Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    If it happens again it will barely register in states as news except in direct hockey markets.  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : how about we wait until the NHLPA makes their counter proposal on tuesday
    Posted by juniorfalcon19[/QUOTE]

    How about you don't comment on my posts.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : You must have been drinking when you wrote this. It is the only way to explain such a silly statement.
    Posted by biggskye[/QUOTE]

    Why is it silly?  A few of them have higher educaton degrees, but most of them got their fake hs diplomas through online/correspondance classes.  They might be nice guys, but let's not pretend that a man with less than a 12th grade education (grade 12 for those south of the border) is going to be sitting in the corner office.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]I am happy about this.  No dancing around by the NHL.  They are the company.  The workers are going to try hold their line.  It won't work.  Do you think Parise cares if free agency is at 27 or 31?  Do you think Chara wants to lose $X in order to avoid bi-yearly drug test?  Certainly not.  These are hockey players, no different than many of us outside of the skill level and bank account.  I'd suggest that I'm much smarter (IQ wise) than most of them. If Hockey Player A gets a $13M contract or a $9M contract, I don't give him the right to cry about the $9M.  No way. The owners carry the league.  If all of the owners decided to fold the teams, most of these guys would be selling cars or off to the mills.  It's not as if the proposal is a 90% pay cut here.  Most of it is priviledges.  A few thoughts about things above: 1.  On the idea that a work stoppage will hurt the NHL, well, how's your memory?  No hockey in the first half of '94.  Result?  A bigger and better NHL.  Full season canceled for '04-05.  Result.  Best league to date.  2.  But, NAS, what about the fringe fans?  They can beat feet.  Why care about other fans?  I don't watch games with them.  3.  The Owners initial offer was stupid.  Here's an old rule of negotiation:  If you are not embarrassed by your initial offer, it's not low enough.  In order to find out what someone will accept, you have to find out what they won't.  There is nothing worse in negotiation than having your first offer accepted.  That means you clearly left a lot on the table.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I don't know where you came up with # 3, but it couldn't be further from reality, or a more flawed strategy from the get-go.
    Rule #1 in intelligent, successful negotiation is to build rapport, and attempt to minimize the adversarial complexities usually associated with haggling. The process can be shortened considerably, if there is believeability, and integrity in what both sides are trying to accomplish.
    When the hostage negotiater comes in, he doesn't start the process by telling the gunman "you don't have guts enough to start shooting people".  When the negotiater shows up, the guy standing on the edge of a cliff isn't told what an idiot he is for considering suicide either.  The fundamentals are the same in any negotiation. 
    What the league started with, was arrogant, cocky, and incredibly greedy.  That's never good, because now, on top of putting together a deal, both sides feel they have to "save face", and with extremely wealthy people, their ego's can sometimes trump economics.
    Simply put, most people understand the difference between a negotiation, and a pissing contest.  With their first shot, the league has mandated this become the latter.  That is diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of succesful negotiation.
    Volumes can be written on the stupidity of this tactic.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : I don't know where you came up with # 3, but it couldn't be further from reality, or a more flawed strategy from the get-go. Rule #1 in intelligent, successful negotiation is to build rapport, and attempt to minimize the adversarial complexities usually associated with haggling. The process can be shortened considerably, if there is believeability, and integrity in what both sides are trying to accomplish. When the hostage negotiater comes in, he doesn't start the process by telling the gunman "you don't have guts enough to start shooting people".  When the negotiater shows up, the guy standing on the edge of a cliff isn't told what an idiot he is for considering suicide either.  The fundamentals are the same in any negotiation.  What the league started with, was arrogant, cocky, and incredibly greedy.  That's never good, because now, on top of putting together a deal, both sides feel they have to "save face", and with extremely wealthy people, their ego's can sometimes trump economics. Simply put, most people understand the difference between a negotiation, and a pissing contest.  With their first shot, the league has mandated this become the latter.  That is diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of succesful negotiation. Volumes can be written on the stupidity of this tactic.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    Yes, because hostage negotation and contract negotaition are very similar.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Why is it silly?  A few of them have higher educaton degrees, but most of them got their fake hs diplomas through online/correspondance classes.  They might be nice guys, but let's not pretend that a man with less than a 12th grade education (grade 12 for those south of the border) is going to be sitting in the corner office.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]


