HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 01:02 AM
  #826
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
It's Fehr's 8th work stoppage. Your point?
Fehr has a decent track record actually.

Bettman's lockouts only lead to more lockouts.

Fehr's? MLB had 18 years of labor peace and counting. The plan he helped institute in 1994 works. Record salaries for players, record profits for owners, and parity for the fans: 7 different teams have won the world series in the past 10 years.

That's the difference. Fehr left behind a legacy of success. Bettman? Just more lockouts every time, and it's clear from these negotiations that he's very focused on the next lockout.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:08 AM
  #827
dackelljuneaubulis02
Registered User
 
dackelljuneaubulis02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,169
vCash: 500
What a mess. It's really hard to pierce through all the window dressing and get to the heart of this matter.

It's hard to refute that Fehr really mucked up with his premature ejaculation. It also seems clearer to me now that it's really all about the star players.

I'm still not pro-owners. Like somebody else said (could've been another board) there's no good and bad just money.

I don't quite understand the implications of decertification but I really don't see why the players would consider that course of action.

I really think the players should just suck it up at this point and put pride aside. In principle they might be right but I think they're just delaying the inevitable at this point.

dackelljuneaubulis02 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:22 AM
  #828
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Fehr has a decent track record actually.

Bettman's lockouts only lead to more lockouts.

Fehr's? MLB had 18 years of labor peace and counting. The plan he helped institute in 1994 works. Record salaries for players, record profits for owners, and parity for the fans: 7 different teams have won the world series in the past 10 years.

That's the difference. Fehr left behind a legacy of success. Bettman? Just more lockouts every time, and it's clear from these negotiations that he's very focused on the next lockout.
Another poster mentioned Fehr's 8 work stoppages, if true, who has the better record, Bettman or Fehr?

In hockey 9 different teams won in the last 10 years there was hockey. Almost no one believes there is parity in baseball. Just look at the team salaries.

You really don't think Fehr is thinking about the next negotiation, then you are kidding yourself.

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:32 AM
  #829
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Fehr has a decent track record actually.

Bettman's lockouts only lead to more lockouts.

Fehr's? MLB had 18 years of labor peace and counting. The plan he helped institute in 1994 works. Record salaries for players, record profits for owners, and parity for the fans: 7 different teams have won the world series in the past 10 years.

That's the difference. Fehr left behind a legacy of success. Bettman? Just more lockouts every time, and it's clear from these negotiations that he's very focused on the next lockout.
Fehr's "system" is one of haves and have nots...it's the big teams with all the top free agents and the small markets are just a farm system like Pittsburgh San Diego Florida Cleveland Kansas City etc

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:38 AM
  #830
vokiel
Registered Settler
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 6,374
vCash: 500
Parity?

Parity isn't about who wins, it's about who makes it to the playoffs where the money is made.

Edit: Essentially parity is about which teams have a reasonable chance of winning. Since winning is conditional to a participation to the playoffs it's the teams that have participated that you have to count. Hope that clarifies my statement.


Last edited by vokiel: 12-07-2012 at 07:03 AM.
vokiel is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:44 AM
  #831
vokiel
Registered Settler
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 6,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Really? After bringing the players' share down to 50% and agreeing on make whole, how is a factor that has zero impact on division of HRR "the hill we'll die on"? I don't buy this. For all the huffing and puffing, I ultimately don't think this is what kills the season. I think a deal still gets made.
The absence of a strict limit on contract lengths is what allows GMs to go around the cap. Don't put one and it's the same as not having a cap. That's one way to interpret Daly's comment.

vokiel is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:46 AM
  #832
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It doesn't cost the owners a single dime to have long contracts.

Every time one player is overpaid, another player is underpaid.

I think this is just a ruse on the part of owner, as they have no reason to be against long contracts. They are playing politics of some sort.

They may be thinking that if fewer players get long contracts, the union will be weaker come next lockout.
So you admit it is not only the NHL that is thinking of the next contract. So stop demonizing Bettman.

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:24 AM
  #833
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Fehr has a decent track record actually.

Bettman's lockouts only lead to more lockouts.

