Just making an observation. I could also add that the player's committee has cumulatively 5 years of university education and no degrees that I know of.The Messenger said:
TSN: NHLPA meetings have concluded quietly
- Thread starter ColoradoHockeyFan
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't you think they would invite a player such as Don Sweeney to the table considering he has a degree in ECONOMICS from Harvard.
Just an idea.
Just an idea.
The Messenger said:
I dont know about your logic. Comparing those three franchises to Irbe's playing career. I dont see how its the same??
I dont understand why the NHLPA committee is run by a bunch of guys whos careers are most likly over anyhow. If I was 20-27years old and these old guys were running the show i would be very very upset, scred and pissed off. After all these old timers have had there shot at teh big bucks so what do they actually have to lose? They seem to taking alot of money form the 20-30 year old brakcet by wasting valuable playing time off there careers.
Mess
Global Moderator
The Answer is obvious ... Best Decisions for the NHL moving forward should not be based on short term playing careers ..Mr.Hunter74 said:
The NHL holding CURRENT NHL careers over the Players is not a level playing field for the best future interest of the Game of Hockey.
Good Business decisions need to be made on both sides and not short term decisions.
shakes
Pep City
Frenzy1 said:
Yeh they got by selling booze during prohibition, shady buisness dealings and stepping on the little guy. Real class acts a lot of these owners are.
shakes said:
I would also imagine that they donate to charities or have their own foundations. As for stepping on the little guy - that is a fools statement. Some have no doubt hurt small/local business - but they have also provided a means for more then a few "little guys" to earn money and feed their families.
Could younger guys do any worse? I haven't seen any pro NHLPA people in here come up with a good reason why the players will get a better deal than what they could have received before the season was cancelled.The Messenger said:
chiavsfan
Registered User
Because the PA CAN'T get a better deal now...everyone in the universe knows it. Most of the PA people keep saying ask for 45 million...the 45 million first of all was never on the table...secondly, it won't be on the table again.
The PA kept calling bluff after bluff and lost...their wait and see strategy failed...and now they are keeping the lid on the players who dissent to their idiotic practices by having these meetings and claiming how "united" they are
Mess
Global Moderator
I don't believe that you have to be Sherlock Holmes to be able to figure out that if the NHLPA did not take an offer to save the season and have its players make money, that they certainly are not going to accept a deal or offer by the NHL that keeps getting less and lower.mooseOAK said:
The Conclusion that people should see coming is Replacement players and likely a court battle ahead ..
Eventually it will be in the Fans hands to determine if Replacement players will work and which side gets leverage in negotiations as a result of its Success or Failure.
The NHLPA is not effected by NHL deadlines enforced and their offers .. Anything that the NHLPA counter offers will be much higher and different then the NHL is offering and in the long run this is all part of CBA negotiations and par for the course.
Until both sides agree on a CBA these are all just numbers being tossed around and should be considered a movie like Sherlock Holmes - "The Hound of the Baskervilles" that may end in a twist that we are all not expecting.
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
If the NHL uses replacement players and it ends up blowing up in their face, you don't think it's possible the NHLPA may get a better deal than what was offered? Maybe the cap wont be 42.5 or maybe it would be higher, but the real point is what actually GOES against the cap and what doesn't, and everyone forgets theres a bunch of other matters in a CBA as well. So I think it's actually very feasible the NHLPA could get a better deal than the one they got to save the season if the replacement players are a total flop.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
And where would the $$'s come from? The league could very well go bankrupt. This is one of those 'victories' that might not be worth the paper it is printed on. In baseball they had a huge revenue stream at risk so caved. Hockey is looking at a television deal of what? $60 million a year, and that was before the season was lost. Even at $60 million that is $2 million a team. Some owners could pay up at that higher contract level of course, but you get a multipled back pay award for all of the players and more than 2/3 of the league, who already were losing money hand over fist, would fold. The players ever realized that the league was indeed losing money so at least made a smoke and mirror gesture of a 24% rollback. How would hammering the league big time be a 'win' for the players? The league would go under wouldn't it?
The Messenger said:
Maybe the NHLPA will continue to make $0 by increasing their proposals from now on because that is the only result of that strategy. The league did not take this whole situation this far only to end up in the same or worse situation than they were in before the lockout.
Who has who over a barrel on this? I think that the fact that we will be Leaf fans long after the current players have gone shows who has the upper hand in all this.
This is yet another PR blunder by the PA. This again proves that these guys gon't have a clue.
If I was a player getting less than the NHL average salary, I don't think I would be too happy that the PA big shots are at a world famous golf resort with all expenses paid. They could just as easily clear their heads in Toronto or Detroit or Chicago.
