Players and owners only ?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    Bim, you have no idea what you're talking about.  Just stop.  You are just some silly kid who wears a gayass flat brimmed hat and wonders if grown men on a team he follows are blowing loading in condoms.


    If you are going to post stuff like that, the least you could do would be to post a link to the page you read it on.  It's not as if any of that which you posted is an original idea.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to bim09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bim09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bottom line, Owners need to move towards the Players if a deal is gonna get done.  And, with JJ in the room, that is unlikely to happen.  Men like Jacobs only respond to hardball business decisions.  Decertification is very likey to happen. Then we'll see a deal.

    [/QUOTE]

    On the contrary, i think if the players decertify, the owners will dig in even more for labor armageddon.They will play it out until its conclusion and deal with the results. I hope the players are ready to lose even more money, i know the owners are, but lets remember, they are billionaires. The owners know decertification is an option for the players and are i'm sure prepared. To all the Krys Barches, Ian Whites, Jamal Mayers of the world, they'll have likely played they're last game in the N.H.L, i hope they'll be happy knowing they fought the good fight.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, your saying the owners are prepared to pay out triple damages in lawsuits and lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues just to make a point?  Not to mention the damage it will do to the leagues reputation.  I seriously doubt it.

     

    And if the PA files in the ninth circuit, the owners won't be able to get to the table fast enough to sign a deal.  The ninth circuit is like the harbinger of death to big business.

    [/QUOTE]

    If that is the case and such a "sure thing", why would the owners push it this far? Seems like throwing good money after bad, wouldn't you say ? If its such a slam dunk as you say why didn't the players just do it a week ago ?You don't seem to give the owners much credit, do you actually think that decertification wasn't considered a possibility by the owners? The law firm the league uses is quite well versed in decertification and i'm sure they have told the league what to expect.Lets just say i don't think its going to go down as easy as you say, 9th circuit or not. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bim09. Show bim09's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bim09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bim09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bottom line, Owners need to move towards the Players if a deal is gonna get done.  And, with JJ in the room, that is unlikely to happen.  Men like Jacobs only respond to hardball business decisions.  Decertification is very likey to happen. Then we'll see a deal.

    [/QUOTE]

    On the contrary, i think if the players decertify, the owners will dig in even more for labor armageddon.They will play it out until its conclusion and deal with the results. I hope the players are ready to lose even more money, i know the owners are, but lets remember, they are billionaires. The owners know decertification is an option for the players and are i'm sure prepared. To all the Krys Barches, Ian Whites, Jamal Mayers of the world, they'll have likely played they're last game in the N.H.L, i hope they'll be happy knowing they fought the good fight.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, your saying the owners are prepared to pay out triple damages in lawsuits and lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues just to make a point?  Not to mention the damage it will do to the leagues reputation.  I seriously doubt it.

     

    And if the PA files in the ninth circuit, the owners won't be able to get to the table fast enough to sign a deal.  The ninth circuit is like the harbinger of death to big business.

    [/QUOTE]

    If that is the case and such a "sure thing", why would the owners push it this far? Seems like throwing good money after bad, wouldn't you say ? If its such a slam dunk as you say why didn't the players just do it a week ago ?You don't seem to give the owners much credit, do you actually think that decertification wasn't considered a possibility by the owners? The law firm the league uses is quite well versed in decertification and i'm sure they have told the league what to expect.Lets just say i don't think its going to go down as easy as you say, 9th circuit or not. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It comes down to leverage.  Decerting is the players position of strength.  I would even call it the equilizer at the table.

     

    If JJ and the owners haven't done a deal by now, it would seem they're prepared to call the players bluff.  Because doing a deal before that would be like Boehner giving Obama everything he want's without getting any consessions.

     

    The same priciples apply here.  Decerting is the final day of the fiscal cliff.  And in both cases is most likely to result in last minute deals.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bim09. Show bim09's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    And NAS, the condoms comment made me laugh. :)  I don't care what they say about you.  Your alright.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to bim09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bim09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bim09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bottom line, Owners need to move towards the Players if a deal is gonna get done.  And, with JJ in the room, that is unlikely to happen.  Men like Jacobs only respond to hardball business decisions.  Decertification is very likey to happen. Then we'll see a deal.

