halifax Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 CBA to be done by sept.15th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Knows NHL94 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) well when you put it THAT way Hokkee.... EDIT: this was my 1000th post! Woo! I'll use this monumental occasion to say that the both players and the owners are greedy dicks if they lock out. That is all. Edited August 21, 2012 by Bo Knows NHL94 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 They should prove who's right with numbers and graphs. That said, I thought the players' proposal was very interesting, while the NHL/owners' was a total joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRoBob38 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Don Cherry predicting a 2 month lockout... http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/17/cherry-expects-two-month-nhl-lockout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da94wookiee Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 gary bettman must go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russian Rocket Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Don Cherry predicting a 2 month lockout... http://www.torontosu...nth-nhl-lockout This is disappointing to read. The fact that we're going to have 3 lockouts in 20 years does not reflect well on the league, and I'm certainly siding with the players on this one. The problem seems to be a refusal amongst most of the richer owners (i'm looking squarely at Philly and Boston here) to accept a revenue sharing system as a means of supporting smaller market teams. Instead, they'd rather cut salary cap in order to make the finances more manageable for say, Nashville or Phoenix. Part of this is directly Bettman's fault for expanding the league to markets that have mostly struggled to support an NHL team (no offense to fans of Florida teams and the like), but the rest of the blame falls squarely on owners. They've been signing these albatrosses of contracts for years now and are essentially looking to reneg on their investments: initially looking for rollbacks (never gonna happen) and a lowering of the salary cap. Meanwhile, they're again tanking the league's potential to increase its fanbase, as a major US city just won the Stanley Cup. Revenue sharing has worked. Look at the NFL. Even in this economic climate an NHL team can be profitable. Why owners expect players to shoulder the burden is beyond me. Sorry for the rant. It's just frustrating as a fan, especially a fan of the Rangers, who would lose out on arguably their best chance in years to win a cup (given re-signing situations coming up) in recent memory if the sides can't reach an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRoBob38 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I'm with smoz. Both sides are to blame here, but at least the players made an offer that would be sensible in some way to both sides. The owners' proposal's ridiculous and extremely one-sided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halifax Posted August 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Thought this was a great opinion on the CBA negotiations from an email ESPN's john buccigross repsonded to. Hi, John, If there is any progress in the talks, are there any indicators that the two sides will agree to continue negotiations on the CBA and start the season? Or are the owners adamant for a lockout? Thanks, P. Munzing Question No. 1: That will not happen. Gary Bettman is an agent, the owners' agent, and a Scott Boras win-at-all-costs kind of agent. (They were born exactly five months apart in 1952.) It is what he is best suited for. A person or entity gets the best deal only when he or she has leverage. The more leverage, the better the deal. You will never get the raise you think you deserve at your job unless you threaten to leave. When you are willing to live out that threat, you have even more leverage. Remember, Bettman works for the owners. He has to deal with 30 of them and their various fiscal concerns, and Fehr. When players start losing paychecks, Gary Bettman and the owners' leverage will accelerate no matter what unified front they put up. Players are rich, owners are wealthy, and there is a big difference. Boras' clients almost always test the free-agent market because that is the best way to make the most money, and as we know, the money scoreboard is the one some people are most interested in. Bettman-produced lockouts are designed to give his "players" (the owners) the best deal they can get. The "partnership" word he likes to throw out there during interviews is pure marketing and mostly fraudulent. As Fehr pointed out last week, the players don't have a say in marketing, promotion, franchise location, etc. Bettman lives for this. He is a confrontational person who enjoys that battle. It's his Trivial Pursuit board game. Acquiring big-ticket corporate partners and negotiating CBAs are his primary jobs. His job is to increase the franchise value of the owners. That's it. He's largely done that, especially for the top-tier franchises, as is reflected in his salary. He has a high salary because he has been good for the owners; otherwise, he would be commissioner of the Arena Football League. Bettman has the charm of a heavily starched shirt, but he is smart and relentless. He organized and professionalized the offices of the NHL, increased revenues and helped oversee the new-media infusion that has made this the best time, in terms of media access and information, to be a fan of the NHL. The NHL has an excellent website that is much better than the NBA's, an affordable