HFBoards

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

Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-21-2012, 06:55 AM
  #201
The Naz
With God given hands
 
The Naz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Ask the NHLPA

NHL has made strides to bring this to a close ,, NHLPA has not

NHLPA has made no offers based on NHL framework (Only framework the NHL will accept) and they continue to show a childish attitude (Showing up late for every meeting including the one they themselves asked for)
Why is it OK for the NHL to bully the negotiations and demand that only their framework count. The PA has made several proposals, all with considerable concessions, yet they are being unfair and childish? Why must the giving only be one way?

I find it so odd that people don't see it this way. The being late thing is, IMO, an unprofessional head game. But other then that, they've moved considerably.

The Naz is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 07:27 AM
  #202
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Naz View Post
Why is it OK for the NHL to bully the negotiations and demand that only their framework count. The PA has made several proposals, all with considerable concessions, yet they are being unfair and childish? Why must the giving only be one way?

I find it so odd that people don't see it this way. The being late thing is, IMO, an unprofessional head game. But other then that, they've moved considerably.
One side has more than half of the members losing millions of dollars per year.
The other side has a minimum wage of half a million dollars.

It seems as sort of common sense to me which side should be dictating a framework to build upon.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 07:43 AM
  #203
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Naz View Post
Why is it OK for the NHL to bully the negotiations and demand that only their framework count. The PA has made several proposals, all with considerable concessions, yet they are being unfair and childish? Why must the giving only be one way?

I find it so odd that people don't see it this way. The being late thing is, IMO, an unprofessional head game. But other then that, they've moved considerably.
Moved considerably on what exactly?

Have they even put in a full proposal recently?

The NHL has moved to 50/50 and making up contracts for the first two years. I find that considerable movement on their part. What is it that the players have given up?

The PA got have jumped in the driver seat if they had of gotten to the table quicker but they didn't and flat out ignored offers so the NHL has to attempt to get the offers aligned so everyone is on the same table. While it may seem like hardlining, there is no point to allow the PA to come to the table with something the NHL will not agree to and they are making that clear.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:11 AM
  #204
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
One side has more than half of the members losing millions of dollars per year.
The other side has a minimum wage of half a million dollars.

It seems as sort of common sense to me which side should be dictating a framework to build upon.
No doubt the players are going to continue to be well rewarded for their efforts.

Billionaires taking the money from working stiffs and deciding how much to share is usually the way of the system.

Workings stiffs should be more careful with the crumbs Bilderberg allow them to consume and demand better products. Stay away from overpriced inferior/knock-offs (like Ray Ban now made in China) products and demand price reductions when slave labour or inept management overprices the products.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:42 AM
  #205
achtungbaby
Registered User
 
achtungbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
No doubt the players are going to continue to be well rewarded for their efforts.

Billionaires taking the money from working stiffs and deciding how much to share is usually the way of the system.

Workings stiffs should be more careful with the crumbs Bilderberg allow them to consume and demand better products. Stay away from overpriced inferior/knock-offs (like Ray Ban now made in China) products and demand price reductions when slave labour or inept management overprices the products.
Equating the players to some "working stiffs" is a bit of a stretch no? You're really reaching to paint a picture of the poor working man players being oppressed by the uncaring boss man. I'm surprised Walmart hasn't had a sympathy strike yet. I understand the point you're trying to make but you must realize that this labour strife is pretty unique compared to the typical concerns of most "working stiffs" around the world just trying to make enough money to survive another 2 weeks.

achtungbaby is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:50 AM
  #206
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Ask the NHLPA

NHL has made strides to bring this to a close ,, NHLPA has not


NHLPA has made no offers based on NHL framework (Only framework the NHL will accept) and they continue to show a childish attitude (Showing up late for every meeting including the one they themselves asked for)
No. The NHL simply started with an outlandish proposal then backed off their initial demands while claiming they were making "major concessions."

htpwn is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:09 AM
  #207
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achtungbaby View Post
Equating the players to some "working stiffs" is a bit of a stretch no? You're really reaching to paint a picture of the poor working man players being oppressed by the uncaring boss man. I'm surprised Walmart hasn't had a sympathy strike yet. I understand the point you're trying to make but you must realize that this labour strife is pretty unique compared to the typical concerns of most "working stiffs" around the world just trying to make enough money to survive another 2 weeks.
I'm not calling the players working stiffs I'm calling the fans working stiffs.

