• 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|

S

SpectreFire

Member
So this is pretty much the player's offer:

oXFFu.gif
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Revenant said:
maybe if that happens your coach will be on step closer to the door! some positives in an ass whooping.
Click to expand...

Oh, how fantastic this would be. They aren't winning jack with him at the helm.
 
S

Socreges

Banned
brucewaynegretzky said:
I don't see how you can be certain of that based on Bettman's statements. He's said "This is the best offer we're prepared to make." It's unclear what that means, and they were only in there for an hour, which could pretty easily imply flippant rejections.
Click to expand...
You're making a meal of things, dude. That kind of typical rhetoric does not constitute Boulwarism. He's accompanying the offers with temporary deadlines and finality, but there's been no indication that he's closed off to negotiations, which is the principle of Boulwarism. Consider that a month ago he gave a "take it or leave it" offer, but there was no mistaking that a counter-offer could be made at that time, or negotiations could be opened again weeks later.
 
K

Kifimbo

Member
First proposal was 50% in five years, with a 5% growth.

Third proposal: 50/50 (don't know when) as long as you honour contracts that are signed (no escrow).
 
C

Coldnoodle

Member
:lol at people suggesting scab players. I watch the NHL because it's the best v.s the best. If I want to watch scabs duke it out, I'll watch an ECHL game.

Just watch some KHL hockey and wait.
 
A

alexthekid

Member
When he said that the third offer said that they would have the owners honor the contracts already signed. Hasn´t that been the case the whole time, that they would honor contracts already signed, aka no rollback?
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
Kifimbo said:
First proposal was 50% in five years, with a 5% growth.

Third proposal: 50/50 (don't know when) as long as you honour contracts that are signed (no escrow).
Click to expand...

Ok the first sounds like it may have been absurd if it started at 57%, but lol at "not speaking the same language" with the third proposal.
 
S

SpectreFire

Member
The most infuriating part, is that there IS a deal in there somewhere. They're going to have to reach that deal eventually, but apparently the NHLPA just wants to drag it out as long as possible.

Fucking cunts.

JUST GET IT DONE. Holy christ, this is what happens when you involve a bunch of brain-damaged idiots in complex business negotiations.
 
B

BigJonsson

Member
alexthekid said:
When he said that the third offer said that they would have the owners honor the contracts already signed. Hasn´t that been the case the whole time, that they would honor contracts already signed, aka no rollback?
Click to expand...

The owners would put chunks of salary into escrow.... And the devil is in the details
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
SpectreFire said:
The most infuriating part, is that there IS a deal in there somewhere. They're going to have to reach that deal eventually, but apparently the NHLPA just wants to drag it out as long as possible.

Fucking cunts.

JUST GET IT DONE. Holy christ, this is what happens when you involve a bunch of brain-damaged idiots in complex business negotiations.
Click to expand...

NHL: Makes offer
PA: Makes similar offer that you admit is grounds to keep negotiating
NHL: Screams and throws hands in the air in an attempt to look like they're negotiating
You: Damn the PA.
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
CrankyJay said:
What contracts are they talking about? Player contracts? Why wouldn't the NHL honor those?
Click to expand...

Because they don't want to. They want all those players to agree to paycuts on the amount they agreed to. They've pretty much realized they're never gonna get that so they're trying to make those contracts take up HUGE chunks of the new cap so that future contracts are much lower.
 
C

CrankyJay

Banned
brucewaynegretzky said:
Because they don't want to. They want all those players to agree to paycuts on the amount they agreed to. They've pretty much realized they're never gonna get that so they're trying to make those contracts take up HUGE chunks of the new cap so that future contracts are much lower.
Click to expand...

Aren't these players losing out on time off their contract by not playing?
 
C

Cake Boss

Banned
These idiots will just end up taking a worse deal next summer just like last time.

The owners have nothing to lose long term as they have other streams of revenue to support themselves while these high school dropouts need to play hockey.
 
S

Smiley90

Stop shitting on my team. Start shitting on my finger.
brucewaynegretzky said:
What does that have to do with asking them to take less money than they were originally promised?
Click to expand...

Honest question, but then what does this mean:

"9. No "Rollback":

• The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA."


From the NHL proposal? I figure that means no rollback too, aka the players WONT get less money than agreed upon, contracts ARE honoured?
 
B

brucewaynegretzky

Member
CrankyJay said:
Because if they are losing time on their contract by being locked out they're going to take less money anyway...LOL
Click to expand...

Well if you're gonna take less money wouldn't you want the full amount when you get back?

Your argument is basically "Well we TOLD you we'd pay you this much, but we're not going to, so you might as well just pull down you pants and bend over."

Honest question, but then what does this mean:

"9. No "Rollback":

• The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA."


From the NHL proposal? I figure that means no rollback too, aka the players WONT get less money than agreed upon, contracts ARE honoured?
Click to expand...

This is a (fair) point of contention between the two sides. The PA would like those contracts to get more amnesty against the new cap because as it stands those contracts will all look like albatrosses under the new deal so all those players will be hurting players negotiating now. The league put in some protections, but the PA wants more. It's a fair disagreement, but it's hardly the level of contention Bettman is talking about. This SHOULD be workable.
 
C

CrankyJay

Banned
brucewaynegretzky said:
Well if you're gonna take less money wouldn't you want the full amount when you get back?

Your argument is basically "Well we TOLD you we'd pay you this much, but we're not going to, so you might as well just pull down you pants and bend over."
Click to expand...

My company 3 years ago took a 10% pay cut in order to keep their jobs.

10% of something like 50k is quite alot, these guys make at the least hundreds of thousands, at most, 10s of millions.

I don't feel bad for these guys in the least.
 
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
831
{insert code here} replied
Top Bottom