• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NHL 2011-2012 Offseason thread of Cash Rules Everything Around Me

C

CCF23

Member
Cake Boss said:
I dont know what this means. They think they could get a deal done by Saturday or what?
Click to expand...

tumblr_m15zmaALmd1qk802j.gif
 
B

BigJonsson

Member
James van Riemsdyk ‏@JVReemer21

Solid night so far at the @EASPORTSNHL launch event, highlight so far had to be @PKessel81 getting plunked in the head during ball hockey



Kessel SMH
 
R

Red_Man

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
Kessel reminds me of the weird, awkward cousin everyone has that has no friends and never leaves their home.
 
W

wandering goat

Member
I never really got really deep into the complexities of the CBA negotiation, but I think Bob McKenzie's written a pretty good article that lays out the arguments both sides have: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404989

BTW, I have trouble telling sometimes if you guys are joking or not, but how does Kessel look fat in that pic? He's sitting slouched and leaning back, that's pretty much how anyone muscular without a skin-tight shirt would look like I think. The guy has a hamster face I agree, which is his Achilles heel when it comes to this kind of stuff. Reminds me of that baseball practice pic from last year that people went silly over.
 
S

SpectreFire

Member
Uh oh.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/daniel-sedin-schneider-talk-lockout/article4534507/

What was your response to the original owners’ proposal?

Daniel Sedin said:
Almost in the shock. It was an offer that, you never want to laugh at it, but it was almost like that.
Click to expand...

Daniel Sedin said:
We’ve got a meeting on Wedneday in New York. We’ll see what comes out from that meeting. Like I said, where we’re at right now, we’re not even close.
Click to expand...
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
I can't believe these shitfucks can't meet each other halfway somehow.

Do they really have to miss games and sue each other like NFL/NBA before they smarten up and get things done?
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
Why should it have to be halfway from the ridiculous initial proposal the owners gave?
Click to expand...

PA proposal was just as ridiculous, see BobMac article:

It's fascinating, actually, to look at the difference of how the dueling offers were received. The NHL's proposal of significantly less than 50 per cent was, quite accurately, portrayed as Draconian. The players' proposal was widely hailed as creative, imaginative and conciliatory and the players themselves seem to think it's a generous offer that addresses what needs to be addressed in the NHL. And yet if the NHLPA perceived the NHL offer as a kick in the teeth, the NHL looks at the NHLPA proposal as a slap in the face, a total affront.
 
Here's why:
 
Effectively, the NHLPA proposed to limit the players' share of future "growth" over the next three years -- creating what the NHLPA maintains is a "projected" minimum $465 million windfall to the NHL -- before "snapping back" to a full 57 per cent share in the fourth and final year of a new CBA.
 
Or to put it another way, the NHL spent $1.873 billion on player salaries last season and the NHLPA proposed that number be INCREASED by 2 per cent in the coming season, 4 per cent in year two and 6 per cent in year three. So, basically, the NHLPA is proposing the actual dollars spent on player salaries to go UP at a time when the NHL fully expects they should go DOWN.
Click to expand...
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
Yeah they proposed an increase in total dollars with assumed growth. Comparing the total dollars rather than percentages is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

It's assumed, it might not come to pass.

Demanding a raise instead of a ridiculous raise (not to mention putting things back to where they are now in year 4) isn't a real offer in my book, especially when it will fix nothing and lead to another lockout.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
KernelPanic said:
It's assumed, it might not come to pass.

Demanding a raise instead of a ridiculous raise (not to mention putting things back to where they are now in year 4) isn't a real offer in my book, especially when it will fix nothing and lead to another lockout.
Click to expand...

They didn't demand a raise. The overall PERCENTAGE was lower. And you're making my point for me. The 2% increase in total pay wasn't guaranteed either. The bottom line is the players offered a pay DECREASE.

The percentages are the only thing that matter.
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
They didn't demand a raise. The overall PERCENTAGE was lower. And you're making my point for me. The 2% increase in total pay wasn't guaranteed either. The bottom line is the players offered a pay DECREASE.

The percentages are the only thing that matter.
Click to expand...

The 2, 4, 6 % increases are guaranteed regardless if league revenues increase or decrease. There is no percentage because they propose de-linking player salaries from HRR(which I believe would mean no escrow as well). Players only take a pay cut IF league revenues continue to grow as they have. I believe if they grow 10% or more the players get more so they're protected.

That is a guaranteed win for the players and more money for hookers and PEDs. Owners have to hope league revenue growth continues or they lose.

We lost a year for "cost certainty" and they're trying to take things back to how they were before the lockout.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
KernelPanic said:
The 2, 4, 6 % increases are guaranteed regardless if league revenues increase or decrease. There is no percentage because they propose de-linking player salaries from HRR(which I believe would mean no escrow as well). Players only take a pay cut IF league revenues continue to grow as they have. I believe if they grow 10% or more the players get more so they're protected.

