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 Discusion XXXIII: It's the same old song. **MOD WARNING POST 274

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2012, 04:16 PM
  #401
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
But shouldn't you realize that at some point they won't move? Shouldn't you understand when it's time to change gears and cut your losses?
Trying to look at it objectively, I agree that the players lose financially. The only justification I can see is that they may feel that if they don't dig in now and make a stand that next time around they will be pushed to the NFL model of no guaranteed contracts. That has to be a huge issue for the players and I have heard several state it openly. All of which makes me question why the players don't jump on the 10 year CBA the owners are offering.

vanwest is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:16 PM
  #402
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobs View Post
I have not one, single **** to give about the NHL right now.

Nadda.
this is basically where im at too bud. Id imagine there are a lot more people like us out there then the ones who are hanging on to fehr/daly/bettman's every word. Its a shame too, bc before all this nonsense, almost all of us here on HF wouldve done some pretty ridiculous things just to stick up for our team.

isles31 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:16 PM
  #403
Paul4587
Moderator
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen View Post
a good labor lawyer doesn't allow his clients to miss a year of pay over secondary issues
A good commissioner doesn't allow his league to lose a second full season in 8 years over secondary issues.

Paul4587 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:18 PM
  #404
Zoombie
Registered User
 
Zoombie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
That was the entire point of me posting those quotes.

They'd "previously said" that a couple of times. They've moved every single time. Don't you think continuing to say that becomes a little disingenuous at some point? When you tell someone "that's the hill we're going to die on," but you've moved on several other things you'd previously said were "non-negotiable," doesn't it stand to reason that the other side would think they can gain more regardless?

And these insinuations that the PA isn't willing to negotiate -- now I'm asking for some proof.
So clearly you agree the owners have made moves ("every single time") towards the players....

(And not directed at anyone in particular):
I don't get the hate for the owner's insinuation that there is no point in talking until things change. They are used to the business world, you don't meet when there is nothing to talk about. You meet, hammer out details until you can't anymore, or reach a point where you need to do some work on your own to progress things. You set an agenda for next meeting to ensure that when you meet, both sides have done their homework and aren't wasting their time. Then you get back in the room and keep hammering out details that will progress negotiations.

Zoombie is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:18 PM
  #405
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deebo View Post
$89M divided proportionally to 700 players based on their salary over a span of a few years is negligible for each individual player.
That argument works in my favour. If it's that negligible, then why ask for it PLUS the other demans? If it's that negligible, why not just cave (I don't think they should btw).

And even if it didn't, it's not that negligible because it's 41% of the larger ($216M) owed to them in the first year to make up for the contract discounting to get under 50/50.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:18 PM
  #406
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
So the players never got paid their full contracts in the last CBA?
Are you talking before or after the 24% salary rollback?

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:18 PM
  #407
njdevil26
Registered User
 
njdevil26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clark, NJ
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Apples and oranges. The PA has agreed to 50/50.
How could you say that? The PA agreed to 50-50 then proposed a system that sees them at 56.5% in the first year and no 50-50 until year FOUR then they want an 8 year CBA with an out clause in year 6 (which you know they will take)... so how is that "agreeing to 50-50"

njdevil26 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:19 PM
  #408
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whakahere View Post
18 owners/teams aren't even making any money. It's okay for the players to have no risk in making money but the people paying the bills to have it all. How is that fair? explain to me cause it always gets me.

players are losing nothing. NOTHING. they will be making less that is all and still making less is debatable if the league continues to grow.
Players take on a substantial risk every time they step onto the ice. Arguably their risk is greater if one were to value physical (and mental) welfare above that of monetary gain.

Both sides take on risk. Asserting otherwise is disingenuous in my opinion.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:19 PM
  #409
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Trying to look at it objectively, I agree that the players lose financially. The only justification I can see is that they may feel that if they don't dig in now and make a stand that next time around they will be pushed to the NFL model of no guaranteed contracts. That has to be a huge issue for the players and I have heard several state it openly. All of which makes me question why the players don't jump on the 10 year CBA the owners are offering.
I respectfully disagree dude. So why didn't the solidarity they show last lockout make this lockout less likely?

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:19 PM
  #410
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
That problem with that view is that it assumes that what is broken previously should serve as a benchmark for the future. It makes fixing the problems much harder because the players feel they have made giant sacrifices, when they really haven't. It's a normal market correction that isn't unfair in any way to the players.
It's only broken to one side of the discussions. If either side of this wants to start arguing that the previous CBA shouldn't have any bearing on this one, then the players could start saying "fine, throw out the cap system."

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:19 PM
  #411
ScottyHolden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
Quote:
18 owners/teams aren't even making any money. It's okay for the players to have no risk in making money but the people paying the bills to have it all. How is that fair? explain to me cause it always gets me.

players are losing nothing. NOTHING. they will be making less that is all and still making less is debatable if the league continues to grow
I feel the same way. It's utter madness.

ScottyHolden is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:19 PM
  #412
njdevil26
Registered User
 
njdevil26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clark, NJ
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
So the players never got paid their full contracts in the last CBA?
From what I understand, the players get paid a percentage based on the HRR split. I think players were getting somewhere between 94-96% of what their contract dicated?

njdevil26 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:20 PM
  #413
Hanklite*
Bettman's Bro
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: TO
Country: Canada
Posts: 996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul4587 View Post
A good commissioner doesn't allow his league to lose a second full season in 8 years over secondary issues.
So a good commissioner just accepts what ever hair brained terms the Union wants, which causes the league to lose tons of money and fold. Got it.

