HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHLPA starts another 'disclaimer' vote

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 09:05 AM
  #126
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy1 View Post
I don't think I could disagree with you more. The NHL has increased the legnth of contracts (5 years to 6), given players almost 50% of the make whole money (they initially weren't going do to any).

To say they have not made an concessions is just flat out wrong.
The concessions that they are making still amount to a MAJOR give back by the NHLPA.

So, you offer scorched earth, and your defination of negotiating is to lower the flames by which the earth was initially scorched?

The offer the ownes made was akin to the players offering to eliminate the cap. It was a non-starter. So the players saying "OK, you can have the cap" that's negotiating?

Sorry, but that's not negotiating.

I get that the previous deal ended, but there IS a starting point to these current negotiations and that starting point is based on the last CBA.

The Owners want to improve their position from the previous deal but have not offered the players ONE inducement to get a deal done. Softening their stance on a scorched earth offer is not an inducement.

That's not negotiating.

Across the board, every aspect of every NHL offer sees the Owners improving their position and the players weakening in theirs.

Even the make whole is not going to make up the difference of 57 to 50 which is why the players are looking for a cap on escrow losses. So the Make Whole if accepted the way the owners proposed it still equates to a take back from the players.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:06 AM
  #127
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. HRR definitions have been agreed to a long time ago, basicly it's the same it was in the last CBA. PA had the chance to go through the numbers in the summer and the only issue they raised was expansion fees. HRR definitions are not in question at the moment (and haven't been in some time).

So concrete examples please.



What? Who is Owens? What mess is the players expected to clean up?

In the case of expansion, players get their cut. They get 23 new jobs per expansion team.

Why on earth should they get 50% of the expansion fee? It's not revenue.

Should the owners get 50% of the personal sponsorshipdeals players sign? That would be only fair since it's hockey related revenue players are currently getting but not sharing any of it with owners.
Reports are that yesterdays informal talk centered on two things, pension and the definition of hrr. To me that says the definition is not fixed.

And Owens is owners on autocorrect. How is expansion money not revenue? And if they were partners ( they are not) then players personal contracts could be on the table. I agree that if the owners laid claim to personal contracts that would be a reach. I think the expectation that the owners have that it is the responsibility of the players to shore up poorly run teams or teams to in crappy markets is also a reach. If the nhls house is in disorder, the onus to fix it lies with them, not the players.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:14 AM
  #128
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
Because they acted liked children.

I ask you this. Why, all of a sudden does it take only 48 hours to vote but last time it took a week? Fehr/PA were using as a stalling tactic and everything they do just makes things worse. That type of negotiating won't sit well in any court.

Do you seen any comments about the players from the owners about how they're treated? No. Because they sensible whilst the players whine on twitter about how they're "harshly treated" but would be glad to go back in an instant to play hockey once a deal is done.
Speaking of which, that should be a fun one to defend in court when the NHL brings up the fact that "All the players want to do is play," but they had to be haggled with to sign a 10 year CBA, and still want an opt-out clause a year earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
You don't see it becuase the owners have been silenced by Bettman to the tune of MASSIVE fines should they say anything.

Just ask the folks in Detroit.

I wonder what we would be hearing should Bettman lift the public speaking ban on the owners.

It would be interesting indeed.

So what you're saying is Bettman is considerably smarter than Fehr for doing so...

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:16 AM
  #129
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. HRR definitions have been agreed to a long time ago, basicly it's the same it was in the last CBA. PA had the chance to go through the numbers in the summer and the only issue they raised was expansion fees. HRR definitions are not in question at the moment (and haven't been in some time).

So concrete examples please.



What? Who is Owens? What mess is the players expected to clean up?

In the case of expansion, players get their cut. They get 23 new jobs per expansion team.

Why on earth should they get 50% of the expansion fee? It's not revenue.

Should the owners get 50% of the personal sponsorshipdeals players sign? That would be only fair since it's hockey related revenue players are currently getting but not sharing any of it with owners.
Reports are that yesterdays informal talk centered on two things, pension and the definition of hrr. To me that says the definition is not fixed.

