Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by boy1der

No sense in me defending either side because at this point I don't really care so much any more.

Do I hope they come back? Yes.
Will I keep my season seat? Yes.

But really, at this point both sides have shown me just how badly they really want the NHL to continue and that is EXACTLY how much I care if it comes back at all. On top of that, there was only one way for the NHL to screw up how awesome it felt to enjoy being Stanley Cup Champions for the first time in a team's 45 years of existence. Congrats Bettman and Fehr...you found that ONE WAY! This pi$$ing contest is so ridiculously idiotic that many [fans] outside that negotiating "inner circle" have figured out solutions...all beginning with compromise. It's unfortunate that two grown men who make ungodly amounts of money for doing almost nothing have put thousands and thousands of people's livelihoods on the line just so they could feel that they have "won" something, or that they didn't budge. Furthermore, the owners who are NOT a part of the small power pack making all of the decisions...shame on you. If I were an owner I would be at every meeting trying to find out what was going on and to have my voice heard. There is no way I would trust anyone in that power pack to decide for me how my business will be run...especially if I was one of the smaller market owners.

As much as I love this sport, I would almost rather see it [the NHL] just disappear than for it to be remembered as the joke it has become. If it folds and comes back in some other incarnation, it can kiss my a$$. I'll just get my fix by playing.
Again, I hope it all gets resolved and they all return...I really do. But I can honestly say, after this time I will NEVER look at the game I love the same ever again.

The NHL will always be the bitch that broke this fan's heart.

Come on, boy1der, it's just a game.
It's ALL just a game.

Originally Posted by boy1der

Furthermore, the owners who are NOT a part of the small power pack making all of the decisions...shame on you. If I were an owner I would be at every meeting trying to find out what was going on and to have my voice heard.

Supposedly those other owner's voices were heard when the last offer by the Bettman was made. None of the "power pack" owners wanted to make that offer but they bent because of pressure from the mass of other owners. When that was tossed aside by Fehr it seems the smaller club owners were pissed and it has made the entire group even more united. Time will tell. I'm not saying they shouldn't go further but to say they aren't all being heard is not true.

Originally Posted by aragorn

Supposedly those other owner's voices were heard when the last offer by the Bettman was made. None of the "power pack" owners wanted to make that offer but they bent because of pressure from the mass of other owners. When that was tossed aside by Fehr it seems the smaller club owners were pissed and it has made the entire group even more united. Time will tell. I'm not saying they shouldn't go further but to say they aren't all being heard is not true.

...and I have read things to the contrary

Fearing Donald Fehr; do NHL owners want the lockout over? (Puck Headlines)

"• Nick Kypreos believes that there's a "silent majority" of NHL owners who don't want to continue the lockout with a suitable deal on the table: "Ask many NHL owners outside of this small circle and if they answer truthfully they'll tell you they know as much of what's going on as you or me. Some teams will also tell you a two- to three-year slope toward 50/50 split works just fine, and to potentially burn the whole village down in an effort to keep fighting for teams like Phoenix and Florida is just plain wrong. Like McCabe and Walker in 2004, many owners' frustration lies in not having their voice heard when it matters most." [Sportsnet]"

Originally Posted by Bogey

Come on, boy1der, it's just a game.
It's ALL just a game.

Even though you are right and this is true, I think back to all of the time and money I have put into this game and how it has become a part of my life. Then I look at the game those two moran loosers are playing and think about how not only are they taking a part of my life away, but people I know that depend on those games being played to make a living...THEY are the ones REALLY getting screwed. And it's all because of ego.

Originally Posted by boy1der

...and I have read things to the contrary

Fearing Donald Fehr; do NHL owners want the lockout over? (Puck Headlines)

"• Nick Kypreos believes that there's a "silent majority" of NHL owners who don't want to continue the lockout with a suitable deal on the table: "Ask many NHL owners outside of this small circle and if they answer truthfully they'll tell you they know as much of what's going on as you or me. Some teams will also tell you a two- to three-year slope toward 50/50 split works just fine, and to potentially burn the whole village down in an effort to keep fighting for teams like Phoenix and Florida is just plain wrong. Like McCabe and Walker in 2004, many owners' frustration lies in not having their voice heard when it matters most." [Sportsnet]"

Yeah, and I believe it as much as most of the bloggers there. He is so pro player it's not even funny.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

First of all, a lot of current NHL stars could get millions more in the KHL, but they play in the NHL. One of the major reasons they play in the NHL is that they are based in USA or Canada. Personally, if I had to choose between a better paid job in Russia or lesser paid job in NA, I'd take NA any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I don't have anything against Russia, but I'd hate the climate (so, for me, Canada is a no go, too) and I don't like the political situation there. I also wouldn't want the mobs to threaten me or my family if I had a bad game or two (I'm almost sure there were examples of this in sports in Russia...chances are small, but still exist).