Fehr's? MLB had 18 years of labor peace and counting. The plan he helped institute in 1994 works. Record salaries for players, record profits for owners, and parity for the fans: 7 different teams have won the world series in the past 10 years.

That's the difference. Fehr left behind a legacy of success. Bettman? Just more lockouts every time, and it's clear from these negotiations that he's very focused on the next lockout.
I see what you're saying but the comparisons aren't similar.

Fehr had MLB owners over a barrel when they were caught colluding. The relationship between owners and players was as damaged as it could possibly be. Also, MLB does have a salary cap. It's a soft cap that very few teams can spend over. Those who do have to put extra money into the MLB revenue sharing to compensate. Don't forget that revenue for MLB is much larger than that of the NHL which means much more money for MLB owners. Even the crappy teams make money so it's hard for the owners to botch about profits. In MLB if your not winning you're not making as much money. In NHL even successful teams lose money.

When you get to the NHL and Betmans track record, I don't see how anyone can say its been anything but successful. That's how he's kept his job for so long. He's built the NHL revenue from 800 million to over 3 billion. That's a huge amount of growth. Everyone has made more money under Betmans reign and NHL has become far more popular than it was in the past.

Truth is, the players got exactly what they asked for when they fired Kelly and hired Fehr. They felt they lost the last CBA (even though they made more money under it and extended it at their option) so they brought in a gunslinger to try to teach the owners a lesson that they wouldn't lose again. Unfortunately for them and the fans, they really only brought a bigger knife to a fun fight. NHL owners will not lose a negotiation. Ever. They have the money, they have the means, they're a smaller group to get in the same page and they consist of some of the most successful business minds out there. How players are stubborn and stupid enough to have their pride get in the way is beyond moronic. They said no way to 50/50 and we're there. The other contracting issues are not an issue for 90% of the players and the term of the CBA only gives all parties, players, owners, sponsors, fans etc more certainty for the next decade. Since when is certainty a bad thing?

This entire process was doomed to fail the moment Fehr was hired. By far the most contentious man in sports. If Kelly had been the head of the PA they'd be playing and the players would have a similar deal to the one they're going to get. Even if it was a little worse, they'd have half a seasons salary at least added to what they would have got.

This is a war of attrition and they players can't win. Once they realsie this, like they did in 94' then we'll get hockey back.

shutehinside is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:31 AM
  #834
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
The absence of a strict limit on contract lengths is what allows GMs to go around the cap. Don't put one and it's the same as not having a cap. That's one way to interpret Daly's comment.
Simply not true.

The owners lose no money in 14 year contracts. If they spend more on player X, that means they spend less on player Y. That's all.

You cannot get around the cap with 14 year contracts. If a player retires early, then his salary counts against escrow.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:34 AM
  #835
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
So you admit it is not only the NHL that is thinking of the next contract. So stop demonizing Bettman.
Not at all what I wrote.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:50 AM
  #836
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
It's Fehr's 8th work stoppage. Your point?
My point is that pretty much everytime there's a contract coming up in the NHL it results in a work stoppage. And I think it would've happened no matter who was representing the players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
So ironic to see a local with the Expos in the avatar come to Fehr's defence.
I don't think I came to Fehr's defense at all. I had very little to say about him actually.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:52 AM
  #837
Dirty Danglez
Take it like a Man
 
Dirty Danglez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
I see what you're saying but the comparisons aren't similar.

Fehr had MLB owners over a barrel when they were caught colluding. The relationship between owners and players was as damaged as it could possibly be. Also, MLB does have a salary cap. It's a soft cap that very few teams can spend over. Those who do have to put extra money into the MLB revenue sharing to compensate. Don't forget that revenue for MLB is much larger than that of the NHL which means much more money for MLB owners. Even the crappy teams make money so it's hard for the owners to botch about profits. In MLB if your not winning you're not making as much money. In NHL even successful teams lose money.

When you get to the NHL and Betmans track record, I don't see how anyone can say its been anything but successful. That's how he's kept his job for so long. He's built the NHL revenue from 800 million to over 3 billion. That's a huge amount of growth. Everyone has made more money under Betmans reign and NHL has become far more popular than it was in the past.

