Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Donald Fehr the best thing to end NHL Lock-outs? Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2012 :  04:19:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

All right. Nobody is making personal attack and handshakes made here is a article that relates to this topic

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/11/24/nhl-lockout-donald-fehr-has-avoided-the-mistakes-of-former-nhlpa-head-bob-goodenow/

In the Article it relates the differences between former head Bob Goodenow and Fehr and why Fehr's position is stronger with his membership. I don't know if the title of this topic fits Fehr's ability to end lockouts as he may be the reason it has extended. I don't know if a weaker head would have caved and hockey would be played and the players would have lost more. As far as ending future lockouts Fehr might be the man for the job. If at the end of this lockout the players feel no matter what they lose that it was worth the effort and Fehr is the man for the job, I dont see future negotiations with Fehr at the head being taken so lightly by the League.



Well, let's be clear here . . . if the lockout had already ended and the players were playing, they would have lost LESS than they are going to.

Any opinion to the contrary, by all means, please state your case and go through the specific reasonings, would love to hear it.

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

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 11/26/2012 :  11:46:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The lost income from not playing this season on trade for a better split in the future. Who knows how that will balance itself out. I do believe if Fehr and the PA get a deal which is a better split from there prospective than the last owner offer, a few missed paychecks might be worth the effort. I dont think the league will propose a lockout without putting a reasonable deal in front of the players next time. The power of a Union used to be the ability to strike. Now it seems the Owners strike first. Its got to be harmful for bothsides if this labour dispute is going to stop from happening every CBA.

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

All right. Nobody is making personal attack and handshakes made here is a article that relates to this topic

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/11/24/nhl-lockout-donald-fehr-has-avoided-the-mistakes-of-former-nhlpa-head-bob-goodenow/

In the Article it relates the differences between former head Bob Goodenow and Fehr and why Fehr's position is stronger with his membership. I don't know if the title of this topic fits Fehr's ability to end lockouts as he may be the reason it has extended. I don't know if a weaker head would have caved and hockey would be played and the players would have lost more. As far as ending future lockouts Fehr might be the man for the job. If at the end of this lockout the players feel no matter what they lose that it was worth the effort and Fehr is the man for the job, I dont see future negotiations with Fehr at the head being taken so lightly by the League.



Well, let's be clear here . . . if the lockout had already ended and the players were playing, they would have lost LESS than they are going to.

Any opinion to the contrary, by all means, please state your case and go through the specific reasonings, would love to hear it.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2012 :  05:37:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
JOSHUACANADA:
quote:
The lost income from not playing this season on trade for a better split in the future. Who knows how that will balance itself out. I do believe if Fehr and the PA get a deal which is a better split from there prospective than the last owner offer, a few missed paychecks might be worth the effort.


But that POTENTIALLY better split in the future (which is a pipe dream, they are basically fighting to keep anything resembling status quo) will never hope to cover what they have already lost.

That POTENTIALLY better split will never recover a half year or full year of their career, and especially for the older, star players, this really matters.

And, lastly, that POTENTIALLY better split might become - BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF THE LOCKOUT - a better plit of LESS REVENUES, which in terms at the very best scenario might keep them at the same amount of revenue for the players.

From everything I can see and judge . . . the absolute dream, best case scenario has the players losing a bit of money overall and half a season from their NHL career - that is, if the lockout ends now and they play half a season.

Worst case . . . even with half a season played . . . they lose a bunch of money (half a season's worth, plus a loss in revenues); have to take less money next contract; and have to fight for jobs as contraction happens.



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

Maverick9
Top Prospect



Canada
16 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2012 :  11:18:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

JOSHUACANADA:
quote:
The lost income from not playing this season on trade for a better split in the future. Who knows how that will balance itself out. I do believe if Fehr and the PA get a deal which is a better split from there prospective than the last owner offer, a few missed paychecks might be worth the effort.


But that POTENTIALLY better split in the future (which is a pipe dream, they are basically fighting to keep anything resembling status quo) will never hope to cover what they have already lost.

That POTENTIALLY better split will never recover a half year or full year of their career, and especially for the older, star players, this really matters.

And, lastly, that POTENTIALLY better split might become - BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF THE LOCKOUT - a better plit of LESS REVENUES, which in terms at the very best scenario might keep them at the same amount of revenue for the players.

From everything I can see and judge . . . the absolute dream, best case scenario has the players losing a bit of money overall and half a season from their NHL career - that is, if the lockout ends now and they play half a season.

Worst case . . . even with half a season played . . . they lose a bunch of money (half a season's worth, plus a loss in revenues); have to take less money next contract; and have to fight for jobs as contraction happens.



"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



The Way I see it, the players are not so much fighting for the split anymore. They have pretty much conceded that they have to go to 50/50 in order to be in line with all the other top level sports leagues in North America.

The sticking points in the negotiations now are the make whole provision, and contract rights.

For the make whole provision, I feel the players have very good reason to fight for this issue. Up until a few days before the old CBA expired, teams were doling out massive extensions and new contracts to players knowing full well that they would not actually have to pay them that much money in the long run if the new CBA negotiations went their way. That is not bargaining in good faith, that is a sneaky way to manipulate players into locking into long term contracts at less than face value. It's a matter of integrity and bargaining in good faith, which did not happen this summer at all. To me, the player's make whole provisions should be honoured, but the slimeball owners aren't willing to budge on this issue.

