HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Lockout Thread #3: The Rollercoaster Continues...

View Poll Results: When will the lockout end?
December 15-31st,2012 6 19.35%
January 2013 13 41.94%
September 2013 6 19.35%
October 2013-December 2013 2 6.45%
January 2014 0 0%
September 2014 0 0%
October 2014-January 2015 0 0%
NHL is gone forever 4 12.90%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 03:01 PM
  #976
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
So, it's a "joke" for the owners to make an offer where the players take home 43% of revenue while paying no expenses.

But it's ok for the owners to take home 43%, take all the risks associated with the business, and pay all the player's expenses?

Ok then.
Why would the players pay expenses?

They are not partners they are employees and also the product. I don't understand why this argument is ever made, the players are the expenses.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:03 PM
  #977
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
Except the players went into this lockout with hostile intentions. They announced it when they hired Fehr, and confirmed it was game on when they nixed the realignment of the league. Make what you will of the NHL's intentions, but lets not play fantasy and pretend the players haven't been preparing for this for years now, they want their pound of flesh after perceived insults during the last lockout when they couldn't feed their dogs on 73% of the revenue.

The opening contract offer by the NHL wasn't the opening move of the lockout anymore than Pearl Harbor was the first battle of WW2.

Oh, and you are right, there will be a lockout in 8 - 10 years because one half of the two parties hasn't been able to move on from the 80s. There will never be labour peace as long as the PA think's the NHL is run by untrustworthy criminals - which in itself is amusing considering the PA is the one with all the embezzlers.
And by hostile intentions you mean proposing to play the season while they negotiated a new CBA??

You're not bringing any facts to this argument

HotToddy is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:05 PM
  #978
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
How come NHL teams in Pittsburgh, Arizona and Edmonton need public money to build their hockey temples?

Why do you accept that players should get paid millions of dollars on the backs of local taxpayers?
Every sports owner in North America leverages the love of the local team for tax dollars.

It's what they do

HotToddy is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:07 PM
  #979
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
And by hostile intentions you mean proposing to play the season while they negotiated a new CBA??

You're not bringing any facts to this argument
You really think any league would actually play games with no CBA on the word of a Donald Fehr led union?

Seriously?

Tarus is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:10 PM
  #980
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupofOil View Post
I don't think that anybody is saying that the owners aren't at fault as well.
It's the Pro-PA crowd that can't wrap their heads around the fact that some of the blame lies with the players as well. Read up on that NESN article about the reasons for the Kelly firing and you'll see where people are coming from with the anti-PA stance.

It has been pretty obvious since they hired a hardliner like Fehr that they were in for a war. Their egos took a hit after supposedly getting worked by the owners in the last deal even that deal did wonders for the players so they hired a guy with the full intent of going to war with the owners. They knew full well that it would come to this.
The owners are at fault as well. There is a precedent for them having labor issues with previous regimes and their original offer in the summer was not what i would call, negotiating in good faith but what this boils down to is Fehr. I fully believe that if Kelly was still in charge, that a full season would have been played.

I think that Fehr refused to negotiate with the owners purposely until after the previous CBA expired so he can squeeze every last bit from the owners that he could.
My worry is that Fehr fully intends to go for the cap and that is his endgame. I sure hope that's not the case and that the moderate players get in his ear to get a deal done to save this season because we really don't want to see what it will come to if Fehr attacks the cap. It will be a worse case scenario that NHL fans don't want to imagine.
I don't know why but i think that common sense will prevail, enough players will speak up and that a deal will get done to save this season. I don't think that they want to take it down the dark road that Fehr is capable of taking it down.
They hired the most knowledable person on the planet to negotiate a CBA on behalf of a pro sports union and the person who has negotiated the best CBA from a player perspective in NA team sports.

Why is the Kelly argument relevent to anyone?

They landed the most qualified guy, period.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:12 PM
  #981
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
You really think any league would actually play games with no CBA on the word of a Donald Fehr led union?

Seriously?
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.

But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:13 PM
  #982
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
You really think any league would actually play games with no CBA on the word of a Donald Fehr led union?

Seriously?
Exactly. 1994 says hi.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:15 PM
  #983
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.

