Screw the NHL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

Both sides are only interested in being exploitive. The big difference is that players get days of airtime celebrating and analyzing free agency which is when they are exploiting while ownerships only real chance to play hardball is in CBA negotiations.

---

The second one is a very good point. But I don't agree that both sides are only interested in being exploitive. There are many players on two way contracts, many who will have short terms in the NHL because they are borderline (doesn't mean they work any less hard), and there are many players who take a hometown discount to stay with a team. There ARE some exploitive free agents, and that's why I said that I support the goals of trying to control contracts, terms, salary levels, etc. But I don't support negotiating free agent contracts disingenuously then trying to claw them back right away during CBA negotiations. Many players (especially those who are the infantry of the league) have very limited windows where they can make money in this profession. I don't see them being exploitive at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

The second one is a very good point. But I don't agree that both sides are only interested in being exploitive. There are many players on two way contracts, many who will have short terms in the NHL because they are borderline (doesn't mean they work any less hard), and there are many players who take a hometown discount to stay with a team. There ARE some exploitive free agents, and that's why I said that I support the goals of trying to control contracts, terms, salary levels, etc. But I don't support negotiating free agent contracts disingenuously then trying to claw them back right away during CBA negotiations. Many players (especially those who are the infantry of the league) have very limited windows where they can make money in this profession. I don't see them being exploitive at all.

---

Do you think its also possible that those free agents and their agents knew that a tough cba negotiation was coming up and were maybe being disingenuous and exploitive trying to get contracts that they knew wouldn't be available afterwards?

I agree that many players individually aren't trying to be exploitive but I also think that many owners are the same and are just trying to make their teams slightly profitable or break even. The problem on both sides (players and owners) comes from the compromise that has to be made between the bigger, more powerful exploitive side and the lower end. The owners that are raking in money don't want to do as much as they probably should in revenue sharing. Meanwhile the players who are going to be affected the most by a salary rollback are the ones who have been exploitive in getting their contracts. The salary rollback will have little to no impact on the 'infantry of the league' just like revenue sharing between teams will have basically no negative impact on the small market teams.

In short, the compromise the union has made amongst themselves to get to their position as a group is where it becomes exploitive and the compromise the owners come to as a group for their position becomes exploitive. I hope that made sense.

To expand on my previous post each group, both owners and players, have their own version of the 1%'s (although in the NHL that group makes up a higher %, more like 25%). And these 1% or 25%'s are getting their points in with the rest. Look at the major sticking points, the salary rollback and the revenue sharing, it really only has a big impact on the upper echelon group on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

Do you think its also possible that those free agents and their agents knew that a tough cba negotiation was coming up and were maybe being disingenuous and exploitive trying to get contracts that they knew wouldn't be available afterwards?

---

Do I think they were being disingenuous? No, absolutely not. They were undoubtedly clear that they wanted the best contract they could. Were they being exploitive? Perhaps, but not in the way I meant regarding the owners' abuse of fans via ticket prices, concessions, and merchandise.

Quote:

---

I agree that many players individually aren't trying to be exploitive but I also think that many owners are the same and are just trying to make their teams slightly profitable or break even.

---

True enough. But some of the big markets are really cashing in on the fact that there is a cap to salary spending. Their profits are insane, and they are ALSO the places where ticket prices are highest. Pure exploitation.

Quote:

---

The problem on both sides (players and owners) comes from the compromise that has to be made between the bigger, more powerful exploitive side and the lower end. The owners that are raking in money don't want to do as much as they probably should in revenue sharing. Meanwhile the players who are going to be affected the most by a salary rollback are the ones who have been exploitive in getting their contracts. The salary rollback will have little to no impact on the 'infantry of the league' just like revenue sharing between teams will have basically no negative impact on the small market teams.

---

Lockouts do though, and hardball tactics only prolong the lockouts.

Quote:

---

In short, the compromise the union has made amongst themselves to get to their position as a group is where it becomes exploitive and the compromise the owners come to as a group for their position becomes exploitive. I hope that made sense.

---

Not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

To expand on my previous post each group, both owners and players, have their own version of the 1%'s (although in the NHL that group makes up a higher %, more like 25%). And these 1% or 25%'s are getting their points in with the rest. Look at the major sticking points, the salary rollback and the revenue sharing, it really only has a big impact on the upper echelon group on both sides.

---

Well, when you are on the low end any cut can hurt even more. In other words, your sense is that you are already underpaid (relatively speaking here obviously) and you will fight even harder for a "fair" deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

Do I think they were being disingenuous? No, absolutely not. They were undoubtedly clear that they wanted the best contract they could. Were they being exploitive? Perhaps, but not in the way I meant regarding the owners' abuse of fans via ticket prices, concessions, and merchandise.

