HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

When will this lockout end? (all lockout talk here)

View Poll Results: When will the lockout end?
Sometime between Oct-nov 49 18.08%
Sometime between Dec-jan 90 33.21%
Season canceled 132 48.71%
Voters: 271. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 12:29 PM
  #501
jadeddog
Registered User
 
jadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 11,756
vCash: 500
Does anybody know if the NHLPA offers were leaked anywhere? Because either Bettman is lying or Horcoff is lying. One is saying that it wasn't 50/50 and the other is saying that it was. I'd like to actually read the proposal, because I can't figure out how it could *really* have been a 50/50 offer if the league rejected it without even loooking at it for a few hours. It appears that Horcoff is lying through his teeth, but I'd like to verify this rather than assume it to be true.

jadeddog is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:31 PM
  #502
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
Does anybody know if the NHLPA offers were leaked anywhere? Because either Bettman is lying or Horcoff is lying. One is saying that it wasn't 50/50 and the other is saying that it was. I'd like to actually read the proposal, because I can't figure out how it could *really* have been a 50/50 offer if the league rejected it without even loooking at it for a few hours. It appears that Horcoff is lying through his teeth, but I'd like to verify this rather than assume it to be true.
The only thing I have found is what Mirtle posted

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4622895/

My personal opinion is that Bettman is a practiced liar. Having had to deal with him during the Jets thing was enough for anyone to see that

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:32 PM
  #503
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matador View Post
Yes, the players all or nothing approach doesn't make sense to me either.

The league's 50/50 proposal was really just a forced savings plan to the players. So what if you don't get 12% of your contract upfront. It will be paid back with interest once the old contract expires.

The league's proposal states that

I guess this isn't good enough. Players need the money now now now! Can't wait an extra couple years to be made whole.

The NHL has offered them a "get out of jail free" card for the games they have already missed. I'm at a loss as to why they still cant seem to agree to terms.
I thought I read something after that offer that the players had issues with the manner in which the payback would happen. From this article...

Quote:
Fehr also took issue with the league’s provision to “make whole” the salaries of those with existing contracts that would otherwise be reduced under the lower salary cap. According to the proposal, any shortfalls in the first two years of the new contract would be computed as a percentage reduction off a player’s contractual compensation, and repaid as a deferred compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the contract. Fehr said the provision would amount to “players paying players, not owners paying players” and added, “players are ‘made whole’ for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years.”
If that is the case, I can understand why they didn't like that. Perhaps the players would be more agreeable to it if the money came from the owners, was called a retirement plan and interest over the course of the contract was taken into account.


Last edited by s7ark: 10-19-2012 at 12:38 PM.
s7ark is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:38 PM
  #504
nabob
Hall for captain
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OilerNut View Post
If the NHLPA ever accepted 4-6 teams being dissolved, they would have some pretty pissed off members.
They would very likely strike if anything like that was to happen. Or at least the 100ish lowest skilled members of the PA would vote to.

Fans should wear all black to the first week of games back and not cheer at all. Embarrass the players and owners on TV, because in the end it is the fans that are the customers and drive the league.

nabob is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:42 PM
  #505
Starscream
Registered User
 
Starscream's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Riverview NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 402 View Post
Yes! Good post Replacement.

It seems like most people are against the pa in this lockout people who supported the players are just today telling me that the players are greedy. The pa' has lost alot of support, not that they care much about public support anyway

I dont see an end to this lockout as long as the players continue to demand the same dollar figure they were paid last year, however they will eventually cave its hard to say when that'll be though
I'm against both the PA and the NHL I think the lockout is complete crap, I don't care what offer gets accepted, just get back to playing hockey.

Starscream is online now  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:43 PM
  #506
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
I thought I read something after that offer that the players had issues with the manner in which the payback would happen. From this article...



If that is the case, I can understand why they didn't like that. Perhaps the players would be more agreeable to it if the money came from the owners, was called a retirement plan and interest over the course of the contract was taken into account.
Unless I misread it, Fehr is referring to players paying players in so much as the deferred compensation will count against the cap and, as such, be unavailable for new contracts.

