Lockout

[MRandall25]

There hasn't been a player vote because they think they can get more.

How do you know "the majority of his clientele" wants a deal when it's clear the players want a little more?

If the "majority of his clientele" wanted the deal, they would've gotten it. Period.

So it will be the player's fault if the season is lost because they wanted a "little more"?

Both parties are at fault at this point. I don't need to re-hash the last 10 pages.

[Tim Thomasen]

Every time the NHL makes their "best offer" - Fehr gets them to make a better one. (or so it seems to me). At some point, enough will be enough - and I think from the owners side, that's where we are at now. If the "moderate" owners such as Burkle etc are livid over this - I think that could be an indicator – that the NHLPA isn’t receiving any more better deals. In fact, I think they may not get a deal as good as the most recent one.

I also think both sides, are underestimating the damage this is doing, from a fans perspective. Yes, we will come back - but maybe not as fast as they think - or as enthusiastic (including a willingness to spend $$$) as last time. To me, this league is now tainted. How long that takes to wear off, if ever, I’m not sure.

I think it may take a year or so, but I do agree the fans will eventually come back. Once a deal is reached and the game resaumes, the ill will the fans have towards the league and players will eventually fade away.

[Tim Thomasen]

There hasn't been a player vote because they think they can get more.

How do you know "the majority of his clientele" wants a deal when it's clear the players want a little more?

If the "majority of his clientele" wanted the deal, they would've gotten it. Period.

So it will be the player's fault if the season is lost because they wanted a "little more"?

Both parties are at fault at this point. I don't need to re-hash the last 10 pages.

You see you say that, but the majority (if not close to all of your posts) have solely put the blame on Bettman and the owners.

[JS©]

good old allan walsh. i'm not sure he pays attention to what he retweets.

@ROCKFISHDG @walsha which owner in the NHL would ONLY want to lock his franchise Player up for 5 years or fewer after Player finishes ELS

I can think of one

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/spo ... on-492708/

or two

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3471137

[MRandall25]

So Sid thinks NHL's take it or leave it attitude was not clear in their latest proposal. I was wondering about that as well. This seems like more of a negotiating tactic than anything else if that's the case. I hate Bettman and Fehr's negotiating tatics.

Is there something else behind this? Have the owners switched their positions? Was Bettman emotional in that press conference because of anger at the NHLPA or someone(s) else?

If I were Bettman and owners got enough votes to switch positions on me after I had given these other guys the green light to make a deal, I might be mad at the "hard-liners" who made the decision, not the NHLPA

Well some reports were saying the owners basically thought they had a deal. (this is me speculating not based on anything but what I have read) - if that is the case then Fehr is a majority of the problem. I understand completely the dislike for Gary but if what is being reported is true, that and he told the players to stand strong they can do better, then this lockout is starting to be put entirely on his shoulders.

"The owners THOUGHT they had a deal"

Therein lies the problem. They thought they had a deal. They jumped the gun. They got sucked in like most of us did.

You can't assume you have a deal until it's agreed upon. That's not Fehr's fault.

No it could be. We don't know why they thought they had a deal. Maybe the players were positive, said this looks good and Fehr shot them down.

I don't think the owners are upset because they were cracking champagne, I think they were upset because it seemed the players were receptive and close to a deal until Fehr got involved.

It's different than just thinking things were cool, they had to have had a reason.

Just because the players are receptive doesn't mean there's going to be a deal, though. They fell for the optimism shown by the players.

I mean, we'll probably never know what the players said. They probably had a reason to be enthused, but at the same time, you have to be cautious.

And you're right, we won't know why they thought they had a deal. But they shouldn't have thought they did, because they set themselves up for that rejection.

[pens_srq]

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2 ... fired.html

Notice how Saskin was fired. 30 players and a"interim Executive Committee". That's all that votes now as far as I can tell.

They would have to decide to put things to a full vote to "hear everyone's voice"

[MRandall25]

There hasn't been a player vote because they think they can get more.

How do you know "the majority of his clientele" wants a deal when it's clear the players want a little more?

If the "majority of his clientele" wanted the deal, they would've gotten it. Period.

So it will be the player's fault if the season is lost because they wanted a "little more"?

Both parties are at fault at this point. I don't need to re-hash the last 10 pages.

You see you say that, but the majority (if not close to all of your posts) have solely put the blame on Bettman and the owners.

It's about 80-20, IMO right now. I can say I feel both parties are at fault, but think one is more at fault than the other. Not sure why that isn't possible.

[Tim Thomasen]

There hasn't been a player vote because they think they can get more.

How do you know "the majority of his clientele" wants a deal when it's clear the players want a little more?

If the "majority of his clientele" wanted the deal, they would've gotten it. Period.

