3802 replies to this topic

[**LS**]

I don't know what happened to part 1, but it appears to be missing.

[Old School Hockey]

I've been thinking about signed and rollback! The whole process seems a bit disingenuous?

1) I sign a contract and I am fully prepared to honor it.
2) You tell me I have to accept a 20% pay cut off that contract -- a contract we BOTH signed, supposedly in good faith.
3) By the way, this is exactly what you did to me 7 years ago.
4) If I agree to the cut, a chunk of MY money (due to me as part of my honoring a valid contract) goes to Toronto, Montreal, Boston, NYR....... teams that you've acknowledged are doing just fine.
5) In other words you strong arm me into a major devaluation of a contract you offered and we both signed in good faith, and it doesn't even fully go towards solving the problem you are complaining about -- namely that there are several teams in the league that are struggling.

Who is the disingenuous one in this "negotiation"?

[Old School Hockey]

Lowering everyone's salary and worsening their contract possibilities doesn't sound like an honest response to a few teams having problems. The league proposal is an all-out assault not just on player wages but also the contractual freedom of players. That's not the sort of offer you make thinking "yeah we will work something out with the players to solve our issues" that's "we'll nuke the players, they'll eventually cave in just like they did last time, fans will come back just like they did last time".
 
And here's the deal, owners don't want to compete on a fair level, they want an idiot-proof, money printing scheme. Who drives up the UFA prices? Owners. Who gives out 20 year deals? Owners. Who wants to build teams through free agency? Owners. If I own a team, I have an idea of its revenue, it's business 101 that my personnel costs should be in some relationship with my revenue. Now the cry goes, but to compete we have to pay these prices! Oh but is it always the teams with the highest payroll who win? Of course, not. Good teams will outcompete bad teams with higher payrolls. But they want a system where profit is guaranteed, you don't actually need to run the business well, you just need it to be there and then collect the money at the end of the quarter.
 
It's perverse and corrupt.
 

[Old School Hockey]

Interesting article from Ken Dryden (Dryden earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in history at Cornell University's Department of History and a degree in Law at McGill University so stop already if someone wants to call him just ANOTHER player)
 
For years, from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, Gary Bettman kept searching for an answer he couldn’t find. With no salary cap, the NHL teams that could spend, including the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers, did. But many teams that couldn’t spend, including teams in smaller markets, more southern U.S. cities and Canadian teams, except Toronto and Montreal, overwhelmed by a 70-cent Canadian dollar, also spent to a point beyond what their revenues would support. In NHL governors’ meetings, Bettman would point this out, at first forcefully, over time as if possessed.
 
Every several years a collective agreement between the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association expires and a new one needs to be negotiated. If owners couldn’t restrain themselves, Bettman knew they needed a collective agreement that would do that for them.  Bob Goodenow, head of the NHLPA, naturally, wasn’t looking to co-operate. Goodenow knew these rich, tough owners were actually weak. All he needed was to say “no” to every proposal. Eventually they would cave. And they did.
Finally, Bettman realized they always would. The only way for the owners and for him to win was to take the power out of the owners’ hands. He couldn’t do that directly. He was their employee.

He had to get their support to change the NHL bylaws so that a higher percentage of team owners were required to override any proposed agreement with the NHLPA he brought to them. Then he’d need the support of only a few friendly owners, and the negotiations were his. He got the bylaws changed.

Bettman girded himself for the 2004 negotiation, month by month building up in himself a belief in the rightness of his position, in the wrongness of the players’ position, and a solid dislike of Goodenow. And this time he had the power.

Goodenow said “no” as he always did. The owners locked out the players. The season didn’t start. Goodenow said “no” again and again. The owners would cave. Bettman didn’t. Goodenow had no other strategy. Goodenow needed the players. Bettman didn’t need the owners. It became Bettman against the players. The players caved.

The fact is, both the owners and players are doing relatively fine. Their fight is not one of economic necessity. Bettman needs to win because he won last time, and he’s a winner. The players need to win because they lost last time and have to prove they’re not losers. The two sides didn’t really start to negotiate until July because there wasn’t much to talk about, and because for each to win what he needed to win, neither could agree before the collective agreement expired. There’s no agreement because neither needs an agreement. It’s not a fight they need to have. They fight because they can.

