HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout XXIV: Oi! Get your filthy hands off my desert!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2012, 08:11 AM
  #951
dennilfloss
Yes I love disco!
 
dennilfloss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,946
vCash: 500
Of course they don't refuse to budge, how could they keep moving the goal posts otherwise?

dennilfloss is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 08:18 AM
  #952
OGBobbyFarnham
Registered User
 
OGBobbyFarnham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharks9 View Post
But the league is the one throwing up new sticking points. First it was HRR and then after they got settled it has turned into CBA length and contract lengths.

The NHLPA has never said "This is our final offer and we refuse to budge anymore", that's been the NHL saying that multiple times so it kinda makes sense that the players don't take it seriously.
The CBA length isn't even a sticking point for most players. I've heard several say they like the idea of a 10 year CBA. You want to give something back to the fans? Thats a good start.

And how many players have contracts more than 5 years?

After pouring 99million more into make whole, the owners were met with more demands.
The NHL expects some give and take. Players were always going to lose in this. The league needs certain things to fix the broken system.

OGBobbyFarnham is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 08:22 AM
  #953
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharks9 View Post
But the league is the one throwing up new sticking points. First it was HRR and then after they got settled it has turned into CBA length and contract lengths.

The NHLPA has never said "This is our final offer and we refuse to budge anymore", that's been the NHL saying that multiple times so it kinda makes sense that the players don't take it seriously.
How in the heck could they? They didn't start tendering complete offers until what, a week ago?

Kaoz* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 08:28 AM
  #954
tmg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
It's not 75%, it's actually less. I don't think you know how to do it sir. Moreover, when we deal in real world economics, that is the buying power of the dollar, inflation must be accounted for. Given all of that, the increase in salaries is in the range of < 40%.
The inflation rate during the term of this past CBA has been pretty close to 1% per annum. 1% a year for 7 years doesn't turn 75% growth into 40% growth.

Tell me you're not using a "historical average" inflation rate like 3.4%, because that is not anywhere near the rate of inflation over the course of the last CBA.

tmg is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 08:29 AM
  #955
Wheathead
Formally a McRib
 
Wheathead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,928
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Wheathead
Will we see our obligatory "Daly and S. Fehr touched base today" twitter report today?

Wheathead is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 08:39 AM
  #956
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
Right, and if we include standard inlfation, in real dollars, increase equals:

2.4 million - 1.85 million = .55

.55/1.4 = 39%
I'm actually going to use this post to address a lot of your posts.

1. With an assumed 2.5% inflation rate, $1.4 million turns into about $1.66 million, not $1.85 million. Secondly, no one said in real dollars taking into account inflation. But even if they did, an over 50% increase in salary over 7 years AFTER inflation is pretty huge. The players made out like bandits under the last CBA and sorry, it's kool-aid to think otherwise.

2. I'm sure all 30 owners want this lockout to end now. What they don't want is them to end on the NHLPA terms. This week, you had some of the moderate owners in the room, Tananbaum and Burkle being notable. 1 from Toronto who's losing the most money, and Burkle who finally started seeing profit just last season and is seeing his young core sit iddly by for 1/2 a season. Yet, those were the one's that seemed most disgusted from the players actions, and it was Tananbaum that left first.

3. The NHL has some problem markets. I don't think anyone really argues otherwise. But, first, it was not Bettman that sold the owners on it. The NHL southern expansion strategy was already well on its way when Bettman became Commissioner, and Bettman was handed the mandate by the owners when he became commish to see it through and to grow the game in the U.S. Second, there's not a team except for the Toronto Maple Leafs that hasn't had financial difficulties in the past 2 decades. It's easy to sit back in hindsight and question some of the franchise locations, but in the mid 90's, the NHL was trending in the States, the Canadian dollar was worth about 0.70 on the US dollar (it would go as low as 0.62), a good chunk of the Canadian teams were struggling. Abandoning markets on any sort of mass scale is not good for a league. Thirdly, just because there are other problems with the league doesn't mean the league shouldn't address the CBA problem, a CBA that's heavily favoured towards the players. Want to know Bettman's biggest mistake which you can't say is just hindsight? He should have reigned in player costs a lot earlier than 2004/2005. He's now trying to fix that mistake.

