HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Notices

2012 CBA & Re-alignment: Lockout in Effect. Thanks Gary/Donald! PART II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2012, 03:28 PM
  #426
Jonjmc
Registered User
 
Jonjmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
How is it a BS proposal? Any contracts signed under the new CBA go to 50%.

Are you saying in five years there will be no new contracts signed?

I severly doubt that happens.

And again, what concessions are the owners offering the players for dropping to 50/50?

I haven't seen any.

Funny how the owners having to honor the contracts they signed is BS, but forcing the players to drop 7% of their share, with no concessions from the owners is somehow not BS?
Jiggy, I have a question for you. Want to see if you think this is reasonable since you are putting forth the ethical angle.

First, I think all growth projections at this point are far too optimistic given the damage already done to the images of the league and players. But for the sake of my question, I'll go with the league/players projections.

Lets say all current contracts are honored, and just for the sake of argument the players real percentages for the first 3 years are 56, 53, and 51. Since the players seem to philosophically agree that 50/50 is an acceptable end point, would you find it morally or ethically acceptable to tack 3 years onto the CBA of 49, 47 and 44% to compensate for the owners honoring the contracts at the beginning of the CBA?

Making it a 9 year CBA of.... 56,53,51,50,50,50,49,47,44.

I just made it a bell curve for purpose of illustration and obviously if revenue does grow at 5% or more those ending percentages could be higher, but I'm just looking for a moral acceptance or rejection.

Jonjmc is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 04:08 PM
  #427
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
a) For one, because P3 was by far the most complicated of the proposals and I didn't have the full accounting until the following afternoon
If it was so complicated, maybe Fehr should have, I don't know, written something down or possibly done the math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
b) Secondly, that proposal had by far the least chance of gaining any traction and was really more a response to the owners' "make whole" provision than anything
Then it sounds like, as per normal, it wasn't a serious proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
c) Fehr and the PA never claimed the deal was 50-50 immediately. It was 50-50 on new contracts immediately. Obvious that's how it functions
Well that's sure as hell not what the media was reporting. The words "50/50 split" and "immediately" were used in every article I read.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 04:38 PM
  #428
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonjmc View Post
Jiggy, I have a question for you. Want to see if you think this is reasonable since you are putting forth the ethical angle.

First, I think all growth projections at this point are far too optimistic given the damage already done to the images of the league and players. But for the sake of my question, I'll go with the league/players projections.

Lets say all current contracts are honored, and just for the sake of argument the players real percentages for the first 3 years are 56, 53, and 51. Since the players seem to philosophically agree that 50/50 is an acceptable end point, would you find it morally or ethically acceptable to tack 3 years onto the CBA of 49, 47 and 44% to compensate for the owners honoring the contracts at the beginning of the CBA?

Making it a 9 year CBA of.... 56,53,51,50,50,50,49,47,44.

I just made it a bell curve for purpose of illustration and obviously if revenue does grow at 5% or more those ending percentages could be higher, but I'm just looking for a moral acceptance or rejection.
That's a tough one Jon....

I think the owners should be ecstatic if they get to keep their cap, have it be a split deal on all future contracts AND without any concessions to the players. But that isn't enough for them and I find that behavior unethical.

I honestly have no reason to side with the players, and if they were asking for say, 60% of HRR, I'd be eating them alive.

My biggest problem is they are being told you have to give up 7% of HRR, but in return you get nothing. Some of these guys lost a years worth of their salary to fight the cap, which they couldn't do, but they agreed to 57% as the trade off. Of course with that came escrow as well.

Now they are being forced to give up that 57% they fought for, but they don't even get lower UFA rights or anything as the trade off. People want to argue how they need to do it to help struggling teams, but the reality is the big market teams will bank even more now from these givebacks.

The players have even said, fine, we will help you out and go to 50/50 with all new contracts moving fwd, but just honor our contracts. And people are pissed at them... It is mind boggling to me.

