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.
- Jacob582

The players like the current CBA? The one that got rammed down their throat last time? The one we lost a year of hockey over? The one the was strictly built by the owners? Now the owners can't live with it? It's the payers fault again? SHouldn't the owners take some responsibility in that?

Yeah there wont be a season.

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?
- Irish Blues

owners - nothing

players - 5%


Which is what I've said previous. The players have given up from their current status (reportedly saving owners 300mil/year) while the Owners have opened with taking more away from the players. Yup.

Players conceded (Had previously been only been the ones to make concession is last negotiations) and owners open with "you owe us more".

Problems following?? Nope just you.....
- burn

I've been pretty clear throughout. You're the one that didn't understand the original statement I put out and have attempted repeatedly to turn it into something different.

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

Funny, because this is the first time you've actually phrased a question on this topic. Since you asked, however, ....

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=404989

The annual reconciled escrow rates -- the actual premium or discount on the players' annual contracted individual salaries -- have fluctuated as follows: +4.64 per cent; -2.49 per cent; +0.66 per cent; -12.88 per cent, -3.86 per cent; and, while last season's final number hasn't been fully verified yet, it appears the discount on players' contract value is less than one per cent.

Positive numbers indicate payments from the owners to the players; negative numbers indicate payments from the players to the owners. Your interpretation may vary.

Ignore the current CBA as a starting point?? wonderful negotiating tactic.
- burn

Sweet, then we can use whatever starting point is convenient? I choose the 1930s, when players were making a pittance and argue "Jeebus, the players are making a (frank)load more than they ever dreamed of making in the 1930s, when the hell do they start giving back?"

I suppose the players should have started asking for 150% of HHR and then dropped down...... "Hey look what we've conceded".
- burn

You're starting to learn. Maybe. However, the players [led by one Donald Fehr] made a baseline offer and haven't budged from it at all [and you've been unable to articulate anything that explains how they have moved from their initial offer].

Which, yet again, goes back to my statement [the one you keep ignoring as you attempt to make some other argument]: this has all the hallmarks of every prior negotiation Fehr has been involved in - take a position, watch the other side negotiate its offer up, then say "well, that's nice but it's just not good enough" and refuse to offer anything of substantive value back while sitting back to wait and see if the other side continues to offer up more. Repeat until the other side finally gives you what your original offer has been all along.

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

Interesting ... because in the hypothetical question I posed, your answer is

owners - nothing

players - 5%

Now ... if you were being consistent with the logic you've used for the last 2 pages and counting, you'd say that the owners have given up 3 percentage points of revenue plus whatever additional revenue is coming in, and the players are giving up nothing - because again, you're trying to jump off of what the soon-to-be-expired CBA had as the starting point. If you were using the logic you just gave in the hypothetical scenario I posed [which again, you answered by saying the players had given up 5%], you'd say that in the here and now the owners have given a couple of percentage points on HRR and the players have given up nothing.

So, which is it?

I've been pretty clear throughout. You're the one that didn't understand the original statement I put out and have attempted repeatedly to turn it into something different.


Funny, because this is the first time you've actually phrased a question on this topic. Since you asked, however, ....

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=404989



Positive numbers indicate payments from the owners to the players; negative numbers indicate payments from the players to the owners. Your interpretation may vary.


Sweet, then we can use whatever starting point is convenient? I choose the 1930s, when players were making a pittance and argue "Jeebus, the players are making a (frank)load more than they ever dreamed of making in the 1930s, when the hell do they start giving back?"


You're starting to learn. Maybe. However, the players
- Irish Blues[led by one Donald Fehr] made a baseline offer and haven't budged from it at all [and you've been unable to articulate anything that explains how they have moved from their initial offer].

Which, yet again, goes back to my statement [the one you keep ignoring as you attempt to make some other argument]: this has all the hallmarks of every prior negotiation Fehr has been involved in - take a position, watch the other side negotiate its offer up, then say "well, that's nice but it's just not good enough" and refuse to offer anything of substantive value back while sitting back to wait and see if the other side continues to offer up more. Repeat until the other side finally gives you what your original offer has been all along.



