Turnaround?

waffledave · Dec 3, 2004

This has probably been mentioned already, but anybody feel like the whole PR balance has been switched? Before, the owners were winning the PR battle hands down, but now that the PA is submitting a proposal and arranging another meeting, it looks more like the players want to get this deal closed and the season started ASAP. I think it was the PA that submitted the last proposal too?

Bettman has been taking a licking lately and has been looking pretty weak. I think the media is starting to view him as a bad guy. Now with the PA taking initiative, I think the players are going to take the upper hand in the PR battle.

Bruwinz37 · Dec 3, 2004

waffledave said:
This has probably been mentioned already, but anybody feel like the whole PR balance has been switched? Before, the owners were winning the PR battle hands down, but now that the PA is submitting a proposal and arranging another meeting, it looks more like the players want to get this deal closed and the season started ASAP. I think it was the PA that submitted the last proposal too?

Bettman has been taking a licking lately and has been looking pretty weak. I think the media is starting to view him as a bad guy. Now with the PA taking initiative, I think the players are going to take the upper hand in the PR battle.

In a word? No.

dem · Dec 3, 2004

If its just another joke proposal with a 5% rollback... expect the PA to take a beating in the press.

Iceman23 · Dec 3, 2004

The only way the owners start losing in the PR war is if the players make a strong, legitimate offer but come short of a salary cap. It'll show that the owners aren't negotiating in good faith and thus the impasse that they might want is impossible to obtain.

The public will always have trouble with siding with a group that is rich beyond their imagination and seems to want more.

EventHorizon · Dec 3, 2004

Iceman23 said:
The public will always have trouble with siding with a group that is rich beyond their imagination and seems to want more.

But...You just described both groups.

Motown Beatdown · Dec 3, 2004

Iceman23 said:
The public will always have trouble with siding with a group that is rich beyond their imagination and seems to want more.

Then why are Canadian (polls support them) favoring Billionaires over Millionaires?

Taranis_24 · Dec 3, 2004

JWI19 said:
Then why are Canadian (polls support them) favoring Billionaires over Millionaires?

Maybe, it's because they are right this time....

Motown Beatdown · Dec 3, 2004

Taranis_24 said:
Maybe, it's because they are right this time....

I dont know man, i dont think anyone can be right when it comes to choosing between millionaires and billionaires.

macho232 · Dec 3, 2004

JWI19 said:
Then why are Canadian (polls support them) favoring Billionaires over Millionaires?

The owners made there money outside of hockey, by being good business men, because their smarter then the average hockey player

jeffbear · Dec 3, 2004

IMO the PR battle is meaningless in this negotiation. All the fans want is hockey ... I don't get the sense that they really care about who wins or loses the negotiations in the long run. To quote Bill Murray ... it just doesn't matter.

shakes · Dec 3, 2004

JWI19 said:
Then why are Canadian (polls support them) favoring Billionaires over Millionaires?

Because the NHLPA hasnt made a substantial offer to the League. If this does turn out to be a substantial offer and the NHL turns it down outright, then you will probably see the polls even out a lot.

Funny how you don't see polls about who the US fans support.

YellHockey* · Dec 3, 2004

macho232 said:
The owners made there money outside of hockey, by being good business men, because their smarter then the average hockey player

And apparently, smarter then the average fan, since that's whose eyes they're pulling the wool over.

Tap on the Ankle · Dec 3, 2004

I don't care how rich the owners are. The only people in this world who deserve to make million dollar salaries are entrepreneurs, because they bear the risk of losing it all. Large company executives, sports stars, etc. don't bear that kind of risk.

GKJ · Dec 3, 2004

shakes said:
Because the NHLPA hasnt made a substantial offer to the League. If this does turn out to be a substantial offer and the NHL turns it down outright, then you will probably see the polls even out a lot.

Funny how you don't see polls about who the US fans support.

Most US fans don't even know there is a lockout.

macho232 · Dec 4, 2004

BlackRedGold said:
And apparently, smarter then the average fan, since that's whose eyes they're pulling the wool over.

