Sportsnet: Daly frustrated

[Kritter471]

It didn't say that the meetings all went badly or that the two sides remained completely opposed to working with each other, the article simply states that things ended on a very, very sour note (thank you Jacobs. Remind me to castrate you the next time I'm in Boston).

And I love the fact everyone here is saying "well, the only reason the NHL/NHLPA is offering/saying/doing X is because of Y and Z." Omnipotence is so much fun, ain't it?

 

[GKJ]

Well he is Bettmans right hand man. Gary doesn't make a move without Jacobs says so. With people like Jacobs in change no one should be shocked why the owners haven't moved off their orginal hardline stance.

Jacobs is Bettman's right hand man? More so than Bill Daly and Harley Hotchkiss....?


ok....



no wonder we are where we're at

 

[HockeyCritter]

I believe that your sarcasm detector has malfunctioned.

 

[Morbo]

PA not stalling? So 1 offer every 4 months is enough for you PA-yahoos? Gotcha...

Maybe they should have offered the same thing 10 times like the NHL has.

 

[Jester]

Awful pricey call. The 'PA has lost well over $1 billion already and are working on their second if it lasts into next season. Most of the owners were losing money anyway.

I would bet that most of the owners are still seeing a net profit from all their business adventures.

 

[Mighty Duck]

I'll agree that Jacobs probably shouldn't be involved in the meetings, but the only reason that the NHLPA is focused on exploring "new concepts", is that they continue to use every avenue to avoid addressing the financial problems of the league. Goodenow's plan continues to be to stall, bait and switch, etc., in the hopes that eventually the owners will once again fold and give the players the key to the vault. I think "Deadline Bob" has gone to the well one too many times. If the league has to open with replacement players - Goodenow and his hardliners are finished.

Think about what you are say. Is 24% rollback not enough? Is it up to the NHLPA to protect the self centered owners from each other? In my industry, if the union offered a roll back of 24%, the owner would crap his pants. What do the owners really want, they can'[t even agree among themselves what they want, let alone try to get a CBA done. What more do you want from the players. A salary cap is still not going to fix teams whom are being run like a w"hore da vours house next door to a Naval base.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Think about what you are say. Is 24% rollback not enough? Is it up to the NHLPA to protect the self centered owners from each other? In my industry, if the union offered a roll back of 24%, the owner would crap his pants. What do the owners really want, they can'[t even agree among themselves what they want, let alone try to get a CBA done. What more do you want from the players. A salary cap is still not going to fix teams whom are being run like a w"hore da vours house next door to a Naval base.

While that 24-percent rollback was eye-popping, what did it really accomplish? What would it accomplish now when the majority of players are not under contract? How does this 24-prcent rollback address the real inflationary elements of the CBA, qualifying offers and arbitration? Until those issues are seriously addressed a rollback, regardless of percentage, will not suffice.

 

[barnburner]

Think about what you are say. Is 24% rollback not enough? Is it up to the NHLPA to protect the self centered owners from each other? In my industry, if the union offered a roll back of 24%, the owner would crap his pants. What do the owners really want, they can'[t even agree among themselves what they want, let alone try to get a CBA done. What more do you want from the players. A salary cap is still not going to fix teams whom are being run like a w"hore da vours house next door to a Naval base.

No, a salary cap won't fix teams who are run by incompetent management/owners. What it will do, is give the majority of the teams who are run responsibily, a reasonable chance to compete for the Cup, and not have to incur millions in losses as a result. People say - "well, the owners can just not spend the money - they don't need a cap" - well, I've seen what happens in that mode. Being from the St. Louis area, we watched our previous football owner, Bill Bidwell, operate that way - and it was a disaster.
Not only did the club not win - the fans were in turmoil constantly because they watched the owner run the franchise with one thing in mind and only one thing - profit. If the NHL is ever going to go beyond being a garage league - there must be a system in place that allows responsibily run team to have an opportunity to both win, and at least break even fiscally. Baseball is able to prosper without such a system because of its huge national popularity, somthing the NHL does not share.

