NHL Cancels Regular Season Games Through December 14th and 2013 All-Star Game

[BobNystromOwnsU]

Originally Posted by RayzorEdge

I skimmed through twitter in my spare time Tuesday and Wednesday and laughed at all the retards who actually thought a deal was going to get done overnight. Any momentum is always killed by egos and I saw it coming a mile away. Anyone remember what happened in 2005 before the season was cancelled?

There's good reason why we don't care. We have several minor and junior leagues giving us great hockey. The NHL is nothing more than a daytime soap.

Remember who agreed with you, Ray. But you can't blame them. they love hockey. And like when you love a pretty girl who used to be nice to you, you're blind in love sometimes.

[Mike Tython]

Originally Posted by Mike Tython

And there's gotta be some in-fighting in the PA. At least as far as the contract lengths go. Seriously, how many players in the PA will ever be lucky enough to get a five year contract in free agency, let alone a seven year contract if they are on the current roster? 10%? 20%? More? Less? Yeah, the Crosbys and Ovechkins of the league will (and in their case, already have and then some). But what about the rest of them like (and I'm using Pens players since I'm most familiar with them) the Tyler Kennedys and Joe Vitales of the league? Those guys probably just pray for a 1-3 year deal. That's gotta be a source of major disconnect.

And Bob McKenzie just tweeted about this very point:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
...@capgeek said 89 players currently are on contracts longer than 5 years.

Seems worth the fight, eh? Jesus.

[Phila26Flyers]

How can the players union be taken seriously when they keep submitting the same counter-proposal to the NHL? A compromise means both sides don't get everything they want. The union has to join the owners in the give-and-take. The owners have shown they are willing to compromise. The players union has hardly done that. Say what you want about either side being greedy, but the side getting most of the blame (the owners) has been the only side making progress toward the middle. If the players don't want salary rollbacks and want a 50/50 split, they're going to have to cede some of their positions, like contract term limits and free agency eligibility.

Or we can do this for another year.

[RedWolf]

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

The union has to join the owners in the give-and-take. The owners have shown they are willing to compromise. The players union has hardly done that.

Please provide a source as evidence the owners are "willing to compromise."
It's not the players making statements like "this is a hill we will die on", you're not interested in negotiation when you are only looking for a yes or no answer.

Comments from a player actually involved and not just some fan's opinion:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/...p-of-hill.html

[Phila26Flyers]

Originally Posted by RedWolf

Please provide a source as evidence the owners are "willing to compromise."
It's not the players making statements like "this is a hill we will die on", you're not interested in negotiation when you are only looking for a yes or no answer.

Comments from a player actually involved and not just some fan's opinion:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/...p-of-hill.html

They are open to splitting revenue with the players. Considering that was originally the biggest problem, I'd say that's a nice compromise. The owners have to take a stand on certain issues, otherwise it's not a compromise, it's the players union getting everything it wants. So the owners have chosen contract term limits as that issue they won't budge on. Do you really need the meaning of compromise and how negotiations work spelled out for you?

[flex_buff_chest]

[flex_buff_chest]

[flex_buff_chest]

[RedWolf]

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

They are open to splitting revenue with the players. Considering that was originally the biggest problem, I'd say that's a nice compromise.

Perhaps you should actually read the article I linked.

"An angry Bettman said Thursday night the league's proposal to use $300 million to "make whole" players contracts in deferred compensation -- now being called "transition payments" -- had been withdrawn."

When you withdraw, what both side consider the biggest issue, you're not interested in compromise or negotiation, you just set everything back to square one, your using siege tactics. It's the same technique lawyers uses, try and bankrupt the other guy so he's forced to accept your terms with no negotiation.

It's pretty clear to me, the owners intend to keep resetting "negotiations" until the players are to demoralized (or to broke) and simply accept the owners terms.

Fact, the owners locked out the players, the players didn't strike. IMHO the owners have demonstrated no interest in good faith negotiations, they maintain the "my way or the highway" attitude. Now ask yourself, if the players return feeling like they got shafted (because unlike owners their primary source of money is playing hockey) how hard do you think they will play? What quality of hockey will we be watching (if any of us decide to watch, I'm happy watching the AHL)?

I suspect (stealing logic from Office Space) they will try just hard enough not to be benched/traded, would you work harder if someone just cut your pay 7% (knowing hard work won't bring the money back, and if the owners have their way it would be 8 to 10 years before you could even talk about money again, which is far beyond the average players career of 5 years)?

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

Do you really need the meaning of compromise and how negotiations work spelled out for you?

