Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Afternoon Line

From where the owners are sitting, the deal the players are offering comes cloaked in the spirit of compromise but has some very sharp teeth.

Gary Bettman will cry “wolf,” and he will be right.

-Michael Grange of Sportsnet where you can read more about yesterday’s NHLPA offer.

Filed in: NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Evilpens's avatar

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUTTMAN IS SATAN !! He made the Wings shit the bed in Pgh. in game 6 & at home in Game 7 !!!

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 03:05 PM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

So uh…a few other posters on here (some Wings fans, some not) disagree with your stance on Fehr and Bettman, so now you’re going to troll?

Come on man,  you’re better than this.

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 08/15/12 at 03:20 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

No it’s the Wings fans whop constantly refer to Bettman as Buttman & &  he was the reason Geno didn’t get a Game Misconduct for fight Datsyuk

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 03:29 PM ET

NIVO's avatar

One things for sure, CBA’s need to be longer than 3-4 years. The league cannot sustain a damn thing with a veiled threat of a stoppage every couple of years.

Posted by NIVO from underpants gnome village on 08/15/12 at 03:31 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Great point that I had glossed over NFL signed a 10 year agreement, Also if the previous agreement was SOOOOO terrible for the NHLPA as Larry Brooks & other NHLPA hacks said it was why would they want to play another year under it as they offered ?

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 03:41 PM ET

Avatar

I assume the players would agree to play another year under that “terrible” previous agreement as opposed to not playing at all.

Posted by Valek from Chicago on 08/15/12 at 03:53 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

No it’s the Wings fans whop constantly refer to Bettman as Buttman & &  he was the reason Geno didn’t get a Game Misconduct for fight Datsyuk

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 01:29 PM ET

No.  In fact, I haven’t seen a Wings fan bring that up on here in A LONG time.  However, you just did.  And why did you do it?  To veil the fact that you are bouncing from thread to thread raging about Fehr and baseball and whining that no one will listen to you despite your refusal to even ATTEMPT to provide any basis for your statements.

Try again, this time without rages, rants, and strawman BS.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 08/15/12 at 03:53 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUTTMAN IS SATAN !! He made the Wings shit the bed in Pgh. in game 6 & at home in Game 7 !!!

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 01:05 PM ET

This really has nothing to do with that. This time around, if you want what is strictly best for the Wings, you’d probably be on the side of the argument that supports a salary rollback with no revenue sharing changes and more years of team control over players.

Strictly thinking as a Wings fan, I’d love to see Ken Holland and company have young talents on relatively affordable contracts until they turn 28 years old.

As a Wings fan, I’d much rather have salaries rolled back than revenue sharing dramatically increased/changed, as I do get tired of seeing money go to watch a competitor of the last few seasons in Phoenix sign free agents and make moves at the trade deadline, taking away what should be a rightfully earned competitive advantage my club has due to their success running hockey ops.

As a Wings fan, I’d love to keep revenue sharing weak so that the league-wide growth the game has seen can stay with the 6 or 8 clubs at the top, so that in a couple seasons we can be right back in position to spend more than most of the league if we so choose because we can afford to spend to the cap. I’d also love to see the poor sisters continue to be forced to spend to an absurd salary floor so that if Ken Holland makes a bad signing, he’ll know he can find a sucker to dump the contract on.

I’m on the side of the players (and in a dream world, a luxury tax with significant revenue sharing) because I think it is the best combination of fairness between the players and owners, and the long-term health of the game.

Also if the previous agreement was SOOOOO terrible for the NHLPA as Larry Brooks & other NHLPA hacks said it was why would they want to play another year under it as they offered ?

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 01:41 PM ET

They would want to play under it because there are varying degrees of good and bad. It isn’t black and white. Compared to the pre-lockout system, the current system is financially restrictive to the players, simply because it caps what they can earn. Period. Add into that the other difficulties that entails, like escrow, and it is worse than what they had before.

