Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by Fropitar

If the owners were such great businessmen, they would have known that they're not going to make money before they bought a team. Can't blame either side, nobody is going to look out for anyone else. You have to look out for yourself.

The previous CBA negotiations involved a huge step forward, and the lockout was quite understandable. But they couldn't predict what would happen in the future, and the NHL probably couldn't possibly demand more than they did. Now they learned that a certain percent of the teams are STILL losing money. If you think a league where no one is losing considerable amount of money isn't possible, you're wrong. It is possible. And it would be the only really fair league. Unless you want hockey to be played in Canada and East coast USA only. Then OK.

And the players could have known they're not just going to get whatever they want if they become hockey players in the NHL. They could ALSO be glad the NHL and the owners are giving them a chance to shine and earn tons of money. Remember, it's always easier to replace unhappy employees than to find another one to take care of your desired paycheck.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

Of course they want. If you were an owner of NHL franchise that is losing money every year, you'd want that too. Almost entire world is experiencing unemployment and salary cuts (despite their contracts!), why would the players be untouchable?

I'm not siding WITH the NHL and the owners, all I'm saying is that their behavior can be expected and is completely understandable. God knows what those owners do other than own hockey clubs - they might be losing money. If an owner of even the richest teams is losing money elsewhere because of all this clusterf*** right now, he's not going to risk having a team anywhere near positive zero - he will want his team to make money. Is that the right attitude towards the NHL team they own? No. Can we be picky about it? Also no. When some of YOU are going to invest millions into a sports team, then I'd like to see you rambling about how unfair the owners are.

Of course the owners ****ed up themselves when offering that kind of contracts. But you can't point fingers here: it was a snowball effect. Those who had money did their best to lure the best players, because that's how they keep their fans in the seats. If ONE owner of a top earning team would decide he'd play moneysaver, fans would be angry.


The owners have the last word, period. It's like that everywhere. And it's one thing if workers making 10000$/year and barely surviving are striking, but when players making hundreds of thousands or millions a year are striking, with their only alternative being KHL (which won't hire not even 10% of NHL players for the same money), it's ridiculous. I also understand them, don't get me wrong, I'd want the owners to respect the contract they offered, too, but if I had a choice of:
a) play in the NHL, not having to move and adapt to anywhere else, getting paid 13% less, immediate certain future for the next, let's say, 8 years
or
b) play somewhere else, having to move and adapt, getting paid anywhere from 0-100% of my current salary (depending of where I land, with more money probably meaning freezing climate (Russia)), and live the whole year with no assurance the NHL and NHLPA would get the deal done,

then I would forget about my ego and pride and do what's best for me as a player - option a). It's not like they didn't negotiate - they did. They came (IMO) fairly close, but the NHL obviously doesn't want to go any further. This is the point where you ask yourself "where's to say that the next year we get any substantial gain in negotiations?". Bettman and some of his friends can find another job and owners can invest elsewhere. They don't run and support the NHL because the law says so. And do you know who loses out the most when a NHL goes bust? The players.

I assure all of you: (hypothetically speaking) if the NHL dissolves into nothing and then they form NNHL (without any involvement of current NHLPA) with NHL's last offer being the CBA, at least 90% of players will gladly take the 13% pay cut. Unless you think they are willing to do something else, like moving away from their home (possibly abroad) or become "ordinary employees" for 50k a year, if lucky.

the players aren't striking. the players are locked out. there is a HUGE difference. The players have already said that they would play for one more year under the old CBA. not that i think the owners would ever go for that. but the players are not playing because the owners will not let them until they can agree on a new cba.

Originally Posted by keyTOarson

So basically move some numbers around and what you still have is funky accounting and de-linkage of revenues. Got it.

wrong again. 87% of salaries would be tied to salaries under the NHLPA's proposal. 13% would not be INITIALLY. That number, theoretically, would decrease each year until by year five it was 100% of salaries tied to revenues. So, you can continue to spout falsehoods because you are ideologically opposed to a professional athlete's right to negotiate for a better collective bargaining agreement. Any negotiator would see the NHLPA's proposal as a step closer to the NHL's original proposal than anything the owners have done to move toward the players. And any negotiator who's no. 1 priority was to get an equitable deal (even one that leaned in your favor) would take that proposal and try to work with it. but the owners do not want anything close to an equitable deal, and that's fine. but don't think for one minute that this negotiation is about anything less than the owners wanting to win and win big.

the players on the other hand just want some victories so they are not consistently put over a barrel every time a new cba is up for negotiation. why, because the players know they can't win. under any circumstances they lose.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

They could ALSO be glad the NHL and the owners are giving them a chance to shine and earn tons of money. Remember, it's always easier to replace unhappy employees than to find another one to take care of your desired paycheck.

this is one of the more hilarious things i have read in this thread. 'cause you know, the owners don't get anything out of this arrangement. the owners let the players play out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean this is genius reasoning. this must be why no one ever negotiates for a raise with their employer because the owner is letting us work for them out of a sense of responsibility and charity and so we have no right to ask for better pay. I mean, it's preposterous, no owner would ever give an employee a raise or match an offer that that employee got from another company because skilled labor is just so easy to find and replace. speaking of easy, if it was so easy, why haven't the owners just hired replacement players? And why aren't fans clamoring for replacement players instead of the greedy ones who are part of the NHLPA. Hell, why doesn't the NHL just have open tryouts for anyone who wants to play. That way we could all have a chance to fulfill our childhood dreams and the NHL could save a crap load of money on player salaries. Especially since most of us say we would play for free. We could all play for free and then it would be all profit for the owners and the NHL would survive free of any problems for ever.

