Lockout

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:21 pm

llipgh2 wrote:What this is boiling down to now is an absolute power struggle between Bettman and Fehr. I honestly think that one breaking the other is more important to them than the sides they represent.

I don't think either one gives a crap about the season, the players or the owners. All they care about is who will come out on top.

I hate them both.


the owners would never allow bettman to go rogue like this. he doesn't have nearly this much power.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,593
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby Godric on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:21 pm

Fehr wants to get rid of the salary cap

:pop:
Godric
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,240
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:19 am
Location: Switch the style up and if they hate, let em hate and watch the money pile up

Re: Lockout

Postby champeen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:22 pm

I just watched both the Bettman and Daly statements from last night as well as the Q&A that followed and I don't think I disagreed with either of them even once. The events of the week as well as the league's reasons for withdrawing from the negotiations were extremely well articulated by both men.
champeen
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:29 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Lockout

Postby joopen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:22 pm

Idoit40fans wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
Idoit40fans wrote:I cannot properly express my confusion with regards to the nhl's reaction to the pa's proposal. Does anyone understand it? Respond sayin this cant work, this cant work, we can discuss this, this is something we can bend on, this cant work...why shut down talks at that point? Baffling and frustrating. I havent cared about the nhl for a couple months now but have been interested when negotiations are taking place. That is starting to fade. I have no idea what that means to me as a fan of the nhl.


Because the league gave up make good money to the tune of $80 million more dollars and gave up on UFA requests in exchange for the years. The NHLPA said "great, all your concessions are fine, our proposal is not going to include the reason you made the concessions in the first place".

Fehr went to the players and said "see the gave up on that, don't sign we can get more".

It wasn't negotiating, it was bullcrap and his presses after was more of the same. what's the point of the league making concessions if Fehr is going to backtrack on his.


What are the players backtracking on exactly? They are still conceeding on limited contract lengths. I have said this before and its getting tiring saying it. There has not been a single portion of any proposal in this whole process that has given the players anything. It is all degrees of concession on the players' part.


You are correct because that is the way it has to be unless they want to lose jobs because some franchises are no longer viable. Either keep your jobs making slightly less or make nothing at all. They are choosing to make nothing at all.
joopen
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,801
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:17 pm
Location: right behind you

Re: Lockout

Postby tfrizz on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:24 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion ... tions.html

Quietly, the NHL has mounted an anti-Fehr smear campaign. If the players had any doubt about how angry he's made the league, it dissipated Wednesday, when the NHL made it clear "the inclusion of Fehr was a deal-breaker," said Ron Hainsey, referring to the players' wish to bring their lead negotiator back to the table.


From what I've read elsewhere, it seems the players felt there was a deal to be made so they asked to bring Fehr in because he's the legal expert and the owners responded with "if you bring him in, the deal is off".

Right now, the league has very little credibility with the players. They are furious, disappointed and hurt.

That is the NHL's greatest miscalculation throughout the lockout. You can argue the players are losing money they'll never get back. You can argue they can't beat billionaires. You can argue how incredibly stupid this whole situation is.

You forget about emotion. Those players made it to the big leagues because they're highly competitive and react angrily when challenged/disrespected.
tfrizz
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,181
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Freddy Beach

Re: Lockout

Postby Azkar on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:41 pm

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


This sucks.
Azkar
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,425
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: PFISEA

Re: Lockout

Postby RisslingsMissingTeeth on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:44 pm

tfrizz wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/12/implosion-in-nhl-talks-leaves-players-with-few-options.html

Right now, the league has very little credibility with the players. They are furious, disappointed and hurt.

That is the NHL's greatest miscalculation throughout the lockout. You can argue the players are losing money they'll never get back. You can argue they can't beat billionaires. You can argue how incredibly stupid this whole situation is.

You forget about emotion. Those players made it to the big leagues because they're highly competitive and react angrily when challenged/disrespected.