The contract rights are a bit of a lesser issue, but still a sticking point nonetheless. The players feel they have already conceded so much by going to a 50/50 revenue split, they don't want to give up the rights they bargained so hard for in the last lockout. To some, increasing free agency eligibility from 7 to 8 years may not seem like much, but if you combine it with no arbitration rights, the players are really in line to lose a lot of money in their prime production years. A lot of players are reaching their performance peaks a lot earlier in their careers now, and they won't be able to cash in for what they are worth until later in their careers.

So to Slozo, and to JOSHUACANADA, the money lost in the lockout isn't as important to the players as is the owners integrity and their own contractual rights.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2012 :  13:02:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You know I kept saying split in revenue's but what I meant was a small victory in some way by the players. I get that these negotiations seem so tied to income that we have focussed on them.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 11/28/2012 :  05:41:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
The Way I see it, the players are not so much fighting for the split anymore. They have pretty much conceded that they have to go to 50/50 in order to be in line with all the other top level sports leagues in North America.

The sticking points in the negotiations now are the make whole provision, and contract rights.

For the make whole provision, I feel the players have very good reason to fight for this issue. Up until a few days before the old CBA expired, teams were doling out massive extensions and new contracts to players knowing full well that they would not actually have to pay them that much money in the long run if the new CBA negotiations went their way. That is not bargaining in good faith, that is a sneaky way to manipulate players into locking into long term contracts at less than face value. It's a matter of integrity and bargaining in good faith, which did not happen this summer at all. To me, the player's make whole provisions should be honoured, but the slimeball owners aren't willing to budge on this issue.

The contract rights are a bit of a lesser issue, but still a sticking point nonetheless. The players feel they have already conceded so much by going to a 50/50 revenue split, they don't want to give up the rights they bargained so hard for in the last lockout. To some, increasing free agency eligibility from 7 to 8 years may not seem like much, but if you combine it with no arbitration rights, the players are really in line to lose a lot of money in their prime production years. A lot of players are reaching their performance peaks a lot earlier in their careers now, and they won't be able to cash in for what they are worth until later in their careers.

So to Slozo, and to JOSHUACANADA, the money lost in the lockout isn't as important to the players as is the owners integrity and their own contractual rights.



You had me until the last closing lines . . . you honestly think that these moral bastions of the community, these millionaire star hockey players, are not bowing to demands by telling their reps that "we are holding out to keep owner integrity accountable!" ?!? I really don't think so.

Listen, they've been sold a lemon here. The player union reps have successfully convinced the players that it's worth it from a financial point of view, but it's based on a total lie. I honestly hope no one believes their public reason (good for the game, it's for the generation of hockey players to come, etc) because from my experience, that'd be a crock of s***e.

Being a hockey player does not mean one has any good sense of numbers, simple arithmetic or accounting, and they have been told outright lies in the past (see:1994) and the same thing is happening again.

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

Maverick9
Top Prospect



Canada
16 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2012 :  11:59:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

You had me until the last closing lines . . . you honestly think that these moral bastions of the community, these millionaire star hockey players, are not bowing to demands by telling their reps that "we are holding out to keep owner integrity accountable!" ?!? I really don't think so.

Listen, they've been sold a lemon here. The player union reps have successfully convinced the players that it's worth it from a financial point of view, but it's based on a total lie. I honestly hope no one believes their public reason (good for the game, it's for the generation of hockey players to come, etc) because from my experience, that'd be a crock of s***e.

Being a hockey player does not mean one has any good sense of numbers, simple arithmetic or accounting, and they have been told outright lies in the past (see:1994) and the same thing is happening again.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



You're right slozo, the last sentence was quite poor and didn't sum up a strong argument very well. I agree with you that the players motives for the lockout are not primarily morality. Obviously they are concerned about their money and feel they are not responsible for this lockout which is why they are asking the owners to compensate them for their lost paychecks.

However, an underlying motive of the players has to be to show the owners that they don't appreciate being manipulated and tricked into contracts like all the free agents were this summer. The players are making a stand, trying to prove they can't be pushed around like the owners used to do. How they do this is by dragging their feet on contractual rights, liability for the lockout and revenue split. Since they already conceded the revenue split they are fighting extra hard for whatever they have left, and won't give it up just because they are losing a few paychecks. The players know that if the NHL gets everything they want in this CBA they won't re-negotiate a new one for another 10 years. If they get hosed in this one, they're screwed for the long haul.


Aside: Regarding the forum title; Donald Fehr is NOT the best union head if the players wanted to end the lockout quickly. However, he is the best union man if the players want to deter owners from future lockouts. Considering the players wants, I would have to say he is the best man for the job from their point of view. But from a fan's viewpoint, he is definitely not the solution to our problems in the short run.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 11/29/2012 :  14:59:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Let's not paint all the owners with the same brush. For all the 'garbage' contracts over the summer that people continously bring up, we are talking lesabout maybe 10 contracts. Maybe.There are only a handful of owners involved in those deals. Most of the owners did not participate in those dirty, long term and huge money deals with the massive dive in the final years.

Parise, Suter, and Weber are clearly examples of the crap. But let's not paint the entire league with the brush.

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

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 11/30/2012 :  05:57:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick9

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

You had me until the last closing lines . . . you honestly think that these moral bastions of the community, these millionaire star hockey players, are not bowing to demands by telling their reps that "we are holding out to keep owner integrity accountable!" ?!? I really don't think so.