We have become better and better at difference. We hire more experts to push our own case. It’s their job to win, their only job. Nothing else matters. It’s black and white, winning and losing, winners and losers. Grey is boring. Conviction is good. Compromise is weak. Compromisers are spineless. The media decide what’s worthy of attention. The media love difference. There’s drama in difference, drama in conflict. There is no bigger interest. There are only interests.

So we fight for as much as we can get.

What are the losers – the fans – to do? They could try to stand up together, develop a strategy, stay home from games. As unlikely as that is, big surprises happen, and the strong are never as strong as they seem.

Or the players and owners might say, this is going nowhere good. The way we live isn’t about total victory, about being the only one left standing, the only one who wins. An economy, a society, politics, sports don’t work if only a few win. With no overwhelming issues, NHL owners and players have agreed to disagree.

They need to learn how to agree to agree.

http://www.theglobea...article4543964/

[JR Ewing]

Interesting article from Ken Dryden (Dryden earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in history at Cornell University's Department of History and a degree in Law at McGill University so stop already if someone wants to call him just ANOTHER player)
 
For years, from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, Gary Bettman kept searching for an answer he couldn’t find. With no salary cap, the NHL teams that could spend, including the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers, did. But many teams that couldn’t spend, including teams in smaller markets, more southern U.S. cities and Canadian teams, except Toronto and Montreal, overwhelmed by a 70-cent Canadian dollar, also spent to a point beyond what their revenues would support. In NHL governors’ meetings, Bettman would point this out, at first forcefully, over time as if possessed.
 
Every several years a collective agreement between the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association expires and a new one needs to be negotiated. If owners couldn’t restrain themselves, Bettman knew they needed a collective agreement that would do that for them.  Bob Goodenow, head of the NHLPA, naturally, wasn’t looking to co-operate. Goodenow knew these rich, tough owners were actually weak. All he needed was to say “no” to every proposal. Eventually they would cave. And they did.
Finally, Bettman realized they always would. The only way for the owners and for him to win was to take the power out of the owners’ hands. He couldn’t do that directly. He was their employee.

He had to get their support to change the NHL bylaws so that a higher percentage of team owners were required to override any proposed agreement with the NHLPA he brought to them. Then he’d need the support of only a few friendly owners, and the negotiations were his. He got the bylaws changed.

Bettman girded himself for the 2004 negotiation, month by month building up in himself a belief in the rightness of his position, in the wrongness of the players’ position, and a solid dislike of Goodenow. And this time he had the power.

Goodenow said “no” as he always did. The owners locked out the players. The season didn’t start. Goodenow said “no” again and again. The owners would cave. Bettman didn’t. Goodenow had no other strategy. Goodenow needed the players. Bettman didn’t need the owners. It became Bettman against the players. The players caved.

The fact is, both the owners and players are doing relatively fine. Their fight is not one of economic necessity. Bettman needs to win because he won last time, and he’s a winner. The players need to win because they lost last time and have to prove they’re not losers. The two sides didn’t really start to negotiate until July because there wasn’t much to talk about, and because for each to win what he needed to win, neither could agree before the collective agreement expired. There’s no agreement because neither needs an agreement. It’s not a fight they need to have. They fight because they can.

We have become better and better at difference. We hire more experts to push our own case. It’s their job to win, their only job. Nothing else matters. It’s black and white, winning and losing, winners and losers. Grey is boring. Conviction is good. Compromise is weak. Compromisers are spineless. The media decide what’s worthy of attention. The media love difference. There’s drama in difference, drama in conflict. There is no bigger interest. There are only interests.

So we fight for as much as we can get.

What are the losers – the fans – to do? They could try to stand up together, develop a strategy, stay home from games. As unlikely as that is, big surprises happen, and the strong are never as strong as they seem.

Or the players and owners might say, this is going nowhere good. The way we live isn’t about total victory, about being the only one left standing, the only one who wins. An economy, a society, politics, sports don’t work if only a few win. With no overwhelming issues, NHL owners and players have agreed to disagree.

They need to learn how to agree to agree.

http://www.theglobea...article4543964/

Dryden will always be the most pompous windbag in the sport's history, but this was a good read.

JR

[Shakes]

I've been thinking about signed and rollback! The whole process seems a bit disingenuous?

