HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion III (Lockout Talk)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 02:52 PM
  #151
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I believe the owners, right now, are in a legal position to unilaterally impose a new CBA.

1) they wanted to start negotiating in December 2011 and the union said no.

2) They asked the union to start negotiating two more times after that and the union said no.

3) When the owners presented their last offer Don Fehr said "why didn't they make this offer in June?" Until then, the NHL had shown they were willing to negotiate 7 months prior to that.

4) The owners had a negotiable offer on the table, further confirmed by the offers made by the union that suggested they were close in numbers at the end of the deal.

We'll wait for a lawyer or law student to break that down for us "cuz I ain't smart enough." But I don't think the league would ever take that route.

However, I do believe there is "some" dissension in the player ranks and it goes back to last Thursday when they postponed the meeting with the league to have one final conference call with 92 players because those players wanted a different offer proposed. One that started at 50/50 with guaranteed contracts, but they forgot to crunch the numbers.

I also believe that the number of players that believe their union should have at least began by negotiating the parts of the NHL offer that the league deemed "negotiable" has increased as of today.
That's the part right there that still has me baffled.

That seems like Business 101 right there...if the players intended to give the owners that "victory", they should have made a bigger deal out of that and then negotiated off of it. Sort of a "well in exchange for that, we want this...".

They'll probably say that's what they did, but they must have done so in a way that allowed the NHL to couch it as an entirely different set of proposals, so they score no points in the court of public opinion AND the other party feels like they made a concession that wasn't appreciated. Seems like such a mistake, from an outsider at least.

bp13 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:02 PM
  #152
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I believe the owners, right now, are in a legal position to unilaterally impose a new CBA.

1) they wanted to start negotiating in December 2011 and the union said no.

2) They asked the union to start negotiating two more times after that and the union said no.

3) When the owners presented their last offer Don Fehr said "why didn't they make this offer in June?" Until then, the NHL had shown they were willing to negotiate 7 months prior to that.

4) The owners had a negotiable offer on the table, further confirmed by the offers made by the union that suggested they were close in numbers at the end of the deal.

We'll wait for a lawyer or law student to break that down for us "cuz I ain't smart enough." But I don't think the league would ever take that route.

However, I do believe there is "some" dissension in the player ranks and it goes back to last Thursday when they postponed the meeting with the league to have one final conference call with 92 players because those players wanted a different offer proposed. One that started at 50/50 with guaranteed contracts, but they forgot to crunch the numbers.

I also believe that the number of players that believe their union should have at least began by negotiating the parts of the NHL offer that the league deemed "negotiable" has increased as of today.
Who will play if the owners do that?.... and you know it won't be at 50/50 or with a make whole provision. Seems like a long drawn out legal battle, decertification, possible new league, new owners , less money for everyone if that happens.

I think the players should have negotiated sooner but they both have had plenty of time to work it out anyway.

I don't think it will come to a mediator unless there is government intervention but you brought it up. That is what they need and we would have training camps tomorrow. You and I can meet with both sides and get it done.

I believe there is dissension in both ranks. The owners can take their time easier because hockey isn't their primary business & they are guaranteed money from the TV deal (which pisses me off if they decide to cancel the Winter classic early). They really will just split up that TV money among themselves instead of spending a little to keep the NHL's most marketable game alive until the last possible date? Yeah that is good for revenues. Shows who is really greedy.

Both sides have already lost revenue but the owners have already won. The players can't win. They are now out money - assuming games are cancelled that they never get back. Sometimes you have to stand on principle though for future players. The players are the only ones giving in this "negotiation".

The players have been willing to negotiate. The owners only want it on their terms. Agree to everything we want and maybe we have some wiggle room on the make whole offer.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:06 PM
  #153
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,829
vCash: 500
BREAKING!


The NHL announced today they are cancelling getting any of EverettMike's money for at least two years.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:12 PM
  #154
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
BREAKING!


