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.

Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2012, 03:09 AM
  #226
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,739
vCash: 500
So is this happening or are they just gonna think it over for another week or two?

not like the whole season is in jeopardy soon or anything.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 06:43 AM
  #227
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
Players shouldn't even think about this. It would be a one way slaughter, just lambs being led to their end. The owners are pro's in the boardroom. Do you think the owners would agree to suit up for a game on the ice where the winner would take all?

Confucius is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:01 AM
  #228
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Players shouldn't even think about this. It would be a one way slaughter, just lambs being led to their end. The owners are pro's in the boardroom. Do you think the owners would agree to suit up for a game on the ice where the winner would take all?
So you're saying that players are not able to make smart decisions in the NHLPA negotiations?

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:05 AM
  #229
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So you're saying that players are not able to make smart decisions in the NHLPA negotiations?
Yep, just like the old saying. A person who acts as his own lawyer has an ass for a client and a fool for a lawyer. Or something along those lines.

As I said the owners are pros in a boardroom and have made dozens if not hundreds of negotiated deals in their lives. Players quite a bit younger and less experienced in a boardroom. Let them settle it on the ice.

Edit to add: and the guy who speaks for the owners came up with the idea...... here kitty kitty kitty


Last edited by Confucius: 12-01-2012 at 08:11 AM.
Confucius is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 07:14 AM
  #230
Isles72
Registered User
 
Isles72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
so I would suspect this meeting takes place a day or two before the nhl has their board meetings on dec 5th .

Isles72 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 08:53 AM
  #231
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Players shouldn't even think about this. It would be a one way slaughter, just lambs being led to their end. The owners are pro's in the boardroom. Do you think the owners would agree to suit up for a game on the ice where the winner would take all?
If I'm a player, I jump at the opportunity to meet with just the owners. If only to get a better feel of what I'm up against. I want to know if there's a chance of ever being partners with these guys. And I wouldn't feel intimidated by the owners in the room. A good grasp of logic and common sense trumps their advantage of experience in the boardroom IMO.

And if the meeting did turn into the owners just trying to dictate and intimidate me, I'd just say to myself, "good to know", then gather with some of my comrades and discuss our options - decertification being one I'd focus heavily on.

middletoe is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 09:07 AM
  #232
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,802
vCash: 500
A little (well more than a little) off topic here but would Gary Roberts be into catering an event like this?

middletoe is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 09:25 AM
  #233
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
Maybe the players should form a league and have every player make the same salary regardless of ability.
Was just thinking the same thing...thanks...

BLONG7 is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:09 AM
  #234
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,934
vCash: 500
NHL may try new tack in talks

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...6BRRqVoy8YyTZK

Quote:
The NHL Players Association is expected to offer several conditions which would lead to brass-free direct talks between the league’s owners and players in a bid to break Lockout III.
...

The union is said to be taking a ‘Why not?’ attitude rather than giving an enthusiastic endorsement of the concept.

Because of the vulnerable position such talks would put the union in, the Players Association will require the talks not be a negotiation, but rather a conversation in which participants can express themselves, The Post’s Larry Brooks has learned.

In addition, the union will insist the owners involved not include the four on the negotiating committee, led by Boston’s Jeremy Jacobs.

The union is expected to also insist the league have no say in designating which players attend the talks, a point the league is said to want.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:11 AM
  #235
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,475
vCash: 50
It probably won't happen, but who knows. Talks were going best when Jacobs was out of town

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:15 AM
  #236
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Fair enough, the owners should/would destroy the players in a "negotiation" similar to them coming to an agreement on the ice. I think getting out the committee that hasn't helped so far should be a "must" on the owners part if they're genuine on their offer - meaning this isn't a PR stunt or an effort to get Fehr out of the way.

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:23 AM
  #237
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,709
vCash: 500
At some point, an offer needs to be tabled, and then voted on, as per guys like Hammrlik suggested....and the owners need to vote as well so that the majority speaks, not the minority like Jacobs or Toews who are seen as hardliners on both sides.....

The majority should have a say, not the minority...on both sides!!