If I was a player getting less than the NHL average salary, I don't think I would be too happy that the PA big shots are at a world famous golf resort with all expenses paid. They could just as easily clear their heads in Toronto or Detroit or Chicago.
chiavsfan
Registered User
If my needle is caught in the groove, then please almighty Allah....explain to me what the PA has done of the course of the CBA dispute...
my point exactly
The Messenger said:
But par for the course isn't working. If they continue to shoot par, no deal will be made. The lost season has already done a lot of harm to both parties. And I am not talking about the loss of one years pay or revenue. It may take the league 5-10 to get the corporate sponsors back - which will have a negative effect on the players salaries. Teams that were big spenders may not be able to do so now (regardless if a Cap is put in place).
Again, trying to hurt ownership or get back at the ownership, will only have negative ramifications to the players - not positive.
Like I tried to say before, why cut off your nose
to spite your face?
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Jaded-Fan said:
It depends on what you believe. The league will never go under in my opinion like so many people believe. And I don't think if the NHLPA gets a better offer than what was originally given to them it would be so awful it would destroy the league. It's not like the NHL would offer something so close to the brink of disaster that they would be treading such a thin line. If the replacement players blow up in the owners faces and the NHLPA winds up getting a 45 million cap along with some other changes regarding revenue sharing and stuff you honestly think the NHL would go under? This is all just HYPOTHETICAL of course but if the NHLPA gets a better deal than offered originally I highly doubt the NHL will fold. Plus if people say no one watches hockey anyway, how many fans are actually going to be lost in the lockout? Cause we all know the people who love hockey will come back, atleast most of them will. Will it even be anything significant to do permanent damage? I honestly don't think so.
Enoch
This is my boomstick
jpsharkfan said:
No kidding. What exactly are they clearing their "heads" on? These clowns haven't down anything constructive the entire year without hockey, not to mention YEARS before hand as well.
I wish I recieved a pay check for being so unconstructive.
Hey, as Healy said, it their moeny and they can spend it however they want. Not a bright move right now, but they can do whatever they want.
The argument I don't buy is that they've done a lot of work and they need to clear their heads. Really? What have they done in the last month that's been so stressful?
Regarding the discussion about 30+ somethings on the committee.... well, they are better than having a bunch of 22 year olds. Unlike on the ice, you aren't washed up at age 35 compared to a 25 year old. You're actually a hell of a lot smarter - in theory, anyway.
The argument I don't buy is that they've done a lot of work and they need to clear their heads. Really? What have they done in the last month that's been so stressful?
Regarding the discussion about 30+ somethings on the committee.... well, they are better than having a bunch of 22 year olds. Unlike on the ice, you aren't washed up at age 35 compared to a 25 year old. You're actually a hell of a lot smarter - in theory, anyway.
RangerBoy
Dolan sucks!!!
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
Corporate sponsorship may be a bigger revenue for the owners and THAT may take awhile to get back. Will it be permanent? I doubt it, but it may take a couple of years - which will hurt both players and owners.
Another thing to take into consideration from a players perspective is loss of sponsorship. How much does/did Nike pay Federov to be their spokeman for skates and equipment? If fans turn away from the players, dollars in sponsorship/advertising may not come back very quickly. And the players may lose out on $$.
codswallop
yes, i am an alcoholic
The Messenger said:
Best to do research and know the situation before making a comment such as this. Now, I don't know exactly who you are refering to when you say others are pushing for a low cap, but I can take a pretty fair guess. Including those three you mentioned specifically, it is fair to say that your assessment of each individual ownership situation leads you to believe that those teams are hanging on by a thread.
Now, I don't know the status of most teams in the league. But I have a pretty good idea of one and it happens to be one you mentioned specifically, Atlanta. And you probably couldn't be more wrong. New ownership took over just a year ago; changes near the top were made, more money was given to spend on the team, etc. These new guys in charge are actually taking a hands-on approach, which is worlds different from the robotic-like orders give from previous ownership (AOL/TW).
I'm sure the new owners in Atlanta would like a decently low cap. Even with their new found spending, the payroll this year would have been right around $35M (no rollback in that). Safe in whatever event might occur. But they do seem willing to throw caution to the wind a bit and with a large group of successful businessmen in this new ownership group, they certainly aren't hurting for money.
Ask yourself this. Of the teams you had in mind, do you think there could be other situations that you don't know of in terms of a team's ownership, its attitude, its finances, its economic viability, and so forth and so on? That answer is a resounding yes. You jumped to conclusions to try and make a point, but it won't stick that way. Not enough meat on the bone.
cw7 said:
Good points but I feel that I must point out that it is " To our wives and sweethearts, may they never meet!"
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
Frenzy1 said:
I think that unless things improve with the way the game is received, Corporate support (especially south of the border) will trickle back pretty slowly. Corporations don't support the NHL because they love the it. They do it either to entertain customers, or as a form of advertising.
One thing to consider - the NHL forced the corporations to spend their money elsewhere this year. Who is to say that whatever they spend their money on instead won't get the $'s instead of the NHL next year?
I remember several articles on Slam about small business owners that were spending the $20K their tickets were on other things, and getting a hell of a lot better return on their investment. Those are the types of things that should make the owner (and ultimately the players) REAL nervous.
- Status
