it really is though. just how much is the argument. make no mistake, the players will end up with 'less' than they have now. (at this moment anyway. the 50% of 3 billion is better than the 57% of 2 billion they agreed to last time)

thats the point. the owners are unwilling to do continue doing business under these circumstances.
its not about whats fair, its about who holds the cards.

its not like the players are threatening to 'not play" unless thay get their deal. the owners actually dont want them to unless they get theirs

if the players can get it to 50%, or even rising to 50% over time (revenues will grow, so that isnt terrible) they should take it
- hugefemale dog77

The terms that we lost a year of hockey to get?? the ones that they fully and totally built? Do you not see an issue with that. The owners do not want to operate under the system THEY built.

That was the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.
- Irish Blues[The players also get a check from the owners if they get underpaid; they've had that happen twice.]


I'm not saying the owners are perfect little angels here - they're not. However, that's not what I was discussing in the post that started this: I was discussing Fehr's tactic in negotiations. Fehr didn't negotiate the prior CBA, so talking about what the players gave up last time is irrelevant here. He's said "this is our position" and held to it the entire time - just like he's done in every other CBA negotiation he's been involved in.

So again, I ask [and this time with additional clarity so that we're on the same page]: what have the players given up in this round of negotiations from their original offer?

Um, what?

So you agree that the players have made huge concessions last time (only one to do so) and have since conceded more while the owners have asked for more clawbacks. Cool. just as I said.

That was the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.


Also the prior CBA.
- Irish Blues[The players also get a check from the owners if they get underpaid; they've had that happen twice.]


I'm not saying the owners are perfect little angels here - they're not. However, that's not what I was discussing in the post that started this: I was discussing Fehr's tactic in negotiations. Fehr didn't negotiate the prior CBA, so talking about what the players gave up last time is irrelevant here. He's said "this is our position" and held to it the entire time - just like he's done in every other CBA negotiation he's been involved in.

So again, I ask [and this time with additional clarity so that we're on the same page]: what have the players given up in this round of negotiations from their original offer?

What should they? As pointed out they gave up everything last time, now it's time for them to do it all again?? NOPE.

They dropped from 57%, saving roughly 300mil year. The Owner haven;t given an inch.

this.

and the answer is apparently nothing.

and unless they do, their is going to be a lockout
- hugefemale dog77

Yeah, because the owners wont move.

I would sure like to see the final deal be closer to the NHL offer than the NHLPA's counter proposal.

The owners should also take Tessier's advice and count endorsement deals as part of hockey related revenue...
- kaptaan

As soon as teams pay royalties for using players names on jerseys! (Agent responded to my question this way)

Um, what?
- burn

You pointed out that the players pay into escrow, and that it potentially goes to the owners if the players get more than their stated share of revenues; I pointed out that twice, not only did the players get the full amount of escrow back they also got a check from the owners because they got less than they were supposed to receive. You don't get to state one side of the position and ignore the other side when it doesn't fit your view.

So you agree that the players have made huge concessions last time (only one to do so) and have since conceded more while the owners have asked for more clawbacks. Cool. just as I said.
- burn

In the last CBA? Sure, they gave back - but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. Hell, if you want to use that logic I'll point to what the players used to get in the 1950 and fire off "Jeebus, the players are getting a poopload of money now, look at everything the owners have given up - where the hell is the giveback from the players?"

You're trying to shift the goalposts by pointing to what the players had at the end of the 1995 CBA and paint everything as "this is where we were at the end of the 1995 CBA, this is what the owners are trying to ram down on the players and the players simply want to keep the status quo." Again, that's a gross distortion of what I asked over an hour ago - which is "Fehr starts with an offer, and when the other side gives a bit he refuses to budge and asks for the other side to give some more." You've yet to argue that's incorrect in any way; you've instead tried to argue from a point in time where Fehr wasn't involved and talk about what the players have given up and what they're being asked to give up, which is much different from the point I originally made.

So, I'll ask yet again with even more clarity: starting from their original offer as it pertains to the discussion of the next CBA, what have the players given up in this round of negotiations?

The players gave into a salary cap.

the players gave into 57% HHR

the payers gave back 25% rollback

The players give into Escrow each year that would go back to the owners if they don't meet the magical HHR plateau

Now the owners want them to give back another 10%. The players moved off their spot, when will the owners move? When do the owners take responsibility for their actions. The owners give out these contracts and then say we can't continue like this, then do it all again. If they can't continue as is why are they doing business like that?
- burn

Good thing the players gave in to all that. It sure made a lot of people rich!

Seasons over.

You pointed out that the players pay into escrow, and that it potentially goes to the owners if the players get more than their stated share of revenues; I pointed out that twice, not only did the players get the full amount of escrow back they also got a check from the owners because they got less than they were supposed to receive. You don't get to state one side of the position and ignore the other side when it doesn't fit your view.


