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.

Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 11:17 PM
  #451
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Is this imaginary scenario supposed to have already taken place or is it a vision from the future?
Simply hiring Fehr was a declaration of war.

How the players expected anything less when that hire was first made is beyond me.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:21 PM
  #452
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
1 - Aren't they still bickering about what constitutes HRR? Trying to get rid of the cap is a card they can play that would make the Owners step back and say "Awww crap, they're in this for the long haul" and maybe give a slightly better deal, in my opinion anyway.
2 - The idea that every deal offered by the NHL from here on out will be worse than their first couple is myth. Nobody can predict the willingness of the Owners or the PA to go the distance. If the PA falters first and can't weather the storm any longer...then yeah, they'll likely get a worse deal than they could have got earlier on. They're banking on (just like all Unions do) that the Employer will blink first. Not cave. But want to put an end to the lockout and move off their position enough to satisfy the PA.
3 - The PA isn't striking, not this season or next. They are locked out. And it's a question nobody, not even the PA guys or the players, can answer. Usually they'd be briefed before hand and told "This could go into a 2nd year, are you prepared for that?". At the time...they might all say yes, but that can change as time goes on. Just like it can for the Owners.
1. I think the NHL would honestly laugh in their face. Why would they lockout for an entire year to get the cap just to get rid of it 7 years later. The cap is going nowhere and to make an offer like that would end talks until the PA comes back with a serious offer. It's a non-issue really. There's no way the NHL would come back with a better offer if they took the cap off the table.

2. I agree to an extent, I dont think the offer will get worse(how could it really? 50/50 is fair, but the contract demands cant exactly get worse, what 3 year limits? haha) that offer is more or less the framework of their final offer. Contract demands and maybe years 1 and 2 may change but that's as far as the owners are willing to go unless this hits lockout year 2.(then who even knows.) But very, very slim chance the Owners crack before the players, 700 players are just too hard to unite especially with varying incomes.

3.I dont think any player(or even owner) is willing to go to year 2 let alone a full-year now, another year of this is suicide for both parties and would seriously damage revenue. Most rumors to me point to an agreement happening by the end of november, although it's negative right now, they have gotten closer money wise, so it's not like last lockout where they were talking a massive difference.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:23 PM
  #453
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
And hiring and keeping Bettman on was a statement of a new era in peaceful co-operation between owners and cattle.

Here we have a union that has made as its opening offer in negotiation to take less money going forward in an attempt to work with the owners to solve some of the revenue disparity issues.

And Bettmans opening offer is a punch in the face.

And you want to say poor Bettman had no choice, the players made him do it when they hired Fehr? And after seeing all the offers made to date are going to stand by such a ridiculous assertion?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:23 PM
  #454
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Is this imaginary scenario supposed to have already taken place or is it a vision from the future?
That scenario sounds pretty close to what I heard happened. The NHLPA, I don't believe, has once asked for a deal with the split not eventually getting to 50/50 (the 3rd offer by the PA was iffy, might not get there for a while or not actually get all the way there).

So....the PA has made offers to get to 50/50, but they're starting a war?

The NHLPA isn't going to take concessions again and on top of that lose all the other smaller items they won last time. That's not how it works. Give a little and get a little.

People seem to forget that the Owners don't just want 50/50 (and right quickly) they also want contract lengths limited, longer to go to arbitration, higher age for UFA status, no front loaded contracts, increasing revenue sharing to big market teams that are mismanaged, etc.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:28 PM
  #455
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Here we have a union that has made as its opening offer in negotiation to take less money going forward in an attempt to work with the owners to solve some of the revenue disparity issues.
You mean give themselves guaranteed raises and maybe leave something for the owners and those less fortunate teams they supposedly care about.

Oh and that so called "generous offer" would snap back to 57% at the player's choice in case they were to make more money that way.

It was nothing more than "Hey owners ! How about you give us guaranteed money and raises over the next few years while you take all the risk oh and maybe there's some money in it for you ?"

The NHL's opening offer was a shakedown but it's funny how many people think Fehr's offer was generous, would actually fix anything in the NHL, that the owners would even seriously consider it.

