HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-04-2012, 01:39 PM
  #251
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
So with the 'recess' period falling conveniently over a long weekend... will we see any meetings this week? It seems like the sides don't do Mondays so today would be seen as the Monday so I doubt anything is setup for today. Chance for something tomorrow?

Well at least we have a team... 15 years without hockey, a return of a season and now no hockey for who knows how long.... I guess it's not that bad. Ok ok... it is bad, I wanna watch hockey!

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:20 PM
  #252
allan5oh
#moneypushups
 
allan5oh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,533
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
Not that I disagree with anything you've proposed, but the owners gain a lot from this - players not so much. I think it will take something like this for the owners to agree.
I think the system allows the less well off teams a higher chance to succeed. That's the most important thing right now for the strength of the league. I would say an expansion of the revenue sharing system is also needed, but I know little about the current system.

Quote:
Offer sheets are an interesting item. Current system does favor rich, 'successful' teams and artificially increase salary. See Dustin Penner or Thomas Vanek as examples. The players like this option. Teams rarely use it. If compensation was players or prospects, vs draft picks, would that solve it? Likely not. If cash was involved, team 'losing' player had option of picks plus $x million from 'winning' team - would that be more palatable? Maybe.
I agree, possible items that could be acquired by the "losing" team:

- draft picks
- cap space
- money
- prospects

The losing team should actually have several options here. The problem is how do you put a value on prospects? Strictly by where they were drafted? Who knows.

allan5oh is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 03:53 PM
  #253
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,360
vCash: 500
Lots of solid progress today.

NHLPA countered, apparently did not move much from their first ridiculous offer, but the NHL moved back to old definition of HRR and moved up to 49 sliding down to 47. Still lots of work to be done, but things are progressing better.

Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 04:02 PM
  #254
ps241
Get on board Sip :)
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,945
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Lots of solid progress today.

NHLPA countered, apparently did not move much from their first ridiculous offer, but the NHL moved back to old definition of HRR and moved up to 49 sliding down to 47. Still lots of work to be done, but things are progressing better.
Thanks for the heads up HC

I will have a closer look at the details. Were you saying the owners switched to the old HRR definition then moved from 49% to 47% (players take)?

ps241 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 04:06 PM
  #255
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
Thanks for the heads up HC

I will have a closer look at the details. Were you saying the owners switched to the old HRR definition then moved from 49% to 47% (players take)?
Yeah. Here's the TSN article...
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405101

Quote:
Meanwhile, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said that the league saw little change from Players' Association's previous proposals.

"There wasn't much movement at all [from the new proposal], if any," he told reporters shortly after Fehr spoke.
There is no confirmation on the new/old HRR definitions, but it is being thrown around in the BoH thread that the NHL reverted to the old HRR definition, which is a HUGE step in the right direction. I think that that was what this was referring to...

Quote:
Bettman told reporters that the league told the PA on Wednesday that some elements of the latest counter-proposal will be off the table once the current CBA expires on Saturday night.
Here's the details we have so far about the new NHL counter-offer

Quote:
TSN Insider Pierre LeBrun estimates that the players' escrow contributions under the new deal would come in at 9.7 percent.

The NHL's counter-proposal today was six years in length and offered to start players' share of hockey-related revenue at 49 percent and end it at 47 percent by the end of the term

Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 05:21 PM
  #256
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
I don't like that they're discussing the content of these offers. That tells me that aren't serious about negotiating. When you're serious, you negotiate behind closed doors and it stays behind closed doors.

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 05:25 PM
  #257
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Why do I get the feeling that if we get into a lockout, the players will end up with 43% and the owners with 57%. If not, worse.

Man, it would be nice to get a deal but I'm still not feeling it... Fehr may end up costing the players a ton of money.

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 05:50 PM
  #258
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,215
vCash: 500
I know why they do it... but it's still annoying how news interviewers will repeat the same question carefully reworded when they don't get the answer they want.

garret9 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 05:59 PM
  #259
HPsauce
Registered User
 
HPsauce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 455
vCash: 500
Both sides are aware of the damage a lockout will do to the game.

Someone will blink.

HPsauce is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:05 PM
  #260
mzappa
Jets fans in space
 
mzappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,054
vCash: 50
Fehr's comments sure sound like he's ready to go to war. So much for compromise.

mzappa is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:45 PM
  #261
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzappa View Post
Fehr's comments sure sound like he's ready to go to war. So much for compromise.
The problem imo ss that the players want a 'better" deal and to gain ground whereas historic trend (nfl and nba) would say the beat they can hope for is mitigated losses. Fehr is approaching this with a non negotiable that is too far from the precedent to come off as anything short of unreasonable.

The fact that the nhl wont play under the current cba should make it obvious that a reduction in salary is non negotiable in their eyes.

The fact that the nhl has come considerably from there albeit ghastly initial offer and the pa has stood pat has dedinitly pushed.me 100 percent to the owners side.