Center Ice package, and excellent television partners in the U.S. and Canada. (I will let others debate the "The NHL should be on ESPN" argument.) The Winter Classic, the presentation of the Stanley Cup (excluding his involvement, which has to stop -- it's a distraction), "24/7" on HBO, and, yes, the expansion of the game in the U.S. are all good things, in my feeble mind, that have put the game in a good place. There are those in the media who hate Bettman, and that certainly has contributed some to fans mostly despising him. There are others in the media, as Ray Ferraro (@rayferrarotsn) tweeted last week, "some media are totally in GMs' pockets and will parrot whatever they want." I'm not one of those media types. Just last week a former NHL player professed his hatred for Bettman to me in person, a common theme. When he asked me my opinion, I told him what I tell everyone: "None of us is perfect. I actually think he's been good for the game." Certainly the work stoppages are troubling, and from that perspective Bettman deserves criticism. But he deals with some interesting owners, especially among the high-revenue teams. NHL players are not unreasonable people. I think we all understand that. Any on-ice problems that you might have with the league really can't be directed at Bettman. He has largely delegated that part of the job because his knowledge and understanding are limited. We all know deep down that he doesn't LOOOOVE the game like you do. He can appreciate the fans singing "O Canada" in Vancouver or the passion of the Stanley Cup playoffs, of course. But does he get that Christmas Eve feeling of a Bruins-Canadiens game in the middle of January? Probably not. He entrusts pretty much everything on the ice to other people. It's not his ball of tape. At some point, owners might want to consider hiring a hockey person who can help lead and grow the game in terms of passion over currency. I'm willing to admit that the expiration date on Bettman's tenure might be arriving or has arrived. His lack of an on-ice connection seems to be growing. He is more comfortable at a climate-controlled, giant, corporate negotiating table than a cozy, cold rink. But again, this lockout is about the NHL figuring out how to help out teams that are bleeding money. The floor is too high for a lot of teams. Question No. 2: Are owners adamant for a lockout? No way. It's obvious the big-revenue teams don't want one. The Rangers can charge more than $300 for a ticket and high rates for restroom advertising that smaller-revenue teams cannot. Low-revenue teams can't get to the salary floor. There is no way you can tell me the economy is better now than it was in 2005. Revenues might have gone up, but not $30 million a year for a team like the Blue Jackets. U.S. teams like the Rangers, Bruins, Blackhawks, Red Wings and Flyers have extremely high franchise values. And certainly other U.S. teams that have very strong fan bases and must be doing pretty well -- Buffalo, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Minnesota, Washington to name some -- certainly see the negatives in it for them. The issue is one that goes back to the values at kindergarten. How much of the pie will owners share, and what is good for the game? I always have been in favor of as many NHL teams in the U.S. as possible (within reason) because NHL teams manufacture NHL fans, and that's how the game is grown. I believe there is enough talent in the world. It can be slower growth in some places than others, but it's a fact. And lack of traction is usually due to lack of success. Southern California and South Florida are now both producing high-end hockey talent. The game of hockey deserves to be everywhere; it's great enough to be everywhere. Will it not work in some places? Only if it is run into the ground by poor or unlucky management. Are the Jets better off in Winnipeg than Atlanta? Of course. Would the Coyotes produce more revenue in Quebec City? Absolutely. Could things have been different in Atlanta? Well, the city had two chances. But the Thrashers made the playoffs once in their 11 seasons in Georgia. You know what the Atlanta Flames' career playoff record was? 2-15. Two and frickin' 15. That's not a fair measurable as to whether hockey would ever work in Atlanta. It took Phoenix 15 seasons to win a playoff series. I know the NHL isn't a charity, but Bettman and the owners are stewards of the game. They have to recognize this, and the richest teams have to do a better job at sharing. The players know they have it good and know teams are struggling. They will probably give in to some salary rollback (10-15 percent) if that money is given to the struggling franchises. Hockey participation took a huge hit during the 2004-05 lockout. This week I called to sign up my son Jack for the annual readiness camp our rink in Connecticut has every late August. Canceled: not enough participation. The game is again being vaporized from the consciousness of American fans. Hockey is a third-line grinder itself. That's why it has continued to survive, and really thrive, all these years while being led by suits who don't have the game's best interest in mind. But they are competitive. Too competitive, in fact. Flyers owner Ed Snider never wants to see the Penguins or Rangers win a Stanley Cup, but especially not before his Flyers. The Blackhawks did everything they could to pry Marian Hossa from the Red Wings. The players are trained to be selfless. Some NHL owners selfishly flex their false bravado with their regional checking accounts. The NHL's problem is more about overzealous competitiveness than greed. Or maybe it isn't. Players know that