My initial prediction was Christmas, but January has to be the drop dead month (as it was last time around). I think it gets done. Too much money on the table to NOT do it.
Yeah, my initial prediction was that the WC would be the first game of the season, but that was before I learned about the NHL's early opt-out deadline. I still think that time frame is about right.
why do the nhl players deserve more than 50% again?
Two things on this one. Players were making more then 50% in the previous CBA. Second, there are more capable business majors then the 700 or so hockey players that can command current ticket prices. Doesn't mean the players should "****" the league, but players will always be more deserving in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTCG
Hi LGB,
I've had a somewhat 'alligator' mouth at times in the past, and regret it. So I want to couch this in a manner that is respectful in my disagreement.
IMO... I dislike the term "make whole."
Both the owners and players negotiated a contract, and the terms of each deal should be written in cement: if a contract has ANY meaning, it must be fully honored by both sides.
We all saw what occurred when a player tried this: Yashin was ridiculed by the league. He lost his case.
And yet, the owners, with a seeming strait-face, stand poised to get-away with this for the second time.
And if there's a second time, there will be a third.
I'm not exactly sure how we disagree here? My post was meant to "hammer" the owners for their hypocrisy on those contracts. They not only signed on the dotted line, but also did it a massive amount of times in the last 48 hours of the previous CBA. So not only are their actions saying the previous CBA not that bad, but now want to bail on a contracts. As you pointed out, look at how players are treated when they try to do that.
Also, why are the owners so hung up on these contract lengths? There is a total of around 89 contracts that fall outside the proposed numbers, but around half of those would be ok due to the proposed RFA/UFA rules.
Last edited by LetsGoBears: 12-08-2012 at 03:10 PM.
Signing players to deals before the CBA expires isn't really hypocrisy. Mostly because any unsigned RFA most likely becomes a UFA if the union decertifies, and you don't want to get caught with your pants down if it ever goes that far.
Regardless, it's just doing what you have to in the environment that exists. If you expect there to be some sort of rollback (of any sort) then you'd be a fool not to try and get a big deal in before it occurs. Both sides know that contracts signed are subject to adjustments due to the CBA, and both sides have to take that into account when they make those deals. Plus, if other teams are getting some benefit from it, you have to as well to stay competitive.
Interesting piece. I like some of her allusions, others she makes don't make sense... like her conclusions on how hockey is battling soccer now for ratings.... um... the games aren't being played hon, there's a lockout goin on, remember?
As good has Guy Pearce has been in some movies (LA Confidential, Memento), this wasn't one of his best efforts. I just don't buy him as the action hero type.
Then again, he was working with a pretty big disadvantage having a ****** supporting cast and sub-par writing team.
As good has Guy Pearce has been in some movies (LA Confidential, Memento), this wasn't one of his best efforts. I just don't buy him as the action hero type.
Then again, he was working with a pretty big disadvantage having a ****** supporting cast and sub-par writing team.
What does it say about his judgment that he got involved despite those disadvantages? I think that's the real issue here.
That got me a grin, but in all seriousness, it's not applicable here. I only brought up fascism because the NHL is practicing a form of it.
It's my opinion that if teams in certain areas cannot sustain themselves economically, they should either move, or fall by the wayside, and allow the NHL to assume control. The NHL's goal should then be to make the franchise and its stockholders whole, and profitable.
Case in point is Phoenix. The stockholders took a bath, despite the fact of the gentleman in Hamilton's offer to purchase that would not only have paid them all back, but would have also provided a small profit.
The NHL's treatment of the Phoenix stockholders makes it difficult (for me, anyway) to take the NHL's financial woes seriously.
As good has Guy Pearce has been in some movies (LA Confidential, Memento), this wasn't one of his best efforts. I just don't buy him as the action hero type.
Then again, he was working with a pretty big disadvantage having a ****** supporting cast and sub-par writing team.
Given that there were only 2.5 million Lithuanians in 1939 and he said 12 million starved in German camps the rest of it is probably bull**** as well. I doubt the Germans got that much economically out of their camps, as they were for detention purposes first and foremost.
Given that there were only 2.5 million Lithuanians in 1939 and he said 12 million starved in German camps the rest of it is probably bull**** as well. I doubt the Germans got that much economically out of their camps, as they were for detention purposes first and foremost.
Most of the junk he is spewing is inaccurate, best off ignoring him as usual.
Most of the junk he is spewing is inaccurate, best off ignoring him as usual.
With all due respect: I don't cherry-pick my arguments, and load them with facts that I look up before posting. I rely on my memory, and sometimes, I am incorrect.
Case in point: I was incorrect on when the cap was started recently.
Of course, unlike you and Halpy, I admit when I'm wrong about something.
You might want to consider an old Asian proverb:
"Those who raise their voices, or hurl an insult... have already lost the argument."
2 more player hardliners identified today, Morrison and Mayers, both players who have no contract. That's right, 2 players negotiating don't even have a contract, Mayers contract last year was $550k. 2nd lowest paid player in the league.
Fehr picked losers to be on this negotiating committee because he knew he could control them, they have to vote in favor of a deal before the other players get to vote.
.
