Re: the bolded.

What do they have then?

Why don't you tell me.

Oh wait... they have a "reference point".

I'll just head out for dinner now and offer to pay the tab with a "reference point" to money I USED to have in my pocket, and I will complain about the price while I am at it. I'll let you know how that works out.

Still waiting for a sensible argument from you.
- Aetherial

The players have their contracts. Which you seem to think that those contracts don't exist. The entire World , including the both the NHL and NHLPA is using the ratios from the last CBA as part of both covering the negotiations, and in actually negotiating the new CBA. But you want to pretend otherwise. Nonsensical. But you need to try and twist into the players aren't giving anything up to try and make a sensible argument.

They have their contracts, that's what they have. Maybe you can make a note to leave for yourself somewhere, because you seem to have trouble remembering that.
- MJL

I remember it just fine.

Maybe you should remember last time you ran away from logic and never quite made a point... on this very argument?


The contracts pay ZERO UNTIL there is a new CBA.
The Players have 0% UNTIL there is a new CBA.

So, YOU write this down...

Do you mean those non-guaranteed contracts?
How much money are those contracts paying right now, exactly?

I remember it just fine.

Maybe you should remember last time you ran away from logic and never quite made a point... on this very argument?


The contracts pay ZERO UNTIL there is a new CBA.
The Players have 0% UNTIL there is a new CBA.

So, YOU write this down...

Do you mean those non-guaranteed contracts?
How much money are those contracts paying right now, exactly?
- Aetherial

Incorrect. Many players have received their signing bonuses that are written in those contracts. Need some examples? Players that are injured are receiving their pay based on the salaries written in those contracts.

Chris Pronger and Andre Meszaros have been receiving their regular pay checks. Shea Weber received a nice 13M dollar check recently. Parise and Suter received 10M checks recently. Should I go on?

The players have their contracts. Which you seem to think that those contracts don't exist. The entire World , including the both the NHL and NHLPA is using the ratios from the last CBA as part of both covering the negotiations, and in actually negotiating the new CBA. But you want to pretend otherwise. Nonsensical. But you need to try and twist into the players aren't giving anything up to try and make a sensible argument.
- MJL

Those contracts are paying them Zero.
The amounts on those contracts are not guaranteed.

So... what do they have to give?

Incorrect. Many players have received their signing bonuses that are written in those contracts. Need some examples? Players that are injured are receiving their pay based on the salaries written in those contracts.
- MJL

RECEIVED.
That is in the past.

This negotiation is about the future.

Deny that?

What do they have that they are giving now.

Start running Forrest because you aren't getting anywhere with your usual dodging the facts nonsense.

Is the fact that injured players are getting paid still really a foundation for your argument?

You starting to struggle MJL? Finding yourself cornered? Trying to figure out how you can deny that you said something in order to wiggle off the hook?

Run Forrest!

Those contracts are paying them Zero.
The amounts on those contracts are not guaranteed.

So... what do they have to give?
- Aetherial

Your incorrect. In anyone's World but yours going from a 57% ratio of revenue in one Season to 50% of revenue in the next is giving. Simple common sense. But you want to put your spin on it to try and paint the picture that the players aren't giving any concessions in the negotiations. It's laughable

RECEIVED.
That is in the past.

This negotiation is about the future.

Deny that?

What do they have that they are giving now.

Start running Forrest because you aren't getting anywhere with your usual dodging the facts nonsense.
- Aetherial

Here is what you said, it was only a few minutes ago! LOL I proved that you are incorrect.

"The contracts pay ZERO UNTIL there is a new CBA."

Your incorrect. In anyone's World but yours going from a 57% ratio of revenue in one Season to 50% of revenue in the next is giving. Simple common sense. But you want to put your spin on it to try and paint the picture that the players aren't giving any concessions in the negotiations. It's laughable
- MJL

No, what is laughable is a group of people trying to tell everyone they are GIVING a billion dollars of money they have not even earned yet, and are NOT guaranteed to earn, ever.

What is laughable is expecting sympathy towards a bunch of people for whom, mere millions is not enough to play a game.

What is laughable is the fact that the players are already going to be hard pressed to win back what they have already lost.

Here is what you said, it was only a few minutes ago! LOL I proved that you are incorrect.

"The contracts pay ZERO UNTIL there is a new CBA."
- MJL

Yeah, injured people get paid, whatever. I am sure that is a comfort to the rest of the PA.

