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, 06:16 PM
  #226
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Does it matter? They're employed to perform in the owner's interest. Either the owner decides or, if he's a hands-off guy, maybe the GM decides, but either way, they're supposed to have the same interests, and if they don't, one gets fired.
We have gone too far from my original point. Bettman has zero reasons to say that (even if he could say that) GMs want to nix some of the bad decisions they have made. It doesn't help Bettman or the NHL in anyway because it's not what they've been claiming since the the start of this mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Essentially.
No. Bettman saying some individual teams spending more than they can afford hints at those GMs (or owners) making mistakes that NHL is trying to fix with the lock-out. Bettman definetly doesn't want to say that.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:18 PM
  #227
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
No. Bettman saying some individual teams spending more than they can afford hints at those GMs (or owners) making mistakes that NHL is trying to fix with the lock-out. Bettman definetly doesn't want to say that.
How can Bettman say the league is spending more than they can afford without necessarily implying that individual teams are spending more than they can afford? Makes no sense.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:22 PM
  #228
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Where exactly are you going with this train Pepper? Its common knowledge Ownership sets budgets, and Gary Bettman makes a lot of nebulous comments that are "essentially" meaningless as is this case with the one that haseoke alluded to & confirmed in duplicate.
I thought I already explained that.

Bettman saying to players that they want to fix some of the bad contracts GMs gave undermines the whole NHL argument that the league isn't financially healthy. Because some GMs giving bad contracts doesn't affect the overall health of the league thanks to fixed % players get and escrow.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:27 PM
  #229
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I thought I already explained that.

Bettman saying to players that they want to fix some of the bad contracts GMs gave undermines the whole NHL argument that the league isn't financially healthy. Because some GMs giving bad contracts doesn't affect the overall health of the league thanks to fixed % players get and escrow.
This is a useless circle. You're taking Bettman's second hand quote and arguing he's secretly saying something about the league's motives that no reasonable person has to read into his quote. I'm taking what he's supposed to have said and saying it's NBD because it doesn't have to mean any of the bad things you're attributing to it.

Let's just walk away because we're both tying up the thread with this circular garbage.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:32 PM
  #230
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
How can Bettman say the league is spending more than they can afford without necessarily implying that individual teams are spending more than they can afford? Makes no sense.
Huh? League spends 57% of it's revenues on player salaries no matter what. If the league as a whole can't afford that, does it matter who spends what because it's balanced through escrow?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:47 PM
  #231
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This is a useless circle. You're taking Bettman's second hand quote and arguing he's secretly saying something about the league's motives that no reasonable person has to read into his quote. I'm taking what he's supposed to have said and saying it's NBD because it doesn't have to mean any of the bad things you're attributing to it.

Let's just walk away because we're both tying up the thread with this circular garbage.
What? The only thing I claimed is that what Brooks reported Bettman saying to players makes absolutely no sense. I said nothing about Bettman secretly saying anything about league's motives.

Let's make this clear: Brooks claimed that Bettman had told players that some GMs want to fix/take back/etc the bad contracts they (or their predecessors) have given. IMHO that makes zero sense for Bettman to say.

If you disagree with this, give me one (or more) reason why Bettman would have told that to players.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 07:06 PM
  #232
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Let's make this clear: Brooks claimed that Bettman had told players that some GMs want to fix/take back/etc the bad contracts they (or their predecessors) have given. IMHO that makes zero sense for Bettman to say.
But...that's exactly what Bettman/owners DO want to accomplish. Whether it is stated or not, a blind man could see this.

Given that reality, I don't see a compelling reason why Bettman wouldn't at some point have said words to that effect to the PA.

Seems like a NBD to me, frankly.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 07:41 PM
  #233
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Let's make this clear: Brooks claimed that Bettman had told players that some GMs want to fix/take back/etc the bad contracts they (or their predecessors) have given. IMHO that makes zero sense for Bettman to say.
But why not Pepper? Thats what this is all about. Foolish, Backdiving Contracts. A Pendulum thats swung off its' hinge, course correction. Even the PA admits as much as witness their mild/moderate acceptance & acquiescence to receiving a lower % of HRR. Of course the NHL wants to get rid of the Deadwood. Its hardly a secret. I see no harm whatsoever in Bettman, Daly, any given Owner or GM (provided their not one of the guilty, thus appearing completely hypocritical) for stating such publicly. Its honest, candid. No idea why you'd be so adamant in your opinion that such utterances would be verboten.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 07:47 PM
  #234
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
But...that's exactly what Bettman/owners DO want to accomplish. Whether it is stated or not, a blind man could see this.


