SIGN IN or REGISTER
USERNAME or EMAIL
PASSWORD

FORGOT YOUR USERNAME OR PASSWORD?

Jump to content


Photo

When Will The Flames Hit The Ice Again?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

Poll: When Will The Flames Hit The Ice Again? (23 member(s) have cast votes)

Their first regular season game will be played:

  1. October (2 votes [8.70%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.70%

  2. November (5 votes [21.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.74%

  3. December (3 votes [13.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.04%

  4. January (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. February (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. March (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Not this season (6 votes [26.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

  8. Maybe next fall. (5 votes [21.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.74%

  9. Who Cares ??? (2 votes [8.70%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.70%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,876 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:12 PM

I think we are in for a long lockout. We will be lucky to get any hockey in and if we do it will be only a half season type schedule.

I can't vote but would vote middle of Jan earliest or next season. I don't hink they would bother with something like a 2 month season so figure March and likely Feb a poor choice.

#2 oldschool17

oldschool17

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:28 PM

I see it being November tbh. A cpl weeks of no pay cheques, for anyone and tv networks will pressure Bettman IMO and both sides will start conceding. This time more money is at stake for all parties than last time so it won't last.

#3 C_worthy

C_worthy

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,799 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:41 PM

a deal before US Thanksgiving and games by early December



#4 s4xon

s4xon

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:53 PM

I see it being November tbh. A cpl weeks of no pay cheques, for anyone and tv networks will pressure Bettman IMO and both sides will start conceding. This time more money is at stake for all parties than last time so it won't last.

I'll be longer than that with Mr. Fehr heading up the negotiations. The guy isn't necessarily known to be the one to cave in wheeling and dealing. The NHL wanted to start negotiations early, and Fehr waited till the summer, why would he be in a hurry now?

Betteman really has the upper leg on this one imo, and you are right, the players will feel the squeeze, more so than the owners. There is no reason for Betteman to move his position, a second time anyways. The NHLPA standing firm on 57% from an offered 46% was a mistake and it will come to bite them in the chicken tikka masala. As there are other related businesses to help keep the franchises afloat, the players won't be used to pinching pennies. A select few stars have endorsements to fall back on, but in my best guesstimate that's what, 2% of the league?

Betteman takes the brunt of Fan frustration, but I think it will be Fehr to say (see what I did there? You watching NHL.com?) that Donny will be feeling the pressure from the players, and they will be stuck with a golem of a negotiator.

#5 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,938 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 08:32 PM

As I've said in other columns, I expect a settlement before Oct. 11.

Seeing the names collecting paychecks in Europe while they have to rent ice to try to stay game ready PO the majority.
As in losing $5-10 thousand every game missed while a teammate is getting more than that per game in Europe. Yet they get paid when play resumes & have that extra from playing overseas.

As in Animal Farm, every animal is equal but some are more equal then others (not an exact quote, therefore no "). :)

#6 ifiwaschucknorris

ifiwaschucknorris

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:21 PM

I'm hoping for October but I fully expect it to be December. Fehr may be tougher but a large number of the NHLPA constituency already lost one years pay cheques and will not be eager to lose another year. I can't see this thing going more than Xmas break.

#7 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,202 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:29 PM

The NHL wanted to start negotiations early, and Fehr waited till the summer, why would he be in a hurry now?

As a fan, that's what i'm afraid of. The NHLPA is likely waiting for the NHL to announce a drop dead date for the season and will then attempt to push it to the brink. They won't get serious until the 11th hour.

That said, I'm hoping the NHL will deliver a pre-emptive strike and announce a fake drop dead date for the season around November 1st. But they won't, of course.

In other words, there will likely be no season this season.

#8 DL44

DL44

    DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK.....

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,847 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:28 PM

I voted October. I still contend players losing ~$100mil/week (3.5gms) makes zero economical sense for them going forward.
They aren't far enough apart to justify that much lost income (never to be recovered) for their hard line..

I think we'll see some waves tomorrow.(or at least a step or two towards conclusion)

Owners just have to come up a couple %pts in yrs 1 and 2 of the deal to minimize/eliminate any drop in players real dollars... and players have to back off of de-linkage.

The deal is right there to be had. This is Fehr's last stand to get as much as they can before the season's 1st game is lost.

That's why you see the huge PR push right now... It's open season for the players to lash out right now and scream the company lines... over n over..
Let me know if you've heard anything new that Mathieu Schneider states in this "new" story : http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405536
This is what they've got... that's their company line.

EDIT: Also keep in mind it's in everyone's best interest for the media to keep pumping Doom n Gloom stories about an unlikely season, layoffs, overseas signings etc... i think it helps the process and maximizes leverage to get a deal done faster than it would otherwise. For both sides.


