50-50 is obviously NOT a huge deal, otherwise they'd be playing by now. The pure "money" they are apart is not the reason for the continued work stoppage.

And the owners will soon get what they want. Since Bettman knows, and has the support of the owners, that the players have no choice here, no real leverage, and will cave eventually. Bettman is bringing back what the owners used to have with players, full control. He's just doing it slowly, one lockout at a time.

It's ONLY a free market at the LEAGUE level that can help the players. If the SEL, KHL, and others become viable alternative places to play, with similar money, then the owners will have to do much more to ensure they retain the best players. For now, it is what it is, a public bullying with propaganda and a lot of noise on both sides. It may as well be Fox News and Obamacare and Romney's taxes. Same thing. Except that had a start and end date. This one does not.

redbull is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:41 PM
  #779
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
My point about inflation was not "inflation" - it was that if you look at player salaries (both in total, adjusted for inflation, as a percentage of league revenues) over the years, they are WAY farther ahead than they used to be. If you went from making $30k a year and are now making $300k a year, but your company is losing money, would taking a pay cut to $250k be such a travesty?
I was wrong. I though the previous argument was a non sequitur. This one blows that one out of the water. You moved from making a point about revenues to a point about profits (misleadingly called 'revenues'). You are becoming increasingly difficult to follow.

But, okay, yeah. Let's link salary to profits. Great idea. No really, it is great. Seriously.

Here's the deal, though. If you want to link salaries to profits, if you want to make labor subject to the risks of business, here's a fair proposal: shift some equity to the players. Let their concessions pay for something real and lasting. Players will have skin in the game. Fair is fair.

I have no idea how you would respond to this proposal. But I can assure you that the owners are dead set against it. And so, anyone who isn't a total shill can see that the whole idea of linking salaries to profits is a non-starter from the player's side. It makes the players subject to the same risks as the owners, with nothing at all to show for it.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:01 PM
  #780
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
I was wrong. I though the previous argument was a non sequitur. This one blows that one out of the water. You moved from making a point about revenues to a point about profits (misleadingly called 'revenues'). You are becoming increasingly difficult to follow.

But, okay, yeah. Let's link salary to profits. Great idea. No really, it is great. Seriously.

Here's the deal, though. If you want to link salaries to profits, if you want to make labor subject to the risks of business, here's a fair proposal: shift some equity to the players. Let their concessions pay for something real and lasting. Players will have skin in the game. Fair is fair.

I have no idea how you would respond to this proposal. But I can assure you that the owners are dead set against it. And so, anyone who isn't a total shill can see that the whole idea of linking salaries to profits is a non-starter from the player's side. It makes the players subject to the same risks as the owners, with nothing at all to show for it.
Isn't this only about profits though? Isn't revenues, less expenses (largely player salaries) what makes for a sustainable business? That most NHL teams seem to struggle with?

Shifting equity would at least allow both parties to see the other's side. Rather than whining or holding their breath until the other caves.

This is really simple. The owners cannot operate a league where they don't have a sustainable business model, of which expenses are out of control (at least in terms of player salaries)

The players refuse to accept diminished rights that were previously agreed to, AS WELL AS give back the money (share of HRR), even though they have led to franchises that are unsustainable, unprofitable and many owners looking to sell.

The only thing that's really clear in these faux-gotiations is that Bettman (and the owners) believe they don't have to negotiate, they can dictate, and wait. And they are soon going to be proven right.

Best case scenario for the owners (that I believe will happen) is the players cave, the union stays together (in name only), the players "get over it" before the next CBA negotiation where it starts over again. This will happen either this year or after the season is cancelled (before the next season, whenever that is)

If the union decertifies, well, it's chaos on both sides with no guarantee of things being any better for the players, and likely worse.

I don't understand your point or which part is unclear.


Last edited by redbull: 11-30-2012 at 02:48 PM.
redbull is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:20 PM
  #781
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Isn't this only about profits though? Isn't revenues, less expenses (largely player salaries) what makes for a sustainable business? That most NHL teams seem to struggle with?
Indeed. The idea of fixing labor as a percentage of revenue is to make labor a variable expense based on revenues. The more your business depends on variable rather than fixed expenses, the more your revenue can vary without harming your profits as a percentage of revenues (i.e. net margin). The issue is that the NHL wants to change their business model, after forcing one previously down the player's throats.