That is a guaranteed win for the players and more money for hookers and PEDs. Owners have to hope league revenue growth continues or they lose.

We lost a year for "cost certainty" and they're trying to take things back to how they were before the lockout.
Click to expand...

They are all an increase in the percentage received, but you cited a 2% increase in total expenditure on salaries, which isn't guaranteed. And either way the highest their proposal goes is to the current 57% which means over the course of the deal it is an overall decrease.

No union offers to decrease their percentage of revenue. It's ridiculous. The only reason they did it was because the league is showing such great growth.
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
They are all an increase in the percentage received, but you cited a 2% increase in total expenditure on salaries, which isn't guaranteed. And either way the highest their proposal goes is to the current 57% which means over the course of the deal it is an overall decrease.

No union offers to decrease their percentage of revenue. It's ridiculous. The only reason they did it was because the league is showing such great growth.
Click to expand...

They want to keep salaries at the current level and get increases over 3 years, how is that not guaranteed?

Well of course they won't offer a decrease, but they'll be forced to accept one.

Their offer is also too short, NHL wants a longer term deal.
 
P

Parch

Member
TSN has it right. No hope for NHL, so dig up the tapes and show old stuff. I'm actually looking forward to watching the 87 Canada Cup finals again.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
KernelPanic said:
They want to keep salaries at the current level and get increases over 3 years, how is that not guaranteed?

Well of course they won't offer a decrease, but they'll be forced to accept one.

Their offer is also too short, NHL wants a longer term deal.
Click to expand...

There are problems with the NHLPA proposal, of course. It was an initial proposal, but equating it to the offensive first proposal from the owners is ludicrous. The PA came with something to work with. The owners took a shit on some paper and smeared it around before handing it over.
 
Y

yankeehater

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
There are problems with the NHLPA proposal, of course. It was an initial proposal, but equating it to the offensive first proposal from the owners is ludicrous. The PA came with something to work with. The owners took a shit on some paper and smeared it around before handing it over.
Click to expand...

The players proposal was just a bad if not worse. Limiting how much teams can pay their FO people is totally nuts. I dont know why you have such a hard on for the players but they are just as big a problem as the owners are.
 
M

Marvie_3

Banned
yankeehater said:
The players proposal was just a bad if not worse. Limiting how much teams can pay their FO people is totally nuts. I dont know why you have such a hard on for the players but they are just as big a problem as the owners are.
Click to expand...

Wow.....I actually agree with you for once.




Can love bloom on the battlefield???
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
yankeehater said:
The players proposal was just a bad if not worse. Limiting how much teams can pay their FO people is totally nuts. I dont know why you have such a hard on for the players but they are just as big a problem as the owners are.
Click to expand...

No. And again I've explained why numerous times, but your refusal to learn the basic structure of the CBA over and over again makes it worthless to explain again.

The players offered CONCESSIONS the owners not only didn't do that but made ridiculous demands as well. Players made unusual and likely unreasonable requests regarding things like FA, yes but the bottom line is the bottom line. Those things are trivial issues in comparison to the financials and the PA has been far more willing to work in that area while also fairly protecting their interests. I will say this again, slowly for you, because it really is the most important part.

The NHL (the league) is the group the PA bargains with.

The League has seen PROFITS (not just revenue) increase by MULTIPLES since the last CBA.

The PA does not get to deal with teams individually. It is up to the league to help them solve their problems.

It is ridiculous to expect the players to take huge cuts from their overall employer (the league) when profits have risen so much. However, the PA has still been willing to work with this, provided they still get a cut of the continued growth.
 
D

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
The players proposal was worse than the owners first proposal

It didnt FIX anything

All it was? "Sort money out on your end, give us same %"

That was basically it.
 
Y

yankeehater

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
No. And again I've explained why numerous times, but your refusal to learn the basic structure of the CBA over and over again makes it worthless to explain again.

The players offered CONCESSIONS the owners not only didn't do that but made ridiculous demands as well. Players made unusual and likely unreasonable requests regarding things like FA, yes but the bottom line is the bottom line. Those things are trivial issues in comparison to the financials and the PA has been far more willing to work in that area while also fairly protecting their interests. I will say this again, slowly for you, because it really is the most important part.

The NHL (the league) is the group the PA bargains with.

The League has seen PROFITS (not just revenue) increase by MULTIPLES since the last CBA.

The PA does not get to deal with teams individually. It is up to the league to help them solve their problems.

