Don, I Don't Think This Cone Of Silence Is Working (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXIV

[Bologna 1]

i dont know but i get a sense that there might be some confustion between the two sides as a result of a bit of the tenseness of the ending of yesterdays meeting. im not sure they are completely understanding one anothers proposed ideas (or whatever you wanna call them). i think its time for daly and s. fehr to touch base this morning and clarify things. sometimes when you are able to take a step back, sleep on everything and cool off that is a positive thing.

 

[helicecopter]

Yeah... B.S. made up by 3 credible writers.

you still think Grange to be a credible writer?

after his last article reporting blatantly false statements?

 

[helicecopter]

Is that good faith bargaining (if that's true, what Brooks writes)? I don't think so ...

again, it is NOT.

 

[Dalton]

So the big question? Can they start November 23rd and still get 82 games?Would/Should an 82 game schedule plus the make whole get it done? Already rejected?

If they don't then the NHL might lose more money paying back sponsors who paid for 82 games. Apparently the league is trying to get the players to pay for this despite the fact that the NHL is soley responsibly for the lack of hockey games being played. I would imagine that the union would respond to that demand with a demand that the league pay the players for missed games.

 

[King Woodballs]

you still think Grange to be a credible writer?

after his last article reporting blatantly false statements?

Because Fehr has always been known to tell the truth.

 

[JoeLH]

again, it is NOT.

Ok, pro-rated, i see. Thanks!

 

[King Woodballs]

If they don't then the NHL might lose more money paying back sponsors who paid for 82 games. Apparently the league is trying to get the players to pay for this despite the fact that the NHL is soley responsibly for the lack of hockey games being played. I would imagine that the union would respond to that demand with a demand that the league pay the players for missed games.

There is no way possible this isnt a sarcastic remark.
Because this is completly not true

 

[Tra La La]

Link?

I agree with their thinking but I haven't read this anywhere and Fehr is clearly stating that this is not true.

The union is using what the players would have received this year as a starting point in negotiations which is perfectly sensible.

Your boss wants to reduce your pay 25%. Wouldn't you want that amount reduced from your actual current pay rather than some lower number made up by your boss?

It's The only way their could be a 600 million dollar difference. The league fully covers the 57 to 50% transition in their make whole. As I said " it seems " they want the missed games added to make whole. If someone knows what the extra 600 million is for hopefully the post it. But I can't see what else it could be.

 

[Devil Dancer]

This came out last night. The confusion stemmed from the fact that the PA just wanted to calculate the 2012-2013 player share based on a particular formula, and then adjust for games lost to the lockout. Whoever reported it initially forgot or chose not to include the crucial second part of prorating the player's share.

 

[Dalton]

The statement is as bad as the players comparing their 10% salary reduction to a guy making $50k. Ok going from 5.0 million to 4.5 million and getting some of that 500k back next year with interest does in no way compare to a guy making 50k going to 45k. Other than the are both 10% reductions. The amount that loss means to the lifestyles of those two people are completely different.

Apples and oranges. In a capitalist democracy people are free to earn whatever they can. If this weren't true then people would never have been able to accumulate the wealth to own hockey teams.

With their wealth people can buy different things. One guy is in the wealth range to buy a motor scooter while another can buy a Ferari. Both would feel the same sense of loss if their buying power was curtailed by their boss arbitrarily lowering their wages. This could be very, very problematic if either was unable to continue a payment they had contracted to do. But then in the Bettman fantasy world one can just change contract values at a whim.

I think I'll call my bank tomorrow and tell them to reduce the value of the money I borrowed and spent by 25%. Then I'll call my boss and tell him to pay me 25% more. Must be nice.

 

[Dalton]

There is no way possible this isnt a sarcastic remark.
Because this is completly not true

It is absolutely true. Gary Bettman announced a lockout and killed hockey. What BS are you selling? Take it elsewhere.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

As per the NHL's agreement with NBC, NBC is paying the NHL this season, but the NHL is required to add an extra year to NBC's deal FREE OF CHARGE. So while yes, the league is getting paid for this season, they need to provide NBC with a season for free 10 years from now, which would invariably be worth MUCH more than this year's season would be worth (inflation, expected increase in revenue, etc...). The NHL is entirely out an entire year's worth of TV revenue... that loss is just delayed until the end of the current TV deal instead of taking effect this year.

So the idea that the league is just "taking advertizing money" this year without there being a season, and without repercussions to future years, is false.

*EDIT*
Here's the link with details of the NBC/NHL lockout clause in case you want it

Right, but that doesn't make it less galling for the players.

In the event of a lost season, the owners get to pocket 100 percent of that money for this year, right? They then "split" the free year that comes a decade from now.

 

[Dalton]

It's The only way their could be a 600 million dollar difference. The league fully covers the 57 to 50% transition in their make whole. As I said " it seems " they want the missed games added to make whole. If someone knows what the extra 600 million is for hopefully the post it. But I can't see what else it could be.

Clearly this not true. They offered to maybe cover the next two years of existing contracts. That is not the same as honouring existing contracts in full.

