Who do you blame ? NHL VS NHLPA

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » Who do you blame ? NHL VS NHLPA
POLL: Who is the douche(s)
Betteman-NHL 43% (10)
Fehr-NHLPA 13% (3)
Who cares aboot hockey 13% (3)
I love giant (o)(o)'s on my B=D 30% (7)
40ouncetofreedom
12/19/12 2:07:06PM
This NHL lockout has me super pissed.


So i ask...who is to blame for the majority of the doucheness.
Wallass
12/19/12 5:11:56PM
My interest in the NHL has dwindled in the last couple of years and this sure isn't helping it either. I'm pretty sure my years of being a die hard fan are over and at this point I have very little interest for the first puck drop. Nice to see other sports get more attention on radio shows and spoortscenter as well.
frizzzlecake
12/19/12 5:17:53PM
Since I couldn't vote for Don King, I voted for big boobs on my magicstick.

I blame both the PA and the Owner's equally, this isn't the first time this has happened.
Chael_Sonnen
12/19/12 8:06:30PM
I blame Barry Melrose's HORRIBLE red tan that he sports on ESPN

FlashyG
12/19/12 8:22:22PM
I definitely blame the players union.

They refused to negotiate during the season, then refused to even offer a proposal until they missed their first pay check.

Now they are voting on disbanding their union while not allowing their membership to vote on whether they should accept the latest NHL offer.

What the NHL is asking for isn't that much, a 50-50 split on revenue (the same split the NFLPA and NBAPA gets), a contract limit of 5-7 years ( the maximum their insurance policy covers) and a stop to the cap circumventing contracts that have become all too common of late.

I feel like the union is only representing a small faction of star players at the expense of the veterans, role players and rookies.
40ouncetofreedom
12/19/12 8:38:10PM
I sorta disagree. The players were willing to play the season and negotiate, it was the owners i believe that locked out the league.Players were getting 57% in previous cba which is ridiculous.I mean other than in MLB what job could you have making more money than your boss not many.But on the flipside you'd also be pissed to take a 7% pay cut even if we're talking millions...No one likes to lose money.

Betteman is just a douche 3 lockouts on 1 persons watch.


Agreed on Melrose...Although it's not like espn could give 2 shits about the NHL they'd rather stuff 3 hour debates on the Jets and Tebow.
BuffaloDave
12/19/12 8:51:57PM
Fuck the Gary Bettman

I say the players strike until he is gone.
Bubbles
12/19/12 9:04:28PM
85% on Bettman
10% on the owners for renewing Bettman's contract last year
5% on the NHLPA and players

The only reason there was a 57% of HRR going to the players was because they took a 24% cut on their salaries and instituted a salary cap...both major wins for the owners. The players all but got screwed in the last CBA and now the owners are crying for more money back because they can't control their spending. A 5 year contract is not a good thing for the NHL...do you think it can survive knowing that only 3 or 4 teams have a realistic chance at the Stanley Cup like the NBA? How many less people will now show up in Columbus, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, St Louis, Long Island, or Nashville? A 7 or 8 year limit is more feasible but I have yet to hear the owners going that high. The owners don't NEED a restriction to prevent from circumventing the cap, they WANT one so they can't be stupid and offer 13 year contracts.

Three teams make up 81% of the revenues according to Forbes (Leafs, Rangers and Habs). What kind of system is that? The league doesn't want revenue sharing to help out the teams that bleed $20-30 mil a year, but yet it works so well in baseball. Why is Gary so persistent that Glendale...I mean Phoenix...is a hockey market? They still lost a ton of money even after going to the conference finals. What other top executive of any company would keep his job with 3 work stoppages in the last 15 years, 2 of which could lead to an entire year of lost profits and salaries?

By all accounts I have heard (from very credible sources like John Shannon and Michael Grange), the NHL's "50/50" split isn't a true 50/50. The NHLPA is proposing a gradual decline to 50/50, but the greedy owners want everything in their favour right now and won't give some to get some

FlashyG
12/19/12 10:13:32PM

Posted by iwannabesedated

I sorta disagree. The players were willing to play the season and negotiate, it was the owners i believe that locked out the league.Players were getting 57% in previous cba which is ridiculous.I mean other than in MLB what job could you have making more money than your boss not many.But on the flipside you'd also be pissed to take a 7% pay cut even if we're talking millions...No one likes to lose money.

