Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

-Vintage Canuck-

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

Recommended Posts

You gave me too much credit because I made a tongue in cheek comment about a guy that was talking crap to me? I think it is you that needs to grow up. Furthermore on the topic at hand, his entire argument is over the use of the word rollback. It only has two uses which I indicated in pages previous. You cant take words from the English language and just give them meanings willy nilly. It comes down to context, and definitions. If in the contract they define "rollback" as something specific then so be it, we don't have a contract to look at. I'm tiring of this argument because I believe and has been previously stated, it is pointless and is clearly an issue of semantics.

Congrats in Thai kickboxing, useless, but still impressive. I've been training in kung fu myself since I was 7. You will like jiu-jitsu a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gave me too much credit because I made a tongue in cheek comment about a guy that was talking crap to me? I think it is you that needs to grow up. Furthermore on the topic at hand, his entire argument is over the use of the word rollback. It only has two uses which I indicated in pages previous. You cant take words from the English language and just give them meanings willy nilly. It comes down to context, and definitions. If in the contract they define "rollback" as something specific then so be it, we don't have a contract to look at. I'm tiring of this argument because I believe and has been previously stated, it is pointless and is clearly an issue of semantics.

Congrats in Thai kickboxing, useless, but still impressive. I've been training in kung fu myself since I was 7. You will like jiu-jitsu a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not I that went off on a tangent, that would be provost. Perhaps there was a small pissing match, though if there was that was only your perception as it was not mine. And 3 users disagreeing with me is hardly noteworthy, there are also lots of users that agree with me. Over all this damn rollback talk I have lost the initial thing we were even discussing but that probably has something to do with the many drinks ive had.

Im pretty drunk atm im not gonna lie but like I said this is a stupid argument that shouldn't even be happening. Id like to better prove my point but ill be honest, im drunk and I really just dont care that much. Its a lot of effort man..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, someone should make a I have a black belt in ..... what about you? thread

anyways, any updates on the PA counter offer? haven't really seen anything on TSN or SPSN

Edit. just watching That's Hockey, no details out yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly this. If the final CBA is based on the latest NHL proposal with some tweaks then Bettman cleaned Fehr's clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys talk about this as though it was a couple whiney teenagers negotiating this deal...

Truth is that it was ALWAYS going to be an owners deal. It HAD to be this way. There is a problem with the way the CBA was structured, and it NEEDED to be FIXED. The NHL cant get the huge tv deals that the NBA, NFL, and MLB has, which is their main stream of income, thus the players cannot be paid similarly to these sports.

The players complain about their rights being taken away, when truth be told, it's all being done for the overall health of the sport. You cant argue that there arent lower end players making way more money than they should, and top end players that arent making what theyre worth to the business. Players argue that its the owners and gms that are the ones giving that money and term away, but the truth is that theyre only doing it out of necessity. Its really the players agents driving up their clients prices by using multipul teams as an autcioning period, while driving up market value for every other player of similar stature. This is the system that the owners are trying to cap, and it makes total and complete sense for the longevity of the business, and the game that has worked so hard on bringing parity throughout the league. Puting a cap on contract legnth and variance will put a cap on what agents can auction off, and ultimatley help star players from bolting from their drafted teams... This is GOOD. We as fans should want this structure.

IM not arguing with anyone here, just delivering my opinion on why this is not a deal that the players could have ever "won". You really think that anyone could have done a better job? If the players offered this exact deal 3 months ago, the league would have still let it get to this point, and the players would have ended up with much less. It a billion dollar business, and the billionaires involved diddnt get to be billionaires by being overly generous pushovers. Yes they are hockey fans who want to see the game, but it needed to be fixed so that there werent just a hand full of teams supporting the whole league. These teams want and deserve to keep what theyre able to generate, wouldnt you want the same?

This is not about paying the players what they deserve, its about fixing the broken system, while having a healthy and stable league where every team can be competitive, and can compete for their own superstars, instead of watching them bolt for the cash year after year. There will still be UFAs to sign elsewhere, but their power to "Wizniewski" up the prices will be limited, and teams will have to pay in cap hit to make those decisions. A deminished cap will not create less jobs, but stop agents from scoring these obscene deals for the average at best players. The outcome should be that the superstars, who are really the ones that sell the sport make the most, while the plugs are paid accordingly, and you dont have 5 or 6 average players making 4-5 million dollars, when their worth is closer to 2-3 million per season.

Anyways... I could go on and on, and honestly its nice to do so, with hockey seeming not so distant.