So it will be the player's fault if the season is lost because they wanted a "little more"?

Both parties are at fault at this point. I don't need to re-hash the last 10 pages.

You see you say that, but the majority (if not close to all of your posts) have solely put the blame on Bettman and the owners.

It's about 80-20, IMO right now. I can say I feel both parties are at fault, but think one is more at fault than the other. Not sure why that isn't possible.

Because of you take an objective look at this lockout, you can make the case that both sides are equally at fault for their inability to truly work together and forge a compromise. I mean even yesturday when it looked like a deal would get done without Bettman and Fehr, but once both of them gotten in the room, the optimism quickly went away.

To me, it's 50-50.

[MRandall25]

I'm not about objectivity, right now

I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).

The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.

[pens_srq]

I'm not about objectivity, right now

I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).

The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.

I have to agree that to a certain extent this is a hissy fit. However, Fehr's press conference was misleading as well. As I said before I HATE the way these two negotiate.

[Tim Thomasen]

I'm not about objectivity, right now

I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).

The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.

It's actually not that difficult to keep an objective mind throughout their debacle

Yeah sure and the players have acted like gentlemen every time they take to twitter to ***** about the lockout. You can make the case that both sides are throwing fits. Owbers don't want to give in on contract lengths and want to take more of the revenue. Players want to be paid for missed time and don't want to give up their revenue and give in on contract lengths.

Like I said above, both sides are putrid.

[ILikeTurtles]

The players are slowly winning back what they want. Regardless of when this CBA gets finished, I just want it to be longer than 5-6 years. I do NOT want to worry about missing a full year of hockey at the end of the CBA. The 50/50 is nonsense, the people putting their bodies, work, etc on the line for a business should get a majority of the income that business makes, even if it is a 51/49 split. The owners-players meeting was key, of course with lawyers to sort out legal matters, and that needs to be the way that this matter is handled. Honestly this whole rollercoaster ride is much like a friend-zone relationship. The person thinks "ohhh this is it!" and then it fails harder than ever. I just want hockey, these men need to find the best means possible to get the best sport in the world back.

[Tim Thomasen]

The players are slowly winning back what they want. Regardless of when this CBA gets finished, I just want it to be longer than 5-6 years. I do NOT want to worry about missing a full year of hockey at the end of the CBA. The 50/50 is nonsense, the people putting their bodies, work, etc on the line for a business should get a majority of the income that business makes, even if it is a 51/49 split. The owners-players meeting was key, of course with lawyers to sort out legal matters, and that needs to be the way that this matter is handled. Honestly this whole rollercoaster ride is much like a friend-zone relationship. The person thinks "ohhh this is it!" and then it fails harder than ever. I just want hockey, these men need to find the best means possible to get the best sport in the world back.

It's not nonsense for the NFL and NBA. Both league have revenue splita that are close to 50/50.

[MRandall25]

I'm not about objectivity, right now

I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).

The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.

It's actually not that difficult to keep an objective mind throughout their debacle

Yeah sure and the players have acted like gentlemen every time they take to twitter to ***** about the lockout. You can make the case that both sides are throwing fits. Owbers don't want to give in on contract lengths and want to take more of the revenue. Players want to be paid for missed time and don't want to give up their revenue and give in on contract lengths.

Like I said above, both sides are putrid.

I've just been ignoring players on Twitter. Don't really care what they think.

When I say "fits", I'm talking when the owners have said "We had our best deal on the table and they proposed something completely different" about 3 times.

The "We want the contract lengths" and the "We want our money", IMO, is just part of negotiating. It's the stuff that happened after negotiations broke down that rubbed me the wrong way (and I realize it goes both ways).

I don't disagree that both sides are putrid, as I've said.

[pens_srq]

The owners could in fact be making a brilliant play to fracture the union and win out on contract and CBA years. Fehr could be doing the same thing. People saying Burkle was pissed scares me. I felt that when Bettman said the whole package thing it was a bit contrived. I understand it's a deal, but I mean there are only a few things left to work out from their positions there. The whole yes/no thing seems very different from the sit down at the table and talk through this with me approach. The question is what prompted all this. I want to know why Burkle is pissed. Then I'll know who to be pissed at. I"m pissed at the players personally for taking positions that jeopardize the integrity of the game. There needs to be a fix for the stupid cap-circumventing contracts.

[Tim Thomasen]

I'm not about objectivity, right now

I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).

The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.

It's actually not that difficult to keep an objective mind throughout their debacle

Yeah sure and the players have acted like gentlemen every time they take to twitter to ***** about the lockout. You can make the case that both sides are throwing fits. Owbers don't want to give in on contract lengths and want to take more of the revenue. Players want to be paid for missed time and don't want to give up their revenue and give in on contract lengths.

