Sportsnet reported that the NHL offer from last Wednesday was back on the table today. If true,and I have my doubts, the players need to vote on it. Simple as that.
Then maybe those players should go to the meetings? Nothing worse than players who sit at home and don't involve themselves, speaking out.
And I meant all as in all the players at the meeting.
Funny I don't remember you saying anything about, Versteeg, White, etc, the guys who bashed Fehr while not attending a single meeting.
Plus why should they, it's clear that in the PA you aren't allowed to think for yourself you have to be with them or against them, because this isn't modern times in America this is the Roman times where having a thought for yourself is against the law.
I find it funny that the players who are talking about ALL! being United yet crush anyone who disagrees.
Sportsnet reported that the NHL offer from last Wednesday was back on the table today. If true,and I have my doubts, the players need to vote on it. Simple as that.
Why? Why shouldn't the owners vote on the players counter proposal?
LOL.... if the moderates didn't like it, the others would not either. In fact I won't believe that offer was tabled again today until I hear it from Bettman or Daly. Daly has denied anything was on the table today. It was basically a catch-up session for the mediators, from his description.
Sportsnet reported that the NHL offer from last Wednesday was back on the table today. If true,and I have my doubts, the players need to vote on it. Simple as that.
Why would there be a vote without an agreement? That isn't how these things work.
The players talking about loss in revenue, where talking about how much they would have made if the last CBA and HRR continued with the same growth.
Basically saying, if we continued to make 57% of the HRR and the HRR continued to grow the same amount over the last 5 years then in the next 5 years we would have made X amount of dollars.
Since we are agreeing to make Y amount of money in the new deal we are losing out on Z amount because you could have made X.
Except the last CBA ended and with the lockout HRR will decline so X was never going to be reached. They did it last time too.
It's not actual money. With this lockout and new CBA not a single player will have to reach into his wallet and give a single dollar back to the NHL. So people need to stop saying the players are giving up billions because they aren't.
The players talking about loss in revenue, where talking about how much they would have made if the last CBA and HRR continued with the same growth.
Basically saying, if we continued to make 57% of the HRR and the HRR continued to grow the same amount over the last 5 years then in the next 5 years we would have made X amount of dollars.
Since we are agreeing to make Y amount of money in the new deal we are losing out on Z amount because you could have made X.
Except the last CBA ended and with the lockout HRR will decline so X was never going to be reached. They did it last time too.
It's not actual money. With this lockout and new CBA not a single player will have to reach into his wallet and give a single dollar back to the NHL. So people need to stop saying the players are giving up billions because they aren't.
Exactly. Ironically it has been Fehrs ploy to bring that up at every opportunity in his spin. It works obviously. The naive and greedy players are buying into it; the notion that they are giving away money, even though the CBA expired.
Exactly. Ironically it has been Fehrs ploy to bring that up at every opportunity in his spin. It works obviously. The naive and greedy players are buying into it; the notion that they are giving away money, even though the CBA expired.
They are on SIGNED contracts, its their money. Unless you don't think a contract is something both parties should honour..
If you want to play this game, then no team is losing money either, because that was off of the last CBA. They are talking about losing fake money, am I getting this right?
Last edited by Hawkaholic: 12-12-2012 at 08:59 PM.
Funny I don't remember you saying anything about, Versteeg, White, etc, the guys who bashed Fehr while not attending a single meeting.
Plus why should they, it's clear that in the PA you aren't allowed to think for yourself you have to be with them or against them, because this isn't modern times in America this is the Roman times where having a thought for yourself is against the law.
I find it funny that the players who are talking about ALL! being United yet crush anyone who disagrees.
I assume you mean bashing Bettman.
They hate him, called him a name, after all, he is ruining hockey with his lockouts every time a CBA expires.
Last edited by Hawkaholic: 12-12-2012 at 08:46 PM.
They are on SIGNED contracts, its their money. Unless you don't think a contract is something both parties should honour..
But if you want to play this game, then no team is losing money either, because that was off of the last CBA. They are talking about losing fake money, am I getting this right?
It was their money, but the full value was linked to league revenue. There was never a gaurantee past the expiration of the CBA and their was never a gaurantee that they would get all their salary that they signed for to begin with. That's mostly what escrow was, and everytime the PA voted for automatic escalators they increased the withholdings from the rest of the PA's paycheck.
Plenty of players, most notably Semin and his agent refused to sign for an extended contract after 2011 because of the fear of what the next CBA would hold. They knew nothing was gauranteed after that CBA.
It was their money, but the full value was linked to league revenue. There was never a gaurantee past the expiration of the CBA and their was never a gaurantee that they would get all their salary that they signed for to begin with. That's mostly what escrow was, and everytime the PA voted for automatic escalators they increased the withholdings from the rest of the PA's paycheck.