Compared to what the owners want to move to today, the current system is better for the players, simply because it gives them better free agency rights, more opportunities to earn money (like arbitration), and a larger share of the pie. This isn’t rocket science.

Better does not mean best, worse does not mean worst.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 08/15/12 at 03:59 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Yep it has SURE hurt Shea Weber, Zach Parise & Ryan Suter

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 04:04 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Also if the previous agreement was SOOOOO terrible for the NHLPA as Larry Brooks & other NHLPA hacks said it was why would they want to play another year under it as they offered ?

Probably because Larry Brooks and other NHLPA hacks aren’t saying the previous agreement was SOOOOO terrible for the NHLPA that they wouldn’t want to continue playing under it.

Unless you can actually find me a link that says otherwise?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/12 at 04:05 PM ET

BrendonR's avatar

No it’s the Wings fans whop constantly refer to Bettman as Buttman & &  he was the reason Geno didn’t get a Game Misconduct for fight Datsyuk

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 01:29 PM ET

So I guess all the fans who boo Bettman whenever he presents the Cup outside of Detroit must all secretly be Wings fans.

And just for good measure I’ll throw this in here:  No suspension for Weber’s head smash?!?!? smile

Posted by BrendonR on 08/15/12 at 04:07 PM ET

Avatar

cheese What a great counter-offer by Fehr with the players specific ideas concerning $$ being used as a constructive tool with-in the formula; that, the players themselves are offering up.Concrete financial ways/means to accomplish a meaningful contract that both sides work together for the benefit of the game and the fans, who contribute to make the salaries that can afford players who bring TRUE Professionalism to every NHL game played. I just hope Bettman understands the intent of the players proposal is best for all involved. Hockey is a Great Sport” Lets Start” the season on time with a contract ; that gets the job done!!!,  smirk  blank stare

Posted by rayzredwing on 08/15/12 at 04:12 PM ET

Avatar

quick fact check (approx.)  # 1:smaller players share next 3 years 2% then 4% 3rd year 6%# 2 Owners will get $ 450 million more revenue pie and closer to 800 million if league revenue is up 9.3% or greater, 3rd Salary Cap remains in place, 4th Raise current players share for bottom 10 teams to $ 250 million from current $ 200 millionand 5th players share-of league revenue sharing reverts back to current 57% in 4th year of Contract….......I say again Great reply on Fehrs Part to Bettmans original offer.Lets support both sides so us fans ENJOY the Great Game That the NHL provides for us!!! snake  snake

Posted by rayzredwing on 08/15/12 at 04:25 PM ET

Alan's avatar

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 01:05 PM ET

I read this entire statement in the voice of Gollum. That’s actually the best laugh I’ve had in a while.

Also if the previous agreement was SOOOOO terrible for the NHLPA as Larry Brooks & other NHLPA hacks said it was why would they want to play another year under it as they offered ?

Probably because it’s better for everyone involved if the players play. Small market teams may lose less money if they lock the doors, but the stronger or big market teams stand to lose a whole lot more if a lockout takes place. It’s preferential from a monetary standpoint to have the season start on-time, because it’s not just the players who lose money when they’re not playing.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 08/15/12 at 04:36 PM ET

Avatar

quick fact check (approx.)  # 1:smaller players share next 3 years 2% then 4% 3rd year 6%# 2 Owners will get $ 450 million more revenue pie closer to 800 million if league revenue is up 9.3% or greater, 3rd Salary Cap remains in place, 4th Raise current players share for bottom 10 teams to $ 250 million from current $ 200 million and 5th players legue revenue sharing reverts back to current 57% in 4th year of Contract….......I say again Great reply on Fehrs Part to Bettmans original offer.

Posted by rayzredwing on 08/15/12 at 04:50 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Looked like the NHL’s initial proposal had some very sharp teeth in it as well.  Should the players have cried wolf?  Would they have been right?