4. The NHL Owners were not in there alone with the players. Hell, they were hardly in there at all on Wednesday. Steve Fehr was in the room the entire time, he and Daly weren't just playing Tiddly Winks in the corner. Secondly, the owners and the players were in seperate rooms and caucases the entire time. Donald was advising the throughout (as one player has said, they were ready to play hockey, until Don told them to hold out for more).

5. Yes, the PA and its supporters want to use the last CBA as the benchmark. Of course they do, the last CBA was weighed heavily in the players favour. It was still a far improvement over the previous uncapped CBA, but it was still well in the players favour and still the most player friendly CBA in North American Pro Sports. (MLB is more friendly to the stars, not to the MLBPA as a whole though) And the owners are still offering the NHL Players the most player friendly CBA in North American Sports, and that's despite that the players in the NBA, NFL and MLB all bring in more revenue (and as a result, profit) for their owners.

PensFanSince1989 is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 08:57 AM
  #957
Whakahere
Registered User
 
Whakahere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Whakahere
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...Y15mlRCaikgfqO

The NHL walked away. Its their fault why today is December 9,2012 and there is no deal. Day #85. The deal should have been done by yesterday at the latest. The NHL left the room. Look at the remaining differences.

Its a shame. The NHL is getting everything they want. 50-50. Term limits.

The NHL can't agree to 1 amnesty buyout per team and setting the cap at $67.25M(NHLPA proposal)for 12-13 and 13-14 with the players ACCEPTING the 10 year CBA with an opt out after 8 years?The NBA has a 10 year CBA with an opt out after 6.
add in the limit to escrow too remember. This is just window dressing.

take the buyouts and limits to escrow that the players want and .... that last remaining 98 million on the make whole is easily made up. So where did the player budge?

Look at all the extra things they have got. better hotel stay, doctors ... the list goes on. Hell I would love if my employer would give me .... SOME benefits

Whakahere is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:03 AM
  #958
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,578
vCash: 500
So wait players are willing to accept 10 year cba now?

Lundsanity30 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:04 AM
  #959
Potrzebie
Registered User
 
Potrzebie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 964
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
Have you ever been present in a negotiation process before? It's an honest question. Second hand information has a funny way of being distorted. Remember when you were a kid and played the game where everyone got in a circle and a story was passed on down the line. Remember how it was lost in translation?

Right, now do that with complex legal speak when you're not a lawyer. Good luck.

The scope of perspective on this forum is far too simplistic.
Most people are familiar with "telephone". So what you're saying is Steve Fehr is not capable of relaying accurate information to Don Fehr? If that's the case then why does Don trust him in private meetings and phone calls with Daly? You are aware that Steve is the PA's "special counsel" and is a lawyer, right?

Potrzebie is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:23 AM
  #960
Gberg
Registered User
 
Gberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whakahere View Post
I hope the players get nothing now.

As a fan, I want a 10 year contract. I don't want to be back here in 6 years. As a fan, I want 5 year contract max as I hate seeing teams get saddled with a huge contract that most likely make my team suck in the future. As a fan, I want 50/50 split. I am sick to death of too many teams not making enough money so as a fan I have to hear about my team needing to move to another city.

I've had to take a 30% pay cut in my job since 2008 and I know many others that have had pay cuts. Here we see people asking for more while we take less. As a fan, I've had enough.
If the league starts making less money, the players will make less. If the owners take a bigger cut (43 moving to 50), and start making extra millions of dollar (profitable teams), do you think they'll cut prices to their games? Lower the beer prices? Haha.. yeah.. right! Most of these owners are the same guys on wallstreet that want everything and more.