Iggy77 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:34 PM
  #456
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
1. I think the NHL would honestly laugh in their face. Why would they lockout for an entire year to get the cap just to get rid of it 7 years later. The cap is going nowhere and to make an offer like that would end talks until the PA comes back with a serious offer. It's a non-issue really. There's no way the NHL would come back with a better offer if they took the cap off the table.
It's like going "all-in". Makes people re-think their strategies and at least tells the Owners that by proposing to remove the cap the Players aren't backing down anytime soon. More of a warning shot than anything I think. Doubt it will happen.
Quote:
2. I agree to an extent, I dont think the offer will get worse(how could it really? 50/50 is fair, but the contract demands cant exactly get worse, what 3 year limits? haha) that offer is more or less the framework of their final offer. Contract demands and maybe years 1 and 2 may change but that's as far as the owners are willing to go unless this hits lockout year 2.(then who even knows.) But very, very slim chance the Owners crack before the players, 700 players are just too hard to unite especially with varying incomes.
Very true. But the disparity between the income of the franchises is also a big issue. Teams that are filthy rich and are looking at making even more money (boost to franchise value as well) might be fine with sitting out for a while, teams on the bubble.....everyday that passes they are losing fans they worked hard to gain....they might not be so willing. Even the teams that are losing piles of dough...the longer this goes on the worse it is going to be when they come back....getting a 50/50 split will likely be negated by the loss of interest in their market.
Quote:
3.I dont think any player(or even owner) is willing to go to year 2 let alone a full-year now, another year of this is suicide for both parties and would seriously damage revenue. Most rumors to me point to an agreement happening by the end of november, although it's negative right now, they have gotten closer money wise, so it's not like last lockout where they were talking a massive difference.
Very true. I do think the NHL has more interest in saving some of this season than the players do (or majority of players). The NHL wants to get a better split to help failing markets....the longer this lockout lasts the more damage is done to those markets that make whatever deal they finally agree on less beneficial.
Say in January they agree to 50/50....the damage done to the weak markets (that this whole thing is trying to save) likely will be greater than the savings the teams will realize from the new CBA.
Seems rather silly to me....going to these lengths to save a handful of teams....while the process to get there may end up killing them anyway.
Maybe they can weather the storm with more revenue sharing....but some of the damage done by these things, especially in non-traditional markets, is irreversible.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:41 PM
  #457
mbar
Registered User
 
mbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 675
vCash: 500
http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/176190261.html

Because the counter to this is you and Zach received lockout-protected $10 million signing bonuses for a reason. You had to know there was a risk of a lockout? “Yeah. Yeah. There definitely was. Whenever the CBA’s up, after last time what happened, we wanted to protect ourselves, so yeah, there was risk. We both knew that. Just moving forward, I don’t want to get into a battle about that. I don’t want to be a posterboy. I’m just trying to be honest with you. I don’t question Craig. I don’t feel like it was negotiated unfaithfully or untruthfully.”

I thought this other Suter quote (from the previous linked article) is interesting because he shows the players somewhat having it both ways. 1) Of course we expect you to 100% honor our contracts in the new CBA and 2) Give me tons of up front money (because I know we're negotiating this contract that will be discounted in the future CBA)

Is it just me or does that paint a flattering picture of the players?

mbar is online now  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:44 PM
  #458
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
3.I dont think any player(or even owner) is willing to go to year 2 let alone a full-year now, another year of this is suicide for both parties and would seriously damage revenue. Most rumors to me point to an agreement happening by the end of november, although it's negative right now, they have gotten closer money wise, so it's not like last lockout where they were talking a massive difference.

It all depends on the PA and Fehr's end game. Thats what has people scared. Even the owners. We all know the owners will wait it out, cuz they can and it's in their best interest. The players, we don't know if they are willing to wait it out that long and we definitely know it's not in their best interest.

Pro-athletes are extemely competitive. When they hear, "they will fold". They may not fold just to try and prove a point. Sad but true.


I do hope that both sides come to their senses. I'd like to think the gap isn't big enough to not have a 2013 Stanley Cup winner.