    [/QUOTE]

    On the contrary, i think if the players decertify, the owners will dig in even more for labor armageddon.They will play it out until its conclusion and deal with the results. I hope the players are ready to lose even more money, i know the owners are, but lets remember, they are billionaires. The owners know decertification is an option for the players and are i'm sure prepared. To all the Krys Barches, Ian Whites, Jamal Mayers of the world, they'll have likely played they're last game in the N.H.L, i hope they'll be happy knowing they fought the good fight.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, your saying the owners are prepared to pay out triple damages in lawsuits and lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues just to make a point?  Not to mention the damage it will do to the leagues reputation.  I seriously doubt it.

     

    And if the PA files in the ninth circuit, the owners won't be able to get to the table fast enough to sign a deal.  The ninth circuit is like the harbinger of death to big business.

    [/QUOTE]

    If that is the case and such a "sure thing", why would the owners push it this far? Seems like throwing good money after bad, wouldn't you say ? If its such a slam dunk as you say why didn't the players just do it a week ago ?You don't seem to give the owners much credit, do you actually think that decertification wasn't considered a possibility by the owners? The law firm the league uses is quite well versed in decertification and i'm sure they have told the league what to expect.Lets just say i don't think its going to go down as easy as you say, 9th circuit or not. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It comes down to leverage.  Decerting is the players position of strength.  I would even call it the equilizer at the table.

     

    If JJ and the owners haven't done a deal by now, it would seem they're prepared to call the players bluff.  Because doing a deal before that would be like Boehner giving Obama everything he want's without getting any consessions.

     

    The same priciples apply here.  Decerting is the final day of the fiscal cliff.  And in both cases is most likely to result in last minute deals.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with you on this for sure, as for a last minute deal i hope you are right but the owners could have more tricks up their sleeve. At any rate, we'll know more after the meeting on tuesday. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    I understand the leverage point for decertification, but doesn't seem like that happens without some risk.  Otherwise, wouldn't the players have exercised this option earlier in the process?  Also, seems like if it doesn't lead to a deal quickly, it is likely the nail in coffin for the season.

     

    Shawn Thornton's and Greg Campbell's comments in Hags recent piece:

    http://www.csnne.com/hockey-boston-bruins/bruins-talk/Players-considering-NHLPA-decertificatio?blockID=806789&feedID=10428

    “I’m not really educated enough on decertification to make a comment either way,” said Shawn Thornton. “It’s an option we are aware of, but nobody has really been educated on it.”

     


    "I’ve tried to read a couple of articles on it and talked with my sister, who is a lawyer, about it," Gregory Campbell said. "It seems like something like it’s an awfully serious decision. I don’t know what the ramifications would be if we went down that road. I don’t know if a lot people understand what would happen [if we decertified]. I think everybody just wants a solution to this.

    "In searching the other lockouts it looks like it might be an option. It may come to that. But I don’t understand enough about it to make a statement of whether we should do it or not."

     

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

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    Lets face it, as long as both sides are feeling pain(which they are) the leverage thing is no slam dunk either way.

    There is no magic.  Nothing is going to pop up and make either side buckle.  Short term economics have already gone out the window.

     It's simply a matter of pain threshold, and the pain meter is powered by dollars.

    I don't think either side is feeling the fire yet, and I'd be surprised if both didn't figure this thing could go to January.

    When it becomes apparent that "any" season is doubtfull, I think we'll see something.  I believe both are terrified of the ramifications of another full year gone dark.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I understand the leverage point for decertification, but doesn't seem like that happens without some risk.  Otherwise, wouldn't the players have exercised this option earlier in the process?  Also, seems like if it doesn't lead to a deal quickly, it is likely the nail in coffin for the season.

