Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

[Whitesnake]

Each teams have their own prices determined by the owner and the market. In Phoenix and Florida they have 15 $ tickets. It has nothing to do with the NHLPA or the boards of governors. If they can't get more people in the arena it's because of the sport popularity.

Every market didn't have such a low pricing on their tickets. They did have to adapt as they saw the game wasn't what they thought it was. I guess it takes time to take people in non-hockey market cities back in the game. Thing is, if the league is able to pay the players that kind of money is because the money is there and presence at the rink is part of it. You do indeed have a problem with really poor hockey marketse like the one you mentioned but you also have teams in the middle who might just benefit from lower pricing. And frankly, those really poor market teams...well the league would just benefit from playing in a 24-26 teams league but that's another story.....

But then, as far as top teams like Habs, Leafs and Co who clearly can afford laughing at their fans with such high pricing from beer to ticket pricing, well my point is "How about giving back to fans who had to endure 3 work stoppages in the last how many years again"? It's about recognizing that in a 30-team league, you do not always have the pleasure in getting your money's worth 'cause it's so damn expensive. And that's a league problem. One day, they will come to the conclusion that the league as it is is not viable. One day, the most profitable teams will be tired of paying for the other ones. One day, some fans will hate seeing an average spectacle diluted by a too big of a pool. So my bet is that before it happens, you adjust the salaries based on how much you think a ticket is worth so that the ones who makes it possible for you to have a league, are indeed respected once and for all. Then, everything takes care of itself, owners happy, and with respectacle ticket pricing all over teh league, the teams that still don't work have to get the heck out. You then either find better cities if you don't want to play at 26 or cut the teams that really are in trouble.

I mean, not sure but at one point, that many stoppages in such a short period of time makes me beleive something is broken.....and instead of actually really finding the cause of the bleeding, they are solely putting a band-aid on it everytime....The only thing that the 10-year deal from what the league is asking is good is that it gives the fans a 10-year break from the next stoppage....in 11 years.

 

[waffledave]

My guess is, it would make the lockout last a whole lot longer, or push the players closer to permanent decertification.

Decertification and non-guaranteed contracts go hand in hand.

 

[Kriss E]

That isn't a "loophole", that is within their rights (and every other person). Just another one of your attempts to vilify the players for not living up to the standards of what YOU think a hockey player should be. According to you NHL players should put the game, owners, fans, franchise and other players in other leagues ahead of their own personal well being because if they don't they are "greedy" and "selfish".

This isn't the first time you have made a ludicrous post only to try and back away and muddy the waters.

What can I say, your stubbornness has no bounds..
You are now trying to tell me what I'm thinking, for what reason, I don't know.

For the third freaking time, I'm not vilifying the players, EVERYBODY involved are EQUALLY at fault. Do you understand what I'm saying?
That means owners, GMs, players, agents.

Yes, it is a loophole. Are we really going to debate that players signed through the age of 40 with front loading contracts and getting 1M at the end of it is a loophole?

Is it illegal? Are the players wrong in trying to get these deals? No.
Heck, I even said I would do the same!!!
But is it good for the league? I don't think so.
So fix the problem.

My greedy and selfish comments were about them not accepting the last deal, and how it reflects on them. But again, you've proven yourself incapable of understanding much of anything in my posts.
At this point, I could tell you my eyes are blue and you'd tell me no they're black without having seen them.

 

[AntonCH]

What can I say, your stubbornness has no bounds..
You are now trying to tell me what I'm thinking, for what reason, I don't know.

For the third freaking time, I'm not vilifying the players, EVERYBODY involved are EQUALLY at fault. Do you understand what I'm saying?
That means owners, GMs, players, agents.

Yes, it is a loophole. Are we really going to debate that players signed through the age of 40 with front loading contracts and getting 1M at the end of it is a loophole?

Is it illegal? Are the players wrong in trying to get these deals? No.
Heck, I even said I would do the same!!!
But is it good for the league? I don't think so.
So fix the problem.

My greedy and selfish comments were about them not accepting the last deal, and how it reflects on them. But again, you've proven yourself incapable of understanding much of anything in my posts.
At this point, I could tell you my eyes are blue and you'd tell me no they're black without having seen them.

I'm not sure I get it, can you please clarify?

 

[Roulin]

Decertification and non-guaranteed contracts go hand in hand.

