HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Dreger: Stalemate in CBA negotiations

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 02:55 PM
  #26
Fire Sather
new Niclas Wallin?
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 20,358
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I cant figure out why anybody even talks about how much money the players are losing this year. As far as I ever knew, this season was a lost cause from the start.

The lockout, and both side's positions, are not about short term recovery (well, except for the owner's insistence that salaries be slashed immediately to get to 50/50). The NHLPA isn't approaching this lockout from the standpoint of "save as much salary right now as possible". Their approach is "what serves NHLPA members best in the long run".

Again, I find it funny that so many people decry the players for being greedy and selfish when as a matter of principle they are all sacrificing short term gain for the long term benefit of future NHLPA members. I would characterize the NHLPA's position as quite distinctly un-selfish.
I don't see how this is the case since the players have agreed to take 50% in the future but are *****ing about CURRENT contracts being honored.

So for the players, it IS about right now and they are contradicting themselves by choosing not to play instead of working something out to get most/all of their money.

Unless the PA isn't truly serious about going 50/50 in the future.

Fire Sather is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 02:55 PM
  #27
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I cant figure out why anybody even talks about how much money the players are losing this year. As far as I ever knew, this season was a lost cause from the start.

The lockout, and both side's positions, are not about short term recovery (well, except for the owner's insistence that salaries be slashed immediately to get to 50/50). The NHLPA isn't approaching this lockout from the standpoint of "save as much salary right now as possible". Their approach is "what serves NHLPA members best in the long run".

Again, I find it funny that so many people decry the players for being greedy and selfish when as a matter of principle they are all sacrificing short term gain for the long term benefit of future NHLPA members. I would characterize the NHLPA's position as quite distinctly un-selfish.
The players conceded to 50/50 as long as current contracts are fully paid using the owners share. A majority of contracts are going to expire within 3-4 years. What's long-term about that?

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 02:57 PM
  #28
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I cant figure out why anybody even talks about how much money the players are losing this year. As far as I ever knew, this season was a lost cause from the start.

The lockout, and both side's positions, are not about short term recovery (well, except for the owner's insistence that salaries be slashed immediately to get to 50/50). The NHLPA isn't approaching this lockout from the standpoint of "save as much salary right now as possible". Their approach is "what serves NHLPA members best in the long run".

Again, I find it funny that so many people decry the players for being greedy and selfish when as a matter of principle they are all sacrificing short term gain for the long term benefit of future NHLPA members. I would characterize the NHLPA's position as quite distinctly un-selfish.
Disagree somewhat. Their insistance on maintaining all the salary from their current deals is certainly looking out for number 1. The not wanting to entertain the make whole is looking out for the future members. Its a combination.

A lot of players understand that what they are making is due in some part to the sacrifices of the last lockout and imo more importantly the one prior to that. So for a lot of them the simple fact they personally would be better off just signing the NHL's deal doesn't even play into it.

With that said, I don't think continually putting delinkage on the table is constructive and that they can make a fair deal for themselves and the future members without losing a single game.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:00 PM
  #29
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I cant figure out why anybody even talks about how much money the players are losing this year. As far as I ever knew, this season was a lost cause from the start.

The lockout, and both side's positions, are not about short term recovery (well, except for the owner's insistence that salaries be slashed immediately to get to 50/50). The NHLPA isn't approaching this lockout from the standpoint of "save as much salary right now as possible". Their approach is "what serves NHLPA members best in the long run".

Again, I find it funny that so many people decry the players for being greedy and selfish when as a matter of principle they are all sacrificing short term gain for the long term benefit of future NHLPA members. I would characterize the NHLPA's position as quite distinctly un-selfish.
The PA has put all fixed raises at the beginning of the CBA and has implemented damage control at the end of the CBA by suggesting a salary freeze should percentages not be met. If year 4 is met with a salary freeze, how does that benefit the PA members in that year and the year after? If the cap were to freeze in year 4, the only freed up dollars available for UFAs and RFAs in year 4 and 5 would be dollars available through contract expirations and the only 'extra' money available would be due to players who choose to retire or not resign with the league. I guess we interpret it differently but I think the PA's proposals have suggested that their main priority is existing contracts EVEN if may mean it comes at the expense of future contracts for the other PA members.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:04 PM
  #30
GoCanes2013
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buttonwood View Post
Yet, after stumbling upon a great CBA in 2005, the PA decided to bring in the notorious Donald Fehr.

That doesn't dissolve Bettman's responsibility, but it does suggest anybody could see this coming.
What players were in control (Executive committee?) in NHLPA when Fehr was hired? Just wondering how many of them are still around and playing?

GoCanes2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:09 PM
  #31
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I cant figure out why anybody even talks about how much money the players are losing this year. As far as I ever knew, this season was a lost cause from the start.

