Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 The NHL is in Lockout . . . for how long? Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2012 :  05:11:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Poll Question:
How long will the NHL lockout last?

Choices:

Full season played.
3/4 season played.
1/2 season played.
Season cancelled.
Season cancelled, and part of next one.
NHL folds and we start watching rugby.

(Anonymous Vote)

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3562 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2012 :  10:19:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Given how far apart both sides seem to be, at a very fundamental level, at this point I do not see hockey being played this year. The gulf that seems to exist has exceeded even my most pessimistic predictions. At least with the last lockout, both sides were talking within the boundaries of a similar NHL, and were talking at this time of the year. Neither of those cases appear to be true this time around.

If the NHL misses a whole season again, who knows what happens to the NHL itself...
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2012 :  10:29:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

Given how far apart both sides seem to be, at a very fundamental level, at this point I do not see hockey being played this year. The gulf that seems to exist has exceeded even my most pessimistic predictions. At least with the last lockout, both sides were talking within the boundaries of a similar NHL, and were talking at this time of the year. Neither of those cases appear to be true this time around.

If the NHL misses a whole season again, who knows what happens to the NHL itself...



I actually disagree with how far apart they are, and disagree with how that is being portrayed by the media, myself.

Last lockout, there was a HUGE fundamental difference - salary cap, vs no salary cap, and revenue sharing was a minor issue.

This time, it's ONLY about the percentage of revenue sharing, and how revenue is actually figured out and divvied up. And even with different criteria of how to decided what is included in revenue . . . the difference between 54ish percent and 47ish percent is not that much IMHO.

No, for me - last time was about the NHLPA leader standing his ground on the cap issue. We all know how that ended - he did stand his ground, the players eventually caved because they had way more to lose than the owners, and they ousted their leader and gave in to the cap (with the owners conceding some minor things).

This time, it's Fehr who wants to stand his ground on the revenue sharing percentage, coming from the standpoint of "we made big concessions before, and we're not going to lose more this time".

And as history always repeats itself, and as the players and owners position in the game have not changed . . . I expect the same result - the players will eventually cave in to the reality that is a short NHL career where their income is dictated by having to play! Whether it is prolonged by a stupidly stubborn leader like the last one remains to be seen, but . . . I think Fehr will be a bit smarter and make this end sooner than losing an entire season.

I hope. (gulp)

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

sahis34
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
573 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2012 :  10:47:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

Given how far apart both sides seem to be, at a very fundamental level, at this point I do not see hockey being played this year. The gulf that seems to exist has exceeded even my most pessimistic predictions. At least with the last lockout, both sides were talking within the boundaries of a similar NHL, and were talking at this time of the year. Neither of those cases appear to be true this time around.

If the NHL misses a whole season again, who knows what happens to the NHL itself...



Dude its about money, if the season is cancelled they both lose money; why would they.. no How could they, cancel the season!!!!?
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3562 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2012 :  11:57:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
Dude its about money, if the season is cancelled they both lose money; why would they.. no How could they, cancel the season!!!!?



To say this is about money is somewhat simplistic - specifically, its about money now, and more importantly, how money is decided and divided into the future.

The few offers from the NHLPA that I've seen lead me to believe that they want to define a new NHL, at least from a financial POV. Players and owners together share the burden of fixing losing teams short term, and then once "its all fixed" returning to the current revenue split. The owners don't buy it, in the least.

All NHLPA offers have the players returning to 57% at some point in the future. No NHL offer has players ever going above 50% again. That is a wide gulf - we haven't even gotten to other items that the CBA actually needs (limiting player contract length, increasing RFA time and EL deal times) to save owners from themselves. All of these things, AFAICT, are non-starters for the NHLPA as well.

As for everyone losing money... yes, the players lose money for sure. As for the owners, only about 10 of them will lose money if no hockey is played this season. The other 20 owners will actually benefit financially while the season is on hold. What kind of business do you have when an owner actually benefits from not running the business?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8153 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2012 :  14:29:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I actually like the theory of giving up more today to fix the issues and then returning to a reasonable level. I think both players and owners are actually aligned with this theory. The challenge is what is a 'reasonable level."

57% is unreasonably high
43% is unreasonably low.

Call it 50/50 already and stop wasting everyone's time.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3562 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2012 :  16:09:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

I actually like the theory of giving up more today to fix the issues and then returning to a reasonable level. I think both players and owners are actually aligned with this theory. The challenge is what is a 'reasonable level."

57% is unreasonably high
43% is unreasonably low.

Call it 50/50 already and stop wasting everyone's time.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!



I agree with 50/50, and hope that they can settle there. From what I hear, the NHLPA does not want to budge from 57 however, so to collapse to 50 would be a significant give-back from them.

