Jump to content
Dead

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)

  

130 members have voted

  1. 1. When will we see hockey?

    • Oct 12
      10
    • Nov 12
      19
    • Dec 12
      26
    • Jan 13
      33
    • Feb 13
      1
    • Mar 13
      0
    • Apr 13
      0
    • Oct 13
      14
    • Never
      27


Recommended Posts

Devils731    36

I don't think Fehr wanted them to wait, he wanted a deal now but he thought he could get the league to go for some other things. I think the NHL has payment thresholds and the like that we're not privy to - sponsorship money and the like having to be refunded - and that's what I mean by a secret calendar.

I thought it wasn't much of a secret, NHL needed to play 62 games to get full sponsorship money. That's pressure both sides should have felt, as that affects both owner and players money, owners immediately and players 1 year removed.

I had assumed both players and NHL would figure out how to jam in 62 games if an agreement had been made during these current sessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NJDevs4978    218

I actually think it's the opposite, Fehr blew up an almost done deal to try and put more time pressure on the owners.

I thought that before the tweet about Fehr privately telling the players the owners will bend more if they wait, that comment rings believable to me since that's how it looked to me from the outside.

That and Fehr also ensured the players got destroyed in the court of public opinion by his inane press conference insinuating it was almost a done deal when he was specifically told these issues were non-starters in terms of length. You're not going to get people on your side by trying to use and play on public emotion to put pressure on the owners when there was really no time to do so anyway.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know of / can find a run down of the key differences in their proposals? Based on their pressers?

Bettman gave a lot of info and seemed angry at the PA's tactics, but I really couldn't make sense of what the key differences were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triumph    634

I thought it wasn't much of a secret, NHL needed to play 62 games to get full sponsorship money. That's pressure both sides should have felt, as that affects both owner and players money, owners immediately and players 1 year removed.

I had assumed both players and NHL would figure out how to jam in 62 games if an agreement had been made during these current sessions.

A lot of journalists were suggesting shorter seasons than that, I think 62 games would've been really tough - I don't think the NHL was ready for 3 games in 3 nights or 4 games in 5 nights kind of stretches like the NBA went through after their lockout.

Anyone know of / can find a run down of the key differences in their proposals? Based on their pressers?

Bettman gave a lot of info and seemed angry at the PA's tactics, but I really couldn't make sense of what the key differences were.

I didn't watch the press conferences but it seemed like length of contracts was the biggest stumbling block, which seems like an awfully small hill to climb.

EDIT: Oh, and length of CBA, owners wanted 10 years, PA wanted 8.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadDog2020    1,900

@DonFehr1 Wonder if people will blindly follow me on Twitter as easily as the idiot hockey players blindly follow me as their union boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadDog2020    1,900

@DonFehr1: Btw, the whole press conference earlier? Don't blame me. I've been privately skyping with an imprisoned Alan Eagleson on and off- his idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't watch the press conferences but it seemed like length of contracts was the biggest stumbling block, which seems like an awfully small hill to climb.

EDIT: Oh, and length of CBA, owners wanted 10 years, PA wanted 8.

Yeah but Fehr acknowledged those stumbling blocks. Bettman's anger came from the idea that Fehr was cherry picking parts of the NHL's last offer. They were offering a package deal. The NHL came down on A in exchange for the NHLPA coming down on B. The NHLPA then presented that the NHL was coming down on A and said they were close to a deal.

There has to be more holding up a deal or Fehr's press conference wasn't misleading and not worth the righteous anger from Bettman. Bettman didn't specifically outline it as far as I could tell and I can't figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisg19    3

I didn't watch the press conferences but it seemed like length of contracts was the biggest stumbling block, which seems like an awfully small hill to climb.

EDIT: Oh, and length of CBA, owners wanted 10 years, PA wanted 8.

My understanding is that there are 42 players with contracts longer than 5 years in the whole NHL, that is less than two players per team, or 16% of the union. Is that correct? If so, this should be a non issue. This doesn't even affect 84% of the players.

I was reading, I think it was Tannenbaums statement, that the tone of the meetings changed like someone flipped a switch on the Wednesday afternoon meetings. Unbelievable, the "depth" players better wake up fast. I'm sure Sid will send you a nice Thank You card when this is all over and he's playing hockey while your coaching squirts at the local rink......idiots....

C'mon Fehr, lets nuke it. Decertify baby, this will be in courts for years.

