Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by NewYorkIslander, Jul 1, 2012.
Oh, snap! He's back like Lazarus!
Somehow I think that the old terms will be grandfathered in.
Ball in the players' court now...
as popular as it is to hate on bettman... donald fehr's actions are quickly lowering my opinion on the nhlpa. im not picking sides - as far as im concerned, theyre both full of assholes - but early reports coming out of today's meeting are extremely disappointing. the nhlpa's latest proposal was based on their old proposals and was not in any way a variation on the nhl's latest offer. bettman is on record saying that the offer was asking for an increased player's share of HRR, for fuck's sake.
all of that optimism i had a day ago is gone; my initial prediction of a lost season seems ever more likely now. yes, the nhl might be playing the PR game but at least they're playing unlike the nhlpa. when it comes to billionaires vs millionaires, its usually the billionaires who come on top. when the billionaires are moving to the center, perhaps the millionaires who have far less leverage should probably stop digging their heels in and try to play ball.
"NHL unhappy with union response"
I'm curious how different the unions 3 proposals really were, or if the league is trying to turn the tables and make the players look like its their fault.
jarude - you sum it up well. Basically both Bettman and Fehr have such huge egos it appears they both would settle for a scorched earth policy if it meant they "won".
Here is a rundown of the three NHLPA proposals as reported by a Globe and Mail reporter if this helps NYR.\
I started out in Aug/Sept supporting the players but everything they do makes me dislike them more. Now they are yapping about how the NHL didn't even consider their proposals and took a "take it or leave it" stance. Aren't these the same d-bags who never made a counter offer after the prev NHL one? So the NHL makes two offers in a row and now the players are complaining about the NHLs not being prepared to negotiate ? I realize a fair amount of this is PR but jesus, the NHL is handling this way better. Perhaps the players should drop the "poor us we are making less $$$" mentality because it is f-ing sickening coming out of the mouths of millionaires. If it wasn't for me wanting to see Selanne's last season (or seasons) I'd probably be done with this sport.
Here is how I see it.
NHL Makes a lowball offer. NHLPA refuses.
NHLPA makes an equally messed up proposal. NHL refuses.
NHL makes the 50-50 offer. NHLPA goes away for a couple of days.
NHLPA comes backa nd makes a proposal that's basically the same as the one they made before. NHL refuses.
WHY WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED THAT THEY REFUSED THAT?
The one thing that ceases to amaze me is that in any labour disruption, very quickly the employees are in a loss situation financially and the employer is in full control and in a no lose situation. The players have now lost 15% of their 12/13 salary. If they accept the full 82 game schedule proposal they can actually get to breakeven as I see it.
I disagree with extending the season and putting in extra game every five weeks. You play an average of 11 games per month, so if we start Nov 1 we play a 70-72 game season, if we start Dec 1 if is 60-20 etc.
The owners win no matter what, they have less games for revenue but they also pay far less in salaries. And considering most US based teams lose money hand over fist until Christmas this works in their favour.
Early in this dispute many felt that is exactly what the NHL wanted. A short season that if not fully breaks, seriously batters the union. It is looking more and more likely that will happen. Even if it means killing the season.
Yes, some fans will stay away when they resume but lets be honest more than enough will come back and todays players will never get that money back.
the Islanders are moving to Brooklyn in 2015
Glad to see they worked something out with the arena. Apparently the NHL is forcing them to keep the name. Maybe they think it would be embarrassing to have a four-time champion change names (not that they'd care about that if the Devils moved, but maybe the cutoff is 3 cups).
Does that mean just keeping the "Islanders" part or the New York too? I would have preferred a fresh start with the Brooklyn name in it, resurrecting the Americans name would have been cool too.
Four cups yes, but it has been 20 years since they won a playoff round.
"The Islanders, who won four consecutive Stanley Cups between 1980 and 1983, will keep their name at the insistence of NHL officials." (NY Post)
I wonder if the Rangers had an issue with a name change. If they keep the name, it's just the same old Islanders. If they change the name, it seems like a "new" team, and more Rangers fans living in Brooklyn would jump ship.
Separate names with a comma.