However, I don't personally buy the "fixing the system", and I have little faith that the NHLPA plan can actually do that. How will temporarily giving up some money to prop up the money losing franchises fix the system long-term? Do people think that after a few years of giving them some money, that they'll be magically fixed and all franchises will be profitable going forward? I can see why the owners are skeptical of such an idea.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3562 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2012 :  08:41:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
slozo, I think you need another end of lockout result option: "within a week of NHL teams using replacement players"

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2012/09/18/20208211.html

Fear tactic, or a real option?
Go to Top of Page

sahis34
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
573 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2012 :  21:54:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:
Originally posted by sahis34
Dude its about money, if the season is cancelled they both lose money; why would they.. no How could they, cancel the season!!!!?



To say this is about money is somewhat simplistic - specifically, its about money now, and more importantly, how money is decided and divided into the future.

The few offers from the NHLPA that I've seen lead me to believe that they want to define a new NHL, at least from a financial POV. Players and owners together share the burden of fixing losing teams short term, and then once "its all fixed" returning to the current revenue split. The owners don't buy it, in the least.

All NHLPA offers have the players returning to 57% at some point in the future. No NHL offer has players ever going above 50% again. That is a wide gulf - we haven't even gotten to other items that the CBA actually needs (limiting player contract length, increasing RFA time and EL deal times) to save owners from themselves. All of these things, AFAICT, are non-starters for the NHLPA as well.

As for everyone losing money... yes, the players lose money for sure. As for the owners, only about 10 of them will lose money if no hockey is played this season. The other 20 owners will actually benefit financially while the season is on hold. What kind of business do you have when an owner actually benefits from not running the business?



look the owners dont pay the players but there are still other costs they pay even without games
Go to Top of Page

Guest4271
( )

Posted - 09/18/2012 :  22:38:12  Reply with Quote
It will stop before the winter classic.....too much money to lose here by both parties.

At this point, I'm tired of the horse crap. Both sides are being way to greedy, I think NO player should earn more then 8.7 million a season. Crosby is the best player by far, and if he is willing to play for this much then cut it off there. I know his reasons, are simply superstion but so be it.

END THE STUPIDITY AND PLAY HOCKEY
Go to Top of Page

Clatts
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
266 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2012 :  22:56:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4271

It will stop before the winter classic.....too much money to lose here by both parties.

At this point, I'm tired of the horse crap. Both sides are being way to greedy, I think NO player should earn more then 8.7 million a season. Crosby is the best player by far, and if he is willing to play for this much then cut it off there. I know his reasons, are simply superstion but so be it.

END THE STUPIDITY AND PLAY HOCKEY



Lol Crosby is not "the best player by far" and his salary shouldn't make a difference....he probably doesn't even notice it after all of the commercial money comes rollin in..

"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."
Don Cherry on Visors
Go to Top of Page

admin
Forum Admin



Canada
2145 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2012 :  14:53:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hey Slozo, couple minor modifications and popped this up on the home page. Nice poll. Thanks!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1854 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2012 :  10:24:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree with Clatts, (certain I wont repeat this soon), Crosby is not heads and tails above the rest. He is certainly the most marketable in North America.

I agree with the Guest 4271 that the winter classic will be played. My vote is for a half season. The players will cave on the return to 57% and the owners will adapt to a cap at or above 50% to get the game back on the ice and out of the boardroom.

I for one will not miss the preseason and look forward to young talent in the Juniors, Minors and other leagues showcasing the future players.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 09/26/2012 :  07:16:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Talks resuming Friday! But only on "non-core financial issues" supposedly . . . at any rate, any talking is good talking in my books.

Quite frankly though, I read into it as even more positive than perhaps the media lets on. To me, before the "core issue" of actual revenue percentage is negotiated . . . what may be looked at as "non-core" issues such as how to measure financial factors which make up total revenue streams is . . . pretty darn important to get done first! I mean, what else could they be talking about, right?

So I take it as a first step to get through the nitty-gritty details, so that both sides can finally start talking apples to apples.



"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 10/02/2012 :  05:12:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So am I the only one hopeful that any talking is good talking, and three or four straight days is a good thing?

Hey, it's dialogue, and frankly . . . they are way more amicable than in 2004, when I remember well how set each side was on what they wanted, and how unwilling they both were to talk.

