HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-05-2012, 02:12 PM
  #976
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
What you need to realize is this is flawed thinking. Lets say for example the PA wanted to go back to a free market system with no cap. Is it safe to give them credit when they come down from that and concede to agree to a cap system again with revenues linked at 75%?? Afterall they would have conceded to a cap system when they didn't want one. Or does this only apply when the owners come up with an absurd opening offer?
I'm talking about being realistic, not hyperbolic. Please I don't understand why you are against talking about what realistically needs to happen for the NHL to actually play hockey.

crazycanuck is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 02:21 PM
  #977
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,694
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
I'm talking about being realistic, not hyperbolic. Please I don't understand why you are against talking about what realistically needs to happen for the NHL to actually play hockey.
How was the NHL's opening offer realistic at all? Just because you say so? The players are making more now than they did during the pre-cap era so how is that hyperbolic? Maybe going back to no cap would be better? At least then teams wouldn't be forced to hit a cap floor.

What needs to happen to bring hockey back is the NHL needs to make some concessions to the PA in order to get the cap linkage down to 50%, on top of the make whole and honoring the contracts they signed.

__________________
May 17, 2014: The day nightlife changes in Vancouver...ask me how.
y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
12-05-2012, 02:34 PM
  #978
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 95,008
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
How was the NHL's opening offer realistic at all? Just because you say so? The players are making more now than they did during the pre-cap era so how is that hyperbolic? Maybe going back to no cap would be better? At least then teams wouldn't be forced to hit a cap floor.

What needs to happen to bring hockey back is the NHL needs to make some concessions to the PA in order to get the cap linkage down to 50%, on top of the make whole and honoring the contracts they signed.
Because it stated the middle ground

They put 43% but everyone knew that meant they really wanted 50%

If they propose 50% upfront ,, NHLPA meets them at 54% and refuses to budge


Last edited by Blackhawkswincup: 12-05-2012 at 11:47 PM.
Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 02:36 PM
  #979
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,694
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Because it stated the middle ground

They put 43% but everyone knew that meant they really wanted 50%

If they propose 50% upfront ,, NHLPA meets them at 54% and refuses to budge
How did it state middle ground? And what incentive are they giving the PA to move down even to 50? Restrictions on contracts?!


Last edited by Blackhawkswincup: 12-05-2012 at 11:48 PM. Reason: fixed my grammer within the quote
y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
12-05-2012, 02:49 PM
  #980
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Because it stated the middle ground

They put 43% but everyone knew that meant they really wanted 50%

If they propose 50% upfront ,, NHLPA meets them at 54% and refuses to budge
This idea is pure stupidity. Sorry.

Why should someone have to assume?

Anyone with half a brain could see record revenues, record franchise values, a healthy on ice product...and see that maybe a little tweak here and there might get it done, but NO!

Hardline, ridiculous proposal from the get go, with concessions both monetary and contractually....do you actually believe what you type? It seems ridiculous to me.

The NHL tried to reinvent the wheel here, not the PA.


Last edited by Blackhawkswincup: 12-05-2012 at 11:48 PM.
arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 03:02 PM
  #981
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
How was the NHL's opening offer realistic at all? Just because you say so? The players are making more now than they did during the pre-cap era so how is that hyperbolic? Maybe going back to no cap would be better? At least then teams wouldn't be forced to hit a cap floor.

What needs to happen to bring hockey back is the NHL needs to make some concessions to the PA in order to get the cap linkage down to 50%, on top of the make whole and honoring the contracts they signed.
I'm not talking about original offers, I'm talking about what needs to be done NOW!!! to make a deal happen, and both sides have give up on a couple more things, even if they disagree with the principle.

crazycanuck is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 03:02 PM
  #982
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
This idea is pure stupidity. Sorry.

Why should someone have to assume?

Anyone with half a brain could see record revenues, record franchise values, a healthy on ice product...and see that maybe a little tweak here and there might get it done, but NO!

Hardline, ridiculous proposal from the get go, with concessions both monetary and contractually....do you actually believe what you type? It seems ridiculous to me.

The NHL tried to reinvent the wheel here, not the PA.
Both sides dug in early and were loaded for bear. I think the PA waiting and hiring Don Fehr might have been the opening salvo of bitterness and getting hackles up, but the NHL's opening offer was the initial out-and-out declaration of war. After setting that ball in motion I think everyone knew it was going to be contentious going forward...things could have been handled much better by both sides, but the recent history of NHL vs. NHLPA shows that there isn't a lot of trust between the 2 groups. This I personally blame on Bettman, he needs to be the commissioner (ie Protector) of the league, not the owners (Jeremy Jacobs) stool pigeon.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 07:20 PM
  #983
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,656
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Yeah, it sounded like Bettman had until Dec. 1st to get something done. Failing that, he would be asked to sit in the corner and shut his dick hole. I'm just glad he did it.