Gberg is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:47 AM
  #961
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whakahere View Post

take the buyouts and limits to escrow that the players want and .... that last remaining 98 million on the make whole is easily made up. So where did the player budge?
Are buyouts even going to be necessary?

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:51 AM
  #962
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...Y15mlRCaikgfqO


The NHL can't agree to 1 amnesty buyout per team and setting the cap at $67.25M(NHLPA proposal)for 12-13 and 13-14 with the players ACCEPTING the 10 year CBA with an opt out after 8 years?The NBA has a 10 year CBA with an opt out after 6.
I don't think the NHL really sees a need for the transitional provisions if the Make Whole is close to where the players want it to be.

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 09:52 AM
  #963
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
Are buyouts even going to be necessary?
They wouldn't under the NHL's proposal (though some teams may have to do some moves 2nd season). It appears as though the NHLPA is now thinking of transitional rules that would see the need for compliance buyouts.

Both Compliance Buyouts and Escrow Limits are attempts by the NHLPA to get more than 50% of the revenue through the backdoor (on top of the Make Whole payments, even)

PensFanSince1989 is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:04 AM
  #964
Shoalzie
Registered User
 
Shoalzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Portland, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
So wait players are willing to accept 10 year cba now?


I hope so...just as long as the league doesn't keep tacking on additional crap to the deal.

I hated that BS statement Fehr had about the 10 year deal...saying some players won't have the experience of a labor negotiation with a long term CBA. You say it like it's a bad thing, Don...

Shoalzie is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:12 AM
  #965
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,004
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
Then why should the players? In the words of the late, and great George Carlin, I say " I'm just looking for a little consistency here". Your logic does not add up.
They do not have to, but seeing the NHL is the only league with as many amenities and can afford their enormous salaries. Well, the alternative is to play for significantly less in a foreign Country. Up to them, the few who can go overseas that is.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:13 AM
  #966
Devs4LordStanley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 4
vCash: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoalzie View Post
I hope so...just as long as the league doesn't keep tacking on additional crap to the deal.

I hated that BS statement Fehr had about the 10 year deal...saying some players won't have the experience of a labor negotiation with a long term CBA. You say it like it's a bad thing, Don...
Do you know why PA wants a 5yr cba? 2017=NHL's 100yr anny. they're stupid enough to think nhl won't cancel that year...

Devs4LordStanley is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:13 AM
  #967
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 13,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
They wouldn't under the NHL's proposal (though some teams may have to do some moves 2nd season). It appears as though the NHLPA is now thinking of transitional rules that would see the need for compliance buyouts.

Both Compliance Buyouts and Escrow Limits are attempts by the NHLPA to get more than 50% of the revenue through the backdoor (on top of the Make Whole payments, even)
When were escrow limits first proposed by the PA? This past week? Great way to stall negotiations, introduce escrow limits just when a deal is supposed to be made. Cherry-picking was the perfect word to describe it.

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:20 AM
  #968
orange is better
than other colors...
 
orange is better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,643
vCash: 500
Someone fill me in; how do we know the players are willing to accept a 10 year CBA now? Or are we just assuming?

orange is better is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:23 AM
  #969
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gberg View Post
If the league starts making less money, the players will make less. If the owners take a bigger cut (43 moving to 50), and start making extra millions of dollar (profitable teams), do you think they'll cut prices to their games? Lower the beer prices? Haha.. yeah.. right! Most of these owners are the same guys on wallstreet that want everything and more.
No, I don't see the owners cutting any prices, but I can see the owners who own profitable teams put a price freeze on things for a year or two, maybe longer. The struggling owners who are operating at a loss or breaking even, probably won't. The owners of a business have every right to make a boat load of money, and to try and make even more. The players have a right to not be employed by a business if they don't like the pay they're offered.

