HFBoards

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

2012 CBA/Lockout talk, It's not looking good VI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 10:32 AM
  #201
WreckItRask
Registered User
 
WreckItRask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 7,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
My side is really just more the side towards reality IMO.... The common folk works for less and less every year... Health coverage goes up...tuition....Employer contributions to the 401k come and go year after year...cost of living raises higher then your raises..you accumulate more debt...by fault of your own sometimes, but also because of medical bills, or major catastrophes...We've all learned to do with less and don't make anywhere near what these athletes do..and good for them, but welcome to the real world. If they don't like it, they can always do something else..
After yesterday, I'm finally here (although I do think the owners threatening to leave the discussion if Fehr was allowed back in the room was pretty bush league). If Bill Daly's quote is, in fact, what is preventing the deal from moving forward in terms of the things that owners will "die on a hill" for, then it's really all on the players now.

-5 year contract limits - How many NHL players ever get more than 5 years in their career? Less than 10%? Less than 5%? The right to 8 year contracts seems to be something that is only relative to the game's most talented players, and thus already the most fairly compensated, so how/why exactly is this a sticking point for the majority of the players? I have to imagine more than 75% of the current NHLPA could care less if the term limit is 5 or 8 years, since most of them aren't getting either term anyway.

-10 Year CBA- The players offered an 8 year CBA...sort of. With an opt out clause after 6 years, you've basically just offered a 6 year CBA. Get rid of the opt out clause, and I bet the owners will agree to a hard 8 year term.

-Transition Issues- Not sure if everyone gets this (or if I do fully), but basically this is an agreement on how they get to the final terms they agree to. If they lower the cap to $60 million, then do they allow clubs one year at $70 million. Do they allow every team one amnesty buy out? The NHLPA wants to allow for these things to happen outside of the reported revenue stream so that it doesn't affect their escrow, etc., the NHL doesn't. I don't blame the league for this. Every dollar that comes out of the clubs/owners pockets should, at the very least, be accounted for. This seems easily negotiable if everything else is resolved.

Bottom line: Players give up the 8 year term limit fight, players/owners agree to a hard 8 year term of the CBA (meet half way), and they figure out the transition issues collectively. Done.

WreckItRask is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:40 AM
  #202
Over the volcano
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 22,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
The cynic in me wonders about the puppet show of having the "moderate" owners come in and get all flustered and voice their frustration with the process/Fehr. Another way to drive the wedge between players and union leadership. Now it is not just the bogeymen Bettman and Jacobs railing against Fehr. The good guy owners have had it too. Let us not overlook the dramatic flourish on exhibit here - though I don't doubt that DF's strategy the past 24 hours did break down some meaningful progress. If the players are ever going to revolt against Fehr that time is probably now. He has been pushed into the corner fairly effectively as the villain this week and the players either will or will not bite on the bait. I still say they stick with him but we shall see.
The "puppet show" idea would certainly fit. Ownership's strategy all along has been to break the union and particularly to break them away from Fehr. Hell, it's how they won big last time why wouldn't they keep hacking at that narrative over and over this time?

Am I right in reading that the big "dealbreaker" over the last couple days was just that Fehr re-entered the room? If that's the case then owners can go **** in their hats. He's the director of the players union, if he's willing to be there and to deal then they should sit down and deal- not take off and cry about it.

Over the volcano is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:52 AM
  #203
BlackNgold 84
Known Kellyist
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll 4 Lines View Post
Ahh, but how are they getting screwed, and by whom?

Are they getting screwed by owners who've locked them out?

Are they getting screwed by fellow players who've refused to accept a deal?

By Fehr, who (apparently) threw a wrench into the works at the last minute?

Are they screwing themselves by holding out for a better deal?

A combination?

Me, I have more questions than answers, but methinks they're losing a lot by missing a big chunk of the season.
I say by the high profile players/fehr.. and to a lesser extent the owners. They're getting ****ed double time which is weird to say.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:53 AM
  #204
Gator Mike
 
Gator Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Woburn, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Says the guy who got paid 3.5 million to get 5 points last year. That's about $700,000 a point, not bad.
Scottie Upshall can go screw a light socket.