Why didn't the model work? Simple: vast differences in revenues between franchises, salaries linked to overall revenues. This is a fact, clear as day.

The NHL wants the players to be responsible for fixing the problem with their model, and the players want the NHL to be responsible for fixing their model. The solution is to compromise. So far the players have compromised, and the owners have not. That is the state of affairs.

Quote:
Shifting equity would at least allow both parties to see the other's side. Rather than whining or holding their breath until the other caves.
Completely agree. But, like I said, the owners would never do this. The best way to get to the bottom of this is to ask, "Why won't they?" The answer is pretty simple: rhetoric aside, they're a bunch of greedy ********. Of course they don't have the vision to try something so radical. It's so radical, in fact, that it's a common practice among manufacturers in the United States, a practice that has done them no end of good.

Big business, particularly finance, has lost all contact with ordinary business. Ordinary business people care about the morale and incentives of their employees. NHL owners are a bunch of fat cats who don't seem to have any clue.

Quote:
This is really simple. The owners cannot operate a league where they don't have a sustainable business model, of which expenses are out of control (at least in terms of player salaries)
Here's a business model: share revenues. Now compromise. This isn't that hard to get. The NHL says "no" in every significant way. And so on we go.

Quote:
The players refuse to accept diminished rights that were previously agreed to, AS WELL AS give back the money (share of HRR), even though they have led to franchises that are unsustainable, unprofitable and many owners looking to sell.

I truly don't understand your point. What part of this is inaccurate?
The business model, enacted by the owners was unsustainable from the start. Perhaps the smaller market franchises would've done better with no cap and no floor. But, no, the owner's wanted a cap linked to revenue, and the appearance of parity. Well, they got what they wanted: Carolina can compete and lose a lot of money. Beauty.

The point you fail to understand, as usual, is that this is not an ordinary business. Ownership in a franchises is membership in a protected trust, a cartel of sorts. Its obligations exceed that of an ordinary business. Moreover, ownership of sports franchises has all sorts of other benefits. This is reflected in the fact that sports franchises are FAR more valuable as businesses than they would be if their valuations were based on their operating incomes, like normal businesses.

Still, you think that sports franchises should be run independent entities, not members of an exclusive organization with high entry fees and a common labor deal. Basically you're emphasizing the NHL's role as collective body when it comes to power, and disregarding that role when it comes to responsibilities.

In short your position is: Eat Cake. Have Cake.

Cheers,

Dan-o

P.S. I wrote this reply before you edited yours. I'm out of time, though.

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 04:02 PM
  #782
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,643
vCash: 500
As you learn in first year accounting, an asset's true value is only what someone is willing to pay you for it right now. Forbes is guessing based on previous sales and club revenues.

Unless you put out a for sale sign, you haven no idea what your team is worth.

JKP is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 05:05 PM
  #783
IslesFanatic
**** you SnoWang
 
IslesFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,358
vCash: 500
Both sides suck. Redbull, union members NEVER want to take a pay cut. I work for one of the biggest unions in the country. Pay cut is never in the equation. Not saying I agree, but thats the way they play. I know some will say the players caved last time, which they did. But unions in general never talk about paycuts as part of the answer.

I do believe that the owners should honor the contracts from the past CBA thats only fair. they were signed under the old rules.

IslesFanatic is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 06:06 PM
  #784
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesFanatic View Post
Both sides suck. Redbull, union members NEVER want to take a pay cut. I work for one of the biggest unions in the country. Pay cut is never in the equation. Not saying I agree, but thats the way they play. I know some will say the players caved last time, which they did. But unions in general never talk about paycuts as part of the answer.

I do believe that the owners should honor the contracts from the past CBA thats only fair. they were signed under the old rules.
I respect that stance but in this case, the players have no choice. The pay cut already happened with lost games, and it will continue.

