HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

No More Lockout Blues! - 2012 Lockout Part 2 [UPD: AGREEMENT REACHED!]

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2012, 07:28 PM
  #626
allan5oh
#Dive4Five #31Buyout
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,631
vCash: 50
You are wrong, the "make whole" is to ease the transition and honor current contracts. If there was no make whole the players would take a pay cut. Instead of paying the players directly with the make whole, both sides havea agreed to instead fund a pension fund.

It was their money to begin with, the owners just agreed to not cut as much.

allan5oh is online now  
Old
12-10-2012, 09:33 PM
  #627
Guerzy
Global Moderator
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,296
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guardian17 View Post
I was listening to the NHL Channel on Sirius XM this morning.

The commentator made a very good point.

He feels that the deal is done.

However, Donald Fehr continues to stall and taunt the NHL, the sponsers and the fans in hopes of damaging the product.

He is doing this in preparation for the next lockout.

Basically, Fehr wants to do enough damage so that the NHL will choose not to lockout the players when the next CBA is negotiated.

He said that is why there is labour peace in baseball, the owners are afraid of the players union.
I was about to post something on this line of thinking earlier today. The Players Association has never been so defined and united. I don't think they're just fighting over this lockout, but they want to make it known to the Owners side that they're not pushovers and won't crack under pressure through this lockout or any potential future lockout.

__________________
"The ‘now’ is very good in Chicago. The ‘now’ back in the days when they were drafting first, second and third? It wasn’t very good. But the core of fans that stuck with them, if you asked them now, I betcha they’d say it was worth it.” - Kevin Cheveldayoff
Guerzy is online now  
Old
12-10-2012, 10:11 PM
  #628
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
I was about to post something on this line of thinking earlier today. The Players Association has never been so defined and united. I don't think they're just fighting over this lockout, but they want to make it known to the Owners side that they're not pushovers and won't crack under pressure through this lockout or any potential future lockout.
Well if that's the case the players are being short sited. They damage the product enough they get less money moving forward. Fehr has already cost his players over half a billion and who knows what moving forward due to the damage caused. The best way to prevent future lockouts is to work with the league to grow the game to the point where most of the league is profitable. Only then will the NHL have no incentive to lock the players out.

surixon is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 10:20 PM
  #629
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,866
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
I was about to post something on this line of thinking earlier today. The Players Association has never been so defined and united. I don't think they're just fighting over this lockout, but they want to make it known to the Owners side that they're not pushovers and won't crack under pressure through this lockout or any potential future lockout.
There's a problem with this tactic if it's true. It may make the owners more hesitant to lock out the players in the future, but the owner's lifespan is far greater than a player's. I agree that they should work towards growing the game and making it profitable for everyone instead of this shylock tactic of breaking kneecaps if you don't get what you want. Donald Fehr had 13 whole calendar months to work on a CBA with the NHL before they were locked out.

DespoticNewt is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 10:52 PM
  #630
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,032
vCash: 50
$788,000,000 .....yes that is $788 Million dollars in lost players salaries to date "and counting"

Good strategy boys!

You would have hated to run your toughest bluff up to the point where you could have salvaged 82 games

ps241 is online now  
Old
12-10-2012, 11:00 PM
  #631
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 2,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
Well if that's the case the players are being short sited. They damage the product enough they get less money moving forward. Fehr has already cost his players over half a billion and who knows what moving forward due to the damage caused. The best way to prevent future lockouts is to work with the league to grow the game to the point where most of the league is profitable. Only then will the NHL have no incentive to lock the players out.
That's assuming each side acts in a reasonable manner and doesn't get overly greedy, wanting more of the revenue pie or more contracting control. Haven't seen too much of that yet.

I'm of the opinion that the owners, with the additional games now being canceled, will not put the 'make whole' sum (reported to be around $300 million) back on the table as they had last week. If that's the case, i don't see the players agreeing to a new CBA for this season. Hope i'm wrong, but this negotiation just seems to have gotten off the rails.

Bob E is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 11:01 PM
  #632
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 2,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
$788,000,000 .....yes that is $788 Million dollars in lost players salaries to date "and counting"

Good strategy boys!

You would have hated to run your toughest bluff up to the point where you could have salvaged 82 games
Seems absolutely crazy.

Bob E is offline  
Old
12-10-2012, 11:54 PM
  #633
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,032
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
Seems absolutely crazy.
Bob I am usually a quick study in business but I have to admit I have been out of step from the beginning on this one. last time I got it.......salary cap etc, it was a hill to die on for the players. this time I am not sure what the fight is about.....emotions, 2005 do over, pride? take your pick I guess but it's not about business or greed from the players perspective IMHO....it can't be or they would have taken the biggest pay day already? I don't for a second buy that it's a long play for the good of the future deals....Career life span is too short. this is about pride and competitive juices.

ps241 is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:10 AM
  #634
ICdave
HFB Partner
 
ICdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,729
vCash: 500
Coach Claude Noel speaks

All non-CBA related talk of course but if you've missed the Jets coach he spoke to the media today for some time.

