2012 CBA/Lockout talk, It's not looking good VI

[Boston BROin]

Source may be right, may not be but I could not care less what you think.

Apologies for being hostile. I've been around these boards to know who is legit and who isn't. You're in the former. I, as all hockey fans are, am frustrated with this whole process. I know we've all seen people come through with info saying deals are coming soon (WBZ's report comes to mind). Didn't mean to be a dick, it just seems that this whole thing is a mess and even the people at the top don't know what's going on. I guess the ambiguity of the whole ordeal being played in the press is a tactic. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors.

 

[DKH]

Was it Quaider? Just wink twice if I'm right.

no but I like Quaider- we are PM buddies; I'm working on convincing him Gee Wally, not Geez Wally is a great guy- not that each care

 

[Ladyfan]

I am hearing next week a deal gets done. Take it fwiw...

I hope you are right.

 

[Number8]

For most of us to have our pay cut 24% would mean we'd no longer be able to afford to live, or at the very least would have to cut out or cut back on quite a few necessities to do so. That's obviously not the case with these guys who can afford multiple houses, multiple vehicles, and a plethora of toys to boot.

Also, players enter into their contracts knowing full well CBA negotiations can and most likely will redefine those terms. In that context, you may not like it but it's something you have to accept. I get a bonus yearly based on the companies profit margin and in certain years because the company didn't meet expectations (set by the owners) for profit margin the bonus was held back. I didn't like it, but I didn't refuse to work because I didn't get it. It was cushion money, not a necessity I needed to live.

So the players are wealthy. Big deal. So are the owners -- in most cases many many times more so. Your argument that that somehow justifies a bogus initial offer is like me coming to you and saying "hey, I see you just paid off your mortgage -- now that you can afford it I'm raising your property taxes by a couple grand a year".

I'm not saying these guys aren't lucky and or tremendously blessed. I was just saying that anyone who can casually say that the players should have just chuckled at the first low ball offer and not been offended is not operating in reality -- and I don't care how little or much you make.

And as far as the bolded goes, this is a lockout, not a strike.

Bottom line is the NHL came in with an obnoxious offer at the outset. Either they are fools (perhaps this is true given how badly they screwed the math in the last CBA despite wide acceptance that they "won" that round) or they wanted the lockout in place for several months or the whole year to begin with. Either way, it paints them in an entirely unpleasant light.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Spoken like someone who has never had a boss come to them and say "I'm cutting your pay by 24% and until you accept, I'm locking the doors and you can take a long unpaid vacation."

Unless you're Mahatma Gandhi, I call bull crap on your ability to simply "laugh it off" and make a counter offer.

First of all, I don't think that even remotely resembles what happened.

I think the owners said something along the lines of, "Revenues in the previous CBA has been split 57%-43% in favor of the players. Our first offer reverses that to 57%-43% in favor of the owners."

Then very shortly they had come real close to 50%-50%, or had even agreed to it.

But the players, instead of keeping things in perspective, and keeping the best interest of both themselves and the sport in mind, are playing the victim because the first offer hurt their feelings, at least according to the article I quoted.

And, in no way shape or form to I resemble Mahatma Gandhi, but in negotiations I have no issues with laughhing it off and presenting a counter offer.

And call bull crap all you want, I could not care less what you think of me, but I would never dream of giving up 1/3 of a year's salary or more because of feeling insulted by an initial offer.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Spoken like someone who has never had a boss come to them and say "I'm cutting your pay by 24% and until you accept, I'm locking the doors and you can take a long unpaid vacation."

Unless you're Mahatma Gandhi, I call bull crap on your ability to simply "laugh it off" and make a counter offer.

Oh, and by the way, about 3-1/2 years ago my boss came to me and said "We're cutting everyone's hours from 40 to 32 to avoid laying people off."

I wasn't insulted. I was ecstatic to keep my job at all.

I said, that sucks, but it's awesome that we can all keep our jobs, even with a 20% pay cut.

So, not 24% but damn close enough for my argument.

And 20 months later, when we finally went back to 40 hours, I was one day away from having my home foreclosed on. One day.

The NHL and the NHLPA can all go fist themselves as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

So the players are wealthy. Big deal. So are the owners -- in most cases many many times more so. Your argument that that somehow justifies a bogus initial offer is like me coming to you and saying "hey, I see you just paid off your mortgage -- now that you can afford it I'm raising your property taxes by a couple grand a year".