Betteman is just a douche 3 lockouts on 1 persons watch.


That is play #1 from Donald Fehr's playbook. Baseball fans should be well aware of it. Once the season is half over and fans are invested in their teams the union calls a strike and then the pressure is all on the owners to make a deal or wipe out the season. The Montreal Expo's were in 1st place when the infamous baseball strike happened, when they were robbed of their best team in their history the fans never forgave the league and ended in the death of the franchise.

Bettman may have been in power for 3 work stoppages but this is Fehr's 4th.


Posted by Bubbles

The only reason there was a 57% of HRR going to the players was because they took a 24% cut on their salaries and instituted a salary cap...both major wins for the owners. The players all but got screwed in the last CBA and now the owners are crying for more money back because they can't control their spending. A 5 year contract is not a good thing for the NHL...do you think it can survive knowing that only 3 or 4 teams have a realistic chance at the Stanley Cup like the NBA? How many less people will now show up in Columbus, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, St Louis, Long Island, or Nashville? A 7 or 8 year limit is more feasible but I have yet to hear the owners going that high. The owners don't NEED a restriction to prevent from circumventing the cap, they WANT one so they can't be stupid and offer 13 year contracts.

Three teams make up 81% of the revenues according to Forbes (Leafs, Rangers and Habs). What kind of system is that? The league doesn't want revenue sharing to help out the teams that bleed $20-30 mil a year, but yet it works so well in baseball. Why is Gary so persistent that Glendale...I mean Phoenix...is a hockey market? They still lost a ton of money even after going to the conference finals. What other top executive of any company would keep his job with 3 work stoppages in the last 15 years, 2 of which could lead to an entire year of lost profits and salaries?

By all accounts I have heard (from very credible sources like John Shannon and Michael Grange), the NHL's "50/50" split isn't a true 50/50. The NHLPA is proposing a gradual decline to 50/50, but the greedy owners want everything in their favour right now and won't give some to get some




Whether the last negotiation was a win for the players or the owners doesn't really matter anymore. The fact is 13 teams are losing money and the players are taking a bigger share of the leagues revenue than the NFL or NBA unions are despite generating a pittance in revenue compared to them.

When the 2 sides met without their leadership they each were asked what their demands were. The players wanted guarantees that deals signed before the lockout would be paid in full. No changes to the restricted free agency process and an increase in revenue sharing. The NHL wanted contract limits of 5 years, a 50-50 split in revenue and a variation limit of 5% on contracts from year to year so deals couldn't be front or back loaded to circumvent the cap.

Both sides agreed in principle, but when Donald Fehr was brought back into negotiations the NHLPA came back with a new proposal that included all their demands and none of the NHL's.

Neither side is blameless, but I get the feeling that the owners actually care about the health of the sport and the league as a whole. The players seem more interested in "winning" the negotiation and coming out better than the last deal.
40ouncetofreedom
12/20/12 8:24:54AM

Posted by FlashyG


Posted by iwannabesedated

I sorta disagree. The players were willing to play the season and negotiate, it was the owners i believe that locked out the league.Players were getting 57% in previous cba which is ridiculous.I mean other than in MLB what job could you have making more money than your boss not many.But on the flipside you'd also be pissed to take a 7% pay cut even if we're talking millions...No one likes to lose money.

Betteman is just a douche 3 lockouts on 1 persons watch.


That is play #1 from Donald Fehr's playbook. Baseball fans should be well aware of it. Once the season is half over and fans are invested in their teams the union calls a strike and then the pressure is all on the owners to make a deal or wipe out the season. The Montreal Expo's were in 1st place when the infamous baseball strike happened, when they were robbed of their best team in their history the fans never forgave the league and ended in the death of the franchise.

Bettman may have been in power for 3 work stoppages but this is Fehr's 4th.