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 08/15/12 at 04:55 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Should the players have cried wolf?  Would they have been right?

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 08/15/12 at 02:55 PM ET

That depends, did the NHL ever purport that their proposal was this magnanimous “in everybody’s best interest” deal like the players’ proposal has been trumpeted as?

They’re both wolf proposals. Only one of them was pretending to be otherwise.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/12 at 05:07 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

Yep it has SURE hurt Shea Weber, Zach Parise & Ryan Suter

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 02:04 PM ET

Did I ever say it hurt them???

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 08/15/12 at 06:12 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

Yep it has SURE hurt Shea Weber, Zach Parise & Ryan Suter

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 02:04 PM ET

And again, just because it is clear you have problems with English…

“Hurt” is not necessarily binary. There are varying degrees. You can hurt someone a little bit, or you can hurt them a lot.

Also, you’re cherry picking examples that fit your worldview, instead of looking at the world as it is. It would be like me saying that the lockout and new CBA cost Derrian Hatcher all that money, therefore, it was bad for everyone, unequivocally. That’s a shitty argument that I’d never make.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 08/15/12 at 06:14 PM ET

Avatar

Grange is correct. Methinks all this optimism is misplaced. Year four of this agreement amounts to backdooring in the equivalent of an uncapped year into hockey CBAs. And this “exceeding the hard cap in some situations"and “disconnect cap number from revenue” business is an incredibly subtle attempt to put cracks in the foundation of a cap-system.

The offer’s done up to look like a big, juicy steak for the owners, but the cow was diseased and the meat marinaded in poison. My feeling is that Fehr’s proposal is a trojan horse with the long-term intention of abolishing the salary cap.

Appropriate response, I guess, when the Governors’ first offer was an unserious, unjust slap in the face.

But not really progress for those of us who’d like to watch hockey in the fall.

Posted by larry from pitt on 08/15/12 at 06:21 PM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

No it’s the Wings fans whop constantly refer to Bettman as Buttman & &  he was the reason Geno didn’t get a Game Misconduct for fight Datsyuk

Posted by Evilpens on 08/15/12 at 01:29 PM ET

Malkin never went after Datsyuk.  smile

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 08/15/12 at 08:51 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/12 at 03:07 PM ET

I don’t recall either of them saying “this is meant to f*ck the players in the ass.. or the owners”  subsequently I haven’t heard either say this is the best for everybody. 

They’ve both said they see the economics differently and value themselves differently.  In this case, being as it was completely the owners CBA after locking the players out in 04-05 and their ridiculous cap floor proportions to the cap ceiling and the driving up of players salaries by overpaying to meet those financial obligations in the spirit of competative parity, that at some point, the OWNERS should have to fix themselves, not take the money from the employees. 

If the NHL has been growing so rapidly and profit for large market clubs are bringing in record revenues, I have a hard time seeing why the players are being asked to reduce their share, THEN reduce the total of amount of what is considered sharable.. double f*ck right?  But we know it’s because the league needs to subsidize bad market teams.  In the NHL’s proposal the owners made NO effort to increasing their ability to collectively help themselves.  So why should the players help them out of their own pocket?  What’d I read yeserday, that the total amount of league shared revenue between top and bottom teams was like 12m????? seriously???  But the players should be happy to get raped in the butthole?

I think in context it’s EXTREMELY hard to side with the league at this point.. considering where the source of the problems are coming from.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 08/15/12 at 09:23 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 08/15/12 at 07:23 PM ET

I agree that the owner’s stance is the unreasonable one.  The point I was making was that you don’t cry wolf when what the owners did was angrily bare their teeth at the players and growl. We already know there’s a wolf there.

The players’ proposal seems the more sane one to me, but in the spirit of all of the “here, we’ve solved your problems for you in a way that works for us too”, there’s still a growling beast under that “we care about the WHOLE league and you don’t” exterior their proposal seems to show.