The NHL announced today they are cancelling getting any of EverettMike's money for at least two years.
Your heart's in the right place Mike, but I bet you anything you won't be able to stick to that.

bp13 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:14 PM
  #155
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Your heart's in the right place Mike, but I bet you anything you won't be able to stick to that.
The only posisbility would be a game at home to win the Cup.

That is it.

Easier for me to do now since I have become a hermit anyway, and that I saw them win the Cup.

I am so sick of this ****. I am sick of being treated like this. I am sick of our loyalty being used against us.

**** em.

I'm even going to write to advertisers saying I am boycotting their products if they market via the NHL, in game, in arena, or during broadcasts.


Last edited by EverettMike: 10-26-2012 at 03:59 PM. Reason: typo
EverettMike is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:30 PM
  #156
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,679
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Who will play if the owners do that?.... and you know it won't be at 50/50 or with a make whole provision. Seems like a long drawn out legal battle, decertification, possible new league, new owners , less money for everyone if that happens.

I think the players should have negotiated sooner but they both have had plenty of time to work it out anyway.

I don't think it will come to a mediator unless there is government intervention but you brought it up. That is what they need and we would have training camps tomorrow. You and I can meet with both sides and get it done.

I believe there is dissension in both ranks. The owners can take their time easier because hockey isn't their primary business & they are guaranteed money from the TV deal (which pisses me off if they decide to cancel the Winter classic early). They really will just split up that TV money among themselves instead of spending a little to keep the NHL's most marketable game alive until the last possible date? Yeah that is good for revenues. Shows who is really greedy.

Both sides have already lost revenue but the owners have already won. The players can't win. They are now out money - assuming games are cancelled that they never get back. Sometimes you have to stand on principle though for future players. The players are the only ones giving in this "negotiation".

The players have been willing to negotiate. The owners only want it on their terms. Agree to everything we want and maybe we have some wiggle room on the make whole offer.
The bolded is on who you believe. As I've said a hundred times there is way to much propaganda being spread whether its twitter, facebook, blogs whatever the case may be.

A "reporter" says Don Fehr said the league will only negotiate off its last proposal and they will only discuss the make whole provision - and then everyone runs with it.

Another "reporter" says not more than an hour ago that Bill Daly flat out and categorically denies it and calls that a lie (well untrue in his words).

Who do you believe?

Both have said that conversation was done by email. The proof is in the writing. If I was Fehr and Daly was calling me a liar, I'd certainly be releasing that email to the media, or at least the part of it that Daly says only the make whole provision is up for discussion.

And if I was a player, I'd definitely want to see that email to find out who's words were true especially with the prospect of losing a few million dollars.

Fehr has preached openness with the players and has often said they can see anything they want to see.

I tended to lean towards Fehr on that one because I couldn't figure out why the league wouldn't deny it immediately. Now I don't know who to believe.

The only other thing I'll comment on is desertification. Steve Larmer who is on the NHLPA executive has already said (I believe a week ago) that desertification is an option.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:48 PM
  #157
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
The bolded is on who you believe. As I've said a hundred times there is way to much propaganda being spread whether its twitter, facebook, blogs whatever the case may be.

A "reporter" says Don Fehr said the league will only negotiate off its last proposal and they will only discuss the make whole provision - and then everyone runs with it.

Another "reporter" says not more than an hour ago that Bill Daly flat out and categorically denies it and calls that a lie (well untrue in his words).

Who do you believe?

Both have said that conversation was done by email. The proof is in the writing. If I was Fehr and Daly was calling me a liar, I'd certainly be releasing that email to the media, or at least the part of it that Daly says only the make whole provision is up for discussion.

And if I was a player, I'd definitely want to see that email to find out who's words were true especially with the prospect of losing a few million dollars.

Fehr has preached openness with the players and has often said they can see anything they want to see.

I tended to lean towards Fehr on that one because I couldn't figure out why the league wouldn't deny it immediately. Now I don't know who to believe.