In the last CBA? Sure, they gave back - but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. Hell, if you want to use that logic I'll point to what the players used to get in the 1950 and fire off "Jeebus, the players are getting a poopload of money now, look at everything the owners have given up - where the hell is the giveback from the players?"

You're trying to shift the goalposts by pointing to what the players had at the end of the 1995 CBA and paint everything as "this is where we were at the end of the 1995 CBA, this is what the owners are trying to ram down on the players and the players simply want to keep the status quo." Again, that's a gross distortion of what I asked over an hour ago - which is "Fehr starts with an offer, and when the other side gives a bit he refuses to budge and asks for the other side to give some more." You've yet to argue that's incorrect in any way; you've instead tried to argue from a point in time where Fehr wasn't involved and talk about what the players have given up and what they're being asked to give up, which is much different from the point I originally made.

So, I'll ask yet again with even more clarity: starting from their original offer as it pertains to the discussion of the next CBA, what have the players given up in this round of negotiations?
- Irish Blues

Pardon?

exactly. great post.

in fact, for alot of these billionaires its the only venture that they dont make that much in. and even lose money sometimes.
but just because they can swallow it, doesnt mean they have to.
they hold all the cards pretty much.
- hugefemale dog77

Exactly. A work stoppage hurts the players a lot more than it hurts the owners, although the league itself suffers greatly....but not more than us fans. The players have to concede....after all, this is their livelihood....and everyone knows it, including Donald Fehr. We will not lose the season......a small part of it, maybe. Maybe. But only a small part....

You pointed out that the players pay into escrow, and that it potentially goes to the owners if the players get more than their stated share of revenues; I pointed out that twice, not only did the players get the full amount of escrow back they also got a check from the owners because they got less than they were supposed to receive. You don't get to state one side of the position and ignore the other side when it doesn't fit your view.


In the last CBA? Sure, they gave back - but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. Hell, if you want to use that logic I'll point to what the players used to get in the 1950 and fire off "Jeebus, the players are getting a poopload of money now, look at everything the owners have given up - where the hell is the giveback from the players?"

You're trying to shift the goalposts by pointing to what the players had at the end of the 1995 CBA and paint everything as "this is where we were at the end of the 1995 CBA, this is what the owners are trying to ram down on the players and the players simply want to keep the status quo." Again, that's a gross distortion of what I asked over an hour ago - which is "Fehr starts with an offer, and when the other side gives a bit he refuses to budge and asks for the other side to give some more." You've yet to argue that's incorrect in any way; you've instead tried to argue from a point in time where Fehr wasn't involved and talk about what the players have given up and what they're being asked to give up, which is much different from the point I originally made.

So, I'll ask yet again with even more clarity: starting from their original offer as it pertains to the discussion of the next CBA, what have the players given up in this round of negotiations?
- Irish Blues

The 50's?? You think the player were getting it good in the 50's?? You are seriously lost. That was the whole reason they formed a union (players association) because they were treated so poorly.

You pointed out that the players pay into escrow, and that it potentially goes to the owners if the players get more than their stated share of revenues; I pointed out that twice, not only did the players get the full amount of escrow back they also got a check from the owners because they got less than they were supposed to receive. You don't get to state one side of the position and ignore the other side when it doesn't fit your view.


In the last CBA? Sure, they gave back - but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. Hell, if you want to use that logic I'll point to what the players used to get in the 1950 and fire off "Jeebus, the players are getting a poopload of money now, look at everything the owners have given up - where the hell is the giveback from the players?"

You're trying to shift the goalposts by pointing to what the players had at the end of the 1995 CBA and paint everything as "this is where we were at the end of the 1995 CBA, this is what the owners are trying to ram down on the players and the players simply want to keep the status quo." Again, that's a gross distortion of what I asked over an hour ago - which is "Fehr starts with an offer, and when the other side gives a bit he refuses to budge and asks for the other side to give some more." You've yet to argue that's incorrect in any way; you've instead tried to argue from a point in time where Fehr wasn't involved and talk about what the players have given up and what they're being asked to give up, which is much different from the point I originally made.

So, I'll ask yet again with even more clarity: starting from their original offer as it pertains to the discussion of the next CBA, what have the players given up in this round of negotiations?
- Irish Blues

300mil according to the reported which is 300mil more than what the owner have.

It's a terrible deal. The players have made all concession, time for the owners to take responsibility. It's not up to the players to take the all the hits to "fix" the system. see how that worked out last time.... the system is still broken.
- burn

Thats what people said about the CBA in 2004-05. But now the players are willing to continue to play under that CBA that was so awful.

