13 replies to this topic

[gandlebot]

Simple. Are you on the players side or the owners side?

I specifically DIDN'T put "neither, both sides are idiots" on, because obviously that would get the most votes and that would be boring.

Mods… sorry if this has been done before. I checked but didnt' see it anywhere.

[H-B-C-Y-G]

Slightly towards the owners because spending was going bonkers out of control there for a while, but really, I despise both of them at this point.

[gandlebot]

Spending was out of control, but you can't really blame the owners for it, despite what it seems.

They all have to act in their own best interests, even if that means hurting themselves as a group. And would you expect any less? We all complained how Burke wouldn't sign long term contracts for big money. Why? Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

And in fact, if the owners DID agree to all pay the players less, the players would be within their rights to file a grievance of some sort because they owners would be colluding to pay the players less. Pretty sure that's illegal.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_the_commons

[racer888]

Owners, but that does not mean I think they are innocent in everything. It is sad that they need to be protected from themselves, but the facr remains they have the Huge financial investment and in the big picture many of the players are over paid relative to the rest of the world. Many factory workers have had to accept lower pay just to keep their jobs and yes I know hockey players are good at what they do but their pay is becoming way to disproportionate to the people thay pay their wages (the fans).

[roadtoglory]

Spending was out of control, but you can't really blame the owners for it, despite what it seems.

They all have to act in their own best interests, even if that means hurting themselves as a group. And would you expect any less? We all complained how Burke wouldn't sign long term contracts for big money. Why? Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

And in fact, if the owners DID agree to all pay the players less, the players would be within their rights to file a grievance of some sort because they owners would be colluding to pay the players less. Pretty sure that's illegal.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_the_commons

Ah, what's a little collusion amongst friends?

I agree with racer. Salaries are completely out of order and a correction is necessary. I don't side with the owners lightly either. I've been a union person my whole life but there would always come a point, in any of our labour disputes that we would decide to take the best we could get and live to fight another day.

A vote by the union membership is necessary. If the members accept the latest league offer, Fehr should step down. Roman Hamerlik has the right idea.

[Carmissimo]

There is no collusion case to be made, if the owners simply run their businesses intelligently. Fact is, no team is obligated to provide a player with a 10-year deal intended to pay out more than the cap would allow by tacking on bogus years at ridiculously low amounts. You can't accuse a group of teams of collusion for refusing to do something that is contrary to a viable business model.

Besides, if you think for a second that putting a limit on contracts etc. would accomplish what the owners intend, think again. All a team has to do to get around the owners' proposed restrictions is simply sign at the same time two, three, four contracts (however many they like) covering as many years as they like. I'm sure that there are ways around any restrictions the parties would choose to impose that folks far more clever than I could conjure up, once the new deal was signed.

I think it's embarrassing that owners are looking to impose restrictions on themselves because of their clear, unmistakable incompetence. Bad business decisions are being made left and right with the players being told to allow the owners to put in writing restrictions that prevent those decisions from being made. Just because a player agent comes up with a cheat for the cap does not mean any owner is obligated to allow for that cheat. Quite simply, if an agent proposes some clearly dubious course of action, shame on the owners for agreeing to it in the first place. It's hardly collusion if 30 owners all stay clear of a bad business decision. That's called common sense.

And why make this any more complicated than it has to be? End the method of calculating cap hit based on the total amount of a contract averaged out over the life of the deal. Do that and all the abuse disappears. Period. End of Story.

[Sonny_l_Styles]

I specifically DIDN'T put "neither, both sides are idiots" on, because obviously that would get the most votes and that would be boring.

Yeah but it might start a good fight. Of course that would be unacceptable behaviour in a sports forum. Also apparently that scares off all the newcomers. Where all the new people anyway? I'd rather see all the regular trolls back here, at least there would be some action.

The third option would be my only choice anyway, I have no time for rich people with a sense of entitlement.

[Rollntroll]

We know where the owners stand. Not too sure we can say we know where the 'majority' of the players stand. A vote would sure clear that up in a hurry.

[racer888]

We know where the owners stand. Not too sure we can say we know where the 'majority' of the players stand. A vote would sure clear that up in a hurry.

2nd that

[wdancdn]

1st and foremost, I am on the player's side.

Now, here's the solution for all the people are on the ownership side. Sign a "fair competition agreement" amongst the owners that states:

1. Beginning immediately, my team will not sign ANY player to a contract over 5 years.
2. Beginning immediately, my team will not sign ANY player to an annual salary of over $7M dollars
3. Beginning immediately, my team will not NEVER make an offer to player on another team until they have been in the league at least 8 years, or are 28 years old.
4. Beginning immediately, my team will never exceed the annual league minimum payroll outlined by the NHL at the end of each season.
5. Beginning immediately, my team will spend no more than $2M on a head coach


Think they would sign this agreement? If so, it would not matter at all what the CBA with their union stated. They would all make the money and show the players that they really mean business.

