HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 08:37 AM
  #751
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Which is why I say that Fehr will be in no hurry to start next season. When next year arrives, and the owners have not not only lost revenue for the anciliaries, but also are now facing with not selling a single ticket AND two years of playing for free on a TV contract, there will be hang wringing. Yes, the players will feel it. But by next November, the owners will be facing just such a decision as you have outlined.
I think if it really lasts a whole year a lot of players will be finding other places to play. Yes a lot of them will hurt and will be taking pay cuts, but sometimes if you **** on someone for long enough they'll act against their own interests just to spite you

I really think that the league could have probably gotten a lot of what they wanted from the players with some actual negotiation and without all the hard liner actions and basically treating the players like crap.

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:40 AM
  #752
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,333
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipNash27 View Post
The way this is going, there won't be hockey this year unless Gary Bettman is fired.
Just wondering, who has the authority to fire him? If its a vote on the owners part, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

__________________
"Matteau! Matteau! Matteau!"~H. Rose
BlueShirts88 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:56 AM
  #753
BroadwayHustle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
Just wondering, who has the authority to fire him? If its a vote on the owners part, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
That is exactly who has the power to do it. I forgot what the percentage is but i think its like 2/3rds of owners can vote to accept a proposal instead of Bettman

BroadwayHustle is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:13 AM
  #754
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
I think any impartial person with a brain can see why this isn't easy. You're right... The players are giving up 7% of their salary... It's not easy... No one would ever WANT to do that. "It's for the good of the league... It has to happen to be healthy". We get it. But take into account that they've made 57% for how many years now and it doesn't look as bad. "Hand over fist" is the phrase right? For how many years, decades whatever?

Time to make some real concessions... And yeah it sucks... But it is fair... And it is 7 years overdue.
Hand over fist is inaccurate. A $39m cap isn't hand over fist. It got there sure, based on revenues and escalators. The health of the league, of individual franchises, is still very much open to debate. And running a team into the ground and opening a franchise on a frontier aren't rights to immediate profits, cutbacks or subsidization.

Real concessions? What about these proposals aren't real concessions. They both moved 7 pts to 50%. With everything else, they can't ask for some relief for roughly two seasons?

7 years overdue? So now the players bent the owners over on 2004. That was the same battle cry 8 years ago. They got their terms. Maybe the same morons that botched the last CBA shouldn't be running this one. Again, if the last CBA was so bad, why are they insisting on the same system? It won't save teams in a few years when they can't afford the same high caps.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:18 AM
  #755
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
League-wide "Fire Bettman" chants in every arena. One can dream.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:24 AM
  #756
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Hand over fist is inaccurate. A $39m cap isn't hand over fist. It got there sure, based on revenues and escalators. The health of the league, of individual franchises, is still very much open to debate. And running a team into the ground and opening a franchise on a frontier aren't rights to immediate profits, cutbacks or subsidization.

Real concessions? What about these proposals aren't real concessions. They both moved 7 pts to 50%. With everything else, they can't ask for some relief for roughly two seasons?

7 years overdue? So now the players bent the owners over on 2004. That was the same battle cry 8 years ago. They got their terms. Maybe the same morons that botched the last CBA shouldn't be running this one. Again, if the last CBA was so bad, why are they insisting on the same system? It won't save teams in a few years when they can't afford the same high caps.
I'm no economist... But reading and understanding the proposals to the best of my ability, it seemed like the league's and the players' were both a little unfair in each direction. The players' didn't seem to be able to get to 50% for years.

I'm of the opinion that the owners did win in '04 but that they also left out a bunch of things that would help the league attain "healthy" status. That is on them. However, as "owners" it's well within their rights to try to fix that. They can't do it while a CBA is in place... So they had to wait until now. Could you imagine how long '04 would've gone on if they had proposed a 24% rollback along with a 50/50 linkage?

I feel the players had it pretty damn good for the past 2 decades or so... Maybe more. They can give on this (they'll have to at some point regardless of how they feel) and operate in a "healthy" system and still make a killing on salaries.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:25 AM
  #757
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Why are the players fighting over money that will be less than the loses of missed games? Common question. The NHL views CBAs as steps along a path. They'll seek more givebacks next time, a bigger cut and more contractual gains.