In the real world (as opposed to the one that resides within Mr. Fehr's imagination) the total remuneration listed on existing contracts would be honored and the money is coming from the owners. One would have to accept that the player's are entitled to 57% of league revenues ad infinitum for it to be otherwise.


Last edited by worraps: 10-19-2012 at 12:49 PM.
worraps is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:44 PM
  #507
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
players are certainly showing why they are athletes and not accountants (or any other profession that requires skill with numbers, lol).... it just boggles the mind that they won't accept one penny less this year, but seem to be *completely* willing to accept a lost season, and thus 100% loss in salary

i still haven't heard an argument that even begins to explain this
It also boggles the mind that the players won't accept one penny less, but will accept much much less to play in other leagues. Funny that.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:50 PM
  #508
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
It also boggles the mind that the players won't accept one penny less, but will accept much much less to play in other leagues. Funny that.
Principles are cool and everything, but it's not like this proposal is reducing them to burger flipper wages. Hell, they're not even close to being reduced to doctors wages. And for guys like OV, Crosby, and guys like that - not only do they already have boatloads of money, they've got tons more coming.

But what about the 35+ year old guys who might just have a year or 2 left. What about the league minimum guys who feel like they strike it rich just getting called up for a few games during the season? These are the guys being hurt the most, and the guys that are most likely to never see another NHL paycheck again. I know they are not the guys the fans pay to see per se, but the guys with $50M in their bank account with another $100M+ coming their way don't really seem to be all that considerate of these guys.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:59 PM
  #509
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
But what about the 35+ year old guys who might just have a year or 2 left. What about the league minimum guys who feel like they strike it rich just getting called up for a few games during the season? These are the guys being hurt the most, and the guys that are most likely to never see another NHL paycheck again. I know they are not the guys the fans pay to see per se, but the guys with $50M in their bank account with another $100M+ coming their way don't really seem to be all that considerate of these guys.
They are the ones being hurt in the lockout. Unfortuantely the PA is fighting for the OV's and Sids and Stamkos of the world.

Reimer is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:02 PM
  #510
dustrock
Too Legit To Quit
 
dustrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Unless I misread it, Fehr is referring to players paying players in so much as the deferred compensation will count against the cap and, as such, be unavailable for new contracts.

In the real world (as opposed to the one that resides within Mr. Fehr's imagination) the total remuneration listed on existing contracts would be honored and the money is coming from the owners. One would have to accept that the player's are entitled to 57% of league revenues ad infinitum for it to be otherwise.
Exactly. Otherwise any reduction from 57% would be "players paying players".


Everyone talks about Bettman bargaining in bad faith, but I question the bona fides of any negotiator who hasn't even run the numbers on his own proposal - unless this was something just floated at the PA meeting and they asked him to run it by the NHL.

dustrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:05 PM
  #511
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
They are the ones being hurt in the lockout. Unfortuantely the PA is fighting for the OV's and Sids and Stamkos of the world.
Yup. Last lock out over 200 players never played another NHL game that were part of the PA going into the lock out.

Seedling is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:13 PM
  #512
dustrock
Too Legit To Quit
 
dustrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,730
vCash: 500
You know, that Globe and Mail article is actually a really good read.

Makes the PA proposals much more understandable. I guess the players saying "we're coming to 50% within 5 years" is a huge deal for them.

Bettman wants it right away.

dustrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
  #513
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
They are the ones being hurt in the lockout. Unfortuantely the PA is fighting for the OV's and Sids and Stamkos of the world.
Great point. The top players will be just fine if they are locked out for a year. But what about a guy like Cory Potter? This year was essentially his last chance to get paid. Next year, Klefbom will likely be coming over and Potter is probably going to find himself in the AHL. The NHLPA just doesn't seem to give a **** about these kinds of players.

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:19 PM
  #514
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Unless I misread it, Fehr is referring to players paying players in so much as the deferred compensation will count against the cap and, as such, be unavailable for new contracts.

In the real world (as opposed to the one that resides within Mr. Fehr's imagination) the total remuneration listed on existing contracts would be honored and the money is coming from the owners. One would have to accept that the player's are entitled to 57% of league revenues ad infinitum for it to be otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustrock View Post
Exactly. Otherwise any reduction from 57% would be "players paying players".


