Who feels today is do or die?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
Thunderstruck said:
Yes they are "in line with this". Bettman has made it worth their while.


What colour is the sky in Jobu world?

Mike Brophy and numerous other respected source have reported that informal votes on some teams have indicated they were willing to drop the "no cap" principle. Are you willing to go on record calling all these sources liars?

The players are fractured and it will get worse as each day passes.

First I believe there was ONE team who said they would work under a salary cap. One team out of thirty.

I don't believe the big market teams are in line with Bettman, they just can't speak out on it, and the small market teams are too stupid to realize that Bettman is screwing them over with his brilliant revenue sharing plan. Wait for Nashville to get to the playoffs again or Atlanta make it for the first time and they realize that they will not be receiving any revenue sharing, they will be the ones paying it out and that will be after they upped their payroll to meet the salary floor minimum.

This lockout is about Bettman and Goodenow and don't kid yourself. If the only way Bettman can take Goodenow out is through the players, he doesn't care. He will kill the NHL. He may win the battle but he will lose the war when nobody comes back to the game, and when nobody comes back there are no revenues. That should be more of a concern to him than capping salaries, but he's too stupid to see that.
 

pacde

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
85
0
Jobu said:
It's simple - Anyone who thinks this is a strike and not a lockout, or anyone who thinks the players are holding out for more money or refusing to play because they want something more rather than wanting to give up less, or anyone who admits to being a hockey fan without much business acumen should just talk hockey and not the business thereof.


So if I understand you correctly, you think most of us consider this to be a strike because players are 'holding out for more money' and that you have more 'business acumen' than the other posters on this board?
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
Icey said:
First I believe there was ONE team who said they would work under a salary cap. One team out of thirty.

I don't believe the big market teams are in line with Bettman, they just can't speak out on it, and the small market teams are too stupid to realize that Bettman is screwing them over with his brilliant revenue sharing plan. Wait for Nashville to get to the playoffs again or Atlanta make it for the first time and they realize that they will not be receiving any revenue sharing, they will be the ones paying it out and that will be after they upped their payroll to meet the salary floor minimum.

This lockout is about Bettman and Goodenow and don't kid yourself. If the only way Bettman can take Goodenow out is through the players, he doesn't care. He will kill the NHL. He may win the battle but he will lose the war when nobody comes back to the game, and when nobody comes back there are no revenues. That should be more of a concern to him than capping salaries, but he's too stupid to see that.

How does letting each of these break even till they actually make the playoffs hurt them. Are you not grasping the concept? These teams are in trouble of folding, and a team like Calgary that makes a playoff run like they just did, allows them to pay off previous losses. Just because when a small-market team finally makes a huge run and loses some off the playoff revenue it might have gotten, does not mean it will be all pissed off from previous years where the revenue sharing caused them to break even. Think about this stuff, and realize that both Forbes and the Levitt report put the NHL in serious trouble. The fix is to make them healthy, not insanely profitable. Nobody except the people in the big markets wants a 4-5 team league, and this is how it will get there. This is how businesses are run, and if the players want to be partners then they should expect to take some of the risk. If they want to be employees, then they should take what pay system is imposed on them, and if they want to never play under a cap, please head to Europe, or the UHL and play under a cap there.
 

Erngueva

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,396
0
Visit site
Jobu said:
It's simple - Anyone who thinks this is a strike and not a lockout, or anyone who thinks the players are holding out for more money or refusing to play because they want something more rather than wanting to give up less, or anyone who admits to being a hockey fan without much business acumen should just talk hockey and not the business thereof.

Bla.. Bla... Bla.. Tell those lines to Quebec an Winnipeg hockey fans. You will see that business can kill a hockey team. Therefore we, as a fan, can say whatever we want about business OF HOCKEY. And myself i dont care if the deal is fair to the players, i just want my sport to be healthy no matter how much money the owners make. Just like in real world, Walmart dont pay their employees 25 $/hour even if they make billions of dollars in profit. I just want the SPORT being healthy. I could'nt care less if the average player in the Nhl make 1 millions rather than 1,3 millions of dollars. I want them to play and i want owners to make money.
 

Pielsman

Registered User
Sep 21, 2003
2,397
0
Ct
I think beer/alcohol sales in "hockey areas" like Canada, New England, Minnesota, Michigan, etc must be doing quite well during the lockout...