I love the NHL, but not enough to lie to myself about what's right and wrong. Call it my high horse like the one poster did, but thinking a signed contract should be honored with the intent it was signed, is far from some other worldly ethical standard.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:20 PM
  #429
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Funny how the owners having to honor the contracts they signed is BS, but forcing the players to drop 7% of their share, with no concessions from the owners is somehow not BS?
You keep bringing this point up, but it's a little bit off the mark. Under the old CBA, players were in no way, size, shape, or form guaranteed 100% of the stated value of their contract. When I sign a contract for $8.7M (you didn't know I'm actually Sidney Crosby, did you?), that $8.7M is actually an approximated figure based on projected league revenue. My actual salary gets adjusted upwards or downwards via escrow depending on actual revenue. So when the players are demanding that the full value of their old contracts be honored, this is a new demand that is in no way based on the previous CBA. And it would, in fact, be a major concession on the part of the owners.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:29 PM
  #430
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
My biggest problem is they are being told you have to give up 7% of HRR, but in return you get nothing. Some of these guys lost a years worth of their salary to fight the cap, which they couldn't do, but they agreed to 57% as the trade off. Of course with that came escrow as well.

Now they are being forced to give up that 57% they fought for, but they don't even get lower UFA rights or anything as the trade off. People want to argue how they need to do it to help struggling teams, but the reality is the big market teams will bank even more now from these givebacks.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the PA has refused to negotiate on these issues. The owners told Fehr they were willing to work on and adjust their most recent offer. But none of the PA's offers have addressed anything other than the revenue split. I fail to see how the players can claim to be getting nothing back from the owners when they steadfastly refuse to negotiate on those issues.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:50 PM
  #431
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
You keep bringing this point up, but it's a little bit off the mark. Under the old CBA, players were in no way, size, shape, or form guaranteed 100% of the stated value of their contract. When I sign a contract for $8.7M (you didn't know I'm actually Sidney Crosby, did you?), that $8.7M is actually an approximated figure based on projected league revenue. My actual salary gets adjusted upwards or downwards via escrow depending on actual revenue. So when the players are demanding that the full value of their old contracts be honored, this is a new demand that is in no way based on the previous CBA. And it would, in fact, be a major concession on the part of the owners.
I'm quite aware of the legal language that allows them to screw the players over. The players didn't have to accept escrow as part of the agreement in the last CBA but again, they did. People love to overlook this concession they made to help protect the owners. The NFL doesn't have escrow in any manner, just they legislate their cap better to help remove risk.

The big point here is that the owners are artificially lowering the percentage to get rollbacks, not the marketplace. This is a choice and one I feel is highly unethical.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:59 PM
  #432
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the PA has refused to negotiate on these issues. The owners told Fehr they were willing to work on and adjust their most recent offer. But none of the PA's offers have addressed anything other than the revenue split. I fail to see how the players can claim to be getting nothing back from the owners when they steadfastly refuse to negotiate on those issues.
The owners told Fehr this is their best offer, but it could include "minor" tweaks. I can't see any minor tweak being enough of a concession to justify taking 7% of the player's HRR.

Then they take away the previously bargained UFA, arbitration rights etc so they can give them right back and say those are their "concessions". How much BS is that? Anyone with half a brain could see that is a total rim job.

And going back to the previous post using Crosby as an example, how anyone can justify taking more money from this guy? He easily gave up 50m over the life of his deal to help the team, now he is being rewarded with a rollback?

The fact is there are tons of players who took hometown discounts and this is how they get treated?

I don't care if they are multi-millionaires or not, that is ****ed up, sorry.

Honor the contracts and man up. Or at least take half of the burden. Stop putting it all on the players to "repay themselves". Brutal.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 07:34 PM
  #433
Til the End of Time
Registered User
 
Til the End of Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The owners told Fehr this is their best offer, but it could include "minor" tweaks. I can't see any minor tweak being enough of a concession to justify taking 7% of the player's HRR.

Then they take away the previously bargained UFA, arbitration rights etc so they can give them right back and say those are their "concessions". How much BS is that? Anyone with half a brain could see that is a total rim job.

