HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Players Starting to Ask Uncomfortable Questions of NHLPA Leadership

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2012, 09:59 PM
  #226
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
I don't get this line of reasoning.

Any deal the NHL gets now will make them less money than if they'd signed off on what the NHLPA wanted in October, too.
Not by nearly as much. I can't think of a single owner for which the NHL franchise is their sole source of revenue like it is for the players. Even those players who have other sidelines depend heavily on their NHL status for those sidelines. The owners are more diversified simply for being rich enough to own and fund an NHL team in the first place.

Dojji* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:10 PM
  #227
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,464
vCash: 133
I agree with Vinny.
Iginla's contract wasn't even that long and he's been thrashed at times the last couple yrs.
Gomez is just funny now cause it isn't my team.
I will beg to see an example of a player his 7th yr that fans are still pumped to have. 6th?

The players that have the best chance are the few that signed em at 22,23,24 yrs old...


Last edited by mouser: 12-10-2012 at 01:46 PM. Reason: qdp
DL44 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:10 PM
  #228
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 390
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer77 View Post
So I'm asking..........I'll list some yes or no questions...............just wondering about protocol as personally I don't have experience with unions. Thanks.

1. If a union member expresses his/her concerns in private to a union rep, does a union rep offer them to the negotiating committee or just ignore them?

2. Is it an acceptable practice for a union rep to listen to ideas of fellow member(s), disagree with them and proceed to share those ideas with others in an effort to demean that individual?

3. Is it possible that an individual who has shared an opinion more than once with either # 1. a player rep and/or # 2. a member of the negotiating committee had reasonable expectations that his/her concerns would be shared respectfully?

4. Under what circumstance(s) is it deemed necessary that a union hold a vote to determine whether or not a CBA will be accepted or not?(not yes or no)

5. Is it customary to at least poll your constituents on certain issues to ascertain the proper direction to serve all constituents?

I'm just wondering the responsibilites of a player / union rep. Again, thanks.
Typically, your union elects a bargaining committee and the bargaining committee then asks the membership to let the committee do its job. It would be really unwieldy to keep going back to the membership or individuals while the bargaining process is under way. My sense is that the conference calls that Fehr has been hosting have been information sessions about the state of the process, rather than specifics about what's being said at the table. However, given the fact that these proposals keep getting leaked, I imagine there is more information in the hands of the membership than would occur in a normal round of bargaining.

It's no different than any other form of representative democracy. You elect guys who will sit on the committee and you have to trust that they will effectively and properly represent your interests. If you don't like the work your representative does, then either A) elect someone else or B) get off your ass and do it yourself.

MeHateHe is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:15 PM
  #229
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Why did ya delete that? I agree with Vinny.
Iginla's contract wasn't even that long and he's been thrashed at times the last couple yrs.
Gomez is just funny now cause it isn't my team.
I will beg to see an example of a player his 7th yr that fans are still pumped to have. 6th?

The players that have the best chance are the few that signed em at 22,23,24 yrs old...

Pavel Datsyuk.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:19 PM
  #230
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
One can easily flip this around and ask, if as you imply, there isn't a significant impact, why the NHL would make this a hill to die on issue.
It probably does have a significant impact. You were seeing a good but not great player in Ehrhoff getting a 10 year deal. The trend was starting to form where non-elite players were getting long-term deals.

Some have speculated that long term deals hurt the franchise value. Not sure how valid that is, but that could be another major reason.

In the other thread I mentioned that one of my old employers greatly reformed their expenditures and went from a money loser to a consistently profitable company - in part by spending more money and getting lower insurance premiums.

If more and more players get longer deals as teams try to sign guys to manageable cap hits, you could easily see the whole thing running out of control. As more and more guys get these long contracts, it forces teams not in favour of such deals to follow suit or not sign valuable player assets.

Not to mention that player retention in general can only help a franchise. Keeping your young stars give you a leg up on promotions and by extension, gate and revenue.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 10:22 PM
  #231
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,464
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Pavel Datsyuk.
There will always be exceptions... Of the 90 present contracts.. There will likely be what... 5? 10? 3?

And Datsyuk.. It's yet to be determined whether he will be a $6.7 mil value in his 6th or 7 th yr. But a good example for an exception...