     

    Shawn Thornton's and Greg Campbell's comments in Hags recent piece:

    http://www.csnne.com/hockey-boston-bruins/bruins-talk/Players-considering-NHLPA-decertificatio?blockID=806789&feedID=10428

    “I’m not really educated enough on decertification to make a comment either way,” said Shawn Thornton. “It’s an option we are aware of, but nobody has really been educated on it.”

     


    "I’ve tried to read a couple of articles on it and talked with my sister, who is a lawyer, about it," Gregory Campbell said. "It seems like something like it’s an awfully serious decision. I don’t know what the ramifications would be if we went down that road. I don’t know if a lot people understand what would happen [if we decertified]. I think everybody just wants a solution to this.

    "In searching the other lockouts it looks like it might be an option. It may come to that. But I don’t understand enough about it to make a statement of whether we should do it or not."

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats what i say, if this is a sure fire way to get the best deal for the players, what are they waiting for. I would think they would want to start collecting paychecks as soon as possible. As is is they'll have to settle for a $10,000.00 stipend.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    off topic, but  I can't imagine that anyone of us cares if the owners or players come out on top as long as we have hockey again.

    I would only care if the owners squeezed the players so hard that some players went to Europe and the quality was diluted in the NHL.

    Does anyone care who comes out on top?  I think nobody bu them.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    Everybody comes out on top when you're splitting up billions in revenue

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Everybody comes out on top when you're splitting up billions in revenue


    Post of the thread!

    "Also, seems like if it doesn't lead to a deal quickly, it is likely the nail in coffin for the season."

    No doubt Crowls, this is the last chance.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    off topic, but  I can't imagine that anyone of us cares if the owners or players come out on top as long as we have hockey again.

    I would only care if the owners squeezed the players so hard that some players went to Europe and the quality was diluted in the NHL.

    Does anyone care who comes out on top?  I think nobody bu them.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't really care who comes out on top, as i find both sides greedy. As i've said in other threads, i just don't see the players winning this battle, that doesn't mean they shouldn't put up a fight. But when you are already making millions of dollars playing hockey and by continuing this fight you are throwing money you will never get back out the window, i don't get it. Hey, at the end of the day if the players feel they are doing the right thing, good for them. This is only my opinion and i'm not in on the negotiations so i don't know whats going on but to my naked eye it just seems all the money the players are losing is not worth it.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Everybody comes out on top when you're splitting up billions in revenue



    Post of the thread!

     

    "Also, seems like if it doesn't lead to a deal quickly, it is likely the nail in coffin for the season."

    No doubt Crowls, this is the last chance.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My feeling exactly Sandog, the different negotiators scenario is a sign of a lost season on the horizon.  I remain hopeful but I also understand the positioning.  In the grand scheme of things, it is another year of lockout hockey for the fans!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    I would prefer the owners come out on top when it comes to the contract status.  I'm a Bruins fan a heck of a lot more than I'm a Bergeron, Chara, Seguin, Lucic etc fan.  I want the B's to have great teams, and in order to do so, they need to be able to control their players.

    As for the money side, I don't care where it ends up.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I would prefer the owners come out on top when it comes to the contract status.  I'm a Bruins fan a heck of a lot more than I'm a Bergeron, Chara, Seguin, Lucic etc fan.  I want the B's to have great teams, and in order to do so, they need to be able to control their players.

    As for the money side, I don't care where it ends up.

    [/QUOTE]


    Good point.  I never thought of that.

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

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I would prefer the owners come out on top when it comes to the contract status.  I'm a Bruins fan a heck of a lot more than I'm a Bergeron, Chara, Seguin, Lucic etc fan.  I want the B's to have great teams, and in order to do so, they need to be able to control their players.

    As for the money side, I don't care where it ends up.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm a much bigger Bruins fan too, but your logic here,  just doesn't compute..  This lockout isn't about the Bruins "ability" to do anything, but make additional money(good for them).  The overall health of Boston is not negated whatsoever by current player salaries.  It could be argued that some teams need to "control their players", but not the B's.  In fact, with the new cba, there is a distinct possibility, the Bruins could regress competitively.  Depending on make whole, the B's will have greater challenges than virtually every other NHL team, thanks to a significantly lower cap.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    Depends on who goes n who stays after the final numbers of the "make whole" portion of the CBA. There would be a shake up in the bottom 6 forwards that is for sure and one defensman would go. Julien would have to make an adjustment in how much icetime he gives his 4th line. I don't see how the Bruins would more significantly over the cap or in trouble than the Pens, Rags, Wild, Canucks, Flames, Flyers, Blackhawks or Sabres.

