HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Report: NHL to Reject Union Proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2004, 03:17 PM
  #1
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,352
vCash: 500
Awards:
Report: NHL to Reject Union Proposal

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nhl_lockout_dc

And the hits just keep on coming.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:18 PM
  #2
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
They are also reporting this on TSN :

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...96&hubName=nhl

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:26 PM
  #3
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
I wasn't expecting the NHL to accept the offer, but if they aren't willing to work off it, it may be the end of the NHL. I can't see the players conceding much more than they already have.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:32 PM
  #4
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
I wasn't expecting the NHL to accept the offer, but if they aren't willing to work off it, it may be the end of the NHL. I can't see the players conceding much more than they already have.
i agree. the owners could easily accomplish what they want by moving the luxary tax to $1.00 over 40 million.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:33 PM
  #5
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
I wasn't expecting the NHL to accept the offer, but if they aren't willing to work off it, it may be the end of the NHL. I can't see the players conceding much more than they already have.
I agree...if the league just completely rejects this (or basically says "we'll take all of that and put in a hard cap instead of a luxery tax) then the NHL is in trouble. if they're willing to work on a solution, then there's still a chance

this is also apparently what brooks was talking about...the league is rediculing the NHLPA for offering the 24% rollback...honestly wtf. i don't see league officials offering to reduce their salaries by 24% in order to make the league more profitable. I don't see the owners and GMs getting together to reduce their paychecks by 24% so that they'll be more profitable...

jesus as i read more, the league is just saying "you did nothing, it's all crap, you all suck and all of your concessions mean absolutely zero. go play in traffic"

what a bunch of crap

Levitate is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:37 PM
  #6
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,703
vCash: 500
If i was goodenow i would just walk out of the room the second the owners say salary cap. Its funny that bettman and the owners bring up cost certantiy but i can't find a business in this world that has such a thing.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:40 PM
  #7
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,533
vCash: 500
ugh, that tsn article was just disgusting

the league just attacked every single thing the NHLPA offered, every thing, and basically rediculued the players association.

Levitate is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:56 PM
  #8
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,406
vCash: 500
Bettman is the death knell of the NHL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
I wasn't expecting the NHL to accept the offer, but if they aren't willing to work off it, it may be the end of the NHL. I can't see the players conceding much more than they already have.
Absolutley ridiculous. At the friggin' MINIMUM, this could have been used as a platform. Basically Bettman is ignoring any and all efforts that specifically do not include the words, "hard cap". It makes absolutley no difference that the NHLPA showed how he could save the same money, just arriving it in a different manner.
And believe me, I hate to say that I agree with Brooks, but in reading some of the league's comments, it is hard not to see the not-so-thinly vieled attack on the players' plan.
This just shows that I was right. Bettman has never had any intention whatsoever of having a season. Makes no difference what the NHLPA proposes. His first and foremost agenda is to break the union. Personally, I think that his treatment of the proposal will strengthen the union. As early as last years playoffs, this was my predicted outcome. No season and now onto the Bettman Grand Plan Step # 2. Declare an impasse. I really do not see how he will be granted it. And if there is no impasse, you had better believe that his a$$ will be canned on the spot.
Honestly, reading TSN's entire article is just sickening. At least the players made an effort. Bettman is seemingly either unaware of just how slippery the ice is when it comes to the NHL's stature in America, or is arrogant enough to think that fans will just forgive and forget like they did with baseball. Baseball is America's game. It could spit into fans eye and eventually it will be back. For the sports fan, there is nothing to watch at the same time as baseball. Hockey is Canada's game. It WILL be back there like baseball came back here.
However, I really have to ask this question. Bettman questioned if the players understood the desperate state of the game. My question is does he himself understand the catastrophic results that canceling a season will mean? Obviously not. The players understood that in the USA, hockey will be all but forgotten. Bettman has not realized that hockey has already fallen to the level of arena football. Miss an entire season and you might as well bury the NHL. No one will remember that it was even here in a few years.