It is ridiculous to expect the players to take huge cuts from their overall employer (the league) when profits have risen so much. However, the PA has still been willing to work with this, provided they still get a cut of the continued growth.
Click to expand...

My god you keep saying that profits are up but there are a huge amount of teams that are losing money. That is a problem for both the players and the owners. The NHLPA proposal did nothing to address that at all. Their plan was basically keep things the same, just give the players a slightly higher percentage, and decrease coaches/GMs salaries. We would be in the same spot in 4 years just with more teams losing money. At some point both sides have to fix the underlying problems. Lower player salaries and have much better revenue sharing.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
yankeehater said:
My god you keep saying that profits are up but there are a huge amount of teams that are losing money. That is a problem for both the players and the owners. The NHLPA proposal did nothing to address that at all. Their plan was basically keep things the same, just give the players a slightly higher percentage, and decrease coaches/GMs salaries. We would be in the same spot in 4 years just with more teams losing money. At some point both sides have to fix the underlying problems. Lower player salaries and have much better revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

THAT'S WHAT THE PLAYERS PROPOSED YOU MORON!

They offered a lower percentage of revenue than they currently get but the owner balked at rev sharing.

And profits are up. That is an objective fact. This is why it is a problem the NHL gets a protected monopoly. The PA doesn't get to deal with each team individually. I think you may actually have the worst reading comprehension ever.
 
Y

yankeehater

Member
LOL I like how you get all personal over this stuff. I think you might be to invested to be able to undertand the issues or something. It was posted on this very page that the NHLPA proposal would mean increases for the 1st 3 years before returning to the current rate in the 4th year. Lot of places re reporting that so just maybe it is you who are mistaken and not everyone else.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
yankeehater said:
LOL I like how you get all personal over this stuff. I think you might be to invested to be able to undertand the issues or something. It was posted on this very page that the NHLPA proposal would mean increases for the 1st 3 years before returning to the current rate in the 4th year. Lot of places re reporting that so just maybe it is you who are mistaken and not everyone else.
Click to expand...

Increase in total dollars based on projected revenues...

Lower percentage though. Again, reading comprehension man.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
yankeehater said:
Not sure it is my reading comprehension that is at fault here. I said the players asked for more money and you admit in real world dollars they will get more according to their proposal.
Click to expand...

But what MATTERS is what percentage of revenue they're asking for. So either you're intentionally talking about irrelevant crap or you have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Y

yankeehater

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
But what MATTERS is what percentage of revenue they're asking for. So either you're intentionally talking about irrelevant crap or you have no clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Why does the percentage matter more? For a team that is losing money what matters more to them, the fact that they woul have to pay out more money this season, or the fact that players salaries make up a smaller proportion of revenues? Eery single analyst I have heard talk bout this upcoming lockout have all said that the players will have to take some form of a cut. I have no doubt when this is all settled in the end the players will get less dollars next year and going forward.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
BigJonsson said:
Both sides are acting like morons, the hockey media is as well
Click to expand...

This is the functional equivalent of people who say "Dems and Reps are equally to blame."

yankeehater said:
Why does the percentage matter more? For a team that is losing money what matters more to them, the fact that they woul have to pay out more money this season, or the fact that players salaries make up a smaller proportion of revenues? Eery single analyst I have heard talk bout this upcoming lockout have all said that the players will have to take some form of a cut. I have no doubt when this is all settled in the end the players will get less dollars next year and going forward.
Click to expand...

A lower % IS a cut! The reason that is good for owners is because they get to KEEP more moeny, which again has been presumed to increase. And you keep on bringing up these shitty markets, but the PA doesn't get to deal with them. Your argument creates a HUGE windfall for guys like Snider and Leonsis. I've talked about this at length before, but it's pretty clear you haven't listened. The problem isn't player salaries. It's shitty management from the league and shitty profit sharing with a stratisfied marketplace.

Blaming the players is an easy out for people who would rather not think about the objective financial angle and focus on "But they're millionaires for playing a game!!!" Which really just comes off as something that was specifically written to be said by Randy Marsh. "Dey tuk er hokkee!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NHL Off-Season 2017 |OT| We’ve Been Here Since October
393 394 395 396 397
20K
860K
Cactus replied
NHL Playoffs 2017 [OT] 100 Years of Playoff Salt
402 403 404 405 406
20K
636K
Quick replied
  • Locked
Can the Columbus Blue Jackets continue to win one for the land?
2
59
6K
Marvie_3 replied
  • Locked
No Canadian teams in the NHL playoffs for the first time in 46 years
2 3 4 5
207
18K
Peltz replied
  • Locked
2016 World Cup of Hockey |OT| World Cashgrab of Who Cares - Sponsored by SAP
51 52 53 54 55
3K
117K
KillerMan91 replied
Top Bottom