Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by Bogey

There's this thing called free-agency?
How did that work out for the players during the last CBA negotiations?
Look into it.

Yep. The owners offered ridiculous contracts. Even I would've accepted those ridiculous contracts. But guess who offered them? The owners.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

Yep. The owners offered ridiculous contracts. Even I would've accepted those ridiculous contracts. But guess who offered them? The owners.

And if the owners don't offer them market value, they lose those players and then have an even harder time fielding a winning team and turning a profit. How would you have felt if the Kings let Doughty go just because they didn't want to sign him to a "ridiculous contract?" Kopitar? Etc., etc., etc...

Originally Posted by SuxBeingU

It will be over by Christmas we see a 50 game shortened season

We will be back by Christmas.

Sincerely,

Tim Leiweke

Originally Posted by keyTOarson

They may have been "****ed over" 8 years ago, but that's not relevant to now. That "****ing over" worked out pretty damn well for them over the last 8 years.

I don't think the players got '****ed over' 8 years ago. After a lengthy lockout, they made a conscious decision to ratify the last CBA with the understanding that it was what was needed to fix the league.

But I DO think the players are getting '****ed over' now. The owners found loopholes in the last CBA that put them right back into the same financial mess they were in before and now they want the NHLPA to ease the burden of their continued mismanagement.

Here is the solution.. 8 year CBA deal...6 year max on contracts...2 year max contract for players 35 and older... ELT 4 years.. second contract up to 200% of ELT base for 3 year max. UFA at 28.. revenue sharing of 7% of each teams HRR phased in over 4 years (1,3,5,7). That revenue is then split 30 ways...

HRR Split NHL-PA, year 1 57%, year two 56%, year 3 54%, year 4 52 %, Years 5-8 50%

Originally Posted by sonnyboy11

I got the link last night from the Kings to either opt for a 5% bonus by letting them keep my money or a per game refund with a 1% annual interest. After selecting my option I got an Out Of Office notification from some Kings rep (not mine).

I got that too... didn't really understand it...

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

Don't be embarrassed for the players. Be embarrassed for the owners. You know, the one's who have absolutely no ****ing clue how to run a hockey team even with a salary cap.

The players got ****ed over during the last lockout and are going to have to take it up the rear again this time. I'm glad a few of them have already signed with other leagues. Leave it to the NHL to lose it's star players. Leave it to the NHL to be the joke of ALL of sports.

Players did not get ****ed the last time. Look at the growth of their salaries within that period and compare it to any other business or company in America! 50% gain in salaries and you feel ****ed? that's crazy.

You as an owner would've not signed Jonathan Quick to the extension he got? we as fans would've been happy with that? after winning a cup?

The Kopitars, Quicks and Doughtys of this world are not the problem, the Bissonnettes of this world are the problem. The guy makes $750,000 for the next 2 seasons, why? because the cap and floor keep increasing with the revenue increasing.

When a company does well, the owner should be able to rip the bulk of the benefits, instead they have to take less and to remain competitive or within the rules they have to fork out more money. Some teams have to signed players to contracts they don't deserve or trade for players they don't even want to stay above the floor minimum.

I mean, making $750,000 to play the way Bissonnette plays and the kind of minutes and impact he can have in the playoffs is crazy. The NHLPA did that and the current structure will keep allowing that. They did not loose, they won. You draft, develop and then shortly after if there is any "possible" future you better pay "market" value or loose your investment to a higher bitter.

You sit behind that desk and try to run a team. Make decisions on a daily basis trying to stay competitive and cap smart. NOT EASY. Sure there are some crazy owners but some just cannot keep up. "The League" revenue went up but your team revenue did not, now the CBA tells you you have to spend more even though you lost a ton of money as it is, do I sell and run or what?

Since the last CBA roughly 30% of the teams have new ownership, why do you think that is? that means 30% of the owners are here negotiating for the first time. Do you think that, depending on their market, they may have some interest in better their possible return on investment. Do you think they may want to get their initial investment back just a bit quicker, say 4 years instead of 8 or 10 years.

Melrose's take on the lockout

No progress as Day 1 of NHL lockout passes - ESPN Los Angeles

Originally Posted by USCKingsFan31

I'm trying to be 50/50 in my anger towards both sides, but the NHLPA PR machine trying so desperately to paint the players as victims is making it really hard for me to not hate that side a little more. Enough already.

It's late so I'll probably wake up thinking "why the hell did I post this?" But I want you to consider something, USC

First, having a problem with the players and their actions is an immediate response that only looks at day to day effect and impact on the sport. The players could quickly cave to the owners demands. But then, they could always do that- cave in and accept any offer the owners throw out there. And not just now, but for years to come. Where is the line?

On the other side, the owners are expected to be strategic in their vision for this sport. The players, in this case, are your tactical folks. The day to day folks. And while the NHLPA is also expected to be strategic on behalf of the players, the owners are truly the ones who can decide how this sport plays out in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years. NOT the players. The owners.

I am happy to assign immediate blame to both parties. But the owners have the burden on them of developing a long term strategy that creates a healthy and profitable league that rewards players and fans alike, and keeps the sport humming along with revenue and exposure to a broad audience. Does it seem like they (the owners) are doing that here to you? Cause I gotta tell ya, it sure doesn't look that way to me. Especially when considering the last, recent lock out and the course this whole thing has taken recently.