HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 CBA/Lockout talk Part VII..Will a deal get done..

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-31-2012, 06:38 PM
  #526
cat400
Registered User
 
cat400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,504
vCash: 500
Watching the media scrums this afternoon with the faces of hockey-evil, Bettman & Fehr, was enough to make one puke when both ended their scrums by wishing the reporters a Happy New Year.

cat400 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 06:50 PM
  #527
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I don't believe it's a one sided view at all. I think it's accurate as in this discussion there is far less grey now then there was a month ago. The league tendered an offer, the PA countered asking for the league to give more. The league refused but have now submitted a proposal that does exactly that, that meets players half way on each of the big issues aside from one or two. Contract length, variance, make whole, revenue sharing, and transition.

There was so little room between the leagues offer and the PA's counter on these that meeting in the middle on most was all but guaranteed with any movement on the leagues part. The PA already agreed to the make whole, they agreed to the 50/50... there is no where left to go on either of those issues. In fact, make whole was being offered by the league based on how many games they could put out this year. The fact that they are still offering the same total for a minimal schedule is a concession on their part.

Transition was an issue and made up of two big demands from the PA, transition time and amnesty buyout. Owners gave completely on the amnesty, should the players not give on their 2 year transition demand and go with the owners 1? You can't do 1.5 years.

Variance is something they could fight perhaps, but when you get up to the 15% figure on variance it no longer means anything. A 7 year contract starting out at 10 mil per could have a cap hit of 5.5 mil. Why would owners give even more on that issue when it (a) renders the entire thing pointless and (b) when they just doubled the figure from their original demand?

CBA term is the easiest to attack I suppose, meeting the middle would be 9 years with either a 7 or 8 year mutual buyout. Doubt that's much of a stickler.

Perhaps their counter contains no demands on the above, perhaps the issues are others that are of less import and the players can win easily... I doubt it though. That hasn't been the way this negotiation seems to have gone. I believe Fehr will again try to "move the goal posts" because frankly, he has time left to try and win more. It's been the strategy all along, and although it's worked I'm not sure why a fan would be supportive of it. It didn't work for you in fact its done the exact opposite, it only potentially works for the players. Will he care that each added delay hurts the fans and the sport, or as someone mentioned above the people who's lively hood is largely dependent on the sport? Will he care if he misjudges the NHL's willingness to call the season? Will he care if each concession he forces now, if he gets them that is, likely means less of a permanent fix and a worse on ice product? I know I don't want to watch an NHL where a third of the NHL can compete personnel wise financially with the rest of the league, just so players could get an extra 5 or 10% variance on their contracts.

Again, perhaps it's much ado about nothing, but judging by the way things have gone to date when I hear Fehr is about to launch a counter proposal my optimism takes a major hit.
I know we haven't exactly seen eye-to-eye during this fiasco, Kaoz... But I agree.

This is the first offer I've seen from EITHER side that genuinely seemed geared toward signing an agreement. Fehr pushing it? ****in' hate it. That proposal was DEAL to me.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 06:56 PM
  #528
08SeaBass08
Lucic and Chong
 
08SeaBass08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Foxboro, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
This is loser talk. Fehr is a strong leader for the players and he's bleeding out everything that can be bled from ownership (or holding on to everything that can be held onto during a mugging). Anyone who thinks the league would have been kinder if the NHLPA had picked a pushover probably thinks that the bully would leave em alone if they just kept their head down at recess.
I am really glad to have your voice of reason on this topic. Everyone else seems to think that as long as you play a sport for huge sums of money, it's somehow impossible to be exploited, and if exploitation does happen, it's justifiable, because you play a sport for a good salary.

The owners never planned on the NHLPA standing up for themselves, and they always planned on sacrificing at least part of the season with a lockout (hence the lack of negotiations until September). That the players are standing up for themselves is largely due to Don Fehr, and I applaud him for that.

If the owners were really that broke and the economic structure of the league that damaged, there never would have been any give-and-take. Clearly, the owners had far more to give than they originally claimed, hence their latest proposal.