Wins today may not balance out immediately, but it will help down the road. The owners are always coming back for more. The players haven't asked for a concession in two CBAs. The league wanted lower UFA age to flood the summer market. More options = lower contracts. Supply and demand. Huge miscalculation. UFAs are a small part. Paydays for RFAs is a bigger issue. That drives all free agent prices. Why aren't owners taking advantage of RFA leverage? Can't pin that on players. That falls on the four pinheads running the negotiating committee. Its like blaming Byufglin for Talon's paperwork blunder.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:26 AM
  #758
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,439
vCash: 500
They have given and they probably would have a deal if the league wasn't acting like a bunch of *******s. When you refuse to negotiate and only demand you just piss off the people you're supposed to be making a deal with. That's what angers me the most about the league is doing

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:32 AM
  #759
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
I'm no economist... But reading and understanding the proposals to the best of my ability, it seemed like the league's and the players' were both a little unfair in each direction. The players' didn't seem to be able to get to 50% for years.

I'm of the opinion that the owners did win in '04 but that they also left out a bunch of things that would help the league attain "healthy" status. That is on them. However, as "owners" it's well within their rights to try to fix that. They can't do it while a CBA is in place... So they had to wait until now. Could you imagine how long '04 would've gone on if they had proposed a 24% rollback along with a 50/50 linkage?

I feel the players had it pretty damn good for the past 2 decades or so... Maybe more. They can give on this (they'll have to at some point regardless of how they feel) and operate in a "healthy" system and still make a killing on salaries.
The players are there. They aren't fighting 50/50. They just wanted the drop stepped. The owners can give on this and still make a killing on revenues. The league got everything they needed regarding contract restraints last time. They sought circumvention. They could have used all this power on RFAs but decided to shower them with insane contracts. They owners were well within their rights for 7 years to exert muscles and didn't. Seguin isn't going anywhere. Like Del Zotto, Sequin could have been signed after the new CBA and held under new standards. It just makes the reduction that much more painful for players... or more expensive for owners if it gets phased..

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:45 AM
  #760
Faxius
Registered User
 
Faxius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 539
vCash: 2249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwayHustle View Post
That is exactly who has the power to do it. I forgot what the percentage is but i think its like 2/3rds of owners can vote to accept a proposal instead of Bettman
I think it's 22 owners. It would actually be easier for the owners to fire Bettman as it takes less votes

Faxius is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:52 AM
  #761
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace View Post
League-wide "Fire Bettman" chants in every arena. One can dream.
Filled arenas will only ensure a longer Bettman reign.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:54 AM
  #762
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
The players are there. They aren't fighting 50/50. They just wanted the drop stepped. The owners can give on this and still make a killing on revenues. The league got everything they needed regarding contract restraints last time. They sought circumvention. They could have used all this power on RFAs but decided to shower them with insane contracts. They owners were well within their rights for 7 years to exert muscles and didn't. Seguin isn't going anywhere. Like Del Zotto, Sequin could have been signed after the new CBA and held under new standards. It just makes the reduction that much more painful for players... or more expensive for owners if it gets phased..
If the players are at 50/50 at want it stepped, then THAT should've been their 3rd proposal... Not the guaranteed contract 3rd prop. If they have no problem with that, they should've proposed 53%, 52%, 51% then 50% x 4.

I have a feeling they're trying to prove a point and had no intention of playing 82, just like the league didn't.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:08 AM
  #763
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
If the players are at 50/50 at want it stepped, then THAT should've been their 3rd proposal... Not the guaranteed contract 3rd prop. If they have no problem with that, they should've proposed 53%, 52%, 51% then 50% x 4.

I have a feeling they're trying to prove a point and had no intention of playing 82, just like the league didn't.
What's the rationale to play less games? You really think their aim is to spite the owners? The league wouldn't meet the union this week.

Look, the double standard is the league can come in low and bargain to the middle. The players seem to be obligated to throw a bullseye and land right in the middle. The 3rd proposal could have spurred a compromise that looks like yours... or even a two season phase 54%, 52%, 50%. It may have been the PAs goal. But Bettman walked out. He could have counter proposal 3 with his terms, 50% split, and a stepped cap. Or capped escrow. But because the players didn't function to Gary's liking he stalls talks for ten days.

We all know and accept that the first proposal was 43% to get the union down to 50%. Why don't we afford the PA the same standard? Why can't Gary play by his own rules?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:12 AM
  #764
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
What's the rationale to play less games? You really think their aim is to spite the owners? The league wouldn't meet the union this week.

Look, the double standard is the league can come in low and bargain to the middle. The players seem to be obligated to throw a bullseye and land right in the middle. The 3rd proposal could have spurred a compromise that looks like yours... or even a two season phase 54%, 52%, 50%. It may have been the PAs goal. But Bettman walked out. He could have counter proposal 3 with his terms, 50% split, and a stepped cap. Or capped escrow. But because the players didn't function to Gary's liking he stalls talks for ten days.

