HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Thread #3: The Rollercoaster Continues...

View Poll Results: When will the lockout end?
December 15-31st,2012 6 19.35%
January 2013 13 41.94%
September 2013 6 19.35%
October 2013-December 2013 2 6.45%
January 2014 0 0%
September 2014 0 0%
October 2014-January 2015 0 0%
NHL is gone forever 4 12.90%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 10:14 AM
  #951
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,131
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Fact is Fehr wouldnt negotiate until September,which was ridiculous and show bad faith. You Also have had a CBAover the last 20 years that has been so tilted in favor of the players, there was no alternative but to lock out the players because their greed was and is got in their way and desire of wanting to strike any kind of a fair deal.
All of that seems lost on you.
Then don't agree to a CBA that is that tilted and then brag about how you bent the players over.

That's like going all in with a 2-7 unsuited and bragging how good of a move it was until the river comes and then complain it was a stupid move.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:02 AM
  #952
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilersfan11 View Post
Okay,when do you believe they will come to an agreement?
Honestly I don't know, and am losing interest with each passing day. There have been about a million different times and days chosen the last 4 months from various "experts" and "insiders" and a host of others, that it's become insignificant. Rather than having yet another poll about when it occurs, I think I'd prefer to move on with my life to more important things and when it happens, it happens. At that point, I'll see where my interest level is with NHL hockey.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:07 AM
  #953
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCanada View Post
A millionare slave that gets paid to do what they love, no less.



I just think its funny that personally as a barely not starving student I can be happy and fine with my lot in life, but someone who has not only made it playing a game that they love, but has made it exceptionally well and is living well can't be happy with their lot in life.

I'll just quote Modest Mouse:
"If you think you have enough you probably don't, but if you don't you probably do."

Very true. Money can be the root of all evil in our society. We all want more, and the ability to "keep up." But at some point it can ruin a person's life. Still remember Theo Fluery signing with the Rangers for 6 mill/year, after turning down the Flames generous offer of 4.5 mill/year. He sat in tears at the presser, saying how he hated to leave Cowtown, and had so many friends and memories. And all over 1.5 million per year over the next 5 years, which of course he chose, with the help of prodding by his agent and the Goodenow administration. As we all know, his career spiralled downward from that point on, he lost everything, including the things most important to him, like his wife and friends. Some people just don't recognize when enough is enough.


Last edited by Stoneman89: 12-11-2012 at 11:20 AM.
Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:21 AM
  #954
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Then don't agree to a CBA that is that tilted and then brag about how you bent the players over.

That's like going all in with a 2-7 unsuited and bragging how good of a move it was until the river comes and then complain it was a stupid move.

Who was doing this?

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:35 AM
  #955
Blue And Orange
#KevinLoweMustGo
 
Blue And Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Forever View Post
Brinkmanship is the tactic being used by both sides here IMO. Both are going to push one another to the edge with no intention of going over; either one will cave or one will slip and push both of them off the cliff. I'm leaning towards the former, but my head says otherwise.
ahhh brinksmanship...that's the word I've been looking for.

Yea, I think both sides are going to push all the way to the drop dead date. At some point one side isn't willing to lose a whole season and they'll cave. IMO, it will be the players.

Blue And Orange is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:43 AM
  #956
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Then don't agree to a CBA that is that tilted and then brag about how you bent the players over.

That's like going all in with a 2-7 unsuited and bragging how good of a move it was until the river comes and then complain it was a stupid move.
Huh?
They didnt bend the playerrs over in any of the prior 2 negotiations.I think history & economics makes that piont pretty clear

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:47 AM
  #957
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,131
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneman89 View Post
Who was doing this?
Bettman and ownership made it well known that they destroyed the union and got their way with the union last time.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:57 AM
  #958
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Bettman and ownership made it well known that they destroyed the union and got their way with the union last time.
Funny, I don't remember that, or anyone in that group saying or even inferring that. I do remember subsequent ensuing years when the players salaries went up about 300 %. Sounds like someone got bent over though, but it sure as hell wasn't the players.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:03 PM
  #959
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,263
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Bettman and ownership made it well known that they destroyed the union and got their way with the union last time.
Link?

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:14 PM
  #960
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,131
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Link?
Find me one that states otherwise as it's nearly impossible to find anything about the last lockout now.

It was that long ago Bettman was bragging about how the NHL was doing so well with the best revenues ever and then 2 months later they cry that they can't work under the agreement that they made last time.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:30 PM
  #961
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Find me one that states otherwise as it's nearly impossible to find anything about the last lockout now.

