Fehr is only a setback for the owners to get what they want. The fact that the owners, during these negotiations, told the players that if Don Fehr is involved then the deal is off shows that they're scared of him. They know they won't get away with the **** they want to this time and instead try to sow discontent amongst the players, something that seems to have the opposite effect instead.
And no, the players need a leader that won't let them get **** on again and again by the owners. Right now, that leader is Fehr who is doing a very fine job.
The last CBA really crapped on the players hey. Salaries only increased by an average of about $700K over the life of the deal. If you want to see some of Fehr's work follow adater on twitter.
Fehr is only a setback for the owners to get what they want. The fact that the owners, during these negotiations, told the players that if Don Fehr is involved then the deal is off shows that they're scared of him. They know they won't get away with the **** they want to this time and instead try to sow discontent amongst the players, something that seems to have the opposite effect instead.
And no, the players need a leader that won't let them get **** on again and again by the owners. Right now, that leader is Fehr who is doing a very fine job.
Get away with what? Please tell me what the players are losing in the latest NHL proposal.
The last CBA really crapped on the players hey. Salaries only increased by an average of about $700K over the life of the deal. If you want to see some of Fehr's work follow adater on twitter.
Yeah, let's all listen to a dude who have done nothing but shill for Bettman and the owners all lockout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt
Get away with what? Please tell me what the players are losing in the latest NHL proposal.
Counter-question; tell me one thing they gain with the latest NHL proposal compared to the last one?
On a side note, I'm a little embarrassed at what Doan has said and him standing behind Fehr. Crosby and Richards I can understand, but Doan should know better. Watching his this thing implode has been incredible. The players somehow managed to piss off the moderates, including Burkle who originally broke rank to try and get something done. Watching Bettman lay into the players, many of them in the room, was surreal. They threw another $100 million on the table as a sign of good faith and the players didn't care. They won't give the NHL what it wants - why it locked the players out in the first place - so don't expect a season. Bettman's tone and the fact that they took everything off the table indicates to me that they aim to break the union again. I got the impression that the gloves were coming off and not being put back on anytime soon.
When Mark Chipman laments your attitude, you done ****ed up.
It could be that the players figure if we are going to lose in the next CBA fight then let's make the owners lose something(s) back in return. All signs are showing that things are going to get even worse than what they are now before they start to get better.
Seriously Biznasty can go **** himself. It would be 21 owners numb nuts.
Why are guys like him and Winnik even having a voice in this. Wish I was working check in for these meetings. Winnik would come up saying he's on the list. I would look confused at first, then I would be like.... ah yes, the 4th liner who went to arbitration twice. Please seat sir, you're right next to Westgarth and Parros. Who actually have an education.
Seriously Biznasty can go **** himself. It would be 21 owners numb nuts.
Why are guys like him and Winnik even having a voice in this. Wish I was working check in for these meetings. Winnik would come up saying he's on the list. I would look confused at first, then I would be like.... ah yes, the 4th liner who went to arbitration twice. Please seat sir, you're right next to Westgarth and Parros. Who actually have an education.
This is why players should seriously just stay quiet during this. I don't hear of the owners talking about this publicly, or taking to twitter. Maybe they are, but I don't see it like I do with certain players. Biz is lucky to have a job in the NHL, and making what he makes. He has no sense of what is really going on. He is a sheep that is told what to believe by Fehr in my opinion.
This is why players should seriously just stay quiet during this. I don't hear of the owners talking about this publicly, or taking to twitter. Maybe they are, but I don't see it like I do with certain players. Biz is lucky to have a job in the NHL, and making what he makes. He has no sense of what is really going on. He is a sheep that is told what to believe by Fehr in my opinion.
To be fair to the owners on this, they are not allowed by the league to talk to the public on what is going on. If I remember correctly, someone from Red Wings upper-management has already been in hot water for shooting his mouth off in relation to the CBA and the lockout.
The NHL brought in 4 player friendly owners to try to move process along. All 4 of these have since left and have written about how bizarre this process was and how dissappointed they were with the players. Who else exactly would Paul like to hear from???
In Tues meetings it was put forward what the "deal breaker" aspects were for both sides. The players said make whole and pension. The NHL countered with agreement length and contract length. The NHL left feeling pretty good as they gave players both make whole and pension in exchange for acceptance of agreement length and contract length.
Out of nowhere the next day Fehr presents offer taking the make whole and pension that the players wanted but changing the agreement length and contract length. And you wonder why the moderate owners who went out on a limb to get deal done are upset.
Why is the fact that the owners said the deal was off the table as soon as Fehr was involved being ignored here? Seriously, a bunch of really experienced and business-savvy businessmen tried to tell a bunch of guys, most of them without even college education, to sign a contract without letting their lawyer see it first. Is this okay to you guys?
Fehr is a joke and has been a joke since the start of this process. I have lost all respect for those shooting off their pie holes during this process (biz).
Hey Rut, did you forget that the other fehr was in the room during the time you seem to be saying the players were duped into the said deal???