I'm not saying it's right NOR that it's "fair" but that doesn't matter. There's a very strong chance that Minnesota signed Suter/Parise FULLY REALIZING they were going to get a huge discount on that money before they made a single payment. Is that unethical? maybe.

The agents and the players knew the CBA was expiring. If they expected to be "guaranteed" that money then they were being naive.

And the players will cave again, because this isn't a case where the owners need the players because they are choosing to NOT PLAY AT ALL. They are fully fine in cancelling games and seasons and that's a scary position for a player. This is a unique dynamic where ownership doesn't suffer from lost sales or contracts or services like other industries.

Bettman has his critics. I dislike his tactics. But he's brilliant. Because he's managed to lineup thirty owners (now for the THIRD TIME) and convince them that IF THEY LISTEN to him and follow his orders, they will continue to get back what they used to have - which is CONTROL over their game, their players, their revenues and profits (well, as much as they can control that).

And Fehr knows it. And the players are starting to realize it.

This isn't an idle threat, they will cancel the season, again. And no guarantee next season starts on time either.

The union threatening decertification is a last resort veiled threat. And even if it was a real threat (which they may eventually have to go through) I seriously doubt the players will get very much movement from the owners. I admire their resolve (owners) and for a handful of them, there must be some serious tongue biting behind closed doors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
The issue is that the NHL wants to change their business model, after forcing one previously down the player's throats.

Why didn't the model work? Simple: vast differences in revenues between franchises, salaries linked to overall revenues. This is a fact, clear as day.

The NHL wants the players to be responsible for fixing the problem with their model, and the players want the NHL to be responsible for fixing their model. The solution is to compromise. So far the players have compromised, and the owners have not. That is the state of affairs.
correct.

Difference being, the owners don't care that it was their mistake NOR do they think they should fix it. Let's just take it back from the players, what choice do they have?

This isn't a negotiation, it's a series of demands made by the owners. Nothing more.

Quote:

Completely agree. But, like I said, the owners would never do this. The best way to get to the bottom of this is to ask, "Why won't they?" The answer is pretty simple: rhetoric aside, they're a bunch of greedy ********. Of course they don't have the vision to try something so radical. It's so radical, in fact, that it's a common practice among manufacturers in the United States, a practice that has done them no end of good.

Big business, particularly finance, has lost all contact with ordinary business. Ordinary business people care about the morale and incentives of their employees. NHL owners are a bunch of fat cats who don't seem to have any clue.

Here's a business model: share revenues. Now compromise. This isn't that hard to get. The NHL says "no" in every significant way. And so on we go.
Why should they? They have leverage. Why give up a dime if they don't have to? I don't see what choice the players have. Europe? AHL? starting a rival league? What about waiting it out? I don't see how the handful of owners that make money (who are filthy rich anyway) will have much influence over the rest of the owners that won't lose money by waiting it out.


Quote:
The business model, enacted by the owners was unsustainable from the start. Perhaps the smaller market franchises would've done better with no cap and no floor. But, no, the owner's wanted a cap linked to revenue, and the appearance of parity. Well, they got what they wanted: Carolina can compete and lose a lot of money. Beauty.
With fewer loopholes exploited by savvy agents and owners that let competitive juices defy reason, maybe it would have been more sustainable. But I agree with you since the floor is a larger problem than the cap, as Wang and a few others have tried to exploit in recent years. The owners failed in their attempt to "win" the last CBA, but they are trying again. Try and stop them.

Quote:
The point you fail to understand, as usual, is that this is not an ordinary business. Ownership in a franchises is membership in a protected trust, a cartel of sorts. Its obligations exceed that of an ordinary business. Moreover, ownership of sports franchises has all sorts of other benefits. This is reflected in the fact that sports franchises are FAR more valuable as businesses than they would be if their valuations were based on their operating incomes, like normal businesses.

Still, you think that sports franchises should be run independent entities, not members of an exclusive organization with high entry fees and a common labor deal. Basically you're emphasizing the NHL's role as collective body when it comes to power, and disregarding that role when it comes to responsibilities.
I think we disagree on what you define as responsibilities.