Last edited by True Blue: 12-13-2004 at 04:04 PM.
True Blue is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:03 PM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
That's a shame...

but it will be interesting to see how they reject. Will they just say that this doesn't provide a direct link of salaries to revenues and that's it, or do they give up player-type concessions with a new proposal, meaning significantly moving up their dollar cap and others. But, I would guess that the NHLPA went through a lot to put forth such a proposal, came back to the table with the latest offer and put forth some nice concessions, and don't want to start from point zero once again. As such, season canceled; hockey as we know it gone; and a league where the best from all over the world come to play closer to death. I'm sure people in Carolina, South Florida, and the L.A. area could almost care less.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:05 PM
  #10
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,352
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but it will be interesting to see how they reject. Will they just say that this doesn't provide a direct link of salaries to revenues and that's it, or do they give up player-type concessions with a new proposal, meaning significantly moving up their dollar cap and others. But, I would guess that the NHLPA went through a lot to put forth such a proposal, came back to the table with the latest offer and put forth some nice concessions, and don't want to start from point zero once again. As such, season canceled; hockey as we know it gone; and a league where the best from all over the world come to play closer to death. I'm sure people in Carolina, South Florida, and the L.A. area could almost care less.
The players are going to pull their latest offer from the table.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:08 PM
  #11
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
So you're saying...

that the two sides go back to where they were in September. Bettman, once again, hoping that the Union will break and give in to his demands.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:10 PM
  #12
rw88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
True, but

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
If i was goodenow i would just walk out of the room the second the owners say salary cap. Its funny that bettman and the owners bring up cost certantiy but i can't find a business in this world that has such a thing.
Most other businesses don't have employee contracts of this size for 95% of their payroll. I have heard both sides of the story for a while and I honestly don't see how the players can expect their proposal to be taken very seriously. The NHL is not the revenue producing machine that the other three sports are, and the players should not be compensated as such. The reason the NFL does so well is becuase they have a national media contract and ALSO have a cap and non-guaranteed salaries. I can't honestly believe that the players don't see this. It's greed..plain and simple.

rw88 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:11 PM
  #13
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,406
vCash: 500
After seeing this Daly quote, wouldn't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
The players are going to pull their latest offer from the table.
"We believe the Union's offer was more about trying to unify the players and ensure player solidarity with what they would perceive as a very substantial proposal than it was about making a good faith effort to reach agreement with us ..." Daly writes. " ... The Union needed the 'rallying point' that it felt this offer would provide with the players to effectuate this strategy. Under this scenario, the Union will likely [and quickly] break off negotiations."

If I was the players after reading the above, I would not come back to the tables unless Bettman personally crawled on his knees. Wait to see if his impasse is allowed. If it is not, then hold out until Bettman is fired in disgrace. If it is allowed, then start a new league to compete with Bettman's replacement players. To ridicule the NHLPA offer was assinine. A 24% reduction on contracts is a friggin' rallying point?

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:12 PM
  #14
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
WOW!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSN article
"we envision a revenue sharing pool that will be funded primarily by a portion of revenues generated in the Stanley Cup playoffs," as opposed to revenue sharing on the basis of regular-season revenues.
I cannot think of a worse way to share revenue. It's punishing teams for making the playoffs. I cannot believe that any owner who's team was even close to making the playoffs would be in favor of that. Playoff profits are huge in terms of a team's financial success and should be held out as a brass ring so the likes of Wirtz at least tries to put a decent product out on the ice.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:13 PM
  #15
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
This is a joke, there is no end in sight...Bye bye NHL. They better start broadcasting AHL games full time now, because they are now the pros

Balej20* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:13 PM
  #16
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,445
vCash: 500
Bettman ditt jävla trög arsle!

Ola is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:13 PM
  #17
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by S_O_T_I
The reason the NFL does so well is becuase they have a national media contract and ALSO have a cap and non-guaranteed salaries.
You are forgetting that the NFL also has a HUGE central revenue source AND league-wide revenue sharing. Can't have an NFL-type hard cap withough those 2 things. That is why neither MLB nor NBA have a hard cap.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:17 PM
  #18
rw88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
The research that we've done

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
"We believe the Union's offer was more about trying to unify the players and ensure player solidarity with what they would perceive as a very substantial proposal than it was about making a good faith effort to reach agreement with us ..." Daly writes. " ... The Union needed the 'rallying point' that it felt this offer would provide with the players to effectuate this strategy. Under this scenario, the Union will likely [and quickly] break off negotiations."