Why is the fact that the owners said the deal was off the table as soon as Fehr was involved being ignored here? Seriously, a bunch of really experienced and business-savvy businessmen tried to tell a bunch of guys, most of them without even college education, to sign a contract without letting their lawyer see it first. Is this okay to you guys?
Steve Fehr was in the room.
Despite being vehemently anti-player in this dispute, I do have some concerns over the three main points that Daly listed off as hills the owners will die on.
1. CBA term (10yr w/ 8yr out)
2. Individual Contract Term Limits (7yr home team, 5yr new team - 5% annual variance)
3. Transitional process (no amnesty buy-outs or payments outside system - no soft cap in yr 1)
Number one I completely understand and hate the players passionately for not outright accepting.
Number three, I think the owners are exaggerating their die on hill stance and would actually allow for some transitional softening.
It's number two that I see as particularly contentious among the two sides, and I'm not sure why. I don't get why the owners need 5yr limits AND 5% variance limit.
Wouldn't 6yr (new team) and 8yr (same team) work just as well? Wouldn't it work exactly the same with 10%? I don't see how 6yr/8yr and 10% doesn't level the playing field every bit as much as they are hoping.
If you sign a 6yr UFA contract with a new team, and there is a 10% variance limit, your last year is going to still be at least reasonably close the the average of the deal. It's fine.
To me, that's good enough. Every year is reasonably close to the average. That's not a ridiculous variance that gives hugely unfair competitive disadvantages to certain teams.
The NHL has a league-wide insurance policy where teams are charged a premium and receive contract insurance coverage based on their 5 largest contracts. This insurance pays the owner [team] in the event a player is injured for an extended period of time. The players contracts are already guaranteed to be paid by the team in the event they are injured.
In the past this insurance policy has covered up to 7 years of a contract. That policy expired following which there are recent reports that the league had problems finding an affordable insurance option to cover 7 years, and that the new league-wide insurance policy will only cover 5 years. Escalating contract values, increases in lengths of the largest contracts and actuary risk are all likely factors.
If it's true the league can only get 5 years worth of contract insurance now, then there's an extra financial incentive to keep new contracts to 5 years or less.
Number three, I think the owners are exaggerating their die on hill stance and would actually allow for some transitional softening.
You'd think so but then there's this:
"That proposal changed the terms of the owners' 3 requirements for a deal. Owners were clear they had to have those to continue negotiating."
Translation: "We're not going to keep negotiating with you until you accept our demands without negotiating!!! Then we can keep negotiating!"
Also, Steve Fehr is a labor lawyer. That attempt at a point is dead. Abandon it.
What? No, it's not dead just because you don't like it. Don is the head of the PA, that is a fact, and as long as he is the head he should be able to look over the CBA before the players sign it; it's what they hired him for. Sure, Steve act as a substitute but he is only there as just that, a substitute. Six businessmen and Daly give them an offer and they want six unexperienced players and one lawyer to look at it, hoping the lawyer miss something. Obviously that lawyer is gonna ask for a second opinion from an associate as all lawyers have done since the dawn of the profession.
You're really afraid a bunch of billionaires who are raking in the dough won't make more the next played season than they did before, aren't you?
Last edited by naurutger: 12-07-2012 at 02:20 PM.
Reason: nsfw
What? No, it's not dead just because you don't like it. Don is the head of the PA, that is a fact, and as long as he is the head he should be able to look over the CBA before the players sign it; it's what they hired him for. Sure, Steve act as a substitute but he is only there as just that, a substitute. Six businessmen and Daly give them an offer and they want six unexperienced players and one lawyer to look at it, hoping the lawyer miss something. Obviously that lawyer is gonna ask for a second opinion from an associate as all lawyers have done since the dawn of the profession.
You're really afraid a bunch of billionaires who are raking in the dough won't make more the next played season than they did before, aren't you?
6 players?? Where is your info coming from??? Way more then that was there. Doan was one as well. Fehr is a calculated clown that did the first conference to make themselves look good and the second to "attempt" to make the league look bad, which backfired.
For the record the owners didn't say D Fehr couldn't see or read the offer. They said they did not want him in the room and if you watched how he has spun his press conferences during this process you can certainly see why. That's guys word is not worth a crap.
What? No, it's not dead just because you don't like it. Don is the head of the PA, that is a fact, and as long as he is the head he should be able to look over the CBA before the players sign it; it's what they hired him for. Sure, Steve act as a substitute but he is only there as just that, a substitute. Six businessmen and Daly give them an offer and they want six unexperienced players and one lawyer to look at it, hoping the lawyer miss something. Obviously that lawyer is gonna ask for a second opinion from an associate as all lawyers have done since the dawn of the profession.
You're really afraid a bunch of billionaires who are raking in the dough won't make more the next played season than they did before, aren't you?
You were insinuating that the players were being taken advantage of without legal representation present. That was clear. Apparently you did not know that they were, in fact, accompanied by legal council throughout the process. Don't back pedal. Your impressions or at least your insinuations couldn't be more clear.
