ROFL!

How exactly is it paying off.

We have no agreement. That couldn't be success could it.

UNLESS... the goal was to not negotiate. Nah that can't be true can it?

Hmmm.
- NightTrain_AlMo

Are you saying that Fehr isn't negotiating. Because that couldn't be further from the truth at this point.

Take it as you will, there are a majority of owners who aren't happy with bettman last week. The higher end ones felt he gave to much in the 50/50 offer, and the lower end ones felt the players counters should've garnered more attention. Non of the above felt at all consulted about what took place. The owners aren't near as united as the media would have you believe. Some players families have been consulted as well.. Trying to get past fehr. The NHL brass feels as though the majority of players are being misrepresented.. And want to hear their side first hand.
- joel878

How do you know this?

And anyone who wanted to go to Europe could have gone. Some decided to play there - some decided to stay.

And I' sure that Rick Nash who is reported to paying $100,000/month in insurance to play in Davos has no motivation to return to his $7.8M salary.

But yes, please help me understand.
- Canada Cup

LOL, yeah anyone could have.



Second, why do I need to explain more. My statement was crystal f*cking clear. If you don't understand the different levels of motivation between those playing and not playing to get a deal done, then, like I said, I have no time for you. You are either lack the mental capacity to carry on a coherent conversation or you are being purposely obtuse.

I am starting to notice a real trend among all you PA nuthuggers.

ROFL!

How exactly is it paying off.

We have no agreement. That couldn't be success could it.

UNLESS... the goal was to not negotiate. Nah that can't be true can it?

Hmmm.
- NightTrain_AlMo

It's paying of in that the NHLPA appears strong and united - there is more to being in union then giving your bosses exactly what they want because they are richer then you.

Are you saying that Fehr isn't negotiating. Because that couldn't be further from the truth at this point.
- MJL

What amounts to the same offer 5 times, including 3 at once that was nothing more than a PR move after Bettman one-upped him last week.

Yeah, my opinion is that he is not negotiating.

It's paying of in that the NHLPA appears strong and united - there is more to being in union then giving your bosses exactly what they want because they are richer then you.
- tuna99

They appeared oh so strong and united in 2004 also.

What amounts to the same offer 5 times, including 3 at once that was nothing more than a PR move after Bettman one-upped him last week.

Yeah, my opinion is that he is not negotiating.
- NightTrain_AlMo

Bettman did not even consider the NHLPA pffer, he flat out rejected it and Daly came out yesterday to say "There si nothing to negotiate"

Who is not negotiating in this instance?

They appeared oh so strong and united in 2004 also.
- NightTrain_AlMo

Let's see how this plays out - I know all Leaf fans want to avoid another season of humiliating hockey but I don't think their dreams will come true, there will be hockey and the Leafs will be in the bottom 5 of the league again and Burke will trade that pick for a heartless winger - Cheers.

What amounts to the same offer 5 times, including 3 at once that was nothing more than a PR move after Bettman one-upped him last week.

Yeah, my opinion is that he is not negotiating.
- NightTrain_AlMo

No, responding with the 3 proposals is negotiating. The NHL made an offer, the players took some time to look it over. And then responded with a counter proposal. The 3 proposals is a common negotiating tactic. It's designed to elicit feedback from your counterpart in which direction they want to proceed to get to the 50/50 endgame. The NHL's response was to reject it in 10 minutes and leave the negotiating table. But yea, Fehr isn't negotiating.

Should I now make a derogatory personal comment towards those that support the Owners?

Should I now make a derogatory personal comment towards those that support the Owners?
- MJL

Please do, and use pictures to assist you if you find that completing whatever thought you might have proves to be too onerous a task.

No, responding with the 3 proposals is negotiating. The NHL made an offer, the players took some time to look it over. And then responded with a counter proposal. The 3 proposals is a common negotiating tactic. It's designed to elicit feedback from your counterpart in which direction they want to proceed to get to the 50/50 endgame. The NHL's response was to reject it in 10 minutes and leave the negotiating table. But yea, Fehr isn't negotiating.

Should I now make a derogatory personal comment towards those that support the Owners?
- MJL

Did you know the players probably have the highest amount of salary increase in the world since 2005? I think the average salary is up 45% in 8 years. And that has been accomplished in this economy. The system that was put in place in 2005 does not work for half the league. Sometimes contracts are not honoured and sobeit. It's time to tighten the screws and owners have more leverage than the players.

What amounts to the same offer 5 times, including 3 at once that was nothing more than a PR move after Bettman one-upped him last week.

Yeah, my opinion is that he is not negotiating.
- NightTrain_AlMo

I dont think your right and why would you think he wouldnt be??

I see it the opposite way - I think Fehr has controlled the process from the beginning and all the pressure is on the NHL.

The players WANT to play hockey - the owners HAVE to play hockey this season. They have no choice, they cannot have another 1 year lockout

Bettman has no more bullets left in his gun, now all he can do is posture and pout and stomp his feet, once he's done his hissy fit the best he can is get the owners is the 50-50 HRR split over 3 years instead of 5 and there will be no player roll--back.
- tuna99

So you're saying a player that earns the minimum league salary doesn't need to play hockey this season? These guys still have bills/mortgages that need to be paid. A majority of the owners can afford a full season lockout and are advocating it unless they get the deal they want.

Did you know the players probably have the highest amount of salary increase in the world since 2005? I think the average salary is up 45% in 8 years. And that has been accomplished in this economy. The system that was put in place in 2005 does not work for half the league. Sometimes contracts are not honoured and sobeit. It's time to tighten the screws and owners have more leverage than the players.
- HipHopisDead

For sure, everybody in the NHL is too rich and they don't care about the average Joe or can even relate to us - but it doesn't change the fact that 7 years ago the players gave back 24% of their salary and the owners still screwed everything up - the owners are the problem here not the players, giving money back won't solve anything and we all know that.

