1718 replies to this topic

[DJ Eco]

Wow that's kind of a big deal

[SMantzas]

Haha that Adater tweet is why we're gonna see hockey this year. There is no way the NHLPA stays united for much longer

[Triumph]

That's similar to how I see it. The sides keep getting loser, the bluster in the media doesn't concern me if they keep talking and keep getting closer every week.

There is no 'keep getting closer' though - the two deals are as goddamn close as they can be. I have to imagine the NHL is working off some sort of calendar we're not aware of and that it will probably be at least a week before they meet again, probably longer.

That adater tweet is horsesh!t - that guy who just had a league source telling him that Fehr is a 'suicide bomber' 10% of the union at least has ZERO interest in a lockout - they would play if it went 60/40 owners players.

Edited by Triumph, 06 December 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

dater ‏@adater

From deep inside players side: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) and told us we could get more and to hold out"

And that explains the 'change' between Tuesday and yesterday quite succinctly.

[Devils731]

There is no 'keep getting closer' though - the two deals are as goddamn close as they can be. I have to imagine the NHL is working off some sort of calendar we're not aware of and that it will probably be at least a week before they meet again, probably longer.

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.

[Triumph]

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 don't think he blew it up, but I guess we won't know. I mean, he certainly asked for more and put pressure on the owners, but this was the time to do it - it was clear the NHL very much wanted a deal.

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.

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.

Edited by Triumph, 06 December 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[Devils731]

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.

[NJDevs4978]

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, 06 December 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

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.

[Triumph]

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, 06 December 2012 - 11:59 PM.

[MadDog2020]

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

[MadDog2020]

@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.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

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.

[chrisg19]

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, 07 December 2012 - 02:23 AM.

[DevilNurn]

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).

[Jas0nMacIsaac]

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, 07 December 2012 - 02:43 AM.

[Marshall]

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.

[NJDevs4978]

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.

[NJDevs4978]

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.

[Triumph]

'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.edmonto...hat-lose-money/

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