Just like Moore had to answer for his hit on Naslund (Clean hit within rules I would add) ,, Right?
Threatening a player which is what Hartnell is doing here (Implying violence on ice against him without support from his teammates) is gutless
I sure hope not, Bertuzzi's attack on Moore was terrible. You can go after a guy without cheap shotting him like that. Hammer is going to get run a lot next year, but thats the politics of unions. Guys that crossed the picket line in the NFL got black balled out of the league.
I sure hope not, Bertuzzi's attack on Moore was terrible. You can go after a guy without cheap shotting him like that. Hammer is going to get run a lot next year, but thats the politics of unions. Guys that crossed the picket line in the NFL got black balled out of the league.
^
Considering the majority of union has been silent ,, I wouldn't be so sure life will be as difficult as Brouwer/Hartnell other hardliners think
It could be very possible that some of the silent majority take liberties with there hardline brothers in NHLPA
And comparing guys crossing picket line to Hammer calling for a vote is a bit of a stretch
Also in NFL strike it was the replacement players who for most part woere black balled and shunned by union ,, Many stars crossed picket line including Joe Montana
^
Considering the majority of union has been silent ,, I wouldn't be so sure life will be as difficult as Brouwer/Hartnell other hardliners think
It could be very possible that some of the silent majority take liberties with there hardline brothers in NHLPA
And comparing guys crossing picket line to Hammer calling for a vote is a bit of a stretch
Also in NFL strike it was the replacement players who for most part woere black balled and shunned by union ,, Many stars crossed picket line including Joe Montana
Thats the point, the union is silent. You don't make comments antithetical to the unions interest to the media. If you have a dissenting opinion, you say it to your union rep. Also, its a pretty big assumption by you that there is a silent majority that want to do whatever the owners want just so that they can play hockey. If that was true, the NHLPA wouldn't have hired Fehr as their rep in the first place. The players knew a fight was coming which is why they hired who they hired.
Thats the point, the union is silent. You don't make comments antithetical to the unions interest to the media. If you have a dissenting opinion, you say it to your union rep. Also, its a pretty big assumption by you that there is a silent majority that want to do whatever the owners want just so that they can play hockey. If that was true, the NHLPA wouldn't have hired Fehr as their rep in the first place. The players knew a fight was coming which is why they hired who they hired.
^
And what if the union is ignoring your voice?
Hamrlik calling for a vote on latest owners is not unreasonable request ,, Infact I ask you what is Fehr afraid of?
Why not let the players vote?
And when did I make assumption that silent majroity wants to do whatever the owners want? I said that Hartnell and Brouwer who have threatened Hamrlik need to be careful because some of there silent brothers my take the very same liberties on them when game returns
Hamrlik calling for a vote on latest owners is not an absurd request ,, Infact I ask you what is Fehr afraid of?
Why not let the players vote?
Thats the point of a union. You are bargaining as a collective. Its like a democracy, there are divergent views but the wishes of the collective control. The reason you don't call a vote is because say it fails 60-40. Well now the owners know how close they are to achieving a victory. Its counter productive to the interest of the union to show a division. Why not let the owners vote on the union's counter proposal? What is Bettman (and Jacobs) afraid of?
Last edited by Illinihockey: 12-11-2012 at 01:54 PM.
Yeah, the vote doesn't mean anything in a union negotiation. Your negotiating team works out the best possible deal they can get. The vote comes later and is just a sham where everyone votes yes. I am sure some vote no, but you are strongly encouraged to vote yes and even if it went the other way, I don't even believe anyone would ever know about it. It may be a little different in sports but I doubt it.
Last time I checked NHL players are paid 7 sometimes 8 figures to play a game. But yeah the owners are giving the players nothing!
Fact is players are more then fairly compensated for their work. Players need to realize that they play in a sport that doesn't make the same amount of money as other sports and that this isn't 2004, the world economy is much different.
Both sides need to realize that the longer this goes on the more this hurts the sport. Sure once this is settled they can go back to work, but what's there waiting for them? They have already lost 20% of the fan base and that's being generous on the low side. They need to quit playing the games and get to business and settle this thing.