Sometimes, maybe. But for most players, I'm certain a post-CBA league without guaranteed contracts beats AntonCH's owner-dictated CBA without guaranteed contracts.

 

[Galchenioretty]

Decertification and non-guaranteed contracts go hand in hand.

I don't know that that's necessarily true. If there's no CBA and a contract is written without an opt out clause I'm not sure the owners will be able to end it at anytime. In the NFL it's collectively bargained.

 

[Fozz]

I don't see this thing getting to Jan 2nd and I expect they will come to terms and announce a 48 game schedule on or before that date.

 

[Frozenice]

Decertification and non-guaranteed contracts go hand in hand.

There wouldn't be any rules governing guaranteed or non-guaranteed contracts. As an example, I think the teams would have a hard time bringing players over from Europe without offerring them guaranteed contracts. Look at NTC or NMC, teams offer them now even though they "don't have to".

 

[Jigger77]

706-22 is pretty comprehensive. With all due respect to Hamrlik he sounds like the epitome of the guy who would throw the future of the players overboard to get back on the ice. Third lockout, 38 years old, been in the league for 20 years. He wants his last few million and to ride off into the sunset. If the future players are screwed, not his problem.

What do you mean by screwed exactly?

 

[waffledave]

Sometimes, maybe. But for most players, I'm certain a post-CBA league without guaranteed contracts beats AntonCH's owner-dictated CBA without guaranteed contracts.

I would argue that a non-unionized league would benefit the top 10% of players at the expense of everyone else. The vast majority of players would suffer.

I don't know that that's necessarily true. If there's no CBA and a contract is written without an opt out clause I'm not sure the owners will be able to end it at anytime. In the NFL it's collectively bargained.

Currently existing contracts would probably remain intact, but any future contract given under a non-unionized scenario could be cancelled at any time unless otherwise stipulated. And I don't see why owners would offer guaranteed money when they are under no obligation to do so. Sure, stars would probably get guaranteed money as an incentive, but 3rd-4th liners? No way.

There wouldn't be any rules governing guaranteed or non-guaranteed contracts. As an example, I think the teams would have a hard time bringing players over from Europe without offerring them guaranteed contracts. Look at NTC or NMC, teams offer them now even though they "don't have to".

So let the players go to Europe then. Most aren't willing to do it long term. Only the big stars will get guaranteed money, any other player doesn't really have any leverage. People seem to think that teams like NYR or Toronto will have $100+ million payrolls and buy up everyone with guaranteed money, but I'm willing to bet that doesn't happen. These teams don't have unlimited money.

 

[uiCk]

What do you mean by screwed exactly?

Screwed as in that Hammer will take any deal possible, not taking in consideration what impact the deal will have on contracts long term, since he's only constraint is his short term contract. As in, Hammers perspective doesn't go further then 1 year into the future, so i would say his "opinion" is non important to a collective bargaining that is set over a longer period of time, thus requires a different perspective then hammers.

if owners give deal that reduces hammers, and others in his position, by lets say, 50%, he would say yes, because he only has 1 year left. so his opinion is counterproductive to collective bargaining, since he doesn't want to bargain.

 

[Jigger77]

Screwed as in that Hammer will take any deal possible, not taking in consideration what impact the deal will have on contracts long term, since he's only constraint is his short term contract. As in, Hammers perspective doesn't go further then 1 year into the future, so i would say his "opinion" is non important to a collective bargaining that is set over a longer period of time, thus requires a different perspective then hammers.

Yeah I get that part. He claims Hamrlik only has his interest in mind because of his particular situation. (not saying I agree with that just saying I understand the pov).

But he insinuated that future players will be screwed if they take Hammer's advice and take the deal. I was just curious to know how so?

 

[WeThreeKings]

I don't see this thing getting to Jan 2nd and I expect they will come to terms and announce a 48 game schedule on or before that date.

Do you ever get tired of being incorrect as an optimist?

 

[uiCk]

Yeah I get that part. He claims Hamrlik only has his interest in mind because of his particular situation. (not saying I agree with that just saying I understand the pov).

But he insinuated that future players will be screwed if they take Hammer's advice and take the deal. I was just curious to know how so?

Depends what you define as screwed; in this case, it's just that the deal would be made, not using an optimal argument, and based on argument that set player only has 1 year to play.

