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.

Did the NHLPA drop the ball?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2004, 06:46 AM
  #1
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Did the NHLPA drop the ball?

After the results from thursday`s bargaining (or lack of) session I can`t help but think that the NHLPA completely missed its opportunity to at least get some good PR let alone make some progress in negotiations. I mean here they were days before the expiration of the CBA, if they had made any kind of reasonable offer, even if the owners rejected, it would have gone a long way as to tell the fans that they are trying to get things sorted out. Instead they make an offer that actually saw their proposed luxury tax threshold go up!! Absolutely rediculous. Not only did they show the public that they really have no intention of getting a deal done to prevent a work stoppage, I think they enraged the owners even more.

To me it looks like they missed theire chance and I think in the long run they will pay for it.

Chelios is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 06:57 AM
  #2
FlyersProspect2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicopee, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyersProspect2
Both sides had their chance to get a new deal done. They are both equally to blame for this whole thing.

FlyersProspect2 is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:45 AM
  #3
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
What I mean is that the NHLPA had an excellent oppertunity to put the owners in a really hard spot by putting a good offer on the table, forcing them to look like the bad guys by turning down a fair offer. Instead they make a joke offer and make themselves look bad in the public eye.

Chelios is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:14 AM
  #4
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,837
vCash: 500
I think he knew what you meant. I could be wrong, but that response sounds like someone that blames the current mess largely on the owners and now has no defense for the players either.

I personally think that in the past the owners and the nhlpa have come to new cba negotiations from different prospectives. The owners from getting the best deal they could and the union from winning. In each case the owners have caved in and the players have won. I think this current situation both sides are intent on winning. I am not unconvinced that both sides are not in fight to the death mode.
The owners may well be out to break the union. The players may well know this and be ready to kill the league rather than give the owners a win.

That is what I hear coming from both sides. I could well be wrong. But, for their to be a cba one side or the other will have to come off their stand on a salary cap.
whichever side does that is the loser. when the trevor linden says that the players will never, ever, under any circumstances tie payroll to revenue they draw a very deep and hard line. they are not willing to accept a salary cap that is favorable to them even. they want what they have now.

they know that the rangers, leafs, wings, avalanche, stars and blues will not be deterred in any serious way by any luxury tax and in the process basically hold the status quo in effect. The owners know this too. Enough of them will lose less money by never playing another hockey game than by playing one more season under the status quo. So, that is where we are. Am I wrong or is this a death match we are watching?

txpd is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:32 AM
  #5
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
To clarify something, the Blues would be effected by a luxury tax. When Bill Laurie bought the team his plan was to lose money for the sake of fielding a competitive team until the new CBA was signed.

Anyway... the owners will win this one way or another. If the negotiations are no where by January I fully expect the owners to start creating a new league and instituting the rules that they want. The players will eventually start coming back because it'll still be their biggest possible paycheck and if the owners were smart about it, they'd honor the contracts that are already signed.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:33 AM
  #6
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,422
vCash: 500
How is saving the owners

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios
What I mean is that the NHLPA had an excellent oppertunity to put the owners in a really hard spot by putting a good offer on the table, forcing them to look like the bad guys by turning down a fair offer. Instead they make a joke offer and make themselves look bad in the public eye.
well over 200 million in their initial offer a joke?

If the players initially offered a roll back of 5% in salaries across the board they would more than likely roll back upwards of 10%, in all probability more than that.

I don't understand why we have to take responsibility out of the owners hads for agreeing to some of these outrageous contracts and start blaming the current situation on the players for asking for as much as they want. Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?

Bottom line is that the offer was a good offer if you are looking to negotiate in good faith, it's only a joke offer if you are looking to force an agreement on the players.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 10:20 AM
  #7
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
well over 200 million in their initial offer a joke?

If the players initially offered a roll back of 5% in salaries across the board they would more than likely roll back upwards of 10%, in all probability more than that.

I don't understand why we have to take responsibility out of the owners hads for agreeing to some of these outrageous contracts and start blaming the current situation on the players for asking for as much as they want. Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?