The only other thing I'll comment on is desertification. Steve Larmer who is on the NHLPA executive has already said (I believe a week ago) that desertification is an option.
I have no love for Fehr at all but they have stated that they want to negotiate with no restrictions and have tried to negotiate and the owners have said no correct? I really don't trust the owners at all either. I can't stand the egos and lack of negotiations on either side. Just do it!!

What will decertification do for the players? Obviously to break anti trust laws but has that ever worked to end a lockout? What would an NHL look like if that happened? Would it really help the players? Everyone is a free agent, no restrictions on pay, contracts, etc?

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:54 PM
  #158
SpokedLightning
Overpaid 4th Liner
 
SpokedLightning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 6,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
The only posisbility would be a game at home to win the Cup.

That is it.

Easier for me to do now since I have become a hermit anyway, and that I saw them win the Cup.

I am so sick of this ****. I am sick of being treated like this. I am sick of our loyalty being used against us.

**** em.

I'm even going to write to advertisers saying I am boycotting their products if they buy market via the NHL, in game, in arena, or during broadcasts.
Your post makes me sad. You are where I was during/after the baseball strike. I never regained the fire I once had for Red Sox or MLB and I can honestly say I was as big a Sox fan as anybody on this board is a B's fan.

I'm still a fan of course but not like I was. I'm under no illusion that either side of this fight gives a damn about the people in the stands that give them what they have.

SpokedLightning is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 03:57 PM
  #159
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,679
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
I have no love for Fehr at all but they have stated that they want to negotiate with no restrictions and have tried to negotiate and the owners have said no correct? I really don't trust the owners at all either. I can't stand the egos and lack of negotiations on either side. Just do it!!

What will decertification do for the players? Obviously to break anti trust laws but has that ever worked to end a lockout? What would an NHL look like if that happened? Would it really help the players? Everyone is a free agent, no restrictions on pay, contracts, etc?
Semantics but the NHL has said they will only negotiate off their last offer. They have denied (today) that they placed any restrictions on that. NHLPA says league will only negotiate off their last offer with only the make whole provision open for discussion - the rest would have to be accepted as is.

So if the NHL refusing to negotiate unless its on their offer is refusing to negotiate then I guess so - we'll differ on that. But 92 players wanting the NHLPA to come to a deal closer to the NHL's offer says that some players want to negotiate from that.

As for decertification: I don't know what the result will be. Was only pointing out that a member of the NHLPA executive said that it is an option

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 04:26 PM
  #160
trenton1
Paille Good
 
trenton1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Loge 31 Row 10
Country: Belize
Posts: 7,158
vCash: 500
Too bad that this whole dispute didn't happen last year and the NHL could have folded up for good with the Bruins as the final champion.


But anyway...

trenton1 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 05:39 PM
  #161
Ladyfan
Miss you Savvy !
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: next to the bench
Country: Scotland
Posts: 28,671
vCash: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caballo Blanco View Post
How many games has Gary Bettman now canceled in under 20 years ? Far more than every other sport combined
Gary needs to loose his job.

__________________
Better Luck next year
Ladyfan is online now  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:00 PM
  #162
bb74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 1060 W Addison
Country: United States
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
Players want leverage they need to take an ownership position and put their money where their mouths are.

They have no leverage and every lost month is a major blow in recouping anything near a 50/50 split over the coming years in the league. They are largely gullible nitwits being lead by a guy that doesn't yet appreciate that the ownership groups in the NHL not going to bend or break because they all make as much if not more money selling beers and hot dogs at a concert as opposed to NHL games.

In the illustrious words of Sinden... they better learn to yodel

gonna be an extended European vacation for many.

bb74 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:10 PM
  #163
5Minutes4Fighting
Killer B's!
 
5Minutes4Fighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb74 View Post
Players want leverage they need to take an ownership position and put their money where their mouths are.
That's just silly.

Players agreed to 50/50 going forward. NHL just needs to honor existing contracts. If they negotiated them in Good Faith, they should honor them. Period. By the time this CBA is over, there'll only be a handful of these ridiculously long contracts still around and the long term system will be in place.