08SeaBass08 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 07:33 PM
  #529
Spooner st
Registered User
 
Spooner st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,498
vCash: 500
Good news...

@DarrenDreger: Without question, the NHL will respond to the PA's counter tomorrow, however, the process has moved beyond proposals. Still work to do...

Spooner st is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:25 PM
  #530
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 08SeaBass08 View Post
I am really glad to have your voice of reason on this topic. Everyone else seems to think that as long as you play a sport for huge sums of money, it's somehow impossible to be exploited, and if exploitation does happen, it's justifiable, because you play a sport for a good salary.

The owners never planned on the NHLPA standing up for themselves, and they always planned on sacrificing at least part of the season with a lockout (hence the lack of negotiations until September). That the players are standing up for themselves is largely due to Don Fehr, and I applaud him for that.

If the owners were really that broke and the economic structure of the league that damaged, there never would have been any give-and-take. Clearly, the owners had far more to give than they originally claimed, hence their latest proposal.
im going to make a radical statement to illustrate a point... its possible for drug dealing murderers to feel 'abused' it a cop writes them a traffic ticket.

just because someone does feel exploited or abused doesnt make it so by the standards of the rest of us 'reasonable men'.

obviously you have a point... these nhl unionized players must feel exploited by the offers they are getting or they would just sign. So yes, you have a point... but do they? they have feelings... but are those feelings actually at all remotely tied to reality?

where else on this planet can they get guaranteed salaries to play hockey for longer then a 5 year term? is there any other place at all? and yet... somehow they are exploited if the NHL doesnt give it to them?

the other rival leagues not only dont pay anything remotely close to average salary of 2.5 mill per player.. but they dont even offer guaranteed salaries at all. they sure as hell dont offer a guarnatee of 50% of the revenues. We're talking guarantee of revenues... NOT PROFITS! If heaven forbid other expenses rise on the owners and they all start losing 10-20-30 mill a year... the players still will be guaranteed 50% of revenues.

There is no other place on this planet that would happen.

and yet somehow they 'feel' exploited??? Yeah... they probably do. And yeah, thats why I cant even begin to feel sympathy for their side of things.

Call me again when gordie howe gets a team jacket for a signing bonus... if that ever happens again in the past 30-40 years now... There was a time that the players did get exploited but it hasnt been in my lifetime.

there has been three lockouts/strikes/work stoppages though... several teams forced to relocate... a few teams gone out of business as well as the death of the WHA that tried to compete and the IHL that sort of tried to compete.

I guess the evidence is pretty easy to see that the owners have been getting exploited big time in recent years. Bankruptcy declarations... teams being taken away from owners that cant find sales. Teams having loses of 10s of millions of dollars... constantly trying to find new investors... the pheonix owner now in the middle east trying to sucker investors into that mess cause no one over here will touch it...

theres definitely a lot of exploition going on against the owners... but i guess they 'deserve' it cause they egotistically want to give us fans a winning team to show off with and win with?

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:39 PM
  #531
PatriceBergeronFan
U.S. Army Hooah!
 
PatriceBergeronFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
This is loser talk. Fehr is a strong leader for the players and he's bleeding out everything that can be bled from ownership (or holding on to everything that can be held onto during a mugging). Anyone who thinks the league would have been kinder if the NHLPA had picked a pushover probably thinks that the bully would leave em alone if they just kept their head down at recess.
He is a terrible leader. He doesn't know when to pick his fights and he is still costing his players more and more salary while getting back very tiny concessions from the owners. Fehr has made this more about himself than the players, in my opinion. He is doing a fairly poor job, playing the role of a stubborn idiot who doesn't know when enough is enough. The majority of the issues he made a big deal over for the purpose of stalling are not big deals. Salary cap is one he should focus on, and that's about the only issue I'd like to see him 'win' a little bit on.

