Do we have a CBA strife thread yet?

[forty_three]

Ted Lindsay despises badmouthing of Gary Bettman by players during lockout - ESPN

That's a good point, you dogering old coot. I will call Bettman an idiot for other reasons. When addressing the lockout specifically I will reserve the words "Idiot", "retard" "moron" and "Fucking Imbecile" for the owners.

 

[forty_three]

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com...kers/2012/11/ohio-senator-brown-steps-in.html

Ohio Senator petitions DC for assistance for Arena Area small businesses hurt by the lockout. I hope he's successful, and I hope that every other city piles on. And THEN I hope government takes whatever it pays to these places out of the owners' asses.

 

[mattola]

That's a good point, you dogering old coot. I will call Bettman an idiot for other reasons. When addressing the lockout specifically I will reserve the words "Idiot", "retard" "moron" and "Fucking Imbecile" for the owners.

the guy is obviously not stupid we all know that. but the way he talks about and to the fans that is where the idiot comes from. he has the personality of gnat. just because he is respected in business does not make me want to stop calling him names

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Ironically, the wealthiest individual owner in the league should be the one that wants to get hockey back the most.

David Thomson of the Jets?

/which makes the dressing down he (or Mark Chipman) took from Jacobs during negotiations all the funnier

 

[davnlaguna]

I think Bettman suggested this because they feel Fehr is for dragging his feet hoping for a better deal for Christmas. The league does not think Fehr is telling the whole story to the players. They think that he has no sense of urgency.
If Fehr agrees to this he feels the players believe him and his timetable.
I dont think Fehr will agree to this. It could cause a greater divide amongst the players.
Bettman was smart leaking this. If Fehr does reject it then that alone could cause a divide.

 

[esls79]

Ted Lindsay got the union thing going for players' protection and wellbeing outside of the game. Owners back then were crooks. Today's owners are not (until they put the cuffs on them at least). At that time, players had offseason jobs and a serious injury while playing would often be life altering. The union today doesn't care about a damn thing anymore but money. Those guys loved playing the game, and wanted protections and fair pay - today's players just want money and claim it isn't fair if they don't get half of the pie. The love of the game is gone. It's fundamentally what is wrong with the PA.

 

[filosofy29]

Ted Lindsay got the union thing going for players' protection and wellbeing outside of the game. Owners back then were crooks. Today's owners are not (until they put the cuffs on them at least). At that time, players had offseason jobs and a serious injury while playing would often be life altering. The union today doesn't care about a damn thing anymore but money. Those guys loved playing the game, and wanted protections and fair pay - today's players just want money and claim it isn't fair if they don't get half of the pie. The love of the game is gone. It's fundamentally what is wrong with the PA.

All of this ^. Well said es.

 

[banditshcky11]

I think Bettman suggested this because they feel Fehr is for dragging his feet hoping for a better deal for Christmas. The league does not think Fehr is telling the whole story to the players. They think that he has no sense of urgency.
If Fehr agrees to this he feels the players believe him and his timetable.
I dont think Fehr will agree to this. It could cause a greater divide amongst the players.
Bettman was smart leaking this. If Fehr does reject it then that alone could cause a divide.

The question is do the players have enough guys like Darrell Powe(aronautical engineer), Patrick Sharp & George Parros(both buisness guys) & other individuals intelligent enough to dissect the information that the owners will try to put out to them without having a professional of their own in the room on their side(I'm not suggesting the players are dumb, more so that negotiations are not what they do on a daily basis). I honestly see no upside to this for the players unless they have some form of lawyer & financhial(analyst/planner/guru) in the room with them. The owners would definitely have the upper hand in these so called 1 on 1 talks since they are all relatively shrewd businessmen. I'm not saying I don't think it'd be a god idea to get people on the same page & talking to try to find a resolution, I just don't see how there is even footing. Also I think all 30 owners or teams Reps should be there and the discussion should be open to the whole union. I know that sounds detrimental to discussions but if they were scheduled over 2-3 days with time slot for the owners to speak then a break and time for player rebuttal it would be much fairer and eliminate the whole "we owners think Fehr isn't being honest with the players" thing.