And Owens is owners on autocorrect. How is expansion money not revenue? And if they were partners ( they are not) then players personal contracts could be on the table. I agree that if the owners laid claim to personal contracts that would be a reach. I think the expectation that the owners have that it is the responsibility of the players to shore up poorly run teams or teams to in crappy markets is also a reach. If the nhls house is in disorder, the onus to fix it lies with them, not the players.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:32 AM
  #130
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Reports are that yesterdays informal talk centered on two things, pension and the definition of hrr. To me that says the definition is not fixed.
You're right, there was a change in HRR definition in one of NHL's proposals last week and NHLPA didn't notice it at first (it took them a week) but when NHLPA objected, it was agreed to keep the same.

Friedman speculated that Fehr's foul mood was as much about PA's lawyers missing it as it was NHL proposing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
And Owens is owners on autocorrect. How is expansion money not revenue? And if they were partners ( they are not) then players personal contracts could be on the table. I agree that if the owners laid claim to personal contracts that would be a reach. I think the expectation that the owners have that it is the responsibility of the players to shore up poorly run teams or teams to in crappy markets is also a reach. If the nhls house is in disorder, the onus to fix it lies with them, not the players.
Expansion is not revenue, it's one-time investment by outside investor (new team owner), you can view it as NHL issuing new shares to the new owner, i.e. it's a capital injection instead of revenue.

And NHL is doing just that, fixing the problems that most of the markets have. Sadly for the players it starts with the biggest expense which is player salaries. That's exactly what any business would do.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:40 AM
  #131
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I get that the previous deal ended, but there IS a starting point to these current negotiations and that starting point is based on the last CBA.

The Owners want to improve their position from the previous deal but have not offered the players ONE inducement to get a deal done.
Well, boo-freaking-hoo, cry my the river and play the world's tiniest violin for the multimillionaire players who don't get a piece of candy for having to make concessions that the owners of the business deem necessary for continuing to operate the business.

Sometimes there is no win. Sometimes limiting your losses is the best you can do. That's life. If the spoiled brats who compose the majority of the NHLPA refuse to recognize that, let them file their disclaimer and dissolve their union and nuke the league to kingdom come, and let's just see how many teams are left standing at the end who'll pay these ungrateful louts the hundreds of millions of dollars to which they feel so perfectly entitled.

I suspect the then-former members of the NHLPA would not like what the result would be, but perhaps this is what has to happen for them to face reality. You can only tell a child to stop playing with matches so many times. He may just have to burn himself to get the message.

optimus2861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:51 AM
  #132
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post

The Owners want to improve their position from the previous deal but have not offered the players ONE inducement to get a deal done. Softening their stance on a scorched earth offer is not an inducement.
The one inducement is their salaries. Period.

Which, if they were being economically rational, would have been enough for them to sign a deal in October, let alone today.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:05 AM
  #133
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
The concessions that they are making still amount to a MAJOR give back by the NHLPA.

So, you offer scorched earth, and your defination of negotiating is to lower the flames by which the earth was initially scorched?

The offer the ownes made was akin to the players offering to eliminate the cap. It was a non-starter. So the players saying "OK, you can have the cap" that's negotiating?

Sorry, but that's not negotiating.

I get that the previous deal ended, but there IS a starting point to these current negotiations and that starting point is based on the last CBA.

The Owners want to improve their position from the previous deal but have not offered the players ONE inducement to get a deal done. Softening their stance on a scorched earth offer is not an inducement.

That's not negotiating.

Across the board, every aspect of every NHL offer sees the Owners improving their position and the players weakening in theirs.

Even the make whole is not going to make up the difference of 57 to 50 which is why the players are looking for a cap on escrow losses. So the Make Whole if accepted the way the owners proposed it still equates to a take back from the players.
Wake up NHLPA this is all about economic realities. The players have had it all their way for over 20 years. The owners are tired of the hockey operation portion of their business losing money. The owners aren't running a charity for the players.

Why people think the owners need to make the players whole is beyond me. Every player and agent knew that the new CBA would impact their deal when they signed it.

The players are going to regret their short sighted view of this. The way for them to make more money is to grow revenues and the popularity of the game.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:17 AM
  #134
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Just FYI:

- Mathematically, doing a cap based on revenue medians rather than averages only makes a difference if you presume that the top teams will grow revenues disproportionately faster than the bottoms teams. So if Toronto doubles its revenue in the same time that Phoenix doubles its revenue, there's no difference between median and average (even though, in dollar for dollar terms, Toronto had much larger gains). You'd just be looking at a cap effectively at 46%, rather than 50%.