 

[SENSible1*]

What do the owners really want, they can'[t even agree among themselves what they want, let alone try to get a CBA done.

The owners have been crystal clear in what they want from day 1.

Sorry if you failed to notice.

 

[Mighty Duck]

While that 24-percent rollback was eye-popping, what did it really accomplish? What would it accomplish now when the majority of players are not under contract? How does this 24-prcent rollback address the real inflationary elements of the CBA, qualifying offers and arbitration? Until those issues are seriously addressed a rollback, regardless of percentage, will not suffice.

I ask you, do you really think the owners are in agreement on how the league should be run? I personally don't think they are, and I would love to be fly on the BOG's wall today. If you think yesterday was heated, I would bet my willys' that todays BOG's meeting will make yesterdays exchanges look like love fest. Until these egotistical owners can make up their (agree) mind on how to split the pie, there will be no CBA. You cannot compare the NFL to the NHL, as they have revenue sharing

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The joke is that everyday that the union keeps stalling and playing games, the lower the cap gets. The players need to open there eyes and come to grips with the fact that the league will get there way.

No, the biggest joke is still the owners like Jacobs who think they are going to get the deal that they started these negotiations looking for. NEGOTIATE. That means both sides move towards each other. Look how far the PA has moved off of what they originally wanted. But there are still owners out there who are looking for that same old pure linkage deal? Come on. I'm really starting to believe that it IS those 6-8 owners who are holding this all up.

 

[mr gib]

The joke is that everyday that the union keeps stalling and playing games, the lower the cap gets. The players need to open there eyes and come to grips with the fact that the league will get there way.

they've hung on this long what's a few more months - no pressure on the pa at all

 

[SENSible1*]

they've hung on this long what's a few more months - no pressure on the pa at all

If the PA continues to inflict damage on the league do they expect to get paid in "magic beans" once they actually sign?

The pressure on the PA to get a deal done in time to generate enough money to pay them what they want is huge. The only difference now it that the pressure is on both sides.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

The owners have been crystal clear in what they want from day 1.

Sorry if you failed to notice.

and they havent really tried to negoiate anything else.
anyone hear that broken record?

 

[CGG]

While that 24-percent rollback was eye-popping, what did it really accomplish? What would it accomplish now when the majority of players are not under contract? How does this 24-prcent rollback address the real inflationary elements of the CBA, qualifying offers and arbitration? Until those issues are seriously addressed a rollback, regardless of percentage, will not suffice.

Alone, it wouldn't accomplish much right about now, after last season (and a bunch of contracts) have expired. It wasn't intended to be the only part of a deal, but in conjunction with a bunch of other stuff. QO's were no longer inflationary over $1 million. Arbitration changed. By the time the season was cancelled there was a salary cap attached to it as well.

Ask the NY Islanders if they still want the 24% rollback or if they want to pay Yashin $10 million a year for the next 5 years. There is still some merit to it, not to mention all current contracts, hundreds of them, would be used for comparisons and would be 24% lower. I think it's gone forever though. Too bad, the owners probably would have been better off with it as part of a deal in February.

 

[Sammy*]

Ask the NY Islanders if they still want the 24% rollback or if they want to pay Yashin $10 million a year for the next 5 years. There is still some merit to it, not to mention all current contracts, hundreds of them, would be used for comparisons and would be 24% lower. I think it's gone forever though. Too bad, the owners probably would have been better off with it as part of a deal in February.

Geez, one example. You got me convinced.
BTW, after next year there would be about 15% of the league who would be playing on a contract affected by the rollback.
Whooooopeeee.

 

[CGG]

Geez, one example. You got me convinced.
BTW, after next year there would be about 15% of the league who would be playing on a contract affected by the rollback.
Whooooopeeee.

I'm sorry, so the league is better without a 24% rollback?

Every RFA with an expired contract would now be getting qualifying offers based on 76% of their salary and compared to other players, who would be making 76% of their salary.