You use the word "I" a lot in that paragraph, at is if has any bearing on what we are talking about. The fact remains is that there ARE people who are willing to play in the KHL and in Canada. Los Angeles and other southern teams aren't the glorious places everyone thinks people want to flock to. The people who reside in Edmonton aren't stuck there because the roads and bridges have been iced over and they can't escape. Frankly, I don't think geography has a single thing to do with it. It can't be easy for a teenager to leave his country and family to play in North America. It's about the NHL being the BEST league in the world. It's the best league in the world because it has the best PLAYERS in the world. It's as simple as that.

And second of all, it's a completely legitimate comparison when it comes who's making which decisions and who's doing what. I still can't believe how hard is this to understand. Of course the players don't wrap chocolate in aluminum foil...their product is hockey and it needs to be sold just like chocolate wrapped in foil. They are the employees.

The marketing guys, the sales guys, heck - the referees - THOSE are the employees. The players ARE the product.

And then we come to another major difference: the contracts that his employees sign can't be altered at all. So if the player starts ****ting the bed like hell, they are stuck with a ridiculous paycheck (and it's not HIS fault the player doesn't perform). In ordinary business, that person would get fired right on the bat, but in the NHL he can't get fired. Nor given a pay cut.

Apparently you don't get around too much in the business world. People sign employee contracts all of the time. And depending on the terms in those contracts, OFTEN these people are fired and let go and still get to collect on the terms of their contract if it so states.

And I won't quibble too much because I get your point, but players CAN get a pay cut if they are bought out during the opportunities that teams have.

The "perfect CBA" would be when basically all teams can operate at or around positive zero (let's not count PHX in here, they're as good as gone anyway). Why? Simple: if you want a regulated league, regulate it so it's fair to the owners, too. I'm not sure why the owners can't complain if they are losing money because of worse markets but the players CAN just disappear into the abyss and still get paid millions of dollars and no one can touch them until their contract is up or bought out (the player still receives the money). The players are protected like pandas for Christ's sake.

There's a problem here, though. The negotiation mechanics state that a fairly high percentage of owners must agree to the terms, nothing like a simple majority. What we have now is a system that is being controlled by 8 of the 30 teams in the league, and what they say goes. I think the argument that the players - and particularily Parise and Suter - are making is reasonable. Minnesota management has been one of the strongest voices in the immediate cutting of salaries. How could they offer two players as much money as they did and then just months later demand 24% of it back? Because they KNEW what they were going to be arguing for.

The sad part to me is that if the players were to cave and give the owners what they want (like they did last time), they'd get the same result as last time: the GMs finding a way around all the rules and the players still making as much (or more) as ever.

Look around at any sport with a CBA...rules make no difference because GMs find a way around them.

The players should focus on one thing and one thing only: minimizing the immediate cut to current contracts. It's a shame that guys like Mitchell, Stoll, Penner, and Fraser will have signed contracts this summer and have them immediately reduced...and it's not fair. But it says in the SPC that contacts are subject to the CBA. Those players chose the security of signing a contract at the time, rather than risk injury, age, health conditions, loss of a full season (and a suddenly flooded UFA market), or something else making them less desirable as UFAs.

I love Willie Mitchell but he (and Suter) can cry all he wants about bad faith and owners signing players to contracts then wanting an immediate rollback. If their agents didn't understand that contracts signed were subject to the CBA negotiations then they committed malpractice. If they did understand it but did it anyway, well then isn't that bad faith too because now they don't want the SPC to be subject to the CBA (like it says it is)?

If the players wanted to avoid the KNOWN possibility of a salary rollback they shouldn't have signed deals while the CBA was unknown, and instead waited until the new CBA was in place. It's just sour grapes now.


What I think they should both do is put their chosen offers on the table and have the fans vote for which one wins.

no way would I let the fans decide the CBA.


Tape every suggested contract to a WWE wrestler and have a royal rumble!!

Ten years ago, the Lakers were on a championship run and the Kings were barely showing up to play.

Tonight the Lakers kick off the season against the Mavs, with Kobe, Nash, Dwight Howard, Pao, and MWP.
The Kings were supposed to play St. Louis, last year's #2 west team that they swept in the playoffs, and whose recently departed coach they just hired.

I know which game I'll be watching...
Great progress, Bettman, great progress. You're so smart with this lockout, it's brilliant.