All's Fehr in Love and War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part VII

[Hank Chinaski]

Continue here.

Click to read more...

 

[RappinHobo]

There's a meeting going on right now right?

 

[Deebo]

There's a meeting going on right now right?

Drug testing is today's topic, it seems.

 

[Shrimper]

There's a meeting going on right now right?

There's meetings this week I believe. Not sure when.

 

[Krishna]

Love puns. Good title

 

[Deebo]

There's meetings this week I believe. Not sure when.

Today.

 

[kdb209]

09-10-2012 Sides 'a long way apart' (MOD: CBA negotiations status thread)
09-13-2012 Lockout Looming (MOD: CBA negotiations status thread) - Part II
09-15-2012 No last ditch attempt to avoid lockout (CBA Negotiations status thread) - Part III
09-21-2012 Only game being played is the blame game(CBA Negotiation discussion thread) - Part IV
09-30-2012 When this tree fell in the forest, who noticed? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part V
10-05-2012 For a Few Dollars More (CBA & Lockout Discussion)- Part VI
10-11-2012 All's Fehr in Love and War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part VII

Coming soon: index of other Lockout threads.

 

[MaskedSonja]

I'm just waiting for them to agree on SOMETHING: my understanding is that they can't even get on the same page as far as "small stuff", never mind the big economic issues.

I swear I'm going to see a headline in the future on TSN: "NHL AND NHLPA AGREE.........on the basic definition of HRR"

That would be news in itself I would think.

As I read more and more players going to Europe/Russia to play hockey-that suggests to me they are being told by the NHLPA "may as well go play there, we aren't going to be playing for a long time yet"

 

[Dukes72]

When do you think the lockout will be settled by?

I was thinking that it was going to be a very long lockout, as it appeared that each camp was digging in.

But, after learning that Bettman and Fehr met over the weekend, "unscheduled", I am started to think they realize the backlash this time around, and that we, the fans (who create ALL the revenues - directly or indirectly) see that it is about greed, and nothing more.

Last time, we could atleast see that the owners were trying to implement the cap system, but this time around, it is simply pigs at the trough - who gets a bigger slice of the pie we give them.

Given this, I am thinking it will be sorted out sooner rather than later - I am guessing by the first half of (M)November.

Thoughts?

 

[Krishna]

I'm just waiting for them to agree on SOMETHING: my understanding is that they can't even get on the same page as far as "small stuff", never mind the big economic issues.

I swear I'm going to see a headline in the future on TSN: "NHL AND NHLPA AGREE.........on the basic definition of HRR"

That would be news in itself I would think.

As I read more and more players going to Europe/Russia to play hockey-that suggests to me they are being told by the NHLPA "may as well go play there, we aren't going to be playing for a long time yet"

I thought they stopped arguing over changing the definition of HRR

 

[MaskedSonja]

I thought they stopped arguing over changing the definition of HRR

See, I'm hearing two stories : one is that they agreed on the hrr defintion, but then I've also heard that the "old" definition of hrr was the one that was "taken off the table" when NHL had their "take or leave it" offer last day before lockout.

So if someone can clarify truly which of these scenarios is true, it would be greatly appreciated!

http://www.whizwitsports.com/1/post/2012/10/nhl-lockout-hockey-relate-revenue-definition-talks.html

This is the most recent article I can find (dated Oct 2) and they still were looking to define HRR revenues it seems-now if there's something later that confirms they have indeed stopped arguing about it, it would be good to read it.

 

[ricky0034]

at this point i'm just hoping there aren't any missed games next year

 

[Harry22]

Deal will get done mid December for a January 1st start. 50-game season.

 

[Mike Jones]

As I read more and more players going to Europe/Russia to play hockey-that suggests to me they are being told by the NHLPA "may as well go play there, we aren't going to be playing for a long time yet"

I still find it funny that the players couldn't negotiate while they were playing here in North America but they're going to do it while playing over in Europe.

What gives? Is the wireless better over there or something?

 

[oilexport]

I think the Owners have a good argument for a 50/50 split. The more revenue grows, so does the expenses, yet the players don't pay expenses so thier share naturally grows every year disproportionally.

There is a good chance that in the future, the same problem still develops as the Gross/Net money grows disproportionally in favour of the Players. The Owners will want 55 or 60% next contract, the Players are complaining that this will happen but don't they realize why ???

I don't buy the Players argument about "it's the owners giving out big contracts, not us!!". My response to that is these Owners are challenged to put a good product on the ice and make a push into the playoffs so they could make money. It is a fact that the top 10 Teams drive up the salary numbers so that the bottom 20 Teams are forced to pay these contracts, (they do it under duress). So the players have a good argument here about revenue sharing but it's not the main solution, it's a secondary consideration because those 10 Teams cannot support 20 others. If the Revenue model was reversed with 20 Teams doing very well with 10 Teams suffering, then I buy the solution of Revenue sharing.