    It's totally silly for several reasons.  First, these guys have to dedicate themselves to their goal, much more than the average person does to their university degree. Doesn't make them any better, just makes em different, and suggests they paid their dues, worked plenty hard enough, and posess significant talent which there is demand for.   #2.  If tomorrow, the nuclear undustry shuts down, those with doctorates in nuclear science could be "selling cars" too.  Same with those who've spent their life trying to master the piano.  If music all of a sudden disappeared from the planet, where would they be?
    Virtually all highly skilled people, whether athletes or not, only excell at their given profession.  We don't criticise doctors because they may be dumb laywers.
    As far as the "corner office"....It's been my experience that those selected for that location, are far more chosen for their body of work within a particular industry, than the diploma they received before they fully reached adulthood.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from xdrive. Show xdrive's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    I totally side with the players here, the owners got the salary cap they wanted then they go sign dumb contracts all over the place and then cry that they need a bigger slice of the pie to save themselves from each other again!!...idiots! screw them.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]I am real disappointed that the NHLPA waited till July 13th to ask the league for 76,000 pages of financial as well. Give the owners a damn counter proposal already!
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    I think that can be thrown right back at the league too.  Just because this is the league's first offer, doesn't mean it can be absent of sensibilities.  Seems the owners theme here is "need" rather than "want", which is consistent with the last negotiation.  Therefore the PA will argue most of this stuff has nothing to do with need.  They'll have to nit pick the financial stuff to make their point.  It's also very, very common to "not" counter a proposal that's deemed unreasonable.  The PA's stance may be "come back to the table when you have something worthy of discussion". In this case, that strategy could be wise.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]I totally side with the players here, the owners got the salary cap they wanted then they go sign dumb contracts all over the place and then cry that they need a bigger slice of the pie to save themselves from each other again!!...idiots! screw them.
    Posted by xdrive[/QUOTE]

    Hello Shuperman II
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : thy of discussion". In this case, that strategy could be wise. Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    We'll see Tuesday when Fehr makes his pitch. From what he has said it looks like his proposal will be geared to helping the smaller market teams but I think he will concede years to contract length in years and possibly adding a year to EL contracts, giving owners more control before rookies hit the UFA stature. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : We'll see Tuesday when Fehr makes his pitch. From what he has said it looks like his proposal will be geared to helping the smaller market teams but I think he will concede years to contract length in years and possibly adding a year to EL contracts, giving owners more control before rookies hit the UFA stature. 
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Excellent post.  I like that offer as a guy on the side of the players. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : It's totally silly for several reasons.  First, these guys have to dedicate themselves to their goal, much more than the average person does to their university degree. Doesn't make them any better, just makes em different, and suggests they paid their dues, worked plenty hard enough, and posess significant talent which there is demand for.   #2.  If tomorrow, the nuclear undustry shuts down, those with doctorates in nuclear science could be "selling cars" too.  Same with those who've spent their life trying to master the piano.  If music all of a sudden disappeared from the planet, where would they be? Virtually all highly skilled people, whether athletes or not, only excell at their given profession.  We don't criticise doctors because they may be dumb laywers. As far as the "corner office"....It's been my experience that those selected for that location, are far more chosen for their body of work within a particular industry, than the diploma they received before they fully reached adulthood.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    NAS's point has nothing to do with dedication; it's about their transferrable skills.  If the nuclear industry shut down, you'd have a whole bunch of extremely talented physicists, chemists etc. who could turn their understanding of nuclear dynamics to a host of other applications - innovative battery design for the automotive industry, university teaching, energy research, weapons research.... Really, they'd have to change the fundamental laws of the universe before nuclear physicists would be forced to wait tables.  We'd all have to download into cyborg bodies before Doctors would dig ditches, and even then, they'd be valuable in improving the human/machine interface, repairing the biological tissue, creating better versions of Soylent Green....

    Pro sports is functionally a blue collar job.  If they made professional sports illegal - just illegal to pay the players to play, and illegal to charge for tickets or broadcast rights - there are many pro athletes who would be selling cars because what they're good at doesn't transfer to law or medecine or science.  Some might jump to teaching based on having a coach's brain.  Best evidence of this?  Look at where retired players go - especially the ones who didn't make $120M.  Lots of car lots with NHL players attached.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : NAS's point has nothing to do with dedication; it's about their transferrable skills.  If the nuclear industry shut down, you'd have a whole bunch of extremely talented physicists, chemists etc. who could turn their understanding of nuclear dynamics to a host of other applications - innovative battery design for the automotive industry, university teaching, energy research, weapons research.... Really, they'd have to change the fundamental laws of the universe before nuclear physicists would be forced to wait tables.  We'd all have to download into cyborg bodies before Doctors would dig ditches, and even then, they'd be valuable in improving the human/machine interface, repairing the biological tissue, creating better versions of Soylent Green.... Pro sports is functionally a blue collar job.  If they made professional sports illegal - just illegal to pay the players to play, and illegal to charge for tickets or broadcast rights - there are many pro athletes who would be selling cars because what they're good at doesn't transfer to law or medecine or science.  Some might jump to teaching based on having a coach's brain.  Best evidence of this?  Look at where retired players go - especially the ones who didn't make $120M.  Lots of car lots with NHL players attached.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    And you're missing my point.  Of course it's not just about dedication. It's that most of these guys had to make a choice, become a professional, or play hockey.  If the monetary upside wasn't so huge, I'd suggest many would be very capable academically.
      You're right about the "extremely talented" physicists, doctors, and assorted other professionals, but it appears you're putting them all in that one group.  There are plenty of average and below average professionals out there, and when a complete category shuts down, there aren't enough jobs for everyone in it.  
    As for "evidence", I'd love to see some that suggests those who are extremely gifted athletically, generally have learning disabilities.
    It's fairly rare to see someone with a science degree coupled with a law degree.  One reason is because they encompass different talents, but many have the ability to do well in either.  Few have the time or interest though, to pursue both area's.  Most pick their major, and go with it.  Pro hockey players pretty much follow their specialty too.
    And...owning an automobile dealership is hardly "selling cars".  Those are fairly big, mostly lucrative businesses that employ many people.  Some of the snootiest doctors and lawyers in America regularly do flips and twists to obtain one.
     