But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.
The players were clearly pining for a dispute and ready for a war the minute they hired Don Fehr.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:16 PM
  #984
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneman89 View Post
Exactly. 1994 says hi.
And 1992 NHL Strike on April 1st.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:16 PM
  #985
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneman89 View Post
The players were clearly pining for a dispute and ready for a war the minute they hired Don Fehr.
AND not even willing to meet before the summer when the league was trying to get together almost a year ago.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:19 PM
  #986
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.

But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.
Yes, it would totally be about leverage...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneman89 View Post
Exactly. 1994 says hi.
shhhhh

Don't spoil it for him!

Tarus is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:20 PM
  #987
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Bettman and ownership made it well known that they destroyed the union and got their way with the union last time.
this isn't 100% accurate but it isn't 100% wrong either.

The NHL never claimed victory but the media declared it an NHL victory. Hockey writers have as much business acumen as hockey players do. The media looked at the salary cap and said the NHL got everything they wanted.

What they missed is that the NHL does not act like a monopoly and that most teams were going to try to circumvent the cap. The media could not predict the rise in the Canadian dollar which increased total NHL revenues because that revenue was measured in US dollars. In the end, the owners' victory looks a little tarnished.

It would not surprise me if this current battle was phase two of Bettmans' long term plan. IN the first battle, get linkage between a hazily defined revenue stream and expenses. IN the 2nd battle, avoid clarification of revenues and reduce the % the players get.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:28 PM
  #988
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Well i was going to respond to HotToddy, but Hoogaar23. Tarus and Stoneman89 beat me to it...nicely done there.

If the players were so keen on getting a deal done amicably, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, and they wouldn't have waited until they did to start negotiating. If they had kept playing without a CBA, i guarantee that Fehr would have held out until the playoffs and then had the NHLPA go on strike. Simply looking at his history tells us this, and it baffles me when people think that this wouldn't have been his modus operendi.

Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:39 PM
  #989
PigeonCamera
Registered User
 
PigeonCamera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Petr Klima's Trunk
Country: Canada
Posts: 954
vCash: 500
Posted this earlier, but I think it illustrates ACTUAL history

Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
Well i was going to respond to HotToddy, but Hoogaar23. Tarus and Stoneman89 beat me to it...nicely done there.

If the players were so keen on getting a deal done amicably, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, and they wouldn't have waited until they did to start negotiating. If they had kept playing without a CBA, i guarantee that Fehr would have held out until the playoffs and then had the NHLPA go on strike. Simply looking at his history tells us this, and it baffles me when people think that this wouldn't have been his modus operendi.
The Great Donald Fehr playing without a CBA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994%E2...aseball_strike

But NHL players are totally different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_NHL_strike

No-brainer for the players to say "gosh, we just want to play." And the owners to say **** that.

PigeonCamera is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:01 PM
  #990
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich View Post
this isn't 100% accurate but it isn't 100% wrong either.

The NHL never claimed victory but the media declared it an NHL victory. Hockey writers have as much business acumen as hockey players do. The media looked at the salary cap and said the NHL got everything they wanted.

What they missed is that the NHL does not act like a monopoly and that most teams were going to try to circumvent the cap. The media could not predict the rise in the Canadian dollar which increased total NHL revenues because that revenue was measured in US dollars. In the end, the owners' victory looks a little tarnished.

It would not surprise me if this current battle was phase two of Bettmans' long term plan. IN the first battle, get linkage between a hazily defined revenue stream and expenses. IN the 2nd battle, avoid clarification of revenues and reduce the % the players get.
Actually it is 100% wrong. You just finished saying the media were the ones that were expousing a victory for the league and not Bettman. That is NOT what the poster in question stated. This isn't between the league and the media or the players and media.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:06 PM
  #991
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PigeonCamera View Post
The Great Donald Fehr playing without a CBA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994%E2...aseball_strike

But NHL players are totally different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_NHL_strike

No-brainer for the players to say "gosh, we just want to play." And the owners to say **** that.
Fool me once......

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:13 PM
  #992
Gone
Fire KLowe
 
Gone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
And by hostile intentions you mean proposing to play the season while they negotiated a new CBA??