Right now, it sounds like those 20 Teams out vote the 10 Teams when Bettman takes a poll for locking out players.

am I missing something here...

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

December 31. 2014

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www2.tbo.com/sports/lightnin...ly-fans-need-to-send-nhl-a-message-ar-528599/

The NHL always says its fans are the greatest in the world. The fans proved it in the way they came back after the last lockout. So, what does the NHL do? It abuses that. What do the league's owners do? They use The Fans Will Come Back as a club to beat the players into submission, again.
...
Remember the NHL after the last lockout? Remember that "Thank You, Fans" message stenciled on ice surfaces across the continent when the game finally returned.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if this time fans made a stand, just once, if they got together across the league on Opening Night … and didn't show up? You know, No Thanks?

I wouldn't blame them.

 

[Godzilla]

There will be no 2012-2013 season. Hockey will resume just in time for the start of the 2013-2014 season.

Book it.

 

[MasterDecoy]

http://www2.tbo.com/sports/lightnin...ly-fans-need-to-send-nhl-a-message-ar-528599/

deal. so what do we do for punishing the players? i vote for tomatoes

 

[I Believe]

I'm hoping for mid-november, but I can see the winter classic signaling the start of the season.

 

[Hockey Crazy]

deal. so what do we do for punishing the players? i vote for tomatoes

It punishes the players too since it hurts the league's HRR numbers. Tomatoes works too though. I'm not going to any NHL games this year if they get a season in. I'll watch on TV, but wont spend anything on tickets or merch.

 

[Gberg]

I think the Owners have a good argument for a 50/50 split. The more revenue grows, so does the expenses, yet the players don't pay expenses so thier share naturally grows every year disproportionally.

There is a good chance that in the future, the same problem still develops as the Gross/Net money grows disproportionally in favour of the Players. The Owners will want 55 or 60% next contract, the Players are complaining that this will happen but don't they realize why ???

I don't buy the Players argument about "it's the owners giving out big contracts, not us!!". My response to that is these Owners are challenged to put a good product on the ice and make a push into the playoffs so they could make money. It is a fact that the top 10 Teams drive up the salary numbers so that the bottom 20 Teams are forced to pay these contracts, (they do it under duress). So the players have a good argument here about revenue sharing but it's not the main solution, it's a secondary consideration because those 10 Teams cannot support 20 others. If the Revenue model was reversed with 20 Teams doing very well with 10 Teams suffering, then I buy the solution of Revenue sharing.

Right now, it sounds like those 20 Teams out vote the 10 Teams when Bettman takes a poll for locking out players.

am I missing something here...

You certainly are missing something here. Owners are spending to the cap, when the team doesn't have the money. They want their team competitive at any cost. In their minds, if they become a solid playoff team, maybe even win the cup, they'll start becoming profitable! If they don't make the playoffs, or the fans still don't come to games, then it's, "oh well, let's cry how poor we are and hammer the players in the next CBA negotiations".

In my mind, you can't just mismanage a team and then blame it on the player's salaries. I think the player's do need to give back a little, but the revenue sharing model makes sense. How is it fair that if the player's gave in, that the remaining 20 teams become profitable (despite poor management/location/performance), and the 10 already immensely profitable teams start raking in even more profit. There needs to be compromise.

 

[Bubba Thudd]

I think the Owners have a good argument for a 50/50 split. The more revenue grows, so does the expenses, yet the players don't pay expenses so thier share naturally grows every year disproportionally.

There is a good chance that in the future, the same problem still develops as the Gross/Net money grows disproportionally in favour of the Players. The Owners will want 55 or 60% next contract, the Players are complaining that this will happen but don't they realize why ???

I don't buy the Players argument about "it's the owners giving out big contracts, not us!!". My response to that is these Owners are challenged to put a good product on the ice and make a push into the playoffs so they could make money. It is a fact that the top 10 Teams drive up the salary numbers so that the bottom 20 Teams are forced to pay these contracts, (they do it under duress). So the players have a good argument here about revenue sharing but it's not the main solution, it's a secondary consideration because those 10 Teams cannot support 20 others. If the Revenue model was reversed with 20 Teams doing very well with 10 Teams suffering, then I buy the solution of Revenue sharing.

Right now, it sounds like those 20 Teams out vote the 10 Teams when Bettman takes a poll for locking out players.

am I missing something here...

Hmmm, then how about changing it so that no player can get more than 10% of the cap instead of 20%?

 

[I Believe]

I'm wondering how the amount of revenue the owners lose for having a year wiped out, compares with with the amount they gain by having a more favorable 50/50 split. Would there be a gain in the end?

 

[GoJetsGo55]

What entitles the players to the extra 14% they are getting over the owners?

If one cannot exist without the other, why is it not 50/50?