1718 replies to this topic

[Triumph]

This amuses me, for two reasons. One, they happen to be right in this case - Fehr doesn't negotiate. He bullies, litigates and outsmarts the other side but negotiating isn't in his vocabulary. Baseball needed freaking Congress to get involved just to get real drug testing, never mind splitting billions of dollars.

Yeah, because owners should just be able to throw things into a CBA without negotiating it with the union. Forget about the whole collective, or bargaining, or agreement part - just jam it in. Why not unilaterally impose a salary cap?

The owners got rich off players using steroids too, they can deny it all they want, they didn't see fit to institute drug testing in 2002 for some reason. Never mind the open use of methamphetamines that Jim Bouton jokes about in Ball Four, a book written in 1970.

In general though, BOTH sides are full of **it. Acting like only one side lies and plays PR games is like Republicans saying the Dems won't compromise and are scoundrels without acknowledging they pull the same crap too and vice-versa. I'm just tired of all these stupid PR games that nobody gives a crap about. Stop posturing and start negotiating.

The players side has done their share of spinning and people like Allan Walsh and some of the players sound incredibly idiotic. Regardless, the owners are asking that a league generating record revenues ask for player paycuts across the board.

The charade being played by both sides is so obvious and sickening, neither one can be looked at favorably in these negotiations any longer. Pretty much, they both have been steadfast in their positions and are simply waiting for the other side to break. Neither side seems willing to actually negotiate in good faith at this point, which is the most frustrating part.

I am completely past the point of caring about this process any longer. Someone call me when its over.

You're incorrect, although not caring is a good and healthy move. The sides want to make it look like they are nowhere close to an agreement but they are way, way closer than they were on September 15th.

Edited by Triumph, 13 November 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

Yeah, because owners should just be able to throw things into a CBA without negotiating it with the union. Forget about the whole collective, or bargaining, or agreement part - just jam it in. Why not unilaterally impose a salary cap?

The owners got rich off players using steroids too, they can deny it all they want, they didn't see fit to institute drug testing in 2002 for some reason. Never mind the open use of methamphetamines that Jim Bouton jokes about in Ball Four, a book written in 1970.

No more than the players should have the right to demand 'full' wages from a shortened season when they made no honest attempt to negotiate before the lockout began either. They don't just want 100% of prorated salary, they want 100% of salary, period. Even if we're talking about a 60-game season as opposed to 82. If Fehr's going to demand that then the baseball players who struck in '94 should reimburse the owners for lost revenue there.

There's a big difference between not caving in to outrageous demands, as opposed to turning around and making your own outrageous demands in response.

And yeah the baseball owners didn't want drug testing for a long time either, but when they finally did Fehr and company were still being obstructionist about it. It took years before they got a real program in place.

You're incorrect, although not caring is a good and healthy move. The sides want to make it look like they are nowhere close to an agreement but they are way, way closer than they were on September 15th

That's not entirely true either, the players have thrown out numerous leaks publicly that they're close to a deal. Why? Because they want to make the owners look bad when negotiations inevitably break down again. Just about EVERYthing that gets said publicly is calculated, the phrase 'actions speak louder than words' applies more here. If they were really close to a deal they'd still be in a room as opposed to lobbing mortar shells at each other yet again.

[Marshall]

No more than the players should have the right to demand 'full' wages from a shortened season when they made no honest attempt to negotiate before the lockout began either. They don't just want 100% of prorated salary, they want 100% of salary, period. Even if we're talking about a 60-game season as opposed to 82. If Fehr's going to demand that then the baseball players who struck in '94 should reimburse the owners for lost revenue there.

I believe that was misquoted and then corrected by Brooks (?).

[Triumph]

No more than the players should have the right to demand 'full' wages from a shortened season when they made no honest attempt to negotiate before the lockout began either. They don't just want 100% of prorated salary, they want 100% of salary, period. Even if we're talking about a 60-game season as opposed to 82. If Fehr's going to demand that then the baseball players who struck in '94 should reimburse the owners for lost revenue there.

A negotiation doesn't work if one party says something and refuses to budge off it. Obviously that is never happening. However, it does lead to a pretty decent counter from the NHL - make-whole prorated and a gradual decrease to 50/50 according to an agreed-upon growth formula, which is what the PA ultimately wants. You do realize that the NHLPA is incorporating 50/50 in all their offers now, right? Something they were not doing in September and October.

And yeah the baseball owners didn't want drug testing for a long time either, but when they finally did Fehr and company were still being obstructionist about it. It took years before they got a real program in place.