Shortened season should play very well into the Canucks hands. Nobody has played more or travelled further than Vancouver in recent years.
The NHLPA gets paid on games played. The NHL will want to maximise games too. Expect more games than normal jammed into a tight space. If anything that means more travel and less rest. The Canucks are going to be going on some really ugly trips and are going to be gassed by the playoffs.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 08:10 PM
  #984
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,656
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
The NHL was offering a 43% share back then. If the NHLPA came to them in June with a 52% share that tapered down to 50% the NHL would've played hardball to get them down into the 40s.
I'll quote Proto, he's agreeing with me even though he'd rather not

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
[B] Offering to reduce salaries to 50% without linkage was the only reasonable leverage Fehr had to get a deal done. The fact that the NHL didn't jump all over that (counter with the same soft landing with linkage, reduce contracting rights demands, offer something in return like younger UFA rights) is squarely at the feet of the league.
If they NHLPA had negotiated it could have locked the cap at 64.3m until it was overtaken by 50% HRR. That provides the same stepdown proto just offered. Of course that would involve negotiating to avoid a fight - let's be honest this was never about negotiating and always about the fight for the sake of it.

Quote:
It's simply not realistic to expect the NHLPA to unilaterally get a deal done months before the CBA expired, especially when the NHL initially offered a 25% drop in their share. Look at it the other way, do you think if the NHL offered a 50/50 deal in June that the NHLPA wouldn't have put the screws to them? Of course they would.
IMHO that's the kind of misguided nonsense being feed to the NHLPA. Us or them. They are coming to kill you families, fight to death. blah blah blah. The whole point of advanced negotiations is to feel each other out and to find mutual solutions before it turns to into a back alley us or them brawl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
So your example is that the players wouldn't have had a salary rollback imposed if they'd imposed one themselves last summer -- how does this benefit anyone but the owners? What would the owners have given up for this? The answer seems to be the same one a lot of people have, which is nothing, but at least we'd have hockey!
There is no rollback since 64m stays at 64m. All the players get paid their contracts in full exactly the same as they had before, exactly the same as they want. The owners wouldn't have given up anything except 1.6b or whatever it was. In the next CBA it doesn't look like they are going to be giving up much anyway.

I chose 64m as an example they might have been able to get more 65m or 66m. Much easier to get that then and much less messy.

Quote:
Why would the NHL agree to a deal 3-4 months before the CBA expired unless they were getting everything they wanted?
1. because it's easier to carry on with no disruption between seasons? without losing games or sponsors? It's easier for the league and the players.

2. because it's easier to carry on negotiations while both sides are relatively friendly and cooperative

3. because the players have more to offer under a current CBA than under no CBA. The NHL can gain from the last year which means they are more likely to be generous going forward. If the players had reached a mutually acceptable nerf to backdiving contracts we might have avoided Weber/Suter/Parise/etc this year and the NHL might not have countered with 5 year deals.

4. because it's easier to sell a salary pause than a rollback, even if they amount to the same thing. A pause at a 64m cap was $180m difference in total verses $70m cap being. You avoid the whole "not honouring our contracts" line being trotted out by the NHLPA completely.

5. Long term I can't see the NHLPA being better off under any of the proposed CBAs, especially factoring in lost games and lost fan revenue.

Quote:
When's the last time a capped NA league settled on a CBA months before the existing one expired? Like I said earlier, the NBA began negotiations 18 months before the CBA expired but it still took 5-6 months after it expired until they reached a deal.
It's still better than not negotiating.

1. The chance of success while refusing to negotiate is 0.

2. You also put yourself into a position where the opening offer from the other side is going to be very low so they have room to move. Maybe that's the point if you are trying to get mob riled up.

3. if you succeed you can set the stage for future peaceful negotiations. Right now, I'm expecting more of this crap at the next CBA because it's hard to see the calmer heads in the NHLPA being allowed anywhere near leadership.

=============================

Maybe I live in a utopian dreamland where I believe employers and employees should work together for their mutual benefit. The NHLPA should have the best interests of its players in mind, which includes looking at the bigger picture and the long term health of their work environment, rather than just fighting because the other side "must be evil". Us vs them ain't healthy.

If the NHLPA started negotiations a year ago and the NHL was hardline from start I'd lay all the blame on NHL.