Hanklite* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:21 PM
  #414
Deebo
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckg927 View Post
NHL: Do us all a favor. End this farce. CANCEL THE SEASON. Put every one of us out of our misery.
Speak for yourself.

Cancelling the season wouldn't be doing me a favour, I like to watch NHL hockey.

Deebo is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:21 PM
  #415
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanklite View Post
So a good commissioner just accepts what ever hair brained terms the Union wants, which causes the league to lose tons of money and fold. Got it.
How did you read his post and come to think he said or even implied anything close to that?

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:22 PM
  #416
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Trying to look at it objectively, I agree that the players lose financially. The only justification I can see is that they may feel that if they don't dig in now and make a stand that next time around they will be pushed to the NFL model of no guaranteed contracts. That has to be a huge issue for the players and I have heard several state it openly. All of which makes me question why the players don't jump on the 10 year CBA the owners are offering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
It's only broken to one side of the discussions. If either side of this wants to start arguing that the previous CBA shouldn't have any bearing on this one, then the players could start saying "fine, throw out the cap system."
Why would the league try to get rid of guaranteed contracts, knowing that the cap would instantly be the target of the PA? And vice versa?

Makes no sense for either side to take that risk.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:22 PM
  #417
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
I respectfully disagree dude. So why didn't the solidarity they show last lockout make this lockout less likely?
Because they ultimately folded. All of which led to the hiring of Fehr and a determination not to fold this time. I think you can argue whether the strategy will work but that is what I read as the sentiment of many of the players.

vanwest is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:22 PM
  #418
Hanklite*
Bettman's Bro
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: TO
Country: Canada
Posts: 996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
How did you read his post and come to think he said or even implied anything close to that?
because he put the sole blame for two lost seasons on Bettman...

While Bettman is only doing what is necessary to preserve the long term goals of the NHL...

Hanklite* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:22 PM
  #419
Deebo
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevil26 View Post
From what I understand, the players get paid a percentage based on the HRR split. I think players were getting somewhere between 94-96% of what their contract dicated?
I think it ranged from 94-102%.

I recall the players getting over 100% at least once.

Deebo is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:24 PM
  #420
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
How did you read his post and come to think he said or even implied anything close to that?
Probably the same way some people accuse others of saying the players should just "bend over" and take whatever offer the league makes.

Overreaction. It's a human nature thing.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:24 PM
  #421
Rabbit
Captain Cook
 
Rabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Bay California
Country: United States
Posts: 4,502
vCash: 500
Seasons over ladies and gents. At this rate, we would go through training camp, play a week of games, then the trade deadline, followed by 2 and a half months (around 30 games) of play before the playoffs...at least a month of which, would be an unorthodox period of time in which teams will be adjusting to one another. It would be a helluva lot harder to swallow your team winning the Stanley Cup this year. You would never hear the end of it.

Rabbit is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:24 PM
  #422
Deebo
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
(with a clause for renegotiation/extension to push it to 14 years)

I don't know what this part means.

Can you explain?

Deebo is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:25 PM
  #423
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Because they ultimately folded. All of which led to the hiring of Fehr and a determination not to fold this time. I think you can argue whether the strategy will work but that is what I read as the sentiment of many of the players.
Ok, so not folding this time and losing another season will do what again? They're not going to get a better deal (and I don't think it will be that much worse either).

The argument is just too convoluted and has no historical precedent in this league. It depends on a host of factors and an economic future that nobody can predict.

It's far more likely that this negotiation will have no bearing on the next one besides the actual terms of the CBA.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:25 PM
  #424
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanklite View Post
So a good commissioner just accepts what ever hair brained terms the Union wants, which causes the league to lose tons of money and fold. Got it.
The league survived without Bettman and will survive long after he is gone. A good commissioner needs to balance his duty to the owners to maximize profits with his duty to leave the sport in good shape and with satisfied fans. Arguably Bettman is not bad at the first duty, although to hear the owners tell it they are mostly losing money so maybe you can say he has not done well at either job. In fairness though, the owners seem to like the job he is doing for them on the profit side. He's been a poor commissioner for the game though, IMO. His confrontational style is largely outdated.

vanwest is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:25 PM
  #425
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevil26 View Post
How could you say that? The PA agreed to 50-50 then proposed a system that sees them at 56.5% in the first year and no 50-50 until year FOUR then they want an 8 year CBA with an out clause in year 6 (which you know they will take)... so how is that "agreeing to 50-50"
You start out by saying the previous CBA has no bearing on this one. Now you are talking about details of the 50/50 offers from both sides and comparing the NFL to the NHL. I'm not getting in to a convoluted debate on unrelated issues. We get your stance, the PA is wrong in every possible way.

Back to the original point. The previous CBA is the framework for this CBA. It's a fact. To not compare the changes doesn't make any sense. The separate issue is what is equitable for both sides. You obviously side with the owners.

Me, at this point the differences are not worth losing a season.

HawksFan74 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 09:14 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.