Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
- Status
Ducks DVM
sowcufucakky
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates Of Arda
"When you look through the years and see what you could have been, oh what might have been if you'd had more time....."
Nalens Oga
Registered User
When are the poll results coming through? This seems like a pointless exercise, we all know that players will vote to dissolve the union. This feels like such a slow process, if it was done a couple months ago maybe but I don't see any negotiations happening if there's no union to negotiate with so there goes my optimism for a season (replaced by my optimism for contract anarchy).
JAX
Registered User
Do the players truly feel screwed over by the League, or are they just greedy, or are they just fighting in principle? Even if it's the latter, don't they (and the owners) have any sense of commitment to the League and especially to its fans?
Since no one has posted anything since what I posted above, I'll just add this question here:
Does all this mean that both sides have now given up totally on this Season; or is what's happening now the last desperate attempt for one side or the other to get its way, and then in the last second... OK, uncle, let's play hockey with what's left of the Season?
Since no one has posted anything since what I posted above, I'll just add this question here:
Does all this mean that both sides have now given up totally on this Season; or is what's happening now the last desperate attempt for one side or the other to get its way, and then in the last second... OK, uncle, let's play hockey with what's left of the Season?
Last edited:
Xref
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2010
- 1,690
- 85
I think the players are fighting for the sake of fighting. They felt that they "lost" in the last CBA negotiation (even though average salaries skyrocketed) and are determined to "not let the owners have their way" this time around. Why else hire a gunslinger like Fehr?
Nalens Oga
Registered User
Well you can say the same for owners. Not all but some of the ones who are fighting including a certain someone in the group of 8 are also just fighting for the sake of fighting. The deal they have now is better than before and what they will get in the end might even be better but not significantly better in comparison to how much they'll hurt their own product so is their fight really worth it any more than the players? Especially considering that they less to lose to begin with?
I think they're going to drag this out until the NHL's drop dead date...The owners aren't stupid enough to "die on the hill" for the small gulf between the PA and owners.
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2008
- 3,535
- 980
Interesting move by Fehr. Basically roll out this 5 day vote thing and hope that the owners see that it = death of first 2 weeks of January, thus causing them to fold on the contract issues
Or put it this way. I'm pretty sure there's a Make Whole amount the owners can pay to get the contract issues they want. NHLPA maybe has even given them a specific number. Probably the entire Make Whole gets it done. That also gives the players a sense of victory since that's what they were asking for months ago (50/50 if you guarantee all contracts)
So if that's true the owners could effectively end the lockout by paying more money. Does anybody know enough about approximate revenues to know whether 2 weeks of games would lose the owners more money than bumping the Make Whole from 300 to 390+? 90 million is only 5% of the approximate owners share and 2.5%ish of the total revenue. Getting the contract issues they want is one thing, but if it comes down to not wanting to pay 3 mil per owner more over the next 4 years (and in reality less than that because the contracts get downgraded for the shortened season), I can't imagine that's a hill to die on, especially considering they're losing that money just from the missed games anyways! Assuming my theory about the full Make Whole sealing the deal is correct, the owners letting January games get cancelled would be choosing to lose money because they don't want to pay probably less money. Tell me how that makes sense
Or put it this way. I'm pretty sure there's a Make Whole amount the owners can pay to get the contract issues they want. NHLPA maybe has even given them a specific number. Probably the entire Make Whole gets it done. That also gives the players a sense of victory since that's what they were asking for months ago (50/50 if you guarantee all contracts)
So if that's true the owners could effectively end the lockout by paying more money. Does anybody know enough about approximate revenues to know whether 2 weeks of games would lose the owners more money than bumping the Make Whole from 300 to 390+? 90 million is only 5% of the approximate owners share and 2.5%ish of the total revenue. Getting the contract issues they want is one thing, but if it comes down to not wanting to pay 3 mil per owner more over the next 4 years (and in reality less than that because the contracts get downgraded for the shortened season), I can't imagine that's a hill to die on, especially considering they're losing that money just from the missed games anyways! Assuming my theory about the full Make Whole sealing the deal is correct, the owners letting January games get cancelled would be choosing to lose money because they don't want to pay probably less money. Tell me how that makes sense
There comes a point when increasing the Make Whole more would essentially make the 50/50 arrangement pretty much useless. The owners don't need 50/50 near the end of the next CBA, they pretty much need it now. If the Make Whole essentially extends pre-existing contracts 3 years into the next CBA, then that's about as much as it should do. Anything more is self-defeating.
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2008
- 3,535
- 980
Haven't they already crossed that point though? They're paying for 75% of the rollback in the 300 mil offer and the gap between the guaranteed deal and 50/50 averages out to what, 3-4% of revenue over the 4 years? Take 75% off those savings and there isn't a ton left, it's like .75-1% a year, so maybe being able to pay the players 55 this year instead of 57. As for the 3.1 million/4 years prorated to each of the 29 owners in a vacuum that may be important, but they have to consider it's not 3.1 million prorated, it's 3.1 million prorated MINUS whatever revenue they lose from Jan 1st to 15th being cancelled, just for the CHANCE to get that 3.1 million prorated back. At some point the owners have to realize whatever money they think they can scrape off in rollbacks is just going to be lost in missed games anyways, or the difference will look like a practice squad player's salary.
Last edited:
smackdaddy
x – Edmonton
To me the players seem so incredibly selfish. The owners are the only one in this whole thing who wants to see the sustainability of the league increase while growing the revenue over a long term, while the players are in this "Give me everything now, health of the league long term be damned".
To me, the PA is run with the interest of the highest paid players who only want to see that their inflated wages, front loaded contracts, absurd bonsuses and retirement terms stay the same. If the players had any interest in keeping the league healthy long term they would be working together with the league and not destroying what took 6 years to foster. This is why I do not support them.
To me, the PA is run with the interest of the highest paid players who only want to see that their inflated wages, front loaded contracts, absurd bonsuses and retirement terms stay the same. If the players had any interest in keeping the league healthy long term they would be working together with the league and not destroying what took 6 years to foster. This is why I do not support them.
hobgoblin933
Registered User
For someone who hasn't been following what's been going on too closely, what does everyone think the odds are that we'll still have a season?
The owners will be here after the players are gone. Why shouldn't the players look out for their own best interest? They have a small window to make a sum of money. The owners should have more long term interest than the players because their window of opportunity is much bigger and more long term. They also don't trash a knee and kiss their career goodbye. I simply don't understand the owner worship these days.
There is nothing sustainable about the owners' offer.
That's the biggest lie being told in this entire lockout.
LadyStanley
Registered User
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2008
- 3,535
- 980
I'm 95% sure they'll play. The players might be stupid enough to sit out the season based on the current differences but the owners aren't. The 5% comes not from the contract issues separating them, but from the possibility the hardline owners take over and decide on intentionally submarining the season, like not even offering a Make Whole anymore, knowing that in the summer they would crush the players into salt
falconski
Unregistered User
- Jan 21, 2008
- 11,973
- 2,041
basically zero, two brick walls are complaining about having a conversation with a brick wall, I'm worried about next season happening
- Status
