Lockout

[Sarcastic]

i don't see the relevancy of fehr's compensation. his job is to get the best possible deal for the players. holding out long enough to cancel a season is one of his tactics, but it's not his ultimate goal.

Again, the thing about doing best for the players. That's the whole problem. He should be doing what's best for the players and the league, because a crappy league where teams can't afford to sign players is bad for everyone including the players. No one on that side seems to get that. They want to almost ruin the league, as long as they get nice contracts.

[Sarcastic]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

[MRandall25]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

That's funny, cuz that's how the majority of the owners come across as well. The players come down closer to where you're at and all you say is "We aren't moving". THAT is the definition of "stubborn".

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

[joopen]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

That's funny, cuz that's how the majority of the owners come across as well. The players come down closer to where you're at and all you say is "We aren't moving". THAT is the definition of "stubborn".

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Wow, I can't believe the owners didn't agree to de-link revenue and the salary cap.

[mikey287]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

[MRandall25]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

That's funny, cuz that's how the majority of the owners come across as well. The players come down closer to where you're at and all you say is "We aren't moving". THAT is the definition of "stubborn".

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Wow, I can't believe the owners didn't agree to de-link revenue and the salary cap.

That's not my point. That's what negotiation is for. They're 182 million off. 182 million. That's pocket change and they won't even budge on it.

[mikey287]

Not pictured: the "make whole" provision was the owners budging to begin with.

[MRandall25]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

And that's also not the point. The players aren't making billions outside of hockey like these owners are. The owners who lose money over a year probably make that in a month outside out hockey.

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount. Players can't do that.

[MRandall25]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

That's funny, cuz that's how the majority of the owners come across as well. The players come down to where you're at and all you say is "We aren't moving". THAT is the definition of "stubborn".

[joopen]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

That's funny, cuz that's how the majority of the owners come across as well. The players come down closer to where you're at and all you say is "We aren't moving". THAT is the definition of "stubborn".

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Wow, I can't believe the owners didn't agree to de-link revenue and the salary cap.

That's not my point. That's what negotiation is for. They're 182 million off. 182 million. That's pocket change and they won't even budge on it.

No they aren't $182 million off. They are that plus, de-linkage, plus contracting rights away... Thats significant. The owners negotiated already by offering the $200+ million make whole provision. They players said "Thanks, how about more plus nothing else you wanted?"

[Pitts]

I always wondered how much they pay the terrorist. Well. It's $3 million dollars a year. I started laughing when I read that because this guy is making $3m and players will probably lose a whole year's worth of salary. lmao.

And yet another person forgets that he's not getting paid until the lockout is over...

Not to mention that he is actually working while the players are not. If I'm doing a job I was hired for, I would expect to get paid.

Do you honestly think he's working?

lol...is that a serious question?

If there is no give on either side and not much contact, then what do they do all day.

Go out for tea and crumpets! I'm pretty sure could be fielding calls/meetings from players, agents, the NHL, etc. all day. It's called working.

[joopen]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

That's funny, cuz that's how the majority of the owners come across as well. The players come down to where you're at and all you say is "We aren't moving". THAT is the definition of "stubborn".

You mean after they already offered $200+ million? Yup they should have jumped at the prospect of giving them more and not getting any other concessions?

[joopen]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

And that's also not the point. The players aren't making billions outside of hockey like these owners are. The owners who lose money over a year probably make that in a month outside out hockey.

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount. Players can't do that.

I'm confused as to your point.

[shmenguin]

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount.

I'm confused as to your point.

if his point is to illustrate why this lockout was absolutely the right choice, he's succeeded.

[mikey287]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

And that's also not the point. The players aren't making billions outside of hockey like these owners are. The owners who lose money over a year probably make that in a month outside out hockey.

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount. Players can't do that.

Are you talking about one owner? Some owners? All owners? Or are we just making baseless, blanket statements to justify a fairly unrealistic position?

[MRandall25]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

And that's also not the point. The players aren't making billions outside of hockey like these owners are. The owners who lose money over a year probably make that in a month outside out hockey.

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount. Players can't do that.

I'm confused as to your point.

The owners are still making money, regardless of the lockout's outcome. He just picked a different part of my post.