- The league has already promised to do much more revenue sharing than you're suggesting in terms of 1/4 to 1/3 of profits. If every team making a profit last year donated 33% of their profit to RS, you'd see about $120M in revenue sharing. As opposed to the $250M on the table now.
It's damn frustrating sometimes debating here when in one thread I make a point arguing that RS should be more, and then you supposedly clarify that it's already something like 66%. And then in the Lockout sticky thread (which is now closed)late last night a guy responds to me saying there needs to be better RS, something like the NFL, rather than the about 4.5% that there is in the NHL. That 4.5 % number I've seen before, but somebody has to be very wrong. Hell of a lot of difference between 4.5% and 66%.

Quote:
hockeyisforeveryone
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr
And could you be a bit more specific about what "better revenue sharing" could look like... Like you know, % $ values...?
The NFL is at 60%....how about more than 4.5% !!!!


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-04-2013 at 10:32 AM. Reason: typos
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:20 AM
  #135
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,412
vCash: 500
Sandysan, this is what happened in regards to HRR:

The owners and players did have time for a spat over rules to punish teams that hide revenue. The NHLPA insisted the league tried to alter the rules without telling the players. The league says the players were told of these changes long ago.

It wasn't about HRR definition, it was about the punishments for hiding HRR.

I started doubting my memory because I was certain that HRR definition itself has been agreed to a long time ago.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:25 AM
  #136
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It's damn frustrating sometimes debating here when in one thread I make a point arguing that RS should be more, and then you supposedly clarify that it's already something like 66%. And then in the Lockout sticky thread (which is now closed)late last night a guy responds to be saying there needs to be better RS, something like the NFL, rather than the about 4.5% that there is in the NHL. That 4.5 % number I've seen before, but somebody has to be very wrong. Hell of a lot of difference between 4.5% and 66%.
People need to understand also that the vast majority of RS in the NFL is T.V. Dollars.....About 4.5 Billion worth Every year. That is going to 7.5 Billion by 2015.

You can't have a RS model like the NFL....

The NFL pays each team YEARLY 110 million in just T.V. Money......

You could put an NFL team in Alaska, not have one fan show up, and it would be in the green payroll wise....

damacles1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:34 AM
  #137
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It's damn frustrating sometimes debating here when in one thread I make a point arguing that RS should be more, and then you supposedly clarify that it's already something like 66%. And then in the Lockout sticky thread (which is now closed)late last night a guy responds to be saying there needs to be better RS, something like the NFL, rather than the about 4.5% that there is in the NHL. That 4.5 % number I've seen before, but somebody has to be very wrong. Hell of a lot of difference between 4.5% and 66%.
It's the difference between profits (66% of which will get redistributed in the next deal, presuming they accept the $250M figure on the table now) and revenues (something close to 4.5% in the last CBA, which had half the level of sharing) and, more importantly, the difference between sharing and redistribution.

It is correct that the NFL "shares" more than the NHL. But "sharing" only means everybody puts their money into one big pot. It doesn't mean that it gets redistributed more equitably between the teams afterwards.

Here's your 101 on the subject:

The NHL's version of "sharing" is direct redistribution. The rich teams write the poor teams a check. The NFL's version of sharing is that everybody puts their revenue into one big pot, and then takes back something that might be a little more or a little less than what they put in. That is, the NFL does a huge amount of sharing, but how much redistribution they do is another matter (and one that we can't answer easily).

Here's something we can answer easily. Let's assume that the NHL "shares" 84% of its total revenue (not just profit, but the whole shebang) in the same way that the NFL does. Let's say that half of the shared revenue gets split up the way the NFL does its gate receipts - 60% for the home team, 40% for the visiting team. Then let's assume that the other half gets split up the way the NFL splits up its TV and merchandising revenues: everybody takes an equal slice. Sounds like that would be a high amount of sharing AND a huge amount of redistribution, right?

But you'd probably be wrong. What matters here is the NET of how much each team takes out of the pot and how much each team puts in. And if we assume that comparative revenue streams across TV and merchandising have about the same distribution as gate receipts do (i.e., NYR make 5x as much TV/merch money as the Islanders, Toronto is about 4x as much as Phoenix) then you can crunch some simple math and get the following: You'd only "redistribute" about $330M.