Because that's a carrot for collective bargaining. Furthermore, it gives players time to get clean, something which is in the interest of all parties except for players who weren't using PEDs deemed to be illegal.

That's not entirely true either, the players have thrown out numerous leaks publicly that they're close to a deal. Why? Because they want to make the owners look bad when negotiations inevitably break down again. Just about EVERYthing that gets said publicly is calculated, the phrase 'actions speak louder than words' applies more here. If they were really close to a deal they'd still be in a room as opposed to lobbing mortar shells at each other yet again.

They have not. You have the Fehrs saying they believe a deal can be struck soon, although he's been vacillating between that and the fact that he thinks they're not close to a deal. Regardless, looking at the numbers, they are close to a deal. For some reason people think this thing is about negotiation, like the two sides have to be in a room for a long time. The basics of the agreement are not this way - it means reaching a number both sides can be satisfied with. The fine print can be horse-traded after that, but the basic structure isn't going to be hashed out there.

Edited by Triumph, 13 November 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

I believe that was misquoted and then corrected by Brooks (?).

Then why did Bill Daly come out and say the players' last offer was basically asking for 65% of HRR this year? That's the only realistic way you could get to 65% and attempt to keep a straight face while making said offer.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 13 November 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[Marshall]

Then why did Bill Daly come out and say the players' last offer was basically asking for 65% of HRR this year? That's the only realistic way you could get to 65% and attempt to keep a straight face while making said offer.

Just calculate things differently.

* Allow me to apologize for passing along misinformation on my @NYP_Brooksie Twitter account on Friday that the NHLPA had proposed the players be paid their full salaries for this season. Not so.
There was much confusion into the night on this one, but the true story is the union was basing its revenue projections off a hypothetical full 2012-13 and not a hard-dollars share for this year. Indeed, the PA expects pay to be prorated for this season.
I choose to believe that my original sources made a mistake and were not intentionally attempting to deceive, but the mistake was mine in forwarding the reports absent confirmation.

http://www.nypost.co...afgPLGAnT5fPrJN

Edited by Marshall, 13 November 2012 - 04:50 PM.

[Satans Hockey]

To me, there is no excuse to have missed any games. I don't care who is right or wrong cause it should have never have even gotten to this point. I haven't even been visiting these boards as often as I use to and I've found myself simply not caring anymore. The longer this goes on the more I doubt ill be back as a season ticket holder if we miss a season this year.

[NJDevs4978]

A negotiation doesn't work if one party says something and refuses to budge off it. Obviously that is never happening. However, it does lead to a pretty decent counter from the NHL - make-whole prorated and a gradual decrease to 50/50 according to an agreed-upon growth formula, which is what the PA ultimately wants. You do realize that the NHLPA is incorporating 50/50 in all their offers now, right? Something they were not doing in September and October.

Yeah, offers that 'should' get to 50-50 in Year 3 but aren't in a linked system. While all of the NHL's proposals do have linked systems. I don't really see why the players are so averse to having revenues linked to the cap (probably because they want loopholes to go above 50-50), but their philosophies are still fundamentally different. Wouldn't even shock me at this point if using a de-linked system is just an excuse for Fehr to stall and get a season canceled so he can go after the cap. This is mostly about ego at this point and I don't see a reason why that changes with Bettman and Fehr still leading the way.

People keep acting like they're so close there's no way a season's getting canceled, well it did in 2004. Revisionist history says the season got canceled because of the cap but that's really not true since the PA conceded the cap AND the 24% rollback weeks before the drop-dead date. They scuttled the season basically because of $10 million dollars on the cap (the players' offer of $49 million compared to the owners' of $39). Which shows both sides are willing to hit the nuke button based on stupidity, not out of principle. And now that there's no real reason to settle before the last minute, this is almost certainly going down to the last minute again - just like in '95 and '04.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 14 November 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Triumph]

Yeah, offers that 'should' get to 50-50 in Year 3 but aren't in a linked system. While all of the NHL's proposals do have linked systems. I don't really see why the players are so averse to having revenues linked to the cap (probably because they want loopholes to go above 50-50), but their philosophies are still fundamentally different. Wouldn't even shock me at this point if using a de-linked system is just an excuse for Fehr to stall and get a season canceled so he can go after the cap. This is mostly about ego at this point and I don't see a reason why that changes with Bettman and Fehr still leading the way.