Jesus. I spend 40-hours a week sitting at a desk talking to people I'd rather not talk to and listening to them call me every name in the book. It's demeaning work for someone who graduated college with a double major... but at least it's a job. I work for the company I work for because their checks don't bounce and I need to make mortgage and car payments.

Last I checked, no one in the NHL has those problems.

And yet, I still manage to spend an inordinate amount of time and money following the Bruins. And he's going to complain that HE'S treated like cattle because he and bunch of billionaires can't agree on how to split up my money?

Bleep him. Bleep them all.

Gator Mike is online now  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:56 AM
  #205
Over the volcano
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 22,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gator Mike View Post
Scottie Upshall can go screw a light socket.

Jesus. I spend 40-hours a week sitting at a desk talking to people I'd rather not talk to and listening to them call me every name in the book. It's demeaning work for someone who graduated college with a double major... but at least it's a job. I work for the company I work for because their checks don't bounce and I need to make mortgage and car payments.

Last I checked, no one in the NHL has those problems.

And yet, I still manage to spend an inordinate amount of time and money following the Bruins. And he's going to complain that HE'S treated like cattle because he and bunch of billionaires can't agree on how to split up my money?

Bleep him. Bleep them all.
He should have said "Kobe Beef" rather than "Cattle."

Over the volcano is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:57 AM
  #206
Lobster57
nosdoom
 
Lobster57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruins Stooge View Post
Couldn't agree more with you Kaoz. As you said the NHL has the upper hand, are the owners losing money? Absolutely, but in other ventures they'll make their money, they'll be ok. Players on the other hand, like you said above, won't have nearly that luxury. Like it or not, it's a fact and life isn't fair, the players have to react to that.

The moderate and fair owners in the room pretty much put their foot down saying nows the time to concede in one area and make the offer. The NHL came down to the middle and were willing to concede in the money aspects, as long as the players were willing to concede in a few areas as well. It's give and take, simple business and bargaining.
So, if losing the season isn't a detriment to the owners because "they'll make their money" why is it a big deal that some of them might lose a few million under the current system?

Cue the "you can't look at all their businesses together!!!" crowd

Lobster57 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:06 AM
  #207
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Am I right in reading that the big "dealbreaker" over the last couple days was just that Fehr re-entered the room? If that's the case then owners can go **** in their hats. He's the director of the players union, if he's willing to be there and to deal then they should sit down and deal- not take off and cry about it.
Partly right. The owners * supposedly * were specifically miffed about Fehr re-entering the process when he did, or how he did is probably more the issue. But I don't think that was * the * deal breaker. According to Bettman, the real issue was that the owners said "come back with this, this and this and we have a deal" and the players did not come back with any of it. The players basically moved towards the owners demands but did not meet them and the owners said "see ya." Bettman and Daly kept saying "package deal" and the players embraced some of but not all of it and the owners said it's all or nothing. No doubt Fehr was deeply involved in the union's offer not being specifically what the owners demanded. At this point though I don't think anybody has all the information or knows exactly where things broke down or how real the expression of anger is. There are lots of bits and pieces of the story out there and you can only kinda know what's going on in the negotiating room. Most likely it's all just part of a bitter process that has its ups and downs and will conclude when one side or both feel there's nothing left to give or get. Wally says the union may have missed the signs that this time has arrived and he could be right. Fehr obviously thinks it's not that time. The only catastrophe is if the owners are sincere about pulling back their best offer and won't bring that back. If true, this will end in months not days. So we'll hope that cooler heads prevail and like DKH says, somebody drops a dime over the weekend and they just unhappily get back to work on a deal. And we'll wait and see.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:11 AM
  #208
JRull86
Registered User
 
JRull86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Abington
Country: United States
Posts: 14,936
vCash: 500
It's comments like the ones from Upshall that make me want to tell them all to go kick rocks. What a fool.

JRull86 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:11 AM
  #209
OLD51JOHN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 673
vCash: 500
Whom do you dislike more???

