Ask Suter, Parise, and Weber. There is such I high amount of players getting a huge signing bonus
- Bieksa#3

This, of course, being evidence that the players were not negotiating in good faith anymore than the owners were last summer. Everyone knew a rollback might happen, so both sides negotiated based on that possibility. Players wanted most of their money up front because their signing bonus received before the lockout won't take a hit from the possible rollback. But all you say is:

Because its pretty clear ownership wasn't bargaining in good faith
- Bieksa#3

Pretty obviously biased.

That's OK if you prefer to side with Fehr....it's your choice. Insulting someone is the lowest way to prove your point. I am not surprised, you've shown numerous times you can't debate anything without insulting other posters.
- Symba007

But its OK for you too do it? Glass house perhaps?

Donald Fehr is the biggest jerkoff in the Western Hemisphere.
- Giroux_Is_God

Nah. That would be the little puppet Gary Bettman and his string-puller Ed Snider.

Nah. That would be the little puppet Gary Bettman and his string-puller Ed Snider.
- triggermartin

Obvious troll is obvious.

This, of course, being evidence that the players were not negotiating in good faith anymore than the owners were last summer. Everyone knew a rollback might happen, so both sides negotiated based on that possibility. Players wanted most of their money up front because their signing bonus received before the lockout won't take a hit from the possible rollback. But all you say is:



Pretty obviously biased.
- Antilles

how were the players not negotiating in good faith
great post

But its OK for you too do it? Glass house perhaps?
- Bieksa#3

Obvious troll is obvious.
- Giroux_Is_God

is this English?

is this English?
- Bieksa#3

Reading your posts, you're the last person who should comment on this.

Reading your posts, you're the last person who should comment on this.
- weirdoh

Did I miss a comma?

how were the players not negotiating in good faith
great post
- Bieksa#3

The exact same way you are claiming the owners weren't. How is that difficult to understand?

The exact same way you are claiming the owners weren't. How is that difficult to understand?
- Antilles

So anybody who gets a signing bonus is acting in bad faith? Are you actually serious with this comment? As a posed to complaining about how much money players are getting on contracts signed just hrs before the cba expired? Really?

Tiny tweaks? Really? You call a make whole of 211M a tiny tweak? Going down to 50/50 when you still get 100% of your salary was an EASY compromise for the PA, don't kid yourself.

You are right when you say there won't be a deal, not until the players are hurting enough. The league is entertaining the PA tomorrow, just watch, the PA will come back with some ridiculous offer again....the owners will walk away. Don't expect hockey this year...it's not gonna happen.
- Symba007

The latest Make Whole offer by the League doesn't guarantee the players get 100% of their salary. It does however give the players the soft landing they desired.

As exciting as this discussion may be, I'm going to go watch European Vacation. Happy female doging!

The more this drags on...the more the players will lose, the revenues are going down by the minute. Their % or a smaller amount will result in a higher escrow....owners won't lose more money than they are losing now.

Ask Mark Recchi, Mike Modano and the other guys who have come out saying they the players need to threat this as a business, not make it personal. They are business man now, earning millions. You take the deal that will get you the most money and sign it. If the players don't get a deal before this season is cancelled, no way they get a better deal....the average guy with a 4-5 years career will NEVER get that money back if a season is lost. That's a high % of the union....
- Symba007

Revenue is going down by the minute for the League also. There is a huge risk to the Owners and the League to cancel the Season. The Owners willingness to cancel the Season is way overblown on this forum. The last thing the Owners and the League wants to do is to cancel the Season. They have too much to lose to do so as easily as most think. What's your basis for the Escrow comment?

If your a guy like Crosby and you get hurt overseas. If/when the cba is settled you start getting paid by your NHL deal whether you are healthy or not. Boy would that suck for the league.
- Bieksa#3

No, that's not true. It would be a pre existing condition. That is why players are getting insurance to cover their contract in case they get a serious injury overseas.

I dont believe the NHL, Bettman & the Owners fear Donnald Fehr one bit. But they know who and what they are dealing with & will react accordingly.

Fehr is a man who has no respect for the NHL, the owners, the FANS or the game. He has no scruples. Fehr cares about nothing but getting money and power for the Union. He doesnt care how he gets it. Where it comes from. (FANS) Who it hurts. (everyone who's job relies on NHL Hockey) He really doesnt give a crap about repercussions or collateral damage. He really has little to nothing to lose. He gets paid regardless of how long this takes and the outcome.

He wants to dictate how the owners spend their money. How much they spend and who gets it. Basically he wants the UNION to run the NHL using the OWNERS Bank accounts. Nice gig if you can get it. Sounds a lot like Socialism to me.

The NHL knew all this the day Don Fehr was hired and they have been preparing their ground game ever since. They cant and wont give into this.

That's why I believe there will be no hockey in the 2012-2013 season. When did I know this? Seriously? The day Don Fehr was hired I knew there would be a lock out. I even posted at that time that there would be a lock out. How long it would last was a toss up.