It's why I was for a owner player meeting, get the actual people effected by the lockout together without Bettmans and Fehrs egos. But even then Bettman and Fehr found a way to get involved. Sadly the only way I think this thing gets setteled is if the NHL comes out with a cut off date of X and says if a deal is done by (Dec 30) as an example then the season is cancelled. Then I think the players actually come out and force Fehr to make a deal instead of playing this stupid dancing game with Fehr.
Girls your're both pretty, now do your job.
Oh, so players should just be happy they are risking their well-being and life for 6 figures, sometimes 7 figures? (avg salary is 2.4mil-most players make 7 or less figures) They risked their education and after life on this sport already. You don’t have to feel sorry for them, I don’t either, but they deserve what they make because of the risks and determination they made to get there and people are paying to watch THEM, not the owners.
Players have realized they make less than every other major sport, that’s why the avg salary is the lowest out of any and that’s why they are willing to take 50/50, like most other major sports. Why do the owners need a 5 year limit? Don’t tell me it’s because they need more parity with Free Agents, because 19 different teams have reached the final since the last CBA was up. This CBA isn’t about money anymore, it’s about the owners trying to get every little contractual thing they want.
I agree both sides need to realize that the longer it goes on the more it hurts hockey. I just wanted to hear you say ‘both sides’ instead of “players need to do this or that”. That’s the only thing that pisses me off. I’m not ALL for the players, I just back the players when other people say “the players need to give in, the players need to give more and more and more.”
If you think the players will force Fehr to make a deal if the owners implement a cut-off date, then you are crazy. The players are more united than ever.
Oh, so players should just be happy they are risking their well-being and life for 6 figures, sometimes 7 figures? (avg salary is 2.4mil-most players make 7 or less figures) They risked their education and after life on this sport already. You don’t have to feel sorry for them, I don’t either, but they deserve what they make because of the risks and determination they made to get there and people are paying to watch THEM, not the owners.
=.
Quit the risk their life bull ****. When was the last time a player died playing?
Quit the risk their life bull ****. When was the last time a player died playing?
May not die on the ice, but players certainly suffer later in life from things that happen on the ice. Hell, look at Chris Pronger and whats going on with his continuing concussion issues.
If you think the players will force Fehr to make a deal if the owners implement a cut-off date, then you are crazy. The players are more united than ever.
We heard that the last couple times too. While I hope it's true for the sake of the NHL, I think it's way to premature to assume they are much different from last time around.
Quote:
Why do the owners need a 5 year limit?
I do not understand the defense for unlimited length contracts except from a superstar player, an agent, or a big spending club that wants to win at all costs. I love them for Hawks but I've yet to see how they're good for the league overall moving forward. As an NHL fan, I've yet to see a good argument why they should stay for the good of all parties in the NHL.
Quote:
Players have realized they make less than every other major sport, that’s why the avg salary is the lowest out of any and that’s why they are willing to take 50/50, like most other major sports.
I think the "why" has more to do with what they can leverage and almost nothing to do with a comparison to other sports. If they were comparing to others sports, they would be well below 50/50 because player brands do almost nothing to grow league revenue compared to those other sports. I am not trying to make a "pro-owner" argument, but I don't think the players are wise to make comparisons to other sports and I don't think they do anyway.
I do not understand the defense for unlimited length contracts except from a superstar player, an agent, or a big spending club that wants to win at all costs. I love them for Hawks but I've yet to see how they're good for the league overall moving forward. As an NHL fan, I've yet to see a good argument why they should stay for the good of all parties in the NHL.
Because it filters all the way down. When top players sign huge deals, it bumps up the contracts of the next level of players. Players love big contracts because it sets a market that trickles all the way down to the bottom level players.
Quit the risk their life bull ****. When was the last time a player died playing?
Bull ****? Players have almost died on a few occassions, and many risk their quality of life every game, look at Savard and Pronger. I'm sure they would trade quite a bit of their money to have a healthy life style again. Not to mention the toll some of the hits take on your body as you age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug
I do not understand the defense for unlimited length contracts except from a superstar player, an agent, or a big spending club that wants to win at all costs. I love them for Hawks but I've yet to see how they're good for the league overall moving forward. As an NHL fan, I've yet to see a good argument why they should stay for the good of all parties in the NHL.
