RyanKeslord17 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 OMG THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING! The NHL won't even accept a request to meet, forget accepting any proposal. Franking Brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Good thing there's no crying in hockey or I might be a little misty eyed over this apparent setback. Pick a proposal, boys! Any proposal will do. Squabble over the details until you both give and take enough to be only a little miserable. Sign it and be grateful every single one of you gets paid to play the game of hockey (as a player or owner.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 @tpanotchCSN Bill Daly says given NHLPA position on league's last proposal and "unwillingness" to offer a new one, he's unsure why 2 sides would meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Baffles my mind that players wont take 7% roll back but are willing to take 100% role back in a missed year .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Something tells me that the players will cave in and sign the latest proposal by Thursday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Baffles my mind that players wont take 7% roll back but are willing to take 100% role back in a missed year .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Baffles my mind that players wont take 7% roll back but are willing to take 100% role back in a missed year .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I think Fehr's got it in the players heads that they got screwed in the last deal, and that this is their time to stand and fight. And that if they out-wait the owners, they'll get what they want. This is the wrong attitude. They're not gonna get their way. And waiting longer, doesn't ever equal a more positive result. They needed to push back on the deal that the NHL offered, not offer 3 completely different proposals. I have a feeling Fehr's ego is in play a bit here though. And the players are believing in him too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Over till end of December. Good job money mongers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Baffles my mind that players wont take 7% roll back but are willing to take 100% role back in a missed year .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 For the second time in as many months NHLers have been compared to livestock. A month after Red Wings’ senior VP Jimmy Devellano received a fine for comments comparing professional hockey players to “cattle,” Bruins centre David Krejci went a similar route, slamming NHL commissioner Gary Bettman along the way over the weekend. “(Bettman) does what he wants," Krejci told Czech publication iSport.cz. “We want to play, we're the ones who are (negotiating). “It is unfortunate that the NHL have such a guy," he said in a translated interview. "It's a shame for the entire hockey world. (He) treats us like animals.” Krejci, who was selected by Boston in the second round of the 2004 NHL draft, then targeted Bettman’s significant salary increase since the last lockout. “Bettman took during the last lockout $3.5 million,” Krejci said, “now it's at $8 million.” The Bruins re-upped Krejci late last year with a three-year deal reported to be worth close to $16 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 The problem with the cap circumventing deals is that it seems as though there is a sizeable contingent of owners who want to punish those that came up with those deals. I'm not sure that clause is going anywhere. Donald Fehr is a dangerous man. It seems as though Paul Kelly had built a good relationship with the owners and Fehr has burned those bridges quickly. I know that lots don't like Cox but this is a scary article if even somewhat true. http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1274610--nhl-lockout-players-pay-now-for-nhlpa-coup-cox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I think Fehr's got it in the players heads that they got screwed in the last deal, and that this is their time to stand and fight. And that if they out-wait the owners, they'll get what they want. This is the wrong attitude. They're not gonna get their way. And waiting longer, doesn't ever equal a more positive result. They needed to push back on the deal that the NHL offered, not offer 3 completely different proposals. I have a feeling Fehr's ego is in play a bit here though. And the players are believing in him too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I see that explains it a bit better. but I think the issue with basing on how much of the cap you spend is that you get teams like Winnipeg for example that doesn't spend up the the cap like the previous teams you mentioned yet they don't need revenue sharing (atleast I dont believe they do). I do like your ideas though, especially about the playoff reward possibilty. Edit: And I do think those upper level teams that make alot of money (NYR, VAN, BOS so-on) should have to contribute to the revenue sharing regardless of if they are spending to the cap of not because they are still the one's making the most money regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I think it's more accurate that he's "got in the players heads" that they made most of the concessions last lockout and that BOTH sides need to compromise this time, not just one side or it sets a dangerous precedent that at the end of every CBA thew owners simply lockout the players until they get ever bigger pieces of the pie. I tend to agree. And I think Bettman's got it in the owners heads that they've got to put the screws to the players and get as much as they can and try to set that precedent. It's quite clear the owners/league have little interest in actual negotiation or discussion with their "take it or leave it" offers and clever re-wording of the same offers/numbers disguised as "progress". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 http://www.insiderru...on-on-the-line/ season might be saved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleowin Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 http://www.insiderru...on-on-the-line/ season might be saved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 http://www.insiderru...on-on-the-line/ season might be saved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 The NHL says a full 82-game season is not possible if a new collective bargaining agreement isn't reached by Thursday. ..... An invitation from the NHL Players' Association to reopen talks "without preconditions" was quickly denied by the NHL on Tuesday night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 wasn't hockeyyinsiderr proven to be a fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.