And going back to the previous post using Crosby as an example, how anyone can justify taking more money from this guy? He easily gave up 50m over the life of his deal to help the team, now he is being rewarded with a rollback?

The fact is there are tons of players who took hometown discounts and this is how they get treated?

I don't care if they are multi-millionaires or not, that is ****ed up, sorry.

Honor the contracts and man up. Or at least take half of the burden. Stop putting it all on the players to "repay themselves". Brutal.
in the past year, millions of americans have been told to take a lower salary or get fired. millions more have simply been fired. factoring in inflation, the average household median income has been declining for several years in the us. the official unemployment rate in the us is 7.8%-- factoring in folks that have stopped looking for work or are underemployed, the picture is even bleaker. currently about 15% of americans live beneath the poverty line.

if the best argument you can make for the players is that they are getting an "unfair" deal, then well... good luck with that. i doubt you or the players will find much sympathy.

i watch sports for escapism, i dont care if the players eff the owners, or the owners eff the players. morals and ethics mean little to me in sports, particularly when it comes to salaries.

Til the End of Time is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 07:36 PM
  #434
Wes C Addle
Mookie Blaylock
 
Wes C Addle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Allentown, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,000
vCash: 500
A question for those who have been following the details of all the offers closer than I have: Is there actually anything at all that the owners are conceding to the players in these proposals? It seems like all the major topics like % of HRR, contract lengths, UFA age are all in favor of the owners. What is going back the other way? Anything?

Wes C Addle is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 08:06 PM
  #435
Til the End of Time
Registered User
 
Til the End of Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Do you honestly believe they are going to give in because of what you think?

Most players are spouting off more out of frustration, than worrying about what the fans think.
public opinion will not make or break a deal, but it's obviously of some importance to both sides.

that's why the nhlpa is releasing cheesy videos like the one with sid, toews, and backes, and thats also why the owners have brought on board republican strategist frank luntz.

its certainly not the biggest issue at play, but both sides are trying win the PR battle and cull sympathy for their side.

it's curious that someone who has claimed to have conducted such "extensive research" into these matters would be unfamiliar with the notion of public relations.

Til the End of Time is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:09 PM
  #436
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
in the past year, millions of americans have been told to take a lower salary or get fired. millions more have simply been fired. factoring in inflation, the average household median income has been declining for several years in the us. the official unemployment rate in the us is 7.8%-- factoring in folks that have stopped looking for work or are underemployed, the picture is even bleaker. currently about 15% of americans live beneath the poverty line.

if the best argument you can make for the players is that they are getting an "unfair" deal, then well... good luck with that. i doubt you or the players will find much sympathy.

i watch sports for escapism, i dont care if the players eff the owners, or the owners eff the players. morals and ethics mean little to me in sports, particularly when it comes to salaries.
You continue to bring the economic climate into this. Again, do you think if the players take a cut, it goes to the disadvantaged? The unemployed? The homeless? No, it goes into the pocket of billionaires.

Read that a few times until it really sinks in.

When it finally sinks in, then you will see things just as the players do.

If it never sinks in, it still won't change what they think.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:24 PM
  #437
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
public opinion will not make or break a deal, but it's obviously of some importance to both sides.

that's why the nhlpa is releasing cheesy videos like the one with sid, toews, and backes, and thats also why the owners have brought on board republican strategist frank luntz.

its certainly not the biggest issue at play, but both sides are trying win the PR battle and cull sympathy for their side.

it's curious that someone who has claimed to have conducted such "extensive research" into these matters would be unfamiliar with the notion of public relations.
If you had done even "five minutes of research" on the subject you would know the players got absolutely pummeled in the PR war in 04-05.

Maybe you missed the part where they held out for an entire year and we lost a whole season. The players finally fractured because of finances, not public opinion. I didn't see them succumb to the barrage of negative PR for a year.

That's another thing maybe you should read over a few more times the next time you believe your opinion matters to the players.