The lockout, and both side's positions, are not about short term recovery (well, except for the owner's insistence that salaries be slashed immediately to get to 50/50). The NHLPA isn't approaching this lockout from the standpoint of "save as much salary right now as possible". Their approach is "what serves NHLPA members best in the long run".

Again, I find it funny that so many people decry the players for being greedy and selfish when as a matter of principle they are all sacrificing short term gain for the long term benefit of future NHLPA members. I would characterize the NHLPA's position as quite distinctly un-selfish.
I would neither characterize the Player's position as greedy or selfish.

I would characterize it as ridiculously ignorant and self defeating. Really don't know how I could explain to myself and family how I could sit by and watch my employers lock the doors on me without even contemplating addressing the framework upon which they are going to open or lock their business...wow, just wow.

Pilky, I congratulate you on your idealism and principles if you think these guys do or should give a hoot about the guys coming after - perhaps they do. However, in my view - wickedly self-defeating.

TCsmyth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:09 PM
  #32
BruinsBtn
Registered User
 
BruinsBtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The players conceded to 50/50 as long as current contracts are fully paid using the owners share. A majority of contracts are going to expire within 3-4 years. What's long-term about that?
First of all, it's impossible to get to 50/50 this year with the current contracts.

Second, the young guys and upcoming FAs have no idea how bad they're going to get screwed by a deal that takes 50/50 and honors current contracts, especially when fan interest is crushed by a long lockout.

It will end in a situation where teams are forced to fill out rosters with game-day callups.

BruinsBtn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:10 PM
  #33
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
As a fan of watching hockey at the very highest level, I am so sick of the NHL owners and their lockouts.

As billionaires go, these guys are world class chumps. They piss off their customers every three years to "get their financial house in order" and fail miserably each time.

And here they are, holding fans hostage again for a the concept of "linkage," the same concept that cost most money losing teams the ability to profitable for the last few years.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:14 PM
  #34
Deebo
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
As a fan of watching hockey at the very highest level, I am so sick of the NHL owners and their lockouts.

As billionaires go, these guys are world class chumps. They piss off their customers every three years to "get their financial house in order" and fail miserably each time.

And here they are, holding fans hostage again for a the concept of "linkage," the same concept that cost most money losing teams the ability to profitable for the last few years.
every three years?

Deebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:16 PM
  #35
Koss
Registered User
 
Koss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Koss
Players want their contracts honoured. Owners are saying they've agreed to pay them more than they can afford too. Could they not come to an agreement where the league agrees to a team salary cap that works for the league and teams that have agreed to pay too much for some players let go back to free agency under the new rules?

Koss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:16 PM
  #36
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,126
vCash: 500
They've only conceded to 50/50 if overall revenue grows at 5%. If growth is higher, they want a bigger share.

IMO, it's telling that Bettman indicated that he could move on the "make whole" provision but rejected the above out of hand.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:17 PM
  #37
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
As a fan of watching hockey at the very highest level, I am so sick of the NHL owners and their lockouts.

As billionaires go, these guys are world class chumps. They piss off their customers every three years to "get their financial house in order" and fail miserably each time.

And here they are, holding fans hostage again for a the concept of "linkage," the same concept that cost most money losing teams the ability to profitable for the last few years.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. I am not pissed of, nor do I feel held hostage...I am not spending money on NHL this year - will be back when both sides decide to get back on the ice.

TCsmyth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:18 PM
  #38
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,774
vCash: 500
OR......

As a fan of watching hockey at the very highest level, I am so sick of the NHL players and the work stoppages they force.

As millionaires go, these guys are world class chumps. They piss off their fans every seven years to "so they can feed their dogs and children" and fail miserably at getting the deal they want every time, yet somehow manage to dramatically improve financially at the fans' expense every time.

And here they are, holding fans hostage again for the concept of "de-linkage," the same concept that cost most teams the ability to be profitable prior to the last few years.


MOD


Last edited by Fugu: 10-24-2012 at 03:26 PM. Reason: direct comments at topic, not the other users
Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:21 PM
  #39
Rooverick*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I cant figure out why anybody even talks about how much money the players are losing this year. As far as I ever knew, this season was a lost cause from the start.

The lockout, and both side's positions, are not about short term recovery (well, except for the owner's insistence that salaries be slashed immediately to get to 50/50). The NHLPA isn't approaching this lockout from the standpoint of "save as much salary right now as possible". Their approach is "what serves NHLPA members best in the long run".

Again, I find it funny that so many people decry the players for being greedy and selfish when as a matter of principle they are all sacrificing short term gain for the long term benefit of future NHLPA members. I would characterize the NHLPA's position as quite distinctly un-selfish.
All the while their agents (in their own selfish interests) are whispering in their ears to fight the good fight.