Listen, they've been sold a lemon here. The player union reps have successfully convinced the players that it's worth it from a financial point of view, but it's based on a total lie. I honestly hope no one believes their public reason (good for the game, it's for the generation of hockey players to come, etc) because from my experience, that'd be a crock of s***e.

Being a hockey player does not mean one has any good sense of numbers, simple arithmetic or accounting, and they have been told outright lies in the past (see:1994) and the same thing is happening again.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



You're right slozo, the last sentence was quite poor and didn't sum up a strong argument very well. I agree with you that the players motives for the lockout are not primarily morality. Obviously they are concerned about their money and feel they are not responsible for this lockout which is why they are asking the owners to compensate them for their lost paychecks.

However, an underlying motive of the players has to be to show the owners that they don't appreciate being manipulated and tricked into contracts like all the free agents were this summer. The players are making a stand, trying to prove they can't be pushed around like the owners used to do. How they do this is by dragging their feet on contractual rights, liability for the lockout and revenue split. Since they already conceded the revenue split they are fighting extra hard for whatever they have left, and won't give it up just because they are losing a few paychecks. The players know that if the NHL gets everything they want in this CBA they won't re-negotiate a new one for another 10 years. If they get hosed in this one, they're screwed for the long haul.


Aside: Regarding the forum title; Donald Fehr is NOT the best union head if the players wanted to end the lockout quickly. However, he is the best union man if the players want to deter owners from future lockouts. Considering the players wants, I would have to say he is the best man for the job from their point of view. But from a fan's viewpoint, he is definitely not the solution to our problems in the short run.



But to your point on getting "hosed" . . .

THERE IS NO WAY THE PLAYERS CAN GET HOSED!!!!

They already have one of the sweetest deals for professional sports. Compared to the big 4 in North America, and considering that the NHL is 4th by a fair bit in total revenue . . . they really have the sweetest deal, I'd say.

So, are they going to be a bit miffed that instead of a super sweet deal, they get a very good deal, just not as sweet? Sure they will be.

But there is no way anyone is getting hosed. Not even in anyone's wildest dreams is some working class athlete millionaire getting guaranteed money taking anything close to a hit in taking SLIGHTLY less money.

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

Maverick9
Top Prospect



Canada
16 Posts

Posted - 12/02/2012 :  01:07:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
THERE IS NO WAY THE PLAYERS CAN GET HOSED!!!!

They already have one of the sweetest deals for professional sports. Compared to the big 4 in North America, and considering that the NHL is 4th by a fair bit in total revenue . . . they really have the sweetest deal, I'd say.

So, are they going to be a bit miffed that instead of a super sweet deal, they get a very good deal, just not as sweet? Sure they will be.

But there is no way anyone is getting hosed. Not even in anyone's wildest dreams is some working class athlete millionaire getting guaranteed money taking anything close to a hit in taking SLIGHTLY less money.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug


How can they not get hosed? Having their contracts capped at 5 or 6 years would be considered a massive loss and concession by the players. Losing arbitration would have the same effect. Increasing years of service required for free agency would also be a negative outcome in this negotiation. Just because the players 50/50 revenue split is in line with the other leagues it doesn't mean they can't get hosed on the other issues.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2012 :  03:32:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick9

quote:
Originally posted by slozo
THERE IS NO WAY THE PLAYERS CAN GET HOSED!!!!

They already have one of the sweetest deals for professional sports. Compared to the big 4 in North America, and considering that the NHL is 4th by a fair bit in total revenue . . . they really have the sweetest deal, I'd say.

So, are they going to be a bit miffed that instead of a super sweet deal, they get a very good deal, just not as sweet? Sure they will be.

But there is no way anyone is getting hosed. Not even in anyone's wildest dreams is some working class athlete millionaire getting guaranteed money taking anything close to a hit in taking SLIGHTLY less money.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug


How can they not get hosed? Having their contracts capped at 5 or 6 years would be considered a massive loss and concession by the players. Losing arbitration would have the same effect. Increasing years of service required for free agency would also be a negative outcome in this negotiation. Just because the players 50/50 revenue split is in line with the other leagues it doesn't mean they can't get hosed on the other issues.



I'll repeat myself then,

THE PLAYERS CANNOT GET HOSED, BECAUSE EVEN THE VERY WORST DEAL THEY SETTLE FOR IS A FANTASTIC DEAL.

Everything else is a totally redundant selfishness looking at what they are losing, and not seeing the forest for the trees.

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

Maverick9
Top Prospect



Canada
16 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2012 :  21:21:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I'll repeat myself then,

THE PLAYERS CANNOT GET HOSED, BECAUSE EVEN THE VERY WORST DEAL THEY SETTLE FOR IS A FANTASTIC DEAL.

Everything else is a totally redundant selfishness looking at what they are losing, and not seeing the forest for the trees.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



Well slozo, we seem to be at an impasse. Our arguments have both been stated and I can't see either of us suddenly changing our opinions on this issue. I think it's time to concede we just don't agree and move on. Great debate, your points helped me see some flaws in my theories and I hope some of my points got you thinking as well. I look forward to us butting heads again soon. (we're bound to, right? :P)
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2012 :  03:34:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick9

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I'll repeat myself then,

THE PLAYERS CANNOT GET HOSED, BECAUSE EVEN THE VERY WORST DEAL THEY SETTLE FOR IS A FANTASTIC DEAL.

