HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout XXV: New car caviar four star daydream, think I'll buy me a hockey team

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2012, 01:34 PM
  #76
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Owners have been trying to get make whole off the table, but Gary not only kept it but also increased it to get a deal done. The owners giving 300M in make whole was a a huge concession. Now that the NHLPA has thrown that 300M in the owners faces it's off the table.

Revenue does not equal profits. It's really not a hard concept. Many owners are losing less in the lockout than they were under the old CBA.
I understand revenue does not equal profits... that doesn't change the fact that the majority of teams make money. The owners make whole is only them saying we'll honour a portion of the contracts we agreed to pay you. Looking at this subjectively... the players are only going to lose in this. The only question is how much are they going to lose. And yet people try to make it out like the owners are giving up so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by f1nn View Post
hate it when people say that,, how exactly are they being bullied!? its not like the owners are chaining up the players and their families making them play for a weekly loaf of bread.. they're being paid millions to play a game and the owners are saying "hey I can't afford to keep paying you 2.3 million we're gonna have to work it out so you might only get 2 or 2.1 in the end because as things stand now I'm getting a horrible ROI"
They're very obviously trying to separate the players from the Fehr.... just like did last time with Goodenow. They have consistently put take it or leave it offers on the table and have consistently walked away from talks when they don't get what they want and they did the exact same thing last time.

TieClark is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:34 PM
  #77
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
The players gave up ~550M in salaries and killed HRR to get an extra 89M in make whole.

It's only a better offer if you don't look at the real money and HRR damage this lockout has caused the players to lose.

Had Fehr negotiated off that Oct offer, like he should have, he might have gotten the FA/arb ect. that the owners just proposed. Of course he decided to make his previous offer 3 more times, so we'll never know.
Not only have they given up 550 million in salaries this year.... In years to come if revenue takes a big hit.

Crows* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:39 PM
  #78
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
That's not true at all... the majority of teams are making a profit, just not nearly as much as the big guys. Yeah the players may be suffering right now more so than the owners but you can't fault the players for refusing to be bullied by the owners.
But those multi millionaires are making multi millions through other ventures. The players are depriving themselves of likely their only paycheck.

And please spare us the "owners are bullies" rhetoric. They rightfully want a deal that doesn't automatically cause teams to lose money. They aren't demeaning or abusing the players. They just want a mutual financial incentive for both sides. If you owned a hockey team, you would too, and you're a liar if you say otherwise.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:40 PM
  #79
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,449
vCash: 500
Only way out is getting the players to a formal vote

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:41 PM
  #80
nyrpassion
Vetted.
 
nyrpassion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
Only way out is getting the players to a formal vote
what is protocol for that?

nyrpassion is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:42 PM
  #81
One7nine
Registered User
 
One7nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Neptune, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,265
vCash: 500
Isn't the "make whole" just the honoring the contracts that the owners have already agreed to? How is that a concession?

One7nine is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:42 PM
  #82
Bhay99
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrpassion View Post
what is protocol for that?
First step would be getting rid of Fehr and replacing him with someone who actually wants to get a deal done.

Bhay99 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:44 PM
  #83
MacOfNiagara
Blue&Gold from birth
 
MacOfNiagara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Niagara Falls
Country: United States
Posts: 2,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by One7nine View Post
Isn't the "make whole" just the honoring the contracts that the owners have already agreed to? How is that a concession?
Because those contracts stipulate that they are tied to the existing cba and subject to future cba changes. In short, there is no legal or contractual requirement for the owners to 'make whole'. Therefore it is a concession.

MacOfNiagara is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:44 PM
  #84
Penalty Kill Icing*
Fire Carlyle
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,972
vCash: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by One7nine View Post
Isn't the "make whole" just the honoring the contracts that the owners have already agreed to? How is that a concession?
I repeat it for one more time. When players and owners sign a contract, BOTH of them knew that the contract gets adjusted according to new CBA. Players have acknowledged that they knew about this. Given this, I believe players already got paid higher than they deserve when they signed the contract. Kind of high risk (of changes in new CBA), and therefore high reward.