BLONG7 is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:28 AM
  #238
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Players shouldn't even think about this. It would be a one way slaughter, just lambs being led to their end. The owners are pro's in the boardroom. Do you think the owners would agree to suit up for a game on the ice where the winner would take all?
If they were allowed to put GMs and other executives on the owner's team it could be good with Mario, Yzerman, etc. all playing!

I get your point, I was just pointing out that there is some talent in the boardrooms.

colchar is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:29 AM
  #239
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
The union is expected to also insist the league have no say in designating which players attend the talks, a point the league is said to want.

Yup, sure sounds like it was just an attempt to get some fresh people into the mix. League shouldn't care one iota which players are in the room. If anything, having voices from each team would make the most sense-- inclusion rather than exclusion.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:29 AM
  #240
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
At some point, an offer needs to be tabled, and then voted on, as per guys like Hammrlik suggested....and the owners need to vote as well so that the majority speaks, not the minority like Jacobs or Toews who are seen as hardliners on both sides.....

The majority should have a say, not the minority...on both sides!!
Without a doubt.

I'm sure all the owners want more money, but some should be rewarded for refusing to hand out those stupid contracts. I can't believe only 7 people need to agree to lock people out, seems unbelieveable to me.

I'm also sure there are a decent amount of players who want to play, I'm sure they all want to limit their losses but want to play with a "fair" deal (not great deal)

Small market owners have had their chance and no luck, let the big market owners get it solved with a combination of players - maybe some GM's too??

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:29 AM
  #241
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So you're saying that players are not able to make smart decisions in the NHLPA negotiations?
The power dynamic in a meeting like this would be heavily skewed. Are players likely to stand up to their own owners in that room? They would have to figure out who the owners were and then be sure to only have players in there who didn't play for those teams.

colchar is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:31 AM
  #242
Whale Mingo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
At some point, an offer needs to be tabled, and then voted on, as per guys like Hammrlik suggested....and the owners need to vote as well so that the majority speaks, not the minority like Jacobs or Toews who are seen as hardliners on both sides.....

The majority should have a say, not the minority...on both sides!!

This would be the "beauty" of a third party representing a work force. The MAJORITY does not get to vote until the select MINORITY decides they do.

These, and all negotiations would be very different if every offer had to be voted on.

Whale Mingo is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:33 AM
  #243
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whale Mingo View Post
This would be the "beauty" of a third party representing a work force. The MAJORITY does not get to vote until the select MINORITY decides they do.

These, and all negotiations would be very different if every offer had to be voted on.
There would NEVER have been a lockout. Players take a small cut (even a good one to 50-50) and I assume more than 50% of players would have accepted, and more than 50% of owners would have accepted... but what do I know?

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:36 AM
  #244
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
The power dynamic in a meeting like this would be heavily skewed. Are players likely to stand up to their own owners in that room? They would have to figure out who the owners were and then be sure to only have players in there who didn't play for those teams.
I agree with some points, it would be heavily skewed in favor of the owners b/c they are trained in negotiation and this is what they do, and have become VERY successful doing it.

On the other hand, I would have no issue telling my owner what I felt (constructively) if I felt they were out of line. I'm actually surprised some owners, Jacobs in particular, can be so vocal, assuming reports are accurate. If I were him, I would be a little concerned with players boycotting me and my team. From a players side, if I can get a similar deal and not deal with this d-bag, I'll do it any day of the week.

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:37 AM
  #245
Whale Mingo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
There would NEVER have been a lockout. Players take a small cut (even a good one to 50-50) and I assume more than 50% of players would have accepted, and more than 50% of owners would have accepted... but what do I know?


Well, the owners wouldn't have to vote since ultimately they have to table an offer suggesting they already approve it. It will always be the employees that take the vote, even if its their offer.

Otherwise, as to the first part of your statement, wouldn't this be a more fair representation of the entire workforce and not just that of the Toews and Crosby's of the world?