Tell me how they are bad? Players will sign where the money is, having a shorter term contract still wont help the Coyotes fork out 8+mil on a player. As a matter of fact, the game has grown exponentially and there has been FAR more parity even with these contracts. High priced players will always get their money, and having long term deals probably helps parity more than it hurts it since teams can fill out their rosters with having the smaller cap hit that comes with long term deals.
Bull ****? Players have almost died on a few occassions, and many risk their quality of life every game, look at Savard and Pronger. I'm sure they would trade quite a bit of their money to have a healthy life style again. Not to mention the toll some of the hits take on your body as you age.
Tell me how they are bad? Players will sign where the money is, having a shorter term contract still wont help the Coyotes fork out 8+mil on a player. As a matter of fact, the game has grown exponentially and there has been FAR more parity even with these contracts. High priced players will always get their money, and having long term deals probably helps parity more than it hurts it since teams can fill out their rosters with having the smaller cap hit that comes with long term deals.
Players know the risks when they become hockey players
And alot of dead NHL'ers who died young had history of alchohol/drug abuse so dont lay the blame at the feet of just hockey
If fans are bickering like this, you can just imagine how heated those negotiations are. That said I have little sympathy for the players. You're being paid millions of dollars more than a large percentage of the population to play hockey. You're blessed.
The owners are running a business and have a very real likelihood of taking a loss in a given year. If players don't want to play for a few million less a year, you better believe players will be chomping at the bit to take their slots. If an owner doesn't want to suffer a few million dollar loss per year, the percentage of people willing to buy up a mutli-million dollar failing business is not significant.
Really I just want some ****ing hockey. The only thing that I am actively fighting for in this lockout is a ten year CBA so we won't see this garbage for another ten years.
Players know the risks when they become hockey players
And alot of dead NHL'ers who died young had history of alchohol/drug abuse so dont lay the blame at the feet of just hockey
In many cases that abuse was a result of playing hockey. If fact team doctors have been negligent by over prescribing pain killers.
Oh, so players should just be happy they are risking their well-being and life for 6 figures, sometimes 7 figures? (avg salary is 2.4mil-most players make 7 or less figures) They risked their education and after life on this sport already. You don’t have to feel sorry for them, I don’t either, but they deserve what they make because of the risks and determination they made to get there and people are paying to watch THEM, not the owners.
Players have realized they make less than every other major sport, that’s why the avg salary is the lowest out of any and that’s why they are willing to take 50/50, like most other major sports. Why do the owners need a 5 year limit? Don’t tell me it’s because they need more parity with Free Agents, because 19 different teams have reached the final since the last CBA was up. This CBA isn’t about money anymore, it’s about the owners trying to get every little contractual thing they want.
I agree both sides need to realize that the longer it goes on the more it hurts hockey. I just wanted to hear you say ‘both sides’ instead of “players need to do this or that”. That’s the only thing that pisses me off. I’m not ALL for the players, I just back the players when other people say “the players need to give in, the players need to give more and more and more.”
If you think the players will force Fehr to make a deal if the owners implement a cut-off date, then you are crazy. The players are more united than ever.
1. Stop with the whole, risking life and limb thing. There are 1000's more jobs that are much more dangerous then playing in the NHL so lets not act like these guys are out there dying left and right. If the payment for the job is about risk, Firefighters, Soldiers, and Policemen should all be making 8 figures.
2. The avg NHL contract is actually higher then the avg NFL contract, so no they aren't the least paid professional athlete. Which is weird, NFL players play in a league just as dangerous, play for non guaranteed contracts, which means you don't get paid if you get cut, and play in a league that makes 3X what the NHL makes. But they don't have the same labor issues as the NHL. But it's the owners who are greedy?
3. The players aren't more United then ever. More and more you hear rumblings of how players are upset with the fact that it seems Fehr is protecting the top 1% and not everyone. No one comes out and says anything because morons like Cole and Hartnell come out and basically threaten to kill anyone to speaks out and their families like they're some mafia.