Last edited by me2: 12-05-2012 at 08:41 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 08:32 PM
  #985
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,656
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I don't get what people don't understand about making concessions in collective bargaining. The players are making a concession by cutting their percentage of revenues down from 57% to 50%. What is the league giving back to the players in exchange for this? More contract restrictions? That's like going to work and being told by your boss that you're getting a pay cut, but to make up for it they're also decreasing your holiday time.
Not everything has to be give and take, sometimes its give and give, sometimes it's take and take. You can concede ground on multiple areas and still end up doing quite nicely. At the end of the day, over a 6 year deal, the owners are conceding $10b and the players are handing over labour, the rest is mostly window dressing.

If Bill Gates offered you a 1 year deal for $2m and 12 weeks leave to be his chauffeur would you take it? I assume if after 1 year he said times are tough and offered you only $1.9m and cut your leave to 11 weeks leave you'd tell him to **** off because he's not giving anything up?

me2 is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 08:39 PM
  #986
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I'll quote Proto, he's agreeing with me even though he'd rather not

If they NHLPA had negotiated it could have locked the cap at 64.3m until it was overtaken by 50% HRR. That provides the same stepdown proto just offered. Of course that would involve negotiating to avoid a fight - let's be honest this was never about negotiating and always about the fight for the sake of it.


IMHO that's the kind of misguided nonsense being feed to the NHLPA. Us or them. They are coming to kill you families, fight to death. blah blah blah. The whole point of advanced negotiations is to feel each other out and to find mutual solutions before it turns to into a back alley us or them brawl.

1. because it's easier to carry on with no disruption between seasons? without losing games or sponsors? It's easier for the league and the players.

2. because it's easier to carry on negotiations while both sides are relatively friendly and cooperative

3. because the players have more to offer under a current CBA than under no CBA. The NHL can gain from the last year which means they are more likely to be generous going forward. If the players had reached a mutually acceptable nerf to backdiving contracts we might have avoided Weber/Suter/Parise/etc this year and the NHL might not have countered with 5 year deals.

4. because it's easier to sell a salary pause than a rollback, even if they amount to the same thing. A pause at a 64m cap was $180m difference in total verses $70m cap being. You avoid the whole "not honouring our contracts" line being trotted out by the NHLPA completely.

5. Long term I can't see the NHLPA being better off under any of the proposed CBAs, especially factoring in lost games and lost fan revenue.



It's still better than not negotiating.

1. The chance of success while refusing to negotiate is 0.

2. You also put yourself into a position where the opening offer from the other side is going to be very low so they have room to move. Maybe that's the point if you are trying to get mob riled up.

3. if you succeed you can set the stage for future peaceful negotiations. Right now, I'm expecting more of this crap at the next CBA because it's hard to see the calmer heads in the NHLPA being allowed anywhere near leadership.

=============================

Maybe I live in a utopian dreamland where I believe employers and employees should work together for their mutual benefit. The NHLPA should have the best interests of its players in mind, which includes looking at the bigger picture and the long term health of their work environment, rather than just fighting because the other side "must be evil".
Yeah, I just don't think you're being realistic. If either side tried to negotiate the way you're suggesting the other party would've just used that against them. The idea that the NHL BOG was going to fundamentally alter their position months before the CBA expired just because the NHLPA was a little nicer is a naive way to look at things. They would've taken anything the NHLPA offered and then demanded more (see the 24% rollback in the 04-05 lockout for an example). Just as the NHLPA would've done if the situation was reversed.

As for suggesting that the players taking less to help "the health of the league", that's a pretty untenable argument IMO. The NHL is more profitable than ever. Through pretty much its entire existence the league has brought in less money so why is it in danger all of the sudden? Even with money pits like Phoenix and Columbus, they're still the 2nd most profitable of the big 4 NA sports. Move Phoenix to a real hockey market and the league will be even more profitable.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 08:40 PM
  #987
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Not everything has to be give and take, sometimes its give and give, sometimes it's take and take. You can concede ground on multiple areas and still end up doing quite nicely. At the end of the day, over a 6 year deal, the owners are conceding $10b and the players are handing over labour, the rest is mostly window dressing.

If Bill Gates offered you a 1 year deal for $2m and 12 weeks leave to be his chauffeur would you take it? I assume if after 1 year he said times are tough and offered you only $1.9m and cut your leave to 11 weeks leave you'd tell him to **** off because he's not giving anything up?
If Bill Gates' chauffeur generated millions of dollars in revenue, then he probably would have a case for keeping that level of pay. Barring that, the analogy makes no sense.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 08:54 PM
  #988
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post

Maybe I live in a utopian dreamland where I believe employers and employees should work together for their mutual benefit. The NHLPA should have the best interests of its players in mind, which includes looking at the bigger picture and the long term health of their work environment, rather than just fighting because the other side "must be evil". Us vs them ain't healthy.