Truth is, the players got exactly what they asked for when they fired Kelly and hired Fehr. They felt they lost the last CBA (even though they made more money under it and extended it at their option) so they brought in a gunslinger to try to teach the owners a lesson that they wouldn't lose again. Unfortunately for them and the fans, they really only brought a bigger knife to a fun fight. NHL owners will not lose a negotiation. Ever. They have the money, they have the means, they're a smaller group to get in the same page and they consist of some of the most successful business minds out there. How players are stubborn and stupid enough to have their pride get in the way is beyond moronic. They said no way to 50/50 and we're there. The other contracting issues are not an issue for 90% of the players and the term of the CBA only gives all parties, players, owners, sponsors, fans etc more certainty for the next decade. Since when is certainty a bad thing?

This entire process was doomed to fail the moment Fehr was hired. By far the most contentious man in sports. If Kelly had been the head of the PA they'd be playing and the players would have a similar deal to the one they're going to get. Even if it was a little worse, they'd have half a seasons salary at least added to what they would have got.

This is a war of attrition and they players can't win. Once they realsie this, like they did in 94' then we'll get hockey back.
Dear lord this!! I agree on all accounts

Dirty Danglez is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:53 AM
  #838
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
NHL owners will not lose a negotiation. Ever. They have the money, they have the means, they're a smaller group to get in the same page and they consist of some of the most successful business minds out there. How players are stubborn and stupid enough to have their pride get in the way is beyond moronic. ...

This is a war of attrition and they players can't win. Once they realsie this, like they did in 94' then we'll get hockey back.
OK, so then back in 2004 the players should have accepted the owners' offer of a fixed 42.5 million/year... oh wait, no. That would have been a disaster for the players.

Back in September, the players should have accepted the owners offer of a fixed 43% of HRR, oh wait no. That would have been a disaster for the players.

Or maybe they should have accepted the owners' offer of 50/50 with no make-whole... oh wait no.

Fact is it is not in the players' interest to just instantly cave to what the owners want on the basis that "the more powerful always win". If they do that they'll be down to 20% of HRR within 15 years.

Those who have no pride end up as slaves real quick.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:53 AM
  #839
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Fehr has a decent track record actually.

Bettman's lockouts only lead to more lockouts.

Fehr's? MLB had 18 years of labor peace and counting. The plan he helped institute in 1994 works. Record salaries for players, record profits for owners, and parity for the fans: 7 different teams have won the world series in the past 10 years.

That's the difference. Fehr left behind a legacy of success. Bettman? Just more lockouts every time, and it's clear from these negotiations that he's very focused on the next lockout.
"Record salaries" for a few players, which only a few teams can actually afford. If the NHL tried to model itself after MLB it would be a disaster. The NHL doesn't have the revenue to even attempt that.

Et le But is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 07:59 AM
  #840
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
My point is that pretty much everytime there's a contract coming up in the NHL it results in a work stoppage. And I think it would've happened no matter who was representing the players.

I don't think I came to Fehr's defense at all. I had very little to say about him actually.
However, you have to laugh at the idiocy of anybody who blames Donald Fehr for the Expos departure rather than, *drumroll* the Expos ownership group, who are really at fault.

Yes, the 1994 strike is the reason the Expos moved in 2005 ... ... it couldn't possibly be because one of the richest ownership groups in the MLB and indeed the entire sports world refused to even offer contracts to Walker, Grissom, Hill, and Wetteland... and then Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, and Vladimir Guerrero all eventually left as well. All they had to do was keep their team together, the best team in 1994 could have been a contending team in 1995.

Meanwhile, 29 other teams are still around.

Some people just can't help themselves, they have to hate unions and love billionaires. Blaming Fehr for the expos is near the apex of idiocy.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:07 AM
  #841
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
However, you have to laugh at the idiocy of anybody who blames Donald Fehr for the Expos departure rather than, *drumroll* the Expos ownership group, who are really at fault.