I.e. If Datsyuk was UFA this past offseason... Would he of been signed for greater than/less than/equal to $6.7 mil/yr? That's the quick easy test for any contract's current perceived value.


Last edited by DL44: 12-09-2012 at 10:27 PM.
DL44 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 11:05 PM
  #232
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I'll ignore your insult and answer.

If you want to have a hockey league, you need to have someone to play against. So you need an opponent. If the Toronto Maple Leafs want to have their players skate around at center ice by themselves and charge fans $300, let's see how many will pay.

At the end of the day, if these 30 independent business can somehow act as a single business to control the cost of labor, then these 30 independent businesses need to work share in the responsibility and sacrifice of fixing the game's economics.

FInally, I think it's really bad form to go around calling other people's arguments "Stupid" if you have nothing "smart" to offer. More specifically, nothing in your "critique" of my "stupid argument" makes the case for the Rich Teams making some of the sacrifice.

If the Detroits,NYRangers, Torontos, Montreals etc did more sharing, it would INCREASE parity.

That's kind of the point.
What are you talking about?

"Or you can just have owners who don't want to risk 2 years of uninsured contract not offer the contracts

If the risk is so costly, you'd think most owners would naturally avoid the extra two years."

Where in your post or my post was revenue sharing mentioned at all? I agree there needs to be more sharing.

The only thing I was arguing is it's going to throw off parity if some teams are giving the longer contracts out and others either can't afford it or are forced to give them out it is bad business for those teams. Actually it's bad business for all the teams but there is always going to be 1 or 2 crazy owners who just don't care and then the market is set. I stand by my statement "well if they don't wanna give it out don't" is a dumb argument.

***because of the insurance

veganhunter is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 12:47 AM
  #233
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
No, thats not a "fact", thats your opinion, and as theyd already shot themselves in both feet over the Kelly fiasco, who else were they going to hire BUT Donald Fehr? Some things are just destined to happen RG.
Well considering that no one has been able to come up with a deal that would make up for the money lost so far, I'm pretty confident in saying that Fehr is not working in the player's best interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Who is responsible for the NHL's revenue growth and momentum?
Everyone.

The players are responsible for putting a good product on the ice, which the owners can sell.

The owners are responsible for marketing and selling the product to fans and sponsors.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 01:07 AM
  #234
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
There will always be exceptions... Of the 90 present contracts.. There will likely be what... 5? 10? 3?

And Datsyuk.. It's yet to be determined whether he will be a $6.7 mil value in his 6th or 7 th yr. But a good example for an exception...

I.e. If Datsyuk was UFA this past offseason... Would he of been signed for greater than/less than/equal to $6.7 mil/yr? That's the quick easy test for any contract's current perceived value.

I think he should be, but agree that he's an outlier. The things he brings to a team are, well, everything you'd want in a complete player. He makes everyone around him better.

I've always agreed that GMs should have preferentially stuck to shorter contracts. It makes retooling more efficient. It mitigates risk for a team in that a player's contribution year to year is easier to predict vs from today to ten years from now, although there are charts that at least help you make a fairly educated guess about the decay rate by position.

Why did that fall by the wayside? Two things--- the lack of talent that can set a team apart to a substantial level (Datsyuk being one that can) coupled to an inflationary economic system as far as labor costs. It's not that Datsyuk cost the Wings more from year 1 of his contract to year 7, but that the cap range since he signed that contract has almost doubled.

That money MUST be spent whether there's a Datsyuk to offer it to or not. I think this is the key element that gets overlooked by the posters who back the NHL. It's not really that you have to choose to back one or the other, but to consider what is actually happening economically due to the system imposed on everyone. In other words, teams can' take their foot off the gas pedal and say, "I don't have a 27 yr old Datsyuk around whom I can build a contender that will win a Cup, so I'd prefer to spend $40- 45 MM overall instead of $55-65 MM overall. It's just not a choice.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-10-2012, 02:54 AM
  #235
Mant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
That one is easy.
These long term contracts are like lottery tickets for the players that get em. Set for life no matter what happens...
Owners however Are concerned what happens when things go poorly. Owners pay the price. Insurance has it's limitations. Premiums rise. Etc.
Plus you get players like Jose Theodore who phone it in once they get their big contract and don't actually start to perform until the season their contract is going to expire.