I'm not saying these guys aren't lucky and or tremendously blessed. I was just saying that anyone who can casually say that the players should have just chuckled at the first low ball offer and not been offended is not operating in reality -- and I don't care how little or much you make.

And as far as the bolded goes, this is a lockout, not a strike.

Bottom line is the NHL came in with an obnoxious offer at the outset. Either they are fools (perhaps this is true given how badly they screwed the math in the last CBA despite wide acceptance that they "won" that round) or they wanted the lockout in place for several months or the whole year to begin with. Either way, it paints them in an entirely unpleasant light.[/QUOTE]


I agree with all of the bolded.

My point is that if the PA are still worked up about that now, 6 or 8 or 10 weeks into it, and are stubbornly losing more of the season because the intial offer was low-ball, than they themselves are being fools.

Edit: 12 or 13 weeks into it.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

So the players are wealthy. Big deal. So are the owners -- in most cases many many times more so. Your argument that that somehow justifies a bogus initial offer is like me coming to you and saying "hey, I see you just paid off your mortgage -- now that you can afford it I'm raising your property taxes by a couple grand a year".

I'm not saying these guys aren't lucky and or tremendously blessed. I was just saying that anyone who can casually say that the players should have just chuckled at the first low ball offer and not been offended is not operating in reality -- and I don't care how little or much you make.

And as far as the bolded goes, this is a lockout, not a strike.

Bottom line is the NHL came in with an obnoxious offer at the outset. Either they are fools (perhaps this is true given how badly they screwed the math in the last CBA despite wide acceptance that they "won" that round) or they wanted the lockout in place for several months or the whole year to begin with. Either way, it paints them in an entirely unpleasant light.

this whole argument about the owners being wealthy i think is ultimately whats clouding the issue. somehow everyone expects them to just lose money on owning sports teams or at the very least settle for very meagher profit returns.

sure theres a handful of teams that obviously make tons of money but in general in the world of sports most teams lose money on a regular basis or barely break even.

i always try to come up with easy unemotional ways to make an example point of how i see things. so im going to try again.

so lets all agree that most sports owners/nhl owners are rich and even billionares... and all own other successful businesses that help them get rich. DO ANY OF US THINK that these owners should be FORCED to operate a blacksmith in their home town or operate a typewriter buisness or even a hamburger stand where they have to sell the burgers at half price? I mean logically, these billionares are rich enough that they could easily operate a variety of money losing buisnesses for us and still have money but really?

hockey isnt a typewriter business or even a hamburger stand... owning sports teams is VANITY for the owners. So, i dont think anyone is saying that the owners deserve a guarantee of huge profits. Even they themselves arent asking for that. I think they know if owning sports teams became too profitable, that every tom dick and harry would start up rival leagues to cash in on the golden cow. So, i dont think these VAIN EGOTISTICAL men want to make their league too profitable. I also KNOW due to the human nature of the people involved, that no matter what system they put inplace... they will still very happily spend OBSCENES AMOUNT OF MONEY to get the best players on their teams. That is what they own teams for anyhow... to show off their wealth and power.

so thinking that the players are going to be hurt in the long run... is just wrong. So what this battle is really coming down to is the owners want protection against the other owners and against the fans DEMANDS/expectations when the numbers just get too INSANE even for ego to deal with.

Owners are willing to lose some money to satisfy their ego.. but they have a limit in their own minds what that number is. They will spend OBSCENE money on the home they live... the car they drive... the wine they drink... but there is always a limit how much. The limit is way more then you and I would spend, but it still exists.

In a club/league like the NHL... you are in competition against your most STUPID competitor when it comes right down to it. The way arbitration works... and the way fans revolt if they dont feel their team is keeping up with the Jones and Smiths... you end up having to compete against your most stupid competitor SO GETTING PROTECTION AGAINST 'THEMSELVES' actually is a valid hill to die on.

again... even with so called protection... many owners will still EGOTISTICALLY attempt to get around the rules to showoff and play god with their own vanity toys. The players will still end up very very very very very very well looked after.

this int 1950 where 6 grumpy old men were the only people interested in owning a hockey team. Unions may have outlived their purpose in todays world, but in 1950 the fights were still needed to be fought. Players were taken advantage of in the 1950s and maybe even the 1960s and 1970s to but its been over 30 years since anyone can argue that the owners were abusing any players.