If I knew it. Then the Owners knew it and any player with half a brain knew it to. The players hired Fehr to play hard ball. To start a war. And a war is what they have. Why are Players surprised? Did they really believe they were bigger then the game itself? Did they really believe owners would continue to lose millions on their teams for yrs to come? Do they really believe that the NHL can never survive without the present players under contract?

What was learned is that the owners are better poker players then they gave them credit for. Since many owners lose money on their NHL Teams. They can and will lock out current players indefinitely rather then to give into Fehr.

I Believe the next time you see NHL Hockey will be sometime in late OCT during the 2013-2014 season. Dont be surprised if the season starts with teams missing several of their regular players. It wont be pretty on or off the ice. The players then come back in full sometime during NOV/DEC 2013.

You see. The NHL can survive with out the current group of NHL players. It will take sometime to get back on its feet. It will lose some money but nothing like the money it would lose long time if they give into Fehr.

Remember this. For every player on an NHL roster there is someone in the the AHL, ECHL, KHL, Europe or Jr's who can and will replace them. Next yr or 2, 3, 4 yrs down the road. Yes there is another Sidney Crosby, OV and Gino Malkin somewhere in the world who will give their right nut to play in the NHL for Millions of dollars someday. Anyone who doubts it is kidding themselves.

It will take sometime for hard feeling's to subside and awhile before the fans forgive. Expect lots of give aways and special promotions to bring fans back to the Arena's.

BTW, I'm no company man. I come from a family with 40 plus years in the Teamsters, including 10 yrs myself. Been thru strikes and lockouts. Regardless of your occupation. There is always someone ready to come in and take your job. No one is indispensable for long.

This, of course, being evidence that the players were not negotiating in good faith anymore than the owners were last summer. Everyone knew a rollback might happen, so both sides negotiated based on that possibility. Players wanted most of their money up front because their signing bonus received before the lockout won't take a hit from the possible rollback. But all you say is:




- Antilles

I don't believe that to be the case. Maybe the Owners did, but I doubt the players did. And top Free Agents have been getting front loaded contracts with signing bonuses in previous Seasons. So you can't put that on the impending lockout.

I dont believe the NHL, Bettman & the Owners fear Donnald Fehr one bit. But they know who and what they are dealing with & will react accordingly.

Fehr is a man who has no respect for the NHL, the owners, the FANS or the game. He has no scruples. Fehr cares about nothing but getting money and power for the Union. He doesnt care how he gets it. Where it comes from. (FANS) Who it hurts. (everyone who's job relies on NHL Hockey) He really doesnt give a crap about repercussions or collateral damage. He really has little to nothing to lose. He gets paid regardless of how long this takes and the outcome.

He wants to dictate how the owners spend their money. How much they spend and who gets it. Basically he wants the UNION to run the NHL using the OWNERS Bank accounts. Nice gig if you can get it. Sounds a lot like Socialism to me.

The NHL knew all this the day Don Fehr was hired and they have been preparing their ground game ever since. They cant and wont give into this.

That's why I believe there will be no hockey in the 2012-2013 season. When did I know this? Seriously? The day Don Fehr was hired I knew there would be a lock out. I even posted at that time that there would be a lock out. How long it would last was a toss up.

If I knew it. Then the Owners knew it and any player with half a brain knew it to. The players hired Fehr to play hard ball. To start a war. And a war is what they have. Why are Players surprised? Did they really believe they were bigger then the game itself? Did they really believe owners would continue to lose millions on their teams for yrs to come? Do they really believe that the NHL can never survive without the present players under contract?

What was learned is that the owners are better poker players then they gave them credit for. Since many owners lose money on their NHL Teams. They can and will lock out current players indefinitely rather then to give into Fehr.

I Believe the next time you see NHL Hockey will be sometime in late OCT during the 2013-2014 season. Dont be surprised if the season starts with teams missing several of their regular players. It wont be pretty on or off the ice. The players then come back in full sometime during NOV/DEC 2013.

You see. The NHL can survive with out the current group of NHL players. It will take sometime to get back on its feet. It will lose some money but nothing like the money it would lose long time if they give into Fehr.

Remember this. For every player on an NHL roster there is someone in the the AHL, ECHL, KHL, Europe or Jr's who can and will replace them. Next yr or 2, 3, 4 yrs down the road. Yes there is another Sidney Crosby, OV and Gino Malkin somewhere in the world who will give their right nut to play in the NHL for Millions of dollars someday. Anyone who doubts it is kidding themselves.

It will take sometime for hard feeling's to subside and awhile before the fans forgive. Expect lots of give aways and special promotions to bring fans back to the Arena's.

BTW, I'm no company man. I come from a family with 40 plus years in the Teamsters, including 10 yrs myself. Been thru strikes and lockouts. Regardless of your occupation. There is always someone ready to come in and take your job. No one is indispensable for long.
- SCLI

There's so much here that is incorrect in my opinion, I don't know where to start. So I'll just say this. As Union man, you should know what a Collective Bargaining Agreement is about.