Mant* is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 06:58 AM
  #236
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,731
vCash: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer77 View Post
So I'm asking..........I'll list some yes or no questions...............just wondering about protocol as personally I don't have experience with unions. Thanks.

1. If a union member expresses his/her concerns in private to a union rep, does a union rep offer them to the negotiating committee or just ignore them?

2. Is it an acceptable practice for a union rep to listen to ideas of fellow member(s), disagree with them and proceed to share those ideas with others in an effort to demean that individual?

3. Is it possible that an individual who has shared an opinion more than once with either # 1. a player rep and/or # 2. a member of the negotiating committee had reasonable expectations that his/her concerns would be shared respectfully?

4. Under what circumstance(s) is it deemed necessary that a union hold a vote to determine whether or not a CBA will be accepted or not?(not yes or no)

5. Is it customary to at least poll your constituents on certain issues to ascertain the proper direction to serve all constituents?

I'm just wondering the responsibilites of a player / union rep. Again, thanks.
I've been on a bargaining committee a couple times. Generally speaking you canvas as much information from members as possible prior to serious bargaining. Once bargaining starts only selected information is given back to the members. The main goal is to keep everyone strong and united. Also you know there is always a chance if strategy details are shared with members this can and likely be leaked back to management/owners.

That being said, if a union member approaches someone on the bargaining committee they will be listened to, but more for the ability to put out fires then alter the bargaining committee's position. This however has limits, if someone approaches a member of the bargaining committee and says you have been going off the rails and I've been in contact with a 100 people who agree with me. You bring this back to the comittee and make a judgement on how influencial the person is. If they are influencial enough you definately should be listening to what they are telling you otherwise you just may walk off a cliff. Because if they start working with management against you, you are ******. Ideally you try to bring them back on side or you make somesort of compromise and adjust your stradegy accordingly. All behind the sceens of course.

KingBogo is online now  
Old
12-10-2012, 08:12 AM
  #237
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,422
vCash: 5602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The NHLPA is a mafia, more or less. Players can be downright cruel. Look at baseball. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the player, but when there was replacement players during the strike he played and then when he finally had a cup of coffee in the "real" MLB he was shunned. I remember a report about him and it constantly showed him sitting all by himself with his teammates purposely sitting away from him all because he had the "audacity" to get what might have been his only chance in Major League Baseball during the strike. Shameful on the players.
That might have been Damien Miller, best known as catcher for the Diamondbacks. If not, I know he had a similar story. They had to learn to like him though because he was the starting catcher when they won the World Series

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 08:42 AM
  #238
swimmer77
What's an ROW?
 
swimmer77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: in water
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBogo View Post
I've been on a bargaining committee a couple times. Generally speaking you canvas as much information from members as possible prior to serious bargaining. Once bargaining starts only selected information is given back to the members. The main goal is to keep everyone strong and united. Also you know there is always a chance if strategy details are shared with members this can and likely be leaked back to management/owners.

That being said, if a union member approaches someone on the bargaining committee they will be listened to, but more for the ability to put out fires then alter the bargaining committee's position. This however has limits, if someone approaches a member of the bargaining committee and says you have been going off the rails and I've been in contact with a 100 people who agree with me. You bring this back to the comittee and make a judgement on how influencial the person is. If they are influencial enough you definately should be listening to what they are telling you otherwise you just may walk off a cliff. Because if they start working with management against you, you are ******. Ideally you try to bring them back on side or you make somesort of compromise and adjust your stradegy accordingly. All behind the sceens of course.
Thanks........just trying to get better insight with Hamrlik. IMO too many implied he just sat in a corner minding his own business and then had an outburst.

But according to quotes from Hamrlik and Cole..........

1. According to Hamrlik, he attended the Barcelona meetings in August.

2. Implied through quotes by both Hamrlik and Gorges: Hamrlik for a period of about one month, during the Quebec charity games, had conversations with Josh Gorges
which for some reason became privy to Cole. Through Cole's quote it was implied that Gorges and Cole came to the conclusion that Hamrlik was out to lunch. I might add that Hamrlik had been practicing with other Habs which included Mathieau Darche, a member of the negotiating committee I believe.

3. Hamrlik, through another quote, implies he "wrote" to Fehr asking for a vote on certain items.

I guess my point is that Hamrlik possibly felt like his POV fell on deaf ears and therefore he said his piece.