ON a side note: One rule I thought that the PA and league might agree on is a "Franchise" tag on one player on each team whos additional salary (after a specific number... say 5M) does not count against the cap. An exception for the players who really make their business much more than theyre paid. (Crosby, Stamkos, Ovi, Datsyuk, Giroux, Toews... etc...). Teams can keep these players without having to blow 15% of their cap on one player. And honestly, these are the players that actually deserve the extra money. There would however be a clause on the deal, and it would be that players could only obtain this "franchise tag" from the city in which they were playing for as they reach UFA status... Furthur helping teams keeping their drafted and/or developed superstar. Maybe Parise is still a Devil, Suter still a Predator, or possibly give Anaheim a better chance of holding onto Getzlaf or Perry... meh, just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MaStrozyk

Max Talbot not returning to Finland. Agreed with Ilves that he'll head to North America. Interested in returning if whole season canceled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gave me too much credit because I made a tongue in cheek comment about a guy that was talking crap to me? I think it is you that needs to grow up. Furthermore on the topic at hand, his entire argument is over the use of the word rollback. It only has two uses which I indicated in pages previous. You cant take words from the English language and just give them meanings willy nilly. It comes down to context, and definitions. If in the contract they define "rollback" as something specific then so be it, we don't have a contract to look at. I'm tiring of this argument because I believe and has been previously stated, it is pointless and is clearly an issue of semantics.

Congrats in Thai kickboxing, useless, but still impressive. I've been training in kung fu myself since I was 7. You will like jiu-jitsu a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HockeyyInsiderr

BREAKING NEWS: Even before bargaining session, HUGE progress being done> per @NHL source LOCKOUT 95% OVER #CONFIRMED #HockeyyInsiderr @NHLPA

Not a valid source, but let's see if he's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HockeyyInsiderr

BREAKING NEWS: Even before bargaining session, HUGE progress being done> per @NHL source LOCKOUT 95% OVER #CONFIRMED #HockeyyInsiderr @NHLPA

Not a valid source, but let's see if he's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He watches what legit people like Bob Mackenzie and Dreger say on Twitter. Then he pretends he has sources and adds a percentage to look smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys talk about this as though it was a couple whiney teenagers negotiating this deal...

Truth is that it was ALWAYS going to be an owners deal. It HAD to be this way. There is a problem with the way the CBA was structured, and it NEEDED to be FIXED. The NHL cant get the huge tv deals that the NBA, NFL, and MLB has, which is their main stream of income, thus the players cannot be paid similarly to these sports.

The players complain about their rights being taken away, when truth be told, it's all being done for the overall health of the sport. You cant argue that there arent lower end players making way more money than they should, and top end players that arent making what theyre worth to the business. Players argue that its the owners and gms that are the ones giving that money and term away, but the truth is that theyre only doing it out of necessity. Its really the players agents driving up their clients prices by using multipul teams as an autcioning period, while driving up market value for every other player of similar stature. This is the system that the owners are trying to cap, and it makes total and complete sense for the longevity of the business, and the game that has worked so hard on bringing parity throughout the league. Puting a cap on contract legnth and variance will put a cap on what agents can auction off, and ultimatley help star players from bolting from their drafted teams... This is GOOD. We as fans should want this structure.

IM not arguing with anyone here, just delivering my opinion on why this is not a deal that the players could have ever "won". You really think that anyone could have done a better job? If the players offered this exact deal 3 months ago, the league would have still let it get to this point, and the players would have ended up with much less. It a billion dollar business, and the billionaires involved diddnt get to be billionaires by being overly generous pushovers. Yes they are hockey fans who want to see the game, but it needed to be fixed so that there werent just a hand full of teams supporting the whole league. These teams want and deserve to keep what theyre able to generate, wouldnt you want the same?

This is not about paying the players what they deserve, its about fixing the broken system, while having a healthy and stable league where every team can be competitive, and can compete for their own superstars, instead of watching them bolt for the cash year after year. There will still be UFAs to sign elsewhere, but their power to "Wizniewski" up the prices will be limited, and teams will have to pay in cap hit to make those decisions. A deminished cap will not create less jobs, but stop agents from scoring these obscene deals for the average at best players. The outcome should be that the superstars, who are really the ones that sell the sport make the most, while the plugs are paid accordingly, and you dont have 5 or 6 average players making 4-5 million dollars, when their worth is closer to 2-3 million per season.

Anyways... I could go on and on, and honestly its nice to do so, with hockey seeming not so distant.