Posted by Bubbles

The only reason there was a 57% of HRR going to the players was because they took a 24% cut on their salaries and instituted a salary cap...both major wins for the owners. The players all but got screwed in the last CBA and now the owners are crying for more money back because they can't control their spending. A 5 year contract is not a good thing for the NHL...do you think it can survive knowing that only 3 or 4 teams have a realistic chance at the Stanley Cup like the NBA? How many less people will now show up in Columbus, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, St Louis, Long Island, or Nashville? A 7 or 8 year limit is more feasible but I have yet to hear the owners going that high. The owners don't NEED a restriction to prevent from circumventing the cap, they WANT one so they can't be stupid and offer 13 year contracts.

Three teams make up 81% of the revenues according to Forbes (Leafs, Rangers and Habs). What kind of system is that? The league doesn't want revenue sharing to help out the teams that bleed $20-30 mil a year, but yet it works so well in baseball. Why is Gary so persistent that Glendale...I mean Phoenix...is a hockey market? They still lost a ton of money even after going to the conference finals. What other top executive of any company would keep his job with 3 work stoppages in the last 15 years, 2 of which could lead to an entire year of lost profits and salaries?

By all accounts I have heard (from very credible sources like John Shannon and Michael Grange), the NHL's "50/50" split isn't a true 50/50. The NHLPA is proposing a gradual decline to 50/50, but the greedy owners want everything in their favour right now and won't give some to get some




Whether the last negotiation was a win for the players or the owners doesn't really matter anymore. The fact is 13 teams are losing money and the players are taking a bigger share of the leagues revenue than the NFL or NBA unions are despite generating a pittance in revenue compared to them.

When the 2 sides met without their leadership they each were asked what their demands were. The players wanted guarantees that deals signed before the lockout would be paid in full. No changes to the restricted free agency process and an increase in revenue sharing. The NHL wanted contract limits of 5 years, a 50-50 split in revenue and a variation limit of 5% on contracts from year to year so deals couldn't be front or back loaded to circumvent the cap.

Both sides agreed in principle, but when Donald Fehr was brought back into negotiations the NHLPA came back with a new proposal that included all their demands and none of the NHL's.

Neither side is blameless, but I get the feeling that the owners actually care about the health of the sport and the league as a whole. The players seem more interested in "winning" the negotiation and coming out better than the last deal.



Betteman acted like such a baby after the last meeting..I'm going to take my ball and go home attitude.The NHL proposed also you can't become a UFA until you're 28 or been in the leauge for 8 years then max 5 year contracts.The PA came back with a different offer.I don't see why they should change that.The league rejected the first Kovalchuk deal anyways..so if any contract is too front loaded or back they can reject.I like if a team is able to lock up a guy for 8-12 years.
Franklinfan47
12/20/12 11:33:47AM
Bubbles
12/20/12 3:50:10PM

Posted by FlashyG
Whether the last negotiation was a win for the players or the owners doesn't really matter anymore. The fact is 13 teams are losing money and the players are taking a bigger share of the leagues revenue than the NFL or NBA unions are despite generating a pittance in revenue compared to them.

When the 2 sides met without their leadership they each were asked what their demands were. The players wanted guarantees that deals signed before the lockout would be paid in full. No changes to the restricted free agency process and an increase in revenue sharing. The NHL wanted contract limits of 5 years, a 50-50 split in revenue and a variation limit of 5% on contracts from year to year so deals couldn't be front or back loaded to circumvent the cap.

Both sides agreed in principle, but when Donald Fehr was brought back into negotiations the NHLPA came back with a new proposal that included all their demands and none of the NHL's.

Neither side is blameless, but I get the feeling that the owners actually care about the health of the sport and the league as a whole. The players seem more interested in "winning" the negotiation and coming out better than the last deal.


How many times has the NHL rejected the PA's proposal almost immediately after? Pretty much every single time because it is not 100% of what the owners want. Bettman is against revenue sharing which is something the league needs if they want to keep the 13 franchises that bleed money. The owners don't care about the league, for most of them they are losing less money than if they played a full season. This is more of a toy to them as they make money elsewhere. Remember this is a LOCKOUT not a strike which places this work stoppage on the owners.

Why did Bettman nix and fine the Devils for the first Kovalchuck deal but allow every other contract that was the same? Luongo, Hossa, Nash, Suter, Parise, Weber, and others I can't think of atm. How are those contracts any different than what Kovalchuck was offered?