But with your explanation it sounds as if Hamrlik had he even attended meetings his ideas would have fallen on deaf ears.

I guess I shudder to think that Fehr and the hardliners he has wrapped around his finger are freely using every other members' wages to get what they want.

Maybe I'm reading the whole process incorrectly.

swimmer77 is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 08:55 AM
  #239
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
That one is easy.
These long term contracts are like lottery tickets for the players that get em. Set for life no matter what happens...
Owners however Are concerned what happens when things go poorly. Owners pay the price. Insurance has it's limitations. Premiums rise. Etc.
Owners are concerned the dollars will not be going to the players that deserve them. 5 yr limits ensure their mistakes are limited... And dollars turned over to the correct players. Easier to reconstruct rosters.
There was only one purpose to long contracts... As evidenced by the fact there was only one signed pre-lockout.. And it was by Milbury.


And now on a more emotional tangent:
Not a single long term contract will end well for the players who have them... Not a single one. Fans will not remember or care about the great value players were early on... Just the massive burdens they've become. I feel bad for (some) the players already experiencing it actually... Kipper hate gets to me for example. Anyways...
Agree entirely. here's the example in my backyard. Shea Weber. No way he's worth what we're paying. I wish we were further along in the development of the franchise and could have let him walk. He's going to be an albatross around our neck in the future and already has had several concussions.
I understand why the owners did what they did and the reasons--- but this $14 million salary will sink us--- (much more than the lockout) along with webers attitude.... Maybe he'll grow up and turn into a leader during this time period but I doubt it.

predfan98 is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 09:00 AM
  #240
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
Stuff like this is exactly why the players are going to lose again.

While this group of players think that coming out to the media is going to help their case... all it's going to do is show the owners just how weak they are as an organization. The NHL has it right -- meet behind closed doors, and present a unified front.

I'm sure Larry Tanenbaum and Ron Burkle want to get back to playing already, that doesn't mean they're going to diverge from the group and weaken the NHL's bargaining position.
It's a bit different though. The guys making under 1mil per season who will never get anything close to a 5mil contract are not being looked after, only the all stars are. These guys are the mass majority, and they don't even get a voice in these negotiations.

I don't think by speaking out it will show any weakness to the NHL though. The NHL knows better than to underestimate Fehr. Just because a small group of players want something, or are "blackmailing" the union, doesn't mean it will have any effect whatsoever on Fehr's decisions. He's been through this all before, the NHL would be naive to offer a lesser thinking Fehr will accept it just because some players spoke out against him.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 09:12 AM
  #241
TheNudge
Registered User
 
TheNudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,942
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to TheNudge
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter View Post
What are you talking about?

"Or you can just have owners who don't want to risk 2 years of uninsured contract not offer the contracts

If the risk is so costly, you'd think most owners would naturally avoid the extra two years."

Where in your post or my post was revenue sharing mentioned at all? I agree there needs to be more sharing.

The only thing I was arguing is it's going to throw off parity if some teams are giving the longer contracts out and others either can't afford it or are forced to give them out it is bad business for those teams. Actually it's bad business for all the teams but there is always going to be 1 or 2 crazy owners who just don't care and then the market is set. I stand by my statement "well if they don't wanna give it out don't" is a dumb argument.

***because of the insurance
Like the Shea Weber contract. Flyers push Nashville in a corner and they stood up. But it will hurt them in the short term. The went with the bigger picture.

TheNudge is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 09:39 AM
  #242
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 390
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer77 View Post
Thanks........just trying to get better insight with Hamrlik. IMO too many implied he just sat in a corner minding his own business and then had an outburst.

But according to quotes from Hamrlik and Cole..........

1. According to Hamrlik, he attended the Barcelona meetings in August.

2. Implied through quotes by both Hamrlik and Gorges: Hamrlik for a period of about one month, during the Quebec charity games, had conversations with Josh Gorges
which for some reason became privy to Cole. Through Cole's quote it was implied that Gorges and Cole came to the conclusion that Hamrlik was out to lunch. I might add that Hamrlik had been practicing with other Habs which included Mathieau Darche, a member of the negotiating committee I believe.

3. Hamrlik, through another quote, implies he "wrote" to Fehr asking for a vote on certain items.

I guess my point is that Hamrlik possibly felt like his POV fell on deaf ears and therefore he said his piece.

