I agree 100% with Skraut. The "big owners" in this league are the most vicious, greedy, power mad group of any professional sport. If they can get away with this, there will be demands for still more at the next negotiation and another lockout. They are arseholes. Not a big fan of the players. But anything that sticks to the Koch Brothers types of the world, I am for.
Well, seeing as I picked a side, I hope to amuse you with my reasoning.
7 years ago the owners locked the players out until they got exactly what they wanted. It worked, eventually the players caved.
I understand your reasoning, however judging the average salary increase in the NHL since the lockout I would have to say that the players, ultimately, didn't give up much beyond the across the board pay cut (which most of which have recovered).
You can't claim being treated unfairly with a 3.5 million average salary.
But since we're doing this now, I want the right set of circumstances to happen to hopefully prevent it from happening in the future.
I agree with the above statements. Unfortunately, I don't think the cycle will be broken if the players show backbone this time. I think they showed pretty good backbone last time in sacrificing a year.
This cycle will only be broken with new leadership in both the commissioner's chair and the NHLPA, but especially the former. Ideally, there has to be a commish who understands both the owner's and the player's perspective and tries to look out for the interests of both sides.
One name that comes to my mind is Ken Dryden, but I don't know if he'd ever do it.
It is pretty clear who the problem is and it is Gary Bettman. This incompetent boob is now 0-for-3 in CBA negotiations. He's lost significant time 3 straight negotiations. And for what? His first CBA was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. His second CBA...was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. It isn't clear that Gary has a fundamental understanding of what he would actually need to do to make his league financially viable...after around 20 years in the commissioners chair. That makes it kind of difficult for anyone to have any faith that this third time that he's sacrificing a substatial amount of games he's actually going to get it right.
I think he's got a bigger issue if this season is lost--he may lose a portion of next year as well. With the Olympics in Russia, I think a lot of the Russian born players may be quite happy to stay home next season. And others may be happy to join them up through the Olympics. Because it turns out there is another consequence of global capitalism--the NHL has competition for players in overseas markets.
Bettman and the owners are too set on winning everything in one CBA. The smart move would be to propose a shorter CBA as an alternative and come back in 3 years and once again demand concessions of the players and get them then. The owners will eventually be in the same place they would with Bettman's proposal without the substantial loss of time.
I agree with these comments, completely. I think Gary Bettman is definitely manipulated by the owners to some extent, however I think the owners may be more willing to bend than the front being put on by Bettman and the league may show.
Perhaps this proposed players/owners only meeting will help in some way. I still don't see NHL hockey being played this year, though. If this doesn't spell the end for Gary Bettman (and the Fehr brothers, for that matter), then it'll be time for me to stop following NHL hockey any longer. I simply cannot see these guys at the head of this league or any of it's entities after this lockout. This has to be the final straw for us, as fans, to have to put up with this bull-headed nonsense.
It's wrong to lay this at Bettman's feet. He represents 30 ownership groups made up of wealthy, bright, businessmen. They are not lambs. They know the numbers. They are not running a charity. They may be wrong but they are not stupid.
I agree 100% with Skraut. The "big owners" in this league are the most vicious, greedy, power mad group of any professional sport. If they can get away with this, there will be demands for still more at the next negotiation and another lockout. They are arseholes. Not a big fan of the players. But anything that sticks to the Koch Brothers types of the world, I am for.
Can you give me examples of how they are like this?
Both sides are greedy ********. The players are just as bad. They should have taken the 50/50 split, and I don't feel bad for them at all if they get a worse deal.
Winnipeg Jets representation at a recent NHL Board of Governors meeting piped up to say it was opposed to engaging in a long, bloody lockout sure to stymie their franchise's momentum and hurt the game of hockey.
It wasn't Winnipeg owner Mark Chipman, but rather one of the alternate governors representing the Jets.
Bruins Principal Owner and Chairman of the Board of Governors Jeremy Jacobs answered by reprimanding the Winnipeg representative as one of the "new kids on the block" and informed him that he would know when he was allowed to speak in the NHL board room.
That's the kind of hawkish, dismissive, bully mentality that's driving the bus for the NHL lockout that's now cancelled games through the middle of December.
__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
I know that. Still wondering how they are any worse than any other leagues owners. Don't the players get a higher % than any other major sports league? Besides, they are called OWNERS for a reason. They OWN the teams. If the players don't like it, they can go play somewhere else. No one is forcing them to play in the NHL. They play there because it is where they can make the most money and get the best of everything as a professional hockey player.
It's wrong to lay this at Bettman's feet. He represents 30 ownership groups made up of wealthy, bright, businessmen. They are not lambs. They know the numbers. They are not running a charity. They may be wrong but they are not stupid.
It's not all Bettman's fault. But now that we are in the third lockout, this clearly shows he is unable to broker a deal without significant bloodshed. The NHL commissioner should really have a broader mandate than just doing what the most hawkish owners desire. We need one who is able to better balance the owner's interests with that of the players and yes, even fans. Not an easy job but I think it can be done better.
It's not all Bettman's fault. But now that we are in the third lockout, this clearly shows he is unable to broker a deal without significant bloodshed. The NHL commissioner should really have a broader mandate than just doing what the most hawkish owners desire. We need one who is able to better balance the owner's interests with that of the players and yes, even fans. Not an easy job but I think it can be done better.
I guess they would have to change the job description
I guess they would have to change the job description
Actually, I'm not sure they would. First and foremost, his job is to "serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the League and is charged with protecting the integrity of the game of professional hockey and preserving public confidence in the League."
I would say that he's not preserving public confidence in the League.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the players side either. I want Bettman AND Fehr gone and I want a deal centered around 50/50 done.