Last edited by SidTheKid8787: 10-29-2012 at 12:01 AM.
SidTheKid8787 is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:46 PM
  #459
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbar View Post
http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/176190261.html

Because the counter to this is you and Zach received lockout-protected $10 million signing bonuses for a reason. You had to know there was a risk of a lockout? ďYeah. Yeah. There definitely was. Whenever the CBAís up, after last time what happened, we wanted to protect ourselves, so yeah, there was risk. We both knew that. Just moving forward, I donít want to get into a battle about that. I donít want to be a posterboy. Iím just trying to be honest with you. I donít question Craig. I donít feel like it was negotiated unfaithfully or untruthfully.Ē

I thought this other Suter quote (from the previous linked article) is interesting because he shows the players somewhat having it both ways. 1) Of course we expect you to 100% honor our contracts in the new CBA and 2) Give me tons of up front money (because I know we're negotiating this contract that will be discounted in the future CBA)

Is it just me or does that paint a flattering picture of the players?
Those same players kept saying if the league had record revenues why would they cut our salaries? Because revenues aren't profits and don't mean jack if half of the owners operated at a loss.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:49 PM
  #460
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
And hiring and keeping Bettman on was a statement of a new era in peaceful co-operation between owners and cattle.
Here we have a union that has made as its opening offer in negotiation to take less money going forward in an attempt to work with the owners to solve some of the revenue disparity issues.

And Bettmans opening offer is a punch in the face.

And you want to say poor Bettman had no choice, the players made him do it when they hired Fehr? And after seeing all the offers made to date are going to stand by such a ridiculous assertion?

Fehr's no less antagonistic than Bettman is, but up until very recently when the NHL made it's second proposal, it seemed that Bettman was the Devil Himself. Now the scales are at least even, and it's about damn time. The last straw for me was this feigned outrage at the NHL hiring some GOP PR hack and everyone yelling "See, see!!!" as they pointed at Bettman's horns and pointy tail.

Seems to me that's no different than the PA coming out with a feature film quality trailer with the message saying they "Just want to play". Either Crosby and Toews moonlight as cinematographers and sound editors in the off-season, or they - wait for it - hired someone to get THEIR public relations message across.

Most of us, even on the owner's side understand and acknowledge exactly what Bettman is. But your stance on Fehr being anything but a weasel in his own right is ridiculous.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
10-28-2012, 11:49 PM
  #461
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Yes, clearly the league's biggest mistake was increasing revenues. For the sake of the league's health, they should have ensured that revenues didn't grow during the course of the previous CBA. If they had done that, everything would be peachy, with the players receiving 54%, and the teams all healthy.

 
Old
10-29-2012, 12:04 AM
  #462
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
And hiring and keeping Bettman on was a statement of a new era in peaceful co-operation between owners and cattle.

Here we have a union that has made as its opening offer in negotiation to take less money going forward in an attempt to work with the owners to solve some of the revenue disparity issues.

And Bettmans opening offer is a punch in the face.

And you want to say poor Bettman had no choice, the players made him do it when they hired Fehr? And after seeing all the offers made to date are going to stand by such a ridiculous assertion?

The players have done way more to prevent a deal than they have to try to achieve one. When the NHL asked them to start negotiating they said we can not negotiate during the season only to turn around and say they would negotiate while playing this year. Then the NHL asks them not to activate the 5% escalator to keep salaries down and make the deal less complicated, but the players invoke it. This forces the NHL owners to sign higher contracts or else we would have seen an antitrust challenge. Then the player start this crap about honoring contracts. Hypocrites the whole lot of them.

Orrthebest is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:05 AM
  #463
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
You mean give themselves guaranteed raises and maybe leave something for the owners and those less fortunate teams they supposedly care about.
No, i mean they offered to take a smaller percentage of revenues going forward.

Revenues would be increasing so of course they would get guaranteed raises. But they were proposing taking 1-2% and then a complete pay freeze.

I understand the fear - what if revenues dropped? Well ok, that seems an easy deal to negotiate - if revenues drop then salaries drop. Would that allay all your concerns then?

Quote:
Oh and that so called "generous offer" would snap back to 57% at the player's choice in case they were to make more money that way.
The nuance of that, which escaped most it seems, was that it was an attempt to stop the owners from doing the same thing all over agin next time. The incentive is therefore to keep the cba going rather than actually allow the snap back to occurr. The only reason it would snap back was because the owners were intending on locking the players out to ge tmore money again. Otherwise, things stay at 50-50.

If it did work to do that, but Bettman disagreed because he wanted to reserve the right to lockout again even if revenues increased again, would you still think of it the same way and give the owners unconditional support?