Edited by chrisg19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevilNurn    5

Really looks like the players are milking this debate for all it's worth. Especially Don Fehr. Because it's clear that although the PA has done nothing but give things up (compared to previous CBA), they still have leverage because ultimately, the owners are the ones losing money. Of course the players are losing some money, but many are making money in Europe. Owners are just losing money every day.

I can understand the NHL's frustration but it really makes them look like rookies. All this nonsense about the package deal and negotiating with themselves...they have only make concessions because their initial deal was so far off from reality and so far off from what they expected, it's not surprising it's taking as long as it has for the two sides to get closer.

I think there will be a season, starting in January, once the NHL figures out a good negotiation tactic that can deal with Don Fehr. They need a deal, for credibility and financial purposes, and they're only going to get it through more negotiation. But they have had no sense of urgency (until now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think desertification works 90% of the time in the players favor. 80% of the time the owners will give a better deal before it hits labor boards and 50% of time they win in courts. Either way I don't think it's a road the owners want to travel.

Edited by Jas0nMacIsaac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marshall    192

My understanding is that there are 42 players with contracts longer than 5 years in the whole NHL, that is less than two players per team, or 16% of the union. Is that correct? If so, this should be a non issue. This doesn't even affect 84% of the players.

They are affected indirectly. The salary and contract rules for the top players meant that both top and depth players got paid, since the AAV didn't necessarily reflect the annual salary. If you put in a 5 year cap on contracts we'll get higher AAVs for top players meaning depth and bottom players getting less...since there's less room under the salary cap.

Obviously this isn't an issue for all teams (internal salary cap etc), but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NJDevs4978    218

Yeah but Fehr acknowledged those stumbling blocks. Bettman's anger came from the idea that Fehr was cherry picking parts of the NHL's last offer. They were offering a package deal. The NHL came down on A in exchange for the NHLPA coming down on B. The NHLPA then presented that the NHL was coming down on A and said they were close to a deal.

There has to be more holding up a deal or Fehr's press conference wasn't misleading and not worth the righteous anger from Bettman. Bettman didn't specifically outline it as far as I could tell and I can't figure it out.

The PA also wanted cap compliance buyouts and escrow limits, two things outside the system...so clearly they weren't 'in agreement on money'. And they hadn't even gotten to discussing HRR yet (the transition).

But all the bait-and-switch stuff smacks of the players trying to pay back the owners for 2004 when they took the 24% rollback and used it against them. That's what they tried yesterday taking the $100 million and saying 'okay, what else'? Which tells you going tit-for-tat on an eight-year old negotiation is more important than actually getting the best deal or any deal. Problem is you not only ticked off Gary but most of the few guys on the other side actually willing to make a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NJDevs4978    218

Really looks like the players are milking this debate for all it's worth. Especially Don Fehr. Because it's clear that although the PA has done nothing but give things up (compared to previous CBA), they still have leverage because ultimately, the owners are the ones losing money. Of course the players are losing some money, but many are making money in Europe. Owners are just losing money every day.

'Many'? It's not anywhere close to a majority of players playing overseas and there won't be, there's only so many jobs you can vulture in these foreign leagues. Of course the big-name players (the 5% whining about contract limits) will be able to get jobs overseas - not getting the salaries they would be getting here though so even they're 'losing money' - but the majority won't. And there are still too many owners who lose less money by not playing than do by playing, not to mention hockey isn't their primary source of income to begin with. Hockey's the players' only source of income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triumph    634

'Many'? It's not anywhere close to a majority of players playing overseas and there won't be, there's only so many jobs you can vulture in these foreign leagues. Of course the big-name players (the 5% whining about contract limits) will be able to get jobs overseas - not getting the salaries they would be getting here though so even they're 'losing money' - but the majority won't. And there are still too many owners who lose less money by not playing than do by playing, not to mention hockey isn't their primary source of income to begin with. Hockey's the players' only source of income.

I can't believe that you actually believe this. Jonathan Willis wrote a pretty great article on why even though some teams lose money, they are loss leaders for other things:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/11/16/nhl-lockout-why-do-billionaires-keep-buying-teams-that-lose-money/

If I had to guess, Phoenix is the only team saving money by not playing, and we already know who owns them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triumph    634

The PA also wanted cap compliance buyouts and escrow limits, two things outside the system...so clearly they weren't 'in agreement on money'. And they hadn't even gotten to discussing HRR yet (the transition).

