HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Notices

The Lockout Thread: Good Things Come To Those Who Wait

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 01:54 PM
  #576
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
no one should be looking at this as something that will be accepted. there was like 48 moments exactly like today last lockout. the only positive thing that could come of this is the beginning of an actual negotiation.
You know, I wouldn't be so sure. I don't generally consider myself an optimist of any kind and if I were then hockey surely would have drained me of that by now, but hearing anything even remotely considered faint praise from leadership on either side of a proposal made by the opposing party seemed to occur much later in the game than this time of the last lockout. I consider the revenue split to be the lynchpin of the negotiations. If this can be sold to the players, I don't think we're too far out from a resolution of some kind.

Vagrant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 01:56 PM
  #577
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,722
vCash: 1832
I'm on Bleed's page on this one. BUT, this is progress from where we were, a lot of progress. I doubt that this one will get accepted, but this one will be used as prettymuch the basepoint for future negotiations. I think the 50/50 is here to stay and something both sides won't deviate from here.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 02:35 PM
  #578
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
I am just a bit incredulous at the responses (not just here, but also elsewhere). We saw the original list of demands and thought that the league office was off its rocker. *One item* of that list was a reduction of revenue sharing from 57% to 43%, but there were many other things that the NHLPA would not like, including what constituted that 43%. So today the NHL comes out and says "50/50" and everyone is howling that the NHLPA are a bunch of *******s if they don't accept it...?

Hell, knowing Bettman, he could have made *every other item* of that original list even less appealing, but never mentioning that in their brief to the press, knowing what a PR nightmare it would create for the NHLPA to reject such a "huge" compromise on the league's part. We just don't know the whole of it, so to be so quick to have demands of the NHLPA is a little...premature, at best.

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 02:39 PM
  #579
impeach estaalo
RIPronrefo nevar4get
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,533
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
I am just a bit incredulous at the responses (not just here, but also elsewhere). We saw the original list of demands and thought that the league office was off its rocker. *One item* of that list was a reduction of revenue sharing from 57% to 43%, but there were many other things that the NHLPA would not like, including what constituted that 43%. So today the NHL comes out and says "50/50" and everyone is howling that the NHLPA are a bunch of *******s if they don't accept it...?
They went from 30 years old or 10 years of service for UFA to 28 and 8 (was 27 and 7 in last CBA)

They went from 5-year ELCs to 3, which is same as last CBA

On top of going from 43% to 50%

And yet it's still a "starting point"

The players will lose more money by waiting it out than they will be accepting this deal, and that's why the NHLPa are a bunch of ********** if they don't accept it

The NHLPA really doesn't seem to comprehend what they are up against. They are negotiating against a group of people who on the whole *lost money* employing the players they are representing. What leverage do they have? Accept our demands or not have the opportunity to lose money? The NHL could cease existing today and the vast majority of owners would either see no financial hit or actually help themselves. How many players could say that?


Last edited by impeach estaalo: 10-16-2012 at 02:50 PM.
impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 02:50 PM
  #580
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer Ruutu View Post
They went from 30 years old or 10 years of service for UFA to 28 and 8 (was 27 and 7 in last CBA)

They went from 5-year ELCs to 3, which is same as last CBA

On top of going from 43% to 50%

And yet it's still a "starting point"

The players will lose more money by waiting it out than they will be accepting this deal, and that's why the NHLPa are a bunch of ********** if they don't accept it
So basically, because the NHL compromised on their completely insane demands the players have to take this deal? There's more negotiating to be done, that's for sure. The goundwork looks to be laid though.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 02:53 PM
  #581
impeach estaalo
RIPronrefo nevar4get
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,533
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
So basically, because the NHL compromised on their completely insane demands the players have to take this deal?
57 vs 43 isn't insane. It's the same split in the old CBA, just with the owners coming out ahead. I think it's actually much more sane than the last CBA. It makes a lot more sense for the people covering all the expenses to take the 57%.

impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 02:56 PM
  #582
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,520
vCash: 500
its all coming down to what was predicted the whole time. 50/50, with arguments about what the 50% means, slightly longer ufa, shorter contracts, maybe they'll haggle elc's back in at some point. im not saying there no reason for optimism, just responding to people who are hoping this is accepted. there's no way. it may be a starting point for the very first actual discussion, and that would be huge at this point.