But with your explanation it sounds as if Hamrlik had he even attended meetings his ideas would have fallen on deaf ears.

I guess I shudder to think that Fehr and the hardliners he has wrapped around his finger are freely using every other members' wages to get what they want.

Maybe I'm reading the whole process incorrectly.
Hamrlik can ask for a vote all he wants. If bargaining committees jumped every time individual members asked them to, nothing would ever get accomplished. It's simply not feasible to keep going back to the membership to re-ask for the authority to make a deal.

MeHateHe is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 10:04 AM
  #243
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Why did ya delete that?
Didn't want to start a potential unrelated crapstorm. Lecavalier still has his backers.

The overall point is definitely worth perusing. Case on point, Marc Savard. That 7 year deal he signed really looks bad considering he already had the concussion that ended his career when he was offered that contract. What Engelland did was just the last blow, and barely even that.


Last edited by Dojji*: 12-10-2012 at 10:11 AM.
Dojji* is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 11:22 AM
  #244
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
Agree entirely. here's the example in my backyard. Shea Weber. No way he's worth what we're paying. I wish we were further along in the development of the franchise and could have let him walk. He's going to be an albatross around our neck in the future and already has had several concussions.
I understand why the owners did what they did and the reasons--- but this $14 million salary will sink us--- (much more than the lockout) along with webers attitude.... Maybe he'll grow up and turn into a leader during this time period but I doubt it.
Good news is he doesn't have a NTC (at least that's my understanding). Not sure how easy it would be to trade him... but if things are still in great shape in 3-5 years, Nashville can always look into trading him.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 12:03 PM
  #245
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeHateHe View Post
Hamrlik can ask for a vote all he wants. If bargaining committees jumped every time individual members asked them to, nothing would ever get accomplished. It's simply not feasible to keep going back to the membership to re-ask for the authority to make a deal.
Ok, well how about this though. Which of the following scenarios do you think would be worth consulting your membership on (since it so onerous to ask the opinion of the people you are representing when everyone is out of work):

-to save a whole season
-10% of salary has been lost
-20% of salary has been lost
-25% of salary has been lost
-35% of salary has been lost
-45% of salary has been lost
-a whole season will be lost

Come on, this is basic stuff. It's not like their JOBS are to represent the players or anything.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 12:12 PM
  #246
Lewy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 379
vCash: 500
Does the fact that the NHL wants Fehr out of the negotiating room mean that the players currently have an excellent Executive Director?
I think it does.

Lewy is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 12:18 PM
  #247
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Didn't want to start a potential unrelated crapstorm. Lecavalier still has his backers.

The overall point is definitely worth perusing. Case on point, Marc Savard. That 7 year deal he signed really looks bad considering he already had the concussion that ended his career when he was offered that contract. What Engelland did was just the last blow, and barely even that.
No he didn't.

patty59 is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 12:37 PM
  #248
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewy View Post
Does the fact that the NHL wants Fehr out of the negotiating room mean that the players currently have an excellent Executive Director?
I think it does.
I guess it depends on how one defines an excellent ED? If your definition is getting an excellent deal and not missing any games (or perhaps only a few) then yes.

If its that you missed 40% of the games, and got basically the same deal you could have gotten yet missed only 10% of the games... then no.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 12:42 PM
  #249
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Fehr and the players could control this by forming a new league?But the reason they can't is because they no there is no alternative to Nhl in terms of salary.

thom is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 12:51 PM
  #250
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
That makes no sense whatsoever. What is Fehr gaining here in personal terms?
This is a really good question. The guy has a career and I'm sure an expected career trajectory. Who knows where he wants to be in 5 or 10 years. We all have goals.

Looking back on this lockout in hindsight somewhere down the road, what will people say?

They might say he made the players happy by getting them playing and paid again so a season doesn't go down the drain. In the same breath they might add he screwed them over because he didn't stand up to the owners enough. I would argue that his career and future opportunity is more dependent on negotiating a higher amount of money out of the owners pockets into the players hands, and not just making the players happy enough to agree to a new CBA and return to work. It's very subjective and it comes down to what your opinion is on what the players should do at this juncture. Then again there have been a lot of questions about the unions end game, at this point it doesn't seem likely Fehr will "win". But who knows.

lush 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 09:27 PM.

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.