Bottom line is that the offer was a good offer if you are looking to negotiate in good faith, it's only a joke offer if you are looking to force an agreement on the players.
pld, you aren't getting it. Many people don't. If the Rangers give a guy $5 million or Detroit gives a guy $5 million...every comparable player in that category wants the same cash. Those teams can afford the money, so in truth aren't doing anything wrong.

And with the ridiculous arbitration system, agents use the highest paid comparable to achieve the best possible award. It is an inflationary system.(You can imagine the number of guys using Marty Lapointe as a comparable for arbitration. :lol )

So in effect, the problem doesn't lay with Holik getting a large contract because the Rangers can afford it...it is the salary pull on every other comparable player on every other team(Especially the lower revenue stream teams) that causes the problem.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 10:33 AM
  #8
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
pld, you aren't getting it. Many people don't. If the Rangers give a guy $5 million or Detroit gives a guy $5 million...every comparable player in that category wants the same cash. Those teams can afford the money, so in truth aren't doing anything wrong.

And with the ridiculous arbitration system, agents use the highest paid comparable to achieve the best possible award. It is an inflationary system.(You can imagine the number of guys using Marty Lapointe as a comparable for arbitration. :lol )

So in effect, the problem doesn't lay with Holik getting a large contract because the Rangers can afford it...it is the salary pull on every other comparable player on every other team(Especially the lower revenue stream teams) that causes the problem.

 
Old
09-11-2004, 10:42 AM
  #9
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
The owners have made their position clear. They want the average salary to drop from $1.8M to $1.3M per player. Would they settle for $1.5M, maybe. Until the NHLPA gets their heads around this there will be no agreement. They can propose any system they want, Bettman won't accept unless salaries drop to these levels or Betteman gets fired.

And if the NHLPA does agree to this (FAT CHANCE!), are the savings that big market teams will reap going to be passed on to fans? (FAT CHANCE!). What a mess.

Kickabrat is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 10:48 AM
  #10
swinginutter*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,796
vCash: 500
How any of you can back the NHLPA is mind boggling. I know it's the owners' faults for giving out large contracts! Bottom line is that this league is in shambles, and the players are acting like complete nobs. It's the owners right to make money, because the last time I checked the players are employed by them. Go to work on monday and tell your boss you want 75% of all their revenues. It's a complete joke, and this being the bottom feeder of all four major sports the players union has no right to act in this fashion. Quite simply they could give a ***** about the fans and us spending our hard earned money. Trevor Linden's comments the other day were just plain stupid. I mean wasn't this guy a farmer before? These guys make millions of dollars to play a sport, and all of sudden it sounds like they're going to starve. Reality is a word that doesn't exist to these dorks.

swinginutter* is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 11:16 AM
  #11
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
It is an inflationary system.(You can imagine the number of guys using Marty Lapointe as a comparable for arbitration. :lol )
Go ahead, name one.


I cant believe anyone would be siding with the owners in this situation. It is because, unlike baseball fans, hockey fans have foolishly sided with the owners that we are going to have a lockout. Daly said as much. The owners are going to take advantage of naive fans to lockout hte players and try and break the union.

And how can anyone be taking Daly seriously. He's a lawyer? Obviously not a trial lawyer because any jury would see through his body language. Or perhaps he is just embarassed he has to make these ridiculous claims in public in order to keep the pressure on.


Here was a great take from Tascas take
Quote:

the players and the league are involved in a bitter legal dispute over the distribution of finances, and by no means are we deserving of any private bargaining information or proposals.

Before you can judge the players and understand the union mentality, I think you have to try to look at this situation from a realistic perspective. If you do, it becomes painfully apparent why the players have absolutely no intentions of winning over the fans. They’re not trying to go head-to-head with the league in some kind of public relations duel because, in essence, that would be a fruitless endeavor
According to recent polls, the majority of fans are overwhelmingly in support of the league’s bargaining position Most broadcasters and sportswriters feel the same way (you don’t have to spend much time to convince an underpaid beat writer that hockey players are financially spoiled), and as a result, they have no sympathy for the players and their plight. With little effort, Gary Bettman has used the media to disseminate his message to the fans in a savvy public relations campaign that has featured the revealing of six “good faith” bargaining proposals from the league. The players, conversely, have not come to the fore publicly with a substantial proposal since last year.