Nobody has given any reason why Bettman would say something like that to players. No matter what your intentions are, no smart negotiatior would say that to the opposite side. And nobody can claim that Bettman is stupid enough to say that.

And give me a single good reason why would NHL even want to accomplish that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Given that reality, I don't see a compelling reason why Bettman wouldn't at some point have said words to that effect to the PA.

Seems like a NBD to me, frankly.
It's not reality no matter how much you'd love to believe that. It's something reported by a single, notoriously pro-PA, shill.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 07:52 PM
  #235
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
It's not reality no matter how much you'd love to believe that. It's something reported by a single, notoriously pro-PA, shill.
If you don't think the owners want to rollback or otherwise undo some of the contracts they've recently signed, you are welcome to that belief. I personally don't see how anyone could come to that conclusion given the league is already petitioning the court to outright invalidate all existing contracts in a decert situation, but hey, "differences make a market"....


Last edited by Dado: 01-04-2013 at 07:59 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 07:52 PM
  #236
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post


Nobody has given any reason why Bettman would say something like that to players. No matter what your intentions are, no smart negotiatior would say that to the opposite side. And nobody can claim that Bettman is stupid enough to say that.

And give me a single good reason why would NHL even want to accomplish that?



It's not reality no matter how much you'd love to believe that. It's something reported by a single, notoriously pro-PA, shill.
Like I said, my opinion is that it it Bettman's way to give the PA reason to stop and think about their threat to DOI/Decert. He might have said it to call their bluff.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:02 PM
  #237
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
But why not Pepper? Thats what this is all about. Foolish, Backdiving Contracts. A Pendulum thats swung off its' hinge, course correction. Even the PA admits as much as witness their mild/moderate acceptance & acquiescence to receiving a lower % of HRR.
So PA is accepting that they are getting too much because of backdiving contracts even when PA still gets a fixed % of the revenues? huh?

Are you saying that PA has agreed to 50/50 because of the backdiving contracts? Why does NHLPA want longer contracts when they will get the same % anyway? Certainly not because they are against backdiving contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Of course the NHL wants to get rid of the Deadwood. Its hardly a secret. I see no harm whatsoever in Bettman, Daly, any given Owner or GM (provided their not one of the guilty, thus appearing completely hypocritical) for stating such publicly. Its honest, candid. No idea why you'd be so adamant in your opinion that such utterances would be verboten.
Because it undermines the whole NHL position. It's NOT about backdiving contracts, it's NOT about GMs giving bad contracts.

It's ONLY about players getting too much % of the revenues, by admitting it's about bad contracts given by GMs, it would seriously harm the league in any possible court case.

NHL could get rid of those bad contracts regardless of the cap next year, they could agree to NHLPA's 65M's limit with cap-free buyouts. Because in the end it's still 50/50, just the escrow would be bigger.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:11 PM
  #238
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
If you don't think the owners want to rollback or otherwise undo some of the contracts they've recently signed, you are welcome to that belief. I personally don't see how anyone could come to that conclusion given the league is already petitioning the court to outright invalidate all existing contracts in a decert situation, but hey, "differences make a market"....
Those are two completely different issues (CBA negotiations vs. court cases).

Some owners would love to rollback or undo some the contracts, sure, but the NHL has never said that was their goal. NHL has always maintainted their goal is about lowering the % players get.

NHL has done nothing but responded to NHLPA's bogus DOI threat. NHL claims that PA's DOI is just a negotiating tactic (and it would be very hard for PA to prove otherwise). Without the DOI threat, NHL wouldn't have asked for the courts to do anything.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:13 PM
  #239
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Some owners would love to rollback or undo some the contracts, sure, but the NHL has never said that was their goal.
You have no idea at all what the league has or hasn't said at the table to the other parties.