Pay the players the money they owe them, and sign an agreement amongst themselves that they will stay within a budget outlined by the league.

[Carmissimo]

1st and foremost, I am on the player's side.

Now, here's the solution for all the people are on the ownership side. Sign a "fair competition agreement" amongst the owners that states:

1. Beginning immediately, my team will not sign ANY player to a contract over 5 years.
2. Beginning immediately, my team will not sign ANY player to an annual salary of over $7M dollars
3. Beginning immediately, my team will not NEVER make an offer to player on another team until they have been in the league at least 8 years, or are 28 years old.
4. Beginning immediately, my team will never exceed the annual league minimum payroll outlined by the NHL at the end of each season.
5. Beginning immediately, my team will spend no more than $2M on a head coach


Think they would sign this agreement? If so, it would not matter at all what the CBA with their union stated. They would all make the money and show the players that they really mean business.

Pay the players the money they owe them, and sign an agreement amongst themselves that they will stay within a budget outlined by the league.

It's spelled C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N. If you have the players' blessing via a CBA, that's acceptable but if you sign such a deal without the consent of the players, that's a problem. Even if you did it in secret, secrets have a way of being revealed and there are far too many people involved in the industry to keep that sort of deal secret.

We are coming up to a real pressure point, in my opinion. if the league can get a season going by about the middle of December, enough games will be played to salvage an acceptable campaign. If we get past that point, we're basically witnessing the bus being driven over that cliff.

Here's what I can't fathom. Everybody loses if the bus is driven over that cliff, least of all us fans. We can live without the NHL, as much as we would like to have it to enjoy. The players of course lose. The owners lose. Both lose in that the sport would suffer the embarrassment of coming across as the least professional of pro sports in North America. Brand degradation. Both, of course, would have a smaller pie to divide up. Worst of all, in my view, all the thousands of folks who depend on the NHL for income like staff members with teams, folks associated with bars and restaurants, and any businesses connected to the NHL in some fashion or other are taking a big hit with no say in what happens and likely no gain, even after a new deal is struck.

Sure both parties could go there. Sure one of them might get a little more out of a deal as a result, on paper. But I can't really imagine that we really have a situation in which there would be any winners. Bragging rights when the sport takes a major hit seems like a losing proposition, really. Then again, some of the owners, in my view, are that foolish, that immature, that childish that they would delude themselves into thinking they had gained something. It's the one element in this scenario that gives me reason to think bus going over cliff is something we might witness. On the other hand, is there not enough reason, enough intelligence, on both sides, to prevent said disaster?

[wdancdn]

Love your last two paragraphs Carmissimo. Also, I agree on the collusion point. My point was more hypothetical than anything, and suggesting how ridiculously simply it would be if these brilliant businessmen did not sign contracts they cannot afford.

[youngbud]

I do not know what side to take on one hand, Gary Bettman is an easy target and source for angst and he has had 3-4 lockouts inb his tenure and reign as the nhl commish. Well, the players are overpaid as well, and are hurting the fans and everyone else that works in the arenas for these teams. It makes me sick to my stomach to think the owners voted 30-0 in favor of a lockout in the first place. The anger should be directed at the owners. No one is absolved of blame, I just wish they would listen to Grapes and point the finger at the proper guilty party. The players need to smarten the hell up and stop acting like whining jerks. The more they bash Gary the more they empower him and the more they prolong the pain. We may not like him but we have to work with him IF we ever weant nhl hockey back in Toronto or nhl hockey period, because working together is the only way to solve this thing. Something has to give!

[MaximumTaco]

I guess I'm more with the players just because they seem more willing to negotiate than the owners, who have taken a hardline since their 50/50 proposal. At least the players seem willing to meet without any pre-conditions, but the owners don't even want to talk unless it's about their original proposal. While the players seem open to negotiation, all the owners are doing is trying to strong arm the players.

I still think both sides are being unreasonable though. We're basically in a game of chicken here, and neither side is willing to blink. The problem is the owners have gotten their **** together a lot quicker than the players (which makes sense when you consider it's a group of 30 vs a group of 1000+.) The owners have locked in their course and are pretty much on cruise control, whereas the players are still hoping to resolve this without having to go nuclear (decertification), which they will have to do. The sooner the players realize that, the closer we will be to a resolution.