I'll be longer than that with Mr. Fehr heading up the negotiations. The guy isn't necessarily known to be the one to cave in wheeling and dealing. The NHL wanted to start negotiations early, and Fehr waited till the summer, why would he be in a hurry now?


Fehr and the PA actually had a pretty logical reason for that (despite how frustrating it is for us as fans to hear)..
As we see throughout the negotiations, the PA has made it of paramount priority to involve as many players as possible to be as open and have as much information as possible shared throughout the process.
Well players weren't available during the season... the owners weren't available in the month of June... so July was where it had to begin.

Frustrating for us.. sure. But understandable, and consistent to their philosophy that they wanted to implement for this process to be a lot more positive for the PA than the last time around which resulted in in-fighting, coups, firings etc...

#9 cross16

cross16

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,180 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:31 PM

I don't think there wil be a very long lockout as I don't think the players are well positioned to go through one. Last go around they were prepared for the long whole and there were alot of conepts they were fighting for. Preparing players to miss a full season in support of no cap is a lot different in my mind than telling them miss a big part of the season over about 3-4% of total revenues. I think the wil be back playing hockey in October/November becuase once they face the posibility of missing a copule of cheques they'll look at it and really wonder if a small different like that is really worth missing a lot of time over. Still actually wouln't shock me to see them get a deal done in time to not miss a season and just shorten training camp. I thnk the media is really mis representing the situation the last numbers exchanged are not all that different, they are really only about 5% apart and from alot of sources basically the only thing the owners care about is the revenue split. If they get it, they'll negotiate on alot of others issues.

#10 s4xon

s4xon

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:09 PM

The NHLPA are fools for not accepting the NHL's 50-50 deal. It surprised me to see the NHL offer as much as a full 50-50 split. This is the best deal the NHLPA is going to get. There was a chance at a new season, and the look on Donald Fehr's face said it all before they even counter proposed.

My vote was leaning towards there being no hockey this season, and with the antics of Fehr and the rest of the NHLPA, they are proving this vote right.

The 2012-2013 season will not be salvaged at this point. :angry:

#11 JTech780

JTech780

    Resident Know it All

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:31 AM

There needs to be a "Who Cares" option for this poll.

I am at the point now where I could care less if the NHL comes back. They don't deserve to have the best fans in the world the way we have been taken for granted.

I personally don't plan on watching any NHL games, going to any NHL games or buying any NHL merchandise for quite some time.

#12 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,876 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 03:32 PM

There needs to be a "Who Cares" option for this poll.

I am at the point now where I could care less if the NHL comes back. They don't deserve to have the best fans in the world the way we have been taken for granted.

I personally don't plan on watching any NHL games, going to any NHL games or buying any NHL merchandise for quite some time.



I added it for you, but it really does not fit well with the actual topic.

#13 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,232 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:38 PM

They are negotiating now and at the least have agreed to getting to 50 50. The problem is that the players refuse to sign off on a salary rollback but existing contracts make up more then 50% of revenue.

So the NHL is going to have to bite the bullet and honor existing contracts. Which means a soft cap for grandfathered contracts or they graduate to 50-50 over a couple of seasons until revenue catches up or contracts expire. Either that or the owners are going to have to pay the difference. Having the players cover the "make whole" loss through Escrow is not something the players will tolerate.

Or the players are going to have to bite the bullet and consent to some roll back.

In reality it will come to somewhere in the middle.

But as soon as they start losing games both the owners and the players start losing actual money. When that becomes a reality the loss incurred due to salary payback / salary roll back is less then they are losing due to lost games (with more concessions to come).

When the argument was about the final destination a lock-out made sense. But now that the argument is about immediate loss of money the concessions are the lesser evil and ultimately cost less money.

That all means there is a deal to be done prior to losing too many games. I think games in November is becoming realistic. If not then in December.

#14 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

They are negotiating now and at the least have agreed to getting to 50 50. The problem is that the players refuse to sign off on a salary rollback but existing contracts make up more then 50% of revenue.

So the NHL is going to have to bite the bullet and honor existing contracts. Which means a soft cap for grandfathered contracts or they graduate to 50-50 over a couple of seasons until revenue catches up or contracts expire. Either that or the owners are going to have to pay the difference. Having the players cover the "make whole" loss through Escrow is not something the players will tolerate.

Or the players are going to have to bite the bullet and consent to some roll back.

In reality it will come to somewhere in the middle.

But as soon as they start losing games both the owners and the players start losing actual money. When that becomes a reality the loss incurred due to salary payback / salary roll back is less then they are losing due to lost games (with more concessions to come).