Everything else is a totally redundant selfishness looking at what they are losing, and not seeing the forest for the trees.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



Well slozo, we seem to be at an impasse. Our arguments have both been stated and I can't see either of us suddenly changing our opinions on this issue. I think it's time to concede we just don't agree and move on. Great debate, your points helped me see some flaws in my theories and I hope some of my points got you thinking as well. I look forward to us butting heads again soon. (we're bound to, right? :P)



Honsetly, I think the main issue between us is that you ar conflating (mixing up) terms.

Would the players be making a concession? Yes, most certainly.

Would they be getting HOSED? No, never.

Getting hosed means that you are getting a BAD DEAL - you are getting sprayed with whatever vile substance you can imagine.

But as I pointed out . . . there is no bad dal here, from a perspective of any outsider looking in. It's not the CFL where those athletes often train just as hard, work just as hard athletically, and get a tiny fraction of what NHLers make - and they often work other jobs in the off-season from a NEED standpoint. No, this is a millionaires league.

If I am making an outrageous salary, and instead of getting my yearly bonus and raise they put on a wage freeze and cut the bonus in half due to tougher times (or even if the owners just want to make more money) . . . it wouldn't be a hosing.

It would be a simple case of getting less cream off the top.

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

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2012 :  19:11:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I understand why you are using one league and player group to justify another group. Why dont you change the CFL scenerio to NFL players and salaries. Why did you use a second tier regional league like the CFL. Its like using AHL players for comparision. Tell me one AHL player who would not jump on an NHL contract for more money. That is why they play in the AHL. Same with CFL players, tell me if the majority of the players wouldnt jump ship right now if the NFL expanded by 8 teams and could immediately offer NFL money. These are the best players the sport of North America Hockey has to offer, not a bunch of players who should be happy at all to make it to this level. This does not mean I dont agree with your point that the NHL players should be happy with a deal at 50/50, eventually.

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

quote:
Originally posted by Maverick9

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

I'll repeat myself then,

THE PLAYERS CANNOT GET HOSED, BECAUSE EVEN THE VERY WORST DEAL THEY SETTLE FOR IS A FANTASTIC DEAL.

Everything else is a totally redundant selfishness looking at what they are losing, and not seeing the forest for the trees.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



Well slozo, we seem to be at an impasse. Our arguments have both been stated and I can't see either of us suddenly changing our opinions on this issue. I think it's time to concede we just don't agree and move on. Great debate, your points helped me see some flaws in my theories and I hope some of my points got you thinking as well. I look forward to us butting heads again soon. (we're bound to, right? :P)



Honsetly, I think the main issue between us is that you ar conflating (mixing up) terms.

Would the players be making a concession? Yes, most certainly.

Would they be getting HOSED? No, never.

Getting hosed means that you are getting a BAD DEAL - you are getting sprayed with whatever vile substance you can imagine.

But as I pointed out . . . there is no bad dal here, from a perspective of any outsider looking in. It's not the CFL where those athletes often train just as hard, work just as hard athletically, and get a tiny fraction of what NHLers make - and they often work other jobs in the off-season from a NEED standpoint. No, this is a millionaires league.

If I am making an outrageous salary, and instead of getting my yearly bonus and raise they put on a wage freeze and cut the bonus in half due to tougher times (or even if the owners just want to make more money) . . . it wouldn't be a hosing.

It would be a simple case of getting less cream off the top.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug


Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 12/04/2012 19:13:13
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2012 :  19:40:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok Joshua, let's look at the NFL. What about a shorter career on average? What about a higher likelihood of long term negative impacts from playing the game ( concussions)? what about a lower average salary, and most importantly, what about no guaranteed contracts?

By the way, the players get less than 50% of revenues in the richest league in North America.

Sorry, but Slozo is right. If the players signed up for every one of the owners proposals they still have the sweetest of any of the NA sports CBA's.

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

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  05:56:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans already answered what I was going to about the NFL. And obviously, JOSHUACANADA once again missed my point in my mention of the CFL.

Hey, some people get it, and some don't.

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

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  08:39:05  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Beans already answered what I was going to about the NFL. And obviously, JOSHUACANADA once again missed my point in my mention of the CFL.

Hey, some people get it, and some don't.


The owners will compete each other for the talent and the players will reap the rewards because the owners can't help themselves. They'll find other ways to circumvent the CBA's intent.

But this doesn't mean that the players just sign whatever agreement is there. Isn't that the power of the collective is to make sure it is not to accept whatever? Beans indicated he was a union member, did you just sign whatever or did negotiate not to give up what you fought long and hard to keep before?

Those pro-owner posters say the players should just give up. Why won't the owners give up and sign the players proposal? Aren't they losing more money than the players? What is $200M among 30 billionaires considering they are losing about this amount per month?

I don't think either side is right. But to say to one side to give up and sign what they don't believe is fair is ignorant. Why didn't the players sign that initial offer at 43%HRR? Why didn't the owners sign the players initial offer that de-links HRR? Because neither side thinks it is fair and the other side can do better.