Click here to listen: Coach Noel Lockout Presser


ICdave is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 09:27 AM
  #635
scelaton
Registered User
 
scelaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
$788,000,000 .....yes that is $788 Million dollars in lost players salaries to date "and counting"

Good strategy boys!

You would have hated to run your toughest bluff up to the point where you could have salvaged 82 games


ps241--Not that it matters one iota, but my link shows just under $600 million in losses. Do you have a different source?

http://lockoutclock.com

scelaton is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 09:39 AM
  #636
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,163
vCash: 50
I don't believe the sides are close. The owners have identified their 'must-haves'. They don't want movement towards the must-haves, they need 'yes' or 'no' on the the must-haves, and they haven't gotten it.

The owners were angry because it appears that negotiations were going well. Players said their 'must-haves' were A, B, and C. Owners said they needed X, Y, and Z. Firm.

So then Wednesday the owners came back and said, ok...you can have A, B, and C. Do we have X, Y and Z in return? Players responded with: Thanks. Oh by the way, now D is important to us, and we're going to move towards your X, Y and Z but not give it to you.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 09:44 AM
  #637
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Well another round of talks start tomorrow, we'll see what the PA has come up with as I have to think they initiated these talks.

surixon is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:15 AM
  #638
buggs
Registered User
 
buggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: flatlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,335
vCash: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
I'm of the opinion that the owners, with the additional games now being canceled, will not put the 'make whole' sum (reported to be around $300 million) back on the table as they had last week. If that's the case, i don't see the players agreeing to a new CBA for this season. Hope i'm wrong, but this negotiation just seems to have gotten off the rails.
I think it was important to the owners last week because they could have achieved a 60 game season in the time remaining and this would have allowed them to retain the full 100% of sponsorship dollars (or maybe it was 75% and now dropping to 50%, I cannot recall but it was posted in one of the big lockout threads, maybe XXVI or XXIII or something). So they had money they could apply to the make whole at that time that won't exist with a 54 or 48 game season.

My guess is the PA looked at that sponsorship money and took a gamble to push back and ask for more. Unfortunately for them the league balked and now the higher sponsorship dollars are gone. Meaning the league won't offer a make whole of 300 million now but will put something there commensurate with the amount of sponsorship dollars they can still pull. So if they went from 100% to 75% I'd guess make whole, at best, would be 75% of the $300 million or $225 million. If they went from 75% to 50% on sponsorship dollars they'll be looking more likely at 66% of $300 million, so about $198 million.

It was a calculated gamble on the players part. How well calculated remains to be seen because maybe the owners give more. I'm really not sure with the ownership side because they've moved, in my opinion, a lot and frankly too many times. I can completely understand why the PA keeps pushing because the ownership group has moved a number of times and the line in the sand keeps shifting. To me that's not good negotiating strategy. From the original 43-57 offer, yes, movement was necessary. But stop offering them stuff at some point for Pete's sake.

I remain confused as to what the point is for the NHLPA as they've never really come out and said what is important to them (at least without changing it a couple of weeks later). I really do believe they made a significant error last week in pissing off the moderate owners. That you managed to disappoint the Leafs representation, essentially the Yankees of the NHL, boggles my mind to no end.

buggs is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:25 AM
  #639
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buggs View Post
I think it was important to the owners last week because they could have achieved a 60 game season in the time remaining and this would have allowed them to retain the full 100% of sponsorship dollars (or maybe it was 75% and now dropping to 50%, I cannot recall but it was posted in one of the big lockout threads, maybe XXVI or XXIII or something). So they had money they could apply to the make whole at that time that won't exist with a 54 or 48 game season.

My guess is the PA looked at that sponsorship money and took a gamble to push back and ask for more. Unfortunately for them the league balked and now the higher sponsorship dollars are gone. Meaning the league won't offer a make whole of 300 million now but will put something there commensurate with the amount of sponsorship dollars they can still pull. So if they went from 100% to 75% I'd guess make whole, at best, would be 75% of the $300 million or $225 million. If they went from 75% to 50% on sponsorship dollars they'll be looking more likely at 66% of $300 million, so about $198 million.

It was a calculated gamble on the players part. How well calculated remains to be seen because maybe the owners give more. I'm really not sure with the ownership side because they've moved, in my opinion, a lot and frankly too many times. I can completely understand why the PA keeps pushing because the ownership group has moved a number of times and the line in the sand keeps shifting. To me that's not good negotiating strategy. From the original 43-57 offer, yes, movement was necessary. But stop offering them stuff at some point for Pete's sake.