Yes, the 1994 strike is the reason the Expos moved in 2005 ... ... it couldn't possibly be because one of the richest ownership groups in the MLB and indeed the entire sports world refused to even offer contracts to Walker, Grissom, Hill, and Wetteland... and then Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, and Vladimir Guerrero all eventually left as well. All they had to do was keep their team together, the best team in 1994 could have been a contending team in 1995.

Meanwhile, 29 other teams are still around.

Some people just can't help themselves, they have to hate unions and love billionaires. Blaming Fehr for the expos is near the apex of idiocy.
Dont you know, it's Fehr's fault the Ex were playing in an empty stadium 90% of home games!

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:08 AM
  #842
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
"Record salaries" for a few players, which only a few teams can actually afford. If the NHL tried to model itself after MLB it would be a disaster. The NHL doesn't have the revenue to even attempt that.
Are the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs, and the Phillies really the only teams with expanding payrolls?

******
I'm not sure why the NHL needs the MLB's revenues. It has one half the total revenues, so with a similar system the players would make one half the total salaries... which is about what you see. The best baseball players make twice as much as the best hockey players.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:08 AM
  #843
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
OK, so then back in 2004 the players should have accepted the owners' offer of a fixed 42.5 million/year... oh wait, no. That would have been a disaster for the players.

Back in September, the players should have accepted the owners offer of a fixed 43% of HRR, oh wait no. That would have been a disaster for the players.

Or maybe they should have accepted the owners' offer of 50/50 with no make-whole... oh wait no.

Fact is it is not in the players' interest to just instantly cave to what the owners want on the basis that "the more powerful always win". If they do that they'll be down to 20% of HRR within 15 years.

Those who have no pride end up as slaves real quick.
Everyone knew and Betmans even said that the 43% he gave was the first offer to get to a 50-50 that everyone knew was going to happen.

As for the other issues they're a matter of give and take. The entire make whole is what the owners are giving back in return for the 50-50. It's a good faith give by the owners who didn't have to offer it. All contracts are contingent on the CBA that is in place. These guaranteed contracts do not mean that the player will get the full face value of their contract. If revenues drop, so will their share of it rises, so will their pay. It's not a static number, hence the escrow payments.

As for capping long term contracts, the NHL already conceded RFA ages etc. there has been give and take on both sides but the moment Fehr got involved everything fell apart. Even the most moderate owners who want badly to play were completely turned off. That's a HUGE problem for the PA. If the Leafs are saying to GFO, image what the Hawks are thinking. This is not a Bettman problem. This is a Fehr problem.

shutehinside is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:15 AM
  #844
swimmer77
What's an ROW?
 
swimmer77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: in water
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It doesn't cost the owners a single dime to have long contracts.

Every time one player is overpaid, another player is underpaid.

I think this is just a ruse on the part of owner, as they have no reason to be against long contracts. They are playing politics of some sort.

They may be thinking that if fewer players get long contracts, the union will be weaker come next lockout.
In a sense I suppose that's true but when a relationship goes stale (Gomez) how much is it COSTING the team to do a merry dance around a lost soul?

Markov wasn't even a long contract but with his injury history how much did it ultimately cost (player moves, medical, etc) to keep the team competitive and retain his services, or should I say non-services?

It's easy to look at the numbers you can see. But the numbers "behind the scenes" are the questions few of us have answers to calculating.

swimmer77 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:15 AM
  #845
dynastyREredux
Where's the Doritos?
 
dynastyREredux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: All over Canada
Posts: 1,246
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dynastyREredux
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Are the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs, and the Phillies really the only teams with expanding payrolls?

******
I'm not sure why the NHL needs the MLB's revenues. It has one half the total revenues, so with a similar system the players would make one half the total salaries... which is about what you see. The best baseball players make twice as much as the best hockey players.
No, they aren't. There's actually quite a bit of ignorance here towards what's happening in baseball on an economic level.

First of all, the Yankees and Red Sox have been working their payroll to get under the new luxury tax for 2014. Second, the new TV money in the game has basically every team flush with cash, not to mention the very significant revenue sharing the league has. There are problematic markets, a handful of teams simply collect their revenue sharing money and make very tidy profits. You'd be surprised at some the teams in the upper 3rd of the league in profits. I'd like to see some kind of salary floor to qualify for revenue sharing in baseball.