Interesting ... because in the hypothetical question I posed, your answer is


Now ... if you were being consistent with the logic you've used for the last 2 pages and counting, you'd say that the owners have given up 3 percentage points of revenue plus whatever additional revenue is coming in, and the players are giving up nothing - because again, you're trying to jump off of what the soon-to-be-expired CBA had as the starting point. If you were using the logic you just gave in the hypothetical scenario I posed [which again, you answered by saying the players had given up 5%], you'd say that in the here and now the owners have given a couple of percentage points on HRR and the players have given up nothing.

So, which is it?

Where are you getting that the owners paid extra over what they were owed? The link you showed doesn't say anything of the such. I asked 3 times about this.

My interpretation may vary, because they are based on facts. The owners did not pay more than the contract the players had. Fact.


Which is it? The players proposal gives back a reported 300mil. The owners? Nadda. So as I said repeatedly the players have conceded where the owners havent.

The players like the current CBA? The one that got rammed down their throat last time? The one we lost a year of hockey over? The one the was strictly built by the owners? Now the owners can't live with it? It's the payers fault again? SHouldn't the owners take some responsibility in that?
- burn

Yes
Yes
Was it a whole year?
Yes
Yes
No
No

It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, all you have to think about is who is in control, the owners. The players proved during the last lock out that they will play for a fraction of what they will play for in the NHL. If you were an owner, why would keep the existing CBA and pay someone $6M per year when you know you can grind the union on the CBA and end up paying them $4.5M per year.

Players will never make up what money they lose during a lockout and the owners know it.

FIRST!!!














Any Habs rumours?!?














Nuff said

FIRST!!!














Any Habs rumours?!?














Nuff said
- Skalapy

Nash back with the bj's

Eklund: Meetings Appear to Be Ending..PCs Coming..stay tuned
- Eklund

are players or agents really sources as well? i don't think so.

Where are you getting that the owners paid extra over what they were owed? The link you showed doesn't say anything of the such. I asked 3 times about this.
- burn

Oh dear God, you claimed that the players are always having to pay back to the owners and I pointed out that twice the owners have had to cut a check to the players on top of the players getting their full escrow back. You sure as hell didn't ask 3 times about it, you only asked in the last post - every prior time, you had no idea what was being discussed and so I kept trying to explain hoping it would sink in.

Clearly, it didn't - and still hasn't.

My interpretation may vary, because they are based on facts. The owners did not pay more than the contract the players had. Fact.
- burn

Your interpretation sure does vary. Sadly, it's not based on facts.

Which is it? The players proposal gives back a reported 300mil. The owners? Nadda. So as I said repeatedly the players have conceded where the owners havent.
- burn

And yet, in the hypothetical I lobbed out, the owners would be giving up another $100 million or more and instead of recognizing that, you claimed that by the players asking for 85% instead of 90%, the players were the ones doing the giving and the owners were not giving anything at all.

If you want to think you're being consistent, go ahead - but it's pretty apparent to everyone else paying attention you're not. It's definitely noticeable that you've set up a straw man to the point I initially raised and you're arguing against that instead of my actual comment. Hell, before too long I expect you to just claim I'm just a shill for the owners [in which case, I'll have to find whoever it was that claimed I was a shill for the players, and put you two in touch with each other and let you two argue over which one of you is right] instead of you actually paying attention to what I've said.

See you in January.........

Have an NHL 13 league with spots left to fill pm me if
Interested. Looking to have an involved league and lots of fun. Thanks guys!

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

You can't compare now to then. The NHL is different now that it was then. There is more revenue now than there was then. As someone stated before 57% of $2 billion is less than 50% of $3 billion. So in reality the players would be getting more than when they signed the last deal. As far as the point that others have made that owners should bite the bullet for giving out huge contracts, let's not pretend that players and their agents had no part in driving up salaries by leveraging teams to outbid each other. That is really an agents only function.

he's too busy banning everyone
- DoubleDown

No kidding, just came off of one

The players like the current CBA? The one that got rammed down their throat last time? The one we lost a year of hockey over? The one the was strictly built by the owners? Now the owners can't live with it? It's the payers fault again? SHouldn't the owners take some responsibility in that?
- burn

Yes, the players are willing to continue to play under the current CBA. They extended it a year (per CBA rules) last year.

The players signed the deal the last time. It may have been "built" for the owners, but it greatly benefited the players. It made many very rich.

NO, the owners can't live with the current CBA because it expires in 2 days. It wasn't "built" by the owners to work for eternity. That's why the deal was for 6/7 years.

It is neither the players or the owners fault. Just part of the process when you have a union and ownership hammering out an agreement.

