Message from Trevor Linden

Status
Not open for further replies.

ResidentAlien*

Guest
gscarpenter2002 said:
Meant to reply to this before, but forgot.

For the good of the game? No.

For their own good? Yes, that is what I mean.

Anyone with a business clue knows what I am talking about.

Oh, and the owners were not willing to give it to them. They were forced to by collusive agentry.
Business clue..hmm..maybe the owners should have realized they were subject to collusive agentry and got together, instead of waiting for the players to accept a deal that forced them into being more fiscally responsible.
For the good of the game that is.
Again, it seems some want the players to be lawyers, GMs, Owners and elite atheletes. I admit they were blinded many times with the help of agents and the lure of the $$ but, how anyone can place blame soley on the players is beyond me.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
NJD Jester said:
If the owners wanted a season, they could have had a season. Let's stick to reality here...

Not with the CBA that was just ratified. The players signed this deal in some degree because they agree about how financially damaged the league is. That's the present reality, and they certainly weren't going to accept that reality last season, regardless of how true is was.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Collusive agentry. Oh that sort feature on the salary list is a powerful tool. Gee you must really fear house buying.

me2 said:
Sure the NHL could have had a season if they really wanted. They could have given the player 10% raises on their 2003-04 salaries too. It wouldn't have fixed the problems though, would it!

No, and neither would blowing up the ACC. Good thing that wasnt the offer eh. The offer was a 24%paycut, and systemic controls, that while dismissed at the time, are now accepted as key parts of the deal. While the 24% rollback was categorized as a meaningless gesture, Ottawa "slashed" ticket prices by 5%.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
ResidentAlien said:
Business clue..hmm..maybe the owners should have realized they were subject to collusive agentry and got together

And maybe they should have been sued for collusion after they do.

What so many shills seem to be ignorant of is that it's legal for agents to work together to drive salaries up, but it's not legal for owners to do the reverse. They get ONE chance to do the reverse, and that's during collective bargaining. Which is exactly when they did.

To the players' dismay.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
thinkwild said:
Collusive agentry. Oh that sort feature on the salary list is a powerful tool. Gee you must really fear house buying.



No, and neither would blowing up the ACC. Good thing that wasnt the offer eh. The offer was a 24%paycut, and systemic controls, that while dismissed at the time, are now accepted as key parts of the deal. While the 24% rollback was categorized as a meaningless gesture, Ottawa "slashed" ticket prices by 5%.
Jeez, you never stop.

THe offers you refer to were not "dismissed".

THe 24% rollback was not characterized as a "meaningless gesture".

But then you probably know that.

Pro-PA acolytes reduced to completely making stuff up. I always knew it would devolve to this, but it is still so sad.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Crazy_Ike said:
And maybe they should have been sued for collusion after they do.

What so many shills seem to be ignorant of is that it's legal for agents to work together to drive salaries up, but it's not legal for owners to do the reverse. They get ONE chance to do the reverse, and that's during collective bargaining. Which is exactly when they did.

To the players' dismay.
Ike, you stole my line again.

Curse your eyes!!!
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Crazy_Ike said:
And maybe they should have been sued for collusion after they do.

What so many shills seem to be ignorant of is that it's legal for agents to work together to drive salaries up, but it's not legal for owners to do the reverse. They get ONE chance to do the reverse, and that's during collective bargaining. Which is exactly when they did.

To the players' dismay.
Ya know...leave the "Shills" ***** outta of it, it gets old.
If indeed there was collusion ..and said collusion is illegal, then stopping it was so hard why?
They had chances to stop it, if it existed, during bargaining..they didnt, they waited ..for the good of the game
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Yes, Im sure I wont find any quotes here characterizing the rollback that way.

What so many shills seem to be ignorant of is that it's legal for agents to work together to drive salaries up, but it's not legal for owners to do the reverse. They get ONE chance to do the reverse, and that's during collective bargaining. Which is exactly when they did
Such nonsense. Its perfectly legal for owners to drive salaries down. They were in the process of doing it when they locked the players out.
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
thinkwild said:
Collusive agentry. Oh that sort feature on the salary list is a powerful tool. Gee you must really fear house buying.