Bettmen or Fehr Its like choosing between a divorce lawyer and used car salesman..

OLD51JOHN is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:15 AM
  #210
Bruins Stooge
Spread Out
 
Bruins Stooge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hartford County CT
Country: United States
Posts: 4,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobster57 View Post
So, if losing the season isn't a detriment to the owners because "they'll make their money" why is it a big deal that some of them might lose a few million under the current system?

Cue the "you can't look at all their businesses together!!!" crowd
I never said losing a season isnt a detriment to them, of course it is, but (many of) the owners can take the "blow" (because of outside lucrative projects) of no gains or in the players case salary, while there's no season. They can wait it out longer, while many of the players will start feeling the financial bind. Sure some of the players have big endorsement deals, but many don't. And another thing to remember is these players don't have the cost of living we do (in most cases). While these guys make alot of money, there buying more expensive, nicer things, which have higher costs of operation, taxes, insurance, so on and so forth. It's all relative to a particular persons situation. I don't feel bad for them, they're very fortunate to be in the positions they are as some of the most elite hockey players in the world, but it's a point none the less.

Bruins Stooge is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:15 AM
  #211
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
>>As you said the NHL has the upper hand, are the owners losing money? Absolutely, but in other ventures they'll make their money, they'll be ok

I don't know if that's safe to assume across the board. Some yes, probably some no. Look at Jim Balsille, and I realize he's not an owner but he tried to become one for a long time. Head of RIM, super rich, an example of a guy who was doing great in other business ventures. Things have changed, he's out at RIM, RIM is in the toilet and at the very least it's safe to say that his fortunes are different than they were 5 years ago. John Henry of the Red Sox, another example. No doubt still doing pretty well overall but he had to shut down one of his big investment outfits because it tanked. He might be just fine but he's not * as * fine. NY Mets owners, another example. If you looked around the NHL owners, you would probably find some who are not cruising on all cylinders. The economy/world is not what it was in the past. Business climates change. Industries change. I just would not assume that all NHL owners can treat their teams as a pure hobby, where profit or loss don't really effect them in the grand scheme of their financial outlook.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:18 AM
  #212
ranold26
Oh them Bruins.....
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,602
vCash: 500
The light at the end of the tunnel that Fehr was conveying in last night's first presser was really the NHL freight train coming.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:18 AM
  #213
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
The other thing is, the NHL is certainly incurring expenses right now. Some teams and the league may have laid off people but the league still has employees, still has payrolls to meet, still has all the other expenses to keep the lights on. I don't know what revenues they are still able to bring in but their overall P&L can't look too good right now. The notion that the owners don't feel much pressure because they don't have to pay player salaries is a bit of an oversimplification.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:19 AM
  #214
Bruins Stooge
Spread Out
 
Bruins Stooge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hartford County CT
Country: United States
Posts: 4,660
vCash: 500
What it really comes down to is how much did the PA **** off the owners and the NHL Wedns night and yesterday. And not just that, but how much did they **** off the moderate owners who they really can't afford to lose. As Bettman said everythings off the table of what they had offered before. Did they **** them off so much that in the near future they wont touch the deal they originally had, or was some of it a smoke and mirrors game to try and inflict fear into the PA.

From the owners statements i really think the PA shot themself in the foot in regards to pissing the wrong owners off. They handled the whole situation, as it sounds, completely incorrect and completely bush league.

What's unfortunate is it sounds like they were 90% close to a deal and getting back on the ice. If the owners are so mad they refuse to get near the original offer they had, then this could be a long winter. If they cool down a bit and will sit down with the PA this weekend or early next week, and revisit some things from their offer this past week, well then we very well may see some hockey in early 2013.

