Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DuckNinja

Another Lockout?

Recommended Posts

8/9/12

Bettman: "players locked out if there's no deal by Sept. 15th"

The way the head of the NHLPA sounded it wont be good news.

here we go again..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pox on whoever it is that pulls the trigger on delaying or cancelling a season of hockey. I hope that nothing stands in the way of a 2012-2013 season, if it's cancelled, then I may in fact have already been to the last home game played by Teemu Selanne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the owners lockout the players again, all the momentum from the past few years for this sport will go down the drain. This past season was i think the best season in terms of revenue for the owners and players. IMO, the owners are just trying to put in contract term limits and all this BS, but they are giving skinner a 6 year deal worth however much plus jordan staal with his 10 years and 60 million, plus the parise and suter contracts. If the owners lockout on this issue they are not only hypocrites but serious a-holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the owners lockout the players again, all the momentum from the past few years for this sport will go down the drain. This past season was i think the best season in terms of revenue for the owners and players. IMO, the owners are just trying to put in contract term limits and all this BS, but they are giving skinner a 6 year deal worth however much plus jordan staal with his 10 years and 60 million, plus the parise and suter contracts. If the owners lockout on this issue they are not only hypocrites but serious a-holes.

Disagree here, big-time. The owners have a right to ask for almost anything they want, they make the NHL possible. If there's a lock-out it's because of greedy and self-entitled NHL'ers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree here, big-time. The owners have a right to ask for almost anything they want, they make the NHL possible. If there's a lock-out it's because of greedy and self-entitled NHL'ers.

I'm willing to support the owners on this one. Personally I will always support the worker or union. But when the worker is paid hundreds of thousands (league min) to millions and only work for 82 days of the year for 4 hours... That doesn't fly with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very mixed feelings about a lockout. I am a huge Duck fan and hockey fan in general. My house looks like the inside of a Ducks locker room and I went to Buffalo and Toronto last year just to see two hockey games and the Hall of Fame. That said, there are a couple of conflicts out there that need to be addressed. Not only is there an NHL Vs. players conflict on revenue but also a small market Owners vs. Large market owners conflict. Frankly if they BOTH don't get resolved as a Hockey fan and a Small market team fan I WANT a lockout. I do not want another bogus contract signed that has one purpose - circumvent the salary cap. It creates a huge discrepency between the big markets and the small markets and it is driving me crazy. Based on the last season seat conversation I had with Murray I think he feels the same way. What the Flyers did on the Weber contract was bogus and so was the Kovalchuk contract. Money is being paid to players as an example with Kovalchuk that will NEVER be accounted for on the cap. If you pay a player the money, it needs to go against the cap. It's that simple. You can't pay $12,000,000 and only have $6,000,000 go againt the cap and then eventually not be held accountable for the money paid that was over the cap hit. It hurts small market teams. I would rather lose games this season and get an agreement that gives the Ducks the same chance to succeed as the Rangers and the Flyers. Losing games is not my first choice, I can't wait to get to my seats as much as the next fan. But I want my Ducks to have the chance to compete on fair ground based on organizational competency.

My 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% with you on that jd2020.

What scares me is the possibility that we suffer another lockout, but they don't end up putting the level of salary/cap accountability the way we would hope. So we lose a season and the big market advantage is still in full swing on the other end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to support the owners on this one. Personally I will always support the worker or union. But when the worker is paid hundreds of thousands (league min) to millions and only work for 82 days of the year for 4 hours... That doesn't fly with me.

I would never come out and say I support all unions. That thought pattern means you only see half of any arguments. The economy is bad ..and has been that way for years. How can it be expected that players are hitting all time salaries........the correct pathway is coordinated negotiations. Another lock out could be a killer. I have no agenda at all on this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to support the owners on this one. Personally I will always support the worker or union. But when the worker is paid hundreds of thousands (league min) to millions and only work for 82 days of the year for 4 hours... That doesn't fly with me.

This is what I was trying to say, I hope I got that across. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never come out and say I support all unions. That thought pattern means you only see half of any arguments. The economy is bad ..and has been that way for years. How can it be expected that players are hitting all time salaries........the correct pathway is coordinated negotiations. Another lock out could be a killer. I have no agenda at all on this one

This is true. I don't dispute it. But I support labor indefinitely. I've been on the losing side of a labor dispute despite claims by the union bureaucracy claiming a win, it's not fun. The UFCW strike in southern California by the super markets.