---

So because the players abuse of the fans has a middleman (the owners) its not the same? The majority of the money from those things goes to the players. By demanding that they get a full share of something like concessions the players are abusing the fans like crazy. Say a business can make a profit off selling a beer at $4.50 well since the players get 57% of it you now have to price that beer at $10 just to make the same profit off that beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

True enough. But some of the big markets are really cashing in on the fact that there is a cap to salary spending. Their profits are insane, and they are ALSO the places where ticket prices are highest. Pure exploitation.

---

Yeah, thats pretty much what I said. The top end clubs exploit just like the top end players exploit their position. The top players make millions and millions a year in sponsorship money. This is money they make 100% because of the name they have made in the NHL and because of being promoted by the league. Maybe some of that money should be used as revenue sharing with other players like they expect these owners to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

Lockouts do though, and hardball tactics only prolong the lockouts.

---

Its hardball tactics by both sides that have led to and prolonged the lockout. Those hardball tactics are based on dug in positions on issues that are virtually 100% top end player concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

Well, when you are on the low end any cut can hurt even more. In other words, your sense is that you are already underpaid (relatively speaking here obviously) and you will fight even harder for a "fair" deal.

---

I'm sure the low end players are being sold on how much these cuts could hurt them and is why they are fighting for a 'fair' deal. What I am sure they are not being sold, or even told, by their union reps and agents is that like the NBA's recent deal the low end players had basically no loss in salary. Minimum salaries won't go down, rookie deals won't go down, and other low end wages will either not go down or will go down a significantly lower % then the rest. How hard do you think the low end players would be fighting if they were told the truth which is that they likely won't take any cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

I'm sure the low end players are being sold on how much these cuts could hurt them and is why they are fighting for a 'fair' deal. What I am sure they are not being sold, or even told, by their union reps and agents is that like the NBA's recent deal the low end players had basically no loss in salary. Minimum salaries won't go down, rookie deals won't go down, and other low end wages will either not go down or will go down a significantly lower % then the rest. How hard do you think the low end players would be fighting if they were told the truth which is that they likely won't take any cut.

---

I've been in a lockout situation and believe me I didn't side with management, even though I was just this side of management. I was also on the high side of the pay scale of those locked out and I know that they were very concerned about every penny, every benefit, and every bit of contract leverage the may or may not lose. They generally felt underpaid and financially/contractually insecure and management's lockout position was seen as a very strong threat to them. Even if they heard that the cut would be small, they still knew they were relatively underpaid and without the security they felt they should have. As their "boss" I saw what it was like for employees to be locked out and they saw the entire thing as a threat to their families. I think it's very comparable to the foot soldiers of the NHL, the guys who go up and down between the minors, ride the buses, come in for a game or two to crash the net, or smash someone's teeth. They know that their time in the NHL could come and go in a flash and they want to make a few bucks when they can. So you're not going to get any sympathy from them trying to tell them that they're "likely" not going to take a cut. They know there are no guarantees and they have learned (because of the hardline *** hole approach he takes) to totally distrust Gary Bettman. It's sad but true; he has alienated the employees that work for the NHL to such a degree that they can barely contain their disrespect. It's gotten that bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Goal

Im an old man whose patience has reached its end. 3 stoppages during
Betmanns reign is enough. They have no respect for the fans whats so ever.
They pay lip service, the the operating philosophy is screw the fans .
The fans are the third corner of their triad but we can take them for granted.
I for one will boycott them for the balance of whats left of any season.
Skrew um!!!:mad:

---

Today Icalled Rogers[co-owners] and cancelled 2 levels of tv packages
including the leaf channel . I told them to call me back when they have
acted in the fans interests.
Selling that channel right now is fraudulent.They close the league
down but continue to charge for the main part of the stations programming.
Still:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

I've been in a lockout situation and believe me I didn't side with management, even though I was just this side of management. I was also on the high side of the pay scale of those locked out and I know that they were very concerned about every penny, every benefit, and every bit of contract leverage the may or may not lose. They generally felt underpaid and financially/contractually insecure and management's lockout position was seen as a very strong threat to them. Even if they heard that the cut would be small, they still knew they were relatively underpaid and without the security they felt they should have. As their "boss" I saw what it was like for employees to be locked out and they saw the entire thing as a threat to their families. I think it's very comparable to the foot soldiers of the NHL, the guys who go up and down between the minors, ride the buses, come in for a game or two to crash the net, or smash someone's teeth. They know that their time in the NHL could come and go in a flash and they want to make a few bucks when they can. So you're not going to get any sympathy from them trying to tell them that they're "likely" not going to take a cut. They know there are no guarantees and they have learned (because of the hardline *** hole approach he takes) to totally distrust Gary Bettman. It's sad but true; he has alienated the employees that work for the NHL to such a degree that they can barely contain their disrespect. It's gotten that bad.

---

I too have been in a lockout and a strike situation and believe me I didn't side with the union or management. Neither one was working in the best interest of the employees. I have not been saying the owners are right just that the union and the players have a lot more responsibility then most people are willing to admit. Unions and management in North America are adversarial instead of working together. They both go for a win and the result is usually a loss for the majority of workers and the consumer.