Of course, if you position yourself like the owners, that there is no precedent to the CBA that's being negotiated, or that the only precedent is other sports leagues and their 50/50, then yea no one is getting screwed, since you are nullifying the past CBA as non existent.

But in comparison to last CBA, future players playing under a deal that is hammer approved, would be getting "Screwed". Under this assumption, no matter the deal, players will get "screwed", so it only depends on how "screwed they get".

 

[Jigger77]

Depends what you define as screwed; in this case, it's just that the deal would be made, not using an optimal argument, and based on argument that set player only has 1 year to play.

Of course, if you position yourself like the owners, that there is no precedent to the CBA that's being negotiated, or that the only precedent is other sports leagues and their 50/50, then yea no one is getting screwed, since you are nullifying the past CBA as non existent.

But in comparison to last CBA, future players playing under a deal that is hammer approved, would be getting "Screwed". Under this assumption, no matter the deal, players will get "screwed", so it only depends on how "screwed they get".

I see.

 

[Frozenice]

Do you ever get tired of being incorrect as an optimist?

I think he's more or less right. In the summer, reporters were talking about there being no hockey until after the New Year based on their discussions with people in the sport.

 

[Jigger77]

I think he's more or less right. In the summer, reporters were talking about there being no hockey until after the New Year based on their discussions with people in the sport.

Really not trying to call you out but do you have a source for that? I recall them saying it wouldn't go passed October.

 

[Frozenice]

Really not trying to call you out but do you have a source for that? I recall them saying it wouldn't go passed October.

No I don't but I listen often to shows like That's Hockey or HockeyCentral at Noon.

In the summer they were talking about how no one in the States pays attention to hockey because college football and the NFL soaks up all the press, that was the gist of it, they weren't losing anything by missing half a season.

 

[Roulin]

I would argue that a non-unionized league would benefit the top 10% of players at the expense of everyone else. The vast majority of players would suffer.

Currently existing contracts would probably remain intact, but any future contract given under a non-unionized scenario could be cancelled at any time unless otherwise stipulated. And I don't see why owners would offer guaranteed money when they are under no obligation to do so. Sure, stars would probably get guaranteed money as an incentive, but 3rd-4th liners? No way.

Maybe, it's impossible to say for sure. My bet is that 3rd line and 3rd pairing players - on a relatively weak team, Prust, Eller, Moen, Emelin & Diaz - would be able to land guaranteed contracts. Most NHL'ers have a particular skillset that clearly separates them from non-NHL'ers.

Even if some wouldn't, I think most players would enjoy the chance to let their play determine their market value, rather than sit through a lockout and take a lower portion of revenues with every CBA.

 

[PunkinDrublic*]

Do you ever get tired of being incorrect as an optimist?

How about you ??? The complete opposite.
I actually heard some great news. An agreement is very close if not already done.

 

[Roulin]

How about you ??? The complete opposite.
I actually heard some great news. An agreement is very close if not already done.

Do you hear which side is making the offer?

 

[PunkinDrublic*]

Do you hear which side is making the offer?

This seems to be the same offer ( tweeked a bit ) that they were very close on signing 2-3 weeks ago. Some people i am hearing are saying its a done deal, and there will be hockey by Jan 1 or 2.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

This seems to be the same offer ( tweeked a bit ) that they were very close on signing 2-3 weeks ago. Some people i am hearing are saying its a done deal, and there will be hockey by Jan 1 or 2.

This is the fourth time you've said it's a done deal. I, we all, appreciate your enthusiasm but come on man

 

[PunkinDrublic*]

I understand.

And some of you here should know better as to how negotiations go.

My sources have been verified by HF.

I wish you all a very merry Christmas.

 

[Reiher]

This is the fourth time you've said it's a done deal. I, we all, appreciate your enthusiasm but come on man

I think I somewhat agree with this statement, but then I mean I'll say that I take the information with a grain of salt. I'll be glad if this is true, but I don't expect a poster or even Fehr himself to be able to foresee the future. I mean he himself was saying that a deal is close, then the NHL came out and said WTF. So just from face value I can believe that the sentiments being expressed are genuine, but unless you have a source from both owners and players it's only a glimpse in what the feeling is from a few or one side.

Thus I appreciate the inside information even if I take it with a grain of salt myself.