they are nothing without a strong core. The best athletes have a strong core. That's true of any entity; a person, a company, a country. The selfish, rich teams have bludgeoned the middle-class teams with their opulent signing bonuses, end-around tactics and firm belief that their "success" is more skill and providence than it is geography, luck and accident of birth. Sound familiar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Knows NHL94 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 http://www.downgoesbrown.com/2012/08/nhl-lockout-nba-nfl-bettman.html credit to Voc for sending me the link lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sicarius Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Rule number 1. If any circumstance exists that can be f'd up, the NHL will succeed in f'ing it up. The last lockout happened because the owners cried there wasn't enough money and salaries were being inflated to a point that would bankrupt the NHL. I believed them then. Looking back I have my doubts but I still think a salary cap was a good idea. Here's the problems with the owners crying. You have owners like in Minnesota throwing an absurd amount of money at Ryan Suter. 13 Years 98 Million for Ryan Suter?? It's happening all over the NHL where owners are spending far far too much money on players that aren't worth the value they are getting. Suter is a very good D. I think he's a legitimate #2 D on any team. He's not Lidstrom. He's not Paul Coffey. He's not Bourque. He's not Leetch. He'll probably never get close to hall of fame standards. You can't have owners cry poor and then at the same time spending like it's monopoly money. Jiri Hudler signed a 4 yr deal with the Flames for 4 million a year (overpriced/50 pts last yr). David Jones with the AVS got the same, 4 yrs 4mil/yr (overpriced 37 pts last yr). This type of overpayment is rampant in the NHL. My Blues were as guilty as anyone else in multiple cases. I'll never figure out why Keith Tkachuk got the kind of money he did. He seems like a good guy and a player you would want on your team but his lifetime earnings are just under 74 Million dollars. That's 5th all time for NHL players. Ya I know he's a 500 goal scorer but half of those were slapshots from the point that bounced off him and went in the net. The problem with locking the players out is the only people the NHL hurts are the fans and the NHL as a franchise. Every NHL player is a millionaire. Their dogs eat out of gold dishes. You're not locking out grocery workers. These guys can go play in Europe or Russia for a couple of months if they want. Or they can play golf for an extra couple of months. Locking them out does nothing to their pocket book. Way to go NHL on yet another F'up. You always come through. (almost forgot to add that the last time the players were locked out, Bettman was making 2.5 mil/yr,, he's at like 8.5 mil/yr now, I'm sure he considers himself among the poor) Edited September 5, 2012 by Sicarius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da94wookiee Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Someone needs to build a time machine to go back to '94 and make sure the NHL doesn't screw up the '95 season. That's when everything went downhill. Bettman must GO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWingDevil Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 I don't know, I find it a little crazy with the earnings disparity that have the players actually earning more than the teams they play for and represent. Also, I don't trust Fehr. He took a giant crap at the MLB in 1994 and if they were actually smart, they gotta make sure they make some balance with the earnings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 They should make the salary cap hit either the same value of the pay that year, of have a 3- to 5-year sliding window (salary cap hit is the average pay over the upcoming 3 to 5 seasons). This will eliminate stupid retirement contracts. Other front-loading techniques (signing bonuses) should be handled better, too. The salary cap floor needs to be more flexible, not simply $16M less than the ceiling, it should be a percent or something that scales as the ceiling grows. The owners are rich guys, so many are probably the type who whine whenever government interferes with their business to spread money around, but when they're on the losing side, suddenly they need a salary cap and revenue sharing! They should put a percentage on how much the owners make, too. 50-whatever to the players, some other value to the owners, and a 3rd value for team operations (arena staff, and so on). If there is overrun in a year, some goes to the players, some to the owners, and maybe some to the other people working for the team in various areas (coaches, trainers, doctors, rink rats...) I don't even know why we are having a lockout. The real issue is that revenue sharing is broken. That's the owners' problem, not the players'. They should figure it out on their own time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWingDevil Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Come around 9 days, time suddenly becomes very small and there'll be some hurrying in order to sort out this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sicarius Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 The owners are rich guys, so many are probably the type who whine whenever government interferes with their business to spread money around, but when they're on the losing side, suddenly they need a salary cap and revenue sharing! As an American and a small business owner, I don't want the gov. to ever interfere with my