Players being disrespected?!?!?! Are you freaking serious? The players having the audacity to ask for concessions from these owners is extremely disrespectful. The players will come and go. Even the big players in the room are an injury away from being gone. Just some stats for the annals of history. The owners are responsible for making sure the league lasts forever. The players do not deserve 'respect', the get a 'job' thanks to the league's survival.
RisslingsMissingTeeth
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:19 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:46 pm

joopen wrote:
Idoit40fans wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
Idoit40fans wrote:I cannot properly express my confusion with regards to the nhl's reaction to the pa's proposal. Does anyone understand it? Respond sayin this cant work, this cant work, we can discuss this, this is something we can bend on, this cant work...why shut down talks at that point? Baffling and frustrating. I havent cared about the nhl for a couple months now but have been interested when negotiations are taking place. That is starting to fade. I have no idea what that means to me as a fan of the nhl.


Because the league gave up make good money to the tune of $80 million more dollars and gave up on UFA requests in exchange for the years. The NHLPA said "great, all your concessions are fine, our proposal is not going to include the reason you made the concessions in the first place".

Fehr went to the players and said "see the gave up on that, don't sign we can get more".

It wasn't negotiating, it was bullcrap and his presses after was more of the same. what's the point of the league making concessions if Fehr is going to backtrack on his.


What are the players backtracking on exactly? They are still conceeding on limited contract lengths. I have said this before and its getting tiring saying it. There has not been a single portion of any proposal in this whole process that has given the players anything. It is all degrees of concession on the players' part.


You are correct because that is the way it has to be unless they want to lose jobs because some franchises are no longer viable. Either keep your jobs making slightly less or make nothing at all. They are choosing to make nothing at all.


It seems everyone is looking for reasons to side with the players. Not stating the obvious of 20 -25 of the leagues teams are not viable or barely viable and the deals the NHLPA keep rejecting are better than what the marketplace of other (better shape financially leagues) have in place.

They have to give something because the current set up isn't working almost entirely because salaries are too hi and loop holes. Most owners are losing money and have huge financial risks. No player is losing money.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,094
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Lockout

Postby Gaucho on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:51 pm

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:Players being disrespected?!?!?! Are you freaking serious? The players having the audacity to ask for concessions from these owners is extremely disrespectful. The players will come and go. Even the big players in the room are an injury away from being gone. Just some stats for the annals of history. The owners are responsible for making sure the league lasts forever. The players do not deserve 'respect', the get a 'job' thanks to the league's survival.


Is this satire?
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,166
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: The Onyx Club

Re: Lockout

Postby Idoit40fans on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:52 pm

Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.
Idoit40fans
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 52,682
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: No Reading, No Research, Just Strong Opinions

Re: Lockout

Postby tfrizz on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:54 pm

Apparently locked-out NHLers have begun exploring multi-year deals elsewhere, with Ryan O'Reilly breaking the ice via a 2-year contract with Magnitogorsk of the KHL.
tfrizz
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,181
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Freddy Beach

Re: Lockout

Postby the riddler on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:58 pm

I woke up this morning hoping to see that both sides came to an agreement after realizing that they aren't far apart. Just to put everything in perspective, they are arguing over the CBA term, contract limits, and no compliance buyouts. These don't seem like issues that should be preventing a deal. Why did the players not take the deal knowing that it wasn't negotiable? Even on all those issues I mentioned they are just a few years apart, I don't get it.
the riddler
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:20 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby IanMoran on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:58 pm

Yea... just watched Bettman, don't understand the hate for what he said tbh

Also, his whole "off the table" had to be said because Fehr has gotten increasing better offers and won't stop until that stops. That was his best offer, I'm sure he'll offer it back if needed
IanMoran
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,929
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:10 am
Location: Minneapolis, via Pittsburgh

Re: Lockout

Postby Gaucho on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:02 pm

Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
A bit more from last night and how the NHL and NHLPA got to where they are right now...
Owners clearly told players they had to have 10-year CBA, 5-7 yr max on contracts, no compliance issues (i.e. buyouts, limits on escrow).
So, NHL only wanted yes or no answer on those 3 requirements, that's it. What they got instead was a new proposal they didn't ask for.
That proposal changed the terms of the owners' 3 requirements for a deal. Owners were clear they had to have those to continue negotiating.
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,166
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: The Onyx Club

Re: Lockout

Postby RisslingsMissingTeeth on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:11 pm

Gaucho wrote:
RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:Players being disrespected?!?!?! Are you freaking serious? The players having the audacity to ask for concessions from these owners is extremely disrespectful. The players will come and go. Even the big players in the room are an injury away from being gone. Just some stats for the annals of history. The owners are responsible for making sure the league lasts forever. The players do not deserve 'respect', the get a 'job' thanks to the league's survival.