5Minutes4Fighting is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 06:57 PM
  #164
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Semantics but the NHL has said they will only negotiate off their last offer. They have denied (today) that they placed any restrictions on that. NHLPA says league will only negotiate off their last offer with only the make whole provision open for discussion - the rest would have to be accepted as is.

So if the NHL refusing to negotiate unless its on their offer is refusing to negotiate then I guess so - we'll differ on that. But 92 players wanting the NHLPA to come to a deal closer to the NHL's offer says that some players want to negotiate from that.

As for decertification: I don't know what the result will be. Was only pointing out that a member of the NHLPA executive said that it is an option
Well I don't call that negotiating. It sounds to me like they said no to a meeting.

That 92 was on Thursday when they did come close to the owners offer right?

Or has there been another movement since then to move even more towards the owners?

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:13 PM
  #165
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 19,569
vCash: 500
Marty St. Louis is not happy.

Quote:
"I'm shaking my head every time I wake up," he said. "We're telling everybody we're going to go to 50 percent, let's share responsibility to get there. They don't want that. Again, they want to hit us. It's us, 24 percent last time and now 12 percent, and doing that when the game has grown the most, it's tough to take."

Added St. Louis: "Nobody is crying poor here, and I think it's hard for the fans to understand that. But it's about when there's a problem we have to fix it all the time and they don't want to take responsibility, too."

But St. Louis wasn't done there. He saved his even angrier thoughts for a text message to Josh Rimer of NHL Home Ice.

"If the fans think that the NHL wants to play. Think again," he said. "They don't want to meet and they cancelled all November. Way to go Gary you really care about the game!!"
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Artemis is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:36 PM
  #166
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,457
vCash: 500
I had a thought today that I wondered how it might end up flying with the players/owners. I know that they arent thinking along this line now, but would this idea make them happy?

Basically my new proposal says let the players continue to have 57% of total revenue {this is good for the players} BUT restrict all contracts to only 3 years of guaranteed money and elliminated no trade clause for those contracts that are 3 years or less...

Now this will make it much easier for owners not to get stuck with overpaid/underproducing players. In my proposal, a player can sign a longer deal then 3 years but only the first 3 years are guaranteed. All years after that are at the option of the team. A player that does agree to more then 3 years would get NO TRADE protection for all of his contract {including the first 3 years}

So Owners will be able to get rid of guys like Gomez and Redden and Horcorff under my proposal alot easier amd even though this wont technically add up to the 7% decrease in player salaries they are asking for... it should still make things much easier to swallow.

Then the second part of my proposal is aimed to help the poor teams. I suggest that poor teams should only have to give 50% of their revenues to the pot. A ppor team is any team that loses money. To qualify as a poor team, they need to turn their books over to an independent auditor that will have the authority to give the team this 'poor' status after examining the books.

the remainder of the money necessiary to bring the players pot up to 57% will come from teams that make profits. This isnt revenue sharing as no money goes from the rich teams directly to the poor teams. This is only letting rich teams pay more for the players they want {which they are willing to do anyhow}

I would also radically reduce the cap floor. Players are going to get their 57% anyhow. But there is no need to drive teams like Phoenix and Atlanta into bankruptcy.

Im not against players getting paid if the money is there to pay them... but I need to see the small market teams protected. And Im not for the big teams being allowed to be greedy at the expense of the players/small markets but I dont expect the big teams to just hand the money over to their competitors either.

I think my proposal addresses everyones concerns/hopes as well as can be done.

The only think I would add to it... is I think superstars have to be paid more and mid tier guys less. Before the cap guys like doug weight were making 8.5 mill a year and now crosby is making less then that. Superstars have taken it on the chin under this new CBA cap system and they are the guys that sell the game.

In the meantime guys like Kelly and Peverly and Boychuck are making over 3 mill a year now. There is no sane reason on earth to be paying these guys over 3 mill a year. They are find 3rd line guys but you dont buy tickets to watch Kelly and Peverly and Boychuck play the game. They are only cogs in a machine.

