HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Lockout VI:ve la Revolution!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 06:02 PM
  #901
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
Sounds like maybe the NHL did a bait/switch after Fehr pulled disclaimer off according to Brooks. Both sides are just being stupid. Just dumb and will not get anywhere doing that.
I normally think both sides are dicks during lockout, but that was especially dicky. I mean completely shady on the NHL's side.

SnowblindNYR is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:05 PM
  #902
Twilight Sparkle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I normally think both sides are dicks during lockout, but that was especially dicky. I mean completely shady on the NHL's side.
After all the sleazy tactics of Fehr, NHL would be fools to try to keep things on a good-will basis.

Twilight Sparkle is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:06 PM
  #903
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
The same can be said of the PA and Fehr...this is a 50-50 blame game...
Only only one of Fehr and Bettman has been running the league for the last 20 years.

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:07 PM
  #904
CanadianPirate
Registered User
 
CanadianPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
Sounds like maybe the NHL did a bait/switch after Fehr pulled disclaimer off according to Brooks. Both sides are just being stupid. Just dumb and will not get anywhere doing that.
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Other day NHL would allow 7 yr contract to start at 10 and end at 4 per. Now would end at 6. Don't quite get what game theyre trying to play

Yepp, sounds like the NHL has changed what they are offering. As soon as the disclaimer deadline passed they decided to revert to less favourable terms.

CanadianPirate is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:08 PM
  #905
CanadianPirate
Registered User
 
CanadianPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilight Sparkle View Post
After all the sleazy tactics of Fehr, NHL would be fools to try to keep things on a good-will basis.
Why? If they were close enough for Fehr not to disclaim you would think the NHL would want to keep things on a good-will basis...

CanadianPirate is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:09 PM
  #906
Vujtek
Registered User
 
Vujtek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Only only one of Fehr and Bettman has been running the league for the last 20 years.
So you're saying it takes 20 years from Bettman to take down the whole NHL when Fehr can do it just in 2 years?

Vujtek is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:10 PM
  #907
Flamingo
Registered User
 
Flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,416
vCash: 500
A change in one term could've been made as a trade for changes in the PAs favor in another term. Conjectures that this was all post-dissolution pressure is, well, just conjecture.

Flamingo is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:11 PM
  #908
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,347
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
PA should have disclaimed and seen this coming. Bettman is the worst good-faith negotiator it's unbelievable

nyrmessier011 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:13 PM
  #909
CanadianPirate
Registered User
 
CanadianPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
A change in one term could've been made as a trade for changes in the PAs favor in another term. Conjectures that this was all post-dissolution pressure is, well, just conjecture.
Good point. We are all just taking the word of reporters. We haven't heard anything directly from either side.

CanadianPirate is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:14 PM
  #910
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueChip01 View Post
Sounds like maybe the NHL did a bait/switch after Fehr pulled disclaimer off according to Brooks.
Ha ha ha according to Brooks. People still quote him?

Cawz is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:16 PM
  #911
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,595
vCash: 500
Reposting:

Quick question for those of you who have been following this more closely recently: why are they arguing about a fixed number on the cap for next season (i.e., $60M v $65M for next year's cap)? I thought they were at least arguing about a 50-50 split plus whatever amount of "make whole" money. So unless the NHL has accepted delinkage, why are they talking about a fixed figure at all for next year's salaries? Is 60 v 65 just about a play number that will be adjusted up or down to 50% through escrow? If so, why would they be arguing about it?

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:19 PM
  #912
Twilight Sparkle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Reposting:

Quick question for those of you who have been following this more closely recently: why are they arguing about a fixed number on the cap for next season (i.e., $60M v $65M for next year's cap)? I thought they were at least arguing about a 50-50 split plus whatever amount of "make whole" money. So unless the NHL has accepted delinkage, why are they talking about a fixed figure at all for next year's salaries? Is 60 v 65 just about a play number that will be adjusted up or down to 50% through escrow? If so, why would they be arguing about it?
next season is a transition year. Neither side want a principled approach to it, just something that feels right.