    Casualties might be, for arguments sake, Peverly, Thornton, Campbell and Boychuk. Add in Savard on LTIR and Thomas gone that is $15M right there. Peverly and Boychuk would sting but I haven't really seen what is remaining on the UFA list. Plus I am not figuring pro-rated contracts becuase of the possible January start.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    Just curious, does anyone know if any of the players at the meeting today, aside from George Parros (economics degree from Princeton whose thesis was on a labour dispute) have any background or knowledge that would be applicable in a negotiation like this?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    Just did some quick research - at least they sent some of their more educated NHLPA members - of the 18 in attendance only Crombeen, Crosby, Toews, McDonald, Richards, Cammaleri and Malhotra don't at least have university degrees (Cammalerri skipped out on Michigan after three years), and most of the guys it looks like that did graduate and are in attendance studied either economics, business, or law. It's not much, but it's something at least.

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

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Depends on who goes n who stays after the final numbers of the "make whole" portion of the CBA. There would be a shake up in the bottom 6 forwards that is for sure and one defensman would go. Julien would have to make an adjustment in how much icetime he gives his 4th line. I don't see how the Bruins would more significantly over the cap or in trouble than the Pens, Rags, Wild, Canucks, Flames, Flyers, Blackhawks or Sabres.

    Casualties might be, for arguments sake, Peverly, Thornton, Campbell and Boychuk. Add in Savard on LTIR and Thomas gone that is $15M right there. Peverly and Boychuk would sting but I haven't really seen what is remaining on the UFA list. Plus I am not figuring pro-rated contracts becuase of the possible January start.

    [/QUOTE]


    wondering how ltir, the TT thing may look in the new deal, or if current back loaded deals will be updated to the cap number.

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

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just did some quick research - at least they sent some of their more educated NHLPA members - of the 18 in attendance only Crombeen, Crosby, Toews, McDonald, Richards and Malhotra don't at least have university degrees, and most of the guys it looks like that did graduate and are in attendance studied either economics, business, or law. It's not much, but it's something at least.

    [/QUOTE]


    don't really see how that makes much difference.  this issue has little to do with comprehension, IQ or business savy. 

    it's emotional.....both sides.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just did some quick research - at least they sent some of their more educated NHLPA members - of the 18 in attendance only Crombeen, Crosby, Toews, McDonald, Richards, Cammaleri and Malhotra don't at least have university degrees (Cammalerri skipped out on Michigan after three years), and most of the guys it looks like that did graduate and are in attendance studied either economics, business, or law. It's not much, but it's something at least.

    [/QUOTE]


    Education has nothing to do with intelligence or common sense. And, in some cases could be detrimental.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just did some quick research - at least they sent some of their more educated NHLPA members - of the 18 in attendance only Crombeen, Crosby, Toews, McDonald, Richards, Cammaleri and Malhotra don't at least have university degrees (Cammalerri skipped out on Michigan after three years), and most of the guys it looks like that did graduate and are in attendance studied either economics, business, or law. It's not much, but it's something at least.

    [/QUOTE]


    Education has nothing to do with intelligence or common sense. And, in some cases could be detrimental.

    [/QUOTE]


    Bingo. Theres tons of people who can ace a calculus test half asleep but dont have enough common sense to get out of the rain.

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

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    And what is Winnipeg's owner doing, attending the meetings with the almighty JJ ?

    Shouldn't he be told to get out of the room to go along with sit down and shut up ? He's a blippin rookie.

    The nerve of him.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players and owners only ?

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Education has nothing to do with intelligence or common sense. And, in some cases could be detrimental.

    [/QUOTE]

    The educated are intelligent.  To suggest otherwise shows no common sense.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share