The reason I am upset with the players more then the owners, and I am upset at both, is because the entire lockout didn't have to happen. 2 years ago the owners went to the players and said, the current CBA is running out and there are some issues we want to address can we talk, the players kept saying no, no, no until it was basically too late. Then once the lockout happened the players immediately go on some media rampage about how the owners are after them and the players are these poor defenseless victims in all of this. Some go on about how their treated like cattle and how it's akin to modern day slavery and that nonsense.
The lockout happened, deal with it and get it fixed. Instead Fehr and the players refused to negotiate on any and every deal the NHL sent for months and months and basically dragged it out longer then it needed to be and now it's hostile to a point it should have never gotten too and both sides are responsible for that. Now both sides are mad at the other for various reasons and this is going to continue to go on instead of both sides getting it done.
Last edited by Sir Psycho T: 12-11-2012 at 06:24 PM.
Franchise finances, ability to restructure and borrow and valuations(impacts everybody)
The players are still young on them, we know how most will end on the back 1/3 of the contracts.
It only delays the inevitable when it comes to spending on the rest of the rosters.
Severely restricts competitiveness of smaller market teams.
Increases risk for good potential owners in the future
Insurance issues
Leino
If fans are bickering like this, you can just imagine how heated those negotiations are. That said I have little sympathy for the players. You're being paid millions of dollars more than a large percentage of the population to play hockey. You're blessed.
The owners are running a business and have a very real likelihood of taking a loss in a given year. If players don't want to play for a few million less a year, you better believe players will be chomping at the bit to take their slots. If an owner doesn't want to suffer a few million dollar loss per year, the percentage of people willing to buy up a mutli-million dollar failing business is not significant.
Really I just want some ****ing hockey. The only thing that I am actively fighting for in this lockout is a ten year CBA so we won't see this garbage for another ten years.
This is so true.
Ask people if they want to play in the NHL for 10% of what the average NHL player makes and see how many people say yes.
Now ask the same number of people if they're willing to risk millions of dollars in a business that just lost money and won't try to fix it so you don't lose that money. Don't be surprised when no one says yes.
Owners are the owners, they run the business and while you might not like them, they are necessary.
1. Stop with the whole, risking life and limb thing. There are 1000's more jobs that are much more dangerous then playing in the NHL so lets not act like these guys are out there dying left and right. If the payment for the job is about risk, Firefighters, Soldiers, and Policemen should all be making 8 figures.
2. The avg NHL contract is actually higher then the avg NFL contract, so no they aren't the least paid professional athlete. Which is weird, NFL players play in a league just as dangerous, play for non guaranteed contracts, which means you don't get paid if you get cut, and play in a league that makes 3X what the NHL makes. But they don't have the same labor issues as the NHL. But it's the owners who are greedy?
3. The players aren't more United then ever. More and more you hear rumblings of how players are upset with the fact that it seems Fehr is protecting the top 1% and not everyone. No one comes out and says anything because morons like Cole and Hartnell come out and basically threaten to kill anyone to speaks out and their families like they're some mafia.
The reason I am upset with the players more then the owners, and I am upset at both, is because the entire lockout didn't have to happen. 2 years ago the owners went to the players and said, the current CBA is running out and there are some issues we want to address can we talk, the players kept saying no, no, no until it was basically too late. Then once the lockout happened the players immediately go on some media rampage about how the owners are after them and the players are these poor defenseless victims in all of this. Some go on about how their treated like cattle and how it's akin to modern day slavery and that nonsense.
The lockout happened, deal with it and get it fixed. Instead Fehr and the players refused to negotiate on any and every deal the NHL sent for months and months and basically dragged it out longer then it needed to be and now it's hostile to a point it should have never gotten too and both sides are responsible for that. Now both sides are mad at the other for various reasons and this is going to continue to go on instead of both sides getting it done.
This post is right on the money on all counts. Well said.
The perspective of who's really at fault has changed dramatically.
1) Bettman
2) Bettman and the owners
3) Everybody
4) The players
5) Fehr, which is where we're at now.
Fehr's goal is to get his paycheck, and fight for more of it in any way he can. The problem is, the players don't play, the players don't get paid. The players don't get paid, the PA doesn't make any money. The PA doesn't make any money, I have a hard time believing Fehr will make a crap ton.