The fact that federal mediation lasted 2 days is a fucking joke tho and they need to figure something out fast or just scrap the damn season.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

David Thomson of the Jets?

/which makes the dressing down he (or Mark Chipman) took from Jacobs during negotiations all the funnier

Yep, you got me on that one. I forgot he was part of TNSE. Though to be fair, he's not 100% owner.

 

[Dacks]

Ted Lindsay got the union thing going for players' protection and wellbeing outside of the game. Owners back then were crooks. Today's owners are not (until they put the cuffs on them at least). At that time, players had offseason jobs and a serious injury while playing would often be life altering. The union today doesn't care about a damn thing anymore but money. Those guys loved playing the game, and wanted protections and fair pay - today's players just want money and claim it isn't fair if they don't get half of the pie. The love of the game is gone. It's fundamentally what is wrong with the PA.

Eh, I don't agree. Teachers care about their students A LOT (I know because I was one) but will also go on strike if they feel they're being treated unfairly. Doctors care about their patients A LOT (I know because I'm married to one) and still fight for their wages and benefits. The same applies to NHLers. They gave up massive concessions in the last CBA. Now they are asked to give up more, despite an apparently strong and growing league.

People use salary, but it's relative. Should NHLers accept salaries of $50,000 and let owners pocket 95% of revenue? The fact is, it's hard as hell to make the NHL - you have to be one of the top percentile in the world both talent-wise and effort-wise (or fight and tweet funny stuff), you spend years risking your health for something that might not pay off, etc... And the players ARE the product. A product worth billions of dollars. Why shouldn't they get a healthy share of the pie? Their value is demonstrated by how much fans are willing to spend on tickets, jerseys, etc...

Why are athletes the only entertainers who face a salary cap? Actors and actresses don't. Musicians don't. Writers don't. You could argue sports is an exception, but some of the biggest and most successful leagues in the world (e.g. soccer) don't - why should hockey? Are hockey players responsible for ensuring a healthy league? Obviously they thought it was in their best interest, and we have this partnership between the NHL and NHLPA. But like any partnership, it's based on trust and compromise - and this time round the owners have pushed too hard and sacrificed both. For what? So far, nothing.

 

[forty_three]

Eh, I don't agree. Teachers care about their students A LOT (I know because I was one) but will also go on strike if they feel they're being treated unfairly. Doctors care about their patients A LOT (I know because I'm married to one) and still fight for their wages and benefits. The same applies to NHLers. They gave up massive concessions in the last CBA. Now they are asked to give up more, despite an apparently strong and growing league.

People use salary, but it's relative. Should NHLers accept salaries of $50,000 and let owners pocket 95% of revenue? The fact is, it's hard as hell to make the NHL - you have to be one of the top percentile in the world both talent-wise and effort-wise (or fight and tweet funny stuff), you spend years risking your health for something that might not pay off, etc... And the players ARE the product. A product worth billions of dollars. Why shouldn't they get a healthy share of the pie? Their value is demonstrated by how much fans are willing to spend on tickets, jerseys, etc...

Why are athletes the only entertainers who face a salary cap? Actors and actresses don't. Musicians don't. Writers don't. You could argue sports is an exception, but some of the biggest and most successful leagues in the world (e.g. soccer) don't - why should hockey? Are hockey players responsible for ensuring a healthy league? Obviously they thought it was in their best interest, and we have this partnership between the NHL and NHLPA. But like any partnership, it's based on trust and compromise - and this time round the owners have pushed too hard and sacrificed both. For what? So far, nothing.

 

[Comeds]

Eh, I don't agree. Teachers care about their students A LOT (I know because I was one) but will also go on strike if they feel they're being treated unfairly. Doctors care about their patients A LOT (I know because I'm married to one) and still fight for their wages and benefits. The same applies to NHLers. They gave up massive concessions in the last CBA. Now they are asked to give up more, despite an apparently strong and growing league.