PatriceBergeronFan is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 10:17 PM
  #532
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
This is loser talk. Fehr is a strong leader for the players and he's bleeding out everything that can be bled from ownership (or holding on to everything that can be held onto during a mugging). Anyone who thinks the league would have been kinder if the NHLPA had picked a pushover probably thinks that the bully would leave em alone if they just kept their head down at recess.
lets stick to the bully at the playground analogy and see if we can truely draw a parrallal

so... theres a bully... and theres you. now the bully says be my friend... play with me... and ill give you 50% of my lunch money... and ill carry your books first class... and i do your homework for periods 2-6 but not period 1. And ill try to get that cute girl to go to the dance with you but only if i can get her recipe for those cookies she made for the last bake sale.

now... as the 'bullied' party you might feel afraid to stick your head up or whatever... thats your buisness i guess. From where i sit though, youd have a tough time convincing me to step in as a teacher and tell that bully they are being unreasonable not to do your homework for first period or to dare ask for that cookie recipe.

when i went to school... bullies usually werent called bullies unless they were actually beating the crap out of me and my friends.

show me where the players are being bullied and im far easier understanding your analogy here. from my own recollection of things, every single time the players sign a contract 80-90% of us fans say he got too much. from my recollection when guys like ryder/sturm get hurt or fail to score 25-30 goals a season a vast majority of our fans start crying for buyouts and to bury the guy in the minors because his guaranteed contract is killing us with the non production. from my recollection we see player after player demand trades after signing no trade deals... and we see players that quite obviously complain when they are not given enough icetime to suit their egos... they dont try as hard they should on checking assignments when they get moved off the top line because of scoring slumps or whatever...

i dont think these players are being bullied at all. from one cba to the next... the owners treat them first class. the players are legally protected seven ways to sunday with all sorts of tools to basically get away with bloody murder and the owners are stuck handing out one obscene contract after another.

we see tomas karbele come in here and suck for us after blocking one potential deal after another in toronto... and he still gets another obscene stupid contract anyhow... which he promptly fails to live up to... and then he still gets paid it anyhow cause thats the way it is for the players.

show me where this 'bullying' is happeneing and ill try to see that side of the argument but so help me i cant see anyof it happening with my own eyes.

and yes.. i know the players feel hurt cause they arent getting the kitchen sink in this new deal like they did the last one... but as ive said a few times, just because their fragile little feelings are getting hurt doesnt actually mean they are dealing at all with a realistic interpretation of reality here. they are still MASSIVELY winning this deal even if they accept the owners very first offer.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 10:22 PM
  #533
Montecristo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
im going to make a radical statement to illustrate a point... its possible for drug dealing murderers to feel 'abused' it a cop writes them a traffic ticket.

just because someone does feel exploited or abused doesnt make it so by the standards of the rest of us 'reasonable men'.

obviously you have a point... these nhl unionized players must feel exploited by the offers they are getting or they would just sign. So yes, you have a point... but do they? they have feelings... but are those feelings actually at all remotely tied to reality?

where else on this planet can they get guaranteed salaries to play hockey for longer then a 5 year term? is there any other place at all? and yet... somehow they are exploited if the NHL doesnt give it to them?

the other rival leagues not only dont pay anything remotely close to average salary of 2.5 mill per player.. but they dont even offer guaranteed salaries at all. they sure as hell dont offer a guarnatee of 50% of the revenues. We're talking guarantee of revenues... NOT PROFITS! If heaven forbid other expenses rise on the owners and they all start losing 10-20-30 mill a year... the players still will be guaranteed 50% of revenues.

There is no other place on this planet that would happen.

and yet somehow they 'feel' exploited??? Yeah... they probably do. And yeah, thats why I cant even begin to feel sympathy for their side of things.

Call me again when gordie howe gets a team jacket for a signing bonus... if that ever happens again in the past 30-40 years now... There was a time that the players did get exploited but it hasnt been in my lifetime.

there has been three lockouts/strikes/work stoppages though... several teams forced to relocate... a few teams gone out of business as well as the death of the WHA that tried to compete and the IHL that sort of tried to compete.