Refusing to negotiate during last season was the first hardline ******* move made in these negotiations and that wasn't made by ownership it was by the union. That set the tone for how this is going and I'm sure if you go back further there was a move by the owners that provoked the union, and before that the union provoked the owners, etc., etc. It's sort of like Isreal/Palestine, they continuously provoke each other for decades. Then when they sit down and talk all they can do is argue about who provoked who first (which really means nothing when it comes to solving the problem).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

I too have been in a lockout and a strike situation and believe me I didn't side with the union or management. Neither one was working in the best interest of the employees. I have not been saying the owners are right just that the union and the players have a lot more responsibility then most people are willing to admit. Unions and management in North America are adversarial instead of working together. They both go for a win and the result is usually a loss for the majority of workers and the consumer.

Refusing to negotiate during last season was the first hardline ******* move made in these negotiations and that wasn't made by ownership it was by the union. That set the tone for how this is going and I'm sure if you go back further there was a move by the owners that provoked the union, and before that the union provoked the owners, etc., etc. It's sort of like Israel/Palestine, they continuously provoke each other for decades. Then when they sit down and talk all they can do is argue about who provoked who first (which really means nothing when it comes to solving the problem).

---

Good analogy. Not in terms of seriousness obviously, but in terms of bad blood going back a long way. In fact you can probably trace the bad blood way back before Ziegler and Eagleson to Ted Lindsay in 1957. He faced a lot of crap. I know all management and union situations are similar as you say, but IMO the bad blood between NHL and NHLPA is worse than most. That's why I keep alluding to the fact that being a huge ******** is the stupidest, least effective way to go for Bettman.

OK if the league and the union have such a bad history, then they need a new approach. They need to ditch The Bettman and get someone else in who will take a different approach.

Or maybe the NHL and the other pro leagues are really just a generation away from killing themselves from enough self-inflicted gun wounds. It's just getting stupid.

You and I and everyone else seriously must have better things to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

Good analogy. Not in terms of seriousness obviously, but in terms of bad blood going back a long way. In fact you can probably trace the bad blood way back before Ziegler and Eagleson to Ted Lindsay in 1957. He faced a lot of crap. I know all management and union situations are similar as you say, but IMO the bad blood between NHL and NHLPA is worse than most. That's why I keep alluding to the fact that being a huge ******** is the stupidest, least effective way to go for Bettman.

OK if the league and the union have such a bad history, then they need a new approach. They need to ditch The Bettman and get someone else in who will take a different approach.

Or maybe the NHL and the other pro leagues are really just a generation away from killing themselves from enough self-inflicted gun wounds. It's just getting stupid.

You and I and everyone else seriously must have better things to do.

---

I have no problem with Bettman being shown the door. Problem is thats just one side, something serious has to be done on the other side aswell. Its not just the NHL that has to take a different approach its the players and the union that have to take a different approach also. And thats going to be virtually impossible with the power and influence that agents have on the game, they have 10 times the negative impact on the game that Bettman does.

Agents have the same impact on the NHL and the players that stockholders have on corporations. The original intentions of what they provide is a good and useful idea but power is then given to people who have no other interest then consistent growth and financial gain. They then use that power to influence who they can to get that with no real responsibility.

I just want to watch a dam hockey game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bramaca

I have no problem with Bettman being shown the door. Problem is thats just one side, something serious has to be done on the other side aswell. Its not just the NHL that has to take a different approach its the players and the union that have to take a different approach also. And thats going to be virtually impossible with the power and influence that agents have on the game, they have 10 times the negative impact on the game that Bettman does.

Agents have the same impact on the NHL and the players that stockholders have on corporations. The original intentions of what they provide is a good and useful idea but power is then given to people who have no other interest then consistent growth and financial gain. They then use that power to influence who they can to get that with no real responsibility.

---

I agree that agents are the catalyst for a lot of negative **** in pro sport. They push for higher salaries and find loopholes that they end up tearing apart and exploiting. When you were talking about exploiting earlier, I was thinking that it was agents who you were really talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ink

I agree that agents are the catalyst for a lot of negative **** in pro sport. They push for higher salaries and find loopholes that they end up tearing apart and exploiting. When you were talking about exploiting earlier, I was thinking that it was agents who you were really talking about.

---

Agents are a major catalyst and they want to cater to their top clients so they push an agenda with the all the players and the union that has more benefits for the top earners. Ofcourse they sell it to the rest of the players as good for everyone, the top earners sell the same agenda because its better for them and the media pays more attention to them then the infantry players, the union sells it because there is more weight behind the agents and top earners words then the low income earners.

Remove the agents influence and you remove a major catalyst. There are still huge problems with how unions are run that would have to be addressed also because even without the influence of agents unions often take the interest of a few over the many.