[Article] SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: CBA MYTHS VS. FACTS

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

Yet you claim it's the facts. Everything in that article was about bashing Bettman. It's no different than a post on CDC bashing Luongo. It's no different then saying "oh look, because Luongo didn't win a cup he sucks. It's a fact!"

If you want to be gullible and believe the propaganda that's up to you. I don't like Bettman, but that article has everything to do with someone's opinion. Fact: your title is misleading and false.

[Barry_Wilkins]

I want NHL hockey as much as the next guy but that video is hilariously dramatic. Makes it sound like we're in the Great Depression, for crying out loud. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of millionaires gliding around on blades on ice, chasing a round piece of rubber with curved sticks.

#firstworldproblems

[Baggins]

The quotes are essentially all the information Bettman would provide. He did not/would not give information supporting his statements. He just stated his points, as quoted, as though they were gospel. The union is simply providing a rebuttal WITH information supporting their point. Its not propaganda when making a counter argument with supporting information, even though its one-sided, just proper debate methodology.

[Baggins]

Its interesting how you say this, and go do exactly what you are making accusations about in the same statement. There are no parts of the article saying "this happened, so and so sucks..." or anything of that nature. They are rebuttals to quotes taken from Bettman's interviews. The basis of the rebuttals also came in Fehr's interviews, the only difference being, the PA can expand on their points while they can't speak for Bettman.

Futher, I wasn't even the one making the "claims". Its a report which I am discussing. Again, with direct quotes from the leaders of both parties involved. Something that has happened, in real life.

fact

noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears haveno basis in fact.

2.

something known to exist or to have happened: Space travelis now a fact.

3.

a truth known by actual experience or observation;something known to be true: Scientists gather facts aboutplant growth.

http://dictionary.re...com/browse/fact

Direct quotes from both parties, certainly fall into that definition.

While I doubt you know exactly what the players are thinking, and even doubt that all the players are thinking the same thing, some may be interested in playing out this CBA as long as possible. I personally believe though, that its more of a trade off, not one extreme or the other. I believe the players are more likely interested in making the most money over the longest period of time, that is, making sure they have a fair deal for several seasons to come. I don't believe they want to make more for just a small portion of this season, or even just this entire season. So maybe you'd like to reconsider you're "no-brainer".

And its extortion not just by my terms, but by the definition of extortion.

Extortion (also called blackmail, shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

I am by no means a financial expert in large scale business. And, I by no means think that one party or the other deserves all the money contained in the difference of both parties' financial proposals. This thread was meant to raise awareness about what will ultimately lead to a lockout, and us not being able to watch hockey. There are clearly other avenues that can be taken in the negotiation process to avoid that from happening.

To argue over whether direct quotes backed by solid explanations, albeit sourced from the NHLPA, is a waste of time and avoids the issue that is most important, at least to me. And, I hope its important to some other hockey fans as well.

[RUPERTKBD]

I can't believe that there is actually a debate over whether the article is one-sided or not. It was written by the NHLPA...

While I agree that it was the owners who got themselves into this mess, baggins has the right of it when he says it was essentially a minority of "have" owners who have screwed it up for the "have-not" owners. (Ed Snider, I'm looking at you)

With the ridiculous numbers being thrown out there now, we have small market teams like Nashville, forced to pay Shea Weber huge money and unable to afford to retain Ryan Suter.

Until a workable revenue sharing plan is implemented, we'll continue to see owners being their own worst enemies, because it will continue to be an unlevel playing field and all three sides, players, owners and fans will suffer for it.

Meanwhile, Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr will continue to get paid....

[Baggins]

I can't believe that there is actually a debate over whether the article is one-sided or not. It was written by the NHLPA...

While I agree that it was the owners who got themselves into this mess, baggins has the right of it when he says it was essentially a minority of "have" owners who have screwed it up for the "have-not" owners. (Ed Snider, I'm looking at you)

With the ridiculous numbers being thrown out there now, we have small market teams like Nashville, forced to pay Shea Weber huge money and unable to afford to retain Ryan Suter.

Until a workable revenue sharing plan is implemented, we'll continue to see owners being their own worst enemies, because it will continue to be an unlevel playing field and all three sides, players, owners and fans will suffer for it.

Meanwhile, Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr will continue to get paid....

[stawns]

Just saying its one-sided doesn't make it one-sided. Proving it is one-sided requires information to back up the statement. That information doesn't include sarcastic statements about who the author might be.

I would personally find it insulting if my employer offered, and entered into, a contract with me for one amount, then required me to take a 24% pay cut to remain employed. And then 5~7, or so, years later, they required me to take another 24% pay cut to continue to remain employed.

[pianoman13]

Just saying its one-sided doesn't make it one-sided. Proving it is one-sided requires information to back up the statement. That information doesn't include sarcastic statements about who the author might be.

I would personally find it insulting if my employer offered, and entered into, a contract with me for one amount, then required me to take a 24% pay cut to remain employed. And then 5~7, or so, years later, they required me to take another 24% pay cut to continue to remain employed.

[Samuel Påhlsson]

Fact: Millionaires don't need a union.

/end of story

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Just because an owner offers something doesn't mean the player should accept - look at Wade Redden and how it's affected his NHL career.

[SamJamIam]

Fact: Millionaires don't need a union.