Anyway, the lack of parity is overstated, the problem is getting smaller and smaller. Teams are closing the gap on the perceived richer teams, who are trying to get and stay under the new luxury tax threshold.

FWIW, since the NHL work stoppage 24-25 MLB teams have made the playoffs. If the NHL had used the same playoff system as baseball, the number of teams would be 25 from the NHL, I believe. One of the bigger differences in perceived parity is over half the league in the MLB doesn't get into the playoffs, although they did expand going into last season.

Some of the things from the baseball system would have to look pretty appealing in hockey, they could never touch the kinds of revenue baseball has but their revenue sharing model has to be pretty appealing. They have far more control over players in the younger part of their careers than hockey does.

I honestly believe hockey would have been better off in 2005 with a strict luxury tax, very strong revenue sharing, keeping players free agency at 31 and some kind of lower salary floor.

dynastyREredux is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:16 AM
  #846
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
"Record salaries" for a few players, which only a few teams can actually afford. If the NHL tried to model itself after MLB it would be a disaster. The NHL doesn't have the revenue to even attempt that.
and yet, teams who cant "really afford" the crazy salaries matches 110M offer sheets and sign 200M in UFAs in the same summer... they also sign 21/22 years old to 6M a year contracts...

meanwhile, the teams that are profitable, the teams sharing some of their profits to help the teams that cant afford the 100M players will lose enough money if season is cancelled it will take them 5 to 10 years to recover the loss of a single season.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:17 AM
  #847
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
However, you have to laugh at the idiocy of anybody who blames Donald Fehr for the Expos departure rather than, *drumroll* the Expos ownership group, who are really at fault.

Yes, the 1994 strike is the reason the Expos moved in 2005 ... ... it couldn't possibly be because one of the richest ownership groups in the MLB and indeed the entire sports world refused to even offer contracts to Walker, Grissom, Hill, and Wetteland... and then Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, and Vladimir Guerrero all eventually left as well. All they had to do was keep their team together, the best team in 1994 could have been a contending team in 1995.

Meanwhile, 29 other teams are still around.

Some people just can't help themselves, they have to hate unions and love billionaires. Blaming Fehr for the expos is near the apex of idiocy.
Good point on the Expos. You're right Fehr isn't really the one to blame there either.

Anyway, it seems to me the owners have gotten almost everything they wanted here:

- Revenues go from 57 percent to 50.

- Players have now agreed to putting limits on contract lengths (the owners want it to be shorter but just having the players agree to this point is a huge victory)

- They pushed the length of the CBA

- They managed to get players to agree to reduce the value of EXISTING contracts that have been signed....

What more do they want here? This isn't the kind of thing that should end a season. Saying that you 'live and die' on a point isn't negotiation. It's demanding that the other side do things YOUR WAY. The players have accepted to these conditions in principle so take the victory and move on. Accept the 8 year cap limit and next time around make it five... that's what negotiation is all about.

This lockout did not need to happen. Bettman made hadball offers from the beginning and I think he's largely responsible for this. He's a great showman and coming out and painting Fehr as the obstacle was a masterstroke. Unfortunately for the players Fehr made the wrong move in talking positively and Bettman went for the throat...

The owners are trying to protect themselves from themselves. No more fifteen year contracts to circumvent the cap. I understand this but there are controls in place for this now. If they're getting 50 percent of the revenues no matter how much they're spending then does it really matter if some player has a stupid contract? They already have a cap to protect them as well...

I get their position. I get that they want to mitigate some of the problems for smaller teams... but they can increase revenue sharing to help with this too.

Like I said, I'm just really surprised that people are coming down hard on the owner's side here. It seems that they've gotten everything they wanted. The terms aren't what they wanted but that could be renogotiated next time. Just sign the deal and move on man...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
Everyone knew and Betmans even said that the 43% he gave was the first offer to get to a 50-50 that everyone knew was going to happen.