I guess the evidence is pretty easy to see that the owners have been getting exploited big time in recent years. Bankruptcy declarations... teams being taken away from owners that cant find sales. Teams having loses of 10s of millions of dollars... constantly trying to find new investors... the pheonix owner now in the middle east trying to sucker investors into that mess cause no one over here will touch it...

theres definitely a lot of exploition going on against the owners... but i guess they 'deserve' it cause they egotistically want to give us fans a winning team to show off with and win with?
Is it the players fault the NHL put teams in arizona, Nashville and 2 in Florida? The league knows that If they put more teams in Canada they would be more universally profitable but they won't because Canadian teams take away from the US television deals. They choose to have bad markets in America so the good American markets can make huge money.

I also hate the wording that the owners are continuing to make concessions to meet the players demands. It's the players who are making all the concessions from the previous deal the owners just keep lowering their demands for their kick backs.

Yes this deal should get done from what the owners just proposed but it's too late for me. This season no matter when it starts will have an asterisk on the champion now. The reason I hope a deal gets done no longer reflects my want for NHL hockey this season, but the guarantee of hockey next season. The NHL lost my attention the day Steve Burton's prediction came and went

Montecristo is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 05:33 AM
  #534
MarshmontMcSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montecristo View Post
Is it the players fault the NHL put teams in arizona, Nashville and 2 in Florida? The league knows that If they put more teams in Canada they would be more universally profitable but they won't because Canadian teams take away from the US television deals. They choose to have bad markets in America so the good American markets can make huge money.

I also hate the wording that the owners are continuing to make concessions to meet the players demands. It's the players who are making all the concessions from the previous deal the owners just keep lowering their demands for their kick backs.

Yes this deal should get done from what the owners just proposed but it's too late for me. This season no matter when it starts will have an asterisk on the champion now. The reason I hope a deal gets done no longer reflects my want for NHL hockey this season, but the guarantee of hockey next season. The NHL lost my attention the day Steve Burton's prediction came and went

Atlanta got moved and they showed promise...they sold out the rematch of the bloodbath game where Thornton and Savard fought. But the NHL moved them since they lost money. Phoenix would be moved if there was a slam dunk place to relocate it to but there is not one without putting the team in Hamilton and hurting Buffalo or Toronto. You think Seattle would be better? I was there the night before Game 7 in Vancouver and noone in the bar had a clue there was a hockey game being played the next day, let alone the game of the century in their back yard. Are poor people in KC gonna pay for 100+ lowerbowl tickets just cause the Arena is nice? PHX will go to QC unless they can leave them in the desert with investors and give QC an expansion team.

Give the NHL credit for moving 1/2 very sick puppies in ATL and PHX. Nashville have great fans too you have no idea what you are talking about slamming them they sell out 30 games a year or so. Florida does OK when the team is good and the Lightning have set attendance records in the past. There is 1 problem team in PHX the rest need help and their operating costs lowered 10-20 mil so they can have a chance. Teams like Nashville, Dallas, Florida, St Louis, Colorado don't turn a profit because the players earn too much and there can't be NFL like revenue sharing because there isn't the TV money.


The Leafs are as strong as any franchise in any sport despite being terrible another team in the GTO could change that, and if you put another team in Ontario you might as well put 2 more there and tell Detroit, Buff, and TO tough **** since Ontario could support 2-3 more NHL teams. Or you let the Leafs remain a goldmine no matter what. After QC the next Canadian city a team could go to is Saksatoon (unless you do a second in BC) do you want that?

If Bettman hated Canada he wouldn't have given Ottawa a team how do the Sens help get American tv viewers?

MarshmontMcSlewfoot is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:21 AM
  #535
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
lets stick to the bully at the playground analogy and see if we can truely draw a parrallal

so... theres a bully... and theres you. now the bully says be my friend... play with me... and ill give you 50% of my lunch money... and ill carry your books first class... and i do your homework for periods 2-6 but not period 1. And ill try to get that cute girl to go to the dance with you but only if i can get her recipe for those cookies she made for the last bake sale.

now... as the 'bullied' party you might feel afraid to stick your head up or whatever... thats your buisness i guess. From where i sit though, youd have a tough time convincing me to step in as a teacher and tell that bully they are being unreasonable not to do your homework for first period or to dare ask for that cookie recipe.

when i went to school... bullies usually werent called bullies unless they were actually beating the crap out of me and my friends.