Now the fans look at this situation and say to themselves, ‘Wow, it really seems like the league is making a concerted effort to salvage the season, and maybe even training camp. You’d think the players would be willing to accept just one of those six proposals! Why are they being such brats?’

The reason for the players’ recent dismissal of the six financial concepts concocted by the NHL is simple - all six plans revolve around a salary cap, and the players have made it abundantly clear that they will not accept such a salary restriction. And unless Gary Bettman and his henchmen (sounds like a band) are dumber than I think they are, I’m willing to bet they knew damn right well that the union was inevitably going to reject all six proposals when they initially formed the concepts. To me, the public release of the six “good faith” proposals was nothing more than an exhibition of public relations on the part of Bill Daly and company, and was not a sincere attempt by the NHL to address the problems at hand.

The union, on the other hand, did make an attempt at achieving the goals of itself and the league on October 1st of last year On that date, Bob Goodenow proposed a five percent rollback on player salaries, a substantially smaller salary cap on entry-level contracts, and a luxury tax and revenue-sharing system. Even though specifics were not mentioned, the players’ proposal did address (on the surface) some contentious issues the league has with the current CBA. Nevertheless, the league publicly disregarded the proposal less than a week after it was presented by the union.


At least the players had the decency to consider the league’s six proposals for two weeks. Regardless, the union was simply prolonging the inevitable negative fan reaction Fans don’t give a hoot about the players’ position, because if we did, we would be able to read between the lines of the political posturing and the public relations fodder that we’ve been fed by the league over the last year. I’m not saying I support the union, but to side with ownership - who, by the way, would be primarily responsible for a lockout, should it occur - is completely asinine. What is even more sickening is the fact that fans seem to be falling prey to a perfectly executed NHL PR blitzkrieg that is making the players look as sinister as the big bad wolf and the league appear as innocent as Little Red.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 03:16 PM
  #12
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,422
vCash: 500
I get it, the players are being punished

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
pld, you aren't getting it. Many people don't. If the Rangers give a guy $5 million or Detroit gives a guy $5 million...every comparable player in that category wants the same cash. Those teams can afford the money, so in truth aren't doing anything wrong.

And with the ridiculous arbitration system, agents use the highest paid comparable to achieve the best possible award. It is an inflationary system.(You can imagine the number of guys using Marty Lapointe as a comparable for arbitration. :lol )

So in effect, the problem doesn't lay with Holik getting a large contract because the Rangers can afford it...it is the salary pull on every other comparable player on every other team(Especially the lower revenue stream teams) that causes the problem.
for the owners inability to say no, and by that I mean all owners.

But for the Lapointe comment, the folks going through arbitration cannot use his contract as an example due to the fact that he was a UFA when he was signed and UFA contracts are not allowed to be used when arguing an arbitration case.

In fact any UFA contract I would argue has no bearing on the overall level of Leagues salary problems. The arbitration process that the owners pushed for has backfired to the point of detriment and will not be part of the next CBA.

The problem is that the Owners, again, have a problem weilding the hammer during a players first 5-10 years in the league. Players hold out until they get what they are looking for from the owners and when a player comes up on a contract year that is the model by which they compare themselves during the arbitration hearings.

Milbury giving Peca more than what he was looking for from Buffalo is a much bigger league problem than Holik making 9 million a year. Milbury giving Yashin 2 5 year contracts that totaled out to 90 million also have more of an impact on today's salaries than the deal that Holik got.

I get it that the owners need for someone to be made to be held accountable for their eff-ups and since they dare not look at themselves the players will have to bear the brunt of the owners in essense slapping themselves on the wrist.

To me, something is wrong with that.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 04:15 PM
  #13
X0ssbar
 
X0ssbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ...on a star!
Country: United States
Posts: 13,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
pld, you aren't getting it. Many people don't. If the Rangers give a guy $5 million or Detroit gives a guy $5 million...every comparable player in that category wants the same cash. Those teams can afford the money, so in truth aren't doing anything wrong.