No, and neither would blowing up the ACC. Good thing that wasnt the offer eh. The offer was a 24%paycut, and systemic controls, that while dismissed at the time, are now accepted as key parts of the deal. While the 24% rollback was categorized as a meaningless gesture, Ottawa "slashed" ticket prices by 5%.

When was this the case??? Please dont make things up...I believe words like "significant" were used by GB when the rollback was put out there

EDIT:

DEC. 14, 2004:
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman called the 24-per-cent rollback "significant," but rejected the union's proposal, saying it was "dramatic in its immediate, short-term impact, but fatally flawed as a system going forward."

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/thelatest.html

so....how do you spin this into "the 24% rollback was categorized as a meaningless gesture"
 
Last edited:

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Mothra said:
When was this the case??? Please dont make things up...I believe words like "significant" were used by GB when the rollback was put out there

EDIT:

DEC. 14, 2004:
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman called the 24-per-cent rollback "significant," but rejected the union's proposal, saying it was "dramatic in its immediate, short-term impact, but fatally flawed as a system going forward."

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/thelatest.html

so....how do you spin this into "the 24% rollback was categorized as a meaningless gesture"
maybe because it didnt start an immediate, real lock the the door bargaining process.
They basically slapped the union in the face saying "not enough"
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
thinkwild said:
Yes, Im sure I wont find any quotes here characterizing the rollback that way.

Although I wasnt posting here at the time, I will save you the trouble: The players Dec 09 proposal, which offered the 24% rollback and very little else was completely worthless. It was designed to split the owners along economic lines, but failed miserably as virtually every single owner recognized the need for a new economic system rather than "resetting the clock."

The rollback is significant only if real controls are put in place - a salary cap - that allow the system to remain functional. The union's rollback was geared towards the teams that were the most to blame for the economic wreck the league was: the richest teams. They were the ones that benefited most from the rollback. They were the ones that benefited most from a luxury tax (and a pathetically weak one at that), and they were the ones that were expected to take that 24% and immediately put it right back into the players pockets, driving salaries right back up.

The players first proposal was utterly worthless.

Such nonsense. Its perfectly legal for owners to drive salaries down. They were in the process of doing it when they locked the players out.

It is perfectly legal for the owners, or several of them, to decide not to pay player x what he wants?

Salaries went down in 2003-04 for one reason, and one reason only: several teams were trying to position themselves to be in good shape coming out of this lockout. They knew they were going to demand a cap, and they knew that ridiculous long term contracts were only going to hamper them. Absent of the pending expiration of the CBA, salaries would have continued on their merry way up, and any idiot should have been able to recognize that.
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
ResidentAlien said:
maybe because it didnt start an immediate, real lock the the door bargaining process.
They basically slapped the union in the face saying "not enough"

Slapped the face? I dont see it that way...and again, words like "dramatic" and "significant" were used......the fact that it was used as one of the core features in the new CBA tells you how the owners felt

and its far far from what the other poster said which was "categorized as a meaningless gesture"
 

joechip

Registered User
May 29, 2003
3,229
0
Gainesville, Fl
www.sabrerattling.com
OTTSENS said:
Brian Burke said it the best when he said I had a cap fot the last five years in Vancouver is called a budget.

And that's last time I am talking lockout. I've been talking lockout for the last 10 months and I am sick of it.

What's amazing is that after 10 months people don't understand that a salary cap is a budget. If you want all the teams to have a reasonable shot at acquiring and keeping talent then their salary budgets have to be similar. If Detroit's budget is 80 million and Buffalo's 30 million, then please tell me how Buffalo and Detroit are playing the same game?

Simple... they're not. No salary cap meant three 10-team leagues. The NHL didn't want that. The players did. It took them 10 months to realize the NHL was not folding. Blame is irrelevant. The owners set out a goal at the beginning... a system for all 30 current franchises to be competitive... and they stuck to it. Simple as that. BTW, that's the reason why the fans were so overwhelmingly in their corner, because of that underlying conceit. Had they said otherwise the sport would be dead and this site would have 10% of the traffic it does now, because in that event, both sides would have thrown the fans 'under the bus' rhetorically.

Ta,
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
CBA war is over but the usual pro-PA yahoos still keep humiliating themselves. I guess some things never change.