Here's the amount the owners could have saved, call this a whooooooopeeeee if you want. Keep in mind in their head the difference between a $42.5 million cap and a $45 million cap is catastrophic:

2005-06: $158,485,000
2006-07: $80,688,000
2007-08: $25,390,259
2008-09: $9,655,118
2009-10: $3,216,000
2010-11: $2,736,000
2011-12: $1,200,000

 

[Sammy*]

I'm sorry, so the league is better without a 24% rollback?

Every RFA with an expired contract would now be getting qualifying offers based on 76% of their salary and compared to other players, who would be making 76% of their salary.

Here's the amount the owners could have saved, call this a whooooooopeeeee if you want. Keep in mind in their head the difference between a $42.5 million cap and a $45 million cap is catastrophic:

2005-06: $158,485,000
2006-07: $80,688,000
2007-08: $25,390,259
2008-09: $9,655,118
2009-10: $3,216,000
2010-11: $2,736,000
2011-12: $1,200,000

Theres a systemic problem that guys like you cant figure out will not be rectified by a one time rollback.
BTW, have you ever taken the time to figure out what % of guys ever sign sin their qualifying offers. It aint pretty.
And lastly, your 158 mil represents about a 10% reduction. Not very much when the owners are taking baths of over a billion a year.

 

[CGG]

Theres a systemic problem that guys like you cant figure out will not be rectified by a one time rollback.
BTW, have you ever taken the time to figure out what % of guys ever sign sin their qualifying offers. It aint pretty.
And lastly, your 158 mil represents about a 10% reduction. Not very much when the owners are taking baths of over a billion a year.

Are you actually suggesting that $158 million is insignificant? Or that the owners are losing "over a billion a year"? Wrong on both counts. Spin it any way you want, if there is a deal now without a rollback, the owners will be paying $158 million more next year than they needed to on that batch of players. What's better, a salary cap and a rollback or that same salary cap with no rollback?

In case you haven't noticed, the 24% rollback isn't the only thing the union offered. I don't think anyone ever suggested that a rollback and only a rollback would solve everyone's problems. It would have been a damn good start though.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Are you actually suggesting that $158 million is insignificant? Or that the owners are losing "over a billion a year"? Wrong on both counts. Spin it any way you want, if there is a deal now without a rollback, the owners will be paying $158 million more next year than they needed to on that batch of players. What's better, a salary cap and a rollback or that same salary cap with no rollback?

In case you haven't noticed, the 24% rollback isn't the only thing the union offered. I don't think anyone ever suggested that a rollback and only a rollback would solve everyone's problems. It would have been a damn good start though.

$158-million is insignificant if the factors that contribute to exponentially increasing salaries are not serioulsy addressed (which were not when the rollback was first introduced).

 

[Morbo]

If the PA continues to inflict damage on the league do they expect to get paid in "magic beans" once they actually sign?

If the PA continues to inflict damage? Who cancelled the season?

 

[waffledave]

Maybe they should have offered the same thing 10 times like the NHL has.

Hey at least they aren't rejecting their own proposals...

Oh wait.

 

[Morbo]

Hey at least they aren't rejecting their own proposals...

Oh wait.

They never rejected their own proposal. They rejected a proposal that had to act exactly like the owners' proposal in order to be judged a "success"...and let's not get into those laughable "trigger points" again.

 

[Sammy*]

I don't think anyone ever suggested that a rollback and only a rollback would solve everyone's problems. It would have been a damn good start though.

Totally agree. Then why has the Union pulled it off the table. Perhaps cause their only interested in making as much money for their members as is possible, with zero regard to the overall health of the league?

 

[Sammy*]

If the PA continues to inflict damage? Who cancelled the season?

Do I take it then you think it would have been reasonable for the season not to have been cancelled, with the requsite billion dollar loss & the owners in a worse position today but the players suffering no ill effects.
That would be good. Remind me to retain you as my negotiater when my business is losing hundreds of millions.