• 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 Lockout With Your Cock Out |OT|

K

KernelPanic

Member
bonesmccoy said:
I'm not sure the 4 owners actually did ask the players to finalize the agreement without Fehr, or any other 'expert', present. It seems - from what we've heard - that the owners had said that they were making a final offer based on the week's bargaining discussions, and that they needed a yes or no. Not until it became clear that the players were going to make a counter-proposal (aka, say 'no') did the owners decide to leave.
Click to expand...

Then what's this talk about Ron Hainsey saying the players were told by the owners that if Fehr is brought back in it could be a dealbreaker ?
 
F

Fei

Member
I still don't see it as a good tactic to walk away at such a critical time in the negotiation. Just reiterate that you've done all the bargaining you can. Walking away costs more time/games/revenue for all sides, and puts the season on the precipice.

I personally think Fehr would have relented and put the proposal to a vote.
 
C

CrazedArabMan

Member
Solo said:
:lol :lol :lol

Need this in avvy format!
Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall receive (best I could do since I'm at work on lunch):

TIbOD.png
 
B

bonesmccoy

Banned
KernelPanic said:
Then what's this talk about Ron Hainsey saying the players were told by the owners that if Fehr is brought back in it could be a dealbreaker ?
Click to expand...

Allowing for the fact that none of us have any idea of the context in which that statement was made: I think they were just referring to that specific round of owner/player bargaining.
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/06/bad-santa-insults-three-year-old

A wise-cracking bad Santa is now on the unemployment line after the “jolly” old elf insulted a three-year-old who was first in line to visit him Wednesday.

Mary Trent says she was shocked by the behaviour of the Lowe’s Toronto Christmas Market Santa Claus as her son approached him. After Santa arrived a half hour late for his appearance, he proceeded to insult the boy’s red plaid coat.

“The first thing he tells my son is, ‘Oh, you look like Paul Bunyan,' ” she said. “Really? Is that appropriate?

“Then he said, ‘Oh, you’re wearing a Toronto Maple Leafs tuque, you shouldn’t be wearing that, they suck.’ At that point, I took my son and told him we should go, Santa isn’t being very good today.”
Click to expand...

Wow a real-life Bad Santa

bad-santa1.jpg
 
S

Socreges

Banned
A wise-cracking bad Santa is now on the unemployment line after the “jolly” old elf insulted a three-year-old who was first in line to visit him Wednesday.

...

“Then he said, ‘Oh, you’re wearing a Toronto Maple Leafs tuque, you shouldn’t be wearing that, they suck.’”
Click to expand...
I bet this is what happened to Smash88
 
B

bonesmccoy

Banned
Fei said:
I still don't see it as a good tactic to walk away at such a critical time in the negotiation. Just reiterate that you've done all the bargaining you can. Walking away costs more time/games/revenue for all sides, and puts the season on the precipice.

I personally think Fehr would have relented and put the proposal to a vote.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of it either.

Parenteau's comment about Bettman's 'date' - did he ever elaborate on that?
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
bonesmccoy said:
Parenteau's comment about Bettman's 'date' - did he ever elaborate on that?
Click to expand...

I've read many journalists say many times that the PA belives Bettman's best offer will not come until December(or January can't recall) 15th which is why Fehr hasn't been taking these negotiations seriously.
 
A

AngmarsKing701

Member
KernelPanic said:
I've read many journalists say many times that the PA belives Bettman's best offer will not come until December(or January can't recall) 15th which is why Fehr hasn't been taking these negotiations seriously.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the players don't know the difference between December 15 and December '15.
 
K

Kave_Man

come in my shame circle
Don Cherry on last night:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1298981--nhl-lockout-don-cherry-says-he-has-never-seen-gary-bettman-so-livid-over-nhlpa-s-latest-offer

As I'm sure most of those don't really care for Cherry but I did like one of his suggestions which I think could also be applied to the owner's side too:

“I’ve got a solution so Fehr won’t be blamed. Have a secret ballot, yes I said secret ballot. If you take a show of hands you’re not going to say nay if the guy in front says yay. Guys don’t want to look like a chicken and caving into the NHL.

“If the vote says we carry on with the fight we carry on the war. If the vote says let’s accept the offer, accept it. Majority rules I think that’s the way it should be. With a secret ballot you have nothing to lose!”
Click to expand...
 
S

sammich

Member
I think thats due to it most likely being the last day that a deal can be signed and a 48 game(which is the min) season can start.
 
S

SpectreFire

Member
I just realized that me getting this extended minor in history, and me not getting this extended minor in history... makes absolutely zero fucking difference to anyone.

Goddamn.
 
B

bonesmccoy

Banned
Socreges said:
That's pretty precise.
Click to expand...

It seems to come from a comment Bettman made about not being able to have anything less than a 48 game season. I guess January 15th is the date the PA has circled on the calendar.

Cathal Kelly made a fairly good argument that Fehr's approach to this could backfire quickly now since the league's owners aren't facing anywhere near the same level of 'pressure to play' as the NBA's, NFL's or MLB's owners were in their respective CBA wars.

