Too good to be true? Report that NHL might start Jan 24th

Status
Not open for further replies.

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Jaded-Fan said:
However, their proposal as an added benefit adds competitive balance

At the expense of the overall game. Like I've said numerous times, you and me could get a couple teams together and playa competitve game. That doesn't mean we're NHL level.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeytown9321 said:
At the expense of the overall game.

Where? In Detroit? Toronto? Colorado? New York (imagine how bad they would be if they had the added weight of equal money)?

The sport of hockey, as someone else put very well, is in competition with other sports specifically but for entertainment dollars generally. The teams compete but overall are partners. You create interest everywhere instead of four or five markets (where interest would remain or even be higher if they actually had to pull up their jock straps and compete on a level playing field for talent) then the entire pie grows and the amount for everyone to share grows. I see little downside. But for fans of teams used to getting their way I can understand your reluctance to part with your security blanket.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
DR said:
well goodenow said all new negotiations would be based on the rolled back salaries. so yes iginla new contract is subject to rollbacks

Negotiations are based on whatever a player wants and asks for, and whatever an owner feels he can or must pay. That's it.

The only thing that's based on rollbacks is arbitration, and even then it's rollbacks *AND* new contracts.

secondly, iginla cant settle for anything the flames dont offer. fact is, 7.5m is a good value for iginla in the CGY market.

Whatever. You said that Calgary could get Iginla under contract for his 1994 salary (I gave you the benefit of the doubt and chose 94/95) of $4.5 million under the NHLPA's proposal. We both know that isn't anywhere close, regardless of whether it's done through arbitration, or straight negotiation.

finally, im sure you recall the rumour pavel threatened to hold out in the finals for a new 5.5m contract. no one knows if he did or not, but he did sign a shiny new contract that paid him on average 5.5m.

This page says Pavel's 94/95 salary was 4.5 million.
http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/7-20cba.htm
 

PanthersRule96

Registered User
Jun 15, 2003
6,048
0
Visit site
See that hockeyrumors.blogspot.com site.

I wouldn't be surprised if his last thing was actually close to the truth. There easily could be an ultimatum sent out by the NHL, perhaps not the way it is worded on his site, with less sweet talk and more demands like we flat out give you 72 hours to respond with bargaining or the season will most likely be cancelled. I dunno. What does everyone else think of this post on that site.
 

octopi

Registered User
Dec 29, 2004
31,547
4
dunwoody_joe said:
it might be the end of the NHL/NHLPA as we know it. We might be watching hockey from Russia pretty soon. :eek:


We can only hope :banghead:
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
Actually collusion if I am remembering right was uniquely a baseball thing. The owners are so wimpy in baseball that they allowed the union to get that clause in their contract so that they could not even get together when costs were getting out of control and agree to keep them somewhat in control.

Baseball owners are composed of pigs and whores. Pigs who gather all the all stars for their bench role players and whore owners who rather than actually fix baseball's problems in the last CBA (and when the top spending team spends over 7 times the collective salaries on players than the lowest spending teams and triple or more what 70% of the teams spend, you have a problem) pocket the chump change.

Again, another reason to love hockey, where they seem to be getting their house in order.


No. It's a lot more than that.
Hockey could have the same kind of collusion that happened in baseball.
Baseball's collusion was real.
It wasn't just that owners weren't giving raises.
They weren't even giving offers to other team's UFAs.

Case in Point: Andre Dawson. Montreal Expos offer him a pay cut. From $1.3 Million a year. To 1 Million a year.
Offended, he goes to the market. He gets nothing.
Not even a sniff. From anyone.
He winds up going to Chicago during spring training and he gives them a blank check. Chicago offers him $500,000 a year for three years.
He takes it, 1, because he's super pissed at the expos, and, 2, because he loves to hit a Wrigley.
His first season in Chicago he hits 49 Homers and wins MVP on a last place team.
That same year, Tim Raines and Jack Morris also had terrible times trying to get an offer.
I don't think you're gonna see scenarios quite so extreme in hockey.