The money isn't from Billionaires, it is from the paying customer (working stiffs).

Isn't it ironic that some people are upset about the players wanting the most they can get, all the while handing over their (working stiffs - like me) money to Billionaires.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:38 AM
  #208
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
No. The NHL simply started with an outlandish proposal then backed off their initial demands while claiming they were making "major concessions."
I don't think the league claimed they were making major concessions. I believe they said they were moving closer towards the PA and technically, each proposal did just that.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:39 AM
  #209
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I'm not calling the players working stiffs I'm calling the fans working stiffs.

The money isn't from Billionaires, it is from the paying customer (working stiffs).

Isn't it ironic that some people are upset about the players wanting the most they can get, all the while handing over their (working stiffs - like me) money to Billionaires.
Well if some owners are losing money, that would suggest that they have reach into their pockets to pay the difference. So that would mean that for some owners, not all the money is coming from the paying customers.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:49 AM
  #210
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I'm not calling the players working stiffs I'm calling the fans working stiffs.

The money isn't from Billionaires, it is from the paying customer (working stiffs).

Isn't it ironic that some people are upset about the players wanting the most they can get, all the while handing over their (working stiffs - like me) money to Billionaires.
I hand my money over to the person providing the product. Whether he's a billionaire or not is irrelevant.

Now in many cities, the fans aren't covering the costs of the team and the owners are losing money which means that the money the players are getting is from the billionaires who are making up the difference so the team can continue on.

Everyone *****es and moans about the owners being billionaires but who else cold afford to keep these teams going.

What if these troubled teams were Canadian and Canadian owners were losing money hand over fist and the Canadian teams were on the brionk of contraction or relocation. I bet a whole lot more of us woudl be begging the players to give up some share. But we have the luxury of not caring at the moment because it's not our problem but it is our fellow hockey fans problem and they don;t deserve to lose their teams.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:05 AM
  #211
Peasy
Lace Up
 
Peasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: North Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,525
vCash: 1480
Both sides have been acting childish. They're acting like teenaged girls. I also love it when players playing in Europe talk about the CBA talks, one of the most hypercritical things you could do. I'm doubtful for a season.

Peasy is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:07 AM
  #212
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I'm not calling the players working stiffs I'm calling the fans working stiffs.

The money isn't from Billionaires, it is from the paying customer (working stiffs).

Isn't it ironic that some people are upset about the players wanting the most they can get, all the while handing over their (working stiffs - like me) money to Billionaires.
There should be a direct link between player salaries and ticket costs in the new CBA.

If Owners want to spend less on entertainment costs (ie. player salaries) which are the product, then the fans should be entitled to pay less at the gate to see a watered down product.

Otherwise why would anyone want to see Owners padding their billions at their expense, and support no hockey until this situation can be corrected?

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:10 AM
  #213
Peasy
Lace Up
 
Peasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: North Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,525
vCash: 1480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
There should be a direct link between player salaries and ticket costs in the new CBA.

If Owners want to spend less on entertainment costs (ie. player salaries) which are the product, then the fans should be entitled to pay less at the gate to see a watered down product.

Otherwise why would anyone want to see Owners padding their billions at their expense, and support no hockey until this situation can be corrected?
I'm sure you know this but only something like 8 teams in the NHL are profitable. Most of these owners are losing money to having these players play. Reducing tickets cost is essentially adding 1 and then subtracting 1, it changes nothing.

Peasy is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:30 AM
  #214
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
No. The NHL simply started with an outlandish proposal then backed off their initial demands while claiming they were making "major concessions."
Initial offer. This is nothing new in negotiations.