So I would put a mechanism into the new CBA that allows teams to assign a grade to a player when they sign him to a deal. Arbitrators would only be allowed to give this player a contract that is appropriate to the grade. If a player refused the grade/contract then he would become a freeagent. Its like the current system of walking away from an award, but just a bit more written in stone. This can become a bargaining chip when players sign with a new team. Maybe Boston tells Peverly he is only a class C player but Winnipeg says he will get class B status with them? The league has to have an arbitration system but the current one sucks.

I would raise the age of unrestricted free agency. Alot of players will get it anyhow just cause they get let go from contracts where they under perform. A league gets marketed on having hometown heros though, so everything possible should be done to keep players on their home team during their prime years.

I might bring in a 'franchise' tag rule where a player that is clearly elite can go to the abritration to getA class tag even if his franchise is being stupid and trying to say he is a B class or a C class player. After all, superstars deserve what they can get.

All in all.. i dont begrudge the players anything they can get but if it was reasonable then everyone could be happy. There is enough money kicking around to give the players 57% if it was the rich teams paying it. Rich teams deserve a benefit though if they are expected to pay more. Superstars also deserve a benefit if they sell the game. Poor teams and bottom line players need to ultimately just suck it up and be glad they are allowed to participate at all in the process. I think my proposal addresses all of this concern and lets everyone walk away as a winner.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:55 PM
  #167
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
i wonder if the owners 'taking responsibility' has anything to do with continuing to operate money losing teams during the last CBA and honor contracts to the players on those teams that in general averaged over 2 mill per player. Players are complaing about losing 24 or another 12 percent of their million dollar annual contracts but dont seem to mind that many owners stepped up and lost 5-10-15-20 million or more per season under the old CBA and still kept operating their buisness anyhow and keeping those 20-25 millionaire hockey players per team employed.

It was all done with an eye towards the next CBA contract where expenses were going to be brought under control so that the owners wouldnt have to continue to lose this money.

Now I know a player will point finger and say there are 10 teams making a 'profit' so they should give it up to the poor teams BUT I bet an owner can point the same finger at the players and say there are at least 10 players being overpaid 5 mill a season or more on their current deals and maybe they should give it up instead?

Players get their contracts guaranteed... so ultimately there is no responsibility on their part other then as a collective to cover these loses. If they do get a 12% rollback now, they will still average over 2 mill per year in profit per player. They will still make more then 1.4 billion in profit this year. The owners will still only make 300-400 million in profits themself despite having invested over 6 billion dollars of their capital in this operation.

If they took that 6 billion dollars and invested it in any other business other then sports... a 300 million dollar return would SUCK and theyd get into some other business... or at the very least theyd lay off alot of employess and restructure the business to increase profitability.

The fact is that the owners honored all their obligations under the old CBA and it just didnt work out for them the way they expected. It turned out to be a bad deal for them. They finished it and now they want to fix it and get a deal they can work with. If the players are making 1.4 billion instead of 1.8 billion after the rollback it is still AN AMAZING DEAL for them. The players are going to WIN HUGE no matter what deal they get. Of course their greed says they want the 1.8 Billion instead of the 1.4 but either way its at least 500-700 million more then they could get from any other employer on the planet. There is no competition for the NHL. It is only bidding against itself. The owners are negotiating for a deal that goes from crappy to bearable if they get it... the players from a deal that goes from super duper amazing awesome to just super amazing awesome.

These players need to stop saying stupid things before I cant even cheer them as players again. I still say they deserve whatever they can get, but stop trying to say the owners need to be the ones to fix this problem WHEN ITS THE PLAYERS WHO ARE THE PROBLEM!

Ultimately the rich owners will continue to pay the player gobs of money anyhow. If the players shut up and go along with this... they will still get paid way more then they are worth. Owners are willing to lose money, but they want to lose it on their own terms. They dont want a union forcing loses onto them this way. This isnt about greed... its about ego. And whoever has the gold ultimately makes the rules.