Everyone talks about Bettman bargaining in bad faith, but I question the bona fides of any negotiator who hasn't even run the numbers on his own proposal - unless this was something just floated at the PA meeting and they asked him to run it by the NHL.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I misunderstood what Fehr was referring to.

s7ark is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:21 PM
  #515
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,752
vCash: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustrock View Post
You know, that Globe and Mail article is actually a really good read.

Makes the PA proposals much more understandable. I guess the players saying "we're coming to 50% within 5 years" is a huge deal for them.

Bettman wants it right away.
Give it to them, but make year 6 and 7 the players get less than 50%.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:22 PM
  #516
CornKicker
Locked Out
 
CornKicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,312
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
That is part of the major issue isn't it? The owners are crying over the fact there are losing money franchises. There solution to the problem is to cut there employees pay.
i think that is the issue, we can either A. cut everyones salary and everyone has a job or B. we lose 3-4 teams and 120 of you lose your jobs.

CornKicker is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:28 PM
  #517
Gone
Fire KLowe
 
Gone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
Does anybody know if the NHLPA offers were leaked anywhere? Because either Bettman is lying or Horcoff is lying. One is saying that it wasn't 50/50 and the other is saying that it was. I'd like to actually read the proposal, because I can't figure out how it could *really* have been a 50/50 offer if the league rejected it without even loooking at it for a few hours. It appears that Horcoff is lying through his teeth, but I'd like to verify this rather than assume it to be true.
According to the interview with Fehr, the players 50:50 proposal would work like this:

1) Estimate and agree what the dollar amount would be at 50:50;
2) On a prorata basis, reduce all players salaries by about 13% (based on 50:50);
3) The NHL would make an immediate payment to each player with a contract, of 13% of the total of their contracts;
4) Then immediately thereafter move to a 50:50 arrangement.

The players seemed fixated on not backing down from a fixed amount of salary; and are only willing to give up the growth portion (5-7%) going forward.

I wonder what happens if the league revenues start to shrink. Other than Alberta, world economies are pretty uncertain, and shrinking revenues are a definate possibility. Neither side has mentioned it, but I suspect under the players proposal .... the burden of this possibility would be entirely carried by the owners.

Gone is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:31 PM
  #518
Gone
Fire KLowe
 
Gone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustrock View Post
You know, that Globe and Mail article is actually a really good read.

Makes the PA proposals much more understandable. I guess the players saying "we're coming to 50% within 5 years" is a huge deal for them.

Bettman wants it right away.
I bet teams like Columbus (who lost $30 million last year), also want it right away!

Gone is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:32 PM
  #519
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
The problem I have with this is I don't think they've earned it.

What have NHL players done to earn a higher percentage of league revenue than their NFL or NBA counterparts?

They draw lower ratings (can barely beat infomercials for the Stanley Cup Finals), lower attendance, lower overall revenue, and less sponsorship than their NFL or NBA counterparts.

Yet as little as six seasons ago they were taking home a whopping 70% of league revenue. The current 57% they take home (what a cut!) dwarfs the 50.5% NBA players get and the sub 48% NFL players get even though NBA and NFL players are far more marketable and bring in a far larger audience. No wonder the NHLPA would love to keep the old CBA, it's a sweetheart deal compared to other sports.

The real driver for any economic growth the NHL has seen the last 6 years likely doesn't even have anything to do with the players themselves. It's because of the combination of a salary cap (which the players flushed an entire season down the toilet fighting against) and a strengthened Canadian dollar has allowed more Canadian teams to be competitive again -- thus driving revenue growth.

And yet most of these players snub their nose at playing for a Canadian team every chance they get, but they all benefit mightily from people up here paying outrageous ticket prices. The Oilers in last place charge more than the NBA champion Miami Heat for an average ticket ... that certainly helps NHL revenue and helps Joe Nobody on Columbus get paid even though he did dick all for it.

This is why I can't get behind the players. They have been entitled for way too long, the NHL has been too weak like a parent that can't stand up to a spoiled child. For 10 years they let the players have 70% revenue . The salary cap was good for the league as a whole. A 50-50 split will be good for the league too IMO.
I agree entirely.