And it's not my position. Merely pointing out over-simplified examples from "ordinary business" to make the point that the employees, in many cases, should understand that their salary demands, if they contribute to an unsustainable business model for ownership, is not in their own best interest over the long term. That a pay cut is, sometimes, a smarter move than watching jobs get lost.

In a fair negotiation where the health of the league is the key objective, the players understand their role in ensuring sustainable hockey markets and even, potentially, opening up NEW hockey markets. The owners understand revenue sharing can significantly help in competitive balance on the ice and sustainable profits for owners and more jobs for players. The owners don't care about losing players to Europe or other leagues (not yet, anyway) nor to they believe they are harming the product (or NHL brand) nor do they believe losing sponsors or TV money matters or the Winter Classic or the AllStar Game.

This is NOT that. The owners don't believe they have to give up anything on their side.

I've maintained all along that this is ownership bullying the players and it's slowly coming out that this is exactly what is going on.

Quote:
In short your position is: Eat Cake. Have Cake.
That's not MY position. This is what I maintain is the OWNER's position.

They will eat their own cake and take the players' cake.

Yum. Yum.

redbull is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 07:38 PM
  #785
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesFanatic View Post
Both sides suck. Redbull, union members NEVER want to take a pay cut. I work for one of the biggest unions in the country. Pay cut is never in the equation. Not saying I agree, but thats the way they play. I know some will say the players caved last time, which they did. But unions in general never talk about paycuts as part of the answer.

I do believe that the owners should honor the contracts from the past CBA thats only fair. they were signed under the old rules.
Something to remember, the sports PAs aren't real unions. There are two classes of players, the scrubs and the elites. The "union" serves the rich elites at the sacrifice of the more plentiful scrubs. That's not how a real union works.

As for honoring the old deals, the agents at least fully expected a rollback, which was why so many of them were front-loading deals with disproportionate big dollars prior to the 12-13 year in long-term deals.

JKP is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:19 AM
  #786
Islanders1932
Registered User
 
Islanders1932's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,274
vCash: 500
I almost wish NHL Players couldn't play over seas in a lockout. I'm sure that would get things settled faster.

Islanders1932 is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 01:20 PM
  #787
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 13,824
vCash: 500
https://twitter.com/walsha/status/275272329871904768

Dolan key in ending NBA lockout, presents grave threat to Bettman and "Gang of 4" owners. Dolan character assassination by NHL imminent. (2)

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 01:37 PM
  #788
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
https://twitter.com/walsha/status/275272329871904768

Dolan key in ending NBA lockout, presents grave threat to Bettman and "Gang of 4" owners. Dolan character assassination by NHL imminent. (2)




Dolan and Bettman's dislike goes back to 2007/2008. Dolan was smacked down in court by Bettman and the league. Dolan's attempt to force Bettman out failed.



http://puckstopshere.blogspot.com/20...marketing.html
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The dispute is related to marketing. The NHL feels it should have control over the promotions held by Madison Square Gardens relating to the New York Rangers. Specifically, the NHL says they should have control over the New York Rangers website nyrangers.com and other promotions.

The NHL has insisted that they should have control over the Rangers independently run website and turn it into the "cookie-cutter" websites of the other NHL teams that can be linked to from nhl.com. When the 2007 playoffs began, the Rangers began making New York Rangers merchandise available through the website instead of through a catalogue.


http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...2P34Z9E0MbV9cN
By LARRY BROOKS
Last Updated: 4:14 AM, November 25, 2012
Posted: 12:21 AM, November 25, 2012

Perhaps no one will listen to Dolan of the Rangers — who stands to lose at least $60 million if the puck isn’t dropped just as his team would be denied its shot at the Cup — just as no one listened to him a few years ago when he petitioned the board to dismiss Gary Bettman, but silence from the Blueshirts’ CEO simply would be unacceptable.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 01:52 PM
  #789
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
https://twitter.com/walsha/status/275272329871904768

Dolan key in ending NBA lockout, presents grave threat to Bettman and "Gang of 4" owners. Dolan character assassination by NHL imminent. (2)
Not a lot of people like Dolan. They just deal with him.