i mean just think about our own reactions whever we hear a player signs a new deal. Is it more then 1 out of 100 contracts were we say... wow i thought he would get more? And how often do we say that the owners paid the player too much? maybe 50% of the time? 60%?

the players are not being abused anymore...

we all laugh and say how stupid it is when an owner hands a player a contract for 10-12 years or whatever... we laugh at roberto louongo because of his long term deal but the dude is actually a good goalie with a low annual cap hit... but we laugh because how long his contract is.

as fans... we laugh... we know long term deals are insane and stupid. we laugh at the rick dipietro situation not because of the annual payout but because of the length of the deal.. we laugh... we know long term deals are stupid. we laugh at alex rodriguez in baseball now... we laugh because we know long term guaranteed deals are insane...

so this is the battle hill the owners are willing to die on... and YES they do want protection against themselves because if the most stupidests owners are willing to hand out long term deals then all the other owners MUST do it too or lose the most choice shinniest players from their teams.

owners could afford to lose the money and keep going... or they just sell off the bottom 10-12 teams in the league every 5-7 years and sucker some new owner into losing money on those teams for the next 5-7 years like they have been doing for the past 20-30 years now. It could keep going this way...

but there is BETTER ways to go. The players DONT NEED an average salary of 2.5 mill per year. Other then the top 50-100 superstars in the league... no other players sell tickets/merchandise on the strength of their own individual name/likeness. Whether they are better players then the guys in the AHL or KHL or Swedish Elite league or not... doesnt matter. If the middle class of players were suddenly all replaced by the lowest class and then the lowest class got replaced by the AHL... it wouldnt matter at all to most of us fans and ticket buyers.

We would get used to it very quickly. Its not the quality of the middle class of players that makes the game something we enjoy... and actually if the coaches were willing to open up the play... most of us would enjoy the game more with lesser skilled players playing an open game then we do higher skilled players playing a trap anyhow...

so its not the middle class of players that generate revenues anyhow... anyone wearing NHL uniforms would create just as much revenue as the middle class players do now.

thats the thing... the superstars deserve their money... absolutely
and the lowest class deserves a good mininum wage for their years of sacrafice

gut its the middle class tht is really screwing the economics of the NHL and most the other sports leagues too... and they dont really help the owners get an ego rush either... so when an owner is losing money or trying to be happy with a profit of 1-3 million dollers on his 200 million dollar investment and players like Shawn Horcorff and David Jones are making 4-6 mill a year... that is why we have a lockout.

if fans understood this... i think fans would finally understand why there is a lockout and why the owners would be happy to have a chance to void all the contracts and get a do-over

sure its all scary scary issues coming since there is antitrust consdierations if there are unions... and right to work laws... and such involved...

a draft wouldnt be legal without a union signed cba. nor would restricted free agency. so... its a scary world to be entering into...

but if the owners had a chance to break the current union... redo all the contracts... then get a new union to form.... im sure theyd love it.

they do have other businesses to live on in the meantime...

the players do not. Ultimately the players can go to europe for non guaranteed jobs that pay a fraction of the money here... or they can come with their tails between their legs to whatever the owners are willing to give them once the new league starts up...

it would still be good money... cause the owners still wont want to leave the door open for competitors... but it wont be anywhere near what the MIDDLE CLASS gets now. Superstars might very well get 25-30 mill a year under a deregulated system but middle class players sure as hell wont.

so thats what the players are dying for right now... so that the top 10-15% of them can get more money and the rest can take HUGE PAY CUTS...

i wish they were a bit more educated so they could see the real battle they are dying on the hill to fight

and all the while us fans suffer...

the owners ultimately will be able to come out of this successfully no matter how it ends up. They are billionares as we all say. They do have other businesses to live off while they get their hockey league fixed. We dont have to agree with them... they can do this with/without our agreement. It is their choice to make. They have decided they dont want long contracts to players anymore and need a 50/50 split in revenues.

since there is no legitimate rival league for the players to go to... ultimately the owners have ALL the power to keep the NHL shut down until the players eventually break. The players only weapon is disolving the union which will hurt the vast majority of them.

