Strachan: Fans just don't understand...like I do

[kerrly]

So an increase of $10m is a different concept?

Laughable.

The NHLPA, who, by the way, is negotiating off of a CBA where only it is making concessions, has offered a rollback, luxury tax, changes to arbitration, changes to the ELS, changes to QOs, etc. Owners have done nothing but insist on one concept and tweak other areas immaterialy or in their favour.

10 million in change is a huge concession from the start of this ordeal. All I did there was show you that the NHL in fact are the ones who are making strides, and not the NHLPA like your special glasses lead you to believe.

 

[kerrly]

Won't that happen with a salary floor too?

Sure it will, but it will be stopped with a salary cap. Try again.

 

[kerrly]

It doesn't matter. The NHL doesn't agree with the concept. Surely the nature of the tax can be negotiated to a "major" point. Would the NHLPA agree? Who knows, but the owners haven't pursued it as far as we can tell.

Neither have the NHLPA. They put a useless one in without any teeth, and until they want to pursue one with any meaning to it, please stop bringing this argument up, because it is useless.

 

[Jobu]

10 million in change is a huge concession from the start of this ordeal. All I did there was show you that the NHL in fact are the ones who are making strides, and not the NHLPA like your special glasses lead you to believe.

You claimed the NHL had explored multiple concepts. It's simply not true.

If you want to call $10m a major stride when $32m was pathetic to start with, go ahead.

 

[Jobu]

Neither have the NHLPA. They put a useless one in without any teeth, and until they want to pursue one with any meaning to it, please stop bringing this argument up, because it is useless.

So the PA should say, "because you rejected our last offer out of hand, how about this better one?"

That's not how it works, sorry. It's time for the NHL to come with something different.

 

[Jobu]

Sure it will, but it will be stopped with a salary cap. Try again.

And inflation will be curbed in the face of 100% revenue sharing, too. Try again.

 

[mackdogs*]

You claimed the NHL had explored multiple concepts. It's simply not true.

If you want to call $10m a major stride when $32m was pathetic to start with, go ahead.

$32 million/team = 1.39 mil / player. Is this really pathetic? How many cars/houses/pieces of ice do these guys need?

Pro PA'ers who consider a huge sum of money pathetic lose all credibility with people like myself (grounded). Thanks for a good laugh in this thread Jobu.

 

[Jobu]

$32 million/team = 1.39 mil / player. Is this really pathetic? How many cars/houses/pieces of ice do these guys need?

Irrelevant how much they need.

Pro PA'ers who consider a huge sum of money pathetic lose all credibility with people like myself (grounded). Thanks for a good laugh in this thread Jobu.

I'm sorry you're so jealous. Maybe you should work harder in your life or develop a skill that people care about.

 

[kerrly]

So the PA should say, "because you rejected our last offer out of hand, how about this better one?"

That's not how it works, sorry. It's time for the NHL to come with something different.

Sorry, than why should the NHL come with something different, when that is essentially the exact same thing the NHLPA did with the NHL's offer. Try again.

 

[Jobu]

Sorry, than why should the NHL come with something different, when that is essentially the exact same thing the NHLPA did with the NHL's offer. Try again.

The NHLPA is the only party to make a comprehensive proposal in this process. The owners have said the same thing all along - cap and linkage. If the owners aren't willing to move, there is no deal, no matter how creative the PA wants to be.

It's certainly the owners' prerogative to not want to bargain. But to pretend that they are bargaining is foolish.

 

[kerrly]

You claimed the NHL had explored multiple concepts. It's simply not true.

If you want to call $10m a major stride when $32m was pathetic to start with, go ahead.

I stated that the NHL has put forth many concepts, not many new concepts. Still more concepts than the NHLPA has put forth. 24% although it is a nice roll-back it doesn't address any of the najor issues, eventhough you will state differently. And don't bother wasting your time on trying to explain it will. I've heard all the arguments and disagree with everyone. Not too mention the joke of an offer the NHLPA started off with, where a 5% roll-back was the major concession of the offer.

 

[mackdogs*]

Irrelevant how much they need.

To you I guess. Most pro-PA'ers are sick of the thought of the owners raking it in hand over fist. Well a lot of us pro-owners say the same about the players. I don't think it's irrelevant at all, these guys have been looking a gift horse in the mouth for way too long. Perhaps it is time to step back and realize that they should be making a fraction of what they do instead of demanding status quo.

I'm sorry you're so jealous. Maybe you should work harder in your life or develop a skill that people care about.

Talk about irrelevant! What does this mean? Looks like nothing but a meaningless shot at me. Great way to get your point across (not really, that's called sarcasm).

For the record I am not jealous of these guys, and I work very hard in my life. Where this fits into the discussion however, you'll have to let me know.

 

[kerrly]

And inflation will be curbed in the face of 100% revenue sharing, too. Try again.

Prove it.

 

[Jobu]

I stated that the NHL has put forth many concepts, not many new concepts. Still more concepts than the NHLPA has put forth. 24% although it is a nice roll-back it doesn't address any of the najor issues, eventhough you will state differently. And don't bother wasting your time on trying to explain it will. I've heard all the arguments and disagree with everyone. Not too mention the joke of an offer the NHLPA started off with, where a 5% roll-back was the major concession of the offer.

So what are the nwe concepts that the NHL has put forth? Eliminating arbitration? Reducing qualifying offers? Eliminating rookie bonuses? Rejecting out-of-hand luxury taxes and revenue sharing?

Wow, novel.

 

[Jobu]

Prove it.