If the NHLPA started negotiations a year ago and the NHL was hardline from start I'd lay all the blame on NHL.
Sounds nice in theory but thats not how things operate in this business. You obviously don't have a lot of knowledge as to how unions operate if you think the PA isn't working for the best interests of its membership...it's typical short term thinking of the self serving rather than thinking about the longer term implications. Sure, they may lose money now but they have to protect what they've fought for so they aren't continually going backwards.

I worked for 8 years in an EXTREMELY toxic union/company job...we had a 2 year backlog of grievances that we had to pick and choose which ones to fight because the company would constantly take us to arbitration, which the union couldn't afford. It was a miserable environment and BOTH sides were to blame. The union environment shelters the biggest ********* employees and the company used whatever means necessary to get what it wanted from the union. As long as one side doesn't trust the other you'll never have a real labour peace....so, as long as Bettman and guys like Jeremy Jacobs are around, the players won't trust ownership and as long as the players don't trust owners they're going to prepare for war. It's a vicious circle and it's not going to end unless changes are made on both sides.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 08:57 PM
  #989
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,828
vCash: 500
The way I see it, debating right and wrong in a CBA negotiation is silly. It's just a negotiation.

As far as I'm concerned, the only guiding principle for these current negotiations should be "does it make the league as a whole more competitive?" HRRs have climbed steadily, players salaries have climbed steadily despite being a lower % of HRR than pre cap, a 50% split is just common sense. Screw "concessions" go with common sense and what benefits the league as a whole.

I'm in the camp that believes having a system that allows all 30 teams to be competitive if they have competent management makes the league and the game more enjoyable. A more enjoyable game means more people watch, HRR goes up, everyone wins. Especially--and most importantly--the fans.

If it was up to me, I'd kick all the owners, players and especially lawyers out of the board room and leave it to the GMs and cap gurus to work out a deal that balances big market, small market and players interests.

In the real world, I'm not necessarily pro-union, but I'm strongly pro-labour. This negotiation isn't the real world, all involved will make enough to keep the heat on and fridge filled. Priority should be sharing revenue logically (both between owners/players and owners/owners) and contract rules that allow teams a reasonable opportunity to keep their players, while still giving players reasonable options to maximize their earnings. In short, make it what's best for the game and quit taking us fans for granted.

As for the argument that the "owner's stupidity" got them into this situation with the monster contracts etc, people making this argument realize the only other option would be collusion, right? For at least some owners, winning is the whole point of owning a professional sports team (not all owners, but that doesn't matter). When we're talking competition, organizations in it to win it are going to push the envelope and take advantage of everything the CBA allows. That's why guys like Gilman have jobs.

We've gone through the first era of capped hockey, and some of the holes in the CBA have been exploited. Just as they should be, unless you want owners to make agreements outside the CBA not to make certain types of deals that the CBA allows. As the holes get fixed, there won't be a need for continued roll backs etc because the CBA will be tight enough to control these things.

End of the day, I've barely thought about hockey during this lockout, and that's a bad sign for the NHL. I've been a huge hockey fan my entire life, missed the game during the previous work stoppages...when fans like myself stop caring the NHL/PA needs to take notice.

alternate is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:22 PM
  #990
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,966
vCash: 500
Looks like there is a conference tonight

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:32 PM
  #991
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
The way I see it, debating right and wrong in a CBA negotiation is silly. It's just a negotiation.

As far as I'm concerned, the only guiding principle for these current negotiations should be "does it make the league as a whole more competitive?" HRRs have climbed steadily, players salaries have climbed steadily despite being a lower % of HRR than pre cap, a 50% split is just common sense. Screw "concessions" go with common sense and what benefits the league as a whole.

I'm in the camp that believes having a system that allows all 30 teams to be competitive if they have competent management makes the league and the game more enjoyable. A more enjoyable game means more people watch, HRR goes up, everyone wins. Especially--and most importantly--the fans.

If it was up to me, I'd kick all the owners, players and especially lawyers out of the board room and leave it to the GMs and cap gurus to work out a deal that balances big market, small market and players interests.

In the real world, I'm not necessarily pro-union, but I'm strongly pro-labour. This negotiation isn't the real world, all involved will make enough to keep the heat on and fridge filled. Priority should be sharing revenue logically (both between owners/players and owners/owners) and contract rules that allow teams a reasonable opportunity to keep their players, while still giving players reasonable options to maximize their earnings. In short, make it what's best for the game and quit taking us fans for granted.