Maybe players endorsement money should be considered as HRR?

Originally Posted by D0wntime

the players aren't striking. the players are locked out. there is a HUGE difference. The players have already said that they would play for one more year under the old CBA. not that i think the owners would ever go for that. but the players are not playing because the owners will not let them until they can agree on a new cba.

Well, yes, technically the players are not striking, you're correct.

this is one of the more hilarious things i have read in this thread. 'cause you know, the owners don't get anything out of this arrangement. the owners let the players play out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean this is genius reasoning. this must be why no one ever negotiates for a raise with their employer because the owner is letting us work for them out of a sense of responsibility and charity and so we have no right to ask for better pay.

But here you're not correct.

You have an owner who owns a business. This business employs its employees. This business is producing goods that customers buy. The better employees perform and the better owner manages this business, the more goods are sold and the more money owner has at his disposal. What he does with it is completely UP TO HIM and his GOOD WILL. He can give his employees a raise or a pay cut, depending on their performance or financial state of the company or depending on his morning bowel movement. It's how business works. There's no goodness of their hearts - where did you get that from?! Who never negotiates a raise? How did then Kopitar get almost 7M per year? By winning a lottery? Holy crap! I didn't know that! EVERYONE negotiates. You didn't even think when you wrote this reply.

One VERY simple example: 10 owners decide to give up, and only 4 teams are sold (this won't happen of course, I'm just using this to enlighten you). What happens with the rest of the 6 teams? Players become UNEMPLOYED, and have to find a new employer. So, what this means is that the players actually ARE the employees of someone's business and they don't just do whatever they want to do.

The only difference is the above: the players are not striking. Because they have no reason to do so. CBA expired, it's time to negotiate a new one. Until it's signed, no hockey. That's the only major difference between hockey and business.

I mean, it's preposterous, no owner would ever give an employee a raise or match an offer that that employee got from another company because skilled labor is just so easy to find and replace. speaking of easy, if it was so easy, why haven't the owners just hired replacement players? And why aren't fans clamoring for replacement players instead of the greedy ones who are part of the NHLPA. Hell, why doesn't the NHL just have open tryouts for anyone who wants to play. That way we could all have a chance to fulfill our childhood dreams and the NHL could save a crap load of money on player salaries. Especially since most of us say we would play for free. We could all play for free and then it would be all profit for the owners and the NHL would survive free of any problems for ever.

You took basically what's just a saying to remind who's in charge of what and made it look like I'm suggesting the NHL will now just REPLACE the unhappy players. That would be ridiculous.

What thought I do entertain though (and I'm not AT ALL saying it's going to happen, just for perspective's sake) is that if the NHL and NHLPA don't come to an agreement for, let's say, a second season in a row, and the NHL decides to start a New NHL (NNHL; again, don't go crazy here, it's just an example) with the CBA based on their last offer to the NHLPA, the players will suddenly be UNEMPLOYED. What do you think majority of the players would do? I doubt they would love to go to Russia because their ego or whatever. No. Most of them WANT to play in the USA, and not in the AHL. Why? Because of money.
---------------------------------

Again, no owners - no paychecks. Get it? Do I have to draw it for you? The owners can survive without their hockey hockey, most of them could invest the money elsewhere to make more money they do now and some of them would even stop LOSING money on their NHL team.

The players - some of them would be paid even more, but that would only be a very very small percent of them. Some would make about about the same as they do now, and some will get a bit less, some will get a lot less and a BIG majority would get A LOT less.

So?

Originally Posted by D0wntime

the players on the other hand just want some victories so they are not consistently put over a barrel every time a new cba is up for negotiation. why, because the players know they can't win. under any circumstances they lose.

The players are worse off now than they would have been had they just negotiated off of the NHL's last proposal and struck a deal.

And the whole idea of thinking there are winners and losers in this scenario is just ridiculous.
And the fact that the players continually whine about "losing" is shamefully embarrassing.

They're their own worst enemies, cutting of their nose to spite their face.

Originally Posted by D0wntime

the players aren't striking. the players are locked out. there is a HUGE difference. The players have already said that they would play for one more year under the old CBA. not that i think the owners would ever go for that. but the players are not playing because the owners will not let them until they can agree on a new cba.

I thought the last CBA was terrible for them, yet they are willing to keep playing under it.

Phil Kessel: after last lockout, 06-07 season $850,000, 11-12 season $6,000,000

Matias Ohlund: after last lockout, 05-06 season $3,500,000, 11-12 season $5,500,000

Those are just a few, I can keep going all night if you like. Their excuse about how they got hosed during the last lockout is so lame. They better be willing to bend or they will brake....again. However with guaranteed contracts and little concerns other than being in shape they will always be Ok.

Players are the product, not the employees.

Unless there's a group of unemployed people who can play similarly?