I don't understand how those who support the owners espouse this idea that Gary Bettman has done a superb job of growing the game while simultaneously lamenting the fact that 2/3 of the league's franchises lose money. You really have to decide one way or the other whether the NHL is in good shape.
The game HAS grown, so have expenses and now its time to cut some of those expenses. Not that difficult to understand.
They lose money in many cases, but they are generally seeing their franchise values rise quite significantly.
I lose $20m for 5 years and then sell my franchise for $125 more than I bought it for. I made money while most likely gaining tax advantages along the way.
Aha, so they want to make a lot of profit, and also see their franchise value's skyrocket.
On another topic, with the NHL's tactics and arrogant attitude for most of these CBA negotiations, I assume that "partnership" BS rhetoric Bettman spewed after the last CBA has been thrown out the window?
I'm sorry, but actually reading the mass amounts of hate on the NHLPA in this thread I cannot help but play devils advocate a little bit. To be honest after being a fan since 93, I'm tired of all this BS from both sides, and can't believe I'm still investing time following this lockout a little bit, although not nearly as much as the previous one.
As someone who is sick of it all and doesn't have a "side" in the matter and just wants something done, I just can't wrap my head around so much vitriol at the PA, without the least bit of the same thrown at the NHL, especially after their horrible negotiating tactics and strategy this entire lockout. And I'm not saying the PA has been great at its tactics either, but sheesh everything in this thread is directed at them specifically.
Aha, so they want to make a lot of profit, and also see their franchise value's skyrocket.
On another topic, with the NHL's tactics and arrogant attitude for most of these CBA negotiations, I assume that "partnership" BS rhetoric Bettman spewed after the last CBA has been thrown out the window?
I'm sorry, but actually reading the mass amounts of hate on the NHLPA in this thread I cannot help but play devils advocate a little bit. To be honest after being a fan since 93, I'm tired of all this BS from both sides, and can't believe I'm still investing time following this lockout a little bit, although not nearly as much as the previous one.
As someone who is sick of it all and doesn't have a "side" in the matter and just wants something done, I just can't wrap my head around so much vitriol at the PA, without the least bit of the same thrown at the NHL, especially after their horrible negotiating tactics and strategy this entire lockout. And I'm not saying the PA has been great at its tactics either, but sheesh everything in this thread is directed at them specifically.
I fail to see how the NHL has done anything underhanded during these talks other than maybe going public with that last ditch effort for the 82 game season.
I don't understand how those who support the owners espouse this idea that Gary Bettman has done a superb job of growing the game while simultaneously lamenting the fact that 2/3 of the league's franchises lose money. You really have to decide one way or the other whether the NHL is in good shape.
Its called growing pains. And you may have noticed but the NHL has been trying to reign in spending over the last while.
Limiting the length of deals and front loading is going to make it harder for those teams to sign star players. Term and front loading offer flexibility.
Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf are worth 10m per x 5 years. Good luck Anaheim.
They'd be getting that in real salary anyway over the first 5 years on an offer from a big team. In fact, the first few years would likely be higher, based on what Parise just got. All this does is makes sure teams have to pay a fair cap hit. Which means a rich team can't pay them both 24M but only use up 15M in cap space. Which actually makes it easier for the small teams to sign these guys, because said big teams no longer have the cap room to take all the star players.
I fail to see how the NHL has done anything underhanded during these talks other than maybe going public with that last ditch effort for the 82 game season.
I would say their original offer was poorly crafted and was out of left field, causing immediate tension from the get-go. In CBA negotiations I thought you were obligated to negotiate in good faith from the start?
Just a current event, the 2 week break. Apparently it's because Fehr may have said something about Dec. 1st to his players, and this 2 week break is to prove a point? Alright then. The NHL comes off as using bully tactics to me, which is the opposite of this so-called partnership I would say.
And just random attacks on Fehr in general, seems pretty unprofessional for NHL brass to do that. Now I heard NHL players do this to Bettman too, which I think is unprofessional and unwise as well, but at least those player's aren't the ones taking part in negotiating.
It's quite simple, actually, and there's really no room for arguing it, yet they continue to try.
You can cut expenses by things other than salary, well salary is going to be cut. Besides salary, you can look at other factors as well. The original poster you replied to is from Ottawa, he has to know the Public Sector looks at everything when cutting expenses.
Maybe these 2 sides need some more creativity when it comes to this CBA. A mediator would be fantastic, and would give a fresh outside perspective and perhaps some idea's for common ground.
I fail to see how the NHL has done anything underhanded during these talks other than maybe going public with that last ditch effort for the 82 game season.
The fact that the owners show absolutely no hesitation to lock the player out as a negotiating tactic is both "bad faith negotiating" and an affront to the game and its fans.
The owners tabled an offer that was leaps and bounds better than its opening offer only after they had locked the players out. If the owners truly employed the lockout only as a "last resort," then we would have seen a better offer from them before they were canceling games.
anyone have a link to the don fehr interview going on now?
No but I can tell you what he's saying.