Good thing the players gave in to all that. It sure made a lot of people rich!
- Jacob582

Fixed all the problems... oops.

it really is though. just how much is the argument. make no mistake, the players will end up with 'less' than they have now. (at this moment anyway. the 50% of 3 billion is better than the 57% of 2 billion they agreed to last time)

thats the point. the owners are unwilling to do continue doing business under these circumstances.
its not about whats fair, its about who holds the cards.

its not like the players are threatening to 'not play" unless thay get their deal. the owners actually dont want them to unless they get theirs

if the players can get it to 50%, or even rising to 50% over time (revenues will grow, so that isnt terrible) they should take it
- hugefemale dog77

I agree. The industry standard is now 50%.

Fixed all the problems... oops.
- burn

Dear Burn:

Quit trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong.

It's irrelevant.

The owners hold the hammer.

That's all that matters.

Dear Burn:

Quit trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong.

It's irrelevant.

The owners hold the hammer.

That's all that matters.
- Atomic Wedgie

That's what it comes down to.... And I didn't say otherwise. As was pointed out the owners don't rely on this for their only source of income, so the player will ultimately lose.

I'm taking issue with those that are blaming the players for:

- not making concessions (when they have and the owners haven't)

- being solely responsible for driving up prices.

The owners as you said hold the hammer, both here in CBA talks and in individual contract talks. The Owners are crying foul one second and then next second they are lining up and tripping over themselves to dole out 100mil deals. They make themselves look foolish.

Pardon?
- burn

Go read your comment, go read my response, and try to follow the point being made.

The 50's?? You think the player were getting it good in the 50's?? You are seriously lost.
- burn

No, I made it clear that the players have got it a whole lot better than they did in the 50s. Again, go read your comment, go read my response, and try to follow the point being made.

300mil according to the reported which is 300mil more than what the owner have.
- burn

No, no, no. You keep looking at what the CBA ended with and arguing "from there, the players are offering to give back ____ but the owners are trying to force the players to give back _______." I keep asking "since the players made their initial offer, what have the players given back in any following counter-proposal?" Again, please try to follow the point being made.

That's what it comes down to.... And I didn't say otherwise. As was pointed out the owners don't rely on this for their only source of income, so the player will ultimately lose.

I'm taking issue with those that are blaming the players for:

- not making concessions (when they have and the owners haven't)

- being solely responsible for driving up prices.

The owners as you said hold the hammer, both here in CBA talks and in individual contract talks. The Owners are crying foul one second and then next second they are lining up and tripping over themselves to dole out 100mil deals. They make themselves look foolish.
- burn

The owners don't need to make concessions. The players like the current CBA. The owners aren't the ones who are going to be locked out.

No it's not. the owners keep giving out 100mil deal and then crying poor. That isn't the players fault.

The League has never been more profitable, or seen more viewership. They just signed a mega TV deal, but we gotta claw back on the deal we signed? BS.
- burn

A few posts back i made this exact statement.
But i never said it was fair.

They hold the cards

The terms that we lost a year of hockey to get?? the ones that they fully and totally built? Do you not see an issue with that. The owners do not want to operate under the system THEY built.
- burn

Yes. And yes i do.

Read my posts

None have been made. It's all on the player backs.
- burn

Depends on how u look at it.
as far as actual losses, yes, the only people giving up what they already have etc are the players.
In terms of demands, the owners have made concessions on how much they originally wanted.

This isnt a strike by the players. This is a lockout by the owners.

This question is solely for burn.

Let's pretend that the owners had opened up negotiations with an offer of 60% of an expanded definition of HRR to include a few more sources, and the players countered with 90% of all revenue the owners generate in any business they own. - but that later on the players backed down to 85% of that greatly expanded definition while the owners still held at their original offer. If I asked "what has each side given up after their initial offer" what would you say?

Dear Burn:

Quit trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong.

It's irrelevant.

The owners hold the hammer.

That's all that matters.
- Atomic Wedgie

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Go read your comment, go read my response, and try to follow the point being made.


No, I made it clear that the players have got it a whole lot better than they did in the 50s. Again, go read your comment, go read my response, and try to follow the point being made.


No, no, no. You keep looking at what the CBA ended with and arguing "from there, the players are offering to give back ____ but the owners are trying to force the players to give back _______." I keep asking "since the players made their initial offer, what have the players given back in any following counter-proposal?" Again, please try to follow the point being made.
- Irish Blues

Problems following?? Nope just you.....


I've asked you several times where you got "the owners paid them more than what they were supposed to"... I call BS.

Ignore the current CBA as a starting point?? wonderful negotiating tactic. I suppose the players should have started asking for 150% of HHR and then dropped down...... "Hey look what we've conceded".

The owners have not given up anything in these negotiations, contrary to what you are trying to suggest.