I guess I meant to say, the player shave earned the hate of the fans because of their greed.

And theres nothing like being given everything for 5 years and being told no that will elicit a full out temper tantrum like we are witnessing from the player side.

By their comments, they dont even understand the rational for their outrageous pay days, all they expect is that they will continue if they cry long enough.

AM is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:32 PM
  #520
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornKicker View Post
i think that is the issue, we can either A. cut everyones salary and everyone has a job or B. we lose 3-4 teams and 120 of you lose your jobs.
Which teams are losing the most money? Phoenix, NY Isles, Florida, Carolina, Columbus? A couple others are pretty big losers?

I think most agree that teams in Quebec City and southern Ontario could certainly turn a profit, but other than those 2 places, are there any other shoo-in cities to turn a profit?

I know there are some decent candidates in Seattle, Kansas City, Hartford, Portland - but are any of these much more likely to attract fans than St Louis (who also lose money)? I'm not so sure.

Hoogaar23 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:34 PM
  #521
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
I thought I read something after that offer that the players had issues with the manner in which the payback would happen. From this article...



If that is the case, I can understand why they didn't like that. Perhaps the players would be more agreeable to it if the money came from the owners, was called a retirement plan and interest over the course of the contract was taken into account.
Fehr doesnt understand that with a salaray cap, any win for one player is a loss for the rest of them.

AM is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:36 PM
  #522
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,752
vCash: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone View Post
According to the interview with Fehr, the players 50:50 proposal would work like this:

1) Estimate and agree what the dollar amount would be at 50:50;
2) On a prorata basis, reduce all players salaries by about 13% (based on 50:50);
3) The NHL would make an immediate payment to each player with a contract, of 13% of the total of their contracts;
4) Then immediately thereafter move to a 50:50 arrangement.

The players seemed fixated on not backing down from a fixed amount of salary; and are only willing to give up the growth portion (5-7%) going forward.

I wonder what happens if the league revenues start to shrink. Other than Alberta, world economies are pretty uncertain, and shrinking revenues are a definate possibility. Neither side has mentioned it, but I suspect under the players proposal .... the burden of this possibility would be entirely carried by the owners.
Seems to be English to me, guess the owners are speaking french.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:55 PM
  #523
dustrock
Too Legit To Quit
 
dustrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone View Post
I bet teams like Columbus (who lost $30 million last year), also want it right away!
Well, if I was Columbus, I'd be as much if not more concerned about how revenue sharing between the haves and have-nots is going to work.

Friedman's article is interesting as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...-industry.html

What was apparently in the 3rd proposal that they hadn't run the numbers on was a suggestion that all future contracts start at the 50/50 split, escrow, contract length, arbitration, etc.

For existing contracts, they do a slow drop to 50/50 until the contract is finished. The owners find a way to "make whole" the entirety of the contract.

It's possible that it could be a way to help resolve this.

Friedman says only 60% of players have contracts beyond this year? Is that true?

dustrock is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:02 PM
  #524
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
Yup. Last lock out over 200 players never played another NHL game that were part of the PA going into the lock out.
Wow that's an interesting number. If there ever was a time to get rid of some bottom feeder teams now's the time to cut ties.

Let's be honest if the lockout lasts a whole season loud mouth Biz Nasty likely won't be an NHLer anymore as well as probably 2.5 of 5(includung the 13th and 14th forwards) 4th liners from every team.

Reimer is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:04 PM
  #525
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemskyfanboy83 View Post
Great point. The top players will be just fine if they are locked out for a year. But what about a guy like Cory Potter? This year was essentially his last chance to get paid. Next year, Klefbom will likely be coming over and Potter is probably going to find himself in the AHL. The NHLPA just doesn't seem to give a **** about these kinds of players.
But yet these dumbasses seem to be the loudest on Twitter when the majority of them outnumber the all-stars should be the ones rising up and saying **** this we'll play hockey. But then they will be shunned from their hockey circles and BizNasty won't get to chill in Vegas with Lupul.

Reimer 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 08:11 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.