''The owners have asked multiple concessions from the players and the players are willing to cut their salaries to get a deal done. However, owners do not feel it is enough and feel the need to restrict more and more any victory the players got in the last round of negotiations.
We are ready to meet to get a deal done without any conditions but that does not seem to be the case for them.''
I don't understand how those who support the owners espouse this idea that Gary Bettman has done a superb job of growing the game while simultaneously lamenting the fact that 2/3 of the league's franchises lose money. You really have to decide one way or the other whether the NHL is in good shape.
It is not that simple when your deal with a jackass Union. The league has no choice, they have to operate under CBA.
The fact that the owners show absolutely no hesitation to lock the player out as a negotiating tactic is both "bad faith negotiating" and an affront to the game and its fans.
The owners tabled an offer that was leaps and bounds better than its opening offer only after they had locked the players out. If the owners truly employed the lockout only as a "last resort," then we would have seen a better offer from them before they were canceling games.
The lockout was merely a formality that had to take place once September 15th hit with no deal. And September 15th hit with no deal because the NHLPA refused to negotiate at all until the last minute.
''The owners have asked multiple concessions from the players and the players are willing to cut their salaries to get a deal done. However, owners do not feel it is enough and feel the need to restrict more and more any victory the players got in the last round of negotiations.
We are ready to meet to get a deal done without any conditions but that does not seem to be the case for them.''
I would say their original offer was poorly crafted and was out of left field, causing immediate tension from the get-go. In CBA negotiations I thought you were obligated to negotiate in good faith from the start?
Just a current event, the 2 week break. Apparently it's because Fehr may have said something about Dec. 1st to his players, and this 2 week break is to prove a point? Alright then. The NHL comes off as using bully tactics to me, which is the opposite of this so-called partnership I would say.
And just random attacks on Fehr in general, seems pretty unprofessional for NHL brass to do that. Now I heard NHL players do this to Bettman too, which I think is unprofessional and unwise as well, but at least those player's aren't the ones taking part in negotiating.
I would say the first proposal was both cleverly and obviously crafted to achieve the goal of showing that a 57-43 split was unfair. Why is that so hard to see?
I would say their original offer was poorly crafted and was out of left field, causing immediate tension from the get-go. In CBA negotiations I thought you were obligated to negotiate in good faith from the start?
Just a current event, the 2 week break. Apparently it's because Fehr may have said something about Dec. 1st to his players, and this 2 week break is to prove a point? Alright then. The NHL comes off as using bully tactics to me, which is the opposite of this so-called partnership I would say.
And just random attacks on Fehr in general, seems pretty unprofessional for NHL brass to do that. Now I heard NHL players do this to Bettman too, which I think is unprofessional and unwise as well, but at least those player's aren't the ones taking part in negotiating.
What about Fehr showing up hours after he scheduled a meeting?
I would say their original offer was poorly crafted and was out of left field, causing immediate tension from the get-go. In CBA negotiations I thought you were obligated to negotiate in good faith from the start?
Just a current event, the 2 week break. Apparently it's because Fehr may have said something about Dec. 1st to his players, and this 2 week break is to prove a point? Alright then. The NHL comes off as using bully tactics to me, which is the opposite of this so-called partnership I would say.
And just random attacks on Fehr in general, seems pretty unprofessional for NHL brass to do that. Now I heard NHL players do this to Bettman too, which I think is unprofessional and unwise as well, but at least those player's aren't the ones taking part in negotiating.
This is business, if the PA chooses to act butthurt over the first offer it's their problem. The NHL offered 57/43 and the middle ground is 50/50: thinking of it as a draconian offer is short sighted. A first offer is not the end game but it does indicate where the end game should be.
The two sides had a marathon of talks and nothing came of it. We've heard that the PA is still insisting on delinked proposals which are a no go and has not made any offers on contractual rights: instead they simply say no to what the NHL offers. The NHL feels the talks are going nowhere and allowing Fehr to aggravate them (because that is his strategy) is no a recipe for success.
The NHL has not attacked Fehr. Bill Daly has said that he feels this is going nowhere and has attributed that to Fehr not making any serious proposals and simply saying no to what the NHL offers. All the stuff about "Fehr is not conveying the proposals to the players" was "off the record": someone told someone else that's what they thought and a journalist ran the story.
The fact that the owners show absolutely no hesitation to lock the player out as a negotiating tactic is both "bad faith negotiating" and an affront to the game and its fans.
The owners tabled an offer that was leaps and bounds better than its opening offer only after they had locked the players out. If the owners truly employed the lockout only as a "last resort," then we would have seen a better offer from them before they were canceling games.
Sorry, but economic sanctions, such as lockouts, and strikes are not bad faith negotiating. Bad faith negotiating is "negotiating" with no actual intent to come to an actual agreement.
The lockout came about because there was no move to negotiate all summer. Are the owner suppose to believe Fehr that they could negotiate while playing? No, the unions hard line precipitated this lockout. While it is an unfortunate move by the owners; it's a fair tactic. If the players want to bite the hand that feeds them, they better expect not to get fed.
?