Bonuses were received in the past. We are discussing the present and future.

Nice try pulling your usual BS though. Just deflect, and spit out word salads whenever you are forced to admit you are just flat out wrong and denying facts.

What do the players have that they are giving? How is it possible to GIVE from 57% to 50% when they don't have 57%?

Answer the question.

Oh no, wait, you DID answer the question...

They have their non-guaranteed contracts, AND they have a "reference point".

No, what is laughable is a group of people trying to tell everyone they are GIVING a billion dollars of money they have not even earned yet, and are NOT guaranteed to earn, ever.

What is laughable is expecting sympathy towards a bunch of people for whom, mere millions is not enough to play a game.

What is laughable is the fact that the players are already going to be hard pressed to win back what they have already lost.
- Aetherial

It's amazing. The players aren't giving anything because there is no CBA, so they have nothing to give. But then at 8:37 you make this statement!

"2) The owners are offering to give 50%, you can't even begin to argue that."

How can that be? If the players have nothing to give, because there is no CBA, how can the Owners give anything? There is no revenue coming in from games played. How can the NHL give anything to the players. There is no guarantee of any revenue. Why does you pretzel logic only apply to the players? Because it's convenient. LOL

Bottom line is that your entire premise is weak attempt to skew the reality. And all you have to do to know that, is to read all of the coverage of the lockout. You won't find anyone who echoes your premise.

No, what is laughable is a group of people trying to tell everyone they are GIVING a billion dollars of money they have not even earned yet, and are NOT guaranteed to earn, ever.

What is laughable is expecting sympathy towards a bunch of people for whom, mere millions is not enough to play a game.

What is laughable is the fact that the players are already going to be hard pressed to win back what they have already lost.
- Aetherial

This is most of why I have gone from about 55-45 in favour of the owners to about 90-10. The only players I feel bad for now are the guys who will have to retire and the guys making 500-900k who have kept their damn mouths shut.

I am born and bred Nova Scotian and every time I hear Sid open his mouth now I want to grab him and shake him.

Incorrect. Many players have received their signing bonuses that are written in those contracts. Need some examples? Players that are injured are receiving their pay based on the salaries written in those contracts.

Chris Pronger and Andre Meszaros have been receiving their regular pay checks. Shea Weber received a nice 13M dollar check recently. Parise and Suter received 10M checks recently. Should I go on?
- MJL

Oh please do go on...

The bonuses were given under the LAST CBA. They got their 2010 salaries also... So what. Try to keep current please. We are talking about the present and future.

You can also go on and name ALL the other injured players getting paid.

Then you can name the 700 or so OTHER players who have nothing and try to say that those lists somehow support your point instead of mine LOL.

Please do go on, your arguments get dumber every time.

How can the players GIVE from 57% when they no longer have 57%. Answer the question.

This is most of why I have gone from about 55-45 in favour of the owners to about 90-10. The only players I feel bad for now are the guys who will have to retire and the guys making 500-900k who have kept their damn mouths shut.

I am born and bred Nova Scotian and every time I hear Sid open his mouth now I want to grab him and shake him.
- tboog6

In a way I feel bad for the players.

My frustration is starting to go way more towards Fehr than the players. I think the players are frustrated and losing lots of POTENTIAL future income and they are lashing out.

I believe they have been sold a bunch of snake oil by a con artist whose only interest is enhancing his own "reputation".

Yeah, injured people get paid, whatever. I am sure that is a comfort to the rest of the PA.

Bonuses were received in the past. We are discussing the present and future.

Nice try pulling your usual BS though. Just deflect, and spit out word salads whenever you are forced to admit you are just flat out wrong and denying facts.

What do the players have that they are giving? How is it possible to GIVE from 57% to 50% when they don't have 57%?

Answer the question.

Oh no, wait, you DID answer the question...

They have their non-guaranteed contracts, AND they have a "reference point".
- Aetherial

The players received 57% last year in revenue. That is the basis for negotiations. And both sides have used the 1.883B figure that was the result of both the revenue that the League took in last year, and how the players share was calculated, according to the last CBA. Which does in fact, still exist. You can go to NHL.com and download the document. And the players have their contracts. So by the players agreeing to go to 50%, they are in fact giving a concession to the League. But you want to approach it as if it never happened. As if the pay rate of the last contract, is never a factor in negotiating a new contract. Because it has expired. It is a ridiculous spin

It's amazing. The players aren't giving anything because there is no CBA, so they have nothing to give. But then at 8:37 you make this statement!

