Trebreh Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 how often do they negotiate? it seems like theyre wasting alot of time.. Shouldnt they be negotiating atleast 2-3 times a week so they can find a solution sooner rather than later while they can still save a chunk of games?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Nope. Pretty clearly, the owners are the greedy ones. And, from what the reports suggest, a group of 4 pigs from Boston, Minnesota, Philadelphia, and one other swine that's not coming to me at the moment. It's them who's controlling this whole thing. The owners locked them out for no other reason than locking them out - NO other reason than greed. Record revenues, record growth. On the precipice of perhaps a major boom in the United States, with the Kings just winning the Cup, the Rangers doing good, the Hawks doing good, the Isles moving to a better market, etc. The league could've continued on with this season without a CBA, or with a simple 1-year extension during which they could negotiate throughout the year. The NHL - not the PA - didn't want to do that. It's their fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That's the problem with having a CBA that deals in percentages of HRR and player contracts that are in hard dollar amounts. There's always a chance that the total of all the contracts exceeds the set percentage of HRR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 how often do they negotiate? it seems like theyre wasting alot of time.. Shouldnt they be negotiating atleast 2-3 times a week so they can find a solution sooner rather than later while they can still save a chunk of games?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Mobile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 However, you are forgetting a key factor, the NHLPA is a union. They aren't bargaining on an individual basis, they are bargaining for the collective group. As an older player near the end of his playing career, he would likely choose to play now instead of losing money. This is his perogative. However, unions typically see the long term. They don't just settle for what is good for a small part of the whole. They want a deal that will favour the majority of members for as long as possible. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final agreement and how much money is lost in getting the new deal, but that is the breaks of being unionized. Once you are on strike or locked out, it's generally accepted that you will never be able to regain the lost income from being out of work. Taking some short term losses for the benefit of future members is also at play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Agreed. So I decided that leaving the cap at 70mil and freezing it until it drops below 50% HRR was the way to go. Its easiest and both sides win. The players still get their contracts and and the owners get their long term goals. It sucks a bit for the owners in the short term because until revenue catches up it will be 57 then 54 then 52 then 50 % , but in return the NHLPA should give up concessions such as 5 year max contracts, UFA eligibility at age 28 or 10 years , and more flexible exceptions to waivers so teams can send more players up and down without exposing them. I think if the NHLPA gives up these concessions the NHL will allow the 70mil cap and 50% HRR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think that is the type of concession that the owners have to make - imo their reneg is simply not how business should be conducted. I also don't think the complications of dropping the cap are acceptable - it goes too far in undermining the structure of teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Too bad you are not an influential owner. The reality is that while you think this is what the owners have to do, thye said very clearly they they don't want to do that, and guess what, they have all the power- they can keep the league closed for the entire year, and next year if they have to, and the one after that.The players say they will never accept a rollback, well guess what, their salaries are already being rolled back by the lockout. The league is asking for about 10% rolback total net, and many players will loose that after 20 games cancelled. They have to get their heads out of their asses and agree to 50/50 starting now, the only possible result of their action is less money than the current deal (which was already withdrawn by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think that is the type of concession that the owners have to make - imo their reneg is simply not how business should be conducted. I also don't think the complications of dropping the cap are acceptable - it goes too far in undermining the structure of teams. On the other hand, I'd be more inclined to allow the floor to drop - but only for teams that evidence the financial necessity of circumventing the floor. I'm not stuck on limiting contracts to 5 year terms - I think that GMs are the owners agents and there is a great deal of irony in demands that contracts be that limited when teams freely enter into ridiculous terms. If the limit were more in 7 to 8 year range I think that would be an acceptable compromise. I also like the idea of relaxing the rules around waivers - especially in the context of replacing an injured roster player or making space for a player returning from injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apricot Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Please read the previous pages of this thread. There are lots of previous posts (by me and others) explaining the many issues, not just money, at stake for the players and explaining why the players simply caving in to the owners demands yet again will only ensure future lengthy lockouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Great idea yeah, they'll just send Bill Daly down to the Superstar International Hockey Player store and get him to pick up a few hundred new players. Do you think he can fit them in his SUV or should he rent a truck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 The players dont have to 'cave ' . They can be FIRED and go play in the KHL . The league can invite new players to go form a new union and keep drafting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 The players dont have to 'cave ' . They can be FIRED and go play in the KHL . The league can invite new players to go form a new union and keep drafting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Some people need to allocate more of their time to reading about the issues at hand and less time posting baseless opinions.... This thread would have been 20 pages not 67 if this were the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 The NHL claims they will lose $720 million after canceling all of Novembers games. NHL claims it will lose $720 million by canceling games through Nov. Would it be too much to ask Bill Daly for documentation of that claim?— Seth Rorabaugh (@emptynetters) October 26, 2012 After yesterday’s cancelled games, Gary Bettman has cancelled a total of 2,024 regular season games so far. Should Nov games be cancelled as expected, Gary Bettman will have killed a total of 2,024 reg-season NHL games by lockout. & counting— Dave Stubbs (@Dave_Stubbs) October 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Too bad you are not an influential owner. The reality is that while you think this is what the owners have to do, thye said very clearly they they don't want to do that, and guess what, they have all the power- they can keep the league closed for the entire year, and next year if they have to, and the one after that.The players say they will never accept a rollback, well guess what, their salaries are already being rolled back by the lockout. The league is asking for about 10% rolback total net, and many players will loose that after 20 games cancelled. They have to get their heads out of their asses and agree to 50/50 starting now, the only possible result of their action is less money than the current deal (which was already withdrawn by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 . Bettman's bluff is to try to use the players to prop up weak markets - what is interesting about that is that his ownerhip group is less willing to revenue share than the players are. Do you think that is a sign of unity and vote-of-confidence? I think Bettman stands to lose a great deal more than you realize - and imo, he's played the lockout card too many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.