Penalty Kill Icing* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:46 PM
  #85
nyrpassion
Vetted.
 
nyrpassion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhay99 View Post
First step would be getting rid of Fehr and replacing him with someone who actually wants to get a deal done.
who decides to fire Fehr tho? haha sorry for these questions. is it a player decision? A PA brass decision?

nyrpassion is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:49 PM
  #86
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penalty Kill Icing View Post
I repeat it for one more time. When players and owners sign a contract, BOTH of them knew that the contract gets adjusted according to new CBA. Players have acknowledged that they knew about this. Given this, I believe players already got paid higher than they deserve when they signed the contract. Kind of high risk (of changes in new CBA), and therefore high reward.
That's why so many players sought huge signing bonuses this past July 1. I'm betting some gms respect their players and were willing to give them the bonus knowing what was coming

Crows* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:50 PM
  #87
Freudian
Calmer than you are
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,787
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrpassion View Post
what is protocol for that?
The negotiation committee has to put it to a vote. It's 31 players that seems to be fairly Fehr loyal. So it is possible hardliners could kidnap the process a little bit, but in the long run it's of course impossible for them to resist the will of the player collective. There is a day after the lockout.

Right now there isn't anything to vote on, since Fehr didn't want to consider the owners full proposal as one, but more as a smorgasbord of stuff he could grab for his own.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:52 PM
  #88
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrpassion View Post
what is protocol for that?
First Fehr and the committee have to recommend for them to vote. And if Fehr disagrees with it they need a 2/3rds majority for it to pass. If Fehr agrees with it they only need a simple majority.

molsonmuscle360 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:52 PM
  #89
One7nine
Registered User
 
One7nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Neptune, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,265
vCash: 500
I understand the tie in between the contracts and the cba. My point is that the whole idea is stupid, im going to offer you a 10, 12, 13 year front loaded contract for crazy money. Them I'm gonna sit at a table and talk about how these long term front loaded contracts are unacceptable and ruining the sport.

One7nine is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:54 PM
  #90
Ugene Malkin
Waldorf-Statler
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 20,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
I understand revenue does not equal profits... that doesn't change the fact that the majority of teams make money. The owners make whole is only them saying we'll honour a portion of the contracts we agreed to pay you. Looking at this subjectively... the players are only going to lose in this. The only question is how much are they going to lose. And yet people try to make it out like the owners are giving up so much.


They're very obviously trying to separate the players from the Fehr.... just like did last time with Goodenow. They have consistently put take it or leave it offers on the table and have consistently walked away from talks when they don't get what they want and they did the exact same thing last time.
Simple fact, the owners have been giving more for decades, it's not really about the players losing money more so than the owners taking what's rightfully theirs back.

Yes, the owners make money, but the teams are not. There's a difference people need to understand. And the majority of teams do not make money.

Tell me who has been giving up so much for decades. Please stop with the poor players, they've been getting more than 50% for two decades.

Let me know how you feel when the NHL collapses if things didn't/don't change.

Ugene Malkin is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:56 PM
  #91
Nanuk23
Registered User
 
Nanuk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
First Fehr and the committee have to recommend for them to vote. And if Fehr disagrees with it they need a 2/3rds majority for it to pass. If Fehr agrees with it they only need a simple majority.
Are you sure a 2/3 rds majority is needed for it to pass if Fehr disagrees?That's the 1st time I've heard that

Nanuk23 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:57 PM
  #92
swimmer77
What's an ROW?
 
swimmer77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: in water
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
The players gave up ~550M in salaries and killed HRR to get an extra 89M in make whole.

It's only a better offer if you don't look at the real money and HRR damage this lockout has caused the players to lose.

Had Fehr negotiated off that Oct offer, like he should have, he might have gotten the FA/arb ect. that the owners just proposed. Of course he decided to make his previous offer 3 more times, so we'll never know.
I don't know. I guess someone should have thought about that last January instead of dragging their feet.

swimmer77 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:58 PM
  #93
StanTheMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Idle thought
when GMs/owners are criticized for not watchin how much they spend on player contracts - therefore any losses are really their fault, my mind turns to the game on the ice which the players play within certain rules, rules designed to try to present the best games possible while trying at the same time to keep the players at least relatively safe.
perhaps instead we could eliminate the rules for the most part, let the players be responsible for their own actions and see how that goes. Chaos and a quick end to th NHL.
extreme idea, but the point is the health of the game. I believe the owners are really trying to balance things out enought to keep the game healthy. If they can come up with a rule that keeps roster building competitive without severe losses - and I think they know that the threat of some financial loss is necessary - then they, like the players, will have a set of rules that can let theit GMs compete for the best roster possible without sustaining unreasonable losses, just like the players play the game under agreed to rules that, for the most part, result in entertaining games without severe losses (ie fan interest and injuries)