Like I said above, both sides are putrid.

I've just been ignoring players on Twitter. Don't really care what they think.

When I say "fits", I'm talking when the owners have said "We had our best deal on the table and they proposed something completely different" about 3 times.

The "We want the contract lengths" and the "We want our money", IMO, is just part of negotiating. It's the stuff that happened after negotiations broke down that rubbed me the wrong way (and I realize it goes both ways).

I don't disagree that both sides are putrid, as I've said.

The stuff that Fehr has been saying has been misleading as well, that's why both sides are just putrid for how these negotiations have played out.

You ignore the players on twitter? Smart man. I've done that and ignore the thepensblog on twitter. All those twitter feeds are just a bucket full of dumb in my opinion.

[GaryRissling]

I don't really get people- including dejan- who say bettman has to go if the season is cancelled. Fehr represents hockey players; and those players have to trust him. Bettman represents, for the most part, businessmen many of whom are experienced in negotiation. If the owners wanted Bettmen to act any differently, he would in a heartbeat. If you blame Bettmen, you have to include the owners in that blame almost 100%.

IMO, the owners are going to force the players to cave on the contract terms even if it takes all 2013 to do it. And, the longer this goes on, the more it's imperative for the owners to give less to the players so the next time the cba is up, be it in 6,8, or 10 years; the players will know that they'll once again be the ones to pay the price for an extended lock out. I'd hate it, but I'd understand if this even goes in to next season.

If the owners cave, I think there's probably going to be a better chance of another lost season the next time the cba is up.

[MRandall25]

I'm not about objectivity, right now

I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).

The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.

It's actually not that difficult to keep an objective mind throughout their debacle

Yeah sure and the players have acted like gentlemen every time they take to twitter to ***** about the lockout. You can make the case that both sides are throwing fits. Owbers don't want to give in on contract lengths and want to take more of the revenue. Players want to be paid for missed time and don't want to give up their revenue and give in on contract lengths.

Like I said above, both sides are putrid.

I've just been ignoring players on Twitter. Don't really care what they think.

When I say "fits", I'm talking when the owners have said "We had our best deal on the table and they proposed something completely different" about 3 times.

The "We want the contract lengths" and the "We want our money", IMO, is just part of negotiating. It's the stuff that happened after negotiations broke down that rubbed me the wrong way (and I realize it goes both ways).

I don't disagree that both sides are putrid, as I've said.

The stuff that Fehr has been saying has been misleading, that's why both sides are just putrid for how these negotiations have played out.

You ignore the players on twitter? Smart man. I've done that and ignore the thepensblog on twitter. All those twitter feeds are just a bucket full of dumb in my opinion.

I mean, I still follow them and such, I just skim past what they're saying.

But in regards to the Fehr thing, maybe he underestimated the owners' response. They literally had everything ironed out, except for a 20% difference in salary drop and how it was to be proportioned, 2 years of the CBA, and 2 years of player contract length. To me, it doesn't sound like the "Yes or No" thing was made clear to him (from the info we've gathered). It may have been (KEYWORD IS MAY) a communication error. I just don't see why trying to negotiate at this point was a bad thing. So it's not what you want as an owner. You've negotiated enough as it is. Why throw everything away because the PA didn't do what you wanted? With those issues above being the key ones that the owners highlighted, why not try to solve that difference?

If they want hockey so much, why do they throw it all away when they don't get what they were expecting?

[Tim Thomasen]

I'm not about objectivity, right now

I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).

The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.

It's actually not that difficult to keep an objective mind throughout their debacle

Yeah sure and the players have acted like gentlemen every time they take to twitter to ***** about the lockout. You can make the case that both sides are throwing fits. Owbers don't want to give in on contract lengths and want to take more of the revenue. Players want to be paid for missed time and don't want to give up their revenue and give in on contract lengths.

Like I said above, both sides are putrid.

I've just been ignoring players on Twitter. Don't really care what they think.

When I say "fits", I'm talking when the owners have said "We had our best deal on the table and they proposed something completely different" about 3 times.

The "We want the contract lengths" and the "We want our money", IMO, is just part of negotiating. It's the stuff that happened after negotiations broke down that rubbed me the wrong way (and I realize it goes both ways).

I don't disagree that both sides are putrid, as I've said.

The stuff that Fehr has been saying has been misleading, that's why both sides are just putrid for how these negotiations have played out.

You ignore the players on twitter? Smart man. I've done that and ignore the thepensblog on twitter. All those twitter feeds are just a bucket full of dumb in my opinion.

I mean, I still follow them and such, I just skim past what they're saying.