So you're saying a player that earns the minimum league salary doesn't need to play hockey this season? These guys still have bills/mortgages that need to be paid. A majority of the owners can afford a full season lockout and are advocating it unless they get the deal they want.
- buffalokb

The owners are posturing, they can't cancel another season, in 7 years we have 2 cancelled seasons of hockey - the league would never recover.

Sure everybody needs to work, but it's not like these guys are making $10 an hour, they make a lot of money and this lockout was for sure anticipated by Fehr and he probably told the players to save some money for another lock out

And the losses go both ways, the Owners are losing money, the sponsors, the networks, everybody here is losing, not just the players.

For sure, everybody in the NHL is too rich and they don't care about the average Joe or can even relate to us - but it doesn't change the fact that 7 years ago the players gave back 24% of their salary and the owners still screwed everything up - the owners are the problem here not the players, giving money back won't solve anything and we all know that.
- tuna99

How did the owners screw everything up? The league is better than ever!
And contracts have expiry dates for a reason. The last deal should have no bearing on the current situation other than proving to the players that not taking the leagues final offer was a mistake and they shouldn't do it again. Do they really think missing a whole season will work in their benefit?

The owners are posturing, they can't cancel another season, in 7 years we have 2 cancelled seasons of hockey - the league would never recover.

Sure everybody needs to work, but it's not like these guys are making $10 an hour, they make a lot of money and this lockout was for sure anticipated by Fehr and he probably told the players to save some money for another lock out

And the losses go both ways, the Owners are losing money, the sponsors, the networks, everybody here is losing, not just the players.
- tuna99

Owners are losing the least relatively speaking.

This site is (frank)ed!!!!Nuf said.

Owners are losing the least relatively speaking.
- HipHopisDead

You can say this lockout has damaged the fans relationship with the NHL and it could be long term - that is a direct lose to the owners - after the MLB work stoppage their revenue dropped 24%, these revenue drops have the NHL owners shaking in their boots, they know they are playing with fire when it comes to sponsorship and corporate dollars who may go elsewhere to sell their product,

The NHL have put the fans back in the middle of a very divisive work stoppage and the fan anger is real - the owners are risking a lot here, and they know it, eventually they will have to get hockey back on the ice to keep their networks and sponsors happy, the owners are under a ton of pressure - this is without question, but the biggest pressure point comes from unhappy fans, even if you support the owners if they lockout the players for another entire season you will tune out the NHL to some capacity, you're trust and passion for the game will be drained

You can say this lockout has damaged the fans relationship with the NHL and it could be long term - that is a direct lose to the owners - after the MLB work stoppage their revenue dropped 24%, these revenue drops have the NHL owners shaking in their boots, they know they are playing with fire when it comes to sponsorship and corporate dollars who may go elsewhere to sell their product,

The NHL have put the fans back in the middle of a very divisive work stoppage and the fan anger is real - the owners are risking a lot here, and they know it, eventually they will have to get hockey back on the ice to keep their networks and sponsors happy, the owners are under a ton of pressure - this is without question, but the biggest pressure point comes from unhappy fans, even if you support the owners if they lockout the players for another entire season you will tune out the NHL to some capacity, you're trust and passion for the game will be drained
- tuna99

Too bad most of the owners, own the sponsors.

The Majority of fans will come back. IMO

Too bad most of the owners, own the sponsors.

The Majority of fans will come back. IMO
- HipHopisDead

They don't own the fans - if you want to see what the game is really about, go to the NHL webpage, all the stories are about about players and we are in a lockout - what more can you say!

They don't own the fans - if you want to see what the game is really about, go to the NHL webpage, all the stories are about about players and we are in a lockout - what more can you say!
- tuna99

?

The owners are posturing, they can't cancel another season, in 7 years we have 2 cancelled seasons of hockey - the league would never recover.
- tuna99

Ask the owners if they really care. Even if they cancelled a 2nd season of hockey, the players absolutely lose money; the owners at worst lose profits.

Sure everybody needs to work, but it's not like these guys are making $10 an hour, they make a lot of money and this lockout was for sure anticipated by Fehr and he probably told the players to save some money for another lock out
- tuna99

Did they? If this goes on long enough, we'll find out. More importantly: will that money saved exceed the amount they ultimately lose? Modano, Guerin, and others who went through the '04 lockout say it wasn't worth it; you really think this time is somehow magically different?

And the losses go both ways, the Owners are losing money, the sponsors, the networks, everybody here is losing, not just the players.
- tuna99

The owners are losing revenue. Revenue is not the same as profit. Lost revenue comes with expenses that don't have to be paid as a result; the offset may actually be a net gain for the owners.

The players are losing salary. Their expenses don't disappear the same way; they still remain. Lost salary is an absolute loss for the players, no matter how you attempt to spin it.

Did you know the players probably have the highest amount of salary increase in the world since 2005? I think the average salary is up 45% in 8 years. And that has been accomplished in this economy. The system that was put in place in 2005 does not work for half the league. Sometimes contracts are not honoured and sobeit. It's time to tighten the screws and owners have more leverage than the players.
- HipHopisDead

What it's time for is for the League and the players to work together to come to a solution for the long term success of the League. The players are willing to take a lesser percentage going forward. Which is more then doing their part. They just want the current contracts honored. Which is more then fair.

How did the owners screw everything up? The league is better than ever!
And contracts have expiry dates for a reason. The last deal should have no bearing on the current situation other than proving to the players that not taking the leagues final offer was a mistake and they shouldn't do it again. Do they really think missing a whole season will work in their benefit?
- HipHopisDead

If the League is better then ever, then why do the players have to take a salary rollback?