Last edited by Mr Jiggyfly: 10-20-2012 at 10:43 PM. Reason: Because iPhones are made for ppl with small fingers
Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:22 PM
  #438
Til the End of Time
Registered User
 
Til the End of Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You continue to bring the economic climate into this. Again, do you think if the players take a cut, it goes to the disadvantaged? The unemployed? The homeless? No, it goes into the pocket of billionaires.

Read that a few times until it really sinks in.

When it finally sinks in, then you will see things just as the players do.

If it never sinks in, it still won't change what they think.
of course i bring the economic realities into this. you were the one that said you cannot support the owners because of your "morals" and "ethics" because as you explained, the players were unfairly treated in the last cba and would continue to receive a raw deal with this latest offering by bettman and co.

and it has been my point that the vast majority of fans do not care about the "fairness" of the cba, particularly in light of the financial struggles faced by the average worker. with regards to the players and owners, i do not care which side screws the other side. you are the one that brought your morals and ethics into this debate, to which i say (as do most fans), we dont care.

i'm not sure what your point is about this money not going to the poor. i never suggested anything remotely about that, just that your pity party for the players won't resonate with many folks.

if your best argument in favor of the nhlpa is that they got screwed last time and that bettman is an evil liar, then you will not be bringing many folks to your side. life isnt fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
If you had done even "five minutes of research" on the subject you would know the players got absolutely pummeled in the PR war in 04-05.

Maybe you missed the part where they held out for an entire year and we lost a whole season. The players finally fractured because of finances, not public opinion. I didn't see them succumb to the barrage of negative PR for a year.

That's another thing maybe you should read over a few more times the next time you believe your opinion matters to the players.
i genuinely dont know if you are purposely are being obstinate or misread what i said. i said that the PR battle is of "some importance" and "would not make or break a deal." at not point did i explicitly say or even remotely imply that the previous lockout ended due to public pressure or that this lockout would end due to the fans.

tell me, if the players weren't trying to garner sympathy, what then was the point of this video? its quite apparent to me.


Til the End of Time is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 01:19 AM
  #439
WickedWrister
Registered User
 
WickedWrister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,766
vCash: 500
That video is irrelevant

WickedWrister is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 08:56 AM
  #440
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
of course i bring the economic realities into this. you were the one that said you cannot support the owners because of your "morals" and "ethics" because as you explained, the players were unfairly treated in the last cba and would continue to receive a raw deal with this latest offering by bettman and co.

and it has been my point that the vast majority of fans do not care about the "fairness" of the cba, particularly in light of the financial struggles faced by the average worker. with regards to the players and owners, i do not care which side screws the other side. you are the one that brought your morals and ethics into this debate, to which i say (as do most fans), we dont care.

i'm not sure what your point is about this money not going to the poor. i never suggested anything remotely about that, just that your pity party for the players won't resonate with many folks.

if your best argument in favor of the nhlpa is that they got screwed last time and that bettman is an evil liar, then you will not be bringing many folks to your side. life isnt fair.
It's funny and a little sad this keeps going over your head...

I said "this is why I support the players", then mentioned that ethically I feel ppl should honor a contract signed in good faith. If you have different morals and ethics, that is your deal, and frankly not my problem.

I then had a separate argument as to why the players are upset and don't really care what you think.

If you can't make the connection that they know their concessions will simply add to billionaires' wealth and do absolutely nothing to help Joe Avg on the street, that is again your misguided philosophy, not theirs.

Quote:
i genuinely dont know if you are purposely are being obstinate or misread what i said. i said that the PR battle is of "some importance" and "would not make or break a deal." at not point did i explicitly say or even remotely imply that the previous lockout ended due to public pressure or that this lockout would end due to the fans.

tell me, if the players weren't trying to garner sympathy, what then was the point of this video? its quite apparent to me.

Your business savvy seems incredibly lacking, so it obviously has to be explained to you that every ounce of propaganda coming from the PA isn't in fact because they actually care what we think, but to get the fans and the media to turn on the owners and put more pressure on them to do a deal quickly. They only have so much leverage, so trying to win the PR battle is a small part of that. No amount of fan pressure will ever sway the players.

Did you think Crosby and Malkin were worried you wouldn't invite them over for Saturday night poker in your basement anymore?

