Toggle sidebar

2012 CBA/Lockout talk, It's not looking good VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gee Wally said:
As I said earlier on my experience when something like this occurs it is because something that was thought agreed upon was reopened or something agreed non negotiable was brought up for negotiation.

That, in my experience, is the only way you go from productive to off the table in 24 hours.

Then no matter what at this stage to pull a PR stunt like Fehr did is about as snake belly low in the spirit of making a deal as you can go.


Frankly if I was an owner, I'd shut it own right now. Take however long it takes. But that's me. I believe in good faith. I believe in collaboration.
I believe. Mans only as good as his word too though.
Click to expand...

Bingo Wally. Fehr made an absolute jabroni out of himself today.
 
EverettMike said:
Totally agree about sponsors needing/wanting league stability.

I would not want to put big money into a league run by a guy that was not only the only commissioner to lose an entire season but to lose two entire seasons.
Click to expand...

But probably not a big deal, the sponsors build in protection in the event that there is a disruption to the league. I believe the current sponsorship deals call for the league to play as few as 61 games before the league has to refund/discount the sponsor $. Which means they are probably at or just past the point where sponsor $ will contract.
 
I have personally been against the NHLPA for a while now. not because I like them more than the nhl but because I think they're dumb. If they accepted an earlier offer they would have made more money because a full season could have been played but now they're losing close to 50% of a season which is enough to negate and small % win they may or may not gain for the next 5-7 years.


But this whole thing is pathetic. NHL welcome back to the very bottom of the sports basement.
 
Black Eye said:
But probably not a big deal, the sponsors build in protection in the event that there is a disruption to the league. I believe the current sponsorship deals call for the league to play as few as 61 games before the league has to refund/discount the sponsor $. Which means they are probably at or just past the point where sponsor $ will contract.
Click to expand...

He said sponsors would want to know this wouldn't keep happening to the league, that they'd want some stability.

You disagree with what I said in that context? I am not talking about getting a refund, I am talking about deciding to be a longterm partner.
 
Black Eye said:
But probably not a big deal, the sponsors build in protection in the event that there is a disruption to the league. I believe the current sponsorship deals call for the league to play as few as 61 games before the league has to refund/discount the sponsor $. Which means they are probably at or just past the point where sponsor $ will contract.
Click to expand...

It's not about CURRENT sponsors I was talking about. Remember how long it took for the NHL to get a TV deal on a real channel, or sponsors after 04-05? That's my point.

Why would you look to pay a ton of money to attach your brand to something that has as many issues as the NHL has had recently? Yes the league revenue has trended upward, but if you have to go through this every 6-10 years, you get to a point of saying **** it.

EverettMike said:
He said sponsors would want to know this wouldn't keep happening to the league, that they'd want some stability.

You disagree with what I said in that context? I am not talking about getting a refund, I am talking about deciding to be a longterm partner.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it
 
northeastern said:
I have personally been against the NHLPA for a while now. not because I like them more than the nhl but because I think they're dumb. If they accepted an earlier offer they would have made more money because a full season could have been played but now they're losing close to 50% of a season which is enough to negate and small % win they may or may not gain for the next 5-7 years.


But this whole thing is pathetic. NHL welcome back to the very bottom of the sports basement.
Click to expand...

It really just seems like the players want to "win" now, and get a pride victory.
 
northeastern said:
I have personally been against the NHLPA for a while now. not because I like them more than the nhl but because I think they're dumb. If they accepted an earlier offer they would have made more money because a full season could have been played but now they're losing close to 50% of a season which is enough to negate and small % win they may or may not gain for the next 5-7 years.


But this whole thing is pathetic. NHL welcome back to the very bottom of the sports basement.
Click to expand...

I get your idea in theory, but this is a very simplistic view of looking at it, and frankly not a fair way either. That's like saying, oh hey the owners offered us 43%, now they are at 46% 2 weeks later, lets take it before we lose more money.

Again, I see WHAT you're getting at, but you should know that's not how this works at all, you're a good poster.
 
chuckdobbins said:
It really just seems like the players want to "win" now, and get a pride victory.
Click to expand...

They are also the only side giving anything up in this new deal.

Every "concession" the owners have made is a concession from their original offer. That is a little bit different from the concessions the players agreed to.
 
northeastern said:
I have personally been against the NHLPA for a while now. not because I like them more than the nhl but because I think they're dumb. If they accepted an earlier offer they would have made more money because a full season could have been played but now they're losing close to 50% of a season which is enough to negate and small % win they may or may not gain for the next 5-7 years.


But this whole thing is pathetic. NHL welcome back to the very bottom of the sports basement.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. Im now rooting for league bankruptcy at this point. The league is just too Mickey Mouse, and even if a CBA was reached, its just borrowed time until exparation. I live in Boston, the best college teams in America, I dont need the Bruins for my hockey fix.
 
Alycat said:
RT @adater: From deep inside players side: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) & told us we could get more and to hold out"

http://twitter.com/#!/JoshRimerHockey/status/276879475420049409
Click to expand...

This is what I'm saying. This is what Fehr believes and whatever is happening is towards that end. It may blow up in his face - or not. If they do in fact get a better deal than was on the table this week - it will have been worth it, strictly from the perspective of Fehr delivering the best deal possible to his employers.
 
Renaud Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
Chris Campoli: "we did another step in their direction. It was not enough."

BS
 
well, reality is coming. Some day and it has to be within a month they pull the plug and with it I think they lose a lot more than a season.

I find it hard to believe they drop a bomb on their game:help:
 
Black Eye said:
This is what I'm saying. This is what Fehr believes and whatever is happening is towards that end. It may blow up in his face - or not. If they do in fact get a better deal than was on the table this week - it will have been worth it, strictly from the perspective of Fehr delivering the best deal possible to his employers.
Click to expand...

It will all be depenant on how much more money they lose between now and then. If they lose 10 games will it be worth going from a 10 year deal to a 8 year deal?

I doubt it.
 
JRull86 said:
It's not about CURRENT sponsors I was talking about. Remember how long it took for the NHL to get a TV deal on a real channel, or sponsors after 04-05? That's my point.

Why would you look to pay a ton of money to attach your brand to something that has as many issues as the NHL has had recently? Yes the league revenue has trended upward, but if you have to go through this every 6-10 years, you get to a point of saying **** it.

Beat me to it
Click to expand...

I don't know. You are ascribing some kind of emotional/philosophical stance to the sponsors. I would say, they don't care at all. When things are good, they are happy to tag along and get some eyeballs on their products. When things are not so good, they don't pay or pay as much and feel okay enough about it to tolerate it. If you're telling me they don't want to be associated with the NHL because it is tainted somehow, I don't believe that at all. As long as their $ interests are in the right place, they are fine. Do you think management at Molson sits around and talks about how they should not sponsor the NHL over some kind of higher principle? As long as they are not getting ripped off, paying for nothing, I doubt they care aside from looking at the best place to spend their advertising dollars - but then the lockout ends someday and it's business as usual again.
 
patty59 said:
It will all be depenant on how much more money they lose between now and then. If they lose 10 games will it be worth going from a 10 year deal to a 8 year deal?

I doubt it.
Click to expand...

This I agree with. At some point, which probably passed awhile ago, the players lose so much top line revenue that they will never get it back by fighting over terms that net them comparatively small $ gains. I still don't quite understand why they will take the plane into the mountain and leave > $1B on the table in the process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom