NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted November 15, 2012 Renowned mediator wants crack at talks Bring this guy on board asap Am I the only that read this as: "A Renowned Mediator wants to bring Crack (the drug) to the NHL Talks between the union and the owners." ??? 2 thegerkin and 55fan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rrasco 1,312 Report post Posted November 15, 2012 Am I the only that read this as: "A Renowned Mediator wants to bring Crack (the drug) to the NHL Talks between the union and the owners." ??? Ah, ambiguity... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 15, 2012 Am I the only that read this as: "A Renowned Mediator wants to bring Crack (the drug) to the NHL Talks between the union and the owners." ??? With about as much sense as this lockout has made, it couldn't hurt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Axe Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Am I the only that read this as: "A Renowned Mediator wants to bring Crack (the drug) to the NHL Talks between the union and the owners." ??? Yes. You are a crack head and cant stop thinking about it. Just kidding! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 More things about the lockout I'm hoping aren't true. From Aaron Ward's Twitter: Sources have indicated Bettman floated the idea to NHLPA that both sides take 2 week moratorium.This has NOT been discussed further. Apparently it's true. Dreger's Twitter: Series of Daly quotes on league initiated hiatus: "We have made repeated moves in the Players' direction with absolutely no reciprocation."Daly: "unfortunately, we have determined we are involved with Union leadership that has no genuine interest in reaching an agreement." Daly: "Regardless of what we propose or how we suggest to compromise the answer is "no," At some pt you have to say "enough is enough". So more finger pointing and blame game and no negotiating. Perfect. f*** this league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 R.I.P. NHL. 1917-2012. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Electrophile 3,554 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Does anyone care about hockey anymore? I've found I don't really miss it, and I didn't think I'd feel that way. All of these clowns have so completely soured the sport for me, if it comes back, I won't watch it. I'll follow the games to some extent here on LGW, but I sure as hell won't go out of my way for it. I did the same thing after the MLB strike in 1994, and it took quite a long time to re-ignite my love for baseball. Grown adults, all making a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge sum of money well beyond that of their fans, arguing over who should get more money. PATHETIC. 1 Hockeymom1960 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 229 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Daren Millard @darenmillard Per Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, "Don (fehr) called Gary (Bettman) and suggested he didn't know how to proceed from here. Gary suggested that perhaps a moratorium might be in order. We have not heard back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
55fan 5,133 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Here's a compromise: How about Bettman and Fehr both take a break- a very long break- and bring in scrubs to do the negotiating? 1 Hockeymom1960 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Greg Wyshynski's take on the NHL's two week break proposal. I rather like the last paragraph... Hopefully this just another ploy to get the players back to the table; otherwise, we'd be very interested to hear how a League that's been selling the idea that time is running short to save the season would propose to sit back, watch Blu-Ray box sets of "The Wire" and lay off the CBA talks for 14 days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 A "timeout" during a lockout? Welcome to Bettmanland. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 A "timeout" during a lockout? Welcome to Bettmanland. "The Crappiest Place on Earth"™ 2 55fan and haroldsnepsts reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Here is an update on Wayne Simmonds, who decided to play temporarily in the Czech Republic, from Sportsnet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 A two week break? No problem. Hell, take a two year break. Screw this league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 TSN's Scott Cullen with the "elephant-in-the-room" tweet... I'm fascinated by NHL assertion that they have moved in the players' direction -- I was unaware of any player gains in CBA proposals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) TSN's Scott Cullen with the "elephant-in-the-room" tweet... Lets put it this way.... If the shoe was on the other foot, and the players were making 43% while the owners were making 57%, how many people would be crying foul if the players went on strike in an attempt to get an even split of revenues? The ownership in that case would not be gaining anything either. Edited November 16, 2012 by Nightfall 2 hillbillywingsfan and drwscc reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drwscc 212 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Lets put it this way.... If the shoe was on the other foot, and the players were making 43% while the owners were making 57%, how many people would be crying foul if the players went on strike in an attempt to get an even split of revenues? The ownership in that case would not be gaining anything either. You take your logic elsewhere, good sir. There is no place for that here. This is a "Buttman is eeeeevil hurr hurr" board. 2 hillbillywingsfan and Chelios57 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Lets put it this way.... If the shoe was on the other foot, and the players were making 43% while the owners were making 57%, how many people would be crying foul if the players went on strike in an attempt to get an even split of revenues? The ownership in that case would not be gaining anything either. You seem to be forgetting that the NHL's first offer (see July 13) was that exact same percentage, that you just "what-if'd"... The NHL makes its first proposal to the NHL Players' Association in Toronto. The NHL wants the players' share of hockey-related revenue (HRR) reduced from 57 percent to 43 percent and include new definitions for HRR. But what you're overlooking is the fact that the League is not only demanding that the players take less a share of the HRR pie (to say nothing of the fact that they're refusing to honor contracts already signed), they're also trying to impose massive restrictions on the player's contracting rights and free agency availability. The League is in a "take-take-take" mode, and has not been willing to concede anything to the PA as an incentive. For instance, in 2004/05 the PA accepted a hard salary cap (which was a clear "win" for owners), and accepted that cap be tied to revenues (again, something the League insisted on), they still had things they could take away from the process as a "win" for their side. Most notably, the reduction in UFA age (was 31, dropped to 28 or 7 yrs) and the increase in the minimum salary (was $185,000, rose to $500,000 by deal's end). So, it begs the "elephant in the room" question. What exactly has the League offered to the players as incentive? The right to come back and play again? If negotiation is a "give and take" process, then the League is only halfway involved in the process. 