They're close, $200M close. Soon enough you can go back paying a whack load of money to watch some athletic adults chase a little black object around the ice.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  09:15:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was a union member and no, I did not sign just any old piece of garbage that was front of me. But, when a reasonable offer was made or the company stood firm with the best offer then I had a choice to make. I chose reasonability every time. That is why I think the players should sign.

I also think the players should sign because they are still getting a fantastic deal. The age old adage of you can shear a sheep a thousand times but skin it only once does apply here. Everyone and their dog talks about the 'concessions' the players made in 2004 but no one talks about the reality that the league's revenues increased, the players shares increased, and the game is was stronger after the 2004 deal. The problem is the owners did not reap the benefits that literally everyone else did. Players got richer, agents go richer, fans got great hockey, and the owners had their pockets emptied.

I laugh every time people make these outlandish statements about the owners losing more than the players. The owners shared in $300 million in profits in 2011 where the players shared in $1.8 billion in profits. So as you talk about owners and players losing money, the owner (collectively) lose about $1 for every $6 the players are losing. There is likely a bit more the owners are losing based on other operating costs of operating a team but at the very worst, most can agree that is no worse than $2 the owners lose for every $6 the players lose.

Also, who cares if they are billionaires? Why should the owners have to ultimately pay you to be a hockey fan? If they are losing money that is exactly what is happening. The owner doesn't have to be ridiculous in their greed (like the players are being) but they need to see a reasonable amount of money in their wallet at the end of the day. Just like people talk about the players being everything to the owners and the reason the NHL makes money, take the owners away and you have no NHL.

You can't have one without the other.

It's not about the players 'giving up' as much as it's about finding a deal that FAIR and REASONABLE for both sides. It can be said, regardless of whose side you are on, that neither side can compromise on anything. I doubt that anyone will argue that the original 43% offer from the owners was a joke. The owners have worked their way down to 50%. The player, on the other hand, stated they are at 50/50 but with the make whole provision they are closer to 44/56.

The owners have come up 7% from their original offer. The players have come down 1% from where they started. Need I say more????


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

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  10:27:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To my point of disagreement with your arguement about the CFL, its a few steps higher than a beer league. I do understand your point of CFL players playing more for the love of the game than for the money, but I will bet my yearly salary that the cream of the crop would jump ship in a moment to an NFL contract. Hell at one point I tried out for the Stamps and my cousin plays for the Stamps currently. Anybody with size, football knowledge and some foot speed has a shot in the CFL. Its like the minor league's for a real career in the NFL. I do agree that a football player has a higher risk of after effects of playing the game and a higher likelyhood of a shortened career, but to my knowledge football players play less games a year, with a higher average salary in the NFL.

To the second point of no guaranteed contracts in football, this in my opinion is something that should be adopted by the NHL. Maybe not this round of negotiations, but hopefully in the future.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  11:01:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Without digressing too much football players might play fewer games but their year round physical committment to their craft is very similar to hockey.

Furthermore, how many games could an NHLer play if every single play ended in a hit? Although not the popular answer on this site but from a physicality standpoint, football is just as hard hitting as hockey but there are exponentially more hits in a football game than hockey. It's a tougher sport to play physically.

Finally, and more relevant. NFL players are the lowest average money makers of the 4 major sports based on annual salary. Ironic as the NFL is the richest of all leagues. Here is a reasonably recent article discussing the salaries of each major sport.

For those who do not not want to read the article, the average salaries by league are(in brackets is average/game):

NBA - $5.15 million ($62,800/game)
MLB - $3.31 million ($20,400/game)
NHL - $2.40 million ($29,300/game)
NFL - $1.90 million ($118,750/game)


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863


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

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  11:29:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have to disagree with the physicality dynamics of the 2 sports as there is no real comparison. One sport has to worry about a 100mph puck, a swinging weapon, boards, running in partitions, goalposts, regular fist fights, plays that can last several minutes at a time and collisions in excess of 50mph. The other sport has to deal with constant physical blows from play to play, but at a much slower speed and shorter play times usually less than 30 seconds a play. There are more roster players and 3rd string/practice only players in the NFL drawing minimal paychecks which also schew the average salary.

I will end these points because this has little to do with whether Fehr is the right man to negotiate the end to the lockout.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  11:45:44  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

For those who do not not want to read the article, the average salaries by league are(in brackets is average/game):

NBA - $5.15 million ($62,800/game)
MLB - $3.31 million ($20,400/game)
NHL - $2.40 million ($29,300/game)
NFL - $1.90 million ($118,750/game)


Can't compare NHL with NFL. There are 50+ roster spots in a NFL team. They only play 16 games. You can't compare average salary to NBA either, the roster is only 12 players. MLB is pretty similar in roster size but they play 160+ games (non pitchers).
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  12:03:05  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I laugh every time people make these outlandish statements about the owners losing more than the players. The owners shared in $300 million in profits in 2011 where the players shared in $1.8 billion in profits. So as you talk about owners and players losing money, the owner (collectively) lose about $1 for every $6 the players are losing. There is likely a bit more the owners are losing based on other operating costs of operating a team but at the very worst, most can agree that is no worse than $2 the owners lose for every $6 the players lose.


As the other guest posted you are comparing the players revenue of $1.8B with the owners profit $300M. Start by comparing revenue to revenue.

Assuming a $3.3B Hockey related revenue.