Plenty of players, most notably Semin and his agent refused to sign for an extended contract after 2011 because of the fear of what the next CBA would hold. They knew nothing was gauranteed after that CBA.
But the owners signed these contracts in good faith ...definition - denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action
If the owners are bull ******** us about them signing these deals in "good faith", how the hell can I believe that they are telling the truth when they say they are losing X amount of money, or that they are doing it for the good of the game. They are flushing their multimillion dollar teams down the drain for some contractual rights and $182 mil dollars
But the owners signed these contracts in good faith ...definition - denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action
If the owners are bull ******** us about them signing these deals in "good faith", how the hell can I believe that they are telling the truth when they say they are losing X amount of money, or that they are doing it for the good of the game. They are flushing their multimillion dollar teams down the drain for some contractual rights and $182 mil dollars
Yes they signed them in good faith, but they can't control the outcome of the HRR, which controls the amount of the contracts. If HRR take a major hit, and it will with the lockout, those contracts where going to change anyway. The owners are even offering the Make Whole to pay most of those contracts out anyway.
The contracts that most people are talking about, the long term, back diving deals that the NHL wants to get rid of aren't being signed by teams losing money. Most of those contracts signed could be paid by those teams without an issue.
Yes they signed them in good faith, but they can't control the outcome of the HRR, which controls the amount of the contracts. If HRR take a major hit, and it will with the lockout, those contracts where going to change anyway. The owners are even offering the Make Whole to pay most of those contracts out anyway.
The contracts that most people are talking about, the long term, back diving deals that the NHL wants to get rid of aren't being signed by teams losing money. Most of those contracts signed could be paid by those teams without an issue.
Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 3 small market money losers that have signed long deals, Columbus, Nashville, and islanders. So no, it's not just the big clubs doing it.
Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 3 small market money losers that have signed long deals, Columbus, Nashville, and islanders. So no, it's not just the big clubs doing it.
They are long term deals but they are deals that would have been fine under the new CBA. Only the Shea Weber deal would have not been allowed. All the others where deals where the Cap Hit and yearly salary don't change over the length of the contract.
They are long term deals but they are deals that would have been fine under the new CBA. Only the Shea Weber deal would have not been allowed. All the others where deals where the Cap Hit and yearly salary don't change over the length of the contract.
To go on a tangent a bit:
Shea Weber is a great example of why the limits need to be in place.
Nashville had almost no choice but to take the gamble. They stood to lose a ton of fan and corporate support if they lost both players. If the Nashville owners really wanted to pay that kind of money, we would have seen it a year earlier. The rules put them in a place where they had to choose one of two really crappy options.
I didn't agree with all the player hatin' before 2005 about how they shouldn't have asked (with their agents) for ridiculous amounts of money and all the owner hatin' now about how they should never have signed those contracts. Both arguments are not realistic in major professional sports.
The rules create the market and the both sides will push on the rules as far as they can.
Plenty of things. There is a good amount of conversation still going on HF that has nothing to do with the lockout.
Taking a side is like going back to your owner after he's beaten you. Faithful as ever to your beloved players or your beloved owners. Sad.
Sports fans are inherently irrational and more often than not are at the receiving end of a abusive relationship. That is why the Leafs still sellout or why Cubs have such a loyal following or why Blackhawks were supported during the Dollar Bill era.
When all the CBA dust is settled, I am guessing that even you will go back to cheering for the very same players and handing over money to the very same owners that don't give a damn about you because we are the greatest fans in the world
With that said I can always take the side of the party that I feel is less wrong which in this case is the players
They are long term deals but they are deals that would have been fine under the new CBA. Only the Shea Weber deal would have not been allowed. All the others where deals where the Cap Hit and yearly salary don't change over the length of the contract.
Umberger, Brassard, Boll, Dorsett, Wisniewski, Tyutin, Nikitin, and Mason all have received contracts from the Blue Jackets that would be illegal under the news rules proposed by the owners.
Tavares, Moulson, Grabner, Okposo, Nielsen, Reasoner, Bailey, Martin, MacDonald, and Dipietro all have received contracts from the Islanders that would be illegal under the news rules proposed by the owners.
Erat, Legwand, Gaustad, Hornqvist, Wilson, Spaling, Halischuk, Weber, and Klein all have received contracts from the Predators that would be illegal under the news rules proposed by the owners.
/\
I don’t pretend to know what these player’s contracts entail. However, even if they are deemed as “illegal” by the new CBA rules, it certainly doesn’t mean they will be getting short changed, which is what you seem to imply. The fierce opposition by the players to addressing these contract loopholes is a perfect example of their disregard for the health of the game. It is the lining of their own pockets that many of these players are most concerned with.
because we are the greatest fans in the world 