The owners will ultimately make all the money back from a lockout cause they will still have a team when the dust settles. Operating under a bad CBA makes no sense at all. But busting a union and then making gobs of money under a CBA that is 100% one sided in their favor will be awesome for them. Its not what they want... they arent trying to get a busted union or 100% favoritism here.

Players can win this game. A lockout for 1-2 years would end the careers of over 15% of them. When the dust settles well over half of them will never get the money back they lose during the lockout. These players have no where else they can go to make the money they lose in the NHL. Owners do have lots of other places they can go.

Players have to give up this stupid idea they have that their pride is being hurt here. I dont blame them for being greedy. Greed is human. But stop being stupid. You are still getting paid more even after a 12% discount then the owners are getting paid and more then youd get paid anywhere else. You are still winning this contract even at 50%

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:01 PM
  #168
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Minutes4Fighting View Post
That's just silly.

Players agreed to 50/50 going forward. NHL just needs to honor existing contracts. If they negotiated them in Good Faith, they should honor them. Period. By the time this CBA is over, there'll only be a handful of these ridiculously long contracts still around and the long term system will be in place.
you are a little bit misinformed. The way the players mean this to work is that some contracts would go into a 50-50 split BUT existing contracts would be exempt from this 50-50 ratio and would have to be paid from a larger pool in order to be honored.

thus there is no 50-50 after all.

Now if the players said... honor the exisiting contracts out of the 50-50 split and just give every new player a paycut in order to keep the total of all contracts to a 50-50 split... then you could give the players props for agreeing to a 50-50 split

The players didnt come close to agreeing to a 50-50 split though at least not until all existing contracts are dealt with... and some of them go on for like 10 years or more.

The owners are wanting a 50-50 split basically right this next moment. Maybe theres some thought that it might be reasonable to phase it in next year or even two years down the line... but the poor owners arent going to be able to agree to a deal that doesnt get down to 50% for the next 5-6-7 years.

The players proposal wont get down to 50% until all existing contracts are finished

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:05 PM
  #169
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Ryan Suter speaks up too

Quote:
"It's disappointing. If you can't afford to (sign contracts) then you shouldn't do it," Suter said. "(Leipold) signed us to contracts. At the time he said everything was fine. Yeah, it's disappointing. A couple months before, everything is fine, and now they want to take money out of our contracts that we already signed."
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...ntracts-afford


Last edited by JMiller: 10-26-2012 at 08:22 PM.
JMiller is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:16 PM
  #170
5Minutes4Fighting
Killer B's!
 
5Minutes4Fighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 991
vCash: 500
If they didn't want to lose money, they shouldn't have signed guys to such big contracts. They should have drawn a line in the sand and let the guys go to another team. They chose to overpay guys because they thought that they could make money in other areas (merchandise / local tv revenue / etc). They figured wrong. NOT the players' fault for taking the most money they could earn. They shook hands and made a deal. Owners should honor it.

5Minutes4Fighting is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:27 PM
  #171
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Minutes4Fighting View Post
If they didn't want to lose money, they shouldn't have signed guys to such big contracts. They should have drawn a line in the sand and let the guys go to another team. They chose to overpay guys because they thought that they could make money in other areas (merchandise / local tv revenue / etc). They figured wrong. NOT the players' fault for taking the most money they could earn. They shook hands and made a deal. Owners should honor it.
they owe the players 57% of the revenue. If they dont sign the big contracts they still owe the players 57% of the revenue. If they sign the players to even bigger contracts, they still owe the players 57% of the revenue.

its completely irrelevent what size contracts the owners hand out. Poor teams are obligated to reach the cap floor and have no choice but to spend to the cap floor. This causes them to lose money

as for the rich teams... obviously they dont mind giving out big contracts but it doesnt cause the teams to lose money. Theyd have to give the players the money anyhow.

This is completely and only about there not being enough money going around to continue to give the players 57% and still expect the poor teams to stay in business.

