HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout XXVIII: Don't worry about the lockout. Let me worry about blank.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2012, 09:28 PM
  #151
Koss
Registered User
 
Koss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Koss
Quote:
Originally Posted by enviro61 View Post
and the fact that the players were locked out and did not go on strike indicates they were willing to continue playing under the old CBA. I'm a federal employee and every time our CBA expires we continue to work under the old one until a new one is negotiated.
The last time Fehr took a player's union into an expired CBA, he used his leverage to strike at the worst possible time for the league and the owners ended up paying a year of wages and lost the playoffs to a strike. All while the MLB was negotiating with him. Why would the NHL allow him to replay his past ****** moves.

Koss is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:29 PM
  #152
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Do you really have any idea what happened today based on all the conflicting reports? You guys hang on every tweet like it's gospel. Nothing wrong with the PA getting together asking for mediation. I wasn't aware the PA had to come prepared with a better offer.
I don't know what was talked about but I'm making an educated guess based on the behavioral patterns of both parties throughout these negotiations. During these negotiations the PA have predominantly behavied in a reactionary manor, i.e. they only make moves after the NHL makes the intitial move as was the case last thursday and after every other NHL proposal. The PA to this point has not taken a progressive approach to these negotiations, they seem content to let the NHL move first. So I don't find the reports stating that they maintained the status guoe to be false since it pretty well matches up with their body of work up during these whole negotiations. Having said that I was hoping that this late in the game Fehr would be smart enough to know that he would need to switch tactics and start to be more progressive and move first and force the NHL to respond.

surixon is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:29 PM
  #153
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
It's their money. Not mine. Either side could end this lockout tomorrow. So I hold both equally responsible. The fact that the players will lose more than the owners doesn't change my view as to who is at fault. That's both sides.
They're both equally responsible, but when you look at how the players have "negotiated" I simply can't stand behind them. Fehr is a pro lockout guy. That is his tactic. That has been his record for years in different leagues. That's how he negotiates. He sits on his ass and plays possum. I can't stand him and he's the guy the players hired and are backing.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:29 PM
  #154
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Because there's nothing for Fehr to gain for his players with a strike before the playoffs.

Are the players going to go on strike to Give Up concessions?

Come on. Be for real.

You go on strike to WIN CONCESSIONS--- not to lose less concessions.
They gain the same thing the owners get from locking out a full season; leveraging the opportunity to win major gains.

And let's be real, what are the players getting right now? They are losing more and more and getting less and less.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:31 PM
  #155
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
They're both equally responsible, but when you look at how the players have "negotiated" I simply can't stand behind them. Fehr is a pro lockout guy. That is his tactic. That has been his record for years in different leagues. That's how he negotiates. He sits on his ass and plays possum. I can't stand him and he's the guy the players hired and are backing.
As is Bettman. Both of their records speak for themselves. IF Bettman sticks around as long as Fehr he may break Fehr's record.


Last edited by vanwest: 12-12-2012 at 10:06 PM.
vanwest is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:31 PM
  #156
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
For those saying the players didn't go on strike because they wanted to play under the CBA, I doubt that's really their reasoning. While I'm sure they'd prefer being paid 57% and actually being paid, it also makes no sense to strike at the beginning of the season. They'd just be losing their own money. If they hadn't given up their ability to strike in the CBA, it only makes sense to strike before the playoffs and after they've gotten more or less a full season of pay. The 92 strike was in April, for instance. Either way, if they had extended the CBA for a season I highly doubt the owners would have agreed to extend every part except the article that said "no striking."

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:35 PM
  #157
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Somebody will insure this stuff. It's a racket and insurance companies make a ton of money off of it. I find it comical that rational was even brought up. We know why they really want contract limits and I'm ok with that.
Yes someone will and that happens to be the owners.

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:37 PM
  #158
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 1345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Strikes and lockouts were not allowed in the old CBA. If they had continued under the old CBA, they couldn't have gone on strike.
Not allowing strikes or lockouts during a CBA is standard for all CBA's in any workplace otherwise they are pretty much worthless. But once the old CBA expired this is no CBA. Both sides would have had to sign a new CBA under the same conditions as the old one for this to apply. But this would only make sence if both sides were happy with all parts of the old CBA. And what would say we wouldn't be in the exact same position next year. What I hear you saying is both sides should have started negotiating last year when they were playing under the old CBA and I agree.

KingBogo is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:39 PM
  #159
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
You are confusing the NHLPA proposals with what they have said they are willing to do.

Allan Walsh tweeted "The NHLPA has informed the NHL that players are willing to play and continue to negotiate if an agreement isnít reached by Sept. 15th.". Donald Fehr has said "why are we not playing? It wasnít a decision the players made".