show me where the players are being bullied and im far easier understanding your analogy here. from my own recollection of things, every single time the players sign a contract 80-90% of us fans say he got too much. from my recollection when guys like ryder/sturm get hurt or fail to score 25-30 goals a season a vast majority of our fans start crying for buyouts and to bury the guy in the minors because his guaranteed contract is killing us with the non production. from my recollection we see player after player demand trades after signing no trade deals... and we see players that quite obviously complain when they are not given enough icetime to suit their egos... they dont try as hard they should on checking assignments when they get moved off the top line because of scoring slumps or whatever...

i dont think these players are being bullied at all. from one cba to the next... the owners treat them first class. the players are legally protected seven ways to sunday with all sorts of tools to basically get away with bloody murder and the owners are stuck handing out one obscene contract after another.

we see tomas karbele come in here and suck for us after blocking one potential deal after another in toronto... and he still gets another obscene stupid contract anyhow... which he promptly fails to live up to... and then he still gets paid it anyhow cause thats the way it is for the players.

show me where this 'bullying' is happeneing and ill try to see that side of the argument but so help me i cant see anyof it happening with my own eyes.

and yes.. i know the players feel hurt cause they arent getting the kitchen sink in this new deal like they did the last one... but as ive said a few times, just because their fragile little feelings are getting hurt doesnt actually mean they are dealing at all with a realistic interpretation of reality here. they are still MASSIVELY winning this deal even if they accept the owners very first offer.
Bullying was a reference to ownerships "negotiation" strategy of issuing ultimatum after ultimatum and locking the doors on the league. It's taken them until 2013 to give up on undermining the nhlpa leadership and frightening the players and actually start. . . negotiations.

As for the rest of your post- no one pays to watch ownership. Their value should be in their ability to manage the league- whoever decided to try and sell hockey in Phoenix shouldn't be guaranteed to make indefinite profits from such a stupid mistake. Charles Wang shouldn't be guaranteed indefinite profits for the way he runs the islanders.

JMiller is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:41 AM
  #536
MarshmontMcSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Bullying was a reference to ownerships "negotiation" strategy of issuing ultimatum after ultimatum and locking the doors on the league. It's taken them until 2013 to give up on undermining the nhlpa leadership and frightening the players and actually start. . . negotiations.

As for the rest of your post- no one pays to watch ownership. Their value should be in their ability to manage the league- whoever decided to try and sell hockey in Phoenix shouldn't be guaranteed to make indefinite profits from such a stupid mistake. Charles Wang shouldn't be guaranteed indefinite profits for the way he runs the islanders.
Plenty of your post is true abliet from one end of the spectrum on this disagreement. But the "noone pays to watch ownership" is actually false. Are there 15k people at these charity games with NHLers? Of course not. People want to watch NHL players in NHL sweaters. The players can absolutely make their own league. And yes, there would be money to make by getting together and scrimmaging each other in barns around Ontario and charging 20 bucks to whoever wants to watch. But it is peanuts compared to what they make being employees of these big bad owners.

Not sure what other "strategy" would work for the NHL since the players are acting no different now they are close than they did when they were miles away.

But I think hiring Ferh was the players bringing a gun to a knife fight. And of course you think if the players didn't hire him and hired someone more reasonable they'd be bringing a knife to a gun fight. Each their own I guess.

MarshmontMcSlewfoot is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 07:59 AM
  #537
08SeaBass08
Lucic and Chong
 
08SeaBass08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Foxboro, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
lets stick to the bully at the playground analogy and see if we can truely draw a parrallal

so... theres a bully... and theres you. now the bully says be my friend... play with me... and ill give you 50% of my lunch money... and ill carry your books first class... and i do your homework for periods 2-6 but not period 1. And ill try to get that cute girl to go to the dance with you but only if i can get her recipe for those cookies she made for the last bake sale.
If this is your version of the "bullying" being committed by the league, then we have a very different perspective of what "bullying" is.

You make the owners out to be some kind of benevolent gift-givers, who are simply misunderstood and unappreciated by the recipients of those gifts. I make the owners out to be something very different.