If the players keep offering de-linked nonsense, it's done for the season. I feel even Fehr realizes that the NHL won't accept that and I'm not sure why his offers have that included.

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:32 AM
  #215
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
There should be a direct link between player salaries and ticket costs in the new CBA.

If Owners want to spend less on entertainment costs (ie. player salaries) which are the product, then the fans should be entitled to pay less at the gate to see a watered down product.

Otherwise why would anyone want to see Owners padding their billions at their expense, and support no hockey until this situation can be corrected?
Are you for real????

That is the precise recipe for another lockout!! Pay less + collect less = Same ****!

This isn't a move so owners can make billions or even millions. This is a move so owners can make something which I have no problem with. The wage cut will be a great relief for a huge section of the league and the ones that don't really need the wage cut will be shelling a good chunk of the savings into revenue sharing.

You seem to think this is so the owners can get rich??? This is so alot of the owners don't go broke supporting a team.

Many people likely bashed the last effort in '04 but that greatly improved the game and I enjoy what it has done. If this time around fixes the mistakes then great!

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:38 AM
  #216
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
I don't think the league claimed they were making major concessions. I believe they said they were moving closer towards the PA and technically, each proposal did just that.
I stand corrected. Could have sworn that Daly said something of the sort but guess not, or at least, nothing is showing up in a Google search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
Initial offer. This is nothing new in negotiations.

If the players keep offering de-linked nonsense, it's done for the season. I feel even Fehr realizes that the NHL won't accept that and I'm not sure why his offers have that included.
Exactly. If the league is moving off an unrealistic proposal drawn up solely for negotiating purposes, is it really moving at all?


Last edited by htpwn: 11-21-2012 at 11:46 AM.
htpwn is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:40 AM
  #217
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Kind of a crazy thought but......


Theoretically the season could start with the core economic issues resolved and not the contracting issues couldn't it?

I mean the contracting issues are not applicable until the offseason or am I missing something.

Leafsman is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:45 AM
  #218
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasy View Post
I'm sure you know this but only something like 8 teams in the NHL are profitable. Most of these owners are losing money to having these players play. Reducing tickets cost is essentially adding 1 and then subtracting 1, it changes nothing.
If Owners hire GMs and they put a losing or non entertaining product on the ice, then the fans will not show up and stadiums sit 1/2 empty and results in lost revenue. Phoenix paying Shane Doan & his Coyote teammates less money is not going to bring in more fans into the arena through increased attendance by Owners wanting to pay less on team salaries to cut their financial losses. If Owners could find ways to put butts in empty seats and collect those proceeds by increase revenue (in their own markets), that would also increase profitability levels of owners in certain markets that are currently losing money. Cutting internal costs doesn't address the real issue of why some owners are losing money.

Player costs were linked at 57% max spending (hard cap) in the old CBA to provide cost certainty for owners. Perhaps their problem is not the players, but rather their location or their marketing or their spending in other areas that needs to be corrected on how they conduct business.

Perhaps Bettman can come up with greater revenue sharing methods by which profitable organizations can support non profitable ones. A simple solution that has nothing to do with player costs is simply taking their HRR% portion for all teams combined putting it together in one pot and dividing it up equally among all 30 Owners. Suddenly all teams are making the same when you also divide up the costs equally. Now while this will never happen, it does point out that the partnership situation among the 30 owners (ie revenue sharing) is a greater benefit to address profitability levels than simply cutting player costs across the board.

Perhaps a luxuary tax CBA instead of a hard cap system where the rich teams that pay more for player salaries in higher ticket priced markets send excess spending dollars to the non-profitable ones in the form of taxation $$$ to correct this problem.

Maybe the real problem here when talking profit by Owners is not about the players, but rather economic factors on choice of locations and individual operations, and the current CBA system that doesn't seem to address the problem, which has cost certainty and direct linkage already to player salaries built-in?


Last edited by Mess: 11-21-2012 at 11:54 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:56 AM
  #219
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Exactly. If the league is moving off an unrealistic proposal drawn up solely for negotiating purposes, is it really moving at all?
The difference is they've moved to relatively realistic proposals. The PA hasn't responded with anything realistic.