/end of story

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

Owners go back on collective word

The impending NHL lockout isn’t as much about spreadsheets and definitions of revenue as it is about honor — as in the 30 NHL owners’ refusal to honor the existing contracts into which they have entered with their respective players.

Because even as Gary Bettman’s league and Donald Fehr’s union attempt to hash out the considerable differences between the sides eight years after the Board of Governors won the most smashing victory in the history of pro sports negotiations through the 2004-05 lockout, the owners’ attempts to welch on their collective word provides the underlying theme to these talks.

There were relatively few long-term contracts in place when the owners extracted a 24-percent rollback the last time around. Now, with long-term deals an industry standard, the owners are attempting a massive take-back via escrow deductions that would begin at 15-to-20 percent this year and likely would remain in double digits over at least the following two seasons.

These owners don’t simply want the players to get smaller pieces of the pie they might order in the future, these owners and this league intend to cut into the pieces of the pie that already have been delivered to the players’ table.

We’re talking about contracts that have been signed by both parties, ostensibly at good faith, that amount to approximately $1.65 billion yet outstanding for 2012-13, $1.34 billion for 2013-14 and $835 million for 2014-15, not including potential entry level bonuses.

Who are these guys who sign contracts then use the guise of collective bargaining to rewrite them? What gives corporate barons like Boston’s Jeremy Jacobs, Philadelphia’s Ed Snider and Carolina’s Peter Karmanos Jr. the audacity to use the end of a labor agreement to conduct what is presumably a legal mass breach of promise?

The commissioner and his allies consistently refer to last year’s NFL and NBA lockouts, through which the owners in those respective leagues were able to get the players to agree to a smaller percentage take of revenue going forward.

Yet not a single player in either league lost money on an existing contract as a result of those settlements. According to information provided by the NFL Players Association, the average salary increased from $2 million to $2.25 million in the first season of the new agreement.

It is true that escrow has been part of the system under which the NHL and the players have operated the last seven years, as deputy commissioner Bill Daly mentioned the other day.

But the fact is the players received at least 97.51 percent of their contracts’ full value in five of those seven seasons, with the average escrow loss over their seven years amounting to 3.2 percent.

If the league were to offer to cap escrow on all existing contracts at 3.2 percent, the discussion immediately would be transformed into a serious negotiation on all other issues. An immediate offer to cap escrow at, say, 5 percent on all existing contracts would all but ensure a settlement within weeks that would allow the season to open as scheduled.

But no. The league not only hasn’t made that sort of an offer, its people have repeatedly indicated the NHL’s requirement of immediate and dramatic take-backs from the players, or else.

Or else they won’t allow the league to open for business. They’re quite something, these corporate entities lined up on the NHL’s side of the table, a group absent the intention of honoring their collective word.

[Teen Icarus]

I want NHL hockey as much as the next guy but that video is hilariously dramatic. Makes it sound like we're in the Great Depression, for crying out loud. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of millionaires gliding around on blades on ice, chasing a round piece of rubber with curved sticks.

#firstworldproblems

[Monteeun]

I want NHL hockey as much as the next guy but that video is hilariously dramatic. Makes it sound like we're in the Great Depression, for crying out loud. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of millionaires gliding around on blades on ice, chasing a round piece of rubber with curved sticks.

#firstworldproblems

[elvis15]

By this "logic", all players should sign for the league minimum in case their level of play drops to the point where someone could do the same job for less. That way, they'd all have the longest NHL careers possible, right?

So I take it you'll be approaching your boss and asking for a similar reduction in your salary, right?

[Smashian Kassian]

Bettman and Daly are such hypocrites.

Daly said a few weeks back that they would meet the NHLPA at anytime.

Then they decline the request to meet yesterday.

[Vapourstreak]

Bettman and Daly are such hypocrites.

Daly said a few weeks back that they would meet the NHLPA at anytime.

Then they decline the request to meet yesterday.

[Drybone]

I am rolling on the ground laughing at the OP stating everything the NHL says is MYTH and everything the union is FACT.

Biased much? And the source is the NHLPA website to boot.

Here is some 'fact' for you.

The NHL OWNS THE STANLEY CUP . The NHL owns the teams and the rights to the arenas etc.

The NHLPA owns none of it. All they have is the current players.

This isnt some kind of 50/50 world where the NHLPA has the right to demand anything from the NHL .

The NHL can fire them all and hire replacement players and simply draft new players in the draft and set up a new union.

There is nothing the NHLPA can do about it. The players are consistently replaced.

[elvis15]

Actually, the NHL doesn't own the Stanley Cup. It is owned by two independent trustees who have allowed the NHL to control how it's awarded since 1947.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Stanley_Cup

After a series of league mergers and folds, the Cup became the de facto championship trophy of the NHL in 1926 and then the de jure NHL championship prize in 1947. Since then, the league has maintained effective control over both the trophy itself and its associated trademarks. Nevertheles, the NHL does not actually own the trophy, but instead uses it by agreement with the Cup's two trustees. The NHL has registered trademarks associated with the name and likeness of the Stanley Cup, although the league's right to outright own trademarks associated with a trophy it does not own has been disputed by some legal experts.

[lorentjd]

Fact: Millionaires don't need a union.

/end of story