 

[Tra La La]

again, it is NOT.

If they aren't asking to be made whole for an 82 game season? how is the league 600 million short on make whole? Every cent of contracts as Fehr said. It's Fehr's double talk.

 

[NinthSpoke06]

The owners should just cancel the season now. **** Donald Fehr. Seriously, just tell the players when you fire Donald Fehr we can get back to the negotiating table and work on getting a fair deal for next season.

 

[NinthSpoke06]

Clearly this not true. They offered to maybe cover the next two years of existing contracts. That is not the same as honouring existing contracts in full.

That is because if these idiots didn't ruin this year and the fanbase....growth of the league WOULD have covered years 3 through the end of the contracts.

 

[Butch 19]

There is no way possible this isnt a sarcastic remark.
Because this is completly not true

yeah, that sentence just jumped off the screen at you too didn't it?

"... the NHL is soley responsibly for the lack of hockey games being played." that's just some great stuff right there.

 

[Dalton]

Judging by the clear misinformation being posted on this board I'd think that the attack on Fehr was just a distraction in the continued efforts by the league to win popular opinion. Perhaps its multi-tasking

I suspect Bettman and his law firm have no intention whatsoever of negotiating with the union. I think this goes on into next season if the sponsors share the union busting ideals of this law firm and its former employees.

 

[McJeety McJeet]

Clearly this not true. They offered to maybe cover the next two years of existing contracts. That is not the same as honouring existing contracts in full.

Umm didn't Mathieu Schnedier just talk about capping escrow??? Does the NHLPA talking about a cap on escrow sound like honouring all contracts in full??? Aren't these two ideas in conflict with each other???

 

[Positive]

Apples and oranges. In a capitalist democracy people are free to earn whatever they can. If this weren't true then people would never have been able to accumulate the wealth to own hockey teams.

With their wealth people can buy different things. One guy is in the wealth range to buy a motor scooter while another can buy a Ferari. Both would feel the same sense of loss if their buying power was curtailed by their boss arbitrarily lowering their wages. This could be very, very problematic if either was unable to continue a payment they gad contracted to do. But then in the Bettman fantasy world one can just change contract values at a whim.

I think I'll call my bank tomorrow and tell them to reduce the number of the moeny I borrowed by 25%. Then I'll call my boss and tell him to pay me 25% more. Must be nice.

Same sense of loss? Not really.

There are different levels of disposable income here. A 25% pay cut for the 50k guy might mean trouble making a mortgage payment, or perhaps paying some medical bills. Not buying new clothes for his kids this school year. A reduction of his disposable income by say, 50 to 100 percent. A possible impact on basic human needs. A 25% pay cut doesn't have this same affect on a guy making an NHL level salary.

 

[NinthSpoke06]

Judging by the clear misinformation being posted on this board I'd think that the attack on Fehr was just a distraction in the continued efforts by the league to win popular opinion. Perhaps its multi-tasking

I suspect Bettman and his law firm have no intention whatsoever of negotiating with the union. I think this goes on into next season if the sponsors share the union busting ideals of this law firm and its former employees.

Hate this crap.

Neither side is going to win public opinion. Neither side is going to come out of this looking good. Both lose. Both look like jackasses. The only reason people bring that garbage up is when they want to say "oh the side I support in this lockout is getting a raw deal"

********. Both sides are clowns. Both sides are ruining the sport.

 

[Milan90]

Clearly this not true. They offered to maybe cover the next two years of existing contracts. That is not the same as honouring existing contracts in full.

The players who are basically causing th problem are all locked up under long term deals pretty much. Honouring existing contracts would mean that the problematic contracts would still be intact until this next unsigned CBA expires.

 

[BonkTastic]

Right, but that doesn't make it less galling for the players.

In the event of a lost season, the owners get to pocket 100 percent of that money for this year, right? They then "split" the free year that comes a decade from now.

The players would be getting half of that money this year if they were playing right now. They'd also be getting regular paychecks.

Players are leaving a heap of cash on the table right now. It's not worth getting indignant about unless the season is truly lost. Bargaining from the position of assuming the season is lost is bad faith bargaining, therefore at this point in the negotiations, the players shouldn't even care about the NBC money: if they play this year, they'll get it. They need to work towards playing this year.

The minute the negotiation turns to recouping expenses associated with a lost season, we can kiss said season goodbye.

 

[DegenX]

Money ... Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie ...

 

[Dalton]

Same sense of loss? Not really.

There are different levels of disposable income here. A 25% pay cut for the 50k guy might mean trouble making a mortgage payment, or perhaps paying some medical bills. Not buying new clothes for his kids this school year. A reduction of his disposable income by say, 50 to 100 percent. A possible impact on basic human needs. A 25% pay cut doesn't have this same affect on a guy making an NHL level salary.

Yes really. Your mortgage is due. You can't make the payments anymore because your boss cut your pay by 25%. You'll have to try to sell before you lose the house. Uprooting your family. You can't buy the same disposable good that you could before. Explain this to your kids. Now you tell me what the value of the mortgage is.