If I was the players after reading the above, I would not come back to the tables unless Bettman personally crawled on his knees. Wait to see if his impasse is allowed. If it is not, then hold out until Bettman is fired in disgrace. If it is allowed, then start a new league to compete with Bettman's replacement players. To ridicule the NHLPA offer was assinine. A 24% reduction on contracts is a friggin' rallying point?
The research that we've done suggests that the fans would back a replacement NHL, rather than a mock league set up by the NHLPA. I think this is what it's going to come down to. In 2006, we'll probably see the first wave of new players. It would take the NHLPA a lot longer than that to set up a competing league, and the y wouldn't have he financial support to get an infrustructure in place.

rw88 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:20 PM
  #19
rw88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
You are forgetting that the NFL also has a HUGE central revenue source AND league-wide revenue sharing. Can't have an NFL-type hard cap withough those 2 things. That is why neither MLB nor NBA have a hard cap.
MLB doesn't have a hard cap becuase the union is so strong. Too strong in my opinion. The NBA has a cap, but there are loopholes that teams have exploited, but at least they have a cap, which includes a max salary.

The fact that the NFL has a HUGE revenue source is a stronger argument that supports the owners. The NHL (as a whole) just doesn't have the money NOT to have a cap.

rw88 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:30 PM
  #20
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
The NBA does have a cap..

but somehow the Knicks still spend the most by a good amount, from what I understand. I haven't studied it all, but yeah, there's loopholes in it supposedly.

What kind of research was done in regards to a replacement league? You mean something like the AHL? I can't see how that would be profitable for many arenas. Further, people have found other things to do. Bringing in a scab league isn't going to bring them back so soon, and since the owners couldn't make money with star players, and most arenas couldn't be filled with the likes of Jagr, Bure, and others, I don't know how a scab league would succeed. If this is Bettman's ace in the hole, well then the Union is not dealing with a rationale person at all.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:33 PM
  #21
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Interesting point, Kodiak...

so the owners of Calgary and Tampa do not want a portion of the money the Rangers earn during the regular season, but will share with the Rangers the revenue it earns in the playoffs? So the Rangers, could can make tens of millions of $$$ under Bettman's cap, and still suck, would make even more money from sucking? There must be something I'm missing here.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:50 PM
  #22
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
So long NHL

Not that Bettman should have accepted the Goodenow propsosal right away, but it showed that the players are willing to give something up for the good of the game. Obviously most owners are not. He's either going to wait for the union to break, which I dont think will happen, so the impasse is his best bet. Even if it goes that far, I dont see how he can be considered as having negotiated in good faith. There should be some give and take in any negotiation, Bettman does not want to give anything.

I refuse to believe Bettman is stupid, you don't rise to the level he has without some brains. I do believe that he takes his job to represent the interests of the majority of owners seriously, and since most owners want the cap, Bettman insists on the cap. Thus, I don't think he, or most owners, feel that they need to play this season or the season after. Where that leaves them, their franchises and the sport, I have no idea.


Last edited by Choice: 12-13-2004 at 04:58 PM.
Choice is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 05:01 PM
  #23
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyChoice
Thus, I don't think he, or most owners, feel that they need to play this season or the season after. Where that leaves them, their franchises and the sport, I have no idea.
Where does that leave them if the lockout eats up two full seasons? I'd say Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, New York, Boston, Detroit, Minnesota, Columbus, St. Louis, Colorado, and maybe Chicago, Philadelphia, Buffalo, and Dallas. The rest either would fold in the interim or not be able to garner enough fan support to make the market viable.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 05:06 PM
  #24
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
Where does that leave them if the lockout eats up two full seasons? I'd say Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, New York, Boston, Detroit, Minnesota, Columbus, St. Louis, Colorado, and maybe Chicago, Philadelphia, Buffalo, and Dallas. The rest either would fold in the interim or not be able to garner enough fan support to make the market viable.
Those places all have enough diehard fans, but I dont know if the Buffalos, Edmontons, and Calgarys of the world have the financial wherewithall to make it through this. I wish the league actually only did include all those cities you just mentioned.

What is so wrong with folding teams? The fans in those cities will be upset they no longer have NHL hockey? oh, wait......
If you can't afford it don't join the league! Sounds simple enough...

Choice is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 05:31 PM
  #25
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Johnny...

the owners wanted a cap - but I'm sure that Bettman convinced them he can get them a cap. It was Bettman who, in many owners' eyes I'm sure, got them into this mess in the first place, and that's the only way out for some owners.

Fletch 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 06:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.