But in regards to the Fehr thing, maybe he underestimated the owners' response. They literally had everything ironed out, except for a 20% difference in salary drop, 2 years of the CBA, and 2 years of player contract length. To me, it doesn't sound like the "Yes or No" thing was made clear to him (from the info we've gathered). It may have been (KEYWORD IS MAY) a communication error. I just don't see why trying to negotiate at this point was a bad thing. So it's not what you want as an owner. You've negotiated enough as it is. Why throw everything away because the PA didn't do what you wanted?

I don't think the negotiations are finished completely. I think for right now they are, but they'll be re-started back again once both sides regroup. I mean I thought they were negotiating but the owners and players got together for those meetings without Bettman and Fehr in the room. I never thought something like that would occur and it did.

[MRandall25]

I don't think the negotiations are finished completely. I think for right now they are, but they'll be re-started back again once both sides regroup. I mean I thought they were negotiating but the owners and players got together for those meetings without Bettman and Fehr in the room. I never thought something like that would occur and it did.

Right, and it was a good thing. Why kill that momentum because they did something you weren't expecting? Just seems foolish to be that close (compared to where they have been), only to throw it all away because the players didn't agree.

[Tim Thomasen]

I don't really get people- including dejan- who say bettman has to go if the season is cancelled. Fehr represents hockey players; and those players have to trust him. Bettman represents, for the most part, businessmen many of whom are experienced in negotiation. If the owners wanted Bettmen to act any differently, he would in a heartbeat. If you blame Bettmen, you have to include the owners in that blame almost 100%.

IMO, the owners are going to force the players to cave on the contract terms even if it takes all 2013 to do it. And, the longer this goes on, the more it's imperative for the owners to give less to the players so the next time the cba is up, be it in 6,8, or 10 years; the players will know that they'll once again be the ones to pay the price for an extended lock out. I'd hate it, but I'd understand if this even goes in to next season.

If the owners cave, I think there's probably going to be a better chance of another lost season the next time the cba is up.

God does Dejan has no clue about what he's saying. Whatever it's hockey or baseball, he's become so out of touch and very annoying ever since he became a columnist for the Trib. Your right about Bettman. Just like Fehr represents the players, Bettman represents the owners. They tell him what to do and he executes their plan. That's why I laugh at these players and fans who blame all of the world's problems on him. If your going to blame Bettman, you have to then blame the owners as well.

[Tim Thomasen]

I don't think the negotiations are finished completely. I think for right now they are, but they'll be re-started back again once both sides regroup. I mean I thought they were negotiating but the owners and players got together for those meetings without Bettman and Fehr in the room. I never thought something like that would occur and it did.

Right, and it was a good thing. Why kill that momentum because they did something you weren't expecting? Just seems foolish to be that close (compared to where they have been), only to throw it all away because the players didn't agree.

Seems like when Fehr and Bettman got back into that room, all the optimism went to mud. See I wouldn't have pulled the offer completely. I would of maybe took a break for a few days and decide where to go from there, but I wouldn't have yanked the deal completely.

[GaryRissling]

IMO, the owners are operating much more in the interests of cities like Pittsburgh than the players are. Breaking fehr, even just a little, is worth a lost season. The owners know what they're doing.

[westside]

If you look at the NBA lockout ebb and flow, it's very similar to the current NHL situation. It's almost exactly the same BS and posturing we're seeing now. That kind of makes me believe there will be a deal. Just like the NBA talks the 2 sides inch closer ******** and complaining every single step. Both make scary threats and accuse the other side of 'not wanting to negotiate'. Hard liners on both sides make it harder than it should be. Then all the sudden, bam. 'Tentative agreement' comes out of some marathon meeting. Not sure exactly why but it made me feel better about today's clusterf***.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NBA_lockout

[Sarcastic]

I don't know what the problem is for these players. They got an extra 100 million. They got the FA stuff they wanted. Seems to me 'somebody' told them if they can hold out longer, they can get the other stuff too. All of it. Well, that won't happen. I think that was an almost perfect offer that I saw earlier today, which was now not accepted by the players. OK. Well, they can go suck a lemon.

Nobody should freak out on Bettman over taking current consessions off the table. He can, and I'm sure will, put all that stuff right back when talks resume. If they resume. I don't know what the outrage is about here. NHL proposal wasn't accepted, so they're wiping the slate clean and starting over.

Somebody earlier suggested that many NHL franchises have risen in value, so the owners are making their money that way. That's about the silliest argument one can make and I'm saying it because this isn't the first time I heard that. Maybe an owner can sell his team 10 years from now or maybe aliens will invade in the meantime and outlaw hockey, so who gives a damn. It helps nothing in year to year operations where you need to spend money.