An employee can demand a certain pay, but the owners have the right to say no, and look for alternative ways to keep his business afloat. Or sell the business if its too much of a financial burden. If you have a job where this isn't the case, then you are very very lucky. (And probably union).

ZZamboni is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:23 AM
  #970
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
http://triblive.com/sports/penguins/...#axzz2EY1ti5OC

Seems Pat Brisson told Rob Rossi some more about the behind the scenes push from Mario and Burkle.

I will say it was a good effort until Fehr thought he could get more.

If it takes that much effort to get 99million more put into the make whole(contingent on a 10 yr deal), i can't fathom what kind of effort gets the players more out of this unless they bring something back to the table that the league likes.

ETA:Link works now.
Wow that was a good read until Fehr sabotaged everything.

CN_paladin is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:28 AM
  #971
MacOfNiagara
Blue&Gold from birth
 
MacOfNiagara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Niagara Falls
Country: United States
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
That's why I don't think we're going to lose a season over a few variances. Both sides need to sit down and split the different. 9 year CBA, 7 year opt out. 7 year max contracts. Make Whole of $250m.
Just my opinion but I dont think the NHLPA would accept: 9yr CBA or 7yr Max Contract, or $250 make whole.

The make whole is going to be a rapidly problematic number for the NHLPA. The more games that are missed the more make whole I think Fehr is going to need in order to convince the players this was all worth it. However, for the owners, the longer this goes the more the math on make whole becomes less tenable. A festering wound for both sides.


Last edited by MacOfNiagara: 12-09-2012 at 10:39 AM.
MacOfNiagara is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:28 AM
  #972
Captain Saku
Registered User
 
Captain Saku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange is better View Post
Someone fill me in; how do we know the players are willing to accept a 10 year CBA now? Or are we just assuming?
The players will accept a 10 yrs CBA, the owners won't budge on that

Captain Saku is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:30 AM
  #973
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,447
vCash: 500
The thing some of you are missing is that the owners were so frustrated because the owners added an extra 100M to Make Whole as a means to grease the skids to the contract issues(which they had already trimmed some demands off of, in regard to UFA and ELC details) that they were looking for and the longer CBA they were looking for. It was supposed to be the deal. Instead, Fehr said "let's counter, keeping the Make Whole concessions they've made, sweat them a little more," and things fell apart.

Brooks can say the NHL blew it by not taking the deal the PA so "generously" offered, but the PA also turned down an offer tha was "practically the same."

It's for these reasons that a deal was never going to happen last week, but likely will before Xmas.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:33 AM
  #974
PumpkinBomb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 750
vCash: 500
For all the people derailing the thread arguing salary increases and inflation:

Use median salary increase (not average, not total $)

And use the US CPI (consumer price index) keeping in mind it affects both sides equally.

Also use the median team revenue to measure against, if you have it.

Or just agree to disagree.

PumpkinBomb is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:34 AM
  #975
MacOfNiagara
Blue&Gold from birth
 
MacOfNiagara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Niagara Falls
Country: United States
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
They wouldn't under the NHL's proposal (though some teams may have to do some moves 2nd season). It appears as though the NHLPA is now thinking of transitional rules that would see the need for compliance buyouts.

Both Compliance Buyouts and Escrow Limits are attempts by the NHLPA to get more than 50% of the revenue through the backdoor (on top of the Make Whole payments, even)
Agreed. It is subtle in it's naming, but it is a massive change in terms of dollars. Makes it sound like a simple and reasonable request but in reality it is a massive move of the goalposts.

Same thing with the apparent concession on cba term. On its face it seems like the NHLPA moved off of 5 and went to 8. Sounds reasonable, but it has a player opt out at 6. So in reality it is a move from 5 to 6, not 5 to 8. All while funneling more money out the back door additions (Removing from HRR before a theoretical 50/50 split)


Last edited by MacOfNiagara: 12-09-2012 at 10:39 AM.
MacOfNiagara 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 09:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.