"2) The owners are offering to give 50%, you can't even begin to argue that."

How can that be? If the players have nothing to give, because there is no CBA, how can the Owners give anything? There is no revenue coming in from games played. How can the NHL give anything to the players. There is no guarantee of any revenue. Why does you pretzel logic only apply to the players? Because it's convenient. LOL

Bottom line is that your entire premise is weak attempt to skew the reality. And all you have to do to know that, is to read all of the coverage of the lockout. You won't find anyone who echoes your premise.
- MJL

Read VERY VERY VERY carefully.

I did NOT say the owners are giving anything.
I said the owners are OFFERING to give 50%

HAH!

Dispute that Forrest... the truth of what I said is right in my own quote.

Oh please do go on...

The bonuses were given under the LAST CBA. They got their 2010 salaries also... So what. Try to keep current please. We are talking about the present and future.

- Aetherial

again, you're incorrect. Those bonuses are paid out according to their CURRENT CONTRACT. Those players are being paid after that CBA has expired

Read VERY VERY VERY carefully.

I did NOT say the owners are giving anything.
I said the owners are OFFERING to give 50%

HAH!

Dispute that Forrest... the truth of what I said is right in my own quote.
- Aetherial

How can they offer to give something they don't have? LOL

And if that's the case then the players are OFFERING to give 7% to the Owners. Thanks for rendering your own premise moot.

The players received 57% last year in revenue. That is the basis for negotiations. And both sides have used the 1.883B figure that was the result of both the revenue that the League took in last year, and how the players share was calculated, according to the last CBA. Which does in fact, still exist. You can go to NHL.com and download the document. And the players have their contracts. So by the players agreeing to go to 50%, they are in fact giving a concession to the League. But you want to approach it as if it never happened. As if the pay rate of the last contract, is never a factor in negotiating a new contract. Because it has expired. It is a ridiculous spin
- MJL

Yes, the PA has a "basis for negotiations". LOL.

No, a ridiculous spin is to come out and say the players are giving a billion dollars... that they have not even earned yet and are not guaranteed to earn.

How can the players give from 57% to 50% when they no longer have 50%.

Answer the question. You have pretty much answered every other question that was never asked, as is your wont. But do us all a favour and answer the question that was put forth.

Yes, the PA has a "basis for negotiations". LOL.

No, a ridiculous spin is to come out and say the players are giving a billion dollars... that they have not even earned yet and are not guaranteed to earn.

How can the players give from 57% to 50% when they no longer have 50%.

Answer the question. You have pretty much answered every other question that was never asked, as is your wont. But do us all a favour and answer the question that was put forth.
- Aetherial

The players are OFFERING to give a billion dollars, based on revenue projections. Which both sides are using to make their proposals.

How can they offer to give something they don't have? LOL

And if that's the case then the players are OFFERING to give 7% to the Owners. Thanks for rendering your own premise moot.
- MJL

The owners are saying, when we earn 100.00, we will give you 50.

The players are saying We have agreed that we will give you back 7 dollars of our 57.00.

The difference is that the owners are not relying on any past, current or future number or entitlement, so it is an offer they can make.

The players argument only makes sense in the context of the PAST entitlement, which NO LONGER APPLIES.

Therefore, the players claims of giving back are nonsense. The owners claims of what they are willing to pay in the future is logically supportable.

Try again, you are really losing this one badly, just like last time.

I am sure you will forget about it by tomorrow.

The players are OFFERING to give a billion dollars, based on revenue projections. Which both sides are using to make their proposals.
- MJL

It does not matter what the revenue projections are.

Answer this...

Will the players give 1 billion dollars to the owners. (no).

The 1 billion dollars are:

1) calculated based on a reduction of their future earnings, NOT being taken from them... important difference that.

2) Based on the entitlement they had in the EXPIRED CBA, that no longer applies.

Are you seeing a pattern here yet. I am hoping you learn by patterns. The pattern is that every one of your arguments is based on applying the past context to the future situation. Ahhhh, but the past situation is nothing more than a convenient negotiation starting point.

It is NOT a current or future entitlement.

Still waiting for you to make an actual sensible argument.

Edit:

OK UFC time and my pathetic typing skills are making my fingers ache

Enjoy your evening.

The owners are saying, when we earn 100.00, we will give you 50.

The players are saying We have agreed that we will give you back 7 dollars of our 57.00.