Grind is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:48 PM
  #262
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,264
vCash: 500
Id say more and more coherently butbid rathernot subjecr youball to that much "grindphone'

Grind is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 07:48 PM
  #263
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
The problem imo ss that the players want a 'better" deal and to gain ground whereas historic trend (nfl and nba) would say the beat they can hope for is mitigated losses. Fehr is approaching this with a non negotiable that is too far from the precedent to come off as anything short of unreasonable.

The fact that the nhl wont play under the current cba should make it obvious that a reduction in salary is non negotiable in their eyes.

The fact that the nhl has come considerably from there albeit ghastly initial offer and the pa has stood pat has dedinitly pushed.me 100 percent to the owners side.
I think I agree... If I'm guessing what you mean correctly.
While idealistically neither have changed their positions, only the owners have been open to negotiating on the framework of I give/you give.

garret9 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 07:50 PM
  #264
YWGinYYZ
Global Moderator
.
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
I think I agree... If I'm guessing what you mean.
While idealistically neither have changed their positions, only the owners have been open to negotiating on the framework of I give/you give.
The main problem IMHO, is that they're bargaining off of TWO frameworks, and neither will budge and concede that they have to bargain off of one.

PS: Dreger and McKenzie say it's official - Saturday starts the lockout.

YWGinYYZ is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 08:17 PM
  #265
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 33,560
vCash: 216
I (and anout half of hf i think) said the second Fehr was hired the NHL was doomed with a work stoppage
Looks like it is about to come true


Last edited by King Woodballs: 09-12-2012 at 09:47 PM.
King Woodballs is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 09:43 PM
  #266
sully1410
#BandOfBeavers
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,905
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
The main problem IMHO, is that they're bargaining off of TWO frameworks, and neither will budge and concede that they have to bargain off of one.

PS: Dreger and McKenzie say it's official - Saturday starts the lockout.
Only owners to vote against it apparently was the Habs the Leafs and the Sens. I totally thought True North was against it.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 09:45 PM
  #267
sully1410
#BandOfBeavers
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,905
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Lots of solid progress today.

NHLPA countered, apparently did not move much from their first ridiculous offer, but the NHL moved back to old definition of HRR and moved up to 49 sliding down to 47. Still lots of work to be done, but things are progressing better.
This makes me feel better, but the players are pissing me off.

I wonder if Phoenix can even survive a lockout.

Not to mention the Oilers and Flames that may still have to pay their players if they cannot lock out in the province.

Habs will be fine.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 09:56 PM
  #268
Skidooboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
The problem imo ss that the players want a 'better" deal and to gain ground whereas historic trend (nfl and nba) would say the beat they can hope for is mitigated losses. Fehr is approaching this with a non negotiable that is too far from the precedent to come off as anything short of unreasonable.

The fact that the nhl wont play under the current cba should make it obvious that a reduction in salary is non negotiable in their eyes.

The fact that the nhl has come considerably from there albeit ghastly initial offer and the pa has stood pat has dedinitly pushed.me 100 percent to the owners side.
How can you be on the owners side? seriously?

Bettman threw a hardcap date with a lockout as the first tactic used to negotiate. A lockout should be the last resort not the opening salvo.

Also if the owners are gonna run around and pay front loaded 100 million dollar deals, while crowing about thier extra BILLION DOLLARS revenue they got last time, the whole while playing games in Arizona when solid ownership groups in viable markets beg for teams(QC,Southern Ont. Kansas)??????!!!!!!!!

While also holding city after city after city hostage to thier incredulouse demands for more and more and bigger and better and more expensive arenas,...it boggles my mind.

I'm not saying the players are angels, but seriously if soimeone offered you 100 mil i bet youd take it. so if there is to be any change in Hockey the owners need to quit being 2 faced. They jump from telling us fans and the players "Hockey is a business" to blackballing potential owners/cities from owning teams whenever they want. either it's a business and money talks or it's a club witth a restricted membership, It can't be both.

Skidooboy is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:26 PM
  #269
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,832
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
Only owners to vote against it apparently was the Habs the Leafs and the Sens. I totally thought True North was against it.
True North may be against the lockout, but they may be under peer pressure to go with it, as they're the new kids on the block. They have the right stuff, but this lockout only benefits them in the long run if the owners can carve back some of the player's salaries. With the bulk of TNSE's profit margin tied to the strength of the dollar, any money they can save would be a good thing.

DespoticNewt is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:29 PM
  #270
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,832
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
How can you be on the owners side? seriously?

Bettman threw a hardcap date with a lockout as the first tactic used to negotiate. A lockout should be the last resort not the opening salvo.

Also if the owners are gonna run around and pay front loaded 100 million dollar deals, while crowing about thier extra BILLION DOLLARS revenue they got last time, the whole while playing games in Arizona when solid ownership groups in viable markets beg for teams(QC,Southern Ont. Kansas)??????!!!!!!!!

