hockeytown9321
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2004
- 2,358
- 0
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106456
Anybody still want to beleive the owners are willing to compromise?
Anybody still want to beleive the owners are willing to compromise?
hockeytown9321 said:http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106456
Anybody still want to beleive the owners are willing to compromise?
Thunderstruck said:Goodenow says no to "soft cap".
Anybody still want to believe the players are willing to compromise?
Thunderstruck said:Goodenow says no to "soft cap".
Anybody still want to believe the players are willing to compromise?
hockeytown9321 said:http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106456
Anybody still want to beleive the owners are willing to compromise?
Thunderstruck said:Goodenow says no to "soft cap".
Anybody still want to believe the players are willing to compromise?
hockeytown9321 said:here's what you said in the thread about the new offer:
"IF the rumours are true and the players are putting a real offer forward, then the NHL has won the first big battle in this war, as the players have blinked big time."
I take that to mean you think the players, for whatever reason, have moved significantly toward the owners side.
So which is it?
shadoz19 said:Both sides need to compromise.
shadoz19 said:Both sides need to compromise.
RangerBoy said:The NHL will cease to exist.It already is on life support.56% of the American sports fans did not even know the NHL was locked out
Newsguyone said:The players are compromising.
1. They have proposed a luxury tax (not a big one, but a giveback, to be sure.)
2. They have proposed immediate giveback of 5 percent.
Those are concessions. That's movement. That's a start.
The owners should have come back and proposed a very strict luxury tax.
Then, negotiations could have started.
But the owners have shown no such interest in moving this forward. Not in the least. They started by offering a ridiculous hard cap, tied to revenues (which may as well have been pulled from Arthur Anderson's magic book of accounting).
It amounted to a 33 percent pay cut.
No one in their right mind is going to accept such a harsh proposal.
If things are so bloody bad (which they may well be), Bettman shouldn't have simply rubberstamped the CBA when it last expired.
You simply can't let things go bad for 9 years and then expect to fix it all in one CBA negotiation.
He should get what he can now.
And continue to work on it in the next CBA.
It took years of neglect for Rome to crumble.
It's even more negligent now for our Ceaser to completely rip it down and try to rebuild it in a day.
Newsguyone said:The players are compromising.
1. They have proposed a luxury tax (not a big one, but a giveback, to be sure.)
2. They have proposed immediate giveback of 5 percent.
Those are concessions. That's movement. That's a start.
The owners should have come back and proposed a very strict luxury tax.
Then, negotiations could have started.
But the owners have shown no such interest in moving this forward. Not in the least. They started by offering a ridiculous hard cap, tied to revenues (which may as well have been pulled from Arthur Anderson's magic book of accounting).
It amounted to a 33 percent pay cut.
No one in their right mind is going to accept such a harsh proposal.
If things are so bloody bad (which they may well be), Bettman shouldn't have.
Have you guys seen the other thread with the 6 NHL offers itemized? If the PA cannot find a staring point for discussions in 6 distinctively different solutions put forward by the NHL, then they are not trying to bring back hockey.FLYLine4LIFE said:Yea so thunder your against the side that is trying to bring back hockey and solve the problem? While the other is dismissing anything they get without the word Cap in it?
hockeytown9321 said:here's what you said in the thread about the new offer:
"IF the rumours are true and the players are putting a real offer forward, then the NHL has won the first big battle in this war, as the players have blinked big time."
I take that to mean you think the players, for whatever reason, have moved significantly toward the owners side.
So which is it?
Cawz said:Have you guys seen the other thread with the 6 NHL offers itemized? If the PA cannot find a staring point for discussions in 6 distinctively different solutions put forward by the NHL, then they are not trying to bring back hockey.
hockeytown9321 said:I saw that poll today too, its really amazing.
Just to reiterate, the majority of sports fans in the US don't even know there's a lockout, let alone choosen sides. How anybody can argue with a straight face that attendance won't drop drastically, regardless of if they use replacement players or not, is beyond me.
Newsguyone said:The players are compromising.
1. They have proposed a luxury tax (not a big one, but a giveback, to be sure.)
2. They have proposed immediate giveback of 5 percent.
Those are concessions. That's movement. That's a start.
The owners should have come back and proposed a very strict luxury tax.
Then, negotiations could have started.
But the owners have shown no such interest in moving this forward. Not in the least. They started by offering a ridiculous hard cap, tied to revenues (which may as well have been pulled from Arthur Anderson's magic book of accounting).
It amounted to a 33 percent pay cut.
No one in their right mind is going to accept such a harsh proposal.
If things are so bloody bad (which they may well be), Bettman shouldn't have simply rubberstamped the CBA when it last expired.
You simply can't let things go bad for 9 years and then expect to fix it all in one CBA negotiation.
He should get what he can now.
And continue to work on it in the next CBA.
It took years of neglect for Rome to crumble.
It's even more negligent now for our Ceaser to completely rip it down and try to rebuild it in a day.
Thunderstruck said:How can one individual so consistently miss the point?
hockeytown9321 said:What you don't understand is that the league cannot sustain the losses they will incur if they use replacement players, and probably can't even if they don't. Its not a 2 month process. Its would take years and years to get people to forget they're watching minor leaguers pretending to be NHL'ers. It will be impossible to get on national TV(they're barely on it now), and no pro sports league can survive without national TV money.
Taranis_24 said:If this is the case now why wasn't it in 1999 when the league first approached the PA, and again in 2000, and again in 2001, and again in 2002, and again in 2003, and again last year. The fact is the union wanted to get what they could and not care about down the road. If the PA would have agreed to a tax system 2 years ago which the league was looking for we wouldn't be in the lockout today. I understand the league renewed the last CBA a couple of times
Well, I thought there were some interesting ideas in the 6 offers that could have been worked on. The fact that the PA dismissed them all with a blanket statement (they're all a cap) shows that they are not willing to negotiate.hockeytown9321 said:they were 6 distinctive ways to get the same result. The players could put out 6 different luxury tax proposals, and Bettman's sheep would all say they're not compromising. In fact, one of them said so in the post above.
Thunderstruck said:What you fail to understand is that they wouldn't have to go years without the NHLPA members crossing.
Cawz said:Well, I thought there were some interesting ideas in the 6 offers that could have been worked on. The fact that the PA dismissed them all with a blanket statement (they're all a cap) shows that they are not willing to negotiate.
I saw one offer that was a distinct cap. The other 5 offers had at least some merit. If the PA chose to either incorporate some of them into their own offer, or dismiss each one specifically and explain why, then it would show a willingness to cooperate.
Did you read all 6 offers? There was about 2 paragraphs each (not 1 sentence each, as was the rumor around here a few weeks ago)
Cawz said:Have you guys seen the other thread with the 6 NHL offers itemized? If the PA cannot find a staring point for discussions in 6 distinctively different solutions put forward by the NHL, then they are not trying to bring back hockey.
Thunderstruck said:There is only one issue of importance, "cost certainty" and NEITHER side has compromised one bit on it.
IF the players put a better offer on the table, but still based on a luxury tax, they haven't compromised one iota, only attempted to make their position more sellable from their laughable last offer.
It will also mean that the owners have forced the PA to directly contradict their public statements about the next offer coming from the owners and therefore the PA were the first ones to blink in this game of chicken.