ON a side note: One rule I thought that the PA and league might agree on is a "Franchise" tag on one player on each team whos additional salary (after a specific number... say 5M) does not count against the cap. An exception for the players who really make their business much more than theyre paid. (Crosby, Stamkos, Ovi, Datsyuk, Giroux, Toews... etc...). Teams can keep these players without having to blow 15% of their cap on one player. And honestly, these are the players that actually deserve the extra money. There would however be a clause on the deal, and it would be that players could only obtain this "franchise tag" from the city in which they were playing for as they reach UFA status... Furthur helping teams keeping their drafted and/or developed superstar. Maybe Parise is still a Devil, Suter still a Predator, or possibly give Anaheim a better chance of holding onto Getzlaf or Perry... meh, just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mirtle

A 48-game NHL season over 103 days (until May 1) would be 3.26 games a week. Normal regular season rate is roughly 3.05 a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Real_ESPNLeBrun

NHLPA announces full committee bargaining session pushed back to 630 pm/7 pm ET range

@DarrenDreger

Told you...long day. Full negotiation meeting delayed to 6:30 - 7pm.

@RenLavoieRDS

NHL CBA talks won't start before 6:30 PM in the NHL office in New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys talk about this as though it was a couple whiney teenagers negotiating this deal...

Truth is that it was ALWAYS going to be an owners deal. It HAD to be this way. There is a problem with the way the CBA was structured, and it NEEDED to be FIXED. The NHL cant get the huge tv deals that the NBA, NFL, and MLB has, which is their main stream of income, thus the players cannot be paid similarly to these sports.

The players complain about their rights being taken away, when truth be told, it's all being done for the overall health of the sport. You cant argue that there arent lower end players making way more money than they should, and top end players that arent making what theyre worth to the business. Players argue that its the owners and gms that are the ones giving that money and term away, but the truth is that theyre only doing it out of necessity. Its really the players agents driving up their clients prices by using multipul teams as an autcioning period, while driving up market value for every other player of similar stature. This is the system that the owners are trying to cap, and it makes total and complete sense for the longevity of the business, and the game that has worked so hard on bringing parity throughout the league. Puting a cap on contract legnth and variance will put a cap on what agents can auction off, and ultimatley help star players from bolting from their drafted teams... This is GOOD. We as fans should want this structure.

IM not arguing with anyone here, just delivering my opinion on why this is not a deal that the players could have ever "won". You really think that anyone could have done a better job? If the players offered this exact deal 3 months ago, the league would have still let it get to this point, and the players would have ended up with much less. It a billion dollar business, and the billionaires involved diddnt get to be billionaires by being overly generous pushovers. Yes they are hockey fans who want to see the game, but it needed to be fixed so that there werent just a hand full of teams supporting the whole league. These teams want and deserve to keep what theyre able to generate, wouldnt you want the same?

This is not about paying the players what they deserve, its about fixing the broken system, while having a healthy and stable league where every team can be competitive, and can compete for their own superstars, instead of watching them bolt for the cash year after year. There will still be UFAs to sign elsewhere, but their power to "Wizniewski" up the prices will be limited, and teams will have to pay in cap hit to make those decisions. A deminished cap will not create less jobs, but stop agents from scoring these obscene deals for the average at best players. The outcome should be that the superstars, who are really the ones that sell the sport make the most, while the plugs are paid accordingly, and you dont have 5 or 6 average players making 4-5 million dollars, when their worth is closer to 2-3 million per season.

Anyways... I could go on and on, and honestly its nice to do so, with hockey seeming not so distant.

ON a side note: One rule I thought that the PA and league might agree on is a "Franchise" tag on one player on each team whos additional salary (after a specific number... say 5M) does not count against the cap. An exception for the players who really make their business much more than theyre paid. (Crosby, Stamkos, Ovi, Datsyuk, Giroux, Toews... etc...). Teams can keep these players without having to blow 15% of their cap on one player. And honestly, these are the players that actually deserve the extra money. There would however be a clause on the deal, and it would be that players could only obtain this "franchise tag" from the city in which they were playing for as they reach UFA status... Furthur helping teams keeping their drafted and/or developed superstar. Maybe Parise is still a Devil, Suter still a Predator, or possibly give Anaheim a better chance of holding onto Getzlaf or Perry... meh, just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Real_ESPNLeBrun

NHLPA announces full committee bargaining session pushed back to 630 pm/7 pm ET range

@DarrenDreger

Told you...long day. Full negotiation meeting delayed to 6:30 - 7pm.

@RenLavoieRDS

NHL CBA talks won't start before 6:30 PM in the NHL office in New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.