Both sides use the media and PR campaigns for posturing, and to create fear and anger on the other side.

If both sides actually cared about our opinion, this deal would of been done quite some time ago, especially when everyone knew many months ago the fair deal could be to use a sliding scale of percentages.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 10:54 AM
  #441
Fogel
Analytics please
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NoVa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,390
vCash: 500
If you wanted to see some numbers crunched, take a look here

Fogel is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 11:44 AM
  #442
Til the End of Time
Registered User
 
Til the End of Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
It's funny and a little sad this keeps going over your head...

I said "this is why I support the players", then mentioned that ethically I feel ppl should honor a contract signed in good faith. If you have different morals and ethics, that is your deal, and frankly not my problem.

I then had a separate argument as to why the players are upset and don't really care what you think.

If you can't make the connection that they know their concessions will simply add to billionaires' wealth and do absolutely nothing to help Joe Avg on the street, that is again your misguided philosophy, not theirs.



Your business savvy seems incredibly lacking, so it obviously has to be explained to you that every ounce of propaganda coming from the PA isn't in fact because they actually care what we think, but to get the fans and the media to turn on the owners and put more pressure on them to do a deal quickly. They only have so much leverage, so trying to win the PR battle is a small part of that. No amount of fan pressure will ever sway the players.

Did you think Crosby and Malkin were worried you wouldn't invite them over for Saturday night poker in your basement anymore?

Both sides use the media and PR campaigns for posturing, and to create fear and anger on the other side.

If both sides actually cared about our opinion, this deal would of been done quite some time ago, especially when everyone knew many months ago the fair deal could be to use a sliding scale of percentages.
you are continuing to misrepresent what i am saying.

of course the players (or owners for that matter) don't genuinely care what the fans think. their videos and tweets and hiring of GOP strategists are efforts to sway the fans to their side ("garner sympathy"), which may ultimately play a small role in cba negotiations.

so yes, on some level, the players and owners do "care" about our opinion, insofar as it benefits their pocketbooks.

trying to misconstrue my point as "sid crosby cares about me," is extremely simplistic and really adds nothing of substance to this discussion.

this bring us back to my original point, which is that this entire thing is driven by greed on both sides. to claim one side possess moral superiority (bettman is a liar, players got screwed last time, they are getting an unfair deal, pity them), as you have done, doesnt resonate with myself or most fans. they are all greedy people.

so rather than rooting for a side based on "who screwed who," i am with the side that will benefit the penguins, which, based on past history and current proposals, is the owners.

Til the End of Time is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 02:16 PM
  #443
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
you are continuing to misrepresent what i am saying.

of course the players (or owners for that matter) don't genuinely care what the fans think. their videos and tweets and hiring of GOP strategists are efforts to sway the fans to their side ("garner sympathy"), which may ultimately play a small role in cba negotiations.

so yes, on some level, the players and owners do "care" about our opinion, insofar as it benefits their pocketbooks.

trying to misconstrue my point as "sid crosby cares about me," is extremely simplistic and really adds nothing of substance to this discussion.
You call it a "misrepresentation" and I call it a reality check. You spouted off about the economic problems of Joe Avg and how you won't give the players your sympathy, as if they are asking you to feel sorry for them. Please.

Trying to bring the economic climate into this discussion is simply your inability to grasp that this isn't about you or Joe Avg, it is about the players and the owners. Nothing more.

The players know this is the business side of things and many have said exactly that. They aren't asking anyone to feel sorry for them (aside from one player's drunken stupidity). They are simply explaining their side of the fence.

Any PR propaganda is simply used as a pressure tactic.

Quote:
this bring us back to my original point, which is that this entire thing is driven by greed on both sides. to claim one side possess moral superiority (bettman is a liar, players got screwed last time, they are getting an unfair deal, pity them), as you have done, doesnt resonate with myself or most fans. they are all greedy people.

so rather than rooting for a side based on "who screwed who," i am with the side that will benefit the penguins, which, based on past history and current proposals, is the owners.
If you theoretically held a middle management position for a company and made say, 100k a year, the avg person would consider that a nice income. If your company lost money last year and your CEO decided to cut your salary 12%, while he and all of upper mgmt (the ones responsible for all major decisions, the ones making millions, with stock options), took no cuts, would you be pissed off?