Quote:
The NHL's opening offer was a shakedown
Thats interesting. Why do you say that out of curiosity?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:10 AM
  #464
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Because revenues aren't profits and don't mean jack if half of the owners operated at a loss.
Profits dont always correlate with the increase in wealth they have accumulated due to their ownership of the team. In fact we have seen owners who recorded millions in losses for every year they owned the team and still increased their wealth by owning and even more when they sold.

Losing money in "profits" dont mean jack if their franchise values are increasing by a hundred million dollars.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:13 AM
  #465
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
That scenario sounds pretty close to what I heard happened. The NHLPA, I don't believe, has once asked for a deal with the split not eventually getting to 50/50 (the 3rd offer by the PA was iffy, might not get there for a while or not actually get all the way there).

So....the PA has made offers to get to 50/50, but they're starting a war?

The NHLPA isn't going to take concessions again and on top of that lose all the other smaller items they won last time. That's not how it works. Give a little and get a little.

People seem to forget that the Owners don't just want 50/50 (and right quickly) they also want contract lengths limited, longer to go to arbitration, higher age for UFA status, no front loaded contracts, increasing revenue sharing to big market teams that are mismanaged, etc.
Show me a player that has made a public statement include anything in their pleas that includes anything outside of salary...stop kidding yourself - this has nothing to do with the other issues. It has to do with salary.

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:14 AM
  #466
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
The PA has said many times the other issues matter as well.

 
Old
10-29-2012, 12:15 AM
  #467
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The PA has said many times the other issues matter as well.
But are pretty much unwilling so far to talk about them. Logic escapes them

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:28 AM
  #468
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The PA has said many times the other issues matter as well.
Toews? Suter? Ovechkin? Which one has brought up any of the issues?

Lobotomizer* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:35 AM
  #469
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
No, i mean they offered to take a smaller percentage of revenues going forward.

Revenues would be increasing so of course they would get guaranteed raises. But they were proposing taking 1-2% and then a complete pay freeze.

I understand the fear - what if revenues dropped? Well ok, that seems an easy deal to negotiate - if revenues drop then salaries drop. Would that allay all your concerns then?



The nuance of that, which escaped most it seems, was that it was an attempt to stop the owners from doing the same thing all over agin next time. The incentive is therefore to keep the cba going rather than actually allow the snap back to occurr. The only reason it would snap back was because the owners were intending on locking the players out to ge tmore money again. Otherwise, things stay at 50-50.

If it did work to do that, but Bettman disagreed because he wanted to reserve the right to lockout again even if revenues increased again, would you still think of it the same way and give the owners unconditional support?




Thats interesting. Why do you say that out of curiosity?
You do realize that is the crux of the issue? That is what Bettman and Daly mean when they say the PA is unwilling to work within their framework.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:58 AM
  #470
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
And hiring and keeping Bettman on was a statement of a new era in peaceful co-operation between owners and cattle.

Here we have a union that has made as its opening offer in negotiation to take less money going forward in an attempt to work with the owners to solve some of the revenue disparity issues.

And Bettmans opening offer is a punch in the face.

And you want to say poor Bettman had no choice, the players made him do it when they hired Fehr? And after seeing all the offers made to date are going to stand by such a ridiculous assertion?
There hasn't been a NHLPA propsal where the players as a collective earn less dollars than what they currently do. All of NHLPAs offers have their income grow.

Also, Fehr is trying to get delinkage in there which he should know has zero chance of succeeding. So either he is completely ignorant about the NHL or he isn't actually proposing something he thinks has a chance of getting accepted. I suspect it's the latter. He is a one trick pony and we're seeing his one trick. Delay delay delay and hope the owners crack.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:01 AM
  #471
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
The players have done way more to prevent a deal than they have to try to achieve one. When the NHL asked them to start negotiating they said we can not negotiate during the season only to turn around and say they would negotiate while playing this year. Then the NHL asks them not to activate the 5% escalator to keep salaries down and make the deal less complicated, but the players invoke it. This forces the NHL owners to sign higher contracts or else we would have seen an antitrust challenge. Then the player start this crap about honoring contracts. Hypocrites the whole lot of them.
There was also speculation that the NHLPA artificially increased escrow payments to make escrow even more unpalatable to their own membership:

Quote:
Escrow is a dirty word to all NHL players, however what's surprising is the NHLPA's reluctance to embrace a lower rate, as proposed by the league, even though this would mean less money paid out, up front, by the players.

