Jump to content

Photo

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)


  • Please log in to reply
1717 replies to this topic

Poll: Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!) (130 member(s) have cast votes)

When will we see hockey?

  1. Oct 12 (10 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  2. Nov 12 (19 votes [14.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.62%

  3. Dec 12 (26 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  4. Jan 13 (33 votes [25.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.38%

  5. Feb 13 (1 votes [0.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.77%

  6. Mar 13 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Apr 13 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. Oct 13 (14 votes [10.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.77%

  9. Never (27 votes [20.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.77%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#281 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,440 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:03 PM

The benchmark was 27 OR 7, whichever comes first. So even adding one year both Zajac and Clarkson would be pending UFAs based on their ages.


28 and 8 is apparently what Bettman's proposal is, unless my information was wrong. 27 or 7 is what the past CBA is.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#282 '7'

'7'

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,987 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:03 PM

Well, at the least I think we've jumped right into "end game" negotiations. Season won't start Nov 1....likely mid Nov.
  • 0
^7^ is just defending his sport sheeps.. as Alcibiades the exiled Athenian rationalizes in his speech to the enemy Spartans, he wants to take revenge on Athens because he loves it and can't stand to see the state it's in now - Triumph
Posted Image Posted Image

#283 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:21 PM

A) Fairness
B) No cutback of the players salaries this year

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#284 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,440 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.


Like I said, if they don't like it, they don't have to accept it, and can continue not to get paid for however long they think they can manage it. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#285 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,566 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.


A lot of the players would probably be very happy to accept that. The NHLPA is kind of a joke, the league stars are still making millions while the majority of the PA is suffering massive paycuts. The players making a lot less right now will love a small decrease in HRR percentage to get their huge actual increase in salary, as compared to their other options.
  • 1
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#286 Satans Hockey

Satans Hockey

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,599 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

I wonder if this deal gets accepted if Nov 3rd against Pittsburgh at home would be our first game and then they would just try to make up the games missed inbetween the already scheduled games or if they completely adjust the schedule.
  • 0

#287 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,992 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.


at this point people have to stop seeing this at a childish game of who's giving more and who's not making any concession everything, they need to find a fair deal thats it.

i mean i think it sucks that the owners have all the power and got everything they wanted but still
  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#288 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,257 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

Well, at the least I think we've jumped right into "end game" negotiations. Season won't start Nov 1....likely mid Nov.


I think it will start Nov 2nd like they offered, both parties want an 82 gm season for gate revenue and no lost paychecks. No lost paychecks is huge for the players.
  • 0

#289 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,689 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:55 PM

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.


50-50 in revenue is absolutely fair compared to what players get in other sports. Not to mention it's right in between the owners' and players' most recent proposals anyway. Making the same salary is a concession compared to the prior offers, it was one of the main sticking points for the union toward doing a deal.

The players (I hope) weren't expecting the sun, moon and stars, they just didn't want to be bullied imo. We'll find out if that's true soon enough. The owners offered an olive branch, but also put the ball squarely in the players' court, if they can't at least work out a deal with this framework within the next couple of weeks they'll absolutely look like the bad guys. Steve Fehr's own words were 'we can work out a deal in six hours if we agree on HRR'. If they can't agree on 50-50 then they're worse than the owners are.
  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#290 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,727 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

50-50 in revenue is absolutely fair compared to what players get in other sports. Not to mention it's right in between the owners' and players' most recent proposals anyway. Making the same salary is a concession compared to the prior offers, it was one of the main sticking points for the union toward doing a deal.

The players (I hope) weren't expecting the sun, moon and stars, they just didn't want to be bullied imo. We'll find out if that's true soon enough. The owners offered an olive branch, but also put the ball squarely in the players' court, if they can't at least work out a deal with this framework within the next couple of weeks they'll absolutely look like the bad guys. Steve Fehr's own words were 'we can work out a deal in six hours if we agree on HRR'. If they can't agree on 50-50 then they're worse than the owners are.


