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

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,718 posts in this topic

Especially since somehow every final offer and every take it or leave it offer has gotten better with time. I don't believe that deadline either. If the NHL hadn't established itself as being a completely untrustworthy negotiator, we wouldn't be in this position.

Eh, they put this one (the drop-dead date) in writing. It's a little different than Bettman screaming up and down at a press conference when you actually have it in official documents. Bettman knows the only thing that's going to make Fehr negotiate is a deadline. Plus they came out with their most comprehensive CBA yet...300 pages is a little different than Fehr's napkin proposal. This has got to be the final push.

They're not going to have a 28-game season like they would have in '04-05, the only reason they left the date so long then was because it was uncharted territory to cancel an entire season. Plus there's no precedent for having a sub-48 game season, they're not obligated to stretch it out to mid-February.

Plus the final showdown date sort of 'has' to be soon between the DOI and the players' response to the owners' suit deadlines coming up too.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, they put this one (the drop-dead date) in writing. It's a little different than Bettman screaming up and down at a press conference when you actually have it in official documents. Bettman knows the only thing that's going to make Fehr negotiate is a deadline. Plus they came out with their most comprehensive CBA yet...300 pages is a little different than Fehr's napkin proposal. This has got to be the final push.

I have seen nothing that indicates that the league has put anything in writing regarding when the season has to start. There's been 'anonymous sources' reported by TSN as saying that, but I don't find that credible at all.

Just because they threw together 300 pages doesn't mean it's a worthy proposal. Most of the stuff in there will be the same as the 2005 CBA. And again, early indications are that they have moved the needle .1% from their last offer. If they 'take it or leave it' on this one, it's going to be, again, leave it.

They're not going to have a 28-game season like they would have in '04-05, the only reason they left the date so long then was because it was uncharted territory to cancel an entire season. Plus there's no precedent for having a sub-48 game season, they're not obligated to stretch it out to mid-February.

I find neither of these things credible either. I'm not sure they will go to 28 - I wrote about why here - but 42? Why is 48 okay and 42 not okay? When you come up with a bunch of artificial deadlines for things and stamp your feet about lines in the sand, deadlines, 'take it or leave it', 'these things are now off the table' then they come back on, your positions are no longer believable.

Plus the final showdown date sort of 'has' to be soon between the DOI and the players' response to the owners' suit deadlines coming up too.

I don't see why, necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not too sure where to post this but lets use this one... so while the lockout is still going... Kovy is still blasting pucks through goalies, what a shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the announced drop-dead date is actually true, what's the date by which an agreement must be made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares at this point?!? Well my nephew does, he wants hockey yesterday. I do not however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares at this point?!? Well my nephew does, he wants hockey yesterday. I do not however.

I still like hockey and eventually something will get done (i don't see the whole season being cancelled). i hate the NHL and PA for this whole process but once the nhl does come back i'll watch every Devil game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockout's don't bother me in the least bit. They are a necessary evil for both sides. Every future purchase I make will be based on future entertainment, nothing that happened in the past. All this kicking and screaming about not supporting the NHL is loony. You follow because you love the sport, not to be part of the business as a valued stakeholder.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, anyone who really doesn't care wouldn't be checking this thread.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KuklasKorner:

Quote

"We're going to find out how bad the NHL wants a season," said a union source.

ugh, I don't see that as a good thing.....

Edited by lucifer91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet its only the owners being the greedy ones right?

Both sides make me want to vomit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the system was out of balance and needed to be fixed. Ulitmately Hockey needs revenue sharing more than the other three major sports as it still needs to work extreemly hard to draw in markets such as Arizona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet its only the owners being the greedy ones right?

Both sides make me want to vomit.

I don't think anyone ever said that, but the owners have brought us to this point deliberately, threatening to cancel the season unless the players cave on every aspect, and refusing to negotiate on their offers. When you say 'take or leave it' and 'this is our best offer', you cannot possibly expect the other party to agree to it. With the owners expecting a full CBA response, there's no reason not to start throwing things in that the owners won't like to try to trade them for things the players actually want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone ever said that, but the owners have brought us to this point deliberately, threatening to cancel the season unless the players cave on every aspect, and refusing to negotiate on their offers. When you say 'take or leave it' and 'this is our best offer', you cannot possibly expect the other party to agree to it. With the owners expecting a full CBA response, there's no reason not to start throwing things in that the owners won't like to try to trade them for things the players actually want.

I think the owners had to go this route to a certain degree. Just bringing in Fehr for the NHLPA was akin to a declaration of war and almost guraanteed a lockedout. Mulitple players have said the 43% starting offer was insulting but its a pretty basic negotiating tactic of splitting down the middle to get to 50/50. The players have a ligitimate gripe about the BS of huge contracts being signed when owners knew they were going to try to roll them back but it is what it is. At this point they both need to decide if they really want to loose making money this year all to piss and moan and probably end up back at the same point at some point in June/July.