And with the ridiculous arbitration system, agents use the highest paid comparable to achieve the best possible award. It is an inflationary system.(You can imagine the number of guys using Marty Lapointe as a comparable for arbitration. :lol )

So in effect, the problem doesn't lay with Holik getting a large contract because the Rangers can afford it...it is the salary pull on every other comparable player on every other team(Especially the lower revenue stream teams) that causes the problem.
Completely agree. The league could seriously fold under the current system. People just do not get it. Its not a question of who's fault at this point - it doesn't matter. The system is flawed and needs fixed.

Under the current system the owners can't say "no" to their star players or they lose season tickets holders who don't believe the ownership is fieling a competitive team. If they sign the players - the fans are happy but the bottom line isn't. The actions of a few completely scew the system. The owners want to fairly compensate the players but they need a healthy bottom line as well to remain viable. What the NHL is proposing is as much to control the owners as it is the player's salaries.

Bottom line is the two need to work together for the betterment of the league. The player's proposal was like using a band aid to heal a broken leg. It does nothing to solve the problem for the long term and in 5 years we are right back where we are today, probably with less franchises and higher player costs.

If the two sides can come up with system where they work as partners and both receive their fair share of the pie they can get this thing back on a healthy track. Based on what I've read/heard and common sense (look at TV ratings, player's salaries vs. other sports and the CBAs of other leagues) I believe right now the owner's recognize this, the players do not.


Last edited by X0ssbar: 09-11-2004 at 05:04 PM.
X0ssbar is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 05:08 PM
  #14
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
If the players initially offered a roll back of 5% in salaries across the board they would more than likely roll back upwards of 10%, in all probability more than that.

I don't understand why we have to take responsibility out of the owners hads for agreeing to some of these outrageous contracts and start blaming the current situation on the players for asking for as much as they want. Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?

Bottom line is that the offer was a good offer if you are looking to negotiate in good faith, it's only a joke offer if you are looking to force an agreement on the players.
I could not disagree with this post more.

1. the 5% roll back was a one time roll back that would have been swallowed up immediately by the automatic salary increases that are part of the current cba. If arbitration and the automatic 10% increase for players under the league average are not removed(and they are not part of this offer), that 5% roll back is back in the players pocket by the next season.
2. when you say, "I don't understand why we have to take responsibility out of the owners hads for agreeing to some of these outrageous contracts". Lets keep in mind that by and large "the owners" are 3 to 5 owners that can afford to spend the rest of the teams under the table and another 3 to 5 owners willing to take a loss to try and compete on the ice to keep his franchise value and place in the local sports market high. the rest of the owners are along for the ride. the higher salaries go the less they can afford. As this current cba has evolved the top teams aquired a constantly increasing percentage of the marquee players while the bottom teams increasingly became a collection unknown players. Last year's stanley cup finals was a promoters disaster, Inginla and 20 no names verses, St Louis & Lecavalier and 18 no names.
3. "start blaming the current situation on the players for asking for as much as they want". Nobody is saying that. However, what they are saying is that the owners should be allowed to say that they have been paying too much and need to cut back. the players are saying, "hey!! you can't do that! you offered it and you have to keep paying it with a raise every year"
4. "Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?". When you say that do you forget about teams like Boston say they wont pay $8.5m to Bill Guerin and $7m to Jason Allison and then get cut to pieces by their fan base for not being willing to make a commitment to winning?
Are you forgetting about lower revenue teams like Edmonton that regularly trade off their best players as they mature into arbitration eligible players because they can no longer afford the new salaries they would get? For every team like Toronto and Detroit that is loading up with all stars with big contracts at the trade deadline there are two teams that simply have to give up their franchise players for draft picks and prospects because they can't or won't pay the outragious prices.
5.you are in a very distinct minority that believes that offer, which increased the luxury tax threshold from $40m to $50m, was a good offer.

txpd is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 07:16 PM
  #15
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
I could not disagree with this post more.

1. the 5% roll back was a one time roll back that would have been swallowed up immediately by the automatic salary increases that are part of the current cba. If arbitration and the automatic 10% increase for players under the league average are not removed(and they are not part of this offer), that 5% roll back is back in the players pocket by the next season.
You are then suggesting the CBA isnt fair because players get raises. The overall payroll is still lower because older expensive players retire and younger players take their place. The payroll does drop down 5% even after the automatic 10% raise.

