Players Prepared to Fold Hand (rumor)

[Digger12]

Yes, yes...some owners are very likely filthy, despicable people that deserve to be beaten to death by a thousand smurfs. Just like some players that are very likely no better.

Guess what...WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

These filthy, despicable people are the ones that pay the players and keep them awash in riches they couldn't earn elsewhere. Do you think the owners in Europe or Russia are any more pristine and saintly?

Both groups of clown shoes need each other, no matter how much they like or don't like it. The sooner they figure that out, the better we'll ALL be.

 

[thinkwild]

These lying known fraudsters who are actually convincing people that ticket prices rise because of salaries, are running the game into the ground in order to win a power struggle with a union and reap enormous profits by convincing everyone they are helplessly losing more than they can handle. And they have always claimed this, and they always will. And now they are threatening to shut down the game unless the players trust their claims of what revenue is.

It doesnt matter if the owners just act like businessmen and pay what they can afford and no one needs to trust them. It does matter otherwise

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

These lying known fraudsters who are actually convincing people that ticket prices rise because of salaries, are running the game into the ground in order to win a power struggle with a union and reap enormous profits by convincing everyone they are helplessly losing more than they can handle. And they have always claimed this, and they always will. And now they are threatening to shut down the game unless the players trust their claims of what revenue is.

It doesnt matter if the owners just act like businessmen and pay what they can afford and no one needs to trust them. It does matter otherwise

Is paying what you can afford the in the best interest of hockey? I am of the belief we are trying to get an economic system that will allow for a more level playing field( within the parameters of cost certainty whereby owners can make a decent profit).This is not your regular ma and pa diner where you act independently from all other businesses. In this league 30 businesses are tied together.

 

[thinkwild]

The owners are going far beyond simply asking to make a decent profit. The best interest of hockey is that is that everyone has options to compete and succeed and owners can make money. But its not guaranteed. If they make money because our team wins, and lose money if the team fails, fans can feel safe. Why dont restaurants get cost certainty? Why dont all businesses do it? In another example from your life, talk about what cost certainty is needed for and why it should be given. Have you ever uttered the phrase before Gary Bettman said it?

The owners are probably losing up to $150mil. There may be nothing wrong with that. It may be one time and not continuous, for example as new arenas are built, new ticket sales take place, new teams start succeeding, paper losses have been finished written off. Ot it could be very real. The players have offered a way to solve the money problem. But owners dont seem to want just the money problem solved. They want a new system that guarantees them money and forces all sorts of horrible decisions for fans so the owner doesnt have to suffer that vagaries of the market.


You dont need to have a financially level playing field to have equality of opportunity in the pursuit of excellence in sports if you design the system well enough, with enough options that NYR, StL, Wash, Tor, Phi, Dal could all attempt to buy a cup, and have 3 cinderellas almost make it, and and expansion team that was the butt of every contraction thread in the same year they won ahead of all of them.

 

[me2]

Generalise much?

First of all, note how the vast majority of those charges against the owners are unrelated to hockey.

Oh, and by the way, how quickly you forget "manslaughter" and "hiring a hit man to kill your agent".

And the ever present rumours of the Russian mob....

 

[quat]

See that word "majority"? It's important in my sentence, that's why I included it.

Maybe you should try reading my post again, this time stopping to actually comprehend the meaning of *all* the words.

Just what are you saying here!?

 

[swflyers8*]

I know Eklund. He says that he knows all the insiders in hockey and what not. However, in times past, he hasn't been on the money about anything. As much as I would like to believe this is true, I doubt it is. I think it's just another person getting bored during the lockout, that's all.

Sorry.

 

[HckyFght*]

Players will become a UFA at the end of their rookie contract.

Early UFA would be a disaster for the league. The reason being that the league has always rewarded teams for their long term investment in players. A player is drafted, sent to the minors and most times it's a few years before that player has even a whisper of a chance with the Big League club. Then there's a reorientation period from minors to majors. An NHL team may not reap the rewards of bringing a player along for six seven or eight years after the initial draft. Say what you will about free agency, it hasn't been that good for other leagues who have a miserable time keeping competetive rosters stable and where teams are now top heavy with stars and the rest staffed with lowlites. The owners are holding the cards in this years fight and they better not waffle on something as huge as this because the ability to draft, and keep players is one of the leagues last remaining strengths. It is my opinion that the players union is merely a front for a cartel of big money agents using labor law to squeeze coin from 30 millionaires. Until ten years ago they were a necessary nuisance, now they are a genuine problem that must be dealt with. UFA should actually be moved up to age 35, or at least back to age 32 where it was after the last labor fight. In any event, this would not be a minor concession by any means.
-HckyFght!