    "Nas's point", was pretty much that hockey players are a bunch of dumb azzes.  I'm surprised you're looking for ways to defend that. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Excellent post.  I like that offer as a guy on the side of the players. Posted by shuperman[/QUOTE]

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2012-08-10/nhl-labor-talks-nhlpa-counterprosal-2012-lockout-cba-negotiations

    "“Our focus is getting them our proposal on Tuesday and getting a deal done in plenty of time, that no time is missed,” Hainsey said. “I think it’s absolutely possible to get something done where no time is missed.”

    “I think what we’ve proposed had a variety of different elements to it,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly said. “My guess is what they come back with will have a variety of different elements to it. A lot of the elements will be the same subjects, and then the question is, you gauge it from there, how far apart you are on the elements. I don’t think the elements will be that vastly different. I think they’re all related to the overall solution. … It will require hard work and commitment on both sides, but certainly the NHL is committed, and we hope the players are committed as well.”

    "Next week’s negotiating sessions are scheduled for Toronto. The NHL and NHLPA have plans in place for meetings right up to Sep. 15."


    I really am more confident than last time around, I think they will get it done in time actually. I'm still not happy that the counter took so long but what are you to do.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : We'll see Tuesday when Fehr makes his pitch. From what he has said it looks like his proposal will be geared to helping the smaller market teams but I think he will concede years to contract length in years and possibly adding a year to EL contracts, giving owners more control before rookies hit the UFA stature. 
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, it'll be interesting.  Since we're prognosticating, I'll make my prediction.  Fehr gives nothing.  His opening pitch will include rationale as to how the league could be specifically more profitable, and an essay on how much the players have given to get things to the point the league is in now.  Unprecedented good times.  I think he'll also provide examples how the fixes, suggested by the league, won't fix anything.  He'll argue all the league needs to do is run a good business and everyone will prosper, and how the players shouldn't have to pay for every blunder the owners commit.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Yeah, it'll be interesting.  Since we're prognosticating, I'll make my prediction.  Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    Pesimistic people usually can't prognosticate :D. I don't think that the two sides are way off. If the owners don't give something they lose theat great new TV revenue coming in November.

    The owners wen't "boo" with it's first proposal, the NHLPA said fine they'll work with it.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from xdrive. Show xdrive's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Why is it silly?  A few of them have higher educaton degrees, but most of them got their fake hs diplomas through online/correspondance classes.  They might be nice guys, but let's not pretend that a man with less than a 12th grade education (grade 12 for those south of the border) is going to be sitting in the corner office.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    these owners a clowns, they got the cap they wanted now they need protection from themselves because they can't stop handing out stupid contracts.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from GillesGilbert. Show GillesGilbert's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    I'm not for one side or the other and I'm not saying theat the owners are trustworthy but one reason for having a lockout on Sept 15th is to prevent the possibility of the players threatening to go on strike mid-way through the season. The players will want to push all the blame for a lockout on the owners by saying that they see no reason for it and that they are quite willing to negotiate. But they won't give up their right to strike later in the season so you can't take this at face value in my opinion.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Why is it silly?  A few of them have higher educaton degrees, but most of them got their fake hs diplomas through online/correspondance classes.  They might be nice guys, but let's not pretend that a man with less than a 12th grade education (grade 12 for those south of the border) is going to be sitting in the corner office.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I could see a number of things happening that would keep ex NHL players using hockey sticks, instead of shovels.
    The non-North Americans would head home to skate in the KHL and various European leagues, while the North Americans would become players in the AHL, which, with independent ownership, and no players under contract, would be ready to be a real pro league, instead of just a developmental league.
    That would probably last for one year. After that, expect various millionaires & billionaires (including many of the previous NHL group), to form another league.
    I believe that most of the arenas are municipally owned, so there shouldn't be a problem finding venues.
    Hockey players will find a way to play hockey. I believe they would play as hard for 50,000/year, as they would for 5M/year.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout :As for "evidence", I'd love to see some that suggests those who are extremely gifted athletically, generally have learning disabilities.


