I believe that was more pointed at the players not in the room. They felt the majority of players were not getting the entire scope of the negotiations.
Yes, and ever since we've seen a large uptick in player visibility at meetings, and it seems we've seen an increased in breaks for player conference calls...unless they were happening in equal abundance before and were never reported on.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
I've said this in a previous thread and I'll say it again - the deal will be completed Tuesday or Wednesday..
The heavy lifting was done in the last few sessions - you know the ones where each side was seemingly agreeing to everything and everybody was acting all hunky-dory.
At this point, it's just a matter of each side trying to squeeze whatever other little bits they can out of the other, and all the rhetoric is just sabre rattling.
There's no point in agreeing to a deal today when you can push it a little farther to the brink in order to get even a marginally better deal. Both sides are doing this.
RealKyper (Nick Kypreos)
Latest #NHL #NHLPA update. Nothing has changed. Process that was on yesterday and this morn has continued. Individual meetings with mediator
xfd wow if true, owners basically admit they have no self control or foresight. Good too know
These are the key words.
If he did say it I'd be curious to know why. According to some of the threads concerning buyouts each team has 2-3 contracts that are "regrettable" but I don't think it's a matter of tearing teams apart to get rid of them.
Does anybody know why the deadline for decert was jan 2nd? Seems pretty dumb not to have the deadline set sometime in the middle of jan unless there was a good reason for it.
Yes, and ever since we've seen a large uptick in player visibility at meetings, and it seems we've seen an increased in breaks for player conference calls...unless they were happening in equal abundance before and were never reported on.
Right. and who knows when they really instituted the breaks.
Most of the owners make very little, nothing, or lose money on operating costs for a season. I guess the players think they're lying, which is possible, but it's pretty obvious there are at least a handful of teams losing serious money. And I doubt the richer teams mind terribly missing out on a season where a chunk of their profits would have gone to the struggling franchises anyway.
Hockey is not a huge moneymaking machine for the owners overall. In terms of return vs investment it's actually quite pathetic. These people make far more money with their other business ventures, hockey players do not.
Under the new CBA the owners stand to do much better. So you can't just look at what they made last year. Again, why would a supposedly saavy business owner throw away hundreds of millions of dollars to get revenge on the players. I don't really care if their hockey profits make up a large portion of their wealth or not, most wealthy businessmen that I know don't think that way. They act rationally. They are not like fans who want the NHL to stick it to the players or vice versa. You need to show me how a rational businessman would throw away those profits and erode the value of his franchise assset over issues like pensions etc. That's why I think that they are bluffing right now and both sides know it.
You should know based on the numbers I sent you that the league as a whole would be missing out on about 250 million dollars of income with a completely lost season. They're still losing a lot with a half season gone, but not as much. The NHL lined more pockets than it drained last year, according to Forbes.
Perhaps they feel that if the season is lost, they can take far more than $250 million worth off the table and the players will cave anyway. Or that they can save more than that negotiating with players individually if the union is dissolved. Either way it's not unreasonable for them to think they could at WORST break even while bringing the players to heel, for a second time, which probably makes any future negotiations down the road more one-sided.
I really don't think it's personal for the owners at all. The owners themselves probably differ greatly on how they think the league overall should be run.
We've all heard the January 11th is the perceived "drop dead date".... which makes sense for a 48 game schedule.
This being said..... has the league (i.e. GB or BD) officially and publicly stated that January 11th is indeed the real drop dead date to cancel the season?
Do PA players like Hemsky or Havlat or Gaborik or any other healthy player for that matter REALLY want the owners to practice foresight and self control? That would result in one year contracts for everyone and a NMC would never be given out.
Given the way things were left with the mediator earlier on in the talks("call me when you're close to a deal"), the fact that he is sticking around, in my opinion, is a great sign.
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Longtime NY Rangers season ticket holder stopped by 47th + 6th to chat. Says she will cancel on Monday without clear sign of agreement.