The above example is so littered, so positively filled with generous assumptions for the pro-PA folks here that I don't even want to get into it. Suffice to say, the NHL has a smaller pot, but when 100% of that pot goes straight from rich teams to poor, they're probably redistributing as much as the NFL does with a much bigger pot.

A huge amount of sharing may only lead to small amount of redistribution. That's the bottom line, and what drives me absolutely crazy is that very few people understand this. They hear "sharing" and assume that if the NFL puts 100% of its money into one big pot, that means that 100% of revenue gets redistributed. It doesn't. It would be mathematically impossible, actually, if you presume Green Bay started with any money in the first place. The NFL has a huge pot from which even the rich teams take and into which even the poor teams pay.


EDIT: I keep having to explain this 500x, so I'm going to try a simple example. Team A makes $100M. Team B makes $90M. In an NFL style redistribution, let's say 100% of revenues go into one big pot and get distributed evenly. So both sides end up with $95M. Nominally, we call that 100% sharing, but in practice, only $5M changed hands. So it's about 3% redistribution.

In an NHL style redistribution, Team A writes Team B a check for $5M. Same exact effect. But, nominally, it's only 3% sharing now.

You see how this works? 100% sharing can have the same exact effect as 3% sharing. That's the power of sharing v redistribution. You have to actually do the math to get at how much money is changing hands, and by my estimates, the NHL is probably doing as much or more as the NFL is doing.


Last edited by haseoke39: 01-04-2013 at 10:50 AM.
haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:39 AM
  #138
OCTA8ON
Registered User
 
OCTA8ON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
ahhh…Hfboards. The site where hundreds of fans actually think they know the legalities and specificities of such things as the CBA.



BRB. I'm going to go get some popcorn and sit back while you guys amuse me when you guys pretend to know what you guys are actually talking about lololol.

OCTA8ON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:40 AM
  #139
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCTA8ON View Post
ahhh…Hfboards. The site where hundreds of fans actually think they know the legalities and specificities of such things as the CBA.



BRB. I'm going to go get some popcorn and sit back while you guys amuse me when you guys pretend to know what you guys are actually talking about lololol.
Instead of acting like your knowledge is to (good) to share, why don't you add something to the discussion.

I know I know, that's a lot to ask right ?

damacles1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:41 AM
  #140
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
It's the difference between profits (66% of which will get redistributed in the next deal) and revenues (something close to 4.5% in the last CBA, which had half the level of sharing) and, more importantly, the difference between sharing and redistribution.
Let me just ask you a straight forward question about your own opinion: Does the NHL, at least in what's it's planning for the new CBA, have decent Profit Sharing and Revenue Sharing?

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:48 AM
  #141
OCTA8ON
Registered User
 
OCTA8ON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Let me just ask you a straight forward question about your own opinion: Does the NHL, at least in what's it's planning for the new CBA, have decent Profit Sharing and Revenue Sharing?
You, my friend are probably asking the wrong person. How they hell would he know if the NHL has decent revenue sharing? This isn't information someone outside the NHL would really know...

These posts I see on here are so ridiculous. Absolutely pure speculation with people believing with whole faith that their opinions are anywhere near the truth without a drop of actual evidence to support it.

OCTA8ON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:50 AM
  #142
OCTA8ON
Registered User
 
OCTA8ON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
Instead of acting like your knowledge is to (good) to share, why don't you add something to the discussion.

I know I know, that's a lot to ask right ?
I don't blame you guys for wanting to talk about these things, but what I'm saying is that I can't contribute to this conversation without making a bunch of information up based on pure speculation. I doubt ONE single person on hfboards actually has a law and/or economics degree AND has inside access to the current CBA discussions. Most people here on hfboards are a bunch of people who may or may not have taken a couple of economics courses at most some time in their lives and are dealing with a much more complicated situation that is way over their heads to due the complexity and lack of information released to them by the NHL and NHLPA.

I see so many percentages here and there like they actually know what those percentages really mean and the intricacies of the entire CBA.