I'll cut through the back and forth banter, you would furious. Some guy making 25k a year sucking up your septic tank, wouldn't feel too badly for you. But would that matter to you, of course not. You would still be pissed off and not give a damn about the opinion of the guy who removes your **** (eventhough you do need his services).

The players gave the owners their cap, a 24% rollback, and even agreed to escrow (they didn't have to). Another big concession people overlook was that true signing bonuses were done away with as well. To give you an idea of what they lost with this concession, a guy like Chris Gratton got a 9m signing bonus in 97 when he signed with the Flyers. Think about how ridiculous that is.

In return the players got the age of UFA lowered from 32 to 27, a sliding scale of HRR, ie 54% if revenue reached 1.8b and capped at 57% if it reached 2.7b or beyond. They also were suppose to have been given guaranteed contracts for all of their concessions, but as we are finding out now, the owners aren't men of their word. If they still had signing bonuses, at least they would of been paid a big portion of their salary upfront, you know, so the owners couldn't steal back what they promised.

So maybe you are too blind to get why the players are livid, but as I keep saying, they really don't give a **** what you think.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 02:22 PM
  #444
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,196
vCash: 500
@Real_ESPNLeBrun

Spoke with a team exec who says there's either a labor deal this week or there's no season. Not sure it's that clear-cut but who knows..

Heh.

And this from Daly today:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407855

But with just days remaining to strike a new collective bargaining agreement and preserve an 82-game schedule, deputy commissioner Bill Daly indicated that he felt there was a deal to be made.

Asked on Sunday whether there was a chance for the sides to get something in place by Thursday's deadline, Daly responded by saying "that's more of a question for the union than it is for me."

"We think there's a framework of a deal on the table," he added.


Last edited by SidTheKid8787: 10-21-2012 at 02:51 PM.
SidTheKid8787 is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 03:09 PM
  #445
Til the End of Time
Registered User
 
Til the End of Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 6,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You call it a "misrepresentation" and I call it a reality check. You spouted off about the economic problems of Joe Avg and how you won't give the players your sympathy, as if they are asking you to feel sorry for them. Please.

Trying to bring the economic climate into this discussion is simply your inability to grasp that this isn't about you or Joe Avg, it is about the players and the owners. Nothing more.

The players know this is the business side of things and many have said exactly that. They aren't asking anyone to feel sorry for them (aside from one player's drunken stupidity). They are simply explaining their side of the fence.

Any PR propaganda is simply used as a pressure tactic.



If you theoretically held a middle management position for a company and made say, 100k a year, the avg person would consider that a nice income. If your company lost money last year and your CEO decided to cut your salary 12%, while he and all of upper mgmt (the ones responsible for all major decisions, the ones making millions, with stock options), took no cuts, would you be pissed off?

I'll cut through the back and forth banter, you would furious. Some guy making 25k a year sucking up your septic tank, wouldn't feel too badly for you. But would that matter to you, of course not. You would still be pissed off and not give a damn about the opinion of the guy who removes your **** (eventhough you do need his services).

The players gave the owners their cap, a 24% rollback, and even agreed to escrow (they didn't have to). Another big concession people overlook was that true signing bonuses were done away with as well. To give you an idea of what they lost with this concession, a guy like Chris Gratton got a 9m signing bonus in 97 when he signed with the Flyers. Think about how ridiculous that is.

In return the players got the age of UFA lowered from 32 to 27, a sliding scale of HRR, ie 54% if revenue reached 1.8b and capped at 57% if it reached 2.7b or beyond. They also were suppose to have been given guaranteed contracts for all of their concessions, but as we are finding out now, the owners aren't men of their word. If they still had signing bonuses, at least they would of been paid a big portion of their salary upfront, you know, so the owners couldn't steal back what they promised.