But all the bait-and-switch stuff smacks of the players trying to pay back the owners for 2004 when they took the 24% rollback and used it against them. That's what they tried yesterday taking the $100 million and saying 'okay, what else'? Which tells you going tit-for-tat on an eight-year old negotiation is more important than actually getting the best deal or any deal. Problem is you not only ticked off Gary but most of the few guys on the other side actually willing to make a deal.

Let's go through the players listed as being in New York for the negotiations.

Craig Adams, David Backes, Mike Cammalleri, Sidney Crosby, B.J. Crombeen, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Shawn Horcoff, Jamal Mayers, Manny Malhotra, Andy McDonald, Ryan Miller, George Parros, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Jonathan Toews, Kevin Westgarth.

First let's acknowledge that none of these players were involved significantly last time. The union leaders were by and large players over 30. That organization has been overhauled since then. Then, let's think about who among these players were actually in the union last time - Adams, Cammalleri, Darche, Doan, Hainsey, Horcoff, Mayers, Malhotra, McDonald, Miller, Richards, and St. Louis were NHL players at the time, but only Richards, St. Louis, and Doan were prominent ones. The rest of the guys probably wanted desperately to play that season. Many of them were on the NHL fringe or just coming up - a year off could be a disaster.

This has nothing to do with 2004-05. It has to do with now - getting the best deal now.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NJDevs4978    218

Tri, even six or seven teams that lose less money by not playing than playing is too many (the Isles are probably another one, at least until they get out from that stupid lease in Nassau and get to Brooklyn). Because then you're always going to have a block of hardliners guaranteed to block a deal. Many of these owners are 'making money' with their arena leases and having other events in the arena it's true, that doesn't mean they make money from playing hockey as opposed to putting on the Icecapades.

I don't think they would be going to the wall this much NOW, after 04-05 if things were as rosy as you and PA-friendly writers suggest.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triumph    634

Tri, even six or seven teams that lose less money by not playing than playing is too many (the Isles are probably another one, at least until they get out from that stupid lease in Nassau and get to Brooklyn). Because then you're always going to have a block of hardliners guaranteed to block a deal. Many of these owners are 'making money' with their arena leases and having other events in the arena it's true, that doesn't mean they make money from playing hockey as opposed to putting on the Icecapades.

Did you read the article? According to Broward County, the Panthers lost the most in 2004-05. And this is the Panthers, a team routinely on the relocation list - if you had to list teams that you figured would lose less during a lockout, the Panthers would be high up on it. But they didn't.

Owners can't block a deal if Bettman recommends it. Again, and I say again, if this is about losing less money, why isn't the salary floor being moved away from the salary cap? Because it isn't about that.

I don't think they would be going to the wall this much NOW, after 04-05 if things were as rosy as you and PA-friendly writers suggest.

The league is at record revenues with cost certainty - they know how much they have to pay out in salaries every year. How can things NOT be rosy? What is the problem? Share the money better if that's the problem, but big-market teams are making boatloads of money - they are guaranteed profit machines. Notice again how the only small market owner invited to talk was Vinik, whose team is still spending quite a bit this year. No Wang, no Karmanos. Regardless, owners are going to the wall to protect franchise values, which is a ton of what the bottom half of the league wants - if they are losing money (and I don't think they are losing all that much if they are save Phoenix) at least they can sell for a profit - they don't want huge contracts on the books until the end of time. sundstrom made this point many times when it looked like Vanderbeek is/was going to sell - Kovalchuk's contract is something a potential owner has to frown at. If they are in agreement on dollars, which Bettman and Daly didn't seem to deny yesterday, they're going to the wall for other dollars. To me Fehr's play is to get more dollars by eventually giving this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redruM    48

Bettman needs to go, his legacy is now the Lock man.... He has basically ruined hockey fo me... I'm not sure the owners or the players really want a deal, I think the players hope the season is shut down, and maybe a ne league start up, this is ridiculous!!!!

I WANT HOCKEY!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know of / can find a run down of the key differences in their proposals? Based on their pressers?

From reading articles like this

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/12/implosion-in-nhl-talks-leaves-players-with-few-options.html

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/national-news/nhl-talks-break-down-after-two-days-of-optimism.html

The main differences that are clear at this point are Bettman wants

  • a 10-year deal with a mutual re-opener after eight seasons
  • a five-year term limit on contracts (seven years for your own player) -- player contract length is the "hill we will die on," according to Daly.
  • no compliance buyouts or caps on player escrow as the NHL and NHLPA transition from the old CBA to the new one.