Quote:

4. "Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?". When you say that do you forget about teams like Boston say they wont pay $8.5m to Bill Guerin and $7m to Jason Allison and then get cut to pieces by their fan base for not being willing to make a commitment to winning?
Are you forgetting about lower revenue teams like Edmonton that regularly trade off their best players as they mature into arbitration eligible players because they can no longer afford the new salaries they would get? For every team like Toronto and Detroit that is loading up with all stars with big contracts at the trade deadline there are two teams that simply have to give up their franchise players for draft picks and prospects because they can't or won't pay the outragious prices.

You are pretty sure that if Boston had kept Guerin and Allison, they would have suceeded where LA and Dal failed? They did pretty well without them for a while as I recall.

For every team that loaded up like Det and Tor, there was a cheaper team, who didnt and had better success.


Quote:

5.you are in a very distinct minority that believes that offer, which increased the luxury tax threshold from $40m to $50m, was a good offer.

As we have learned, 75% of the owners losses were non salary related issues. They dont need more than this .

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 07:33 PM
  #16
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
I get it, the players are being punished for the owners inability to say no, and by that I mean all owners.
So why now should the owners (and fans, more importantly) be punished for the players' inability to say no to the owners' offer?

You're saying one thing's right, but the same thing from the other side is wrong. Why?

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 07:38 PM
  #17
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
So why now should the owners (and fans, more importantly) be punished for the players' inability to say no to the owners' offer?

You're saying one thing's right, but the same thing from the other side is wrong. Why?
The problem is that you still think that the OWNER = THE FAN & think alike !

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 07:44 PM
  #18
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
The problem is that you still think that the OWNER = THE FAN & think alike !
Umm, no. I know what I think. And I'm a fan. And because they won't accept any way to control their salaries, which I pay, the players are keeping me from seeing the NHL this year. Yeah, that makes me more than a little upset.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 07:50 PM
  #19
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Umm, no. I know what I think. And I'm a fan. And because they won't accept any way to control their salaries, which I pay, the players are keeping me from seeing the NHL this year. Yeah, that makes me more than a little upset.
So if my girlfriend where I live with has no problem that I go to the bars & my friends does not want to go. I should blame my friends because they don't want to go out tonight with ?


READ THIS : it's not an OPINION, it's a FACT

Owners want a HARD CAP
Players want to help but not by saying yes to a hard CAP

RESULTS : Owners will do a LOCKOUT

RESULTS : You won't see HOCKEY this year because of the OWNERS.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:26 PM
  #20
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
So if my girlfriend where I live with has no problem that I go to the bars & my friends does not want to go. I should blame my friends because they don't want to go out tonight with ?


READ THIS : it's not an OPINION, it's a FACT

Owners want a HARD CAP
Players want to help but not by saying yes to a hard CAP

RESULTS : Owners will do a LOCKOUT

RESULTS : You won't see HOCKEY this year because of the OWNERS.

I'm sure if the NHLPA made a reasonable offer, we would be seeing hockey this season... (just my opinion, but the players offer was a joke)

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:29 PM
  #21
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
So if my girlfriend where I live with has no problem that I go to the bars & my friends does not want to go. I should blame my friends because they don't want to go out tonight with ?


READ THIS : it's not an OPINION, it's a FACT

Owners want a HARD CAP
Players want to help but not by saying yes to a hard CAP

RESULTS : Owners will do a LOCKOUT

RESULTS : You won't see HOCKEY this year because of the OWNERS.
But I'm not talking about you or your girlfriend, unless you're both members of the NHLPA. I'm talking about the NHL.

I can make up my own facts too:

Players want salaries to stay where they are, and, of course, rise in the future.
Owners want to pay them very generous salaries, and already have been doing so for years.

Owners will lock the players out.
You won't see hockey because of the players.

See? It goes both ways.

If the players are so serious, and if they really want to help, they'll accept a deal where salaries are tied to revenues. Why wouldn't they? What are they afraid of?

It's because they don't want to be paid what they're worth - they want more than that, obviously.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:54 PM
  #22
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
But I'm not talking about you or your girlfriend, unless you're both members of the NHLPA. I'm talking about the NHL.