You're not bringing any facts to this argument
Why would the owners play the season with a 43:57 revenue split in favor with the players when that is exactly what they are trying to reverse? The owners would have absolutely 0 leverage in this case, and the players 0 incentive to negotiate an equitable agreement. In fact, as it got closer to the playoffs, the players leverage would increase because of the Fehr of them striking!

The players refusing to negotiate until the start of the season, despite overatures from Bettman to get the process rolling early in the summer, could be viewed as having a hostile intent.

I am sick of the players arguement that they are giving too much back, and the owners are giving up nothing. Sorry boys, just because the owners overpaid you for the last 20 years doesn't mean you have the God given right to a slow, painless reduction in wages. I would love to see Bettman get his 57:43 split in favor of the owners; perhaps then profitable franchises would mean the fans pay less (i seriously doubt it, but we can dream).

Gone is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:15 PM
  #993
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
If the players wanted some peaceful, respectful negotiations, they never would have dumped Paul Kelly. The minute they did that, and turned to hired shyte-disturber and noted hard-ass Don Fehr was a shot across the bow. And the fact that the union under Fehr turned down league overtures to talk in January and waited till close to the expiration date of the contract confirms they were gearing up for a battle.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:31 PM
  #994
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy View Post
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.

But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.
Pleaase enlighten the masses as to why Fehr would not even entertain negotiations until very , very late in the 11th hour. That, on its ownn, clearly manifested the bad faith he would come to the negotiations with. He had zero, nada, intention of the CBA been succesfully negotiated before the season commenced. Thats obvious.
And the terms they offered were ridiculous. You know that, I know that. Play on the same terms as there was. Yeah, that makes sense.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:35 PM
  #995
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,223
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneman89 View Post
If the players wanted some peaceful, respectful negotiations, they never would have dumped Paul Kelly. The minute they did that, and turned to hired shyte-disturber and noted hard-ass Don Fehr was a shot across the bow. And the fact that the union under Fehr turned down league overtures to talk in January and waited till close to the expiration date of the contract confirms they were gearing up for a battle.
Between that and the missing/expropriated union funds one has to wonder just what the **** is going on over there.

I am the Liquor is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:36 PM
  #996
SK13
Mo'Linguish
 
SK13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneman89 View Post
If the players wanted some peaceful, respectful negotiations, they never would have dumped Paul Kelly. The minute they did that, and turned to hired shyte-disturber and noted hard-ass Don Fehr was a shot across the bow. And the fact that the union under Fehr turned down league overtures to talk in January and waited till close to the expiration date of the contract confirms they were gearing up for a battle.
They were clearly pretty pissed off about their "loss" and wanted to reestablish some kind of PA strength.

If they were half as intelligent as they think they are, they'd notice that "loss" turned into a player windfall in less than 4 years.

SK13 is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:49 PM
  #997
BlueChip01
Registered User
 
BlueChip01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Instead of crying about it, why didn't the PA just counter the initial NHL offer fairly quickly instead of making counters that were not based off of the expired CBA? Counter at 54% or something. Then both sides move to the middle. Yes it was an extreme initial offer, but who said it was a final offer?

All we heard was this crying poor by the PA, etc. I'm sure the NHL just looked at the NBA for example and started low. They got a deal done and their initial offer was in the mid 30's percentage wise or so.

BlueChip01 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  #998
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
Instead of crying about it, why didn't the PA just counter the initial NHL offer fairly quickly instead of making counters that were not based off of the expired CBA? Counter at 54% or something. Then both sides move to the middle. Yes it was an extreme initial offer, but who said it was a final offer?

All we heard was this crying poor by the PA, etc. I'm sure the NHL just looked at the NBA for example and started low. They got a deal done and their initial offer was in the mid 30's percentage wise or so.
Exactly. Some people are all upset by the NHL's initial lowball offer at the outset. What did they think they were going to do - give their best shot immediately and work from there? It's where you finish at the end of dealing, not the start. And if some players were upset by the initial offer, they need to shed the sensitivity and realize that this is how negotiations begin.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 05:34 PM
  #999
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Mediators failed big time the first time around, the sides are closer together this time around. Gary said they were not interested in mediators yet here they are

402 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 01:15 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.