Under the new CBA the owners stand to do much better. So you can't just look at what they amde last year. Again, why would a supposedly saavy business owner throw away hundreds of millions of dollars to get revenge on the players.I don't really care if their hockey profits make up a large portion of their wealth or not, most wealthy businessmen that I know don't think that way. They act rationally. You need to show me how a rational businessman would throw away those profits and erode the value of his franchise assset over issues like pensions etc. That's why I think that they are bluffing right now and both sides know it.
You could be right. In any case, if it's a bluff it's one that would cost them a lot less than it would cost the players if it gets called.
If the a team excercised a buy out on, say, Gomez's contract. Does that mean it just comes out of the cap consideration and he's no longer on the team? Would he still get paid under the terms of his contract?
I always assumed a "buyout" was simply a tool for cap management.
If the above is true, why the NHLPA care if people with bad contracts were being bought out? They're still getting paid.
If they are not still getting paid, why on earth would the the NHLPA ever have suggested it in the first place?
Confused (not the first time).
Not positive about Gomez's contract - but let's just say that this is the remaining contract:
2013-14: $4M
2014-15: $2M
Total: $6M
Assuming a similar buy-out provision to the last CBA - MON could buy out Gomez for 66% of the remaining cash on his contract, ($6M x 66% = $4M, which would be spread out over twice the remaining contract term of 4 years). The REALLY important thing about this "amnesty buy-outs" is that they would not count against the Habs salary cap. Because it doesn't count against the cap, MON would then be able to pay an additional $7+M per year for NHLPA members.
As I understand it, the $4M in buy-out would count against the players HRR %, but that is reasonable from my perspective because those $'s are being paid to NHL members.
It should also be noted that all those "poor" players who are bought out will become UFA's and be able to sign another UFA contract. Given the limited talent pool available in the recent UFA markets, they won't have problems getting solid NHL contracts. I'd bet they'll at least be able to make up the 33% they "lost" in the buy-out process.
What the **** is wrong with those guys!!!! Get in the ****ing room together and get a deal done. I'm telling you guys I think they are stalling on purpose just to piss us off.
You could be right. In any case, if it's a bluff it's one that would cost them a lot less than it would cost the players if it gets called.
On that we are agreed. The players have much much more to lose.
But I also think that the risk for the players acting irrationally is higher than it is for the owners. I could see one owner like maybe Jacobs being vindictive about this but I have trouble seeing a majority acting that way. They may not like Fehr and his tactics but they make business deals with people they don't like all of the time. I doubt that they let their personal feelings get in the way of a deal.
We've all heard the January 11th is the perceived "drop dead date".... which makes sense for a 48 game schedule.
This being said..... has the league (i.e. GB or BD) officially and publicly stated that January 11th is indeed the real drop dead date to cancel the season?
Quote:
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has previously said that a 2013 regular season at least 48 games in length would have to begin Jan. 19. The NHL has already cancelled games from the original 2012-13 season through Jan. 14.
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Longtime NY Rangers season ticket holder stopped by 47th + 6th to chat. Says she will cancel on Monday without clear sign of agreement.
I am fine with having it removed, but the everyday guys like us on the street roll their eyes over what these 2 frikkin sides argue over. I just hope this thing gets resolved like the rest of us.
Perhaps they feel that if the season is lost, they can take far more than $250 million worth off the table and the players will cave anyway. Or that they can save more than that negotiating with players individually if the union is dissolved. Either way it's not unreasonable for them to think they could at WORST break even while bringing the players to heel, for a second time, which probably makes any future negotiations down the road more one-sided.
I really don't think it's personal for the owners at all. The owners themselves probably differ greatly on how they think the league overall should be run.
They'd be hard pressed to break even, I think. Last year the profitable teams brought in 380 million dollars, and the poor teams lost 130 million. Nixing the season might cancel out the losses, but it also cancels a big chunk of the profit. The TV deal still pays out, but they'd have to give a free year or something at the end of the deal I believe...so they'd still be losing it at some point, if I'm not mistaken.
I agree the owners themselves likely differ greatly on running the league, just like the players as individuals probably disagree on what is important based on individual need. Neither the owners nor NHLPA are interested in having that become well-known, public info though. United fronts and such.