It was that long ago Bettman was bragging about how the NHL was doing so well with the best revenues ever and then 2 months later they cry that they can't work under the agreement that they made last time.
So no link.

Secondly, are you seriously having difficulties comprehending the difference between league revenues and individual team profit margins? How many times must this be discussed?

Answer this question: How many teams are making a profit?

Master Lok is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:45 PM
  #962
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Find me one that states otherwise as it's nearly impossible to find anything about the last lockout now.

It was that long ago Bettman was bragging about how the NHL was doing so well with the best revenues ever and then 2 months later they cry that they can't work under the agreement that they made last time.
Seriously? That's not how it works when someone asks for proof of your statement.

Fact is, you're talking out of your ass here and not once did the owners or Bettman gloat over "owning the players" in the last negotiations.

Nice try there...

Booya42 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:46 PM
  #963
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Bettman and ownership made it well known that they destroyed the union and got their way with the union last time.
Clear bs.

Replacement is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:47 PM
  #964
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Find me one that states otherwise as it's nearly impossible to find anything about the last lockout now.

It was that long ago Bettman was bragging about how the NHL was doing so well with the best revenues ever and then 2 months later they cry that they can't work under the agreement that they made last time.
Ridiculous. You make a statement with no substantiation, have no substantiation, then want others to do your homework.

Replacement is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:52 PM
  #965
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,348
vCash: 500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDmciUX1JB0

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:52 PM
  #966
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Find me one that states otherwise as it's nearly impossible to find anything about the last lockout now.

.
This is funny.
In this day & age of the internet you make this statement?
Thats good. Reallllly good.

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:42 PM
  #967
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
The NHL initial offer is a joke it always has been. Their ploy is to make a ludicrous offer then lock the players out and use their PR firm to make it seem like they are trying to be "fair". They are not trying to be fair.

They have employed the same tactic since Bettman started to run the league. Shoot first and ask questions later.

Why do we have 3 successive lockouts? Do the players lock themselves out? No the league does. That is the tactic they employ and they know how good a tactic it is even if it is a very slimy thing to do.

You guys can just ignore all the facts and history that back this up. You can plug your fingers in your ears and go NOPE NOPE NOPE.
How come NHL teams in Pittsburgh, Arizona and Edmonton need public money to build their hockey temples?

Why do you accept that players should get paid millions of dollars on the backs of local taxpayers?

AM is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:49 PM
  #968
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
The NHL initial offer is a joke it always has been. Their ploy is to make a ludicrous offer then lock the players out and use their PR firm to make it seem like they are trying to be "fair". They are not trying to be fair.

They have employed the same tactic since Bettman started to run the league. Shoot first and ask questions later.

Why do we have 3 successive lockouts? Do the players lock themselves out? No the league does. That is the tactic they employ and they know how good a tactic it is even if it is a very slimy thing to do.

You guys can just ignore all the facts and history that back this up. You can plug your fingers in your ears and go NOPE NOPE NOPE.
So, it's a "joke" for the owners to make an offer where the players take home 43% of revenue while paying no expenses.

But it's ok for the owners to take home 43%, take all the risks associated with the business, and pay all the player's expenses?

Ok then.

Tarus is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:04 PM
  #969
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
So, it's a "joke" for the owners to make an offer where the players take home 43% of revenue while paying no expenses.

But it's ok for the owners to take home 43%, take all the risks associated with the business, and pay all the player's expenses?

Ok then.
Yes it is. I guess most people don't understand collective bargaining or think they do but really don't

The idea is to meet together with reasonable expectations of what you want out of the agreement. The idea is to not push each other into a corner so the only alternative is fight your way out.

Like I said if the NHL had no intention of holding out for 43 percent which is what they offer. Why go there? Well the answer is they want the lockout. It is the only reason you piss of the people your trying to get an agreement from.

Sorry that is BS.

The players are not saints. No one is saying that but I shudder every time now when they have to start looking at the CBA. I mean 10 or 8 or whatever years from now do you really think the NHL is not going to lock the players out again?

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:06 PM
  #970
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,263
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
So, it's a "joke" for the owners to make an offer where the players take home 43% of revenue while paying no expenses.

But it's ok for the owners to take home 43%, take all the risks associated with the business, and pay all the player's expenses?

Ok then.
It was a stupid offer and when I first heard about it, the first thing I thought was oh no, here we go again. I didnt anticipate a lockout this time around prior to that, but that changed my mind right away. There is/was no need for it. It has/will cost both sides money and its a big **** you to the fans.