Because a linked system is going to create a huge issue with the salary cap next year. Even if they pro-rate revenues based on an 82 game season, if the cap is set at the midpoint of 50% of NHL revenues and make whole applies, many teams will have trouble getting under that cap. The alternative would be to cut everyone's salary by 5% on paper but not in actuality, which would just be odd. The players also hate escrow (why, I am not really sure, the money earns interest while it's in there and the players have not really lost money with it).

People keep acting like they're so close there's no way a season's getting canceled, well it did in 2004. Revisionist history says the season got canceled because of the cap but that's really not true since the PA conceded the cap AND the 24% rollback weeks before the drop-dead date.

This is way, way different from 2004 and anyone who's paid attention to both should know that. No one thinks that it got canceled because of the cap. However, they weren't even meeting to negotiate during that lockout. Goodenow made his 'landmark offer' of a 24% rollback in December according to Wikipedia.

They scuttled the season basically because of $10 million dollars on the cap (the players' offer of $49 million compared to the owners' of $39). Which shows both sides are willing to hit the nuke button based on stupidity, not out of principle. And now that there's no real reason to settle before the last minute, this is almost certainly going down to the last minute again - just like in '95 and '04.

The players' cap was de-linked, the owners' cap was linked. Now ironically, the NHL probably would've kept more money with a delinked cap, but $10 million dollars on the cap is a large amount of money, and they were negotiating to save an incredibly short season. When you're doing the bulk of your negotiating in mid-February, it's a little late to be getting down to brass tacks. It's probable that the NHL and NHLPA had set a breaking point long before that internally and neither one reached it.

It will not go down to the last minute. It will be settled by December 1. There is every reason to negotiate before the last minute - players' paychecks and owners' revenues are being cut down. It's over a smaller amount of money, and beyond that, it's about an even smaller pool of money when you consider the concessions made by both sides.

Edited by Triumph, 14 November 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[NJDevs4978]

So now Bettman wants a two-week hiatus from negotiations and Daly says the players don't want to negotiate (which they don't, of course neither do the owners). This is really going swimmingly. Last week's talks now look like July 3 at Gettysburg before Pickett's Charge.

[thefiestygoat]

Is this supposed to be a scare tactic towards the players? I doubt Fehr is going to let them panic about that. I'll still be surprised if we have hockey this year....hope I'm wrong.

[NJDevs4978]

I want hockey this year even if it's a 36-game season that starts in February...but if both sides are going to be so stubborn and blinded by ego that they shut down the whole season, then I will be hoping they do NOT come back until both Fehr and Bettman are ruined by the lockout.

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

I genuinely haven’t read or checked anything about the lockout since the season openers were cancelled, and I won’t, there is nothing I can do to effect the situation, reading about it is only going to make me bitter towards the sport I love.

I think the league has already undone a large amount of the good work it achieved since the last lockout.

I dont think there will be a season this year, just based on the talk from both sides before the lockout started.

[Triumph]

Is this supposed to be a scare tactic towards the players? I doubt Fehr is going to let them panic about that. I'll still be surprised if we have hockey this year....hope I'm wrong.

This is the first move I'm surprised about, but yeah, I think it's supposed to be. I doubt the 2 week period lasts, one side will reach out to the other near the end. Still convinced that Fehr knows the owners don't want to lose the season and is willing to risk it himself to bring the players back what they want.

[SMantzas]

At this point I want the owners to just sign a CBA with Ahl guys and build through the draft. In 10 years, the league will be back to normal.






Just kidding

[Dead]

Just cancel the season already...and award the cup to the Devils

[Triumph]

Oh look, the league lets the two week break story sit for a few days then says there's no truth to it, and negotiations resume early next week.

[MadDog2020]

Oh look, the league lets the two week break story sit for a few days then says there's no truth to it, and negotiations resume early next week.

. Indeed. @DarrenDreger: NHL and PA expect to meet Monday night. Smaller group, but players and owners likely included.

[MadDog2020]

More from Daly via Dreger's Twitter: @DarrenDreger: PA response requested. Daly:"We told them that we are open to discussing other ways to address issues if they want to propose any." @DarrenDreger: Daly:"we used example of "if we need 5 and we have proposed 3+2 to get there, we are happy to listening to and considering 4+1 instead."

[Marshall]

You know it'll end up:
PA: "we would like to go 4+1 to reach 5".
NHL: "hmm, yes we would like that too, but how do you reach 4?"
PA: "2+2".
Leaue: "it is 1+3 or 3+1, nothing else. Deal is off".