I lean towards the players because I don’t think what the owners did was attempt to fix those “fundamental economics” that Bettman crowed about, instead attempting to grab the amount that MIGHT make the lowest-earning clubs profitable while making the highest-earners have to give zero shits about whether or not that’s actually true.  In the end, I want hockey and if that doesn’t happen, fuch both sides (just fuch the owners more).

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/12 at 11:28 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Nhl always has the option to play under the last cba they won for a while until they can hammer out the new one.. but the league is done playing with that toy and want a new one or they wont play.

So if theres a lockout.. in my opinion.. its on the owners.  I think in the short and long term the most profitable proposal on the table is the one where you dont miss hockey as far as revenue goes.  So in my mind it appears the league are trying to bully the nhlpa by saying they wont play under the current cba

I want hockey too.. its like my religion.. gonna be a shit winter without it.  Anyone have links to SEL or KHL games?

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 08/16/12 at 01:16 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Nhl always has the option to play under the last cba they won for a while until they can hammer out the new one.. but the league is done playing with that toy and want a new one or they wont play.

If the NHLPA is willing to absolutely PROMISE they won’t strike before the playoffs, I’d be completely on-board this proposal, but you and I both know that “let’s just play while we work it out” is code for “why don’t you give us all the leverage so we can hold your balls to the fire when it REALLY matters to you?”

I think the lost revenue of games before Thanksgiving is negligible and that the league is willing to gamble that they’ll make up the difference by the season’s end.  Seems the players are going to call their bluff.  I hope it doesn’t happen because I want hockey.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/16/12 at 01:22 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

If the NHLPA is willing to absolutely PROMISE they won’t strike before the playoffs, I’d be completely on-board this proposal, but you and I both know that “let’s just play while we work it out” is code for “why don’t you give us all the leverage so we can hold your balls to the fire when it REALLY matters to you?”

I think the lost revenue of games before Thanksgiving is negligible and that the league is willing to gamble that they’ll make up the difference by the season’s end.  Seems the players are going to call their bluff.  I hope it doesn’t happen because I want hockey.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/15/12 at 11:22 PM ET

What incentive would the players have for doing that? Salaries are strong right now. Most owners have hockey teams as their play things, not as their primary source of income. The same reason the owners can comfortably shut down today is the same reason they could do it at any time. The same is not true of the players. Striking mid-season would also kill all the great PR work the PA has done under Fehr to rebuild their image. For a change, the PA has traction with the fans.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 08/16/12 at 10:36 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 08/16/12 at 08:36 AM ET

Why would the players continue the season until late and then strike to cancel the playoffs?

Because the entire dynamic of payment gets changed about that time. The players make just about all of their salaries (except bonuses) for the regular season and essentially play the playoffs for free.  Meanwhile, the teams raise ticket prices and are guaranteed higher attendance (if possible, depending on the team).

The playoffs is when the NHL’s earning potential goes into overdrive while the players’ is tapering off.  There is simply no better time for the threat of a strike to force the league into a deal.

If fan perception were more important than negotiating leverage, why haven’t the players already made the promise not to strike if they continue playing under the old CBA during negotiations?

The PR battle for the hearts & minds of the fans is a red herring. In the end, it doesn’t matter which side the fans take as long as they take a side. Since the argument is about how both sides will share the money that (directly and indirectly) comes from the fans, all they’re really interested in is making sure that fans actually come back… which they’ve shown they’ll do again and again.

What are you going to do if a lockout/strike ends and you’re left furious with the owners and not the players?  Are you going to mail checks directly to the NHLPA just to make sure none of your money goes to the league?  What about if you’re disgusted with the players but have been made to side with the owners thanks to a playoffs-canceling strike?  Go out and buy a million Little Caesar’s pizzas so Mike Ilitch gets money that the players don’t?

I think people are putting too much stock into which side is currently “winning” the PR battle. As long as there is a PR battle happening, both sides are winners.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 08/16/12 at 11:12 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image