The league should have come forth with a reasonable offer to begin with. Lowballing someone in negotiations especially right off the bat, only causes animosity and does nothing to move closer to a settlement.

Joe has a point in that regard. I still want to know why the players were not allowed to vote on the last offer though. To me that flies in the face of negotiating in good faith.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:09 PM
  #971
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,631
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
So, it's a "joke" for the owners to make an offer where the players take home 43% of revenue while paying no expenses.

But it's ok for the owners to take home 43%, take all the risks associated with the business, and pay all the player's expenses?

Ok then.
Exactly.

Saying this is a pure takeaway deal for the players is a statement of fact.

Saying this is an unfair deal for the players is a statement of opinion.

The case for 50-50 being an unfair deal for the players can be made in a variety of legitimate ways. One of those ways isn't "because it is worse for them than the last CBA was." Making that statement without evaluating the fairness of the previous CBA is absurd.

worraps is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:11 PM
  #972
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,263
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
Yes it is. I guess most people don't understand collective bargaining or think they do but really don't

The idea is to meet together with reasonable expectations of what you want out of the agreement. The idea is to not push each other into a corner so the only alternative is fight your way out.

Like I said if the NHL had no intention of holding out for 43 percent which is what they offer. Why go there? Well the answer is they want the lockout. It is the only reason you piss of the people your trying to get an agreement from.

Sorry that is BS.

The players are not saints. No one is saying that but I shudder every time now when they have to start looking at the CBA. I mean 10 or 8 or whatever years from now do you really think the NHL is not going to lock the players out again?
I expect they might, but that is because the players pulled a fast one on them, going on strike before the playoffs. They took their pay and then said **** you to the owners and the fans.

This is largely a circumstance of their own making, and until they figure out a way to do things differently, it would seem the owners are never going to give them the chance to do that to them again.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:22 PM
  #973
Stoneman89
Registered User
 
Stoneman89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Find me one that states otherwise as it's nearly impossible to find anything about the last lockout now.

It was that long ago Bettman was bragging about how the NHL was doing so well with the best revenues ever and then 2 months later they cry that they can't work under the agreement that they made last time.


Not the way it works, bud. You make the statement, you are the one that needs to back it up, not someone with a counter response.

And Bettman was indeed bragging how well the league revenues were doing (specifics say it was really 3-4 teams that were bringing in 80 % of that revenue), but he was not going on every two months about how the agreement wasn't working. Why would he, when the due date to review the agreement wasn't until this year. There is nothing he could do about it until this year.

Again, there is nothing out there that says Bettman and the owners were gleefully stating that they shafted the players last CBA , and we're all still waiting for you to back up your statement. Otherwise it looks like a whole lot of smoke coming out of an arse.

Stoneman89 is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:34 PM
  #974
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
Yes it is. I guess most people don't understand collective bargaining or think they do but really don't

The idea is to meet together with reasonable expectations of what you want out of the agreement. The idea is to not push each other into a corner so the only alternative is fight your way out.

Like I said if the NHL had no intention of holding out for 43 percent which is what they offer. Why go there? Well the answer is they want the lockout. It is the only reason you piss of the people your trying to get an agreement from.

Sorry that is BS.

The players are not saints. No one is saying that but I shudder every time now when they have to start looking at the CBA. I mean 10 or 8 or whatever years from now do you really think the NHL is not going to lock the players out again?
Except the players went into this lockout with hostile intentions. They announced it when they hired Fehr, and confirmed it was game on when they nixed the realignment of the league. Make what you will of the NHL's intentions, but lets not play fantasy and pretend the players haven't been preparing for this for years now, they want their pound of flesh after perceived insults during the last lockout when they couldn't feed their dogs on 73% of the revenue.

The opening contract offer by the NHL wasn't the opening move of the lockout anymore than Pearl Harbor was the first battle of WW2.

Oh, and you are right, there will be a lockout in 8 - 10 years because one half of the two parties hasn't been able to move on from the 80s. There will never be labour peace as long as the PA think's the NHL is run by untrustworthy criminals - which in itself is amusing considering the PA is the one with all the embezzlers.

Tarus is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 02:57 PM
  #975
Grod
The New Era Lives On
 
Grod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Hate to add any subjective material to this already heated debate but this is what Chris Botta is advertising to the Twitter world. "@ChrisBottaNHL: This NHL thing will take at least a few more days. Won't be overnight. Stay cool and be ready to play/watch/cover January to June."

Hope is on its last leg and if there is no resolution during this round of negotiations which will have a mediator present, then unfortunately the season that we never knew is just that, only on a permanent basis.

Grod 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 10:44 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.