The difference is that the owners are not relying on any past, current or future number or entitlement, so it is an offer they can make.


- Aetherial

Very funny. I'll counter with this. When the League makes 100.00, the players are saying instead of us taking 57, we'll only take 50. To help out the League with financial issues. So they are in fact giving.
And even if we accept you ridiculous premise, which we don't, it would be the players earning 50, not being given 50 by the League.

And unless you want to remain in your fantasy World, in every offer the League has made to the players, they've used the past as part of putting the offer together.

The players argument only makes sense in the context of the PAST entitlement, which NO LONGER APPLIES.

Therefore, the players claims of giving back are nonsense. The owners claims of what they are willing to pay in the future is logically supportable.

Try again, you are really losing this one badly, just like last time.

I am sure you will forget about it by tomorrow.
- Aetherial

Well lucky for me that you aren't the sole judge and jury on that. I don't have to cast judgement on who is winning or losing this battle. I let the words speak for themselves. And really if there is any factor that would point to who is winning the battle. It's simply that your premise isn't supported by any outside legitimate source.

Very funny. I'll counter with this. When the League makes 100.00, the players are saying instead of us taking 57, we'll only take 50. To help out the League with financial issues. So they are in fact giving.
And even if we accept you ridiculous premise, which we don't, it would be the players earning 50, not being given 50 by the League.

And unless you want to remain in your fantasy World, in every offer the League has made to the players, they've used the past as part of putting the offer together.



Well lucky for me that you aren't the sole judge and jury on that. I don't have to cast judgement on who is winning or losing this battle. I let the words speak for themselves. And really if there is any factor that would point to who is winning the battle. It's simply that your premise isn't supported by any outside legitimate source.
- MJL

I will let your own words, bolded above, end this argument, since I am signing off. So you get the last word, how about that

I hope everyone reads your words carefully:

"Instead of us taking 57, we'll only take 50"

You could not have made my anti PA position more justifiable because, Yes, I believe that is exactly what the PA is saying. It is presumptuous, arrogant, and frankly, stupid.

Oh yeah, and where does their FUTURE 57% come from?
Answer: Nowhere. It does not exist.

It does not matter what the revenue projections are.

Answer this...

Will the players give 1 billion dollars to the owners. (no).

The 1 billion dollars are:

1) calculated based on a reduction of their future earnings, NOT being taken from them... important difference that.

2) Based on the entitlement they had in the EXPIRED CBA, that no longer applies.

Are you seeing a pattern here yet. I am hoping you learn by patterns. The pattern is that every one of your arguments is based on applying the past context to the future situation. Ahhhh, but the past situation is nothing more than a convenient negotiation starting point.

It is NOT a current or future entitlement.

Still waiting for you to make an actual sensible argument.

Edit:

OK UFC time and my pathetic typing skills are making my fingers ache

Enjoy your evening.
- Aetherial

You can choose to ignore the past in making any kind of read on the situation. That is your choice. But you are on a island there. Read any article that covers the lockout, and the situation with the last CBA is a big part of most. It's involved in pretty much everything. Including being involved in the offers and proposals both sides are making, and have made. And that is all the sensible argument I need.

And it's really quite simple. If the players are agreeing to go from 57% of revenue in the previous Season, to 50% in the next agreement. That is in fact giving a concession to the Owners. No matter how you try, you can't spin your way out of that.

I will let your own words, bolded above, end this argument, since I am signing off. So you get the last word, how about that

I hope everyone reads your words carefully:

"Instead of us taking 57, we'll only take 50"

You could not have made my anti PA position more justifiable because, Yes, I believe that is exactly what the PA is saying. It is presumptuous, arrogant, and frankly, stupid.

Oh yeah, and where does their FUTURE 57% come from?
Answer: Nowhere. It does not exist.
- Aetherial

Any sides future revenue percentage comes from future revenue. Notice the word future in both? Yea, it's presumptuous, arrogant, and frankly stupid for the PA to take what they deserve, due to having signed contracts that were negotiated in good faith, and approved by the League. Notice how that keeps coming back into play, you know the thing that the players do in fact have. When you say in error repeatedly, that they have nothing.

Your premise on this is one of the most ridiculous and desperate spins I have read yet during this entire lockout.

Really, there is enough material that is factual to use to disparage the PA in this entire debacle, then to have to make something up. And really the fact that you have to literally invent something out of fantasy to try and justify your stance against the PA, shows the extreme weakness of your position.