Like I said, I don't see this as a big deal either way, as (a) it clearly is the league's intent and (b) no harm is done in stating the obvious.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:13 PM
  #240
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Like I said, my opinion is that it it Bettman's way to give the PA reason to stop and think about their threat to DOI/Decert. He might have said it to call their bluff.
Sorry, I don't understand how Bettman telling players it's their goal to nullify/undo/fix some of the bad contracts given makes PA to stop and think about their possible DOI court case.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:15 PM
  #241
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
You have no idea at all what the league has or hasn't said at the table to the other parties.
Neither you do. But all evidence is against your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Like I said, I don't see this as a big deal either way, as (a) it clearly is the league's intent and (b) no harm is done in stating the obvious.
Like I said, a) you have zero evidence to prove your claim and b) stating that would harm the NHL.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:18 PM
  #242
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
It's ONLY about players getting too much % of the revenues, by admitting it's about bad contracts given by GMs, it would seriously harm the league in any possible court case.
Well, youve lost me in terms of your perceptions & interpretations of strategies there Pepper. On the one hand, on most of the important issues I agree with you. On the other, we seem to be looking at entirely different road maps, though both do appear to wind up at the same place... no matter. Carry on.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 08:23 PM
  #243
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Pepper: Explain to me how you believe escrow works regarding adjusting player salaries up to 57%. I think that might actually be the source of our confusion at your position.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:32 PM
  #244
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Sorry, I don't understand how Bettman telling players it's their goal to nullify/undo/fix some of the bad contracts given makes PA to stop and think about their possible DOI court case.
What the hell are you arguing?

Larry Brooks reports something Bettman said. Nearly every Pro-Owner poster agrees with what Bettman said.. And you're demanding that people justify Bettman's supposed remarks?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:36 PM
  #245
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
No. They become "stupid decisions" only when you have put your team in a position that they become "stupid decisions".

Absolutely nobody/nothing forced Sabres to give Leino 4.5M per year. If some other GM was willing to offer 4.4M to Leino and you had the choice of walking out or upping that offer, you can't blame anybody but the GM who upped that offer to 4.5M.

The only reason for overpaying the likes of Leino is that you want a quick fix. That comes with a price. If the owner pressured GM to make quick fixes, the blame lies largely at the feet of the owner.
This I agree with. Nobody forced Leino for $4.4 or Kopecky for $4M.
Some of these contracts.
These were head scratching contracts when they were signed and they remain so now.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 04:07 AM
  #246
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
What the hell are you arguing?

Larry Brooks reports something Bettman said. Nearly every Pro-Owner poster agrees with what Bettman said.. And you're demanding that people justify Bettman's supposed remarks?
My argument is that Bettman would never ever say something like that to the players. Why would he say that? It makes zero sense. It would only piss off the players, is that something Bettman wants to do at this point?

Also this has not been reported by anybody else, only by Brooks.

Brooks' hit rate during the CBA talks has been close to zero, last week he reported a rumor about realigment, that was squashed by other journos quickly.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 06:47 AM
  #247
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
My argument is that Bettman would never ever say something like that to the players. Why would he say that? It makes zero sense. It would only piss off the players, is that something Bettman wants to do at this point?

Also this has not been reported by anybody else, only by Brooks.

Brooks' hit rate during the CBA talks has been close to zero, last week he reported a rumor about realigment, that was squashed by other journos quickly.
That means take it with a grain of salt.

JAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 07:43 AM
  #248
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Sorry, I don't understand how Bettman telling players it's their goal to nullify/undo/fix some of the bad contracts given makes PA to stop and think about their possible DOI court case.
Where did I say anything about a "court case"????? Read my post again. And think about it for a second.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 07:58 AM
  #249
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Where did I say anything about a "court case"????? Read my post again. And think about it for a second.
I re-read your post. Twice. I still don't understand what point you were trying to make?

How does Bettman saying something like that would make the PA think twice about their DOI threat? How is saying something like that "calling their bluff"?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 08:17 AM
  #250
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
My argument is that Bettman would never ever say something like that to the players. Why would he say that? It makes zero sense. It would only piss off the players, is that something Bettman wants to do at this point?

Also this has not been reported by anybody else, only by Brooks.

Brooks' hit rate during the CBA talks has been close to zero, last week he reported a rumor about realigment, that was squashed by other journos quickly.
Why wouldn't he say that? I don't see what the big deal is? Sure if I'm a player I would be pissy about it, I understand it. But do you think Claude Giroux wouldn't be happy to re-negotiate his $3.75M contract?

Some people are overpaid, no question. Some are underpaid. I'm sure both sides want to re-work deals.

I don't understand why you feel it would be surprising to see Bettman say this.

Steve 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 07:54 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.