Yes, the players are willing to continue to play under the current CBA.

The players signed the deal the last time. It may have been "built" for the owners, but it greatly benefited the players. It made many very rich.

NO, the owners can't live with the current CBA because it expires in 2 days. It wasn't "built" for the owners to work for eternity. That's why the deal was for 6/7 years.
- Jacob582

Exactly. You make a deal that expires so you can reevaluate the economic climate in 5-7 years.

Oh dear God, you claimed that the players are always having to pay back to the owners and I pointed out that twice the owners have had to cut a check to the players on top of the players getting their full escrow back. You sure as hell didn't ask 3 times about it, you only asked in the last post - every prior time, you had no idea what was being discussed and so I kept trying to explain hoping it would sink in.

Clearly, it didn't - and still hasn't.


Your interpretation sure does vary. Sadly, it's not based on facts.


And yet, in the hypothetical I lobbed out, the owners would be giving up another $100 million or more and instead of recognizing that, you claimed that by the players asking for 85% instead of 90%, the players were the ones doing the giving and the owners were not giving anything at all.

If you want to think you're being consistent, go ahead - but it's pretty apparent to everyone else paying attention you're not. It's definitely noticeable that you've set up a straw man to the point I initially raised and you're arguing against that instead of my actual comment. Hell, before too long I expect you to just claim I'm just a shill for the owners
- Irish Blues[in which case, I'll have to find whoever it was that claimed I was a shill for the players, and put you two in touch with each other and let you two argue over which one of you is right] instead of you actually paying attention to what I've said.

#1 I highlighted your post where you said "the owners cut them a check" and said "Pardon", "um what".... You didn't answer. That's a question.

I know verry well what you wrote, I was not confused as to what you were writing, I was asking WTF you are talking about. You are the one that is confused. You STILL haven't provided proof to back up your nonsensical claim.


The owners have never paid the players beyond what their contract is. FACT. They get paid their contract, 11% goes to escrow and if they hit the mark they get it all back, if not they get a portion of it back. FACT. Even the link you provided says exactly that. Read your own stuff before commenting on others. Only one without a clue is you.

Yes
Yes
Was it a whole year?
Yes
Yes
No
No

It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, all you have to think about is who is in control, the owners. The players proved during the last lock out that they will play for a fraction of what they will play for in the NHL. If you were an owner, why would keep the existing CBA and pay someone $6M per year when you know you can grind the union on the CBA and end up paying them $4.5M per year.

Players will never make up what money they lose during a lockout and the owners know it.
- BigStew

Yes..... how do you not even know that. 2004-05 season wiped out , no playoffs. Not a single game.

Oh dear God, you claimed that the players are always having to pay back to the owners and I pointed out that twice the owners have had to cut a check to the players on top of the players getting their full escrow back. You sure as hell didn't ask 3 times about it, you only asked in the last post - every prior time, you had no idea what was being discussed and so I kept trying to explain hoping it would sink in.

Clearly, it didn't - and still hasn't.


Your interpretation sure does vary. Sadly, it's not based on facts.


And yet, in the hypothetical I lobbed out, the owners would be giving up another $100 million or more and instead of recognizing that, you claimed that by the players asking for 85% instead of 90%, the players were the ones doing the giving and the owners were not giving anything at all.

If you want to think you're being consistent, go ahead - but it's pretty apparent to everyone else paying attention you're not. It's definitely noticeable that you've set up a straw man to the point I initially raised and you're arguing against that instead of my actual comment. Hell, before too long I expect you to just claim I'm just a shill for the owners
- Irish Blues[in which case, I'll have to find whoever it was that claimed I was a shill for the players, and put you two in touch with each other and let you two argue over which one of you is right] instead of you actually paying attention to what I've said.

No I knew exactly what was being talked about..... clearly you don't since what you have said is 100% wrong and I've pointed this out multiple times, and asked you about it.

Oh dear God, you claimed that the players are always having to pay back to the owners and I pointed out that twice the owners have had to cut a check to the players on top of the players getting their full escrow back. You sure as hell didn't ask 3 times about it, you only asked in the last post - every prior time, you had no idea what was being discussed and so I kept trying to explain hoping it would sink in.

Clearly, it didn't - and still hasn't.


Your interpretation sure does vary. Sadly, it's not based on facts.