Players revenue: $1.8B
Owners revenue: $1.5B

Players profit/loss: revenue - expenses = ??; this is not public knowledge. You assume it is the same as the revenue but it isn't.
Owners profit/loss: revenue - expenses = $300M

Players profit/loss assuming they are making money overseas and able to reduce their expenses could be minimal. We just don't know.

Owners have no revenue or very little revenue and with some team expenses which they can't reduce (to the same extent as the individual players).

Can you now see that the owners and players are losing about the same revenue and also net losses?
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  12:10:11  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
Can't compare NHL with NFL. There are 50+ roster spots in a NFL team. They only play 16 games. You can't compare average salary to NBA either, the roster is only 12 players. MLB is pretty similar in roster size but they play 160+ games (non pitchers).


Sorry I guess you can if you average out per roster spots per game.

If you did this, the NBA and NHL is quite similar. They play the same amount of games. But NHL has double the roster or there about.

NBA and MLB would be similar as well but higher than NHL and NBA by a little.
Go to Top of Page

Maverick9
Top Prospect



Canada
16 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  17:43:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans and slozo: Why does it always have to be what other leagues are getting? In my opinion, the revenue split should be inclusive of all the leagues. But the split is NOT the issue as it has already been settled at 50/50. As I said before, they need to work out the make whole provision and the contract issues which is a whole other can of worms.

The owners negotiating system is BROKEN. They expect to take everything from the players and not give anything back. They aren't negotiating, they're dictating.

I'll use the NFL lockout to argue my side. The players bargained for and got; increases in minimum salaries, an increase in the salary cap floor, a pension plan for retired players, increased off days during the season and increased roster sizes. Since both of you seem to think the NHL and its players should be getting in line with other leagues I assume that would include the NFL correct? I don't see the NHL offering ANYTHING to the players to justify the amount of concessions they want when you compare it to what the NFL owners gave up.

And I know what you both will say: "The NFL is a $9 billion dollar industry, the NHL is only a $3 billion dollar industry, they can afford to do this." Well I say that's BS. The NFL has put itself in markets where their game will sell. Ever wonder why there is only 1-2 NFL games in all of Canada each year? Hint: it's because football doesn't sell well enough in Canada! How are the players responsible for sad-sack franchises in Phoenix, Columbus, and Carolina. ESPECIALLY when economists have stated Canada could support up to 9 NHL franchises.

So, to sum up this long and meandering argument, THE NHL IS NOT LIKE OTHER LEAGUES. It tries to act like all the other leagues when its convenient for them but then whenever franchise placement or other league decisions come up they call themselves a unique situation and make the players take the fall. Everybody arguing the NHL needs to be in line with other leagues needs to include both the players and the leagues sides of their CBA`s if you try and make this argument. It`s a give and take. The players getting 50% of revenues instead of the originally proposed 43% is not a compromise by the owners! both sides met in the middle on that specific issue and that is what its gonna take to iron out the rest of the issues in this lockout.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  03:35:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I laugh every time people make these outlandish statements about the owners losing more than the players. The owners shared in $300 million in profits in 2011 where the players shared in $1.8 billion in profits. So as you talk about owners and players losing money, the owner (collectively) lose about $1 for every $6 the players are losing. There is likely a bit more the owners are losing based on other operating costs of operating a team but at the very worst, most can agree that is no worse than $2 the owners lose for every $6 the players lose.


As the other guest posted you are comparing the players revenue of $1.8B with the owners profit $300M. Start by comparing revenue to revenue.

Assuming a $3.3B Hockey related revenue.

Players revenue: $1.8B
Owners revenue: $1.5B

Players profit/loss: revenue - expenses = ??; this is not public knowledge. You assume it is the same as the revenue but it isn't.
Owners profit/loss: revenue - expenses = $300M

Players profit/loss assuming they are making money overseas and able to reduce their expenses could be minimal. We just don't know.

Owners have no revenue or very little revenue and with some team expenses which they can't reduce (to the same extent as the individual players).

Can you now see that the owners and players are losing about the same revenue and also net losses?



And are you going to continue to ignore that the players will NEVER get back the time lost to their careers, and the money lost because of this lockout?

And are you going to continue to ignore that the owners, for the most part, would RECOVER those net losses?



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

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  04:34:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick9

Beans and slozo: Why does it always have to be what other leagues are getting? In my opinion, the revenue split should be inclusive of all the leagues. But the split is NOT the issue as it has already been settled at 50/50. As I said before, they need to work out the make whole provision and the contract issues which is a whole other can of worms.



Why? Because those other leagues are used as a barometer. No one is an island, my friend . . . and one business model often uses similar business models as examples to draw from and compare to. It's the way the world works.

We simply compared to other leagues, in order to show how good a deal the NHL players have - that's all, nothing more, nothing less. And all the other extraneous arguments about how much this party is losing and what percentage of give the other side is giving . . . is all meaningless (other than from a negotiation standpoint). It's a lot of blah blah, IMHO.

The players have a great deal. By continuing to negotiate in a work stoppage, they are losing money and time they will never get back.



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

Maverick9
Top Prospect



Canada
16 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  11:12:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

Why? Because those other leagues are used as a barometer. No one is an island, my friend . . . and one business model often uses similar business models as examples to draw from and compare to. It's the way the world works.

We simply compared to other leagues, in order to show how good a deal the NHL players have - that's all, nothing more, nothing less. And all the other extraneous arguments about how much this party is losing and what percentage of give the other side is giving . . . is all meaningless (other than from a negotiation standpoint). It's a lot of blah blah, IMHO.