Carry on with the conversation, but realize that you'r all just a bunch of pretenders lololol

OCTA8ON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:52 AM
  #143
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Let me just ask you a straight forward question about your own opinion: Does the NHL, at least in what's it's planning for the new CBA, have decent Profit Sharing and Revenue Sharing?
I would say yes. I may not know the NHL's books, but I have made every reasonable assumption against the NHL is doing my math, and my guesstimate is that the NHL, in practice, probably shifts as much money from rich team to poor as the NFL does. Even if I'm wrong, they're definitely in the same ballpark, no question about that.

I can go on for hours about how I get there, but that's the bottom line.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:58 AM
  #144
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
Speaking of which, that should be a fun one to defend in court when the NHL brings up the fact that "All the players want to do is play," but they had to be haggled with to sign a 10 year CBA, and still want an opt-out clause a year earlier.




So what you're saying is Bettman is considerably smarter than Fehr for doing so...
Not at all, because a DOI is not the players voting to decertify which carries a significant difference.

The players spouting off about how good a job Fehr is doing will have no effect at all on a DOI.

Should they choose to decertify, that's a different story altogether.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:58 AM
  #145
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCTA8ON View Post
I don't blame you guys for wanting to talk about these things, but what I'm saying is that I can't contribute to this conversation without making a bunch of information up based on pure speculation. I doubt ONE single person on hfboards actually has a law and/or economics degree AND has inside access to the current CBA discussions. Most people here on hfboards are a bunch of people who may or may not have taken a couple of economics courses at most some time in their lives and are dealing with a much more complicated situation that is way over their heads to due the complexity and lack of information released to them by the NHL and NHLPA.

I see so many percentages here and there like they actually know what those percentages really mean and the intricacies of the entire CBA.

Carry on with the conversation, but realize that you'r all just a bunch of pretenders lololol
The pieces that I'm discussing, at least, are actually very simple. You don't need an economics or a law degree, although I have both. My calculations are based essentially on two sources: the dollar figures that get published concerning how much RS will be done in the new deal, and the comparative revenues of each team published by Forbes (which may be estimates, but are almost certainly good for what I'm using them for: telling me simple facts like Toronto has about 4x as much revenue as Phoenix). The rest is all sixth grade math. It's enough to give you a fair ballpark, and certainly better than just reading sports columnists who don't even attempt to analyze data.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:00 AM
  #146
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
You can't have a RS model like the NFL....
Yes, you can.

The NFL didn't start RS when it got big - it got big after it started RS like this. The NFL was a second-tier league when it chose the revenue sharing path.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:02 AM
  #147
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCTA8ON View Post
You, my friend are probably asking the wrong person. How they hell would he know if the NHL has decent revenue sharing? This isn't information someone outside the NHL would really know...

These posts I see on here are so ridiculous. Absolutely pure speculation with people believing with whole faith that their opinions are anywhere near the truth without a drop of actual evidence to support it.
Newsflash: that's what message boards are all about. If you don't care for it, why be here?

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:02 AM
  #148
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The one inducement is their salaries. Period.

Which, if they were being economically rational, would have been enough for them to sign a deal in October, let alone today.
salary statement - Obviously it's not. Period.

They are being rational, the deal that they are getting offered today is alot better than the one offered in October.

So what they lost a few months of salary. No they won't get that back, but then the Owners also lost alot of money that they won't be getting back and the deal the Players sign today will be a wholehellof a lot better than 10/15/12.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:03 AM
  #149
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
salary statement - Obviously it's not. Period.

They are being rational, the deal that they are getting offered today is alot better than the one offered in October.

So what they lost a few months of salary. No they won't get that back, but then the Owners also lost alot of money that they won't be getting back and the deal the Players sign today will be a wholehellof a lot better than 10/15/12.
That's actually painfully wrong. They've lost around $750M in salaries to get $300M in concessions. The best offer they've seen, by far, was the October offer.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:11 AM
  #150
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Not at all, because a DOI is not the players voting to decertify which carries a significant difference.

The players spouting off about how good a job Fehr is doing will have no effect at all on a DOI.

Should they choose to decertify, that's a different story altogether.
Yes, only the players voted to give Fehr the power to say I don't want to represent the union. How's that gonna look like in courts?

Had players voted no, Fehr couldn't have told the players he doesn't want to represent them?

Doesn't make any sense.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:38 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.