Bruins Stooge is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:21 AM
  #215
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
The light at the end of the tunnel that Fehr was conveying in last night's first presser was really the NHL freight train coming.
LOL. Yeah, he certainly got caught out last night. I don't know if the league really sought to zing him or it just happened that way through random cockup, but he looked a pretty silly talking about good news while the phone was ringing in S Fehr's jacket pocket with the news from Daly.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:21 AM
  #216
BrainOfJ
\_(ツ)_/
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Wherever Griffith is
Country: United States
Posts: 20,650
vCash: 500
Reports coming from the midwest saying cattle have been locked out as well. When asked, cattle farmers cited "Our cattle are performing like Scottie Upshall"

BrainOfJ is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:22 AM
  #217
11MilesPerJohan
@BeingAHumanBean
 
11MilesPerJohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: McLean Hospital
Country: United States
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Sanguine View Post

-5 year contract limits - How many NHL players ever get more than 5 years in their career? Less than 10%? Less than 5%? The right to 8 year contracts seems to be something that is only relative to the game's most talented players, and thus already the most fairly compensated, so how/why exactly is this a sticking point for the majority of the players? I have to imagine more than 75% of the current NHLPA could care less if the term limit is 5 or 8 years, since most of them aren't getting either term anyway.

I hear you on the contract issue, but here is what I think the players are probably thinking: one, the owners just spent an off-season giving out 10 year $100 million + deals like they were the t-shirts that ice-girls shoot out of cannons in between periods. So, if I am a player, why should I limit my earning potential because a handful of owners can't control their own spending? If the owners have a problem with long term deals, they never should have signed-off on the 10-15 year monstrosities that we have seen.

Secondly, you already have a salary cap, which limits what players can make, now if you limit the years on the deals, there is very little wiggle room for a player to exploit the open market (not saying that is necessarily a bad thing for the game). So teams can no longer offer long term deals with larger total values and less AAV, so that limits what a player can make both in the sum of a contract and the AAV of a contract. Teams will only be able to offer so much on the AAV on these shorter term deals because it will impact their ability to have cap flexibility.

All that being said, if I was a member of the NHLPA, I would have taken the deal. I think that was the best they were going to get. But I think that is what they are probably thinking.

edit: also, larger deals for the top players help to set the market and drive up the price on lesser players.

11MilesPerJohan is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:22 AM
  #218
Bruins Stooge
Spread Out
 
Bruins Stooge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hartford County CT
Country: United States
Posts: 4,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
The other thing is, the NHL is certainly incurring expenses right now. Some teams and the league may have laid off people but the league still has employees, still has payrolls to meet, still has all the other expenses to keep the lights on. I don't know what revenues they are still able to bring in but their overall P&L can't look too good right now. The notion that the owners don't feel much pressure because they don't have to pay player salaries is a bit of an oversimplification.
Your absolutely correct, its not as if the NHL isn't seeing the red line going down, they are. Also it was a generalization, i'm sure there are some owners who don't have the luxury of other profitable ventures, but i'd say a majority/large percentage do. I can't say that the same percentage of players have the same comfort.

Financially its terrible for everyone, its all about who can withstand it more then others.

Bruins Stooge is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:23 AM
  #219
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruins Stooge View Post
What it really comes down to is how much did the PA **** off the owners and the NHL Wedns night and yesterday. And not just that, but how much did they **** off the moderate owners who they really can't afford to lose. As Bettman said everythings off the table of what they had offered before. Did they **** them off so much that in the near future they wont touch the deal they originally had, or was some of it a smoke and mirrors game to try and inflict fear into the PA.
But this could also be the owners' way of telling the players "you're getting some bad advice" (from D Fehr) and this course of action (anger, pulled concessions, etc.) is our way of getting your attention about that. "Look, we mean it." If the players called back today and said, "okay, we'll take your best offer with everything back on the table" it would be done that way today. They are just sending a message in the form of a punch in the nose.

DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:23 AM
  #220
Shaun
best poster alive
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,769
vCash: 500
I hope Upshall gets amnestied and ends up working at a gas station for the rest of his life.

Shaun is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:25 AM
  #221
KnightofBoston
Mnt. Carlo
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Easthampton, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 14,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
I hope Upshall gets amnestied and ends up working at a gas station for the rest of his life.
prust biznasty too

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:27 AM
  #222
DOGSTARMAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,971
vCash: 500
>>I hear you on the contract issue, but here is what I think the players are probably thinking: one, the owners just spent an off-season giving out 10 year $100 million + deals like they were the t-shirts that ice-girls shoot out of cannons in between periods. So, if I am a player, why should I limit my earning potential because a handful of owners can't control their own spending? If the owners have a problem with long term deals, they never should have signed-off on the 10-15 year monstrosities that we have seen.