I remain confused as to what the point is for the NHLPA as they've never really come out and said what is important to them (at least without changing it a couple of weeks later). I really do believe they made a significant error last week in pissing off the moderate owners. That you managed to disappoint the Leafs representation, essentially the Yankees of the NHL, boggles my mind to no end.
Good post. I am very curious as to what the leagues response would be if by some chance the PA tells the league that they will sign the deal tomorrow. Would they bring the deal back, or would they say no do to the lost sponserahip revenue that you alluded to above.

surixon is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:29 AM
  #640
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,032
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by scelaton View Post
ps241--Not that it matters one iota, but my link shows just under $600 million in losses. Do you have a different source?

http://lockoutclock.com
Last night on TSN Sportcenter they put $788 on the screen. I paused it and constructed my post. My guess is that it might have rolled the new lost games into it?

ps241 is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:43 AM
  #641
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,251
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
Good post. I am very curious as to what the leagues response would be if by some chance the PA tells the league that they will sign the deal tomorrow. Would they bring the deal back, or would they say no do to the lost sponserahip revenue that you alluded to above.
The owners would sign it - the extra $100 million in make whole over a 10 year deal works out to $333k per year, per team...so about what the Zamboni driver makes. Anyway, it's peanuts for the owners to give up to get their deal.

Gm0ney is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:49 AM
  #642
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,251
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Last night on TSN Sportcenter they put $788 on the screen. I paused it and constructed my post. My guess is that it might have rolled the new lost games into it?
Assumptions:

1) HRR for this season would have been $3.3 billion
2) Players share is 50% ($1.65 billion)
3) 48 game schedule (58.54% of 82 games)

Using the above, the players would be out $684 million.

This doesn't count any damage done by the lockout (fan backlash).

Gm0ney is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:58 AM
  #643
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,470
vCash: 1989
At this point in what would have been the 2012-2013 season, what are your thoughts on whether there should even BE a season now (if negotiations successful) or should the whole season be scrapped?


Personally I think it's too late to start, stats. will be meaningless, too few games to develop proper play-off entrants., etc.

sipowicz is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:07 PM
  #644
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,163
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
At this point in what would have been the 2012-2013 season, what are your thoughts on whether there should even BE a season now (if negotiations successful) or should the whole season be scrapped?


Personally I think it's too late to start, stats. will be meaningless, too few games to develop proper play-off entrants., etc.
Scrap it. Saves me money. It's only 10 months away from next season anyways. Owners go hardline and get that 10 year CBA for next season so we don't have to go through again for awhile. And honestly as a fan I love the idea of 5-year contract limits so go get that too.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:16 PM
  #645
Lynk
Registered Bro
 
Lynk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,536
vCash: 500
I'd say scrap it as well.

But at the same time I'd do almost anything to see NHL hockey again, winter in Canada just isn't the same when Sportscenter is leading with NBA highlights.

Lynk is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:22 PM
  #646
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,032
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Assumptions:

1) HRR for this season would have been $3.3 billion
2) Players share is 50% ($1.65 billion)
3) 48 game schedule (58.54% of 82 games)

Using the above, the players would be out $684 million.

This doesn't count any damage done by the lockout (fan backlash).
hmmmm

I will watch Sportscenter closer tonight and see if they break the numbers down. Even if you assumed TSN stuck with the current player ratio of HRR 57% of $3.3 billion x 58.54% (of 82 games) it gives a number > $788 million??

I shall dig deeper on this number.


Last edited by ps241: 12-11-2012 at 12:29 PM.
ps241 is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:33 PM
  #647
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,032
vCash: 50
"IF" they can put together 46 games I would prefer we play this year for the simple reason that we could start out next season clean and not have this drag into next year and screw up the draft.....training camps............Free agency.........etc etc.

Really at this point I am fine either way but I would like to have certainty for next year. On top of this December is a pretty busy time of the year and so currently I am distracted but once January hits life gets much more boring and NHL Hockey (post WJC) would be welcome.

ps241 is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:34 PM
  #648
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,056
vCash: 50
I'd rather play a shortened season

garret9 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:36 PM
  #649
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
The NHL must have a 'plan' to sell to the public with a season starting on December 31st... it would be a great way to start off 2013 by having a New Year's Eve game... perhaps every team plays that night.

Why else would they have cancelled all the games in December up to and including the 30th. Seems like that would be the next start of the season date. This would mean they have about a week from tomorrow to settle things. After that, we're looking at mid-Jan, then the cancellation of the season.

Perhaps we can have a December 31 start to the season. Although at this point, I've given up a lot of hope.

I'm not siding with the PA nor the owners... I'm taking my own side and have been losing more and more interest in the league. Hockey is still great but the NHL isn't necessarily where it's at. I can watch other leagues and other sports if I feel the need.

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:38 PM
  #650
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
I'd rather play a shortened season
Agreed... that way it counts to one of my years of STH requirements... when my years are up, I'm releasing my ticket. Likely to one of the guys who sit next to me at the games. lol

KingSalamon 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 08:48 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.