An apology would have been nice from PA's part but I guess they really feel like they have done nothing wrong here. Perfectly 'legal' from their part but just goes to show the class of PA (or lack of it more specifically).
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
Pepper said:
CBA war is over but the usual pro-PA yahoos still keep humiliating themselves. I guess some things never change.

An apology would have been nice from PA's part but I guess they really feel like they have done nothing wrong here. Perfectly 'legal' from their part but just goes to show the class of PA (or lack of it more specifically).
I guess I don't understand why you think you need/want/deserve (take your pick) an apology from the PA. How were you injured by the PA's attempt to control thier own fate? I'm not interested if you think thier stance was wrong/they could have got a better deal earlier/etc (again take your pick). The bottom line was the majority of players gave the executive the power to negotiate no-cap/no-linkage, when the majority decided that enough was enough they accepted cap/linkage. I don't know if a CBA could have been achieved without the lockout, we'll never know for sure because the owner's did opt for that route.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Hoss said:
I guess I don't understand why you think you need/want/deserve (take your pick) an apology from the PA.

I don't need one, I don't deserve one, it just would have been NICE to see one from PA as well (owners didn't have trouble to do that remember? Oh, I guess that's just admission of guilt right?), if for nothing else but to show that they really care about fans.

Instead we get finger-pointing and the usual 'it wasn't us' crap from PA.

How hard is it to say we're sorry??

Hoss said:
How were you injured by the PA's attempt to control thier own fate? I'm not interested if you think thier stance was wrong/they could have got a better deal earlier/etc (again take your pick). The bottom line was the majority of players gave the executive the power to negotiate no-cap/no-linkage, when the majority decided that enough was enough they accepted cap/linkage. I don't know if a CBA could have been achieved without the lockout, we'll never know for sure because the owner's did opt for that route.

Hey, it doesn't matter what owners or PA did in the CBA war, FACT is that there were two parties involved and ONE of them has apologized while the other hasn't.

It's just goes to show which one is more interested bringing the fans back.
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Pepper said:
I don't need one, I don't deserve one, it just would have been NICE to see one from PA as well (owners didn't have trouble to do that remember? Oh, I guess that's just admission of guilt right?), if for nothing else but to show that they really care about fans.

Instead we get finger-pointing and the usual 'it wasn't us' crap from PA.

How hard is it to say we're sorry??



Hey, it doesn't matter what owners or PA did in the CBA war, FACT is that there were two parties involved and ONE of them has apologized while the other hasn't.

It's just goes to show which one is more interested bringing the fans back.
I think it pretty early to be saying what will bring the fans back, a simple apology is all that is needed? wow. what about all the crys of parity, on ice product, etc that was needed?I am not sure how skewing the sked so half the league only sees the other half once every 3 years is an attempt to bring fans back. It's an attempt to save money.
Yep they said sorry and you bought it...blinded
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
ResidentAlien said:
I think it pretty early to be saying what will bring the fans back, a simple apology is all that is needed? wow. what about all the crys of parity, on ice product, etc that was needed?I am not sure how skewing the sked so half the league only sees the other half once every 3 years is an attempt to bring fans back. It's an attempt to save money.
Yep they said sorry and you bought it...blinded

I dont care if the player apologize or not....but this letter was nothing more than finger pointing and "it wasnt our fault". I would prefer they keep their traps shut and just play. During the whole lockout many players showed they arent the brightest with some of the stupid things said....from never playing in a cap system to feeding their dog......they should be smarter than this......Again, I dont care if they give an apology....but I'd rather not have JR tell me to kiss his ass or Linden say its was all the owners fault either
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Mothra said:
I dont care if the player apologize or not....but this letter was nothing more than finger pointing and "it wasnt our fault". I would prefer they keep their traps shut and just play. During the whole lockout many players showed they arent the brightest with some of the stupid things said....from never playing in a cap system to feeding their dog......they should be smarter than this......Again, I dont care if they give an apology....but I'd rather not have JR tell me to kiss his ass or Linden say its was all the owners fault either

It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought greedy, uncaring, and unappologetic than to open it and prove ...... yada yada yada. Or in this case, write no letters if they have no PR value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->