Spot on. I've said this elsewhere too. If I'm Fehr, I am telling the players that, why, just 6 months ago the owners were giving out 10 year, $100M deals. Now it is the hill they will die on? Poppycock. I guarantee you he's saying that. Whether he is correctly judging that the owners don't really, really mean it about 5 year term limits on contracts is the crux of the next stage of this battle. Last night, the owners said we really, really mean it. They will be tested on that and one side or the other will have to give in there to get a deal done. That's assuming that the entire owner offer is not out the window, of course, which also may be the reality - or not. It's extremely frustrating and it really is unfair, as Bettman said, that fan's got their hopes up this week and were disappointed again. But at the end of the day, this is simply the final stage of negotiation, over the last open issues of substance, and they are fighting it out to the bitter end. That's the positive spin on this. The negative spin is that the owners really do pull their chips off the table and it's a huge setback to closing the deal. I can only hope that this is not what really happened.

Daly and Steve Fehr seem to have decent rapport and regular dialog, even when things are bad. Now that the sore points have been brought into very sharp focus, I expect that they will continue to talk regularly, informally, about those specific topics and what has to happen to bring parties back to the table. Don't forget that that channel seems to have been functioning throughout this process. And I expect it will today, tomorrow, Sunday, until something develops that thaws the ice. But it's gonna happen, just not as soon as any of us hoped or were led to believe this week.


Last edited by DOGSTARMAN: 12-07-2012 at 11:33 AM.
DOGSTARMAN is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:29 AM
  #223
Mazzie
Registered User
 
Mazzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
Bettman schooled Fehr pretty good yesterday.

Regardless of what actually transpired, whether Bettman got back in the room or not, the media is painting a picture that Fehr jumped back into the fray and Bettman stayed out.

No matter what the offer was that Fehr put out there, Bettman was going to reject it. I bet he didn't even read it. He saw the opportunity to make it look like Fehr came in a screwed everything up at the last minute and jumped on it.

No matter how close they are/were to a deal, Bettman and the owners will never pass up the opportunity to make a union leader look bad. They hate unions and everything they stand for, so they can't help reaching for the boot-knife.

As far as the overall negotiations go, Bettman knows he only has to sell enough players to pass a vote on the CBA, and I think that is what his 30 min presser was about. He wasn't talking to the media, he was talking directly to the players. He is hoping enough guys will want the terms he is spelling out to pressure the union to bring up the deal for a vote. My bet is that pretty much anything close to the last offer would pass, and Fehr would be the scapegoat in a couple years if the players feel they got shafted.

Mazzie is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:29 AM
  #224
Bruins Stooge
Spread Out
 
Bruins Stooge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hartford County CT
Country: United States
Posts: 4,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
But this could also be the owners' way of telling the players "you're getting some bad advice" (from D Fehr) and this course of action (anger, pulled concessions, etc.) is our way of getting your attention about that. "Look, we mean it." If the players called back today and said, "okay, we'll take your best offer with everything back on the table" it would be done that way today. They are just sending a message in the form of a punch in the nose.
Good point, i don't know how true of a report it was but i believe Hainsey said that he was told (and i'm paraphrasing here i don't remember the exact quote) "It'd be best if Fehr wasn't in the room" or something along those lines. I could see the NHL's actions and Bettman and Daly's PC as a strong message back towards that.

Bruins Stooge is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:33 AM
  #225
KnightofBoston
Mnt. Carlo
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Easthampton, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 14,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
Reports coming from the midwest saying cattle have been locked out as well. When asked, cattle farmers cited "Our cattle are performing like Scottie Upshall"
Well atleast now that they are locked out there will be less cow pi...err Scottie Upshalls to clean up

KnightofBoston 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 12:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.