Whale Mingo is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:39 AM
  #246
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
If I'm an owner, I just walk into that meeting and say, look you're going to inevitably come out of this negotiation poorer than if you had taken the October 26th offer. You're losing more with every round of cancellations than you're fighting for. We, on the other hand, don't make nearly the collective profit you do. So we can wait, because we're still fighting for more than our annual profit. You can't. Tell us when you're ready to stop hurting yourselves.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:41 AM
  #247
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
If I'm an owner, I just walk into that meeting and say, look you're going to inevitably come out of this negotiation poorer than if you had taken the October 26th offer. You're losing more with every round of cancellations than you're fighting for. We, on the other hand, don't make nearly the collective profit you do. So we can wait, because we're still fighting for more than our annual profit. You can't. Tell us when you're ready to stop hurting yourselves.
This is the discussion that Fehr should have had with them in August...can't believe they are making the same mistake again...

BLONG7 is online now  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:50 AM
  #248
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 849
vCash: 500
I alluded yesterday that if the players meet directly with the owners that the players should be given the choice as to which group of owners they'd prefer to meet with... seems they agree with me

JMT21 is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 11:50 AM
  #249
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
If I'm an owner, I just walk into that meeting and say, look you're going to inevitably come out of this negotiation poorer than if you had taken the October 26th offer. You're losing more with every round of cancellations than you're fighting for. We, on the other hand, don't make nearly the collective profit you do. So we can wait, because we're still fighting for more than our annual profit. You can't. Tell us when you're ready to stop hurting yourselves.
Although what you're saying may be true. 57% split between approx 700 players, and 43% split between 30 owners. I know there is ALOT more to it than the simple math but it's not as skewed as you think.

A a couple questions for the people who believe in this theory is: At what point can/should the players say "Enough!" or just keep taking cut after cut? Also, do you believe this will be the last one? Or yet another lockout in 6-8yrs when the pie needs to be split again? Lastly, if you're a smaller market owner, you MUST be somewhat scared of decertification - this is the only option the players have now and we all know (100%) the big market teams will continue to pay for players to keep the fans coming. Essentially if this were to play out, some of the small teams would dissolve and contract/relocate (hurting the NHLPA and owners)

Steve is offline  
Old
12-01-2012, 12:08 PM
  #250
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Although what you're saying may be true. 57% split between approx 700 players, and 43% split between 30 owners. I know there is ALOT more to it than the simple math but it's not as skewed as you think.

A a couple questions for the people who believe in this theory is: At what point can/should the players say "Enough!" or just keep taking cut after cut? Also, do you believe this will be the last one? Or yet another lockout in 6-8yrs when the pie needs to be split again? Lastly, if you're a smaller market owner, you MUST be somewhat scared of decertification - this is the only option the players have now and we all know (100%) the big market teams will continue to pay for players to keep the fans coming. Essentially if this were to play out, some of the small teams would dissolve and contract/relocate (hurting the NHLPA and owners)
Number of people on each side doesn't matter because the split will be the same under any agreement. What the side gains will be split the same, what they lose will be split the same.

***

Players should have said enough on October 26th when it was clear that by allowing any games to be cancelled, they would inevitably make less money than if they took the deal (sure, they should have fought for the contracting stuff in the time they had and seen what they could have gotten, but that was secondary). That reality for them is compounded by the fact now that future HRR is probably going to take some hit as a result of this.

***

Will the pie need resplit in 6-8 years? We'll see. But that shouldn't have any bearing on what happens in this negotiation. The fact is, about half the owners in the league are hurting right now while players are doing better than ever. No other sports league in NA was paying more than 50% of revenue. The objective of both sides in every negotiation should be "how do we allocate our resources to have the healthiest, fastest growing product we can?" Scaring the other side into not asking for concessions from you has nothing to do with helping achieve that goal.

So if in 6 years teams are failing, you see what you can do to fix it. Players get half their jobs from owners who pay out of their own pocket just to keep their teams afloat. If players aren't interested in helping those folks, they don't know their own self-interest.

***

If I'm a small market owner, I don't believe decertification is going to move past the "look at us we're really gonna do it" stage. The players will never go through with it. They'll be endangering 100% of what they make to fight for something like 5% for only a couple years.

haseoke39 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 10:06 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.