If the players are against a lockout and wanted to play through negotiations, the only reasonable conclusion is that they wanted to operate under the old CBA.
They could have played under the old CBA and negotiated while doing it - last season. But they said no when they had the opportunity. So here we are...

I'm sure there are lots of unions negotiating CBAs while their players perform their jobs.

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:40 PM
  #160
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,285
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Why is this only on Fehr again?
If you're talking about why it's his fault today was a waste of time, probably because he asked for the meeting, he insisted on having the mediators present. Then he came to the meeting/mediation and apparently made no attempt to negotiate. Seems rather pointless to ask for a meeting, insist on mediators, just to say "no, we're not talking."

Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Why would the players go on strike under the previous CBA?
CBA.
It wouldn't be a strike "against" the old CBA, it would be a strike to force the owners to give them everything they want in the CBA they would supposedly have been negotiating while they played.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
If the players are against a lockout and wanted to play through negotiations, the only reasonable conclusion is that they wanted to operate under the old CBA.
Sure, they would have loved another year of 57%!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Strikes and lockouts were not allowed in the old CBA. If they had continued under the old CBA, they couldn't have gone on strike.
I think there are fine lines here that would have to be sorted out. The old CBA expired. There was no CBA. They said they'd play under the terms of the old CBA, but they didn't agree to extend it. So, the argument would be they could strike since there was no CBA actually in place. You can bet each side would pick and choose their definition of "terms," and the PA's would include that the section about not striking would not fall under that definition. They would say it was strictly the HRR split, UFA rules, etc., etc. The league, of course, would say exactly the opposite. Knowing this would potentially open a Pandora's Box, the league refused to play without a CBA in place. I don't blame them. The PA could have called a strike, the league could have filed suit, and by the time it would have taken for the court's to order the PA back to work, the harm would already have been done. I don't blame the PA for trying it, but, clearly, if they were serious about being willing to play under the old CBA's terms, they could have chosen to do so the multiple times the league asked them to prior to the expiration date.


Last edited by Boltsfan2029: 12-12-2012 at 11:08 PM.
Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:41 PM
  #161
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
For those saying the players didn't go on strike because they wanted to play under the CBA, I doubt that's really their reasoning. While I'm sure they'd prefer being paid 57% and actually being paid, it also makes no sense to strike at the beginning of the season. They'd just be losing their own money. If they hadn't given up their ability to strike in the CBA, it only makes sense to strike before the playoffs and after they've gotten more or less a full season of pay. The 92 strike was in April, for instance. Either way, if they had extended the CBA for a season I highly doubt the owners would have agreed to extend every part except the article that said "no striking."
I do however wonder how a strike like the MLB strike of 94 would work in the NHL.

If the players get 100% of their salary and go on strike in mid april, the league would lose all of the playoff revenue and this would have the players making more than the 57% they agreed to. Would they have to pay this back immediately? After a new CBA is signed? Would it legally be forgotten?

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:43 PM
  #162
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
I just see no way the owners agree to play under the old CBA if the no-striking clause isn't in there. Otherwise they're putting themselves at risk. Might as well just say "no" and get on with the lockout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
I do however wonder how a strike like the MLB strike of 94 would work in the NHL.

If the players get 100% of their salary and go on strike in mid april, the league would lose all of the playoff revenue and this would have the players making more than the 57% they agreed to. Would they have to pay this back immediately? After a new CBA is signed? Would it legally be forgotten?
Good question. I've got no idea, but I bet it would be a subject of dispute.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:44 PM
  #163
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,491
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
I do however wonder how a strike like the MLB strike of 94 would work in the NHL.

If the players get 100% of their salary and go on strike in mid april, the league would lose all of the playoff revenue and this would have the players making more than the 57% they agreed to. Would they have to pay this back immediately? After a new CBA is signed? Would it legally be forgotten?
Very interesting, thankfully we don't have to find out!

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:45 PM
  #164
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I just see no way the owners agree to play under the old CBA if the no-striking clause isn't in there. Otherwise they're putting themselves at risk. Might as well just say "no" and get on with the lockout.
'play under' or sign a 1 year extension?

If this is similiar to other situations, I don't think the 'play under the old CBA' would be effective as the NLRB would not enforce the no strike clause.