That said I know the NHL players job is dangerous. They are injured all the time. But they have the finest doctors, guaranteed contracts and $500,000 in salary. Thats league minimum. Most make more. That's better than most everyone. One of the things that attracted me to the sport were the players not being prima-donna cry babies. That seems to be changing.

In the long run I recognize a lockout will be good. If the cap is fixed. Contract salaries and length. And overall cap circumvention. To level the playing field again for small market teams. But I will rage beyond comprehension if Selanne is denied his last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree here, big-time. The owners have a right to ask for almost anything they want, they make the NHL possible. If there's a lock-out it's because of greedy and self-entitled NHL'ers.

They are a-holes if they on one hand overpay for players and on the other hand whine and moan about the players making too much. Owners, if the players are making too much then stop <expletive> overpaying them you <expletive> <expletives>.

I'm on the side of owners who don't overpay players, and therefore have a right to ask that other owners don't overinflate player salaries. As to the folks who overpaid Wisniewski, Parise, Weber, Suter, and many others... lie in the bed you made you <expletive> morons.

The Samuelis are not in the willing to overpay camp, and there are plenty of posters that want them to start spending frivolously (see thread in this forum). Thank goodness they have not, they can be respected as responsible owners of a hockey franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true. I don't dispute it. But I support labor indefinitely. I've been on the losing side of a labor dispute despite claims by the union bureaucracy claiming a win, it's not fun. The UFCW strike in southern California by the super markets.

The problem I have with most unions, is that the union leadership typically turns into management as well. So if employees start off in conflict with management, union employees start off in conflict with two different management parties. Plus, union leaders are overpaid, and tend to put raising union due revenue ahead of looking after it's current union members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% with you on that jd2020.

What scares me is the possibility that we suffer another lockout, but they don't end up putting the level of salary/cap accountability the way we would hope. So we lose a season and the big market advantage is still in full swing on the other end of it.

AD27 - That is also my biggest fear. Great point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are a-holes if they on one hand overpay for players and on the other hand whine and moan about the players making too much. Owners, if the players are making too much then stop <expletive> overpaying them you <expletive> <expletives>.

I'm on the side of owners who don't overpay players, and therefore have a right to ask that other owners don't overinflate player salaries. As to the folks who overpaid Wisniewski, Parise, Weber, Suter, and many others... lie in the bed you made you <expletive> morons.

The Samuelis are not in the willing to overpay camp, and there are plenty of posters that want them to start spending frivolously (see thread in this forum). Thank goodness they have not, they can be respected as responsible owners of a hockey franchise.

This. Yes, it's ridiculous that players make so much money. But the blatant hypocrisy by owners is staggering. If you don't want guys getting 10 year contracts, then don't hand them out! There doesn't need to be any kind of ban on deals longer than X years. There needs to be a ban on stupid owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least they are talking now which is more than could be said a week ago. Why in the heck they wait until 5 weeks before training camp to have any meaningful talks is beyond me.

Players come back with their counter offer to the owners on Tuesday, so we'll see.

From all that I am hearing, the start of the season as scheduled does not seem very likely right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true. I don't dispute it. But I support labor indefinitely. I've been on the losing side of a labor dispute despite claims by the union bureaucracy claiming a win, it's not fun. The UFCW strike in southern California by the super markets.

That said I know the NHL players job is dangerous. They are injured all the time. But they have the finest doctors, guaranteed contracts and $500,000 in salary. Thats league minimum. Most make more. That's better than most everyone. One of the things that attracted me to the sport were the players not being prima-donna cry babies. That seems to be changing.

In the long run I recognize a lockout will be good. If the cap is fixed. Contract salaries and length. And overall cap circumvention. To level the playing field again for small market teams. But I will rage beyond comprehension if Selanne is denied his last year.

Most... probably all have contracts that pay off despite injury....most of us do not have that. I also agree that the hockey players of days not too long gone by, were not prima donnas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with most unions, is that the union leadership typically turns into management as well. So if employees start off in conflict with management, union employees start off in conflict with two different management parties. Plus, union leaders are overpaid, and tend to put raising union due revenue ahead of looking after it's current union members.