I do wonder if the league will continue to move closer to the player side, like they have been, or if they'll actually take a hard-line approach and offer less and less as January approaches. Of all the things the league could do to cause the PA to remove Fehr, this to me seems to be the most likely to succeed.
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
Revenant said:
seems they're fairly close at this point, It'd be amazing if they cock it up and find a way to lose a season right here.
Click to expand...

Both sides know the NHL might as well fold if another season is lost and most of the players cannot afford to lose an entire season.

It will go right down to the wire but I think it will get done. They're not that far apart at all.
 
F

Freyjadour

Member
Kave_Man said:
Don Cherry on last night:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1298981--nhl-lockout-don-cherry-says-he-has-never-seen-gary-bettman-so-livid-over-nhlpa-s-latest-offer

As I'm sure most of those don't really care for Cherry but I did like one of his suggestions which I think could also be applied to the owner's side too:
Click to expand...

The last offer was never going to a vote on the player's side because it would've passed. That's detrimental to Fehr's rallying of the troops.

DopeyFish said:
Do you understand what it means "able to profit"?

Do you think New Jersey, Florida, Tampa, San Jose, Columbus, Phoenix, New York Isles, Anaheim, Dallas, St. Louis, Carolina, Nashville, Colorado should keep losing money as they CURRENTLY do?
Click to expand...

St Louis is where it's at on the list because of poor business decisions from the previous ownership. To raise money to fund the purchase of the Blues and to pay off some extensive loans, a 20-year agreement was signed with Levy Foods that essentially pissed away our concession rights. The new ownership sees none of the short-term money paid by that deal. Not to mention that the city of St Louis owns Parking rights.

So despite being 9th in average attendance in 2011-12 and 7th in 2009-10 and 2010-11, being almost entirely reliant on ticket sales is killing us. Scott Trade averages 98% capacity, and the times I could make up to St Louis last year were sold out.
 
A

AngmarsKing701

Member
KernelPanic said:
Both sides know the NHL might as well fold if another season is lost and most of the players cannot afford to lose an entire season.

It will go right down to the wire but I think it will get done. They're not that far apart at all.
Click to expand...

I'm torn. On the one hand I really miss hockey. On the other hand, fuck the players.
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
bonesmccoy said:
Cathal Kelly made a fairly good argument that Fehr's approach to this could backfire quickly now since the league's owners aren't facing anywhere near the same level of 'pressure to play' as the NBA's, NFL's or MLB's owners were in their respective CBA wars.

I do wonder if the league will continue to move closer to the player side, like they have been, or if they'll actually take a hard-line approach and offer less and less as January approaches. Of all the things the league could do to cause the PA to remove Fehr, this to me seems to be the most likely to succeed.
Click to expand...

Fehr is pretty much the same type of negotiator as Bettman, that's why they clash.

I think the league is done giving, since Fehr will just take the concessions and ask for more. Pretty much what the league did in the last lockout. Bettman is facing off against himself.

I don't think Bettman is going to beat the union into a pulp like last time.
 
F

Freyjadour

Member
@adater said:
One clarification about the insider depth player who said "Don said we could get more and to hold out.": the player is not Anti-Fehr. Just that he thought some players, like himself, were getting a deal then. Fehr counseled against it and, whether they like it not, they comply.
Click to expand...

I really hope he releases the name of said player like he said he might do last night.
 
B

bonesmccoy

Banned
yankeehater said:
Yeah you cant use replacement players during a lockout. I guess if the NHLPA decertifies then they could.
Click to expand...

You can, even without decertification - subject of course to legal challenges et cetera. But if we're talking about the league folding if another season is in jeopardy, then this is something that the owners would naturally pursue.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
F

Freyjadour

Member
@aaronward_nhl said:
On the CBA negotiations breaking down and questions over Don Fehr joining the meetings Thursday, according to NHLPA source,"The players agreed to the owners request for a players/owners meeting.They didn't agree to negotiate a CBA with seasoned negotiators on the owners' side without their legal team in the room.Players understand that while they are smart,this is not their area of expertise which is why they have hired seasoned negotiators to help represent them.
Click to expand...

Was Steve Fehr not in the room?
 
S

Smiley90

Stop shitting on my team. Start shitting on my finger.
NHLPA not agreeing to 5year contract caps (something that only affects star players, top x%) to negotiate something else in their favour and rather having a lockout is the same as Republicans saying "we won't accept tax increases on the top1%, so fuck everyone else".
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
Clowe got owned :lol

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hocke...kout-players-outmatched-in-labour-fight-kelly

Ownership has a monopoly on hockey. Previous lockouts have taught them that fans will return, no matter how long they’re gone. In this instance, management knows that incremental gains will spin out into tens of millions of dollars saved over the coming decade.

Players are the ones who must think short term. If an average NHL career is six or seven years long, a lost season represents as much 15 per cent of their total earnings from hockey. In many cases, it accounts for far more.