People use salary, but it's relative. Should NHLers accept salaries of $50,000 and let owners pocket 95% of revenue? The fact is, it's hard as hell to make the NHL - you have to be one of the top percentile in the world both talent-wise and effort-wise (or fight and tweet funny stuff), you spend years risking your health for something that might not pay off, etc... And the players ARE the product. A product worth billions of dollars. Why shouldn't they get a healthy share of the pie? Their value is demonstrated by how much fans are willing to spend on tickets, jerseys, etc...

Why are athletes the only entertainers who face a salary cap? Actors and actresses don't. Musicians don't. Writers don't. You could argue sports is an exception, but some of the biggest and most successful leagues in the world (e.g. soccer) don't - why should hockey? Are hockey players responsible for ensuring a healthy league? Obviously they thought it was in their best interest, and we have this partnership between the NHL and NHLPA. But like any partnership, it's based on trust and compromise - and this time round the owners have pushed too hard and sacrificed both. For what? So far, nothing.

Good points and I dont really disagree, but have a few question comments.

I do not disagree that they gave up things in the last CBA but have the players ever had as successful 7 years as they have in the last 7 years? Under the cap and cellar contracts usually went up, the second contract all but disappeared, and the era of the very long term deals came in.

No, I still think revenues should be split 50/50 ish. Whether they are who the fans go to see or not the owners have a financial risk that the players do not. An owner can lose money over the course of a season, once a player is signed he cannot. I know you back the players and think they are being fair, but unless I missed something I still have not seen any proposal from them that takes the revenue to 50/50.

 

[dash]

The 'Make Whole' provision/transfer payments proposed by the league are/were $211 million for this season (I added were because that was based on a 82 game season and it's likely the league will pull this off the table). The NHLPA would like the transfer payments value to $393 million in the first year and I believe that puts their revenues in the first year at 56.5% based on league wide revenues of $3.3 billion (last year's take). If I'm not mistaken, the players proposal will get to 50/50, but not until year 3.

I'm really disillusioned with both sides, and I really don't know what it will take to get some kind of traction in talks. What I do know is that if you going to give credit to Bettman for growing league revenues to record levels, then he also has to take the flak for three work stoppages in 18 years at the helm. The players also need to realize that when they brought Fehr on board that this was a likely development based on his track record in MLB.

I'm just a fan who attends 2 games a season if I'm lucky, so although I'm bummed out there's no NHL hockey, in the grand scheme of things, it's just a minor incovenience. It pales in comparison to NHL referees and linesman who are also locked out, restaurant and bar owners who depend on NHL games for their livelihood, as well as NHL arena support staff. This lockout needs to get resolved for these people.

 

[Comeds]

The 'Make Whole' provision/transfer payments proposed by the league are/were $211 million for this season (I added were because that was based on a 82 game season and it's likely the league will pull this off the table). The NHLPA would like the transfer payments value to $393 million in the first year and I believe that puts their revenues in the first year at 56.5% based on league wide revenues of $3.3 billion (last year's take). If I'm not mistaken, the players proposal will get to 50/50, but not until year 3.

I'm really disillusioned with both sides, and I really don't know what it will take to get some kind of traction in talks. What I do know is that if you going to give credit to Bettman for growing league revenues to record levels, then he also has to take the flak for three work stoppages in 18 years at the helm. The players also need to realize that when they brought Fehr on board that this was a likely development based on his track record in MLB.

I'm just a fan who attends 2 games a season if I'm lucky, so although I'm bummed out there's no NHL hockey, in the grand scheme of things, it's just a minor incovenience. It pales in comparison to NHL referees and linesman who are also locked out, restaurant and bar owners who depend on NHL games for their livelihood, as well as NHL arena support staff. This lockout needs to get resolved for these people.

I thought there were fail safes in there that would stop the progression to 50/50 if there was not a certain amount of growth. I also thought one of the proposals had the players % going back up in year 5. Maybe I missed a proposal at some point, but I do not recall seeing one where the players went below 52%.

I do not blame the player for wanting to play somewhere but I am not thrilled with some of the players here who may already be set for life going to Europe and taking jobs from players who may need them.

Unless I missed some offers, I still do not think either side has really tried to get a deal done. The fact that there is no sense of urgency from either side is bothersome.