Now it only comes down to who makes the difference... should the players get cut back or should the rich owners pay? I dont care but I know for a fact the rich owners arent going to pay. They dont have to pay. The players will ultimately pay and its only a question of how long do they let us all suffer before they deal with reality

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:32 PM
  #172
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Leopold signed a deal that was competitive under the old cba that he had to operate under. He has to reach the cap floor anyhow. Other teams were offering the same contract. One way or the other.. Suter and Parise were going to get paid. Leopold operated under the insane cba and ponied up to try to help his team be competitive. Suter and Parise got to hand pick where they wanted to go... and got HUGELY overpaid to do it. But they were going to get hugely overpaid no matter where they went cause the old CBA was insane.

Now the league as a whole is going to have a reduced split of revenue. Leopold isnt getting anything different then Detroit or Philly or Phoenix are. Whether it was him that gave Suter 100 mill or anyone else... the reduction would be the same. All the owners operate under the same CBA.

The owners arent saying they want to pay the players less then is owed. They are very willing to pay what is owed. 50% of revenues will be owed. it will go to the players as a collective and be alloted to them as best as possible to honor the individual deals signed. Ultimately it might not stretch. At that point maybe the union should decide which contracts dont get honored???

should suter volunteer to give up half of his gigantic contract so that some 4th liners dont have to give up their escrow on their 900k salaries?

I wonder if that would make him happier?

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:39 PM
  #173
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Well I don't call that negotiating. It sounds to me like they said no to a meeting.

That 92 was on Thursday when they did come close to the owners offer right?

Or has there been another movement since then to move even more towards the owners?
Owners have made a couple proposals... players havent come close to responding to either. Players have talked nonsense in response to the owners offers. I guess the owners are saying that when the players want to grow up and not waste time, that they will be there to negotiate.

If that doesnt happen.. I sense that alot of owners actually save money by being shut down this time of year anyhow. So that can tell you how good the current deal is... if its cheaper to not play the games then...

if the deal was actually any good... then obviously the owners wouldnt be so willing to shut it down. I know the deal was super awesome for the players. I dont blame them for wanting to keep it going. If they can keep their part and also force the owners to screw themselves even more... then I cant blame them for wanting that...

but

i guess they need to grow up and face reality before the owners want to waste more time with them at the negotiation table

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:56 PM
  #174
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Leopold signed a deal that was competitive under the old cba that he had to operate under. He has to reach the cap floor anyhow. Other teams were offering the same contract. One way or the other.. Suter and Parise were going to get paid. Leopold operated under the insane cba and ponied up to try to help his team be competitive. Suter and Parise got to hand pick where they wanted to go... and got HUGELY overpaid to do it. But they were going to get hugely overpaid no matter where they went cause the old CBA was insane.

Now the league as a whole is going to have a reduced split of revenue. Leopold isnt getting anything different then Detroit or Philly or Phoenix are. Whether it was him that gave Suter 100 mill or anyone else... the reduction would be the same. All the owners operate under the same CBA.

The owners arent saying they want to pay the players less then is owed. They are very willing to pay what is owed. 50% of revenues will be owed. it will go to the players as a collective and be alloted to them as best as possible to honor the individual deals signed. Ultimately it might not stretch. At that point maybe the union should decide which contracts dont get honored???

should suter volunteer to give up half of his gigantic contract so that some 4th liners dont have to give up their escrow on their 900k salaries?

I wonder if that would make him happier?
It was less than two weeks between when half the league was falling over itself to throw money at Suter and Parise and when it was crying poverty and putting up their first "offer" of a 25% reduction in the cap because they just couldn't "afford" the salaries players were making. Two weeks between promising guys like Prust 10 mil dollar contracts and saying their hands are tied and they're being run out of business. It's horse ****.

JMiller is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:00 PM
  #175
Ratty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rive Gauche
Posts: 6,494
vCash: 500
All the more reason to come to an agreement on length of contracts. It's difficult for owners, in a competitive environment, to turn their backs on pressure to match personnel moves by clubs in their division or conference.
It looks like some of the player solidarity is starting to crack.


Last edited by Ratty: 10-26-2012 at 10:14 PM.
Ratty 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 06:30 PM.

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.