As for the argument that the "owner's stupidity" got them into this situation with the monster contracts etc, people making this argument realize the only other option would be collusion, right? For at least some owners, winning is the whole point of owning a professional sports team (not all owners, but that doesn't matter). When we're talking competition, organizations in it to win it are going to push the envelope and take advantage of everything the CBA allows. That's why guys like Gilman have jobs.

We've gone through the first era of capped hockey, and some of the holes in the CBA have been exploited. Just as they should be, unless you want owners to make agreements outside the CBA not to make certain types of deals that the CBA allows. As the holes get fixed, there won't be a need for continued roll backs etc because the CBA will be tight enough to control these things.

End of the day, I've barely thought about hockey during this lockout, and that's a bad sign for the NHL. I've been a huge hockey fan my entire life, missed the game during the previous work stoppages...when fans like myself stop caring the NHL/PA needs to take notice.
You used the word logic a few times.

In this, it does not exist.

Logically they wouldn't play ice hockey in Tampa, Nashville, Dallas, Anaheim, sunrise.

Logically they wouldn't force teams to spend money they don't have.

They wouldn't suggest players concede their potential earnings for teams that can't afford it.

Logic was gone a long time ago.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:50 PM
  #992
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Not when I'm primarily responsible for driving revenues up significantly during the same period. The NHL as a whole is profitable, so why should the players have to pay for a few teams in stupid markets that are hemorrhaging money by the bucket?
4 months ago I said that the reason why the NHL was not negotiating in good faith was because they had an internal battle between the owners on revenue sharing. It kinda makes sense.

its not hard to understand that the owners are going to try and force at least 50% of the money for revenue sharing coming from the players share.

Oh and I am in Maui so I don't really give a **** this week. I will care more next week.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:08 PM
  #993
Reverend Mayhem
1 for you, 19 for me
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,027
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Oh and I am in Maui so I don't really give a **** this week. I will care more next week.
That's awesome. Where you staying? I went to Maui in the spring of 2011, it was beautiful.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:12 AM
  #994
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,656
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Yeah, I just don't think you're being realistic. If either side tried to negotiate the way you're suggesting the other party would've just used that against them. The idea that the NHL BOG was going to fundamentally alter their position months before the CBA expired just because the NHLPA was a little nicer is a naive way to look at things. They would've taken anything the NHLPA offered and then demanded more (see the 24% rollback in the 04-05 lockout for an example). Just as the NHLPA would've done if the situation was reversed.
Not sure I agree. If you fail to reach an agreement you can always pull your concessions off the table when the CBA ends and you make sure your opposite knows they are conditional. The idea though is to negotiate a change that will carry forward into the next CBA unchanged.

Quote:
As for suggesting that the players taking less to help "the health of the league", that's a pretty untenable argument IMO. The NHL is more profitable than ever. Through pretty much its entire existence the league has brought in less money so why is it in danger all of the sudden? Even with money pits like Phoenix and Columbus, they're still the 2nd most profitable of the big 4 NA sports. Move Phoenix to a real hockey market and the league will be even more profitable.
Then decertify and have a free for all.


Last edited by me2: 12-06-2012 at 12:51 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:24 AM
  #995
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
That's awesome. Where you staying? I went to Maui in the spring of 2011, it was beautiful.
We are staying in Kihei the timeshare we have is about 100 yds from the beach.

unfortunately my bloody ankle is getting worse - 7 hours on a plane didnt do it any good. Golfing yesterday didn't help it. I sure hope I can snorkle tomorrow. (nothing like doing a good whine while in Hawai'i)

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:24 AM
  #996
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,073
vCash: 500
I'm looking forward to this thing getting done. It looks like they are hammering things out right now. It is possible that negotiations will break down one more time though as the two sides try to see if it's possible to squeeze blood from a stone. That'll just be a delay though; a deal is inevitable now.

Besides having hockey to watch again, it's going to be interesting to see what the new CBA looks like and figure out how it will affect the league.

By the way, me2 is displaying some serious outtangiblies in this thread. He's offering some sensible analysis. alternate's post just above is a good take on things, too.

Chubros is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:29 AM
  #997
Cromulence
Up and at them!
 
Cromulence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,537
vCash: 500
On TSN tonight Bob MacKenzie said he thought if they played a 56 game season it could be all conference games where the two conferences never play eachother (four games against each of your 14 conference rivals.)

That would help alot with travel in a compressed schedule but I wouldn't be a fan. The Easten Conference already has big travel advantages. Imagine a Stanley Cup Final against a team who didn't even have to leave their time zone all year.

Cromulence 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 07:32 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.