While also holding city after city after city hostage to thier incredulouse demands for more and more and bigger and better and more expensive arenas,...it boggles my mind.

I'm not saying the players are angels, but seriously if soimeone offered you 100 mil i bet youd take it. so if there is to be any change in Hockey the owners need to quit being 2 faced. They jump from telling us fans and the players "Hockey is a business" to blackballing potential owners/cities from owning teams whenever they want. either it's a business and money talks or it's a club witth a restricted membership, It can't be both.
There are no angels in this, but the PA has been dragging their feet on this thing for months. Apparently, the NHL asked the PA to sit down and hammer out a new CBA as far back as last Nov, but they said not while they're still playing. They tried again in April, to the same effect. It wasn't until July when they got together, and it took a FULL ****ING MONTH for the PA to counter with their offer.

The owners need to smarten the **** up, but the NHLPA isn't helping matters at all.

DespoticNewt is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:33 PM
  #271
ps241
Get on board Sip :)
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,945
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410 View Post
Only owners to vote against it apparently was the Habs the Leafs and the Sens. I totally thought True North was against it.
Really the Sens??? Wasn't Melnyk claiming he lost a few million dollars a while back? I have to say that one really surprises me? Toronto....sure yea.....Montreal.....yup, but Ottawa??

TNSE would be team players on this one and I am sure they get this is a once in a 6 to 10 year shot to set the table going forward. Right now things are dandy but its a slippery slope and no way you give up the shot to trade 2 or 3 months of hockey for a more favourable new deal IMHO.

ps241 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:37 PM
  #272
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,668
vCash: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by DespoticNewt View Post
True North may be against the lockout, but they may be under peer pressure to go with it, as they're the new kids on the block. They have the right stuff, but this lockout only benefits them in the long run if the owners can carve back some of the player's salaries. With the bulk of TNSE's profit margin tied to the strength of the dollar, any money they can save would be a good thing.
The last thing True North will do is rock the boat. They just got to join the club. Besides the more owner friendly the next CBA is, the better it is for the Jets...I can live with a lockout if it helps ensure the long term survival of the Jets in Winnipeg.

KingBogo is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:54 PM
  #273
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,542
vCash: 500
The players are deluded if they think they're going to win if it goes to a lockout. Every month, they lose a quarter billion dollars in salary. If they miss the whole season, most of them will never make it back. 10%-15% are probably losing out on 100% of their future earnings if they miss this year (guys retiring or cut next season because there are younger/better players ready to step in), another 10-15% miss out on 50% of their earnings (guys out after 2013-14), another 10-15% lose 33% (done after 2014-15). So there's 30-45% of the current NHLPA that lose big the longer a lockout drags on. Basically half the players are better off settling for anything better than a 32% rollback and avoiding a lockout. But when you spend your teens riding a bus between Swift Current and Lethbridge, you probably don't devote the time to math that's necessary to puzzle this out. Easier to listen to the guys in the suits, I guess.

Gm0ney is online now  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:01 PM
  #274
Jet
Moderator
Band of Beavers
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Whipanegg
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,480
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Id say more and more coherently butbid rathernot subjecr youball to that much "grindphone'
Grind HOF post right there!

__________________
Band Of Beavers
Jet is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 11:41 PM
  #275
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidooboy View Post
How can you be on the owners side? seriously?

Bettman threw a hardcap date with a lockout as the first tactic used to negotiate. A lockout should be the last resort not the opening salvo.

Also if the owners are gonna run around and pay front loaded 100 million dollar deals, while crowing about thier extra BILLION DOLLARS revenue they got last time, the whole while playing games in Arizona when solid ownership groups in viable markets beg for teams(QC,Southern Ont. Kansas)??????!!!!!!!!

While also holding city after city after city hostage to thier incredulouse demands for more and more and bigger and better and more expensive arenas,...it boggles my mind.

I'm not saying the players are angels, but seriously if soimeone offered you 100 mil i bet youd take it. so if there is to be any change in Hockey the owners need to quit being 2 faced. They jump from telling us fans and the players "Hockey is a business" to blackballing potential owners/cities from owning teams whenever they want. either it's a business and money talks or it's a club witth a restricted membership, It can't be both.
While I'm more of a "they both need to make comprimises pool" I will tell you why you could take those points and still be on the owners side:

Actually I'll just summarize cos it will take a lot to explain it all. If you go to nhlnumbers.com there have been many good articles that have shown that:
The losing $$ owners have been exponentially increasing in losing money
The owners who spend more do consist of a larger percentage of the teams who go into the playoffs
The UFA system is controlled by supply and demand and other qualities of free markets; ie: it isn't an option for them to not attempt to make the contract decisions they make.

Also with the hardcap for lockout: it was to show how they wouldn't play with the old cba which was what Fehr wanted/asked for. Most speculate because Fehr wanted a late strike to shift the power to the players.

garret9 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 03:14 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.