You hit that one flat on the head,, well said. I see that some owners in big market towns are forced, to some degree, to put together great teams. The fan base may demand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with most unions, is that the union leadership typically turns into management as well. So if employees start off in conflict with management, union employees start off in conflict with two different management parties. Plus, union leaders are overpaid, and tend to put raising union due revenue ahead of looking after it's current union members.

As a member of a union, I agree with this statement 100%. I've had my union dues raised, while my pay gets cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm split 50/50 on this. I want a lockout as long as it helps the league improve throughout making it fair for all markets in the NHL, but as an employee of the team store I can't afford a lockout due to financial obligations towards school textbooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with most unions, is that the union leadership typically turns into management as well. So if employees start off in conflict with management, union employees start off in conflict with two different management parties. Plus, union leaders are overpaid, and tend to put raising union due revenue ahead of looking after it's current union members.

I completely agree. Unions often spending more time fighting their own labor aristocracies then getting anything meaningful done. It's a huge problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a member of a union, I agree with this statement 100%. I've had my union dues raised, while my pay gets cut.

My father's been a union steward and has done physical labor for most of his life... I understand that employees need to work together to make sure that their employers are being fair with them. I hate though, when the union no longer is about the employees who are paying it dues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My father's been a union steward and has done physical labor for most of his life... I understand that employees need to work together to make sure that their employers are being fair with them. I hate though, when the union no longer is about the employees who are paying it dues.

RIGHT ON !! My wife has been a teacher for 37 years and has watched the union support all kinds of c**p policies as her union dues keep going up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If another lockout happens I wouldn't blame the owners, nor would I blame the NHLPA. Blame lawyers.

Ever since the professional leagues started using outside counsel for CBA negotiations about 20 years ago, we've gotten these drawn-out legal battles between huge law firms that result in cancelled and shortened seasons. New York firms have been screwing with the MLB forever, but you won't find any work stoppages in the NBA or NHL until the mid-90s, or in the NFL until the mid-80s, which is when they started using outside counsel. The last year has probably been the most ridiculous on record, with an NBA lockout that cancelled half the season, an NFL lockout that almost cancelled the season, and now another NHL dispute. And with the way that law schools and "biglaw" firms currently operate, it's only going to get worse in the future.

When big Manhattan firms take control of a labor dispute, the issues that actually led to the labor dispute get talked about for about a week and then disappear, never to be resolved. The NFL lockout had almost nothing to do with the original dispute over player safety/benefits or free agency guidelines. It turned into a huge slapfight between a "dream team" of 20 Latham & Watkins attorneys and a team of 20 Covington & Burling attorneys over a bunch of TV contracts. Searching for legal issues that the parties didn't originally dispute is the hallmark of biglaw legal work, and is usually spun by firms as "vigorously representing their client". Not to mention that the longer it takes to resolve a fake dispute, the more the firms get paid.

Some people will tell you otherwise, but the lawyers who work in those huge firms usually care about their clients more than they care about money. But they care about one thing more than both of those: beating the other Yale grads who work for the other big firm. The upcoming battle won't be between the NHL owners and the NHLPLA, it will be between a skyscraper on 49th Street and a skyscraper on 53rd street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made a mistake on that quote. It's "vigorously representing their client's interests," the unstated assumption being that the lawyers understand your interests better than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The battle is enjoined tomorrow. Once the players' proposal is officially submitted, everybody will realize that the lockout is inevitable.

Don't worry though, they'll be back before the holidays, because they don't want to cancel their cash cow Winter Classic.

They'll probably do what the NBA did, cut about 1/4-1/3 of the season, and play lots of back to backs or even back to back to backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The battle is enjoined tomorrow. Once the players' proposal is officially submitted, everybody will realize that the lockout is inevitable.

Don't worry though, they'll be back before the holidays, because they don't want to cancel their cash cow Winter Classic.

They'll probably do what the NBA did, cut about 1/4-1/3 of the season, and play lots of back to backs or even back to back to backs.

Only teams on the west coast who have to fly between their games will play back to back to back games. The northeast division, who can take a bus between most of their matches, will have two days off between each game of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to NHL players tweeting about the CBA talks

What Souray Has Already Tweeted

I hope that the league's veterans are able to lean on the NHL and NHLPA alike to make sure that the 2012-2013 season isn't affected. It's good to know that Souray is the polar opposite of Jeremy Roenick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...