If I was a player I might seriously consider a long term deal from the KHL or other European league. If I was the owners I start exploring the idea of replacement players.

 

[dash]

I thought there were fail safes in there that would stop the progression to 50/50 if there was not a certain amount of growth. I also thought one of the proposals had the players % going back up in year 5. Maybe I missed a proposal at some point, but I do not recall seeing one where the players went below 52%.

That could indeed be the case, comeds (to be honest, it's difficult to keep some of this stuff straight). I seem to recall that the players did include some guarantees that their cut could not drop below a certain level if league revenues dropped.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the players decide they want to sit down with owners and try to somehow make some progress towards a deal. Who wants to be in the session with Jacobs and Leipold?

 

[esls79]

Eh, I don't agree. Teachers care about their students A LOT (I know because I was one) but will also go on strike if they feel they're being treated unfairly. Doctors care about their patients A LOT (I know because I'm married to one) and still fight for their wages and benefits. The same applies to NHLers. They gave up massive concessions in the last CBA. Now they are asked to give up more, despite an apparently strong and growing league.

People use salary, but it's relative. Should NHLers accept salaries of $50,000 and let owners pocket 95% of revenue? The fact is, it's hard as hell to make the NHL - you have to be one of the top percentile in the world both talent-wise and effort-wise (or fight and tweet funny stuff), you spend years risking your health for something that might not pay off, etc... And the players ARE the product. A product worth billions of dollars. Why shouldn't they get a healthy share of the pie? Their value is demonstrated by how much fans are willing to spend on tickets, jerseys, etc...

Why are athletes the only entertainers who face a salary cap? Actors and actresses don't. Musicians don't. Writers don't. You could argue sports is an exception, but some of the biggest and most successful leagues in the world (e.g. soccer) don't - why should hockey? Are hockey players responsible for ensuring a healthy league? Obviously they thought it was in their best interest, and we have this partnership between the NHL and NHLPA. But like any partnership, it's based on trust and compromise - and this time round the owners have pushed too hard and sacrificed both. For what? So far, nothing.

If you look at things from the owner's side, there is no income but there are going to be operating losses - that adds up to very nice tax benefits. The owners push hard because even thought its a partnership, they hold the better hand.

The owners still have it better than the players during this lockout. Look at the Coyotes - net operating losses are mighty valuable assets when it comes to selling a franchise. The players lose everything and the owners only lose revenue and revenue isn't the bottom line - it's the top line. For the players, no salaries equals nothing and that is the bottom line.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

This is getting out of hand. I don't get how the leadership of a prominent sports league is letting it get to this point. I mean this is America. We do not stand for stalemates and pay the he said/she said game over important issues. This country should never let this happen.


...."Whats that you says about the president and the fiscal cliff? Oh well shit, we're fucked."

 

[mattola]

Players to decide by Saturday on proposed player-owner meeting

wtf? how long does it take to decide to meet? this is the problem the NHLPA thinks the NHL is up to something with this type of meeting so they need 3 days to think about it? no wonder its all fucked up this is a 50/50 fuck up

 

[IndyAndy]

Players to decide by Saturday on proposed player-owner meeting

wtf? how long does it take to decide to meet? this is the problem the NHLPA thinks the NHL is up to something with this type of meeting so they need 3 days to think about it? no wonder its all fucked up this is a 50/50 fuck up

Apparently they needed time to form a committee to determine whether to conduct a study on whether to empower a panel to decide if they want to form a commission to...

... and all the while, the clock keeps going 'tick-toc'; counting down the hopes for anything even vaugely resembling a partialy salvaged season.

 

[mattola]

Apparently they needed time to form a committee to determine whether to conduct a study on whether to empower a panel to decide if they want to form a commission to...

... and all the while, the clock keeps going 'tick-toc'; counting down the hopes for anything even vaugely resembling a partialy salvaged season.

the conspiracy theory for this one is that people think the NHL only agreed to a mediator to come in and now this meeting to delay until the BOG on Dec 6th and take up a couple more pay periods I believe the players have lost 4 now.