So maybe you are too blind to get why the players are livid, but as I keep saying, they really don't give a **** what you think.
this conversation is boring and stale.

i say the players care what the fans think, slightly, in the hopes that public opinion will be on their side and perhaps ultimately aid in the players getting a more favorable deal. you say PR is used as a "pressure tactic" and simply the players explaining their side. whatever, it's semantics at this point.

to the bolded, sure i would me mad. but that's not a unique situation. plenty of companies have been losing money and cutting jobs/salaries, while the higher ups take home big pay days. it's happening all over the place. it's not much different than the golden parachutes that received so much press.

so yes, the players can be mad. you just shouldnt expect many people to care.

Til the End of Time is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 04:07 PM
  #446
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
this conversation is boring and stale.
That tends to happen when you have to be told the same things over and over, in different ways.

You know what is really stale and boring, all of the people attacking the players with no real substance behind their "arguments".

All these ppl say the same thing... The players make too much... The owners aren't making money, etc. then ignore the fact a number of teams are making money hand over fist and the owners have offered zero concessions. Zero, as in none, as in zilch. Then the comeback is... Well "they already make millions" so they are greedy.

So it's ok to do things that are wrong to ppl that are rich, even if the people doing it to them are wealthy to. Sound logic.

Quote:
i say the players care what the fans think, slightly, in the hopes that public opinion will be on their side and perhaps ultimately aid in the players getting a more favorable deal. you say PR is used as a "pressure tactic" and simply the players explaining their side. whatever, it's semantics at this point.

to the bolded, sure i would me mad. but that's not a unique situation. plenty of companies have been losing money and cutting jobs/salaries, while the higher ups take home big pay days. it's happening all over the place. it's not much different than the golden parachutes that received so much press.

so yes, the players can be mad. you just shouldnt expect many people to care.
I told you at least three times, just because ppl don't care, doesn't make the problem go away.

If ppl didn't care, they wouldn't be posting on this board suggesting that. So there is posturing going on here as well. At least I admitted I will come back no matter what and am trying to understand both sides stance... Yet all I have seen is one side being unreasonable in what they are asking for.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 04:50 PM
  #447
MrBurgundy*
Time to move forward
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: GlassCase of Emotion
Country: United States
Posts: 16,896
vCash: 500
I swear, you guys are making this thread unreadable.

Jiggy, I love your opinions, but you literally can never admit when you are wrong or at the very least see the other side of an argument.

MrBurgundy* is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 05:18 PM
  #448
WickedWrister
Registered User
 
WickedWrister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,766
vCash: 500
Labor negotiations seem to bring out the worst in people. This message board is no exception.

WickedWrister is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:13 PM
  #449
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBurgundy View Post
I swear, you guys are making this thread unreadable.

Jiggy, I love your opinions, but you literally can never admit when you are wrong or at the very least see the other side of an argument.
TTOT and I have been going at it for almost ten yrs on here. We never get butt hurt over our arguments. If you don't like it, use the ignore feature.

I know I hurt your feelings in the prospect thread the other day by disagreeing with you. It happens. Sorry I didn't see your side of the argument and tell you how right you were.

Ill keep that in mind next time, I promise.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-21-2012, 07:24 PM
  #450
MrBurgundy*
Time to move forward
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: GlassCase of Emotion
Country: United States
Posts: 16,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
TTOT and I have been going at it for almost ten yrs on here. We never get butt hurt over our arguments. If you don't like it, use the ignore feature.

I know I hurt your feelings in the prospect thread the other day by disagreeing with you. It happens. Sorry I didn't see your side of the argument and tell you how right you were.

Ill keep that in mind next time, I promise.
Lol, no I don't think I can honestly remember a time where we've disagreed and got into a back and forth situation. In fact I agree with your hockey knowledge, and opinions on prospects.

All I'm trying to say man is that you really could do well to cut down on the personal side jabs and stuff. It really doesn't help your arguing position.

Nobody here is butt hurt, trust me. Just making a point. Carry on.

MrBurgundy* 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 05:45 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.