I don't even know why the NHLPA side let Miller behind the table. I think we've all seen his overreactions in the media after the series against the Flyers, as well as Lucic's hit on him. He clearly can't keep his mouth shut and is just spouting drivel when emotions get the better of him.
Jacobs isn't any better.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
I think the major difference, and why ppl tend to say players are more greedy is the fact the owners have invested millions of their own money into a business, taking a large risk in losing millions. The players just want a large guaranteed paycheck with no risk (health risk aside because even injured they'll get paid, right?).
And before you jump down my throat, I am neutral on the subject. I just want hockey.
Really though the same thing could be said about the players. No they didn't invest millions of their own dollars, but they did invest money and especially time to make the NHL a career. It's not like they just get their because of talent alone, they need the drive and push. They players are also a main reason the owners get those millions of dollars of profit. They deserve the right to fight for as big of a paycheck they can get, just like the NHL deserves the right to fight for as much money they can get. 50/50 is great, it seems they agreed on this, but to say the NHLPA is now only repsonsible for things not getting finished is crazy. Talks about pensions are big, the players need this for retirement and so on.
Remember when we think NHL players we think Giroux, Crosby, Ovie, usually superstars. We aren't thinking about the 4th line plugs like Cote(I know retired), Winchesters, Bickells. These guys generally have very short careers and then are thrown out to make it on their own. Yes they made 800K a year for three years, now what to do for the other 27 years they need to work. The NHLPA is trying to look out for the stars(who will be fine and make millions upon millions) as well as the guys who won't be able to sustain a long career.
Don't want you to think that i'm jumping on you here, but I feel like it should definitely be seen from both sides. Both sides put a **** ton of work into their jobs to make it where they are now, and both deserve to fight for what they feel is the best fit for them, even if the fans don't agree with the process.
But like we all have been saying, we do deserve to see hockey, and this process could have been handled better from both sides.
Really though the same thing could be said about the players. No they didn't invest millions of their own dollars, but they did invest money and especially time to make the NHL a career. It's not like they just get their because of talent alone, they need the drive and push. They players are also a main reason the owners get those millions of dollars of profit. They deserve the right to fight for as big of a paycheck they can get, just like the NHL deserves the right to fight for as much money they can get. 50/50 is great, it seems they agreed on this, but to say the NHLPA is now only repsonsible for things not getting finished is crazy. Talks about pensions are big, the players need this for retirement and so on.
Remember when we think NHL players we think Giroux, Crosby, Ovie, usually superstars. We aren't thinking about the 4th line plugs like Cote(I know retired), Winchesters, Bickells. These guys generally have very short careers and then are thrown out to make it on their own. Yes they made 800K a year for three years, now what to do for the other 27 years they need to work. The NHLPA is trying to look out for the stars(who will be fine and make millions upon millions) as well as the guys who won't be able to sustain a long career.
Don't want you to think that i'm jumping on you here, but I feel like it should definitely be seen from both sides. Both sides put a **** ton of work into their jobs to make it where they are now, and both deserve to fight for what they feel is the best fit for them, even if the fans don't agree with the process.
But like we all have been saying, we do deserve to see hockey, and this process could have been handled better from both sides.
I appreciate the rational lucid response Very good points, and it is nice to see both sides.
Well, I don't know anything about Jacobs, but just because there are the same kind of people on the owners' side doesn't mean the players should have them, as well. That just makes a clash even more likely then.
Not from their NHL ventures for 27/30 of the teams...
It was revealed long ago that 18ish teams are profitable and only a handful are losing significant money.
The league overall is making money; more than ever, supposedly. There isn't enough revenue sharing to help spread that wealth to the struggling teams. Yeah, that sounds like communism...but in something like a sports league, there's a lot to be said for it. Look at the NFL, for instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryker
Well, I don't know anything about Jacobs, but just because there are the same kind of people on the owners' side doesn't mean the players should have them, as well. That just makes a clash even more likely then.
Eh. It's the nature of negotiations between parties this large. There's going to be some buttholes.
No, they would retain the term of their previous contract. That's why there was such a rush to get so many deals in before the lockout.
Also if I'm the NHL I'm proposing that max contract length be tied to CBA term. They want 9 year contract limits, sign a 9 year CBA.
Huh? I think you missed the post I was responding to. It was about not honoring the full terms of existing contracts and my response was how would that work if it actually was agreed to by the players.
it appears we have another breakdown or some stall in the talks. Union to speak shortly. Daly said he needed to confer with owners
don fehr and players coming down in 15 minutes. that's likely not good
like i said fehr ruins everything, everytime there's something positive fehr screws it up, he's going to destroy hockey, players have to wake the f up and get rid of him or no hockey for good.
Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
Apparently players had something significant to say, weren't happy Bettman and owners didn't show up. We'll see what Fehr says.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
Apparently players had something significant to say, weren't happy Bettman and owners didn't show up. We'll see what Fehr says.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
Apparently players had something significant to say, weren't happy Bettman and owners didn't show up. We'll see what Fehr says.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
The blame goes both ways. The owners aren't saints either.
how is it the owners fault? they gave them what they want, problem is the players want 5 years not 10 years, which is ridiculous and the fanbase should not want another lockout in 5 years, if they do, they really are blind and so far up the players a## for nothing.
Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
Apparently players had something significant to say, weren't happy Bettman and owners didn't show up. We'll see what Fehr says.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
how is it the owners fault? they gave them what they want, problem is the players want 5 years not 10 years, which is ridicious and the fanbase should not want another lockout in 5 years, if they do, they really are blind and so far up the players butts for nothing.
I hate to break it to you, but nothing significant has changed on the owners side. None of the issues that were causing them to lose so much money has been fixed. The struggling franchises will keep struggling. We will have another lockout when this CBA ends. It doesn't really matter. That being said, if the length is the players' biggest hangup they need to smack themselves.
You fail to mention that the owners are also pushing VERY hard for a 5 year contract limit, which is something no sport has. Again...the owners aren't saints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup
Maybe if you have something significant to say you shouldn't force owners to sit around all day and show up hours after planned meetings
Right?
Maybe they didn't have something significant to say at the time, and they had to delay the meeting because they were reaching a consensus on said statement.
Very good points, and it is nice to see both sides.