When the argument was about the final destination a lock-out made sense. But now that the argument is about immediate loss of money the concessions are the lesser evil and ultimately cost less money.

That all means there is a deal to be done prior to losing too many games. I think games in November is becoming realistic. If not then in December.

I disagree. The players have come nowhere near 50/50 and with the players' proposal it is unlikely that the split will reach 50/50 until the last season or to under the proposed CBA or maybe longer. With that in mind, I think the players have given a 50/50 split a token nod in hopes that they can bide their time until the this next CBA comes due.

#15 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,232 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:23 PM

I disagree. The players have come nowhere near 50/50 and with the players' proposal it is unlikely that the split will reach 50/50 until the last season or to under the proposed CBA or maybe longer. With that in mind, I think the players have given a 50/50 split a token nod in hopes that they can bide their time until the this next CBA comes due.


According to Bettman. But the reality is they seem fine with 50 50. The challenge is how to get there without a roll back. That is tough because, as I said, the total cost of the signed contracts is above 50% meaning any immediate move to 50% includes a roll back of some sort.

#16 CastleMania

CastleMania

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:36 PM

According to Bettman. But the reality is they seem fine with 50 50. The challenge is how to get there without a roll back. That is tough because, as I said, the total cost of the signed contracts is above 50% meaning any immediate move to 50% includes a roll back of some sort.

Well, it's not really according to Bettman. If you look at the proposals that were tabled it seems pretty self-evident.

I really think the answer to this is to have the "Make Whole" provision of the NHL's proposal come out of the owners' share. I think that would be fair. The owners pay for the contracts they entered for the next two seasons, at which point the cap will be very close to its current position, and then the players take the rest of the hit. That seems inherently fair to me.

#17 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 21 October 2012 - 12:04 AM

According to Bettman. But the reality is they seem fine with 50 50. The challenge is how to get there without a roll back. That is tough because, as I said, the total cost of the signed contracts is above 50% meaning any immediate move to 50% includes a roll back of some sort.

What you're saying about the contracts and rollbacks doesn't make sense to me. What is the proposed cap, 59 million right? If you take that 50 million and spread it over the 30 NHL teams, that should be more than enough to cover all existing contracts.

I'm mostly on the owners side except I agree the players should get their contracts. If the owners honor the existing contracts, they can pretty much dictate the rest of the CBA.

#18 C_worthy

C_worthy

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,799 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:03 PM

What you're saying about the contracts and rollbacks doesn't make sense to me. What is the proposed cap, 59 million right? If you take that 50 million and spread it over the 30 NHL teams, that should be more than enough to cover all existing contracts.

I'm mostly on the owners side except I agree the players should get their contracts. If the owners honor the existing contracts, they can pretty much dictate the rest of the CBA.

There are NO proposals currently on the table that suggest a cap of $59M

As for current contracts, there is a total of $1.76B in contracts for this season. The only way they could go 50/50 with no roll-back would be if revenues were $3.5B which, with angry post-lockout fans, is highly unlikely.

Therefore one of two things has to happen:

1) there is some sort of roll-back or escrow hair-cut, or

2) the league accepts a gradual move to 50%

#19 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:03 AM

There are NO proposals currently on the table that suggest a cap of $59M

As for current contracts, there is a total of $1.76B in contracts for this season. The only way they could go 50/50 with no roll-back would be if revenues were $3.5B which, with angry post-lockout fans, is highly unlikely.

Therefore one of two things has to happen:

1) there is some sort of roll-back or escrow hair-cut, or

2) the league accepts a gradual move to 50%

4. Payroll Range:

• Payroll Range will be computed using existing methodology. For the 2012/13 season, the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion (assuming Preliminary Benefits of $95 Million).

• 2012/13 Payroll Range
Lower Limit = $43.9 Million
Midpoint = $51.9 Million
Upper Limit = $59.9 Million

• Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million).

If you want to get specific, they are allowing teams to spend to 70 mil this season but the cap is 59.9.

You can correct me if my math was wrong but $59 million over 30 teams was $1,770,000,000. I subtracted all NHL contracts rounding up on most of them and had 21 million remaining. I didn't count NHL contracts playing in the AHL but I doubt that makes up the 21 million. I guess I didn't count RFAs who aren't signed yet either and that would likely make up the 21 million. Still, if the league hand another amnesty buyout with cap trading, the rich cap teams could find a way to get under and the broke teams would benefit.

If the NHL let current player contracts stand, they could put restrictions on a lot of other things making the league more viable in the long run.

#20 happycat

happycat

    Meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,476 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:53 AM

Life sucks without hockey.... and I'm listening to Joy Division (very downer 80's punk), and it's snowing.... If I'm going to be hurtin... I must do it right......