We all know and accept that the first proposal was 43% to get the union down to 50%. Why don't we afford the PA the same standard? Why can't Gary play by his own rules?
Because he's a hard ass and knows what he's doing. As Fehr said, he's running the playbook. Don't kid yourself into thinking the PA isn't doing the same. They want to lose games to prove they're not pushovers. It's right there in the playbook.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:18 AM
  #765
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
“@stevezipay: RT @FriedgeHNIC: NHL informs teams games up to & including Nov. 30 will be cancelled. Far as I know, there was no mention of Winter Classic.”

nevesis is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:23 AM
  #766
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
So...

Who's turn is it to present a proposal?

Self-imposed deadline?

Line in the sand?

Anyone? Anyone?

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:30 AM
  #767
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
@stevezipay: RT @FriedgeHNIC: NHL informs teams games up to & including Nov. 30 will be cancelled. Far as I know, there was no mention of Winter Classic.
pretty laughable that they go from 'if a deal is in place by oct 25th we can open the season on nov 2' to canceling all games thru nov 30th on 10/26.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:32 AM
  #768
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Being willing to lose games and willing to lose games are two different things. Maybe that isn't intent, but it is a damning implication to accuse a side of wanting to miss games.

I know it's Bettman's playbook to negotiate this way. I take issue with him acting like a brat when someone does it to him. He fashions himself as a hockey world wide representative. He represents 4 owners.

Important questions: Who appoints the negotiating committee? Does this committee have to present all offers to the owners, or do they get to yay/nay deals that get passed on?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:34 AM
  #769
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
They have given and they probably would have a deal if the league wasn't acting like a bunch of *******s. When you refuse to negotiate and only demand you just piss off the people you're supposed to be making a deal with. That's what angers me the most about the league is doing
On the flip side you have the PA kicking the hornet's nest by refusing to negotiate within the NhL's framework. Instead proposing 3 fantasy land proposals with the logical fallacy of a "50/50 split that immediately honors all contracts".

Why not use the NHL's framework to negotiate a 54/52/50 and 7/27 UFA deal? It was needlessly antagonistic.

Both sides have been absurd in their negotiating tactics. I really hate having to defend the owners constantly but my only real point is the players are no saints either.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:35 AM
  #770
CH2
Registered User
 
CH2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
What makes me sick is to think that when they finally do have an agreement in place both sides will be smiling and shaking hands after during photo ops.

CH2 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:42 AM
  #771
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,589
vCash: 500
Those games can be made up at a later date. They haven't cancelled the All Star game. The corporate sponsors like that event. There weren't many smiles and handshakes at the NFL and NBA press conferences. When Stern and Hunter met the media for the first time,they were relieved the season was saved. They were tired but relieved.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:48 AM
  #772
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
On the flip side you have the PA kicking the hornet's nest by refusing to negotiate within the NhL's framework. Instead proposing 3 fantasy land proposals with the logical fallacy of a "50/50 split that immediately honors all contracts".

Why not use the NHL's framework to negotiate a 54/52/50 and 7/27 UFA deal? It was needlessly antagonistic.

Both sides have been absurd in their negotiating tactics. I really hate having to defend the owners constantly but my only real point is the players are no saints either.
This.

Especially the last paragraph.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:49 AM
  #773
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
43% was needlessly antagonistic. The PA has to be careful of what they accept,conditional or otherwise. They conditionally offered a 24% rollback and lost that percent forever. A conditional offer of their deal contingent on 54/52/50 with 27/7 is an unconditional acceptance of any uncontested aspect for Bettman. The players will lose 50%, term limits, HRR definitions, rookie structure, etc.

No one, especially Bettman, wants to accept that this negotiating environment was created by him. He's shifty. The league wants him, fine, but this is what you get. They're mot stupid. They learn. What a shock. We really need to read the June/July threads, this was all predicted... terms, sticking points, and worst case scenarios. The "pro-player" guys seem to be the ones that predicted 50%, capped escrow, Bettman antics. Its not that they were one side or the other. Its that they see the middle ground, Bettman is pushing perception past fair, now fair is deep into pro player territory.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:51 AM
  #774
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
On the flip side you have the PA kicking the hornet's nest by refusing to negotiate within the NhL's framework. Instead proposing 3 fantasy land proposals with the logical fallacy of a "50/50 split that immediately honors all contracts".

Why not use the NHL's framework to negotiate a 54/52/50 and 7/27 UFA deal? It was needlessly antagonistic.
Except the owners said they won't negotiate their offer, it was take it or leave it?

Levitate is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:56 AM
  #775
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Bettman's 1st offer was antagonistic... But calculated. The players were getting 57% all along. His 1st "offer" was to swing things so that 50/50 seemed fair. Very calculated. Especially given the starting point of negotiations was at 57% - players, 43% owners.

Riche16 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 08:04 PM.

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.