eventually its the owners who own the buildings. When the dust all settles it will be the owners that own the new league that rises from the ashes. The owners currently lose money or make no profit so if they create a new league 2-3-4 years down the road where they are suddenly making a 10% return or better on their investments... the down time will not matter at all to them. They will come out to the good before the decade is over.

billionares can take the long view picture.

players with average careers 5-7 years or whatever they have... cant.

if anyone was saying that the players had to take like a 50% pay cut then I suppose they might get some sympathy... or even another 24% might do it. But we all know that despite taking a 24% one time hit last cba their average yearly contracts actually doubled over the next 6 years anyhow.

so its real real real real hard to find sympaty for the poor hard done by players when we know the owners are going to give them such crazy money anyhow.

let the owners have their protection against their most stupid competitors and get the game playing again. 5 year contracts that are guaranteed are way more then anyone else in the world ever gets. Other then the Crosby/Toews/Stamkos of the league... us fans dont want our teams to be giving guys like Gomez/Diepitro/Horcorff and company 5 year deals anyhow. How many of us wanted Ryder to have his deal until we won the cup? We kept saying send him to the minors because hes untradable and killing our cap and has too much time left to be deal...

long term deals in general suck more often then they work out unless a player is legitimately a top 50 player in the league.

anyhow... rambled and made my post too long again. sorry... but i sure wish that people could get it. Owners might be billionares, but the points they are fighting for here are in reality the points that the majority of us fans would also be fighting for. The owners are in the right again

and the players... are going to win reguardless of the outcome because their salaries will continue to go up... and there isnt a place on the earth they could go to where theyd get even half as much money anywhere else.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

and the players... are going to win reguardless of the outcome because their salaries will continue to go up... and there isnt a place on the earth they could go to where theyd get even half as much money anywhere else.

AOF, I didn't read the whole post but the last line sums it up for me.

Drop the puck!

 

[Kaoz*]

So the players are wealthy. Big deal. So are the owners -- in most cases many many times more so. Your argument that that somehow justifies a bogus initial offer is like me coming to you and saying "hey, I see you just paid off your mortgage -- now that you can afford it I'm raising your property taxes by a couple grand a year".

I'm not saying these guys aren't lucky and or tremendously blessed. I was just saying that anyone who can casually say that the players should have just chuckled at the first low ball offer and not been offended is not operating in reality -- and I don't care how little or much you make.

And as far as the bolded goes, this is a lockout, not a strike.

Bottom line is the NHL came in with an obnoxious offer at the outset. Either they are fools (perhaps this is true given how badly they screwed the math in the last CBA despite wide acceptance that they "won" that round) or they wanted the lockout in place for several months or the whole year to begin with. Either way, it paints them in an entirely unpleasant light.

It's actually nothing like that. The reason is nothing like as I didn't go into my employment with the understanding that at the end of the current workers CBA there was a good chance the terms of my contract would change. Because that understanding wasn't there when I signed that contract yes, yes I would be upset if the company I worked for came to me and said "we're rolling back your salary 24%". If it had of been there though...

I did sign a contract for employment with my company however that made quite clear bonuses could be renegotiated based on how much money the company makes. I understand that, and understand also that losing out on it every so often is to be expected. I knew what I was getting into when I chose the company I work for and if I have a real issue with it I can always leave.

If NHL players weren't aware that they signed a contract governed by the current CBA and that during renegotiation the union and the league could make decisions that would affect that contract, then they were uninformed and that's on them. I don't believe that to be the case at all, I believe they all knew CBA negotiations is part of a career in the NHL.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

It's actually nothing like that. The reason its nothing like that is that I didn't go into my employment with the understanding that at the end of the current workers CBA there was a good chance the terms of my contract would change.

I did sign a contract for employment with my company however that made quite clear bonuses could be renegotiated based on how much money the company makes. I understand that, and understand also that losing out on it every so often is to be expected. I knew what I was getting into when I chose the company I work for and if I have a real issue with it I can always leave.

If NHL players weren't aware that they signed a contract governed by the current CBA and that during renegotiation the union and the league could make decisions that would affect that contract, then they were uninformed and that's on them. I don't believe that to be the case at all, I believe they all knew CBA negotiations is part of a career in the NHL.

Unfortunately, there's going to be a whole generation of players and fans who believe that a lock-out is part of a career in the NHL.

 

[TheReal13Linseman]

Unfortunately, there's going to be a whole generation of players and fans who believe that a lock-out is part of a career in the NHL.