Even the players admit that the league lost around 100 million. Wake up buddy.

hockeytown9321 · Dec 4, 2004

shakes said:
Because the NHLPA hasnt made a substantial offer to the League. If this does turn out to be a substantial offer and the NHL turns it down outright, then you will probably see the polls even out a lot.

Funny how you don't see polls about who the US fans support.

56% of US sports fans don't even know there's a lockout.

I in the Eye · Dec 4, 2004

IF the NHLPA submits an offer that starts with a 75% luxury tax, and IF the NHL refuses to have meaningful negotiations using this as a starting point, then depending on the particulars of the player's proposal (and how I feel that day), I as a fan may be changing my stance to pro-player, but not anti-owner...

Using this rumoured proposal as a starting point (while making some basic initial assumptions), this may be a foundation for getting the GoCoyotes' CBA proposal mentioned here (what seems like months back) implemented... Out of all the proposals I've personally read and considered in some detail, GoCoyotes makes the most sense to me...

Regardless, I applaud the players for submitting a proposal that is rumoured to have some meat to it... As a fan who misses NHL hockey (and going to Canucks games), I appreciate it...

I also appreciate that it is ultimately up to the owners to decide if it makes sense for them... It, after all, is their business - and as a fan, it is very easy for me to spend their money and make decisions on their behalf...

At the same time, however, if the owners cancel the season without having meaningful discussions around a significant luxury tax (which, if high enough, can act as a soft cap), then I'd have to start re-considering my interpretation of their motives - where it may be more plausible to me that they are putting their quest for $ far above the interests of the game...

As a long-time Canucks hockey fan and ticket holder for the last several years, this isn't ok with me... I'm an owner supporter, but I'm not going to jump off a bridge with them - not when I don't have the opportunity to make the money with them... If I don't feel that the owners are doing what is the best for the game, as a fan, I have no other sensible reason to support their cause... I don't care how much they (or the players) make (I say let them fight it out and try to get as much as they can)... But when there is what may be a reasonable offer on the table for further negotiation (that may be able to satisfy both sides with more give and take), I say 'game over'... time to pick up the pieces, count what you were able to get, move on, and get back to work (which is actually, really a game)...

I don't have any grand illusions that the owners are in this CBA fight solely for the good of the game (I understand that $ drives business decisions)... Yet, if I feel like I've been had (and only I can determine when and why I feel like I've been had), f*** 'em... I'll watch the Canucks on TV instead of paying a significant amount of money to watch them at GM Place...

I can and will do it... I'm stubborn... and I'm no one's b!tch...

PecaFan · Dec 5, 2004

I in the Eye said:
At the same time, however, if the owners cancel the season without having meaningful discussions around a significant luxury tax (which, if high enough, can act as a soft cap), then I'd have to start re-considering my interpretation of their motives - where it may be more plausible to me that they are putting their quest for $ far above the interests of the game...

That's funny, I see it exactly the opposite as you. If the owners cancel the season, then I believe them even more that there's a serious problem, because $2.2 billion dollars just got flushed down the drain.

If they accept a simple luxury tax, then that shows that the problems weren't all that big in the first place.

thinkwild · Dec 5, 2004

I in the Eye said:
IF the NHLPA submits an offer that starts with a 75% luxury tax, and IF the NHL refuses to have meaningful negotiations using this as a starting point, then depending on the particulars of the player's proposal (and how I feel that day), I as a fan may be changing my stance to pro-player, but not anti-owner...

Fair enough. The players obviously want a league that is healthy and works. They are proposing concessions that help the owners help themselves. Significant concessions. The amount put forth in their proposals is besides the point, it is the framework. Its just a money battle. There is a bunch of different bottom lines there. The owners are smart businessmen, they can make any of them work. They have the ability to play hardball, but shutting down the season means only one thing. And it certainly isnt that they had no choice.

Turnaround?

waffledave, from hf

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Bring Back Ties!

Need a slump buster

Registered User

Need a slump buster

Registered User

Registered User

Pep City

YellHockey*

Guest

Registered User

Global Moderator

Registered User

Registered User

Drop a ball it falls

Registered User

Veni Vidi Toga

Ad

Ad

Ad