Team A earns $70m per year. Team A has a profit goal of $11m. Team A should therefore spend only $59m on player costs and other expenses.

It's not that hard, is it?

 

[CGG]

To you I guess. Most pro-PA'ers are sick of the thought of the owners raking it in hand over fist. Well a lot of us pro-owners say the same about the players. I don't think it's irrelevant at all, these guys have been looking a gift horse in the mouth for way too long. Perhaps it is time to step back and realize that they should be making a fraction of what they do instead of demanding status quo.

Wow, you are arguing pro-PA without even knowing it. The NHLPA actually has stepped back and realized they should be making a fraction of what they do. And that fraction is 76/100.

No one is demanding status quo.

 

[kerrly]

The NHLPA is the only party to make a comprehensive proposal in this process. The owners have said the same thing all along - cap and linkage. If the owners aren't willing to move, there is no deal, no matter how creative the PA wants to be.

It's certainly the owners' prerogative to not want to bargain. But to pretend that they are bargaining is foolish.

I'm still waiting for the NHLPA to get creative. You're certainly seeing these negotiations through your PA goggles. The NHLPA is also the only party not too table a new offer since Dec. 9th, which since the owners have tabled many concepts.

Here's your last statement turned to point in favour of my view. The players have said the same thing all alone - no cap and no linkage. If the players aren't willing to move, there is no deal no matter how creative the PA wants to be.

 

[Jobu]

To you I guess. Most pro-PA'ers are sick of the thought of the owners raking it in hand over fist. Well a lot of us pro-owners say the same about the players. I don't think it's irrelevant at all, these guys have been looking a gift horse in the mouth for way too long. Perhaps it is time to step back and realize that they should be making a fraction of what they do instead of demanding status quo.

Talk about irrelevant! What does this mean? Looks like nothing but a meaningless shot at me. Great way to get your point across (not really, that's called sarcasm).

For the record I am not jealous of these guys, and I work very hard in my life. Where this fits into the discussion however, you'll have to let me know.

To argue that players should be paid less beacuse they are playing a game we all wish we could play and because they get paid more than doctors, teachers, me, or you is simply irrelevant. The only explanation for this is that you don't understand the business and how businsess works in general or that you are jealous.

If you are so concerned about how much players make and how much they are worth, take a long hard look at the billionaire owners - your anger and frustration is better targeted at them.

 

[mackdogs*]

So what are the nwe concepts that the NHL has put forth? Eliminating arbitration? Reducing qualifying offers? Eliminating rookie bonuses? Rejecting out-of-hand luxury taxes and revenue sharing?

Wow, novel.

You should read the NHL proposals if you think these were offered. Anyone with a shred of hockey knowledge knows QO's were going to be reduced. They are a major reason why we are in the predicament that we are in. Perhaps you should ask 100 people if they thought this would be a topic the NHL would address. I bet 90% will think it was.

Eliminate arbs? I thought they were offering a 2-way system

Eliminate rookie bonuses? Nope, just trying to cap them.

Didn't the NHL offer include revenue sharing?

This is quickly becoming an exercise.

 

[Jobu]

I'm still waiting for the NHLPA to get creative. You're certainly seeing these negotiations through your PA goggles. The NHLPA is also the only party not too table a new offer since Dec. 9th, which since the owners have tabled many concepts.

Here's your last statement turned to point in favour of my view. The players have said the same thing all alone - no cap and no linkage. If the players aren't willing to move, there is no deal no matter how creative the PA wants to be.

Again, what are all these concepts that the owners have tabled?

Re-typing an old offer and posting it on the Webd oesn't make it new.

The players have said no to a cap and linkage but are trying to address the concerns of owners another way, through a combination of concepts. The owners don't care - they want what they want, even if they can ahieve the same ends in a different form.

 

[mackdogs*]

Wow, you are arguing pro-PA without even knowing it. The NHLPA actually has stepped back and realized they should be making a fraction of what they do. And that fraction is 76/100.

No one is demanding status quo.

76% of existing contracts. This does not mean they all agree they are worth 24% less because not every player was under contact.

Nice attempt at spin.

 

[Jobu]

You should read the NHL proposals if you think these were offered. Anyone with a shred of hockey knowledge knows QO's were going to be reduced.

It still has to be negotiated and conceded by the union.

Eliminate arbs? I thought they were offering a 2-way system

Wrong. They wanted a unilateral right to terminate arbitration.

Eliminate rookie bonuses? Nope, just trying to cap them.

That's a relief.

Didn't the NHL offer include revenue sharing?

No, it said they were willing to talk about it.

This is quickly becoming an exercise.

Indeed.

 

[Jobu]

76% of existing contracts. This does not mean they all agree they are worth 24% less because not every player was under contact.

Nice attempt at spin.

Yes it does, because when the free agents are ready to sign, the market is 24% less than what it was, or 76% of what it was.

 

[kerrly]

Team A earns $70m per year. Team A has a profit goal of $11m. Team A should therefore spend only $59m on player costs and other expenses.

It's not that hard, is it?

Except in this case, Team A refers to every team in the entire league. If every team can spend 59 million dollars in salary (in your proposed scenario) and the revenues are still only 2 billion dollars, that leaves 1.77 billion going directly to players salaries, if teams do not want to overspend. Profit goals have never stopped teams from spending over the limit before. Your answer has done nothing to prove anything. Proof usually requires some facts and certainty, where your answer has provided nothing of the sort. Apparently its alot harder than you think.

 

[mackdogs*]

No, it said they were willing to talk about it. (revenue sharing)

Why did you say they rejected it then?