Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

F U NHL and NHLPA

Originally Posted by jom

I think you are probably correct but you can't deny that their actions (or rather NON action) have made many pessimistic. And given the past history....what would you expect?

I also expected Lucy to pull the football back last June, and low and behold she didn't, and this happened:

My glass is 1/2 empty.... I'm with Sux... eF 'em all....

The NBA and NBAPA had a tumultuous negotiation, too. People stormed off in a huff shortly before the settlement.

Last time around, killing a season actually made financial sense for many of the owners. Not this time. So I'm not counting on goodwill or anyone's "love of the game" to end the lockout. I'm counting on greed to pull through.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

I'm counting on greed to pull through.

The honest to goodness beginning, middle, and end of ALL negotiations.

Of course my biggest worry these days without hockey... what's gonna happen to the ice girls? :-(

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Why are they "outrageous"? That's what the people who pay them (the owners) determined their worth to be. People who are in the entertainment business get paid a lot of money. That's not news.

I think you're missing the point. Even though those salaries are what the people who pay them determined their worth to be, they can still be outrageous. Or perhaps you think the City Manager for Bell making $1.5M in total compensation wasn't outrageous (because the people who paid him determined his worth to be $1.5M)?

Remember:

1) In a salary cap world, money paid to one player reduces the amount paid to another player - so it's a zero sum game...UNLESS
2) Some or all of that salary can be taken off the cap (buyout, AHL demotion, "loan" to Europe, etc.)...WHICH
3) Defeats the purpose of a salary cap, which is to provide teams with less money the chance to compete against teams with more money for players.

It's bad for the league to have rich teams use poor teams as farm clubs.

Originally Posted by jom

From a fan POV, I'd MUCH rather have 28/8 and a 7 year limit (or some such). I think it somewhat ruins things when there is a lot of player turnover....but, yeah, let's get this done.

jom

You always forget this until I re-remind you...

There has ALWAYS been alot of player turnover, it's a question of who chooses where the players play: the owners (in the old days) or the players (now).

Originally Posted by Dana

I would imagine that legally they would have to give the money back if there is no season played. They wouldn't want to carry it over because they'd want to set new odds after an offseason of moves.

Originally Posted by USCKingsFan31

Yeah, it would be graded as "no action" and you'd get your money back.

Ahh sounds right. Thanks!