So anybody who gets a signing bonus is acting in bad faith? Are you actually serious with this comment? As a posed to complaining about how much money players are getting on contracts signed just hrs before the cba expired? Really?
- Bieksa#3

There is an obvious difference between the level of signing bonus received most years, and the amount the players wanted last year; and your reverting to a straw man argument in retort is a clear logical fallacy. There was also a major pay upgrade for certain players. This could mean multiple things:

Someone biased for the owners would think: The owners were fully expecting to honor the contracts as is, while the players demanded more money and it being upfront in case of a roll back.

Someone non-biased: The owners and players were both expecting a rollback, so the owners gave more money, and the players asked for some of it upfront; but both sides knew what they were doing.

Someone biased for the players: The owners only signed these contracts because they were going to get a rollback and not have to pay this much, while the player was expecting the contract honored as is.


You fit entirely in the later category. Completely ignoring the evidence of the substantial change in the amount of the contract paid in the signing bonus in order to vilify the owners, instead of admitting the most likely answer: Both sides were negotiating from the same premise.

No, that's not true. It would be a pre existing condition. That is why players are getting insurance to cover their contract in case they get a serious injury overseas.
- MJL

I read a article that defies this claim. The NHL is stopping the players from earning a income dispite the fact that they have contracts. Now if for example they have something in their contract stating they can't do something such as sky diving, luge, motorcycle riding etc and they do so then the contract is void.

There is an obvious difference between the level of signing bonus received most years, and the amount the players wanted last year; and your reverting to a straw man argument in retort is a clear logical fallacy. There was also a major pay upgrade for certain players. This could mean multiple things:

Someone biased for the owners would think: The owners were fully expecting to honor the contracts as is, while the players demanded more money and it being upfront in case of a roll back.

Someone non-biased: The owners and players were both expecting a rollback, so the owners gave more money, and the players asked for some of it upfront; but both sides knew what they were doing.

Someone biased for the players: The owners only signed these contracts because they were going to get a rollback and not have to pay this much, while the player was expecting the contract honored as is.


You fit entirely in the later category. Completely ignoring the evidence of the substantial change in the amount of the contract paid in the signing bonus in order to vilify the owners, instead of admitting the most likely answer: Both sides were negotiating from the same premise.
- Antilles

If the players where striking you may have a point. However since it is a lockout and the NHL is preventing the players from earning a income you are completely out to lunch thinking there is any basis to what you say. If the owners don't want to pay the bonus and no hockey then drop the puck. If the owners were foolish enough to think they are absolutely guarenteed a rollback then that is almost by the letter of the law, acting in bad faith

I read a article that defies this claim. The NHL is stopping the players from earning a income dispite the fact that they have contracts. Now if for example they have something in their contract stating they can't do something such as sky diving, luge, motorcycle riding etc and they do so then the contract is void.
- Bieksa#3

The NHL isn't stopping anyone from earning an income. They have locked out the players from playing in the NHL. As you, know a significant number of players have signed to play overseas. A lot of players are earning an income in the AHL. So that is obviously not true. There's a reason why players signing overseas are getting insurance policies, often with very high premiums.

If the players where striking you may have a point. However since it is a lockout and the NHL is preventing the players from earning a income you are completely out to lunch thinking there is any basis to what you say. If the owners don't want to pay the bonus and no hockey then drop the puck. If the owners were foolish enough to think they are absolutely guarenteed a rollback then that is almost by the letter of the law, acting in bad faith
- Bieksa#3

Your reply is a completely non sequitur and failed to address any of the points I made.


Additionally, if the players had wanted to avoid a lockout, they could have begun negotiations last year. They waited until August to provide a proposal. If the players wanted to negotiate while playing under the current CBA, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, who had his players strike a month and a half before playoffs began in MLB, the last time a major sport was willing to play on without a CBA.

how were the players not negotiating in good faith
great post
- Bieksa#3

What the (frank) are you talking about? How can you say the owners were negotiating in bad faith but the players were not? It is not as if the owners were the only ones who knew a lockout was coming. That would be negotiating in bad faith. BUT both sides knew there would be a lockout, and both sides went about entering into contracts knowing full well that a lockout was on the way. How you can say the owners were negotiating in bad faith but the players were not is beyond me.

Your reply is a completely non sequitur and failed to address any of the points I made.


Additionally, if the players had wanted to avoid a lockout, they could have begun negotiations last year. They waited until August to provide a proposal. If the players wanted to negotiate while playing under the current CBA, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, who had his players strike a month and a half before playoffs began in MLB, the last time a major sport was willing to play on without a CBA.
- Antilles

First of all the players offered to play while negotiating the CBA, so what you say there obviously isn't true. But it's understandable that the League declined that offer.