My original point is that I don't think having the players draw a hard line will prevent this lockout cycle from happening over and over again. Changing the principle players involved might, and Bettman is the number one constant for all 3 lockouts.
To be fair, the owners initially proposed a longer deal (6 years) than the players wanted. 5 years will be the likely compromise.
No way on earth that happens. That would have the CBA expire going into the NHL's 100th anniversary. I can't imagine that the NHL would put themselves in such a poor negotiating position.
I understand your reasoning, however judging the average salary increase in the NHL since the lockout I would have to say that the players, ultimately, didn't give up much beyond the across the board pay cut (which most of which have recovered).
You can't claim being treated unfairly with a 3.5 million average salary.
Since you claim it wouldn't be giving up much, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me putting a limit on your earning potential.
Players Owners meeting looks to be confirmed. Owners in attendance will include Jacobs and Murray. Dolan was reportedly interested, but no surprise he was shut out given his rift with Bettman.
I wouldn't hold out any hope that this meeting accomplishes anything. In fact, I expect another 2 weeks of games to be cancelled this Friday Dec 7th.
Since you claim it wouldn't be giving up much, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me putting a limit on your earning potential.
???? I think most jobs have a limit on earning potential. Plus, this is one business. There are other hockey leagues in the world. The players don't have to play in the NHL. They can go play wherever they want.
I know that. Still wondering how they are any worse than any other leagues owners. Don't the players get a higher % than any other major sports league? Besides, they are called OWNERS for a reason. They OWN the teams. If the players don't like it, they can go play somewhere else. No one is forcing them to play in the NHL. They play there because it is where they can make the most money and get the best of everything as a professional hockey player.
MLB players got 52% in 2008, I can't find anything more recent and there's been no major CBA changes to indicate that it's much different.
In 2008, this was the lowest of the 4 major sports. If it's still the same, it's going to be the highest when this lockout ends. NBA is essentially a 50/50 split. NFL is between 47-49 depending on factors.
MLB also has, by far, the strongest union and the best working relationship between the players/owners.
MLB players got 52% in 2008, I can't find anything more recent and there's been no major CBA changes to indicate that it's much different.
In 2008, this was the lowest of the 4 major sports. If it's still the same, it's going to be the highest when this lockout ends. NBA is essentially a 50/50 split. NFL is between 47-49 depending on factors.
MLB also has, by far, the strongest union and the best working relationship between the players/owners.
Since you claim it wouldn't be giving up much, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me putting a limit on your earning potential.
There already is unless I change occupations. It's actually questionable how much more I can make with an occupation change. I would probably have to look at my own start up with the intent to sell it. Having said that if my company came up and said "individual salaries are capped at 10 or 12 million". I think you would mostly get a crap load of laughing. Remember before this CBA talk they could get signing bonus's as well. I am not sure what kind of restrictions they are trying to place on that, but with its abuse they are probably going to try and do something with that as well.
Within the company I work for we have pay grades. For my job there is a max pay grade for which I have max salary and max bonus's unless I move over to management (change my pay grade). My benefits are tied to pay grade as well, with a couple of minor exceptions based on years of service. There is also a realistic max for my skill set in the industry as a whole. My salary has already dramatically limited which companies I can even look at if I wish to move on. I would have to look more into jobs that involve more travel in order to increase my salary. Even then there are only a small amount of jobs that would dramatically increase my salary, but they would generally hurt my quality of life.
So yes, there is a salary cap. At least in the company I work for. The benefits of moving to another company are more quality of life than salary and benefit related. That tends to happen when you've been in an industry for 23 years.
Let's no play around with silliness here. We are talking about income that places them in the most wealthy on a global scale. The limits are intended more for competitive balance than anything else. They are not there to oppress the workers. If there wasn't a cap the Rangers would be paying 20 million+ for a Crosby. That would be good for him, not necessarily good for the sport.
What I don't like is the ever increasing restrictions they are trying to impose on player mobility.
Well, seeing as I picked a side, I hope to amuse you with my reasoning.
7 years ago the owners locked the players out until they got exactly what they wanted. It worked, eventually the players caved.
The owners then took that lesson into this year, tossed a lowball offer at the players, then locked them out when they didn't take it. The owners haven't given up anything in this, and why should they. They know no matter what comes out of this, they're getting a better deal than the last CBA. All they have to do is nothing, and they could potentially get an even better deal. They go back to that lowball and claim to actually have made concessions when you compare the current offer to it. When in fact they've gained considerably even if they walk right now with the players proposal.
If the players break again, the circle of lockouts will continue every time a CBA expires. In 7 years will 50/50 be enough? Just lock the players out, wait for their house of cards to fall, and poof, you're at 60/40. Meanwhile the fans have missed another season because the owners know they'll eventually come back.
That's why I'm cheering for the players to find their backbones. I want 7 years from now the deal to be done in July because the owners know they can't just push the players around. I want the players to know they can't push owners around. I want balance so that neither side uses a lockout or a strike to get what they want. I want both sides to respect each other. I want there to be some negotiations, some give and take on both sides, and uninterrupted hockey for the first time in decades.
Lockouts suck.
Strikes suck.
But since we're doing this now, I want the right set of circumstances to happen to hopefully prevent it from happening in the future.
I'm thinking your political beliefs are bleeding over into your side-picking regarding the lockout.
And to be clear, I haven't picked a side. At this point, I'm hopeful that no agreement is EVER reached and that the NHL owners AND players suffer equally. . . . for eternity.
Last edited by jktsfan*: 12-03-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Reason: Wanted to do more than just bash Skraut's political beliefs.