The players have a great deal. By continuing to negotiate in a work stoppage, they are losing money and time they will never get back.



"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



Let me clarify for you slozo, the players HAD a great deal. The demands the owners were making at the beginning of the CBA talks were simply ludicrous.

BUT, the new offer made to the players by the owners is an excellent offer. They have come in and compromised on the make-whole, splitting the difference between them, they left free agency eligibility at 7 years and kept arbitration. Those are some good "gives" by the owners. What they get out of this proposal is contract length caps and a 10 year CBA (not sure why the owners want this).

I see this proposal as an excellent step forward in the negotiations and if the players can't find some way to strike a deal off this one I will not be supporting their cause any longer.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  11:53:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Maverick, before you start called the offer "ludicrous" you do have to look at the relevant leagues that have signed CBA's in the past few seasons. Like it or not, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, and the NHL all play in the same sandbox. All have rich teams and poor teams. All have markets that are amazing and all have markets that are struggling. They are the comparison.

That said, the MLB owners spend 30% of their revenues on players, the NFL spend 47%, and the NBA spends 49%.

The initial offer by the owners at 43% is low, but not at all 'ludicrous,' when looking at the other kids in the sandbox. Anyone with any kind of negotiation experience will tell you the initial offer is usually far away from your final offer and is always in your favour. If the owners would have offered 50% at the start the players would have expected a compromise.


I agree the offer as the media is presenting it today sounds good. The comment I heard is the players at the table don’t like the contract rules (5 yr max-7yr max for resigning FA, and the 5% variance year to year) but the players not at the table are saying they would go for it. The owners stepping up and meeting ½ way on the make whole is also progress. This is another situation of the owners coming closer to the players. I would really like to see the PA take this latest offer to their member and see what the vote is. Even if the vote is to deny it, both sides would have a better idea of how far apart things actually are.

The owners looking for a 10 yr. deal (option out for either side after 8 yrs.) indicates to the fans they are serious about this not happening again. The players, from media reports, do not like the 10 yr deal.


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

Maverick9
Top Prospect



Canada
16 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  12:19:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks for the clarification Beans! I still can't understand why the players would be opposed to the term length on this new agreement. It would make it at least another 8 years before something like this could happen again!

Another thing i'm not fully understanding is the length cap. Is it only applying to new contracts, or will it reduce existing ones too?

I see the 7 year option for re-signing with their old teams actually benifitting the owners more than it does the players. It opens the door for future sign and trade moves similar to the NBA. It will allow teams with UFAs to recoup their losses in a way if a sign and trade can be pulled off. But don't get me wrong, the players will benefit too by occasionally getting a 7 year contract (which is really the longest anyone should be signed for anyways). Besides, how many players in the league deserve a contract for longer than 7 years that don't already have one? The length cap looks to be beneficial for both sides and it shouldn't deter the players from making a deal here

Unfortunately, TSN's Aaron Ward is reporting it doesn't look like the players will be putting this proposal to a vote, which is a real shame because I have a feeling most of the players will find this deal to be favourable for them.

Edited by - Maverick9 on 12/06/2012 12:22:41
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3586 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  13:19:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick9

Thanks for the clarification Beans! I still can't understand why the players would be opposed to the term length on this new agreement. It would make it at least another 8 years before something like this could happen again!

Another thing i'm not fully understanding is the length cap. Is it only applying to new contracts, or will it reduce existing ones too?

I see the 7 year option for re-signing with their old teams actually benifitting the owners more than it does the players. It opens the door for future sign and trade moves similar to the NBA. It will allow teams with UFAs to recoup their losses in a way if a sign and trade can be pulled off. But don't get me wrong, the players will benefit too by occasionally getting a 7 year contract (which is really the longest anyone should be signed for anyways). Besides, how many players in the league deserve a contract for longer than 7 years that don't already have one? The length cap looks to be beneficial for both sides and it shouldn't deter the players from making a deal here

Unfortunately, TSN's Aaron Ward is reporting it doesn't look like the players will be putting this proposal to a vote, which is a real shame because I have a feeling most of the players will find this deal to be favourable for them.



I find it ironic that the players want to keep long contracts in the CBA, but are unwilling to themselves sign a long-term CBA contract. Go figure.

I like a 10 year CBA as well, it just gives a longer period before all of this can happen again. And capping player contracts at 5 years is good, although its fully understandable why the players don't want that - every player dreams of the ability to get a Weber/Suter/Parise-like contract at some point in their career.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  13:31:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I would be liking the 10 year term length if I was a player, the owners in 10 year could be in the same position they are today. Look at 7-8 years ago when the owners needed the economics to be fixed. Both sides signed a deal which was thought to be good enough to fix the economic dynamics for low income teams and heavily swayed in the owners favour. 7-8 years later, some teams were in worse positions than before and the players felt they gave enough consession last time, and were not willing to make it easy this time holding out long enough to do damage to the game. I hope 5 years down the road with how the economics can change in the NHL, we are not back in a similar position.

I predict a quick completion to the CBA negotiations and a late december start to the regular season with 55-60 games crammed in.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  14:43:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think the 10 yrs. is a good idea one two fronts. Firstly, it shows the fans that both the owners and players understand the true losers in these labour disputes and both are committed to the game.