Hurt is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:03 PM
  #220
Penalty Kill Icing*
Fire Carlyle
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,972
vCash: 500
If the league acknowledges what Fehr said that both sides are $182 million apart is correct, and if league doesn't respond positively here, its a shame! because it just $1.26 million per team per year.

Just get it done. Both acting like grade 9 girls.

Penalty Kill Icing* is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:10 PM
  #221
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
The difference is they've moved to relatively realistic proposals. The PA hasn't responded with anything realistic.
Your still not disputing the point at hand. The argument the poster put forward was that the NHL has moved, the PA has not. Well, of course, the NHL has moved. They started out with such an outrageous proposal, they were going to have to move to where they are now to even get close to agreement.

htpwn is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:18 PM
  #222
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 61,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
The difference is they've moved to relatively realistic proposals. The PA hasn't responded with anything realistic.
Because every single CBA related issue be it HHR% overall share, make whole on existing contracts, and/or individual player contracting rights by the NHLPA is all moving in a negative direction for them.

Owners want a greater cut of the HRR pie, coming from the players, they don't want to pay the players the money they agreed to originally, and they want longer UFA status, shorter contract length teams and $$ earned restrictions, etc, which are all benefits for them.

Every move regardless of how small is a WIN for the Owners and increase from the old CBA, and every single move by the NHLPA is a LOSS (losing proposition) for them because the relationship is inversely proportional in what is a direct gain for one side is an equal and opposite loss for the other side.

The only thing the NHLPA can do is hold on tight trying to diminishes their own losses in a take back CBA for the Owners unilaterally across the board. The biggest concession they can make is meet the Owners at a 50/50 HRR revenue split (which they have) which is a minus 12% revenue LOSS for their side.

After that they simply have to nullify the other claw-back damage attempts by Owners to the point where they eventually concede and leave things as they are at present like individual player rights. Status Quo on individual player rights while not a GAIN by fighting to keep things the same, is still a WIN for their side (best case scenario) by not having to give and move towards Owners demands.

If the Owners where actually offering something/anything that was in the favour of the NHLPA and a gain from the previous CBA we could have movement in an actual give and take negotiation. But in a one sided ALL TAKE on one side verses a ALL GIVE on the other its hard to meet in the middle and complete a deal when only one side is expected to make all the sacrifices to get there. So NHLPA not willingly surrendering to all NHL demands is quite understandable really, even if they have lessened those demands over time.


Last edited by Mess: 11-21-2012 at 12:52 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:18 PM
  #223
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Exactly. If the league is moving off an unrealistic proposal drawn up solely for negotiating purposes, is it really moving at all?
Optics and the fish hook.

I suggested the players should have asked for 63% right off the hop and then moved to 57%.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:22 PM
  #224
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Maybe the real problem here when talking profit by Owners is not about the players, but rather economic factors on choice of locations and individual operations, and the current CBA system that doesn't seem to address the problem, which has cost certainty and direct linkage already to player salaries built-in?
How about letting the rich teams adopt the poor teams.

It's coming up on Christmas and we could extend the adopt a family plan to adopt a franchise.

Leafs could adopt the Islanders.
Rangers adopt the Coyotes.
Flyers adopt the ...

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:29 PM
  #225
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
The only thing the NHLPA can do is hold on tight trying to diminishes their own losses in a take back CBA for the Owners unilaterally across the board. The biggest concession they can make is meet the Owners at a 50/50 HRR revenue split (which they have) which is a minus 12% revenue LOSS for their side.
Currently contracted players won’t recover monetarily what they are going to lose this season.

This is lost money for the current players, but they can try and save some of the benefits for the next generation of players. These are the contracting, free agency and arbitration issues.

Some of the players who went through the last lock-out have mentioned some of the battles were not to benefit themselves, but the next group of players coming in. Apparently, their sacrifices paid off.

ULF_55 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 06:06 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.