decisions. I'd no longer be a free individual if my actions were dictated by the gov. I'm sure Obama dreams of a USA where the gov. controls everything from deciding who lives and dies with healthcare to crushing the successful citizens so they have to rely on the gov more. According to information online 17 of the 30 NHL teams lost money in 2012. There were only 6 teams that made over 10 million profit. The Blues just got the 8th owner in franchise history during this offseason. They've averaged a new ownership group every 5.6 years since 1967. It's been said that the franchise has never turned a profit. I really don't doubt that. It seems the reason that some of if not all of the Blues' owners undertook ownership for stature, prestige, and a tax write off. Take the ownership group that just bought the Blues. They're all rich. They're all local to St. Louis and own some of the biggest companies here. This group of people didn't sign on the dotted line thinking this venture would make them riches. The new group isn't going to come in and spend money that isn't being generated. The Blues are 16.5 million under the cap as of now. They still have to sign a few people but I wouldn't think they'll spend more than 3 or 4 million more for this years team. The last lockout burned me pretty good. Not only did they not play hockey but the Blues ownership was gutting the team because they were selling the team. It was a double whammy. Like I said before, this lockout only hurts the NHL as a franchise/brand and the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 As an American and a small business owner, I don't want the gov. to ever interfere with my decisions. I'd no longer be a free individual if my actions were dictated by the gov. I'm sure Obama dreams of a USA where the gov. controls everything from deciding who lives and dies with healthcare to crushing the successful citizens so they have to rely on the gov more. According to information online 17 of the 30 NHL teams lost money in 2012. There were only 6 teams that made over 10 million profit. The Blues just got the 8th owner in franchise history during this offseason. They've averaged a new ownership group every 5.6 years since 1967. It's been said that the franchise has never turned a profit. I really don't doubt that. It seems the reason that some of if not all of the Blues' owners undertook ownership for stature, prestige, and a tax write off. Take the ownership group that just bought the Blues. They're all rich. They're all local to St. Louis and own some of the biggest companies here. This group of people didn't sign on the dotted line thinking this venture would make them riches. The new group isn't going to come in and spend money that isn't being generated. The Blues are 16.5 million under the cap as of now. They still have to sign a few people but I wouldn't think they'll spend more than 3 or 4 million more for this years team. The last lockout burned me pretty good. Not only did they not play hockey but the Blues ownership was gutting the team because they were selling the team. It was a double whammy. Like I said before, this lockout only hurts the NHL as a franchise/brand and the fans. My sarcasm detection is often faulty, but I'll assume your first paragraph is sarcasm? Death Panel myth . I hope all the owners make money, and I think revenue sharing is necessary and makes the league stronger, but I just think it's ironic. However, maybe i was mischaracterizing the typical not-huge-market hockey team owners, so point taken (I blame Harold Ballard, since even the owner of the richest team could worry so much about money ). I think some players *can* be hurt by the lockout -- the bubble players who know they probably only have one shot at playing in the league (although the KHL pays pretty well now -- but then you live in Russia), or young/rookie players who get a career-derailing injury once the lockout is over, and they miss that 300k-600k pay that would probably be a significant percentage of all the money they will ever make. I wonder what kind of injury insurance they have.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceStorm70 Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 I sincerely hope all of the 'stars' in the league sign one year deals with the KHL. &@$@&$@ the NHL and their greedy owners. Thy got t system they wanted. If some teams can't keep up, then sell them or contract them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halifax Posted September 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 Risk of the entire season going? double nutz http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=404679 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halifax Posted September 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Lock out begun...I'll be ready when it's over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snyder Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Hokkee you never chose sides and i respect that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smozoma Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Teemu's with the players http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/09/17/teemu_selanne_blog_calls_out_bettman_minnesota_owner_blog_ducks/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snyder Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Lock out begun...I'll be ready when it's over. Edited September 18, 2012 by Snyder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sicarius Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Selanne sees it the same way I do. The owners can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.