Knicks have more value to the NBA than the NYR due to the NHL in this situation. There are more powerful owners in the NHL than him.

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 06:55 PM
  #790
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 13,824
vCash: 500
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/87...ng-set-tuesday

Homeland Security is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 04:10 AM
  #791
Chapin Landvogt
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 12,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islanders1932 View Post
I almost wish NHL Players couldn't play over seas in a lockout. I'm sure that would get things settled faster.
Being here and watching a number of NHL players, one right here in my town, and many throughout the top two leagues in Germany, I can say that I......fully agree with you.

Naturally, the teams in Europe have a good bit to gain by bringing in a couple of NHL guys. Good press, helps with the sponsors, they're generally paying next to nothing to have the guys here (although all have to figure out how to cover the insurance costs) and their own players can 'benefit' from having these (usually) role models right there on an everyday basis. Not to mention, it can also lead to a few wins that they'd otherwise maybe not be able to earn.

This said, I can't help but think about the following:
- Ultimately, they're taking spots that might be otherwise going to a few younger kids or players who need that time to develop, much less the paycheck.
- Most all of the NHL guys play in a manner where it's obvious that the chief priority is 'Stay fit, but do NOT get injured'. This is, ahem, often very noticeable to the spectators, especially those who take note of who's giving what degree of effort.
- The losers here are just about every club that planned for a normal season in the summer in putting together their teams and now don't have spots or the means to add such players while their competition does.
- Two-class societies in a number of lower leagues where some of the NHLers are showing up, many of whom are still coming into the fray (for example, Salzburg just added Derick Dorsett, Derrick Brassard and Rob Schremp [naturally no longer an NHLer] all in one swoop and immediately won big time against Mickey Grabner's team in a league that is otherwise an ECHL level league).
- There's a certain hipocracy in fighting this battle on the North American front centered around so many financial aspects just to go to a lower league and play for (next to) nothing.

I know many might think all of these points are moot.

The lack of NHL action creates a whole new playing field over here and distorts things to a great degree.

It has its pros and cons, but I'd have to think things would get resolved on the NHL front much quicker if NHLers didn't have other options or weren't ready to accept any options that didn't earn them as much as they're getting in the NHL.

With the exception of a handful of players in the KHL, there's still no place on the planet they can earn more playing hockey than in the NHL, even if the next CBA leads to general leaguewide paycuts.

Chapin Landvogt is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 07:18 PM
  #792
scott99
Registered User
 
scott99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,456
vCash: 500
Interesting, some Football Reporter from Boston (Steve Burton) is claiming there has been great progress in the NHL Lockout, and an announcement to save the NHL season will happen Tuesday or Wednesday. I don't know if he has hockey informants, but he did break the Phil Kessel cancer story a few years back. Not getting my hopes up, Daly even said the reports are wrong (though I doubt he'd admit it was right even if it is).

scott99 is online now  
Old
12-03-2012, 07:28 PM
  #793
IslesArchieFan
Oh Cptn, My Cptn
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott99 View Post
Interesting, some Football Reporter from Boston (Steve Burton) is claiming there has been great progress in the NHL Lockout, and an announcement to save the NHL season will happen Tuesday or Wednesday. I don't know if he has hockey informants, but he did break the Phil Kessel cancer story a few years back. Not getting my hopes up, Daly even said the reports are wrong (though I doubt he'd admit it was right even if it is).
Unfortunately doesn't look promising

http://www.csnne.com/hockey-boston-b...23&feedID=3352

Quote:
CSNNE.com checked in with a source on the report amid the current state of negotiations – with a group of players and six NHL owners set to sit down for a meeting in New York City on Tuesday afternoon – and was told Burton’s report was “interesting, but not true.”

IslesArchieFan is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 07:55 PM
  #794
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,572
vCash: 234
Today the sides met with out Bettman and Fehr...