If you think that's what the owners are actually doing, I guess I don't understand this new definition of compromise or negotiations.

[Phila26Flyers]

The owners withdrew their suggestion for transition payments because, unlike the players union, they're not going to keep submitting the same proposal hoping that this time it passes. If the players didn't like the idea, then the owners withdraw it. Something tells me it's not going to be the last we hear of that idea though.

You seem to be confusing my point of view as support for salary rollbacks. I don't support that and I don't support either side more than the other. My point -- the one you initially responded to -- is that the players have done NOTHING to contribute to the progress of negotiations. The owners, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to compromise and have even made a big step toward the middle when they tentatively agreed to a revenue split. The fact that the owners offered contracts in full through a separate fund also shows they are willing to compromise from their original position. The players didn't like the idea so the players rejected it and the owners withdrew the offer so they don't keep submitting the same rejected ideas like the players are.

Both sides blow and I hope they lose three more seasons (not that I'll be watching when they return anyway). But to say the owners are causing all the disturbances is wrong.

[RedWolf]

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

The owners withdrew their suggestion for transition payments because, unlike the players union, they're not going to keep submitting the same proposal hoping that this time it passes. If the players didn't like the idea, then the owners withdraw it. Something tells me it's not going to be the last we hear of that idea though.

So you have seen the proposals the players keep submitting, care to link them? Because I suspect they aren't dumb enough to keep handing over the same offer without making some changes. Again, please feel free to back up your statements with some type of evidence.

Players "liked" the idea of "made whole" what they could not agree on was the amount. When both sides agree in principal there is no need to entirely withdraw from that position, like buying a car there is offer and counter offer, the side that withdraws shows they are unwilling to deal.

Those owners must be fast readers, since they are rejecting the offers in 15 min. It's almost as if they aren't reading them at all, which might also be the reason they aren't submitting any counter proposals.
Evidence:
http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2...ject_play.html

It's one thing to say, "300 mill that's as high as we can go", it's entirely different to say, we were willing to offer 300 mil but now you get zero because you pushed us on some other issue. It wasn't removed because the players didn't like it, it was a punitive measure, why would Bettman have done it out of anger if it was just because the players didn't like it.

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

You seem to be confusing my point of view as support for salary rollbacks. I don't support that and I don't support either side more than the other. My point -- the one you initially responded to -- is that the players have done NOTHING to contribute to the progress of negotiations.

So agreeing in principal to reduction from 57% to 50% is nothing in your mind?
Then feel free to send me 7% of your pay check, just think of it as nothing. Players have agreed to a cut in salary there is no debate on that point, and there seems to be a point were both side can feel they both win (the magical 50/50). Both side seem to agree to that term, it's when they go to 50/50 that is the sticking point.

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

The owners, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to compromise and have even made a big step toward the middle when they tentatively agreed to a revenue split.

Oh how generous of the owners, their share goes up and the players goes down, must have taken them a long time to agree to that. Add that the owners want it to be retroactive on existing signed contracts, their generosity has no depth. Blame totally on the players for not taking such a good deal.

It's almost like Bettman is afraid of Fehr, imagine the cops saying to a suspect under interrogation, "our deal is off if you bring your lawyer back in!"

"Winnipeg Jets defenceman Ron Hainsey, an influential member of the NHLPA's negotiating committee, said that players were told by the NHL on Wednesday night that it would be a potential "deal-breaker" if Fehr was brought back into the negotiating room.

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

The fact that the owners offered contracts in full through a separate fund also shows they are willing to compromise from their original position. The players didn't like the idea so the players rejected it and the owners withdrew the offer so they don't keep submitting the same rejected ideas like the players are.

Again please provide ANY evidence supporting this statement, the owners never offered "in full" (league offer 211 million) they have offered multiple different payment schemes but NONE have matched what the players feel is "in full" (393 million). The owners are so ridiculously low that adding an additional 100 million was considered insulting. Players never rejected it they just didn't say "Oh thank you Mr. Owner, that huge sacrifice on your part will seal the deal", and the owners said "this is a package deal, take it or leave it", again, my way or the highway. When you are negotiating in good faith EVERYTHING is negotiable.

Evidence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12...n_2251595.html
"Not only was the NHL flatly rejecting the union's offer, it was also pulling all the concessions it made earlier this week off the table."

Like a petulant child that invites a friend to play in the sand box and then takes away the toys when the friends doesn't want to play his game.

I see the players making offers, and the owners rejecting said offers.
I see owners making low ball offerings, and then pulling them back when the players don't capitulate in some other area.