Is this satire?


Nope. I'm an economist. The answer to the question "why do businesses exist?' is not "to create jobs", it is "to return value to their shareholders". Jobs are a by-product of that and the conditions of work (pay, benefits...the things the players are bargaining for) are a by-product of having jobs. If you remember that approach, you will not only understand why this lockout is doing what it is doing but every other decision that any business makes.
RisslingsMissingTeeth
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:19 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby joopen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:11 pm

Gaucho wrote:Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
A bit more from last night and how the NHL and NHLPA got to where they are right now...
Owners clearly told players they had to have 10-year CBA, 5-7 yr max on contracts, no compliance issues (i.e. buyouts, limits on escrow).
So, NHL only wanted yes or no answer on those 3 requirements, that's it. What they got instead was a new proposal they didn't ask for.
That proposal changed the terms of the owners' 3 requirements for a deal. Owners were clear they had to have those to continue negotiating.


Right, so what I have figured all along is being proven. Don Fehr doesn't really listen to anyone but himself.
joopen
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,801
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:17 pm
Location: right behind you

Re: Lockout

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:15 pm

Gaucho wrote:Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
A bit more from last night and how the NHL and NHLPA got to where they are right now...
Owners clearly told players they had to have 10-year CBA, 5-7 yr max on contracts, no compliance issues (i.e. buyouts, limits on escrow).
So, NHL only wanted yes or no answer on those 3 requirements, that's it. What they got instead was a new proposal they didn't ask for.
That proposal changed the terms of the owners' 3 requirements for a deal. Owners were clear they had to have those to continue negotiating.


I'm glad someone gave specifics because that is what I have been trying to say in regards to the owners response and why it's not them just walking away.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,094
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Lockout

Postby Mr. Colby on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:16 pm

Idoit40fans wrote:Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.


The thing that Daly and Bettman articulated was that the money and the contracting rights and everything was all part of one big package. It's not something where they can negotiate make whole dollars, then when that settles negotiate contract length, then when that settles negotiate escrow and compliance buyouts, then when that settles negotiate CBA length.

It's "OK we will give you 300 million dollars above your 50/50 share (effectively making it 55/45 for the first year - which wrongly assumes no financial hit), but you've got to give us our 3 three key points."

So the union might say they agree on the money, but the money doesn't exist as its own entity, but rather a part of the package.
Mr. Colby
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,642
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:33 pm
Location: Born and Raised in Kent Manderville

Re: Lockout

Postby llipgh2 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:17 pm

shmenguin wrote:
the owners would never allow bettman to go rogue like this. he doesn't have nearly this much power.


I wish I could find the article, but it was about how Bettman has more power than people give him credit for. I have to hunt for it.
llipgh2
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,621
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Gasp! The Clamboni!

Re: Lockout

Postby drnort on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:18 pm

joopen wrote:
Gaucho wrote:Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
A bit more from last night and how the NHL and NHLPA got to where they are right now...
Owners clearly told players they had to have 10-year CBA, 5-7 yr max on contracts, no compliance issues (i.e. buyouts, limits on escrow).
So, NHL only wanted yes or no answer on those 3 requirements, that's it. What they got instead was a new proposal they didn't ask for.
That proposal changed the terms of the owners' 3 requirements for a deal. Owners were clear they had to have those to continue negotiating.


Right, so what I have figured all along is being proven. Don Fehr doesn't really listen to anyone but himself.


Im somewhat amused by the consensus that because the NHL made those demands, the players should agree to them. And because Don Fehr didnt agree to exactly what the NHL demanded, he is the problem.

I dont see why so many people think the players should be willing to accept the 5 year limit. Its ridiculous. The owners are asking the players to protect the owners from themselves...and the players are getting screwed. Why shouldnt a star player be able to lock himself up for 10 years like he can do in every other sport??

If this is SO important to these owners, then dont sign deals longer than you are comfortable with signing. What a concept.
drnort
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,594
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:56 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby llipgh2 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:19 pm

tfrizz wrote:Apparently locked-out NHLers have begun exploring multi-year deals elsewhere, with Ryan O'Reilly breaking the ice via a 2-year contract with Magnitogorsk of the KHL.


I didn't realize his brother is Cal...It's on his wikipedia page. Cal plays for Magnitogorsk, too.
llipgh2
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,621
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Gasp! The Clamboni!