Rooverick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:22 PM
  #40
tmg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Also, certain posters here are going way over the top. Cancel the season? Come on. Right now the deadline talk revolves around whether they will play a full season or a partial one.
The people making that leap are making it because right now, the gap is as narrow as it is ever going to be. As soon as games get cancelled, the ship sails on "players getting every dollar of this season's contract honoured", which has been the PA's hard-line absolute. With each cancelled game, the NHL actually agreeing to pay-every-dollar represents a larger percentage of revenue, which will itself be a smaller number (both directly as a result of a shortened schedule and indirectly with casual interest degraded in many markets leading to poorer ticket sales for games that do occur).


As the lockout goes on into a partial season, in proposals each side is going to expect the other side to give back as much as they lost as a result of games lost so far this season. Neither is going to settle for a comprimise point between the two, because that would be worse for them than the comprimise point they're already refusing to meet.

Unless one side *completely breaks* (overthrows its leader and agrees to everything the other side wanted and more), I can't see this resolving as a partial season. Both men will be completely unwilling to compromise over a smaller piece of a smaller pie when they were unwilling to compromise when the pie was full-size.

tmg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:24 PM
  #41
bishop12
Ovyously
 
bishop12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,707
vCash: 500
I blame the owners 100% for this....the tactics theyv'e used are just a joke.

bishop12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:24 PM
  #42
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCsmyth View Post
I would neither characterize the Player's position as greedy or selfish.

I would characterize it as ridiculously ignorant and self defeating. Really don't know how I could explain to myself and family how I could sit by and watch my employers lock the doors on me without even contemplating addressing the framework upon which they are going to open or lock their business...wow, just wow.

Pilky, I congratulate you on your idealism and principles if you think these guys do or should give a hoot about the guys coming after - perhaps they do. However, in my view - wickedly self-defeating.
How do you characterize the owners' insistence on linkage?

The players are giving up, on average, about 4.2 percent share of HRR. And the owners want to throw that out for linkage?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:26 PM
  #43
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deebo View Post
every three years?
Sorry, meant every few years. Can't change it.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:27 PM
  #44
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,890
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mind_the_gap View Post
I blame the owners 100% for this....the tactics theyv'e used are just a joke.
And Fehr is blameless?

Seedling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:28 PM
  #45
caliamad
Registered User
 
caliamad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,819
vCash: 500
Right, I think the players interest seems a little short sided and they don't have much leverage keeping them.

Players are fine with eventually going to 50% but only under those conditions (maintain current salaries and 5% revenue growth).

However, 5% revenue growth contingency, even if 100% expected is total BS. The split is 50/50... sorry, you can't say 50/50 if...

However, on the 2nd part, wanting their salaries honored, I feel for them here. This is the 2nd time in 2 CBAs they've getting the contract that GMs/owner offered to them shrunk. Its really awful that the Minnesota / Philly owners, after offering those ridiculous contracts this offeason, to go and ask the players to give 10%+ back.

However, the tells the owners the players want their money, but don't care as much about the future. Well that 10% is going to seem pretty meaningless once there is risk of losing and entire season's paycheck. This tells me the players will crumble fairly before there is any chance to cancel a season. Fehr may control them for now, but they are not so stupid to lose an entire season of salary.

caliamad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:29 PM
  #46
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
This is getting more and more ridiculous by the day.

Also, certain posters here are going way over the top. Cancel the season? Come on. Right now the deadline talk revolves around whether they will play a full season or a partial one.

From a fan's perspective, I couldn't give a damn whether they play a full 82 games or not. There's no way I can watch all those games in a compressed schedule. I'd be perfectly happy with about 60. Actually, I'd be perfectly happy if EVERY season had 60 games. There's something ridiculous about watching hockey in June.
I believe the season is lost the second a game is missed.

The players and owners are arguing over such a small amount at the moment, that "winning" this CBA becomes more and more important to each side.

With the players losing the salary from missing games ( more so than the amount that they are battling for) they are going to be out to win at least what they started fighting for, because those few percent mean that much more.

It's a joke really.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:32 PM
  #47
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
And Fehr is blameless?
What should he be blamed for?

The people blaming Fehr for this are the people who believe this should be a one-way negotiation, with the players doing all the giving, and the owners doing all the taking.

And that's not much of a negotiation.

What's the charge: "Not giving away everything we want fast enough?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:32 PM
  #48
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,342
vCash: 500
There has been one constant in all 4 NHL lockouts/Strikes.

Bettman.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:32 PM
  #49
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
How do you characterize the owners' insistence on linkage?

The players are giving up, on average, about 4.2 percent share of HRR. And the owners want to throw that out for linkage?
I characterize it as a business decision.

May or may not be smart (I think each owner might have a little different take), but it is a business principle that they have decided they need to have to open their doors. If there is no hockey - they don't get my revenue - that's their call. Just don't see how the NHLPA doesn't see this (taking into account their self interest)...just my take

TCsmyth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 03:34 PM
  #50
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
So dumb. If 20 games get cancelled, the players lose more money than they stodd to gain by the owners taking their latest proposal.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:33 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.