I am sticking with my prediction, of either Dec hockey, earlyJan at the latest.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest5091
( )

Posted - 10/02/2012 :  06:29:12  Reply with Quote
You're quite optimistic... Your "at the latest" lines up with my "at the earliest". I wouldn't be surprised if the Winter Classic is the first game played.
Go to Top of Page

The_Gipper
Rookie



Canada
201 Posts

Posted - 10/02/2012 :  09:57:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
just saw on the TSN website that they met for a whopping two hours today. while over the weekend they discussed "non-core" issues, today they supposedly got back to talking about good 'ol HRR,. and just like before there was no progress made.

while i agree with Slozo that any talk is good talk, but what continues to frustrate me are these short two hours meeting like the one they had today. ok you're not making progress, we get that. but how do you expect to make any progress at all if you're only meeting for two freakin hours?!?!?
both sides continually express disapointment about having to cancel training camps and pre-season games (and soon to be regular season games), but neither side seem to be too eager to come to a resolution. i don't expect it to happen over night, but what i do expect are more meetings and LONGER meetings. two hour meetings only accomplish two things: 1) have lunch; and 2) agree to disagree. and i bet that's exactly what happened today.
Go to Top of Page

Go_Habs_Go
Rookie



157 Posts

Posted - 10/02/2012 :  12:26:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I just don't get how they are doing anything else than discussing. The present situation affects more than the hockey world, but also the restaurants/bars/employees/hotels, etc. Both the NHL and NHLPA should not sleep until they get an agreement, they are making fun of us fans and others who benefit the collateral dommage of this lock-out

"Bon point Jacques!" - Benoît Brunet
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3562 Posts

Posted - 10/02/2012 :  12:44:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by The_Gipper

while i agree with Slozo that any talk is good talk, but what continues to frustrate me are these short two hours meeting like the one they had today. ok you're not making progress, we get that. but how do you expect to make any progress at all if you're only meeting for two freakin hours?!?!?



this is generally what happens when you sit down to talk, but realize that there is very little (if anything) to actually talk about.

The two sides are apparently still very far apart, in terms of what a new NHL financial landscape looks like, how HRR is derived/calculated. No sense in sitting in a room together when you have no common ground and no roadmap to even get there.

Standing by my original prediction - the season will be lost. There is nothing going on now that would lead me to think otherwise, and IMO it will take a MAJOR capitulation from one side or the other to move things forward at all. We'll see who blinks first.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 10/09/2012 :  06:06:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I still stand by my prediction that the season will not be lost.

I think that in the end, the players will be made to realise that when a league has to shrink by two or three teams because of finances, and when player's short careers get even shorter in the big money league . . . that it's in their interest to make a deal and keep their beautiful set-up as relatively intact.

I mean, the player's have a SUPER sweet deal. Why jeapordise it all by seeing how negative the response will be after a second season-long hold-out?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2012 :  04:48:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
FYI

A little bird told me that a guy someone knows who is an equipment manager was told to start ordering new equipment pronto. As if there would need to be preparation for a season of hockey (shortened as that may be).

Take it for what it probably is - a wisp of a rumour. It's something though . . . I think?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8153 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2012 :  04:58:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There were 17 recommendations provided by the PA that the NHL has agreed to in principle exactly how they are. Bettman said they were not 'totally agreed to' but stated if the PA and NHL can get to the right place with the financials then these other issues will the taken as they are.

I'm thinking that if they were not getting at least closer on the $ then why even talk about anything else????

The season will start Jan 1. Book it

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

The_Gipper
Rookie



Canada
201 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2012 :  05:37:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
and yet another proposal rejected.
it appears to me that Bettman is going with the same philosophy he had back in '04-'05. on the core economic issue(s), he won't budge. not even just a little bit. it's either come down to where the NHL wants to be, or there is no deal.

Beans, you say Jan. 1st. did you mean in 2014? because that's what it looks like right now....
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 11/30/2012 :  05:42:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by The_Gipper

and yet another proposal rejected.
it appears to me that Bettman is going with the same philosophy he had back in '04-'05. on the core economic issue(s), he won't budge. not even just a little bit. it's either come down to where the NHL wants to be, or there is no deal.

Beans, you say Jan. 1st. did you mean in 2014? because that's what it looks like right now....



It's not even December yet, hold steady folks . . . things can happen very quickly once they start to get there.

I still say a half season will be played . . . the pressure will really start with the stark prospect of another lost season, and then a full-on player change of opinion will happen, I am sure of it.

Well, somewhat sure

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

umteman
PickupHockey Pro



USA
419 Posts

Posted - 01/06/2013 :  16:05:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
well it is tentative but it seems a deal is done - just when I had given up hope of there being hockey this season.

Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?"
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4515 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  04:51:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This is why you should always listen to slozo

Recently confirmed after the NHL sent a memo to clubs:
- no training camps before Saturday (I assume they mean Sat. Jan 12)
- 48 game season will begin January 19th

This thread is now done!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page