1) I sign a contract and I am fully prepared to honor it.
2) You tell me I have to accept a 20% pay cut off that contract -- a contract we BOTH signed, supposedly in good faith.
3) By the way, this is exactly what you did to me 7 years ago.
4) If I agree to the cut, a chunk of MY money (due to me as part of my honoring a valid contract) goes to Toronto, Montreal, Boston, NYR....... teams that you've acknowledged are doing just fine.
5) In other words you strong arm me into a major devaluation of a contract you offered and we both signed in good faith, and it doesn't even fully go towards solving the problem you are complaining about -- namely that there are several teams in the league that are struggling.

Who is the disingenuous one in this "negotiation"?

This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.

The contract you signed was within the framework of a larger contract called the CBA.
When you signed that contract, you knew the terms of your contract were governed by the CBA
When you signed that contract you knew the CBA was set to expire and that would affect the terms of your contract.
The people involved in signing your contract aren't the people negotiating the CBA- so that doesn't translate to disingenuousity (sp?)
Also- they are not asking for a 20% reductions on contracts.
Lastly, the fact that some of the escrow money might make it back to a team like the leafs is a red-herring. NHLPA licensing deals and union dues go into a pool that funds the players pensions- therefor players making the minimum are also subsidizing players with $100 million dollar contracts. You never hear the poorer players bitching about that....

[Shakes]

Interesting article from Ken Dryden (Dryden earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in history at Cornell University's Department of History and a degree in Law at McGill University so stop already if someone wants to call him just ANOTHER player)
 
For years, from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, Gary Bettman kept searching for an answer he couldn’t find. With no salary cap, the NHL teams that could spend, including the New York Rangers, Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers, did. But many teams that couldn’t spend, including teams in smaller markets, more southern U.S. cities and Canadian teams, except Toronto and Montreal, overwhelmed by a 70-cent Canadian dollar, also spent to a point beyond what their revenues would support. In NHL governors’ meetings, Bettman would point this out, at first forcefully, over time as if possessed.
 
Every several years a collective agreement between the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association expires and a new one needs to be negotiated. If owners couldn’t restrain themselves, Bettman knew they needed a collective agreement that would do that for them.  Bob Goodenow, head of the NHLPA, naturally, wasn’t looking to co-operate. Goodenow knew these rich, tough owners were actually weak. All he needed was to say “no” to every proposal. Eventually they would cave. And they did.
Finally, Bettman realized they always would. The only way for the owners and for him to win was to take the power out of the owners’ hands. He couldn’t do that directly. He was their employee.

He had to get their support to change the NHL bylaws so that a higher percentage of team owners were required to override any proposed agreement with the NHLPA he brought to them. Then he’d need the support of only a few friendly owners, and the negotiations were his. He got the bylaws changed.

Bettman girded himself for the 2004 negotiation, month by month building up in himself a belief in the rightness of his position, in the wrongness of the players’ position, and a solid dislike of Goodenow. And this time he had the power.

Goodenow said “no” as he always did. The owners locked out the players. The season didn’t start. Goodenow said “no” again and again. The owners would cave. Bettman didn’t. Goodenow had no other strategy. Goodenow needed the players. Bettman didn’t need the owners. It became Bettman against the players. The players caved.

The fact is, both the owners and players are doing relatively fine. Their fight is not one of economic necessity. Bettman needs to win because he won last time, and he’s a winner. The players need to win because they lost last time and have to prove they’re not losers. The two sides didn’t really start to negotiate until July because there wasn’t much to talk about, and because for each to win what he needed to win, neither could agree before the collective agreement expired. There’s no agreement because neither needs an agreement. It’s not a fight they need to have. They fight because they can.

We have become better and better at difference. We hire more experts to push our own case. It’s their job to win, their only job. Nothing else matters. It’s black and white, winning and losing, winners and losers. Grey is boring. Conviction is good. Compromise is weak. Compromisers are spineless. The media decide what’s worthy of attention. The media love difference. There’s drama in difference, drama in conflict. There is no bigger interest. There are only interests.

So we fight for as much as we can get.

What are the losers – the fans – to do? They could try to stand up together, develop a strategy, stay home from games. As unlikely as that is, big surprises happen, and the strong are never as strong as they seem.