It's not fair at all. The NFL CBA isn't fair, not by a long shot. Neither is the NBA CBA. The only one that approaches fairness is the MLB. HRR is defined differently in the NHL than it is in the other major sports and so that affects things. Still, this offer is something to build off of - even if we miss half the season, which I still think is what ends up happening, this is a step in the right direction. The players have to understand that fair or unfair, the system they're in, their paychecks are getting cut. It's not fair, but there's nothing they can do about it.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#291 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,689 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:50 PM

It's not fair at all. The NFL CBA isn't fair, not by a long shot. Neither is the NBA CBA. The only one that approaches fairness is the MLB. HRR is defined differently in the NHL than it is in the other major sports and so that affects things. Still, this offer is something to build off of - even if we miss half the season, which I still think is what ends up happening, this is a step in the right direction. The players have to understand that fair or unfair, the system they're in, their paychecks are getting cut. It's not fair, but there's nothing they can do about it.


The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, inherently their CBA isn't fair just because of that. I don't know enough about the NBA but when mediocre players routinely make $90 and $100 million under the 'soft cap' I'd say that's pretty fair. Perhaps the main point of contention that might be described as unfair is the Bird rule which tries to compel players into staying with their current team by enabling them to offer more money and years. Or maybe contract length being limited, which the NHL's trying to shoot for now.

Besides, I was making a comment about 50-50 split of HRR being fair in comparison to other sports, not the CBA as a whole.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 16 October 2012 - 03:55 PM.

  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#292 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

Like I said, if they don't like it, they don't have to accept it, and can continue not to get paid for however long they think they can manage it. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.

Well I guess that depends on if they think they can get a better deal long-term by holding out short-term. I know fair has nothing to do with it, that was in response to NJDevs4978's answer that the players get fairness out of this offer.

at this point people have to stop seeing this at a childish game of who's giving more and who's not making any concession everything, they need to find a fair deal thats it.

i mean i think it sucks that the owners have all the power and got everything they wanted but still

I really don't care that much about who gives what, I was just trying to assess how realistic it is for this proposal to mean the beginning of the end of this lockout. Actually one thing in the CBA that I do care about is whether or not the players can participate in the Olympics. Has anyone read anything about this proposal addressing that at all?

Making the same salary is a concession compared to the prior offers, it was one of the main sticking points for the union toward doing a deal.

Of course it's a good deal compared to previous ridiculous offers, but I don't think Fehr and the players consider themselves so powerless that they should consider that a concession.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#293 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,171 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:21 PM

At this point I just don't care anymore who gets what and how much and what is fair.

I just want hockey.....
  • 1

#294 halfsharkalligatorhalfman

halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,824 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:29 PM

I don't know enough about the NBA but when mediocre players routinely make $90 and $100 million under the 'soft cap' I'd say that's pretty fair.


The NBA CBA isn't fair in a weird way. Because they have max contract sizes, the superstar players are all underpaid. Lebron James gets 17.5 million a year. He's worth at least 40 million a year. All the other mediocre players are then overpaid since they take the superstar players' share.
  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

#295 aylbert

aylbert

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,464 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:56 PM

I find myself more on the owners side, but ideally, I'd like to see this:

* 50% of previous seasons HRR to set that years cap

* No Escrow, No Rollbacks

* Another buyout period to get everyone in compliance with the cap

* Keep free agency at 28... that was the players only real win last time,

* Limit long term signings from after your rookie contract to 35... and at 35 you need a new 35+ contract.

* Contracts should be like your cap, equally spread across the deal. No up front bonuses or front loading.


I still want to see this ultimately.
  • 0

image-300x225.jpg
|2012 |2013| 2014| 
3-Time FHL Champion


#296 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,727 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 05:22 PM

I really don't understand how anyone can be on the owners' side unless they are there for competitive balance reasons. The owners control an effective monopoly with the aid of governments willing to aid said monopoly. I understand that players get paid millions to pay a children's game, but that is because the owners are willing to pay them that kind of money - the players would still be there if the top salary was $100,000 (well okay, many of them wouldn't be, but that's neither here nor there). The owners have shown little desire to share revenue even though they are allowed to operate as a single entity when it comes to collective bargaining.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#297 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,214 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 05:24 PM

I just want there to be a season by the St. Patricks day whereabouts game. Turning 21 a couple weeks before. Would be an awesome experience
  • 0

#298 aylbert

aylbert

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,464 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 05:32 PM

I really don't understand how anyone can be on the owners' side unless they are there for competitive balance reasons. The owners control an effective monopoly with the aid of governments willing to aid said monopoly. I understand that players get paid millions to pay a children's game, but that is because the owners are willing to pay them that kind of money - the players would still be there if the top salary was $100,000 (well okay, many of them wouldn't be, but that's neither here nor there). The owners have shown little desire to share revenue even though they are allowed to operate as a single entity when it comes to collective bargaining.