Yes 57% is too high which is why the PA is making proposals to bring it down, but why should they give up 7% of their salaries and get nothing in return? What issue has the league softened on to make it in the players best interest? Everything in the NHL's proposal hurts the players and has little to no effect on the owners. The PA has moved a hell of a lot more from their initial offer than what the league has.

I don't know/care to know about the details anymore. Whenever the topic is brought up on the Fan, I turn it unless its the Prime Time round table. Since the baseball strike in 94, they have yet to have another work stoppage. Since the hockey strike in 97 or w/e, there has been 2 work stoppages and 2 lost seasons. Fehr was part of the baseball negotiations that has lead to constant play...Bettman was part of all 3 hockey stoppages. One is bad for the sport, the other helps
postman
12/21/12 9:37:44AM
I'm sick of missing out on the Best years of Sid Crosby and Geno Malkin so I went with Tits on my stick
Bubbles
12/21/12 4:23:55PM

Posted by postman

I'm sick of missing out on the Best years of Sid Crosby and Geno Malkin so I went with Tits on my stick


and other young stars like Ovechkin, Stamkos, Towes, Tavares, along with sophomore studs like Nugent-Hopkins and Landeskog.

Bubbles
12/21/12 4:28:59PM
Forbes says that the Leafs are worth $1 billion...that is equivalent to the bottom 7 teams combined. What other league has that disparity?

On average, 10,000 people watch games on TV in Phoenix and 3,000 in Florida. Please explain why these teams are still there and Bettman refuses to acknowledge this on top of how much money they bleed year in and year out. Since the last lockout, 6 or 7 teams have lost money every single year.

Bettman has single handedly ruined hockey
jay98107
12/21/12 8:43:03PM

Posted by Bubbles

Forbes says that the Leafs are worth $1 billion...that is equivalent to the bottom 7 teams combined. What other league has that disparity?

On average, 10,000 people watch games on TV in Phoenix and 3,000 in Florida. Please explain why these teams are still there and Bettman refuses to acknowledge this on top of how much money they bleed year in and year out. Since the last lockout, 6 or 7 teams have lost money every single year.

Bettman has single handedly ruined hockey



I really hope that Seattle can get one of these teams that are hemorrhaging dollars.
jay98107
12/21/12 10:10:30PM
And now it appears the NHLPA is going to dissolve and possibly file an anti-trust lawsuit.

Story
Gogoplatapus
12/22/12 12:24:53AM

Posted by jay98107


Posted by Bubbles

Forbes says that the Leafs are worth $1 billion...that is equivalent to the bottom 7 teams combined. What other league has that disparity?

On average, 10,000 people watch games on TV in Phoenix and 3,000 in Florida. Please explain why these teams are still there and Bettman refuses to acknowledge this on top of how much money they bleed year in and year out. Since the last lockout, 6 or 7 teams have lost money every single year.

Bettman has single handedly ruined hockey



I really hope that Seattle can get one of these teams that are hemorrhaging dollars.



Seattle, OKC, Quebec City and Toronto 2 would all be sweet, not expansion though.
Bubbles
12/22/12 4:07:07PM

Posted by Gogoplatapus


Posted by jay98107
I really hope that Seattle can get one of these teams that are hemorrhaging dollars.



Seattle, OKC, Quebec City and Toronto 2 would all be sweet, not expansion though.


OKC and Kansas City will flop after a few years imo. It will turn out to be what the Atlanta Thrashers ended up being. The other 3 I agree with and it would make the league generate even better revenues.
Bubbles
12/22/12 4:11:01PM
Image Attachment(s):
Photo Attachment 1
jay98107
12/23/12 4:30:05AM

Posted by Bubbles


Posted by Gogoplatapus


Posted by jay98107
I really hope that Seattle can get one of these teams that are hemorrhaging dollars.



Seattle, OKC, Quebec City and Toronto 2 would all be sweet, not expansion though.


OKC and Kansas City will flop after a few years imo. It will turn out to be what the Atlanta Thrashers ended up being. The other 3 I agree with and it would make the league generate even better revenues.


Based on the turnout Seattle has generated for the Sounders, I really think hockey would succeed here.