 

[vanlady]

Early UFA would be a disaster for the league. The reason being that the league has always rewarded teams for their long term investment in players. A player is drafted, sent to the minors and most times it's a few years before that player has even a whisper of a chance with the Big League club. Then there's a reorientation period from minors to majors. An NHL team may not reap the rewards of bringing a player along for six seven or eight years after the initial draft. Say what you will about free agency, it hasn't been that good for other leagues who have a miserable time keeping competetive rosters stable and where teams are now top heavy with stars and the rest staffed with lowlites. The owners are holding the cards in this years fight and they better not waffle on something as huge as this because the ability to draft, and keep players is one of the leagues last remaining strengths. It is my opinion that the players union is merely a front for a cartel of big money agents using labor law to squeeze coin from 30 millionaires. Until ten years ago they were a necessary nuisance, now they are a genuine problem that must be dealt with. UFA should actually be moved up to age 35, or at least back to age 32 where it was after the last labor fight. In any event, this would not be a minor concession by any means.
-HckyFght!

I agree with you, the elimination of free agency would be very bad for the league. However history has a lot to teach us in this matter. MLB in 94 declared impasse and instituted a cap, that year the NLRB ruled that free agency is a mandatory subject of bargaining and rule the impasse illegal. MLB baseball caved to a luxury tax to keep free agency. The NFL and NBA on the other hand decided the free agency after the initial rookie contract was a good trade off for their cap. The NBA and NFL however do not have the investment in rookies that MLB and NHL have, they also do not have the minor leagues either, rookies tend to go straight to their teams.

What does this mean, if the league wants a cap, free agency is the biggest weapon in the unions arsenal.

 

[shakes]

Early UFA would be a disaster for the league. The reason being that the league has always rewarded teams for their long term investment in players. A player is drafted, sent to the minors and most times it's a few years before that player has even a whisper of a chance with the Big League club. Then there's a reorientation period from minors to majors. An NHL team may not reap the rewards of bringing a player along for six seven or eight years after the initial draft. Say what you will about free agency, it hasn't been that good for other leagues who have a miserable time keeping competetive rosters stable and where teams are now top heavy with stars and the rest staffed with lowlites. The owners are holding the cards in this years fight and they better not waffle on something as huge as this because the ability to draft, and keep players is one of the leagues last remaining strengths. It is my opinion that the players union is merely a front for a cartel of big money agents using labor law to squeeze coin from 30 millionaires. Until ten years ago they were a necessary nuisance, now they are a genuine problem that must be dealt with. UFA should actually be moved up to age 35, or at least back to age 32 where it was after the last labor fight. In any event, this would not be a minor concession by any means.
-HckyFght!

If the NHL wants a cap, they will have to give up a lot in the free agency department. The lower the cap, the lower the age will be for free agency.

 

[I in the Eye]

If the NHL wants a cap, they will have to give up a lot in the free agency department. The lower the cap, the lower the age will be for free agency.

And if the players don't want a cap, I propose that they give up a lot in the free agency department... First offer the owners make to the players - no cap, no (or age 40) free agency... From there, have the two sides discuss and duke it out - negotiating between the terms of a cap, and the terms of free agency...

There's got to be a middle ground here that satisfies both sides...

 

[dawgbone]

It's about as beleivable and credible as a Larry Brooks article...

 

[dawgbone]

Oh like they have in the past. You are way to funny, here let me post something for you

Yet you have no problem handing these "crooks" your money, and the players have never had any qualms about accepting this "dirty" money from them in the past.

Cut this righteous bullship out... if their morales are so apalling, why do you continue to help line their pockets? Why are you accepting the fact these players are accepting money funded from criminal activities.

Because it fits your argument to call them crooks... who honestly supports something that they truely beleive is wrong?

 

[vanlady]

Yet you have no problem handing these "crooks" your money, and the players have never had any qualms about accepting this "dirty" money from them in the past.

Cut this righteous bullship out... if their morales are so apalling, why do you continue to help line their pockets? Why are you accepting the fact these players are accepting money funded from criminal activities.

Because it fits your argument to call them crooks... who honestly supports something that they truely beleive is wrong?

Do I beleive the game of hockey is wrong??? Obviously not. I am forever the optomist though. My dreams include the league actually getting rid of Bill Wirtz and Mike Illich. I know what a dreamer.