I'll give you a different analogy - Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie gave away almost all of his fortune when he died. That makes him a great man, right? However, he made his fortune by screwing over every rank-and-file employee with low wages, terrible working conditions and the perpetual threat of job loss. So his money, while spent nobly, was as ill-gotten as possible. By your measure, we should ignore how his fortune was made because he did such good with it later.

From what details have been published in the media, I believe this latest offer from management is a good and fair one the players should agree to.

My problem is that management wasn't interested in making any semblance of a fair offer until the NHLPA stood their ground. Had management been more forthright in what the economic realities were from the beginning, I believe this stupidity could have been avoided. Instead, they were committed to making the best deal possible for themselves, and in doing so, created a more adversarial relationship with the NHLPA than was necessary. Some would call this good business. I call it dishonesty, and I don't blame the players at all for responding the way they did.

I refuse to accept the notion the management/labor relationship in any industry has to be adversarial.

To return to your playground bully analogy, the owners thought they could take some lunch money from the weak kid, and when the weak kid punched them back in the face repeatedly, the owners cried to the teacher that the weak kid wasn't playing nicely.

08SeaBass08 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:28 AM
  #538
The Special K
Hoss MOFO, Hoss.
 
The Special K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 08SeaBass08 View Post
If this is your version of the "bullying" being committed by the league, then we have a very different perspective of what "bullying" is.

You make the owners out to be some kind of benevolent gift-givers, who are simply misunderstood and unappreciated by the recipients of those gifts. I make the owners out to be something very different.

I'll give you a different analogy - Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie gave away almost all of his fortune when he died. That makes him a great man, right? However, he made his fortune by screwing over every rank-and-file employee with low wages, terrible working conditions and the perpetual threat of job loss. So his money, while spent nobly, was as ill-gotten as possible. By your measure, we should ignore how his fortune was made because he did such good with it later.

From what details have been published in the media, I believe this latest offer from management is a good and fair one the players should agree to.

My problem is that management wasn't interested in making any semblance of a fair offer until the NHLPA stood their ground. Had management been more forthright in what the economic realities were from the beginning, I believe this stupidity could have been avoided. Instead, they were committed to making the best deal possible for themselves, and in doing so, created a more adversarial relationship with the NHLPA than was necessary. Some would call this good business. I call it dishonesty, and I don't blame the players at all for responding the way they did.

I refuse to accept the notion the management/labor relationship in any industry has to be adversarial.

To return to your playground bully analogy, the owners thought they could take some lunch money from the weak kid, and when the weak kid punched them back in the face repeatedly, the owners cried to the teacher that the weak kid wasn't playing nicely.
A good argument but for one fact.....today's NHL players are earning 2.5 million dollars on the average. Now if that is being screwed...where the **** do I sign up for that kind of mistreatment. Trying to bring the players down to our economic standing for comparison is folly. You can't compare the job struggles of the average schmo to that of someone who earns 2+ million dollars per year.

I side with the owners because this league belongs to them, they set the rules. They decide how much to pay their employees and they are paying them a very very good salary to do their job.

Both sides are greedy, I get that. But when you own a business that is wildly successful and have people clamoring to work for you....you get to name your price.

The Special K is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:37 AM
  #539
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Special K View Post
A good argument but for one fact.....today's NHL players are earning 2.5 million dollars on the average. Now if that is being screwed...where the **** do I sign up for that kind of mistreatment. Trying to bring the players down to our economic standing for comparison is folly. You can't compare the job struggles of the average schmo to that of someone who earns 2+ million dollars per year.

I side with the owners because this league belongs to them, they set the rules. They decide how much to pay their employees and they are paying them a very very good salary to do their job.

Both sides are greedy, I get that. But when you own a business that is wildly successful and have people clamoring to work for you....you get to name your price.
I don't believe that SeaBass was comparing Carnegie workers to NHL workers, simply pointing out that Carnegie was not a good boss, and buying his way into heaven, so to speak, did not erase what he had done.

And I don't get the reasoning of being allowed to "name your price" if you own a successful business. Sports leagues did that for decades before unionization. Does that mean they should still be allowed to do so?