I can make up my own facts too:

Players want salaries to stay where they are, and, of course, rise in the future.
Owners want to pay them very generous salaries, and already have been doing so for years.

Owners will lock the players out.
You won't see hockey because of the players.

See? It goes both ways.

If the players are so serious, and if they really want to help, they'll accept a deal where salaries are tied to revenues. Why wouldn't they? What are they afraid of?

It's because they don't want to be paid what they're worth - they want more than that, obviously.
Listen, i'm not making anything for myself , iT's just reality.

PLAYERS deciding not having hockey next SEASON = STRIKE
OWNERS deciding not having hockey next SEASON = LOCKOUT

Now is there a STRIKE or a LOCKOUT coming in ?

Stop twisting the reality.

The public transportation adminsitration wants their bus drivers-subway to take a 25% paycut & the drivers association is saying.

The public transportation decide to close the all the subway & the bus until they get what they want ?

Will you blame the DRIVERS because you can't take the BUS or the SUBWAY in the incoming days ?

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:04 PM
  #23
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
PLAYERS deciding not having hockey next SEASON = STRIKE
OWNERS deciding not having hockey next SEASON = LOCKOUT
It takes two sides to negotiate any solution. The players don't seem to want to offer any reasonable solutions, so they are just as much at fault as the owners

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:06 PM
  #24
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Listen, i'm not making anything for myself , iT's just reality.

PLAYERS deciding not having hockey next SEASON = STRIKE
OWNERS deciding not having hockey next SEASON = LOCKOUT

Now is there a STRIKE or a LOCKOUT coming in ?

Stop twisting the reality.

The public transportation adminsitration wants their bus drivers-subway to take a 25% paycut & the drivers association is saying.

The public transportation decide to close the all the subway & the bus until they get what they want ?

Will you blame the DRIVERS because you can't take the BUS or the SUBWAY in the incoming days ?
If the drivers want so much money that it will destroy the whole system, then yeah, it's the drivers' fault.

Why are the Oilers losing money? It's not because they're badly run, of course, so what is it? I'd like to find that out.

It doesn't matter whether it's a strike or a lockout. I'm not sure why you're so concerned about that, because it's not an issue. It doesn't matter if the way things are now is the fault of the players, the owners, the fans, or the CBA.

What matters is that there's a huge problem (although people like you seem to refuse to acknowledge that, even though it's hit us all upside the head with both barrels), and it has to be fixed. The owners are the only ones trying to correct this problem. The players and their joke proposals don't help.

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 09:43 PM
  #25
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,991
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
If the drivers want so much money that it will destroy the whole system, then yeah, it's the drivers' fault.

Why are the Oilers losing money? It's not because they're badly run, of course, so what is it? I'd like to find that out.

It doesn't matter whether it's a strike or a lockout. I'm not sure why you're so concerned about that, because it's not an issue. It doesn't matter if the way things are now is the fault of the players, the owners, the fans, or the CBA.

What matters is that there's a huge problem (although people like you seem to refuse to acknowledge that, even though it's hit us all upside the head with both barrels), and it has to be fixed. The owners are the only ones trying to correct this problem. The players and their joke proposals don't help.
I think taking in the Canadian dollar while spending the American dollar goes a long ways towards why Edmonton has a hard time on the financial front. But, to be fair, that's a factor neither the players nor the owners have much control over.

As for the league's financial troubles, I disagree that the players aren't attempting to help matters. The owners want a form of cost control. While the players have held strong against a cap, they are clearly willing to implement a luxury tax of some form. IMO, a properly created luxury tax could end up with the same basic goal of pulling in the salaries, and could actually be more helpful as money from teams willing to spend stupidly is re-distributed to teams willing to spend more thoughtfully.

This is a problem ten years in the making, and the hope to fix it all at once is unrealistic. The owners should take what concessions they can to begin to meet their objectives (a decent luxury tax, re-doing the arbitration process, cap on rookie bonuses, etc.) and set themselves up for the next CBA and a chance to win a few more concessions. Between now and then, they should continue what they've been doing the past couple of summers: pulling in their own salaries and simply spending less.

Winger98 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 03:33 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.