Thats not a shot at anyone here; I was just pondering the lockout over a Molson XXX.
 

pacde

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
85
0
Icey said:
First I believe there was ONE team who said they would work under a salary cap. One team out of thirty.

This is clearly mistaken, especially if you consider "linkage" = "cap". I dont know who you are thinking of, but just off the top of my head Edmonton said they would consider moving or folding without a cap, Calgary has continued to restate their position that if there is no linkage between revenues and salaries, there is no business case to keep hockey in Calgary. In recent news articles there have been comments from Karmanos (whatever his name is) and Melnyk of Ottawa. Not only that but there have been several others that have made comments that imply their support if not endorse the cap completely. So far I havent heard any comments from the owners that indicate they arent at least warm to the idea - the owners have presented a very unified front.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
pacde said:
So if I understand you correctly, you think most of us consider this to be a strike because players are 'holding out for more money' and that you have more 'business acumen' than the other posters on this board?
People please...let's get back on topic.

The topic is...."Who feels today is do or die?"
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
amazingcrwns said:
I think we as fans should step up and announce that if there is no deal from this meeting (be it 1 day or 2) that we don't want a season starting any later.

This has to be it. If they think they can take another week then try again we can't allow that. I don't know that there is much else that we can do other than send Email's expressing our disgust but personally I don't want this thing to drag out another week with the NHL + NHLPA believing that the fans will wait as long as it takes to get a season in this year.

Why would either side care what the fan thinks. Your idea, while noble, would be like pissing in the wind. I can honestly see them dragging this out and just having a tournament for the cup, with no regular season games a la the olympics or the world cup. While stupid, most fans would eat it up.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
pacde said:
So if I understand you correctly, you think most of us consider this to be a strike because players are 'holding out for more money' and that you have more 'business acumen' than the other posters on this board?

Yep. This was admitted by someone earlier in the thread.
 

jcab2000

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
334
0
Raleigh, NC
Who really cares if it's a strike or a lockout? That has nothing to do with the fact that the players want the owners to continue to be willing to lose money to pay their salaries and if there are certain teams that aren't willing to do that anymore, they should sell the team to another owner who is willing to lose money.
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
OilerFan4Life said:
If the groundhog sees its shadow= Hockey will be played this year.

If the groundhog doesnt see its shadow=Bettman tells the PA to screw off and the season is cancelled.
Beautiful, just... beautiful
 

jratelle19

Registered User
Jul 3, 2004
358
9
New York
Wow, Jobu. I guess you've impressed us to the point where you've really put us in our place. :lol

Don't think so. I'll comment on this topic if I feel like it, thank you. Oh, and congratulations on your Harvard MBA, by the way.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Jobu said:
Not me. If the owners are making an offer, I suspect the NHLPA will counter it (unless it's as outrageous as the December offer in which case it will get a swift rejection) and the owners may have one more left.

As the days roll on, the players have less and less incentive to strike a deal for this year, unless of course the owners are offering up playoff pay, so I'd imagine the owners will have a little more flexibility than today. But who knows?

I disagree with your presumption that the players don't have as much to gain by entering into a deal at this point. If they can get a deal done, they get 100% of next years salary. If the entire season is lost, I don't think their will be a huge amount of pressure to get the league going in October 2006. IMO, if something doesn't get done now, we're probably looking at January 2007 as the best case for a start date.
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
Twine Seeking Missle said:
I know this is pretty obvious but who thinks that todays meetings will be the end one way or another? Its already Feb 2nd so if the meetings end today without an announcement of an agreement I think we can pretty much throw in the towel on a season.

a simple answer to a simple question , yes I believe this is it
 

IslesRule

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
309
0
Visit site
Jobu said:
The so-called "42" ceiling is a joke. Based on $2.1b of revenues and the insistence on owners to link the cap to revenues, it's already down to $38m. Take away the insurance, etc. costs, and it's down to $36m. You call this negotiation and concession?

Another example of how the casual hockey fan has had the wool pulled over his eyes.

You are right. Those poor players, who have been forced to play over the last 6 years under a system that insured salary increases regardless of the economic condition of the game. A few teams dictated the salary structure of the league. Now, the owners want cost certainty, not profit certainty, the "ceiling" is called into question. The league must tie salaries to revenues, if they decrease so must salaries.