Your statements seems contradictory? If the top salary was 100k or whatever (doesn't matter)... the players would still be there... but the owners wants to limit the salary by reducing the players share... and the players won't agree to it?

I'm 100% on the owners side. It's their business, their risk... the players are employees, exceptional employees no doubt, but not partners. They shouldn't have input on how much of the revenue they receive.

Mess with their signed contacts and I'm on the players side. Mess with future money, etc... whatever the owners want.
  • 0

image-300x225.jpg
|2012 |2013| 2014| 
3-Time FHL Champion


#299 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,727 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 05:55 PM

Your statements seems contradictory? If the top salary was 100k or whatever (doesn't matter)... the players would still be there... but the owners wants to limit the salary by reducing the players share... and the players won't agree to it?


There would be players, yes. It's just a question of what players - would elite athletes choose hockey over other sports at a young age, etc.

I'm 100% on the owners side. It's their business, their risk... the players are employees, exceptional employees no doubt, but not partners. They shouldn't have input on how much of the revenue they receive.


Nothing on the ethics of owning a business where the government hands you lots of money because otherwise you'll move. Nothing on the idea that while NHL teams are individually each a business, they're somehow allowed to collectively bargain as a single entity. There is a partnership - the owners steal the money, and then hand a lot of it over to the players, then gouge local governments for new buildings or they threaten to leave.

They shouldn't have input on the percentage of revenue they get, you are absolutely right there. The league shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain with a player's union. Which of course would lead to much higher salaries overall and unfortunately, a much less balanced NHL.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#300 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,790 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:55 AM

Overall, I'm not on the side of the owners or the player (although I tend to side with the players in these CBA negotiations after siding with the owners last time around). I just want to watch NHL hockey. However, extorting money from local, state and federal government bodies to keep a business in a current place through the real or imaginary threat of relocation goes far beyond sports. Large businesses do it all the time, and often receive huge tax credits from the state and municipality to stay and, in some cases, move. Why do you think Panasonic is moving from Secaucus to Newark? They are getting a tax break to move even though its only a few miles away. Every state offers large tax breaks to get corporations to move to their state, which often mean the locality where that company is presently housed must make huge concessions in order to keep the jobs there. The owners run these large corporations, therefore it is logical that they would use the tactics they use in business in running their sports franchises and, frankly, who can blame them since it works (rightly or wrongly) each and every time.

Ultimately, the state or local government has a choice to make regarding what the value of retaining that professional sports franchise really is because they all KNOW, without a doubt, that they will NEVER recover their initial investment in the new arena or stadium during its ~30 year lifespan. Nobody forces the state or city to fund the construction of the arena but, for political and socioeconomic reasons, they choose to do so more often than not.

Collective bargaining is a result of the players unionizing, and probably was something the owners heavily resisted when the NHLPA was first being formed. I don't think you can definitively say that players would be making more money without collective bargaining. Maybe guys like Crosby would, but others like the 3rd and 4th line grinders likely wouldn't. Plus, without collective bargaining, each player could conceivable have a different set of contractual working conditions, which would be a complete nightmare. Moreover, the owners don't steal anything. People like you and I willingly pay thousands of dollars each season to watch the team play, purchase concessions, and buy merchandise. Nobody forces us to do it. If you don't want to pay $ to see the team play, don't go to the games. And if you don't want to pay money to Cablevision to get MSG+ on your TV, then listen to the radio broadcast or go to a bar.

That being said, I hope the players accept this proposal and we finally see hockey for the first time since June.
  • 1
Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users