StanTheMan is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:59 PM
  #94
NickyMaz
Registered User
 
NickyMaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Dayton, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by One7nine View Post
I understand the tie in between the contracts and the cba. My point is that the whole idea is stupid, im going to offer you a 10, 12, 13 year front loaded contract for crazy money. Them I'm gonna sit at a table and talk about how these long term front loaded contracts are unacceptable and ruining the sport.
Would you rather the owners violated anti-tust laws (i.e. collusion).

One of the things that makes this so frustrating is how little sense this all makes.

NickyMaz is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:59 PM
  #95
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YouCantYandleThis View Post
It would be nice if youknowhoyouarecaptain would reply to this post from the last thread.



This post seemed conveniently ignored, and I'd love to hear a response.
So basically not much different than the last CBA?

the variance is important to the owners too, I doubt they budge too much(if at all) on that.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:59 PM
  #96
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by One7nine View Post
Isn't the "make whole" just the honoring the contracts that the owners have already agreed to? How is that a concession?
Think if the make whole as a boost to the cap. It allows the floor to be the 50% floor and the cap to be higher than 50%

onlyalad is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:59 PM
  #97
MacOfNiagara
Blue&Gold from birth
 
MacOfNiagara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Niagara Falls
Country: United States
Posts: 2,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by One7nine View Post
I understand the tie in between the contracts and the cba. My point is that the whole idea is stupid, im going to offer you a 10, 12, 13 year front loaded contract for crazy money. Them I'm gonna sit at a table and talk about how these long term front loaded contracts are unacceptable and ruining the sport.
Your point here is a reasonable one and has been brought up and debated numerous times by many posters. Your original post didn't raise this point, but rather stated confusion over how make whole was a concession. Two different things.

(1) - Make whole is a concession because signed contracts stipulated they were subject to cba changes, and therefore are not required to be 'made whole'

(2) - Owners signed players to monster, long term contracts and then stated financial problems caused by rapidly expanding payrolls.

MacOfNiagara is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:00 PM
  #98
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/sta...37038869422080

Who does not want a season?

They are too preoccupied with demonizing Fehr to actually make a deal.

Disgrace.
I find it amusing that almost everything that's said along these lines is equally as accurate when reversed - perhaps if the PA and players would take the focus off of demonizing Bettman and the owners, as well, the two sides could sit down and negotiate a deal.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:03 PM
  #99
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by One7nine View Post
I understand the tie in between the contracts and the cba. My point is that the whole idea is stupid, im going to offer you a 10, 12, 13 year front loaded contract for crazy money. Them I'm gonna sit at a table and talk about how these long term front loaded contracts are unacceptable and ruining the sport.
I really don't see the problem here. You were allowed to do front loaded, crazy money contracts under the old rules. The owners/GMs had to work inside those rules to make their team as competitive as possible. Now that those rules are up, they want to make the new rules so that they don't have to offer front loaded, crazy money contracts just to get top UFAs. It's time to make new rules, so they want to change them. It's not stupid at all.

haveandare is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:07 PM
  #100
NicoSB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
I really don't see the problem here. You were allowed to do front loaded, crazy money contracts under the old rules. The owners/GMs had to work inside those rules to make their team as competitive as possible. Now that those rules are up, they want to make the new rules so that they don't have to offer front loaded, crazy money contracts just to get top UFAs. It's time to make new rules, so they want to change them. It's not stupid at all.
The only reason why they "have to" make such ridiculous contracts is because they can. If there would be a limitation of like six or seven years it would be way easier. In Europe no one would possibly do front loaded, crazy money contracts because it isn't only uneconomical but also very dangerous. A player might get injured and not be able to play his highest level after a few years but still receiving like six to twelve million dollars which is nothing but ridiculous.

NicoSB 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 06:44 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.