Baseball went from one extreme to the other in the flip of a switch -- they changed the marketplace without talking to the players.
And besides if you had a Luxury tax of some kind, owners could always say, hey, we were getting close to threshold, we didn't want to offer the guy too much.
 

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
No. It's a lot more than that.
Hockey could have the same kind of collusion that happened in baseball.
Baseball's collusion was real.
It wasn't just that owners weren't giving raises.
They weren't even giving offers to other team's UFAs.

Case in Point: Andre Dawson. Montreal Expos offer him a pay cut. From $1.3 Million a year. To 1 Million a year.
Offended, he goes to the market. He gets nothing.
Not even a sniff. From anyone.
He winds up going to Chicago during spring training and he gives them a blank check. Chicago offers him $500,000 a year for three years.
He takes it, 1, because he's super pissed at the expos, and, 2, because he loves to hit a Wrigley.
His first season in Chicago he hits 49 Homers and wins MVP on a last place team.
That same year, Tim Raines and Jack Morris also had terrible times trying to get an offer.
I don't think you're gonna see scenarios quite so extreme in hockey.

Baseball went from one extreme to the other in the flip of a switch -- they changed the marketplace without talking to the players.
And besides if you had a Luxury tax of some kind, owners could always say, hey, we were getting close to threshold, we didn't want to offer the guy too much.

I'm getting annoyed that people just look at the Luxury tax of baseball and assume ANY luxury tax wouldn't work. Heck, I could make up a strict salary cap that doesn't work.

Try this. Strict cap at $100 million. Obviously doesn't do squat because no NHL team is at that level. Or have one at $10 million. That's way too low and unrealistic.

A luxury tax could work, depending at where the levels are at and what the penalties are. If the NHLPA changed it to say $1 for $1 over $45 million that would have made it harder for the NHL to say no. Might have still said no though. As much as an NHL owner doesn't want to pay players money, they wouldn't like having to give money to another owner(s) too.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Newsguyone said:
No. It's a lot more than that.
Hockey could have the same kind of collusion that happened in baseball.
Baseball's collusion was real.
It wasn't just that owners weren't giving raises.
They weren't even giving offers to other team's UFAs.

Case in Point: Andre Dawson. Montreal Expos offer him a pay cut. From $1.3 Million a year. To 1 Million a year.
Offended, he goes to the market. He gets nothing.
Not even a sniff. From anyone.
He winds up going to Chicago during spring training and he gives them a blank check. Chicago offers him $500,000 a year for three years.
He takes it, 1, because he's super pissed at the expos, and, 2, because he loves to hit a Wrigley.
His first season in Chicago he hits 49 Homers and wins MVP on a last place team.
That same year, Tim Raines and Jack Morris also had terrible times trying to get an offer.
I don't think you're gonna see scenarios quite so extreme in hockey.

Baseball went from one extreme to the other in the flip of a switch -- they changed the marketplace without talking to the players.
And besides if you had a Luxury tax of some kind, owners could always say, hey, we were getting close to threshold, we didn't want to offer the guy too much.

You are correct, that is a concept in law, however in 1985-7 the charges of collusion were specifically CBA based:

'There is a clause in the CBA forbidding players or teams from acting in collusion. It was put there at the request of the owners, to prevent players from staging joint holdouts. In 1985-1987, the players charged the owners with violations of this clause. As specified in the CBA, the hearings were held before an arbitrator, not in a lawsuit. '

http://remarque.org/~grabiner/strikefaq.html#C7
 

DJA

over the horizon radar
Sponsor
Apr 17, 2002
21,061
5,892
Beyond the Infinite
Wow, I really wanted to believe Eklund, but he's painted himself into a corner with this "ultimatum" business...that supposed leaked memo makes for some hilarious reading.
 