Twilight Sparkle is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:21 PM
  #913
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 18,953
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Reposting:

Quick question for those of you who have been following this more closely recently: why are they arguing about a fixed number on the cap for next season (i.e., $60M v $65M for next year's cap)? I thought they were at least arguing about a 50-50 split plus whatever amount of "make whole" money. So unless the NHL has accepted delinkage, why are they talking about a fixed figure at all for next year's salaries? Is 60 v 65 just about a play number that will be adjusted up or down to 50% through escrow? If so, why would they be arguing about it?
In addition to what the poster above me put. It's a huge deal because very few teams would be able to handle a $60M cap next year. A bunch of players would have to be bought out. This would also pose another problem because the NHL also wants that buyout money to count within the players 50%

Gentle Ben Kenobi is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:22 PM
  #914
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,055
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I normally think both sides are dicks during lockout, but that was especially dicky. I mean completely shady on the NHL's side.
There was a disagreement about the pensions before the DOI elapsed.

it sounds like a rumour floated by the PA and a way to to get the players upset with the League to keep them in line.

Oh yes and of course-another way to delay an agreement. Fehr always finds a way.
How many times will he have them vote on s DOI(which doesn't require a vote) before he permits them to vote on an agreement?

This is a farce.

pepty is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:22 PM
  #915
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
The barrage of Tweets that have been going on today are so inconsistent it's mind-boggling.

I've got a strong feeling that the media has no idea what's actually going on and is just writing down whatever they run across.

Wingsfan2965* is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:23 PM
  #916
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,125
vCash: 500
Why not just split the difference and do a 62.5 million cap?

WingedWheel1987 is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:27 PM
  #917
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
Why not just split the difference and do a 62.5 million cap?
I suspect the NHL may be looking for something from the players before moving off the $60M cap.

rojac is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:31 PM
  #918
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I suspect the NHL may be looking for something from the players before moving off the $60M cap.
This is garbage.

All this, will they or wont they, is beyond aggravating.

Either cancel the season or agree to a new CBA.

WingedWheel1987 is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:31 PM
  #919
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilight Sparkle View Post
After all the sleazy tactics of Fehr, NHL would be fools to try to keep things on a good-will basis.
Good thing I haven't followed the lockout that much because those tactics would piss me off too.

SnowblindNYR is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:32 PM
  #920
fahad203
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianPirate View Post
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Other day NHL would allow 7 yr contract to start at 10 and end at 4 per. Now would end at 6. Don't quite get what game theyre trying to play

Yepp, sounds like the NHL has changed what they are offering. As soon as the disclaimer deadline passed they decided to revert to less favourable terms.
That could be because NHL has made a lot of concessions themselves. NHLPA will give to give some as well

fahad203 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:37 PM
  #921
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
The barrage of Tweets that have been going on today are so inconsistent it's mind-boggling.

I've got a strong feeling that the media has no idea what's actually going on and is just writing down whatever they run across.
Its a strong feeling becasue thats exactly whats happening. The media has to post tidbits to stay in the public light, so they will grasp at anything.

Cawz is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:41 PM
  #922
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
Its a strong feeling becasue thats exactly whats happening. The media has to post tidbits to stay in the public light, so they will grasp at anything.
Go read Cotsonika's twitter. It's pure comedy.

Wingsfan2965* is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:50 PM
  #923
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyvale420 View Post
but really, could the leafs playoff revenues raise the cap floor enough on their own to screw the smaller markets over that much more
No not really. Say the Leafs went to the finals. If NJ can pull in 32m in playoff revenues, say the Leafs can bring in 60m (also makes the math easy).

60/2 (50%) is 30m. Basically them going to the finals would increase the cap by ~1m. Yes it's significant/noticeable that 1 team could do that, but not earth shattering by any means.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:51 PM
  #924
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo View Post
In addition to what the poster above me put. It's a huge deal because very few teams would be able to handle a $60M cap next year. A bunch of players would have to be bought out. This would also pose another problem because the NHL also wants that buyout money to count within the players 50%
So this is to say that this season (if there is one) will not operate on a 50% cap, nor will next season? That 50% comes in in year 3?

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:54 PM
  #925
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrmessier011 View Post
PA should have disclaimed and seen this coming. Bettman is the worst good-faith negotiator it's unbelievable
You're able to determine this how? The only thing I've seen is one post by Brooks. Until someone more reputable reports it (or hell even more people - who are hearing it from someone other than Brooks), it doesn't mean anything.

Riptide 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 12:00 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.