If you really want to get a deal done you don't offer a "package only deal" that has no negotiable terms. If the owners really wanted to deal then take the players proposal and make counter offers, rejecting it in whole is indicative of a piss poor negotiator.

Neither side is without blame, on that we agree, I just think more of it belongs on the owners, and you apparently think it's on the players, to each his own.

[Phila26Flyers]

I've already put more effort into this conversation than I care about the league anymore, so I'm just going to make a couple quick points:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

So agreeing in principal to reduction from 57% to 50% is nothing in your mind?
Then feel free to send me 7% of your pay check, just think of it as nothing. Players have agreed to a cut in salary there is no debate on that point, and there seems to be a point were both side can feel they both win (the magical 50/50). Both side seem to agree to that term, it's when they go to 50/50 that is the sticking point.

I love this comparison. I'm assuming you're talking about the revenue split, and not salary rollbacks (which I disagree with). When I have ALL of my medical bills paid for, the best country's best doctors in my back pocket, all of my travel expenses paid, many of my meals paid, and make millions over the course of a short career, THEN we can talk about handing over 7% of my paycheck. Until that happens, the analogy is ridiculously stupid and baseless. The owners foot the bill of everything and keep the league running. They put in the financial support, they should reap the majority of the financial benefits. The owner of whatever company you work at makes more money than you, despite you doing the labor. That's the way the business world works. Somehow, the players think they are entitled to the majority of the financial rewards of the organization they work for, despite being coddled and babied as much as they are. They have NO financial worries.

Don't bring up health risks either. That's the typical fallback response. The players don't risk their health any more than your average construction worker. But the players do get their full salary even if they miss the whole season with a torn ACL. Does that construction worker get his full salary?

Oh how generous of the owners, their share goes up and the players goes down, must have taken them a long time to agree to that. Add that the owners want it to be retroactive on existing signed contracts, their generosity has no depth. Blame totally on the players for not taking such a good deal.

Why shouldn't the owners' share go up, or stay where it is? What share do you make of your company's earnings?

[blackngold]

Let's take a quick trip down Memory Lane to when it all began...

Chelios vs Bettman - YouTube

[Plateworker]

Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers

I've already put more effort into this conversation than I care about the league anymore, so I'm just going to make a couple quick points:


I love this comparison. I'm assuming you're talking about the revenue split, and not salary rollbacks (which I disagree with). When I have ALL of my medical bills paid for, the best country's best doctors in my back pocket, all of my travel expenses paid, many of my meals paid, and make millions over the course of a short career, THEN we can talk about handing over 7% of my paycheck. Until that happens, the analogy is ridiculously stupid and baseless. The owners foot the bill of everything and keep the league running. They put in the financial support, they should reap the majority of the financial benefits. The owner of whatever company you work at makes more money than you, despite you doing the labor. That's the way the business world works. Somehow, the players think they are entitled to the majority of the financial rewards of the organization they work for, despite being coddled and babied as much as they are. They have NO financial worries.

Don't bring up health risks either. That's the typical fallback response. The players don't risk their health any more than your average construction worker. But the players do get their full salary even if they miss the whole season with a torn ACL. Does that construction worker get his full salary?


Why shouldn't the owners' share go up, or stay where it is? What share do you make of your company's earnings?

Please stop making yourself look like an owners tool. You are comparing apples and oranges, I did not know they are hockey factories everywhere where we can all work....comparing a regular owner of a company to a billionare industry titan is like comparing you to a professional hockey player...HELLOOOOO...Read, learn...you offer stuff with no evidence then act as if the evidence Redway presents you is nothing. Why are you always on the WRONG side of every arguement? The owners want to break the union pure and simple. Next step is to go amnesty and sue the balls off the owners that is the only way these owners will listen. The season is over already because who the F wants to see 58 games of hockey played in a BS state of mind. Shut it down and make the stipulation that ZERO negotiations take place if Bettman is involved. 3 work stoppages in 18 years and you are blaming the players...now that is a laugh. 2 owners just signed guys to 6 year contracts and now want 5 year tops...yeah ok good luck with that. Mckenzie can say what he wants but those 89 players keep this league afloat, sorry no one brings their kids to see Joe Vitale and Kennedy buddy. Even as old school as I am when say Detroit came to town I was not there to see Kocur or Mckay for 3 minutes I was there to watch Yzerman and Federov work their magic up close...that is reality, like it or not.

[Phila26Flyers]

Yep I'm ALWAYS wrong and you happen to be right. What are the odds you'd think that?

Nah, I'm not a puppet for the owners. I just don't absolve the players union of blame like some of you guys are.