NHLPA hasn't agreed on these issues. Fehr indicated the first two were issues and said they were close. So either you have to give Bettman the benefit of the doubt and there's something else there that he didn't articulate keeping a deal from being made and Fehr mischarecterized negotiations or they really are close to a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Satans Hockey    674

I can assure you that however out of touch the players are, the owners are more so. This has nothing to with what people have to do to get by. It has to do with being fairly compensated for exceedingly rare talents.

But if we miss this entire season it's going to have a lot to do with what the average family makes. The vast majority doesn't want to hear that thousands to millions of dollars isn't enough money for these whining players to play a game. There isn't going to be much sympathy for them or the owners. I think both the players and owners are so out of touch with how many people are going to stay away from the sport in droves if we don't get some sort of season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel    370

I don't know why the union wants a shorter deal. If CBA negotiations in the NBA and NFL have taught us anything, the terms get better for the owners for each new CBA. MLB is the exception, but the NHL is not MLB.

The idea that the players can get a better deal by holding the 100th anniversary of the league hostage is wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triumph    634

But if we miss this entire season it's going to have a lot to do with what the average family makes. The vast majority doesn't want to hear that thousands to millions of dollars isn't enough money for these whining players to play a game. There isn't going to be much sympathy for them or the owners. I think both the players and owners are so out of touch with how many people are going to stay away from the sport in droves if we don't get some sort of season.

It's not about money. I mean, it is, but it isn't. It's like the old experiment where you put two people, call them A and B, in a room, you give A $10, and you say that A has to a split it with B. He can split it any way he likes, but the other person has to agree to the split, or both people get nothing. Well, some people will offer an even split. Others will offer only $1, figuring that hey, $1 is better than nothing, so B should take the deal. But a lot of potential Bs will see that as unfair and won't take it. That's the psychology we're dealing with now - the owners are trying to get with offering $3, and the players see that as unfair, no matter how much they get paid in total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triumph    634

I don't know why the union wants a shorter deal. If CBA negotiations in the NBA and NFL have taught us anything, the terms get better for the owners for each new CBA. MLB is the exception, but the NHL is not MLB.

The idea that the players can get a better deal by holding the 100th anniversary of the league hostage is wishful thinking.

Make it short enough and the owners will think twice about a lockout the next time as a dominant strategy. That's what's critical here - if they sign a 10 year CBA, we can all start planning for the 2022 lockout right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Satans Hockey    674

It's not about money. I mean, it is, but it isn't. It's like the old experiment where you put two people, call them A and B, in a room, you give A $10, and you say that A has to a split it with B. He can split it any way he likes, but the other person has to agree to the split, or both people get nothing. Well, some people will offer an even split. Others will offer only $1, figuring that hey, $1 is better than nothing, so B should take the deal. But a lot of potential Bs will see that as unfair and won't take it. That's the psychology we're dealing with now - the owners are trying to get with offering $3, and the players see that as unfair, no matter how much they get paid in total.

I get what you're saying but I still think the fans are still going to have a tremendous backlash to this nonsense but when you take this small sample of a board as an example. Myself, who I would describe as die hard as it comes when it comes to the Devils and NHL hockey (hell I've had Devils season tickets for over 10 years and I normally travel to the cup finals if I can even if the Devils aren't in it, I was at game 7 of oilers-hurricanes in 06, game 5 and 6 of detroit-pittsburgh in 07, game 7 of detroit-pitttsurgh in 08 and game 6 of boston-vancouver in 11) is thinking of being done with giving any of money to support them in anyway then what is the average fan thinking? There are other die hards on here that have expressed how frustrated they are with having to go through this situation again so soon after 2004-05. I just don't think the owners and players have any clue at how bad the backlash is going to be in some cities.

I don't have much desire to argue dollars and cents when it comes to the CBA terms. I'm not on either side. All I want is this nonsense to be over with because the more I hear the owners and especially the players talk the more I have no desire to ever give them another cent of my money. I honestly would feel like a complete fool if we miss an entire season and I decide to keep my season tickets anyway. I'm not saying I won't keep them but I probably will take the route of trying to sell as many games as possible for awhile. When the economy is in such a sh!t it's really hard to really care about these owners and players whining over ridicilious amounts of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×