and don't stuff the games at the end, the season is already too long. make it 72, give yourselves a week to get ready and lets roll. we survived a 56 game schedule in the 90's lockout, 72 isnt that bad. id actually prefer the normal regular season be 70-72 anyway.

this was all pretty by the book. league makes crazy offer, makes them sit it out, then makes a "last ditch" proposal of what we all knew they really wanted to whole time and puts it on the players to do something. comes down to players accepting that these changes are coming whether they like it or not.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 03:00 PM
  #583
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,722
vCash: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
So basically, because the NHL compromised on their completely insane demands the players have to take this deal? There's more negotiating to be done, that's for sure. The goundwork looks to be laid though.
The issue to me isn't the insanity of the 57-43 split reversing itself in the initial proposal, there was no chance in hell that the NHL was going to offer up 50/50 right off the bat. It was that it took this long to get to this point. It's well know that I absolutely hate Donald Fehr, have before he even signed on with the PA, but his refusal to start this process before this summer when the NHL offered during the past season is one of the big reasons why we're not farther along in the negotiations. I'm not pro NHL, they got most of what they wanted last time and not the players fault that people like Sather spend like drunken sailors in an Amsterdam whorehouse every UFA season. I'm also not pro NHLPA, they've benefited greatly from the prior CBA despite all their contentiousness in these negotiations. I am anti-Fehr, always will be.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 05:18 PM
  #584
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
Hell, knowing Bettman, he could have made *every other item* of that original list even less appealing, but never mentioning that in their brief to the press, knowing what a PR nightmare it would create for the NHLPA to reject such a "huge" compromise on the league's part. We just don't know the whole of it, so to be so quick to have demands of the NHLPA is a little...premature, at best.
If that was going to be a problem, the NHLPA could have, you know, proposed something when it was their turn.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 05:42 PM
  #585
impeach estaalo
RIPronrefo nevar4get
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,533
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
If that was going to be a problem, the NHLPA could have, you know, proposed something when it was their turn.
There seems to be some sentiment that because the NHL's initial offer was unreasonable, that the NHLPA didn't have to negotiate. Seems quite childish, but then again we're still hearing about the owners getting what they wanted in 2005 means they shouldn't seek to gain more this time around. Very strong entitlement issues for a group of people who generate a net loss for their employers year after year. .

impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 05:45 PM
  #586
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer Ruutu View Post
They went from 30 years old or 10 years of service for UFA to 28 and 8 (was 27 and 7 in last CBA)

They went from 5-year ELCs to 3, which is same as last CBA
Hadn't heard that, and I've also read since I posted that there's no change to the definition of revenue, so that is good news as well.

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 06:28 PM
  #587
urho
Registered User
 
urho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,673
vCash: 695
Just. Drop. The. Puck!

urho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 09:15 PM
  #588
CarolinaCaniac
Registered User
 
CarolinaCaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
and don't stuff the games at the end, the season is already too long. make it 72, give yourselves a week to get ready and lets roll. we survived a 56 game schedule in the 90's lockout, 72 isnt that bad. id actually prefer the normal regular season be 70-72 anyway.
Every team will play one extra game every 5 weeks. No extension to season and players still get game checks for 82 games.

WIN/WIN.

CarolinaCaniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 09:41 PM
  #589
WalkerBabe
Registered User
 
WalkerBabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
I believe it's going to be settled within the next week ... I just have a feeling! (Woman's intuition ... )


Last edited by WalkerBabe: 10-17-2012 at 08:25 AM.
WalkerBabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 10:16 PM
  #590
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 8,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCaniac View Post
Every team will play one extra game every 5 weeks. No extension to season and players still get game checks for 82 games.

WIN/WIN.
That's the biggest piece IMO.

As soon as the first paycheck was missed, I am certain that a small but vocal minority of players started grumbling that they were missing their payday's over semantics and entitlement.

This group of players will grow with each missed paycheck (which is why the people predicting a 2 year lockout are idiots).

The NHL is throwing a lifeline to these people (and the NHLPA as a whole) by offering them a chance to avoid any losses. The deal is already very well crafted for both sides, so now Fehr has to convince the players why they should decline it in favor of returning to 100% of their paychecks.

I would not be surprised (and overjoyed) to see the 'Canes take the ice very, very soon.