The League sets itself back 5 years in the "street cred" department everytime it does this. In the US, hockey is already a weak sports platform. I dare say that Major League Soccer is, or will be, this country's "fourth" sport before long.

In the 21st century, there's more than enough external stimuli, sports or non-sports, to keep people entertained. Losing hockey, even to fairly strong fans, really hasn't affected anyone nearly to the degree that the NHLPA or the League thinks.

Too bad. It was a fun sport to watch. Guess I'll go tune into Gold Rush. Good job, boys.

 

[Shaun]

Jermaine to the Wiggy Wig says sources tell him the lockout will end in January.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Jermaine to the Wiggy Wig says sources tell him the lockout will end in January.

He's gettin' wiggy widdit!

Falls in line with what some "in the know" around here have said.

I hope they're right.

 

[DoubleAAAA]

Jermaine to the Wiggy Wig says sources tell him the lockout will end in January.

I thought Wiggy's sources told him it was going to end 2 weeks ago?

 

[Ratty]

Jermaine to the Wiggy Wig says sources tell him the lockout will end in January.

Who do you suppose his sources are? Isn't this the same guy whose "sources" told him the lockout would end in December?

 

[EverettMike]

For most of us to have our pay cut 24% would mean we'd no longer be able to afford to live, or at the very least would have to cut out or cut back on quite a few necessities to do so. That's obviously not the case with these guys who can afford multiple houses, multiple vehicles, and a plethora of toys to boot.

So what?

It is either right or wrong, why does the salary matter in right or wrong? It matters in whether or not you feel sympathy for them (I do not), but it shouldn't matter if it is right or fair or not.

We can disagree on the question of the offers and if they are fair or not, but the amount of money involved shouldn't influence that debate.

Also, players enter into their contracts knowing full well CBA negotiations can and most likely will redefine those terms. In that context, you may not like it but it's something you have to accept. I get a bonus yearly based on the companies profit margin and in certain years because the company didn't meet expectations (set by the owners) for profit margin the bonus was held back. I didn't like it, but I didn't refuse to work because I didn't get it. It was cushion money, not a necessity I needed to live.

Your analogy doesn't fit.

Did you sign a contract with your company? Is that contract up for re-negotiation? Would you try to negotiate terms you thought were the best you could get or deserved? Or would you just take what they tell you you should get?

You are saying you don't refuse to work when you don't get your bonus, but you agreed to those parameters when you took the job on the bonus.

This example just isn't close to the deal with the CBA. Also, the players are not refusing to work. They would work right now. The issue is the parameters they will work under in the future.

 

[Ratty]

He's gettin' wiggy widdit!

Falls in line with what some "in the know" around here have said.

I hope they're right.

Wait. Who's "in the know" around here? So far I haven't seen anything remotely close to accurate predictions.

 

[Therick67]

I officially don't care any more, and I've been a die-hard since 77.

 

[DKH]

Wait. Who's "in the know" around here? So far I haven't seen anything remotely close to accurate predictions.

I had November 15th

but now I'm going by December 28th

after that date I become a Life Coach coming here to tell peope what to do with their Bruins tickets and even other life stuff

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Wait. Who's "in the know" around here? So far I haven't seen anything remotely close to accurate predictions.

didn't mean to speak for anybody else....sorry.

Just hope Wiggy's right.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

I had November 15th

but now I'm going by December 28th

after that date I become a Life Coach coming here to tell peope what to do with their Bruins tickets and even other life stuff

That would be good.

I could sure use a good talking to, no doubt.

 

[Pie O My]

I officially don't care any more, and I've been a die-hard since 77.

i'm right with you on the apathy bandwagon. I'm tired of the NHL version of the fiscal cliff and have no more interest in Hockey Related Residue and 50/50 coin flips.

 

[EverettMike]

i'm right with you on the apathy bandwagon. I'm tired of the NHL version of the fiscal cliff and have no more interest in Hockey Related Residue and 50/50 coin flips.

Amazingly, the fiscal cliff will have a resolution before the CBA.

 

[Ratty]

didn't mean to speak for anybody else....sorry.

Just hope Wiggy's right.

Hey, I hope he's right too. And Steve Burton as well, if he comes up with another "source".

Until I hear the word from Bettman or Fehr or a reputable source such as TSN, I'm planning only to be at Development Camp a week or so after the Draft.