Some believe the players association is counting on its members open disdain for escrow and may use artificially inflated escrow rates to fuel any hard negotiations, soon to be appointed, executive director, Don Fehr will have in the future with the NHL, when discussions into a new CBA are formally opened.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:50 AM
  #472
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
There hasn't been a NHLPA propsal where the players as a collective earn less dollars than what they currently do. All of NHLPAs offers have their income grow.

Also, Fehr is trying to get delinkage in there which he should know has zero chance of succeeding. So either he is completely ignorant about the NHL or he isn't actually proposing something he thinks has a chance of getting accepted. I suspect it's the latter. He is a one trick pony and we're seeing his one trick. Delay delay delay and hope the owners crack.
There isnt any reason the players should be signing a deal that sees them take less dollars than they currently do. Revenues are increasing and salaries are linked to revenues. So i dont understand the point of highlighting this obvious fact.

He proposed freezing salaries and you are rejecting it because you are concerned its delinked. I cant believe the owners would be rejecting it for that reason. But if that were the reason, then like when everyone said why dont the players just offer a compromise to a gradual move to 50-50, if the players proposed it the owners would reject it because it didnt create an immediate pay cut. Not because it as delinked.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:04 AM
  #473
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
There isnt any reason the players should be signing a deal that sees them take less dollars than they currently do. Revenues are increasing and salaries are linked to revenues. So i dont understand the point of highlighting this obvious fact.

He proposed freezing salaries and you are rejecting it because you are concerned its delinked. I cant believe the owners would be rejecting it for that reason. But if that were the reason, then like when everyone said why dont the players just offer a compromise to a gradual move to 50-50, if the players proposed it the owners would reject it because it didnt create an immediate pay cut. Not because it as delinked.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:07 AM
  #474
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
There isnt any reason the players should be signing a deal that sees them take less dollars than they currently do. Revenues are increasing and salaries are linked to revenues. So i dont understand the point of highlighting this obvious fact.

He proposed freezing salaries and you are rejecting it because you are concerned its delinked. I cant believe the owners would be rejecting it for that reason. But if that were the reason, then like when everyone said why dont the players just offer a compromise to a gradual move to 50-50, if the players proposed it the owners would reject it because it didnt create an immediate pay cut. Not because it as delinked.
I'm not sure why you dismiss linkage so easily. The very fact that this will likely be a shortened season with flat or negative growth is exactly why you would want the lower risk of a linked system. Also, so far the NHLPA:

1) Has never proposed a linked %.
2) Has never responded in kind to a linked %.

How do you know whether a 'soft landing' would have been accepted or rejected when the NHLPA isn't even speaking that language to begin with?

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:10 AM
  #475
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
It's funny to see teachers, cops and firemen used as an argument against the players' stance. Their feelings, argument and labor negotiations are all utilized by the unions of those professions. There is no protection or education system without those employees. Kind of why they are powerful unions. There's no league without the players. I don't understand the hate for players asking for one concession. They aren't asking for "more". They are accepting less, god forbid they determine the pace of their losses.

You don't pay the players any more than you pay a cop. Your ticket money and tax dollars get there eventually, but you pay corrupt owners and corrupt towns first. "Take it or leave it" and "It's my rules" wouldn't fly for one union, why would it fly for another?
Is this for real?

I don't get to individually negotiate my contract with 30 other governments, it is set by the negotiations my union and the government have.

Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave would know the massive cuts that have taken place in our professions and we smile and take it because we are deemed 'essential services'.

Calling this group of players a union is a joke in itself. They are capitalists and individuals who negotiate their own salaries and dictate the length of the contract and salary. Hell, they can play like crap the whole time, show up for the minimum and still be guaranteed to make their salary.

You wanna know why so many people are tuning the whole thing out and the players are losing support? Because the players and owners have so many rights privileges and are actually complaining publicly for support as if they are entitled to more.

BTW, most of us union guys had to all 'take it or leave it' in the last two years and it wasn't performance-based guaranteed contracts that were negotiated individually after shopping around for the best offer. It was 'take this legislation (offer) and do your job or find another career. This isn't a negotiation. Thanks for coming.' Educate yourself.

Coach Parker 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 11:10 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.