And yet, in the hypothetical I lobbed out, the owners would be giving up another $100 million or more and instead of recognizing that, you claimed that by the players asking for 85% instead of 90%, the players were the ones doing the giving and the owners were not giving anything at all.

If you want to think you're being consistent, go ahead - but it's pretty apparent to everyone else paying attention you're not. It's definitely noticeable that you've set up a straw man to the point I initially raised and you're arguing against that instead of my actual comment. Hell, before too long I expect you to just claim I'm just a shill for the owners
- Irish Blues[in which case, I'll have to find whoever it was that claimed I was a shill for the players, and put you two in touch with each other and let you two argue over which one of you is right] instead of you actually paying attention to what I've said.

Oh my god. get a clue. Your link you posted proves me right. What I said is 100% factual. the owner didn't cut a check beyond the players contracts. FACT.

Oh dear God, you claimed that the players are always having to pay back to the owners and I pointed out that twice the owners have had to cut a check to the players on top of the players getting their full escrow back. You sure as hell didn't ask 3 times about it, you only asked in the last post - every prior time, you had no idea what was being discussed and so I kept trying to explain hoping it would sink in.

Clearly, it didn't - and still hasn't.


Your interpretation sure does vary. Sadly, it's not based on facts.


And yet, in the hypothetical I lobbed out, the owners would be giving up another $100 million or more and instead of recognizing that, you claimed that by the players asking for 85% instead of 90%, the players were the ones doing the giving and the owners were not giving anything at all.

If you want to think you're being consistent, go ahead - but it's pretty apparent to everyone else paying attention you're not. It's definitely noticeable that you've set up a straw man to the point I initially raised and you're arguing against that instead of my actual comment. Hell, before too long I expect you to just claim I'm just a shill for the owners
- Irish Blues[in which case, I'll have to find whoever it was that claimed I was a shill for the players, and put you two in touch with each other and let you two argue over which one of you is right] instead of you actually paying attention to what I've said.

I'm am. No doubt about it.

Players have proposed (reported 300mil) in concessions. The owners haven't given any. So yup.

But I wouldn't expect someone who think that the owners paid extra to the player beyond the contracts to understand. This is pretty complicated stuff, don't get too down on yourself for being wrong.

You can't compare now to then. The NHL is different now that it was then. There is more revenue now than there was then. As someone stated before 57% of $2 billion is less than 50% of $3 billion. So in reality the players would be getting more than when they signed the last deal. As far as the point that others have made that owners should bite the bullet for giving out huge contracts, let's not pretend that players and their agents had no part in driving up salaries by leveraging teams to outbid each other. That is really an agents only function.
- Pierceme69

The owners can't continue, they said that themselves..... and yet they trip over each other to line up to hand out 100mil deals. The players asked the owners gave it to them, and not they want to claw them back. That's not good business.

The owners built the current system off the players backs. The players made ALL the concessions, and now they wan them to do it all again. When do the owners take responsibility for their actions?

Yes, the players are willing to continue to play under the current CBA. They extended it a year (per CBA rules) last year.

The players signed the deal the last time. It may have been "built" for the owners, but it greatly benefited the players. It made many very rich.

NO, the owners can't live with the current CBA because it expires in 2 days. It wasn't "built" by the owners to work for eternity. That's why the deal was for 6/7 years.

It is neither the players or the owners fault. Just part of the process when you have a union and ownership hammering out an agreement.
- Jacob582

The owners are running around handing out 100mil deals like halloween candy, but the saying they can't work with the current system. There is a problem there. If they can't work with the current system why are they falling over themselves to give away all the money??

The owners are the biggest problem.


If they had said , we have a problem and we can't continue like this.... and then played hardcore with the players and didn't give out handfuls of contracts with length in the teens and 100mil then maybe I'd be more sympathetic. They are saying one thing, doing another and then trying to negotiate off what they said, not what they are doing. I don't feel sorry for the owners.

Darren Dreger said that one of the players had said if he has to roll back his salary again he would walk away from the game I don't think they should have to roll back thier salary but if that's a joke I am sure he would walk away from making a ton of money. If the owners want to lock them out then just do it and when they come back we won't have as many teams. Nashville, Islanders Phoenix to name a few will have to claim bankruptcy.

Oh my god. get a clue. Your link you posted proves me right.
What I said is 100% factual. the owner didn't cut a check beyond the players contracts. FACT.