Or the players and owners might say, this is going nowhere good. The way we live isn’t about total victory, about being the only one left standing, the only one who wins. An economy, a society, politics, sports don’t work if only a few win. With no overwhelming issues, NHL owners and players have agreed to disagree.

They need to learn how to agree to agree.

http://www.theglobea...article4543964/

I hate articles like this.

Don't we all want a strong league? if so, how is boycotting going to accomplish this?

[Old School Hockey]

This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.

The contract you signed was within the framework of a larger contract called the CBA.
When you signed that contract, you knew the terms of your contract were governed by the CBA
When you signed that contract you knew the CBA was set to expire and that would affect the terms of your contract.
The people involved in signing your contract aren't the people negotiating the CBA- so that doesn't translate to disingenuousity (sp?)
Also- they are not asking for a 20% reductions on contracts.
Lastly, the fact that some of the escrow money might make it back to a team like the leafs is a red-herring. NHLPA licensing deals and union dues go into a pool that funds the players pensions- therefor players making the minimum are also subsidizing players with $100 million dollar contracts. You never hear the poorer players bitching about that....

How about the part where a rollback goes and helps the already rich teams such as Toronto! I don't anyone would have a problem if rollbacks went directly where they need to go and not into the rich guys pockets too!

[Old School Hockey]

This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.

The contract you signed was within the framework of a larger contract called the CBA.
When you signed that contract, you knew the terms of your contract were governed by the CBA
When you signed that contract you knew the CBA was set to expire and that would affect the terms of your contract.
The people involved in signing your contract aren't the people negotiating the CBA- so that doesn't translate to disingenuousity (sp?)
Also- they are not asking for a 20% reductions on contracts.
Lastly, the fact that some of the escrow money might make it back to a team like the leafs is a red-herring. NHLPA licensing deals and union dues go into a pool that funds the players pensions- therefor players making the minimum are also subsidizing players with $100 million dollar contracts. You never hear the poorer players bitching about that....

If both parties sign a contract it should be honored. It's no mystery why many teams signed guys to massive contracts mere days and even hours before the CBA expired. I'm sure the owners were expecting an immediate 10% discount (minimum) even if a 50/50 split was achieved.

[CoyoteQ]

NHLPA working to restore players' canceled insurance

The NHL Players' Association has advised players Tuesday that it will be paying for the cost to restore all of the insurance coverage that the NHL eliminated for its players and their families after the lockout began this weekend.


Bruce Bennett, Getty Images
The league cut off insurance to Sidney Crosby and other NHL Players' Association members on Monday.
Enlarge
Bruce Bennett, Getty Images
The league cut off insurance to Sidney Crosby and other NHL Players' Association members on Monday.
Sponsored Links

According to the NHLPA memo, "NHL has instructed the insurers to cancel all insurance coverage, effective September 16, 2012. This includes Medical and Dental coverage for Players and their families, Disability insurance, Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance, and Spousal Life insurance."
The memo stated that all players who have not signed as a free agent in another league or have not retired are eligible for the continuation of coverage if they meet one more of this criteria:

More!

[JR Ewing]

If both parties sign a contract it should be honored. It's no mystery why many teams signed guys to massive contracts mere days and even hours before the CBA expired. I'm sure the owners were expecting an immediate 10% discount (minimum) even if a 50/50 split was achieved.

Players have been signing these contracts at the same time that the league has been saying the players make too much and need to dial back their share. They can't honestly say the expected to keep 100% of that, right? Unless they suffer from a particularly bad form of myopia, they had to know what they were signing on for.

JR

[Old School Hockey]

Players have been signing these contracts at the same time that the league has been saying the players make too much and need to dial back their share. They can't honestly say the expected to keep 100% of that, right? Unless they suffer from a particularly bad form of myopia, they had to know what they were signing on for.

JR

I have a really cool option here!  How about teams spend within their means.  If you can afford the 10m player sign him you can’t move on.  Big contracts DON’T always mean BEST team.  It not collusion if a small team can’t sign player XXXXX to the big dollar contract and a big market can.
 
Again the problem here is the NHL is trying have parity and said parity is causing problems.  It’s not upper salaries that are hurting it’s lower teams having to get to the floor.  So get rid of the floor problem solved.  See in MLB Pittsburgh, Oakland, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago (AL) and Tampa Bay.  All contenders spending 100m less than the Yankees.
 