As for the other issues they're a matter of give and take. The entire make whole is what the owners are giving back in return for the 50-50. It's a good faith give by the owners who didn't have to offer it. All contracts are contingent on the CBA that is in place. These guaranteed contracts do not mean that the player will get the full face value of their contract. If revenues drop, so will their share of it rises, so will their pay. It's not a static number, hence the escrow payments.

As for capping long term contracts, the NHL already conceded RFA ages etc. there has been give and take on both sides but the moment Fehr got involved everything fell apart. Even the most moderate owners who want badly to play were completely turned off. That's a HUGE problem for the PA. If the Leafs are saying to GFO, image what the Hawks are thinking. This is not a Bettman problem. This is a Fehr problem.
The moment Fehr got involved?

Like I said, Bettman did a masterful job with the shell game yesterday. Too bad Fehr played right into his hands....

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:18 AM
  #848
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
Everyone knew and Betmans even said that the 43% he gave was the first offer to get to a 50-50 that everyone knew was going to happen.

As for the other issues they're a matter of give and take. The entire make whole is what the owners are giving back in return for the 50-50. It's a good faith give by the owners who didn't have to offer it. All contracts are contingent on the CBA that is in place. These guaranteed contracts do not mean that the player will get the full face value of their contract. If revenues drop, so will their share of it rises, so will their pay. It's not a static number, hence the escrow payments.

As for capping long term contracts, the NHL already conceded RFA ages etc. there has been give and take on both sides but the moment Fehr got involved everything fell apart. Even the most moderate owners who want badly to play were completely turned off. That's a HUGE problem for the PA. If the Leafs are saying to GFO, image what the Hawks are thinking.
I'm not sure if you actually believe that the Maple Leafs, who make 100 million/year in profits, want the season cancelled.

I doubt you actually believe it. Personally I take it as a given that the owners are doing a very effective job of showing a unified public face, that they have strong internal disagreements -- inevitable due to their different situations -- but that they're choosing to be united publicly.

This latest show of "disgust", particularly from Bettman, is obviously theatrics. "We've never seen Bettman look so livid" ... please. It's just theatrics to gain the public's confidence in a psychological media war. If he was actually livid, he would never let it show.

***********************

The owners most recent offer involves them taking four or five times as much as they're putting in. There's nothing "good faith" about it. Taking a dollar and giving 20 cents is not what most would call "give and take". Good faith might mean a dollar in concessions from the owners for every dollar in concessions from the players ... or even half that.

And yes, I know what guaranteed contracts mean, as do the players who were already aware of escrow when they signed those contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
This is not a Bettman problem. This is a Fehr problem.
I suspect you said the same at the last lockout, and the lockout before that if you were old enough, and that you'll say the same at the next lockout.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-07-2012 at 08:26 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:22 AM
  #849
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer77 View Post
In a sense I suppose that's true but when a relationship goes stale (Gomez) how much is it COSTING the team to do a merry dance around a lost soul?

Markov wasn't even a long contract but with his injury history how much did it ultimately cost (player moves, medical, etc) to keep the team competitive and retain his services, or should I say non-services?

It's easy to look at the numbers you can see. But the numbers "behind the scenes" are the questions few of us have answers to calculating.
most dont talk about these numbers cause it's a small amount in most cases.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:25 AM
  #850
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer77 View Post
In a sense I suppose that's true but when a relationship goes stale (Gomez) how much is it COSTING the team to do a merry dance around a lost soul?

Markov wasn't even a long contract but with his injury history how much did it ultimately cost (player moves, medical, etc) to keep the team competitive and retain his services, or should I say non-services?

It's easy to look at the numbers you can see. But the numbers "behind the scenes" are the questions few of us have answers to calculating.
When one team screws up on Gomez and Markov, other teams get to do better. You could argue that those two situations are the reason Boston won the cup in 2011.

That's the salary cap for you: a zero sum game.

The one exception is players sent to the AHL, such as Wade Redden and Sheldon Sourray. They don't count against the cap in the last CBA. But the NHLPA has agreed to have that count against the cap in the next CBA.

DAChampion 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 10:07 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.