Six Owners: Jeremy Jacobs of the Boston Bruins, Ronald Burkle of the Pittsburgh Penguins, Mark Chipman of the Winnipeg Jets, Jeffery Vinik of the Tampa Bay Lightning, Murray Edwards of the Calgary Flames and Larry Tanenbaum of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

18 players: Sidney Crosby, Jonathan Toews, Craig Adams, David Backes, Michael Cammalleri, Crosby, B.J. Crombeen, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Shawn Horcoff, Jamal Mayers, Manny Malhotra, Andy McDonald, Ryan Miller, George Parros, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Toews and Kevin Westgarth.

From reading thru twitter it seems as if Steve Fehr and Bill Daly both were going to be in attendance.


After meeting for 8 hours the both sides said there was cautious optimism and called for a break for dinner. I think we have all learned not to get ahead of our selves here...

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 08:07 PM
  #795
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,572
vCash: 234
Here are some updates from around twitter:

John Shannon Sportsnet:

Quote:
Hearing that progress was made in the meeting. Owners expect to continue talks tonight.
Quote:
Hearing that Ron Burkle has been voice of reason today. Obviously, with Crosby in room it creates a interesting dynamic.
Quote:
Couldn't help but notice Crosby's agent Pat Brisson is in hotel, along with Pens co-owner Mario Lemieux. Could Pgh be building a bridge?
Larry Brooks:
Quote:
Take with grain of salt but source reports "cautious optimism."
Pierre LeBrun:
Quote:
Told so far talks have been substantive but too early to tell which way it will go...
Quote:
also told that Pens owner Ron Burkle made his presence felt in the meeting so far today. I think the players are receptive to him...
Chris Botta (who had been ripping this meeting):
Quote:
Text from player source: "You were wrong. Wasn't a waste. Will know more by Thursday. Good meeting. I'm optimistic."
Aaron Ward:
Quote:
Hearing both sides discussed further means of 'giving'. Both are encouraged by the discussions so far. #TSN

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 08:10 PM
  #796
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,572
vCash: 234
It would appear the influx of new perspectives has at least sparked some sort of discussion between the two sides.. Hopefully they can reconvene soon and keep the talks going. Any talking is better than no talking..

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 09:24 PM
  #797
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 13,824
vCash: 500
Maybe this meeting lit a fire under someones butt to get a deal done!!

Homeland Security is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:14 PM
  #798
seafoam
Fluorescent Adolescent
 
seafoam's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Country: United States
Posts: 31,407
vCash: 0
Getter done!

seafoam is online now  
Old
12-04-2012, 10:59 PM
  #799
OpAck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,230
vCash: 500
The big phrase here is cautious optimism. Definitely some promise. I think they're even still talking.

Get the hot heads (especially Bettman and the Fehrs) out of the room and get players and owners talking. I could see how people (Botta) could immediately think it's going to go nowhere...I was a bit skeptical myself and still am to an extent. But I understand that this was intended to be a bit of a fresh start for both sides...if it kicks them in gear, great. If not...it was worth a shot. We're not getting anywhere with the Fehr sisters and Bettman/Daly anyway.

My fear is that any progress could be stifled if Bettman and Fehr re-enter the picture kinda tarnish any momentum.

OpAck is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:33 PM
  #800
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,572
vCash: 234
Both side reconvened shortly after my last post and met for a few more hours.. A lot of positive signals coming out of this. Bill Daly and Steve Fehr just addressed the media TOGETHER here are some of the tweets coming out right now:

Pierre LeBrun:
Quote:
Meetings have wrapped up. Plan is to meet again tomorrow
Quote:
Steve Fehr and Bill Daly holding joint press conference although won't say much. Fehr called it maybe best day so far in this process
Quote:
Both sides will meeting again in morning, Daly said. With same group on each side
Quote:
Obviously fact Fehr and Daly are holding joint availability speaks to the traction generated today. But still could go either way..
Quote:
Sources on both sides cautious but say there was traction today... Still a fragile situation but it's clear today was a good day
Chris Botta:
Quote:
Most promising NHL sign: while talks were productive and there's reason for optimism, no $ details were leaked today.
Aside from the very limited comments from Fehr and Daly not much was said by either side all very tight lipped on any details.. Not getting excited until deal done but it's pretty obvious tomorrow is a very important day.

Bunk Moreland 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 10:20 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.