Artemis is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:40 AM
  #540
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Special K View Post
A good argument but for one fact.....today's NHL players are earning 2.5 million dollars on the average. Now if that is being screwed...where the **** do I sign up for that kind of mistreatment. Trying to bring the players down to our economic standing for comparison is folly. You can't compare the job struggles of the average schmo to that of someone who earns 2+ million dollars per year.

I side with the owners because this league belongs to them, they set the rules. They decide how much to pay their employees and they are paying them a very very good salary to do their job.

Both sides are greedy, I get that. But when you own a business that is wildly successful and have people clamoring to work for you....you get to name your price.
You don't get to name your price to your supplier or to your talent if you want the best in the world.

JMiller is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:45 AM
  #541
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,831
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Since the NHLPA offer was much smaller than the NHL offer, one can reasonably assume that they agree on the issues that the NHLPA did not bring up in their latest proposal.

Fully expect the NHL to reject the latest NHLPA offer but.... it is a point that they can start negotiating from... and will.

Now, they just have to sit and find a middle ground in the two proposals on the issues they disagree on. And they will IMO

Guess we'll hear in a few hours.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:46 AM
  #542
ReggieMoto
Registered User
 
ReggieMoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ReggieMoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
You don't get to name your price to your supplier or to your talent if you want the best in the world.
Market forces should drive both, not a negotiated deal between the employer and the employee.

You charge too much at the gate, you lose your revenue. You don't adjust, you lose your business.

You don't pay your talent enough, you lose them to other leagues. You don't adjust, you lose your team and your spot in the league. It should be that simple.

ReggieMoto is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:49 AM
  #543
The Special K
Hoss MOFO, Hoss.
 
The Special K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
I don't believe that SeaBass was comparing Carnegie workers to NHL workers, simply pointing out that Carnegie was not a good boss, and buying his way into heaven, so to speak, did not erase what he had done.

And I don't get the reasoning of being allowed to "name your price" if you own a successful business. Sports leagues did that for decades before unionization. Does that mean they should still be allowed to do so?
Point#1: Fair enough.

Point#2: The reasoning is that that is the norm on our society, some places of employment have unions but quite a few do not. Take Walmart for example...while I hate that store and their ethics, they employ millions of people and pay them rather poorly because they can. They realize that for every unhappy employee, there are 2-3 people waiting to take that job should said employee leave.
Not cool, I know, but this is the society that we live in.

The Special K is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:55 AM
  #544
The Special K
Hoss MOFO, Hoss.
 
The Special K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
You don't get to name your price to your supplier or to your talent if you want the best in the world.
Suppliers have nothing to do with what I am talking about. As far as best talent...you are correct in most cases, but in regards to hockey players...you can. Where else are they going to go? Russia? Finland? The KHL has limits to how may NA players can be on a Russian team and the the non-Russian teams don't have any money.

The Special K is online now  
Old
01-01-2013, 08:58 AM
  #545
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReggieMoto View Post
Market forces should drive both, not a negotiated deal between the employer and the employee.

You charge too much at the gate, you lose your revenue. You don't adjust, you lose your business.

You don't pay your talent enough, you lose them to other leagues. You don't adjust, you lose your team and your spot in the league. It should be that simple.
I don't follow. Market forces do drive both. Player compensation is linked as a percentage of revenue (which rises and falls with the market).

JMiller is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 09:03 AM
  #546
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Since the NHLPA offer was much smaller than the NHL offer, one can reasonably assume that they agree on the issues that the NHLPA did not bring up in their latest proposal.

Fully expect the NHL to reject the latest NHLPA offer but.... it is a point that they can start negotiating from... and will.

Now, they just have to sit and find a middle ground in the two proposals on the issues they disagree on. And they will IMO

Guess we'll hear in a few hours.
That's good news, but I'm still confused.

Who is Scut Farkus in your analogy?