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 08:10 AM
  #591
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer Ruutu View Post
57 vs 43 isn't insane. It's the same split in the old CBA, just with the owners coming out ahead. I think it's actually much more sane than the last CBA. It makes a lot more sense for the people covering all the expenses to take the 57%.
57-43 isn't the insane part, though its a part of it. The other provisions that basically took away all the concessions the players got in the last CBA to accept a salary cap made it completely outrageous. The owners original proposal basically said you now get 14% less than you currently do and you lose everything you fought for last time. The owners made that proposal so that this one seems like a good deal for the players because they came down so much.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 08:36 AM
  #592
CarolinaCaniac
Registered User
 
CarolinaCaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
57-43 isn't the insane part, though its a part of it. The other provisions that basically took away all the concessions the players got in the last CBA to accept a salary cap made it completely outrageous. The owners original proposal basically said you now get 14% less than you currently do and you lose everything you fought for last time. The owners made that proposal so that this one seems like a good deal for the players because they came down so much.
That's bargaining. You want to buy a $16,000 car for $12,000, you start out by offering $8,000 and try to meet in the middle. The risk is offending the seller. The players were definitely offended by the initial proposal.

CarolinaCaniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 09:08 AM
  #593
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCaniac View Post
That's bargaining. You want to buy a $16,000 car for $12,000, you start out by offering $8,000 and try to meet in the middle. The risk is offending the seller. The players were definitely offended by the initial proposal.
In this case you also get every writer, blogger, fan, etc, on the players side from the outset. The NHL was hoping the PA would come back with a similarly outrageous proposal that had the same basic outline so public opinion would shift back to more a more neutral place. Instead the PA put out a proposal that no one could really analyze because it was based on a different structure that appeared reasonable (but probably wasn't). I said it when they made the initial offer, it was like Bettman and the owners were unaware of who Donald Fehr was. You're not bargaining with a used car salesman here.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:27 AM
  #594
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
I'm convinced that neither side really cares about which side fans are on. They figure that fans will blame both sides and will forget about it soon after play resumes. There's a longstanding history of this playing out...

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:41 AM
  #595
CarolinaCaniac
Registered User
 
CarolinaCaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
Not a good sign - http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Fehr states that the proposal was not met with much enthusiasm. The players are still hung up on 57%.

The owners have gone from 43%, to 47%, to 50%.

The players have responded with 57%, 57%, and 57%.

The players keep talking about a lack of good faith negotiating by the NHL. Who exactly is refusing to budge here?

I was going to drop my mini-plan when the October 28 game gets cancelled. I may give them until November 2nd to see if they can make something of the last proposal. If not, I am done.

CarolinaCaniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:55 AM
  #596
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
I wish every player 30 and above would realize that they're giving up a year of their career so that some 16 year old player in the GTHL can have a shorter ELC and make 5% more of the league's share of revenue spread out over the entire league. How can you call yourself a player advocate when you're encouraging the players to forfeit millions of dollars to save hundreds of thousands on principal alone?

Vagrant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:05 PM
  #597
HisIceness
Michal Jordan
 
HisIceness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Charlotte
Country: United States
Posts: 5,720
vCash: 500
My God, just take the ****ing 50% that was offered.

This is really testing my patience.

HisIceness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:13 PM
  #598
dammit100
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 507
vCash: 500

dammit100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:28 PM
  #599
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,722
vCash: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by dammit100 View Post
Yep. In this one moment, they've gone from having the majority of fan support to likely losing all but that last bits of it from those that hate Bettman more then anything else. Hell even some of them are turning on Fehr more then Bettman at this point.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:20 PM
  #600
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,533
vCash: 500
It's just reached the point where both sides are just being stupid.

Even this latest owner's proposal, it may be a 50/50 split, but assuming what's in that TSN article is true, they're trying to return some aspects to the CBA that they had conceded earleir.

Basically, the owner's proposal history has been:

57/43 - Changed HRR definition.
54/46 - Changed HRR definition.
52/48 - Same HRR definition.

-LOCKOUT-

50/50 - Changed HRR definition.

A big part of the refusal from the players came from that changed definition. So when the owners said "Alright, fine, we won't change it" in their last pre-lockout proposal, I was hoping they'd realize it's a key point. Then this latest proposal attempts to change it again

Blueline Bomber 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 02:09 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.