1 55fan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 TSN's Scott Cullen with the "elephant-in-the-room" tweet... The NHL is using the faulty logic that they've conceded a lot because they moved off their insane first proposal. I guess Daly would've preferred that Fehr's first counter was to remove salary cap. Then the players could've made the large concession of agreeing to the cap all over again. It would also likely mean we'd lose hockey for the whole year. Instead, they started by accepting that the cap was here to stay. The players have moved from 57% to 50%. That doesn't count? It's also not a coincidence that the league started with the ridiculous 43% demand, so 50/50 would actually seem like a concession by the NHL (a falsehood that people seem to be falling for) instead of what it actually is, the players making the large concession. The league's concessions involve reducing the absurd demands they began with. The players concessions involve actually giving up millions of dollars. 1 55fan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 But what you're overlooking is the fact that the League is not only demanding that the players take less a share of the HRR pie (to say nothing of the fact that they're refusing to honor contracts already signed), they're also trying to impose massive restrictions on the player's contracting rights and free agency availability. The League is in a "take-take-take" mode, and has not been willing to concede anything to the PA as an incentive. For instance, in 2004/05 the PA accepted a hard salary cap (which was a clear "win" for owners), and accepted that cap be tied to revenues (again, something the League insisted on), they still had things they could take away from the process as a "win" for their side. Most notably, the reduction in UFA age (was 31, dropped to 28 or 7 yrs) and the increase in the minimum salary (was $185,000, rose to $500,000 by deal's end). So, it begs the "elephant in the room" question. What exactly has the League offered to the players as incentive? The right to come back and play again? If negotiation is a "give and take" process, then the League is only halfway involved in the process. Exactly. Every single element of every proposal is worse for the players. The league should hang tough on the back-diving restrictions because they prevent cap circumvention, but the other contract restrictions don't affect how much owners will spend on players. It only affects the allocation of those dollars among a franchise. The league may have gotten less than the absurd amount they wanted at the start, but so far they're the ones who've gained everything in this negotiation. To claim they union doesn't want to concede anything is idiotic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 The league's concessions involve reducing the absurd demands they began with. The players concessions involve actually giving up millions of dollars. The league may have gotten less than the absurd amount they wanted at the start, but so far they're the ones who've gained everything in this negotiation. To claim they union doesn't want to concede anything is idiotic. QFE, over and over again. Whether the PA accepted 43%, or 46%, or eventually accepts 50%, it's still a massive gain for the League, and a massive concession for the PA. To be fair, I think the owners' desire to have a larger share of HRR is perfectly reasonable, which inevitably means the players will have to take a smaller share. And the owners are also perfectly reasonable to place restrictions on contracts to eliminate the "back-diving" practices. However, the league needs to soften it's demands to make something equitable for the players too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 But what you're overlooking is the fact that the League is not only demanding that the players take less a share of the HRR pie (to say nothing of the fact that they're refusing to honor contracts already signed), they're also trying to impose massive restrictions on the player's contracting rights and free agency availability. The League is in a "take-take-take" mode, and has not been willing to concede anything to the PA as an incentive. For instance, in 2004/05 the PA accepted a hard salary cap (which was a clear "win" for owners), and accepted that cap be tied to revenues (again, something the League insisted on), they still had things they could take away from the process as a "win" for their side. Most notably, the reduction in UFA age (was 31, dropped to 28 or 7 yrs) and the increase in the minimum salary (was $185,000, rose to $500,000 by deal's end). So, it begs the "elephant in the room" question. What exactly has the League offered to the players as incentive? The right to come back and play again? If negotiation is a "give and take" process, then the League is only halfway involved in the process. As I said before, if the shoe was on the other foot and the roles were reversed, the players would be take-take-taking while the owners would be giving. It is a very limited two way street when one side has a far superior deal than the other. Now, how much the side getting the weaker deal should give up, that is up for debate. When the players were raping the owners for 76% of the revenues, and they had to take a giant rollback, people were on the sides of the owners for the most part. I guess 57% is enough to swing things back in favor of players. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 QFE, over and over again. Whether the PA accepted 43%, or 46%, or eventually accepts 50%, it's still a massive gain for the League, and a massive concession for the PA. To be fair, I think the owners' desire to have a larger share of HRR is perfectly reasonable, which inevitably means the players will have to take a smaller share. And the owners are also perfectly reasonable to place restrictions on contracts to eliminate the "back-diving" practices. However, the league needs to soften it's demands to make something equitable for the players too. Exactly. My main point was the absurdity of Daly claiming the union doesn't want to negotiate or make concessions. That's all they've done. One of the only "concessions" where the league moved towards the union's proposal was regarding revenue sharing, which doesn't really even help the players. That helps the league and works toward addressing the biggest problem in the league, the disparity between franchises. All the fans and the media have a pretty good guess as to what the final CBA will look like and the two sides aren't that far away. It's what makes this whole thing so idiotic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) The NHL has lost a lot more games due to labor disputes (all lockouts during Bettman's regime) than any other league During bettman's reign as commissioner not including the current lockout the NHL has lost 1698 games due to lockouts MLB has lost 948 games due to labor disputes and the NBA has lost 704 games while the NFL hasn't lost any. Athletes are athletes, there are hundreds of them. Hockey players are not much different than athletes in other sports The biggest difference between the NHL and other sports leagues is that the other ones aren't run by Bettman Edited November 16, 2012 by Johnz96 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladdy16 2,154 Report post Posted November 16, 2012 Whatever side of the fence they're on, I know many, many fans that aren't all that interested in watching this year. This is going to cost them much more than they're aware of. We may be the greatest fans on earth, but we're not suckers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