It's in reference to Sarcastic's post. He says Fehr is the only person who is "stubborn and doesn't care about hockey", but doesn't take into account the owners who have refused time and time again to even negotiate off the players' offers, all while their sitting back and making their money anyway.

[mikey287]

Why can we only negotiate off of the players' offers? That sounds like the definition of "stubborn" and "[careless]"

[MRandall25]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

And that's also not the point. The players aren't making billions outside of hockey like these owners are. The owners who lose money over a year probably make that in a month outside out hockey.

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount. Players can't do that.

Are you talking about one owner? Some owners? All owners? Or are we just making baseless, blanket statements to justify a fairly unrealistic position?

Pretty much all owners.

And shmenguin, they'd be making that money hockey or not. So the amount of money their hockey team makes or doesn't should be inconsequential and there shouldn't be a need for a lockout.

[mikey287]

"News" - federal mediators will be brought in to try to help the process along (from the U.S.). NHL and PA agree. Mediation is not binding, however.

[mikey287]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

And that's also not the point. The players aren't making billions outside of hockey like these owners are. The owners who lose money over a year probably make that in a month outside out hockey.

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount. Players can't do that.

Are you talking about one owner? Some owners? All owners? Or are we just making baseless, blanket statements to justify a fairly unrealistic position?

Pretty much all owners.

Well, that "pretty much" sounds airtight...I'm "pretty much" sold on the idea...

[jprolley]

when i think of mediators, i think of the opening scene of wedding crashers

[MRandall25]

I'm sorry I have a differing viewpoint on the situation than you do, I guess.

[shmenguin]

And shmenguin, they'd be making that money hockey or not. So the amount of money their hockey team makes or doesn't should be inconsequential and there shouldn't be a need for a lockout.

you can't really think that. this must be a back against the wall type of statement.

[mikey287]

I'm sorry I have a differing viewpoint on the situation than you do, I guess.

It's not that you have a differing viewpoint, it's how its presented that I think is a tiny bit disingenuous...it doesn't take enough of the picture into account, it's based on a lot of assumptions, myths-turned-facts, and worst of all, it seems to ignore the "test subject" ...that is, the last lockout. The blueprint was made for success already, it just needs to be tweaked. It worked, we were all happy. I can't fathom the opinion that says, "no no no, this'll never do...reverse the process! stop the presses! forget all this!" I'm all ears, but I haven't seen any good, cogent arguments for tearing down what was established before posed on this board...

Simplistic view: same structure that worked for everyone (mutual benefit), but tweaked so that there aren't less functioning franchises (mutual benefit). In exchange for the tweak, the owners bend over backwards to pay for a major portion of the rollback they're proposing (net mutual benefit).

I just can't imagine what being on the side that says, "nope, all wrong...start over...the players deserve more than the other four more popular sports...and the linking revenue to salary thing was wrong..." is like...

[joopen]

The worst part is, the owners are still making money regardless of how the lockout plays out.

Oh, the humanity!

The players absolutely have zero income during this whole process...they don't even have a means of doing so...tragic really...if it were true, of course...

And that's also not the point. The players aren't making billions outside of hockey like these owners are. The owners who lose money over a year probably make that in a month outside out hockey.

Without hockey, owners are still billionaires and still make the same amount. Players can't do that.

I'm confused as to your point.

The owners are still making money, regardless of the lockout's outcome. He just picked a different part of my post.

It's in reference to Sarcastic's post. He says Fehr is the only person who is "stubborn and doesn't care about hockey", but doesn't take into account the owners who have refused time and time again to even negotiate off the players' offers, all while their sitting back and making their money anyway.

OK so for the first part, they should just accept losing money because they make money elsewhere? They are successful business people and know how to run a business which is what pro sports is. I guess I just don't understand how that is even relevant to the discussion.

Perhaps they don't negotiate off of their offer because it offers nothing that they see as useful. The owners care about the long term health of the league. I think that much can be assumed. Perhaps their stubborn attitude is centralized around the fact that, as successful business people, they understand what it will take to ensure the long term health of the league. The players (represented and dare I say influenced by Fehr) do not seem to understand what the owners are doing and why they are doing it. They are convinced they got taken advantage of last time around and want to even the score instead of understanding the economics of the league.