Ludwig Fell Down is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 09:05 AM
  #547
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Special K View Post
Suppliers have nothing to do with what I am talking about. As far as best talent...you are correct in most cases, but in regards to hockey players...you can. Where else are they going to go? Russia? Finland? The KHL has limits to how may NA players can be on a Russian team and the the non-Russian teams don't have any money.
The best of the best certainly might go overseas. It would only take a handful of star players moving on to greener pastures to relegate the NHL to first among equals rather than the best in the world. Then "poof" your fringe mainstream sport becomes a forever cult passtime where it's real fans know the product they used to love is gone. You think the league is struggling now, try to imagine who would pay 75 bucks to see a AHL+ hockey.

JMiller is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 09:07 AM
  #548
08SeaBass08
Lucic and Chong
 
08SeaBass08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Foxboro, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Artemis;56982033]I don't believe that SeaBass was comparing Carnegie workers to NHL workers, simply pointing out that Carnegie was not a good boss, and buying his way into heaven, so to speak, did not erase what he had done.QUOTE]

Thanks for clarifying what I (mistakenly) thought was my obvious point in using the Carnegie analogy.

As for others using laissez-faire principles to justify the owners behavior, I would argue this is hardly a free market we're discussing. While shareholders in the NHL teams are few, I would say the NHL behaves in a fashion which is more corporatist than capitalist.

08SeaBass08 is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 09:09 AM
  #549
ReggieMoto
Registered User
 
ReggieMoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ReggieMoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
I don't follow. Market forces do drive both. Player compensation is linked as a percentage of revenue (which rises and falls with the market).
Hard linking player compensation to revenue is artificial and ought to be eliminated. Player compensation should be negotiated between the owner/GM and the player without hard linkage, the same way you or I might negotiate our wages with our employers. If I don't like what I'm offered, I move on. Same with a player negotiating his contract; if he doesn't like it he moves on.

ReggieMoto is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 09:10 AM
  #550
Montecristo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharaTriedToEatMe View Post
Atlanta got moved and they showed promise...they sold out the rematch of the bloodbath game where Thornton and Savard fought. But the NHL moved them since they lost money. Phoenix would be moved if there was a slam dunk place to relocate it to but there is not one without putting the team in Hamilton and hurting Buffalo or Toronto. You think Seattle would be better? I was there the night before Game 7 in Vancouver and noone in the bar had a clue there was a hockey game being played the next day, let alone the game of the century in their back yard. Are poor people in KC gonna pay for 100+ lowerbowl tickets just cause the Arena is nice? PHX will go to QC unless they can leave them in the desert with investors and give QC an expansion team.

Give the NHL credit for moving 1/2 very sick puppies in ATL and PHX. Nashville have great fans too you have no idea what you are talking about slamming them they sell out 30 games a year or so. Florida does OK when the team is good and the Lightning have set attendance records in the past. There is 1 problem team in PHX the rest need help and their operating costs lowered 10-20 mil so they can have a chance. Teams like Nashville, Dallas, Florida, St Louis, Colorado don't turn a profit because the players earn too much and there can't be NFL like revenue sharing because there isn't the TV money.


The Leafs are as strong as any franchise in any sport despite being terrible another team in the GTO could change that, and if you put another team in Ontario you might as well put 2 more there and tell Detroit, Buff, and TO tough **** since Ontario could support 2-3 more NHL teams. Or you let the Leafs remain a goldmine no matter what. After QC the next Canadian city a team could go to is Saksatoon (unless you do a second in BC) do you want that?

If Bettman hated Canada he wouldn't have given Ottawa a team how do the Sens help get American tv viewers?
Florida doesn't do okay. It had a local television rating of 0.16 all of 2010. Now I don't have 2011-12s season numbers but how much better would one year do? .060? They are a train wreck., maybe I picked the wrong teams besides them. Columbus does terrible ratings as does NJ and San Jose. I don't think every team should move to Canada, that would be stupid. I think one should move to QC, one should yes, move to Seattle regardless of the bar crowds limited knowledge, because without a basketball team, they are a market that will go unshared. And the other two teams should be disintegrated with a reverse expansion draft to see who gets the rights to their players. That would add some excitement to the league, no?

Montecristo 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 12:32 AM.

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.