The fact is the owners should change the offer from a percentage of revenues to a pecentage of profits. Lets see what the cap would be then.

Looks like the wool was pulled over your eyes.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Jobu said:
Their sources are about as good as Eklund's.

The fact is, if 500 players were beating down Bob's and Trevor's door to play, they would.

So Mike Brophy of The Hockey News and Pierre McGuire of TSN have no sources within the NHLPA? (Let's forget the other people that have indicated this is the case and just focus on these two guys.) Are you seriously trying to say that they lied or were lied to by their contacts?

So now 3-5 turns into 500? Quite a little jump there sparky!

The fact is, it only takes 351 out of 700 for the offer to be accepted.

There is significant dissent in the PA ranks with the executive and Goodenow for being willing to piss away a huge chunk of their money and damage or kill the golden goose over a "principle" that most couldn't give a rats ass about.

The PA will cave way before the owners do.
 

jcab2000

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
334
0
Raleigh, NC
Beukeboom Fan said:
I disagree with your presumption that the players don't have as much to gain by entering into a deal at this point. If they can get a deal done, they get 100% of next years salary. If the entire season is lost, I don't think their will be a huge amount of pressure to get the league going in October 2006. IMO, if something doesn't get done now, we're probably looking at January 2007 as the best case for a start date.

I agree.

One of two things happen if the players don't agree to a deal now.

1) They are at the same point a year from now, negotiating at the last minute to save the season with the owners offering far less than they are now with the players fighting for a bigger perecntage of a much smaller revenue pie.

2) The owners get their impasse declared and the NHLPA ceases to exist.

The players have no leverage.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
PepNCheese said:
False.

I have personally heard Bobby Clarke and Richard Peddie, to name 2, voice objections to Bettman's plans. I would think that without a $1 million fine to worry about, there would be more.

I also believe there are some players who would take a cap, but I don't believe it's a significant number yet. Not enough to get an agreement done for this year.

They voiced concern over PARTS of Bettman's plan and strategy.
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
jcab2000 said:
I agree.

One of two things happen if the players don't agree to a deal now.

1) They are at the same point a year from now, negotiating at the last minute to save the season with the owners offering far less than they are now with the players fighting for a bigger perecntage of a much smaller revenue pie.

2) The owners get their impasse declared and the NHLPA ceases to exist.

The players have no leverage.

I really dont think the nhl wants the headache of the court battles / impasse .

I believe if there isnt an agreement today -tommorrow we will be sitting here Jan 06 doing the same ol thing
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
shakes said:
Why would either side care what the fan thinks. Your idea, while noble, would be like pissing in the wind. I can honestly see them dragging this out and just having a tournament for the cup, with no regular season games a la the olympics or the world cup. While stupid, most fans would eat it up.
The sad truth is that even though I would not think it was a legitimate way to award the Cup, I would still watch every game I could. I am truly a hopeless case. :)

On the do or die question...If the players continue to refuse to engage in negotiations, then it is over. If they talk or prepare a counter-proposal, there is still a chance.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Jobu said:
Yeah, those, what, 3-5 players out of 750 who have spoken out sure speak louder than the other 99.5% of players.

Perhaps if Bettman didn't fine every management crony $1m everytime they did speak out, we'd here more on-the-record opining. Surely you don't believe that Toronto, Philly, Detroit, etc. are in line with this, do you?

I agree with you that their are definetely some NHL clubs that would of jumped at the NHLPA's offer, and without the gag order would be letting that be known. All of that being said, they really don't matter all that much. I would bet that Bettman has the ironclad support of a substantial majority of NHL owners, and that's all he needs.

The solidarity problem is on the NHLPA side IMO. The VAST majority of players have a very limited hockey career in which to earn enough money that with a little bit of common sense they never have to work again. For every superstar making HUGE money, there are probably 15 guys making less than the league average. I would be that the majority of those 15 guys would vote for a cap in the 32-43M Salary range.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
Jobu said:
How does not cancelling the season put leverage on the players? If a new CBA were struck, they would negotiate the number of games, etc. to be played this year. If for some reason the players found it material to have a season this year, the owners' intent to cancel it would scuttle the deal.

Bettman hasn't set a deadline because that puts pressure on the OWNERS, not the players; they're the ones who'd miss out on playoff revenues, etc.
read the new proposal in a link on another thread - the owner's are willing to share the playoff revenue this year -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->