    "Nas's point", was pretty much that hockey players are a bunch of dumb azzes.  I'm surprised you're looking for ways to defend that. 
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    And from you, I'd like to see the post where it was suggested that anyone has a learning disability.

    Have you tried looking for a job outside of your skillset, Steve?  Let's say that all fast food restaurants closed for good and there were no more drive-thru jobs out there.  Good paying jobs don't just appear and no longer will companies "train the right person".  Too much intelligence out there.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : And from you, I'd like to see the post where it was suggested that anyone has a learning disability. Have you tried looking for a job outside of your skillset, Steve?  Let's say that all fast food restaurants closed for good and there were no more drive-thru jobs out there.  Good paying jobs don't just appear and no longer will companies "train the right person".  Too much intelligence out there.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]


    Merely connecting the dots Nas.  You branded an entire industry as being comprised mostly of those without a grade 12 education.  For those that did achieve this lofty acedemic standing, you further stated "most"  of them got "fake high school diplomas".

    That sounds like a bunch of dim-wits.  Dim-wits aren't very smart, and those who aren't very smart "could" have a learning disability.

    You also informed us, you're "much smarter" than most NHLers, with a higher "IQ".  Since this type of statement is consistent with those coming from a person with a less than average IQ,  it can be assumed that if "yours", is much higher than "theirs"......they quite likely as a group posess very low IQ's.  Those with a low IQ, "could" have a learning disability.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout : Merely connecting the dots Nas.  You branded an entire industry as being comprised mostly of those without a grade 12 education.  For those that did achieve this lofty acedemic standing, you further stated "most"  of them got "fake high school diplomas". That sounds like a bunch of dim-wits.  Dim-wits aren't very smart, and those who aren't very smart "could" have a learning disability. You also informed us, you're "much smarter" than most NHLers, with a higher "IQ".  Since this type of statement is consistent with those coming from a person with a less than average IQ,  it can be assumed that if "yours", is much higher than "theirs"......they quite likely as a group posess very low IQ's.  Those with a low IQ, "could" have a learning disability.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    You have to feel pretty stupid after typing that.


     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Goaler82. Show Goaler82's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    I doubt that this will ever happen but I need to suggest it anyway. If the season is cancelled or starts months late then the fans need to rebel. We are definitely taken for granted. Maybe a full month of NHL teams playing in EMPTY arenas will put the fear of god into these people. Are we strong enough to stay away for the good of the game? Or are we just going to be sheep led back to the game without making any statement about how we have been treated? The only reason any professional sport exists is because of fans showing up and paying the bills. We have the power. Do we have the will?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Bettman says no new CBA = Lockout

    There are two ways the lockout could hurt owners, and neither of them are significant for most of the teams in the league.

    The first would be a loss of fans in emerging markets. The stoppages in 1994 and 2004 showed that stronger and more traditional markets would not suffer a long term loss in fan support. However, weaker and less traditional markets had troubles re-engaging their fan base following the stoppages. So those teams, like CBJ and Phoenix, could suffer long-term from a decrease in attendance (not that Phoenix has much room to go down). However, even these teams would receive short term benefit as most of them are suffering annual losses in revenue. This would stop the bleeding for one season, and potentially bring them out the otherside in a better financial position.
    Also, with the Coyotes looking like they may not be sold for this season, each owner in the league would see an uptick as they would not have to cover the Coyotes operating losses.

    The other way it could hurt the owners is if the owner of a particular team recieves most of their revenues from the team itself. Meaning those owners who are not heavily divested in their investments stand the most to lose. That's admittdly a small group.
    The Flames ownership group, Peter Karamanos of the Hurricanes, Sunrise Sports and Entertainment in Florida, Craig Leipold with the Wild (though he is more diversified than the others in this list) Eugene Melnyk with the Sens (that's mainly due to  bans on him from various Securities Commissions), San Jose Sports and Entertainment Enterprises, and SLB Acquisition Holdings LLC with the Blues. 

    These are the owners who stand to lose the largest portion of their personal annual incomes, and for some of them it's a massive chunk (also I never included Lemieux because of his partner Ron Burkie's personal worth of $3.2 billion). Everyone else, well their NHL revenues are a tiny portion of their annual incomes, and they can easily weather a year without hockey with the revenue losses barely registering as blips on their balance sheets. (For example, the Jets only account for about 0.35 per cent of David Thomson's net worth - for us working stiffs that's about equivalent to 6 hours and 40 minutes of work a year. It would take a lockout of about 460 years before the loss in revenue equalled his net worth). If the richer owners have a system in place to carry these 7 a bit, then there's no reason they wouldn't look at a lockout favourably.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share