Re: Lockout

Postby joopen on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:20 pm

Idoit40fans wrote:Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.


Those rights actually do have an impact on year to year dollar and that is why they are being fought over. Being able to have a 75% difference in a contract's pay over 6 years is huge. For instance, a 6 year contract that starts at $4million can only go down to $2.94million with the 5%, whereas the players want that to be able to back-dive to $1million. That difference gets bigger as the contract values get higher. It's real dollars and cents. It eliminates Philly from front-loading an offer sheet to Weber. It makes all the franchises healthier and able to, ya know, exist so that the players can have jobs.
joopen
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,801
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:17 pm
Location: right behind you

Re: Lockout

Postby Mr. Colby on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:21 pm

While it is a concession by the players, it has been firmly established and not really up for debate that the revenue split needs to be 50/50 for the sake of long-term viability of the league. For the owners to offer an additional 300 million to the players above their proposed 50% share proves their commitment to the process. They have the option to demand a hardline rollback on every player salary such that 50/50 is achieved, but they aren't doing that. They are doing what they can to soften the initial financial burden on the players that only exists for the benefit of long-term league viability.]

So while it is varying degrees of concessions, the owners are most certainly trying to make those degrees as small as they possibly can, for the sake of making a deal.
Mr. Colby
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,642
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:33 pm
Location: Born and Raised in Kent Manderville

Re: Lockout

Postby Mr. Colby on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:26 pm

drnort wrote:
joopen wrote:
Gaucho wrote:Dan Rosen ‏@drosennhl
A bit more from last night and how the NHL and NHLPA got to where they are right now...
Owners clearly told players they had to have 10-year CBA, 5-7 yr max on contracts, no compliance issues (i.e. buyouts, limits on escrow).
So, NHL only wanted yes or no answer on those 3 requirements, that's it. What they got instead was a new proposal they didn't ask for.
That proposal changed the terms of the owners' 3 requirements for a deal. Owners were clear they had to have those to continue negotiating.


Right, so what I have figured all along is being proven. Don Fehr doesn't really listen to anyone but himself.


Im somewhat amused by the consensus that because the NHL made those demands, the players should agree to them. And because Don Fehr didnt agree to exactly what the NHL demanded, he is the problem.

I dont see why so many people think the players should be willing to accept the 5 year limit. Its ridiculous. The owners are asking the players to protect the owners from themselves...and the players are getting screwed. Why shouldnt a star player be able to lock himself up for 10 years like he can do in every other sport??

If this is SO important to these owners, then dont sign deals longer than you are comfortable with signing. What a concept.


You're missing the point - The NHL offered a Make Whole of 300 million dollars, above the proposed 50/50 split, in exchange for the union accepting those 3 key points. They asked for a yes or no answer. The union gave them a counter proposal. A counter proposal =/= yes or no.

The 300 million was contingent upon agreement to those 3 items. That was the negotiation, "we will give you 300 million if you agree to these 3 things". There's nothing really hard to comprehend there.
Mr. Colby
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,642
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:33 pm
Location: Born and Raised in Kent Manderville

Re: Lockout

Postby tfrizz on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:26 pm

Mr. Colby wrote:
Idoit40fans wrote:Everyone realizes that the players need to give up money...including the players. Its easy to side with the players because they have agreed to the loss of their share moving forward. They have agreed to restrictions on their contracts moving forward. They are losing and the league is gaining. They agree on the money, players are trying to mitigate losses to contract rights they have. Rights that have nothig to do with year to year dollars.


The thing that Daly and Bettman articulated was that the money and the contracting rights and everything was all part of one big package. It's not something where they can negotiate make whole dollars, then when that settles negotiate contract length, then when that settles negotiate escrow and compliance buyouts, then when that settles negotiate CBA length.

It's "OK we will give you 300 million dollars above your 50/50 share (effectively making it 55/45 for the first year - which wrongly assumes no financial hit), but you've got to give us our 3 three key points."

So the union might say they agree on the money, but the money doesn't exist as its own entity, but rather a part of the package.


So, in other words, the owners have no interest in negotiating a CBA - just putting out proposals that suit them and saying "non-negotiable, take it or leave it".
tfrizz
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,181
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Freddy Beach

PreviousNext

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


e-mail