Secondly, it means if someone goes south the owners have to deal with it themselves. I have all along that there need to be a fundamental change to the NHL in regards to the BOG and who actually runs the league. As long as the owners continue to try to beat the system the system will continue to break. There has to be repercussions to maverick owners who are going again the spirit of the agreement.


That said 50/50 is the starting point they had to get to before the focus could turn to the owner issues.


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

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3586 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  15:47:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I would be liking the 10 year term length if I was a player, the owners in 10 year could be in the same position they are today. Look at 7-8 years ago when the owners needed the economics to be fixed. Both sides signed a deal which was thought to be good enough to fix the economic dynamics for low income teams and heavily swayed in the owners favour. 7-8 years later, some teams were in worse positions than before and the players felt they gave enough consession last time, and were not willing to make it easy this time holding out long enough to do damage to the game. I hope 5 years down the road with how the economics can change in the NHL, we are not back in a similar position.

I predict a quick completion to the CBA negotiations and a late december start to the regular season with 55-60 games crammed in.



From what I heard, the 10 year deal had an opt-out clause after 6 years, or something to that effect.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  15:56:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
8 year opt out clause was what I heard but not a lot of information leaked. I thought the information blackout to be a good thing, as players and owners seem to have stopped throwing salt in each others eyes. Think they are starting to realize this has to happen soon.

On the subject of Fehr being the right man to end this, it was interesting that today was both the first day in 3 that Bettman and Fehr rejoined the discussion and it lasted 1 hour. They should have kept the owners in the room. These 2 fatheads are screwing this up.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3586 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  21:24:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
On the subject of Fehr being the right man to end this, it was interesting that today was both the first day in 3 that Bettman and Fehr rejoined the discussion and it lasted 1 hour. They should have kept the owners in the room. These 2 fatheads are screwing this up.



According to an article on sportsnet:

"When the players suggested Wednesday night that they wanted Donald Fehr to rejoin the negotiations Thursday, the NHL informed them that his inclusion could be a ''deal-breaker.''"

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-owners-players-meet-3rd-085644819--nhl.html

That is some pretty strong language - it is quite clear that the owners do not like dealing with Fehr... It sounds like his continued involvement is only serving to prolong this lockout!
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  22:54:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was catching up on twitter tonight and a post talked about the 'depth players' wanting to play but the big money guys are still in the Fehr camp. The comment said if Fehr wasn't involved this deal would have been signed weeks ago. Another post stated Fehr tried to rally the troops again tonight and told the players to hold on and the deal will get better. Apparently the feeling was not as united as before.


The biggest concern is that owners left once Fehr got involved and Bettman showed the most passion in his last press conference. Bettman's comments about the make whole provisions as is was presented being off the table is telling.


The last 24 hrs tells me that Fehr may be the worst guy for getting a deal done.

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

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  09:18:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok so i was wondering as a fan how serious the owners and the players were at ending this lockout. I wonder how much of this last ditch effort was more to embarras one side or the other. By proposing to take the head out of the negotiation what was the goal. I think this was a clear smear tactic by the NHL to undermine Fehr. I think his hardball tactics have struck a nerve and the NHL thinks they can work a better deal with Fehr no longer the man in charge. Its not like the BOG and Bettman havent tried this tactic before. Here is an article which supports my opinion.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/sorry+game+takes+another+downward+turn/7663879/story.html
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  10:31:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't see how that article supports that opinion at all Joshua. What I read was an incredibly unbiased comment that looked at pro's and con's in both strategies. I don't think the NHL is trying to smear Fehr at all?? I think they put another offer down reaching further across the table to the players and the players taking the offer and pulling their hands further to their own side of the table.

The NHL is drawing a line in the sand and the players keep stepping back from that line. Eventually the NHL will stop re-drawing that line. The players have to take a step forward and it has to be meaningful. That is the issue in my opinion.

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

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  11:07:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here is the except from the article which IMO supports the points I made.

The owners left behind their counter-offer, which Bettman said required a simple “yes or no, not a negotiation session.” Fehr tried to negotiate off it Thursday and the league hit the roof.

And immediately, the conspiracy theories began.

Was all that sudden bonhomie from the owners’ side on Tuesday — the meeting suggested by Bettman between six hand-picked owners on one side and as many players as the union wished to send on the other — an elaborate setup?

Were Bettman’s “moderates” — Pittsburgh’s Ron Burkle, Winnipeg’s Mark Chipman, Toronto’s Larry Tanenbaum and Tampa’s Jeff Vinik — really the NHL’s Trojan horse, sent in to catch the players off-guard and get them stampeding toward a resolution? All the while knowing that as soon as Fehr was back in the room, he’d sniff out the ruse and throw up a roadblock, and make himself an easy scapegoat for the inevitable recriminations that would follow the next breakdown?

Is it too much to have a horse and a goat in the same paragraph?

On the other side, could the whack-a-mole game Fehr’s been playing with the union’s ever-moving target be happening because — though he must have known from the start that he was playing a losing hand — he’s worried about what his own legacy might be, if he’s unable to stem the tide of givebacks to the owners?

Could the players, 18 strong, have been so naive as to think that there wasn’t something just a little fishy, a little orchestrated, about the sudden thaw from the owners’ side? Were they really surprised when Jeremy Jacobs and Co. revealed the iron fist inside the velvet glove once it got down to specifics?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page