CRAZY_FAN

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
1,362
415
Quebec
chiavsfan said:
Again, this thread started with "Eklund" supposed insider to the stars saying an ultimatum was coming Monday...its now monday 4:30 Eastern time...and no ultimatum to speak of
I would not get my hopes up on rumors posted by this guy....With all the rumors he posted on that site you think some of them with be true...Unfortunatly he just su** at making things up, I would probably get a better ratio ...!
 

chiavsfan

Registered User
Just a quick update. There is alot going on behind the scenes today. The Ultimatum that was expected to happen today has not yet been released, and I'm tryng to find out why. The best I can tell the NHLPA tried to cut it off at the pass this morning by telling a few at the NHL office that they are going to invite the NHL back to the table in the next day or so. That has apparently set off a string of events that has the NHL office delaying their announcement. It is truly hard to tell if the NHL will go ahead with the Ultimatum or not as the day goes on. There are a ton of closed door meetings going on at this hour. If I get any info when they break up I will post it immediately. In a funny note, I recieved a rather threatening e-mail from the NHL office to [email protected] asking me toreveal some sources this morning. This leads me to think that I hit a nerve. I of course replied to them saying I am just trying to do something they aren't doing. Allow the fans of their sport to know that all is not lost. They are OK with all of us beleiving they are willing to throw away the season. They do it for posturing for the other side, and not once have you heard, "We feel terrible for alienating our fans."

http://hockeyrumors.blogspot.com/2005/01/wheeling-and-dealing.html#comments

Ahhh yes, the "reason" we didn't hear the ultimatum
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
The email:

Mr Eklund,

It has been brought to our attention that you have been making claims on your website regarding our dealings. Who have you been speaking with on these matters? Please verify your sources, as your claimes are incorrect and misleading.

Woahhhh some E-mail.
 

PanthersRule96

Registered User
Jun 15, 2003
6,048
0
Visit site
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Woahhhh some E-mail.
I'd like to know the return address of that "email."

But even so, I kinda believe some of the stuff he's said lately. Dealings are probably going on behind the scenes, and both sides know it will hurt the league terribly if the season is cancelled, so I think both will come to their senses and get some hockey played this year. From the loss of fans, to no draft and no Crosby, the league would suffer as Crosby could pull it out of the misery it's in. I really hope Crosby goes to the Rangers as much as I hate them. That'd be the perfect market to use him and Gretzky promoting him as the next one.
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
This guy or kid is annoying. I've seen numerous posts from this site and others post to his site and he's been wrong about everything. If he was such a good writer, he wouldn't be doing a free webblog. At least get your own url for crying out loud.
 

Wondercarrot

By The Power of Canadian Tire Centre
Jul 2, 2002
8,126
3,968
that is hilarious. "our dealings"?!? I believe the e-mail was sent by...Victor Neumann.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
Someone make a phony e-mail addy up like... [email protected] and send him an e-mail stating to demand he stop releasing private info...10 minutes later im sure he'll have that on his website.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Please verify your sources, as your claimes are incorrect and misleading.

Looks like NHL head office forgot to run their email through the ol' spell checker. :joker:

In terms of how legit it is, I'd put it on the level of a Forsberg Flop....barely.
 

waffledave

waffledave, from hf
Aug 22, 2004
33,417
15,736
Montreal
He just deleted the post with the bad spelling e-mail and put up a new one with the correct spelling.

Bye bye credibility!
 

gallagher

Registered User
GregStack said:
Because, we all know it's ridiculous to expect a business to take care of it's finances. Clearly it's up to the employees to ensure the owner makes money.


In business, if you're a crappy employee, you get fired. If you were a great interview, but sucked in application, you're gone. In the NHL, if you're a crappy player, I still have to pay you, even if you showed promise when I signed you.

Signed contracts in the NHL are guaranteed, unlike the other major sports, which is another, oft unmentioned, sticking point of this CBA.

This kind of thinking is the stuff that's keeping us from getting back to real hockey.

The players also need to realize that the average playing career is only a couple years long, how many years at $1 mill plus are you willing to sit out? After this you have to go work for your wife's dad at the car dealership or the real estate agency in your hometown. Neither of those pay $1 mill.... and not many NHLers are Chris Pronger and have millions in investments and savings and could care less if they ever play again.

In other words, players: realize that the vast majority of you are making WAY more than you'll ever make again. On top of that, even under a cap, you'll still make more than you'll ever make again...so what is the problem?

Let's get the cap done and go back to ALL of us hating the owners again. I feel like I need a shower after supporting the uber-rich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->