By the way, I have no problem with people getting rich, I have a problem with those that get that way doing something illegal. And if they do they go to jail. We have seen that a lot in the NHL.

By the way you will notice I have never named John McCaw directly as a crook, but if he is going to associate with them.......

Oh and I don't pay to support the owners, I support my team, in our case with how much we see our owner, he is not part of the "team"

 

[dawgbone]

So McCraw has never done anything illegal, or unscrupulous...

Hey, if you beleive that, Santa Claus comes on the 25th of December, so you better be good.

 

[vanlady]

So McCraw has never done anything illegal, or unscrupulous...

Hey, if you beleive that, Santa Claus comes on the 25th of December, so you better be good.

I have never heard of John McCaw ever being investigated by the FBI or charged with anything. Supply proof. I can for several owners in this league.

 

[I in the Eye]

Because it fits your argument to call them crooks... who honestly supports something that they truely beleive is wrong?

Kathy Lee makes great clothes... It is terrible, disgusting, and flat out wrong that she employs child labour in the factory, but eh, her male thongs fit nice and are reasonably priced... The product isn't wrong... I support the thongs, not Kathy Lee... and I'm optimistic that one day Kathy Lee will be either replaced, or see the error of her ways...

 

[quat]

Kathy Lee makes great clothes... It is terrible, disgusting, and flat out wrong that she employs child labour in the factory, but eh, her male thongs fit nice and are reasonably priced... The product isn't wrong... I support the thongs, not Kathy Lee... and I'm optimistic that one day Kathy Lee will be either replaced, or see the error of her ways...

heh heh heh

 

[dawgbone]

I have never heard of John McCaw ever being investigated by the FBI or charged with anything. Supply proof. I can for several owners in this league.

Sorry sister... because you have been investigated or charged doesn't mean you've necessarily done something wrong. And because you've managed not to get charged or investigated doesn't mean you are chrystal clear either.

I must have missed the part where innocent until proven guilty stopped being applied, and I also missed the part where the bad guys always get found. Just because no one caught it, it doesn't mean it happened, and just because someone said something to the wrong person to launch an investigation doesn't mean nothing wrong happend.

Guess what? I'm sure there are a few dozen hockey players who have had some pretty creative accounting done to avoid paying some taxes... so I guess the moral is DTA.

 

[dawgbone]

Kathy Lee makes great clothes... It is terrible, disgusting, and flat out wrong that she employs child labour in the factory, but eh, her male thongs fit nice and are reasonably priced... The product isn't wrong... I support the thongs, not Kathy Lee... and I'm optimistic that one day Kathy Lee will be either replaced, or see the error of her ways...

But you financially support her everytime you buy one. That's your choice...

Just don't sit here and whine about these criminals, then go out and buy their stuff.

 

[Benji Frank]

And if the players don't want a cap, I propose that they give up a lot in the free agency department... First offer the owners make to the players - no cap, no (or age 40) free agency... From there, have the two sides discuss and duke it out - negotiating between the terms of a cap, and the terms of free agency...

There's got to be a middle ground here that satisfies both sides...

Personally, I think it's the RFA rules that are a big part of killing the league ... the mandatory 10% raise & arbitration & UFA if he's not at the league average after a certain # of years, etc.... the small market teams have an enormous task trying to keep their fans happy by qualifying & then signing these guys.....

I don't think lowering the age of UFA coupled or not coupled with a cap will be all that bad. It'll take the pressure off the team determining whether or not to qualify a player. Other then the maybe a handful of stars, there are several simular lower paid players avail. in the minors, etc. If they do increase RFA age it'll really only be helpfull if they change the protection criteria. Maybe as Burke said 75% or whatever it was too retain after the first contract and then 50 or 75 after the second contract. Then maybe increase the compensation allowed for walking away from an arbitration ruling. I think you get nothing now. Maybe increase that to 1/3 of what you'd get if you didn't match an offer simular offer sheet signed by an RFA ... then maybe change the criteria from average to a % of average maybe if he's not in the top 60% of wage earners he can opt for UFA....

 

[I in the Eye]

But you financially support her everytime you buy one. That's your choice...

Just don't sit here and whine about these criminals, then go out and buy their stuff.

yup... I agree...

As consumers, we 'vote' for or against a company (and it's owners) with our hard earned $... regardless of what we 'say'...

 

[Leafer4Life]

This seems too good to be true! I'm not getting my hopes up, but I'd LOVE for this to happen!