[CoyoteQ]

I have a really cool option here!  How about teams spend within their means.  If you can afford the 10m player sign him you can’t move on. 
 

Most teams actually do that.

[Shakes]

If both parties sign a contract it should be honored. It's no mystery why many teams signed guys to massive contracts mere days and even hours before the CBA expired. I'm sure the owners were expecting an immediate 10% discount (minimum) even if a 50/50 split was achieved.

...And they will be honored- within the framewok of the CBA- everyone knows the same rules going into a situation. your argument is moot, so why make it?


You're other argument is flawed too, as I've pointed out numerous times.

[JR Ewing]

I have a really cool option here!  How about teams spend within their means.  If you can afford the 10m player sign him you can’t move on.  Big contracts DON’T always mean BEST team.  It not collusion if a small team can’t sign player XXXXX to the big dollar contract and a big market can.
 
Again the problem here is the NHL is trying have parity and said parity is causing problems.  It’s not upper salaries that are hurting it’s lower teams having to get to the floor.  So get rid of the floor problem solved.  See in MLB Pittsburgh, Oakland, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago (AL) and Tampa Bay.  All contenders spending 100m less than the Yankees.
 

I know exactly what you're saying. I get all of that.

I'm saying that, if the players were being realists, they had to know the nature of the contracts to which they signed their names.

JR

[Shakes]

 
Again the problem here is the NHL is trying have parity and said parity is causing problems.  It’s not upper salaries that are hurting it’s lower teams having to get to the floor.  So get rid of the floor problem solved.  See in MLB Pittsburgh, Oakland, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago (AL) and Tampa Bay.  All contenders spending 100m less than the Yankees.
 

I agree with this point, but that was a concession the owners made to achieve the cap in the first place. I don't know if they can get rid of the floor completely, but lowering it should be a valid negotiating point.

[Potvin29]

This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.

The contract you signed was within the framework of a larger contract called the CBA.
When you signed that contract, you knew the terms of your contract were governed by the CBA
When you signed that contract you knew the CBA was set to expire and that would affect the terms of your contract.
The people involved in signing your contract aren't the people negotiating the CBA- so that doesn't translate to disingenuousity (sp?)
Also- they are not asking for a 20% reductions on contracts.
Lastly, the fact that some of the escrow money might make it back to a team like the leafs is a red-herring. NHLPA licensing deals and union dues go into a pool that funds the players pensions- therefor players making the minimum are also subsidizing players with $100 million dollar contracts. You never hear the poorer players bitching about that....

Lets not forget that the contract you signed is guaranteed and cannot be terminated in any way except for a pre-negotiated buyout. No player can ever be "fired" from the NHL no matter how poor they perform.

Also the contract you just signed is 200-300% higher than the contract you would have signed 10 10-15 years ago. A serious jump past standard inflation rates.

[Potvin29]

How about the part where a rollback goes and helps the already rich teams such as Toronto! I don't anyone would have a problem if rollbacks went directly where they need to go and not into the rich guys pockets too!

This is not an argument. It's an opinion of wealth. There is zero way to help the League without helping the top teams to make more money. Why do you despise profit so much? Without these teams this league probably wouldn't even exist.

[Tashimojo]

I don't know what happened to part 1, but it appears to be missing.

You mean all our hard work and all that progress we made on helping the NHL and the PA find common ground is gone??

Damn, now the lockout will last a whole year.

[Potvin29]

I agree with this point, but that was a concession the owners made to achieve the cap in the first place. I don't know if they can get rid of the floor completely, but lowering it should be a valid negotiating point.

Actually the owners and Players wanted the floor. THe owners probably more so. The reason being is that the floor prevents the small markets from just sitting back and using the shared revenue as profit. In the MLB and NFL this happened a lot. Heck even Kevin McClatchey of the Pirates told me this was his strategy. They put out lousy rosters with barely any salary and then just take the shared millions from the wealthy teams as their profit and go home. They never bother trying to compete because it's too hard.

The floor was the owners way of preventing the weak teams from just being welfare cases. These teams also have to meet attendance goals etc.

The floor was a response to the NFL's problem of dependent welfare teams and the MLB's disparity.