Would they have been willing to sign an extension to the cba? I don't know. I don't think the NHL would sign it anyways since they already have so many teams losing money and an increase of 6m or so of the floor, midpoint, and ceiling would just make it worse

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:46 PM
  #165
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
For those saying the players didn't go on strike because they wanted to play under the CBA, I doubt that's really their reasoning. While I'm sure they'd prefer being paid 57% and actually being paid, it also makes no sense to strike at the beginning of the season. They'd just be losing their own money. If they hadn't given up their ability to strike in the CBA, it only makes sense to strike before the playoffs and after they've gotten more or less a full season of pay. The 92 strike was in April, for instance. Either way, if they had extended the CBA for a season I highly doubt the owners would have agreed to extend every part except the article that said "no striking."
Nobody is saying they'd strike at the beginning of the season.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:50 PM
  #166
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
As is Bettman. Both of their records speak for themselves. IF Bettman sticks around as long as Fehr he make break Fehr's record.
Again, I'm not a Bettman fan, but if the players want long, lucrative careers, the need the NHL to be profitable. Unfortunately, they need to budge more than the league. They've had it pretty good for a while now.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:51 PM
  #167
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,838
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Somebody will insure this stuff. It's a racket and insurance companies make a ton of money off of it. I find it comical that rational was even brought up. We know why they really want contract limits and I'm ok with that.
The best thing would be for the players to ensure themselves using their $1.6b+ in cash each year. No need to get an outside insurance company involved and it'd cheaper to do it themselves since they can cover it from the giant pile of cash they get each year. Go back to the NHL and say the players are prepared to cover all the insurance and this saves you 1% so you up the offer to 51% and we'll take care of it. That should get rid of the issues around 6+ year contracts.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:51 PM
  #168
Scottyk9
Goals? Please!
 
Scottyk9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 25,108
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Scottyk9
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Why is this only on Fehr again?
Because the NHL finally put their foot down. The deal they are offering is fair. Donald will stall until the last possible second before accepting it.

If I'm a union member and he accepts this proposal or a very similar one 2-3 weeks from now if I'm a player I'm asking him " So why did I have to miss my December pay checks ? "

Scottyk9 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 09:58 PM
  #169
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Cheesesteak, made a thread about it on the business board.

We shall see what people think would happen

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:02 PM
  #170
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottyk9 View Post
Because the NHL finally put their foot down. The deal they are offering is fair. Donald will stall until the last possible second before accepting it.

If I'm a union member and he accepts this proposal or a very similar one 2-3 weeks from now if I'm a player I'm asking him " So why did I have to miss my December pay checks ? "
The deal that the PA is offering is also fair. Neither side cares about that apparently. They want to win. The NHL can get almost all they wanted at the beginning and we could have hockey on the 1st of January if both sides moved a little. To blame it all on the PA when both sides are so close doesn't seem right to me.

vanwest is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:05 PM
  #171
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
Again, I'm not a Bettman fan, but if the players want long, lucrative careers, the need the NHL to be profitable. Unfortunately, they need to budge more than the league. They've had it pretty good for a while now.
Both sides seemed to me to have moved a lot. We could have a hockey deal tomorrow and a profitable NHL if both sides stopped being so stubborn and moved a little toward the other side. That is what will likley happen eventually anyways so why not just get the deal done.

vanwest is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:09 PM
  #172
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
The best thing would be for the players to ensure themselves using their $1.6b+ in cash each year. No need to get an outside insurance company involved and it'd cheaper to do it themselves since they can cover it from the giant pile of cash they get each year. Go back to the NHL and say the players are prepared to cover all the insurance and this saves you 1% so you up the offer to 51% and we'll take care of it. That should get rid of the issues around 6+ year contracts.
Can you explain that one to me.
Why is the NHL prepared to allow 7 year deals for players drafted by the same club if insurance is such a big deal. I suspect it's only a big cost on the real long term deals.

vanwest is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:10 PM
  #173
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
The deal that the PA is offering is also fair. Neither side cares about that apparently. They want to win. The NHL can get almost all they wanted at the beginning and we could have hockey on the 1st of January if both sides moved a little. To blame it all on the PA when both sides are so close doesn't seem right to me.
The blame is always going to be on the players, because the players have been less-than-sensitive with their "public outcry" tweets and such, and that's rubbed a lot of fans the wrong way. Of course, if owners weren't under a gag order, we'd be hearing the same stuff from them (ala the "cattle" comment).

Choosing which side to blame right now is ridiculous. There's no need to chose. There's plenty of blame to go around and both sides have more than their share of it.

Blueline Bomber is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:15 PM
  #174
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,903
vCash: 500
I honestly don't think Fehr would have struck had he been allowed to play under the old CBA. But that doesn't solve anything. All we'll have is Fehr stalling until next summer. Its no accident that he didn't start negotiating earlier. We had that quote from a player who said (and I'm paraphrasing), that Fehr told them that negotiations is 1 year of stalling and two weeks of poker. Its exactly what he has done, and he would have taken us the brink next year as well if they were allowed to play this year. What's gained by the owners by delaying the process a year?

Renbarg is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 10:17 PM
  #175
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,542
vCash: 500
The players need to google "cost benefit analysis".

Throwing away 600M for an extra 89M is terrible business.

Ragamuffin Gunner 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 04:23 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.