It may be antithetical to the athletic mindset (‘Never stop’), but no amount of variation from the 50/50 split can uniformly benefit the union membership enough to make up for that loss. That’s the whole point of unions — to spread the joy and pain around equally. At this point, the NHLPA is fighting for its 1 per centers.

Nevertheless, the union has followed the auto-fight route — dig in, and then take it to the customer. They held off real bargaining until the last minute. They continue to move forward like time is their ally, though the noose has grown so tight we can see the blue in their faces from the back of the room.

The split of the money, the ‘make whole’ pact, the length of contracts — these are parentheticals.

There are only two issues here, the same ones that govern all negotiations: Who wants it more? Who has the leverage?
Click to expand...
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
Craig Simpson basically just told the players they took a cut last time, but they should take a cut again because after a few years they can be back to where they are now, which they weren't happy with in the first place. Good analysis.

He's right that the players are losing now, but the PA is right to say they're not caving again just so they can get their wages cut all over again as soon as this CBA expires. The reason the owners want a 10 year deal is because they recognize they're getting a HUGE cut from what the players are already making. They make it idiot proof so even shittily managed teams make a profit, but they don't want the PA to come back and say well obviously that was a pretty sweet deal for you so now we want X,Y, and Z.
 
K

KernelPanic

Member
brucewaynegretzky said:
He's right that the players are losing now, but the PA is right to say they're not caving again just so they can get their wages cut all over again as soon as this CBA expires. The reason the owners want a 10 year deal is because they recognize they're getting a HUGE cut from what the players are already making. They make it idiot proof so even shittily managed teams make a profit, but they don't want the PA to come back and say well obviously that was a pretty sweet deal for you so now we want X,Y, and Z.
Click to expand...

There is no way all teams will profit with the 50/50. As a worst case example you'd need like a 75/25 split for Phoenix to profit.

Only a top few teams profit. Player salaries will only continue to go up and more and more teams will start to creep into the red over the years.

It's not about making all teams profitable (impossible) it's about reversing a trend where teams have nothing to look forward to over the next 5-10 years except ever increasing losses while players get more and more money.
 
S

Smiley90

Stop shitting on my team. Start shitting on my finger.
brucewaynegretzky said:
Craig Simpson basically just told the players they took a cut last time, but they should take a cut again because after a few years they can be back to where they are now, which they weren't happy with in the first place. Good analysis.

.
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that they players took a cut last time, which benefitted the league AND THE PLAYERS IN RETURN greatly. So really, the players didn't lose at all by taking the cut, because the league as a whole profited off of it.
 
D

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
brucewaynegretzky said:
Craig Simpson basically just told the players they took a cut last time, but they should take a cut again because after a few years they can be back to where they are now, which they weren't happy with in the first place. Good analysis.

He's right that the players are losing now, but the PA is right to say they're not caving again just so they can get their wages cut all over again as soon as this CBA expires. The reason the owners want a 10 year deal is because they recognize they're getting a HUGE cut from what the players are already making. They make it idiot proof so even shittily managed teams make a profit, but they don't want the PA to come back and say well obviously that was a pretty sweet deal for you so now we want X,Y, and Z.
Click to expand...

Just to give an idea

NHL player salaries were back to where they were (pre-lockout) by year 2. By year 3? Lol.

By year 5? It was past 40%

If this year continued to be played under old CBA, 60%

Oh yes. Those poor players which had an effective cut for one stinkin year

The big difference is under the cap... EVERYONE ELSE benefitted, not players like jagr who were making $16 million a year

Majority of NHLPA made out like bandits but for some reason the richest are the ones making the agenda
 
B

bonesmccoy

Banned
brucewaynegretzky said:
Craig Simpson basically just told the players they took a cut last time, but they should take a cut again because after a few years they can be back to where they are now, which they weren't happy with in the first place. Good analysis.
Click to expand...

That's not really what he said at all. He argued that the PA should have pro-actively negotiated to make sure that current trend of revenue growth was never at risk. Since they didn't and future revenues are likely to be less than they were recently, and since players are not making any money at all right now, he feels that they're now in a total lose-lose situation.
 
V

VALIS

Member
KernelPanic said:
I think the league is done giving, since Fehr will just take the concessions and ask for more.
Click to expand...

My, you are gullible. I hope your boss tells you you're getting a 15% pay cut next year even though the company has seen record growth, and you praise the guy for "giving" when you negotiate that down to 7.5%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nhl 25 is not coming to Pc
Drama
41
1K
ChoosableOne replied
Noclip: The Making of NHL 94 - 30th Anniversary Documentary
Trailer Game Dev
12
1K
Chittagong replied
Gojira playing opening ceremony!!
16
1K
SJRB replied
Enotria The Last Song | Review Thread & Unofficial OT
Review
6
604
Diseased Yak replied
Electronic Arts announces service shutdowns for older Battlefield, FIFA, NHL, and NBA titles
News Platform
11
832
{insert code here} replied
Top Bottom