Edited by newarkdev01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone ever said that, but the owners have brought us to this point deliberately, threatening to cancel the season unless the players cave on every aspect, and refusing to negotiate on their offers. When you say 'take or leave it' and 'this is our best offer', you cannot possibly expect the other party to agree to it. With the owners expecting a full CBA response, there's no reason not to start throwing things in that the owners won't like to try to trade them for things the players actually want.

I think Fehr brought negotiations to this point. Fehr knew he wasn't going to get the best offer(ignoring wages lost, which is a huge thing that Fehr doesn't care about) until the season was on the line. Fehr's BS proposals and media grandstanding seem obviously designed to delay and derail negotiations and so here we are. The players probably would have made more money for themselves if they had hardcore negotiated a CBA around when the season was supposed to start, but the players, and so Fehr, want to emotionally win this negotiation and the actual $$$ being made or lost were inconsequential to those emotions.

IMO, The owners wanted a deal that would have left both sides with more money than whatever they will negotiate now. Fehr wanted this to be the situation because he sees it as getting the best deal for the NHLPA written, ignoring overall income to the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how 57-43 gets seen as such an 'insult' when that's exactly the mirror of how the last CBA ended. I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

57-43 was just a convenient excuse, the PA would have found another reason to wage war, a war that in fact started when realignment was blocked for no other real reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Fehr brought negotiations to this point. Fehr knew he wasn't going to get the best offer(ignoring wages lost, which is a huge thing that Fehr doesn't care about) until the season was on the line. Fehr's BS proposals and media grandstanding seem obviously designed to delay and derail negotiations and so here we are. The players probably would have made more money for themselves if they had hardcore negotiated a CBA around when the season was supposed to start, but the players, and so Fehr, want to emotionally win this negotiation and the actual $$$ being made or lost were inconsequential to those emotions.

IMO, The owners wanted a deal that would have left both sides with more money than whatever they will negotiate now. Fehr wanted this to be the situation because he sees it as getting the best deal for the NHLPA written, ignoring overall income to the players.

I just have no trust in Fehr after what happened in baseball but I think the lockout was a neccesary evil from a business standpoint. The owners had a system that could not sustain itself and the players have contracts they want honored. This seems to be the core issue the whole backdrop of the lockout with everything else revovling around this.

Edited by newarkdev01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently the PA now wants expansion fees to be counted as part of HRR lol. Another attempt to skim off the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently the PA now wants expansion fees to be counted as part of HRR lol. Another attempt to skim off the top.

I would tell the players your expansion benefit is another 22 or so NHLPA jobs.

Maybe the players would like a cut of Concert revenue for arenas where the owners own both the team and the arena. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Fehr brought negotiations to this point. Fehr knew he wasn't going to get the best offer(ignoring wages lost, which is a huge thing that Fehr doesn't care about) until the season was on the line. Fehr's BS proposals and media grandstanding seem obviously designed to delay and derail negotiations and so here we are. The players probably would have made more money for themselves if they had hardcore negotiated a CBA around when the season was supposed to start, but the players, and so Fehr, want to emotionally win this negotiation and the actual $$$ being made or lost were inconsequential to those emotions.

IMO, The owners wanted a deal that would have left both sides with more money than whatever they will negotiate now. Fehr wanted this to be the situation because he sees it as getting the best deal for the NHLPA written, ignoring overall income to the players.

If players negotiated this way, for their wages only, they'd be way worse off now than they actually are. Fehr, having run a union for 25 years, understands this principle perfectly. In fact, players in the 90s probably 'lost' relative to what they would've had under a cap, but now what's the average MLB salary? $5M? It's very high, and it's because he fought against a salary cap, and MLB is a healthy league with a healthy, unbent union.

If the league wants a 10 year CBA, and I find it hard to believe they haven't wanted that all along, it makes sense for the union to drag their feet on every issue because it will affect players who are 12 years old now.

Again - find me where the league gave something to the players that they didn't have before, and I'll say 'oh okay maybe they were fools to hold out this long'

Funny how 57-43 gets seen as such an 'insult' when that's exactly the mirror of how the last CBA ended. I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

57-43 was just a convenient excuse, the PA would have found another reason to wage war, a war that in fact started when realignment was blocked for no other real reason.

Hahaha. 43% is an enormous insult. I have no idea why you think 57% is fair, much less 43%. Ideally, percentages like this wouldn't be set at all, but NHL owners and GMs are too stupid to operate under such a system.

I would tell the players your expansion benefit is another 22 or so NHLPA jobs.

Why does the NHLPA want or care about 22 minimum salary jobs versus getting a piece of the league opening itself up, thereby creating the very conditions which cause the league to have to lock itself out in order to get a CBA that all the owners can tolerate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha. 43% is an enormous insult. I have no idea why you think 57% is fair, much less 43%. Ideally, percentages like this wouldn't be set at all, but NHL owners and GMs are too stupid to operate under such a system.

Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant, just that they have no right to be taking it as an 'insult' when they wound up on the long end of the exact same percentage in the last CBA. So I guess they were insulting the owners offering 57-43 at the end of the last CBA? The NBA's first offer was even worse than that lol.

If it's so ludicrous on their end, they should realize that's how the end of the last CBA looked to the owners. But it's telling you think even 57-43 for the players isn't 'fair'.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites