dudius
Well-Known Member
Bulls Beers said:
I'd rather they scrap the season than come to some awful agreement and have a bullsh¡t season. And its not like the feds helped negotiations last time they got involved in pro sports.
Equally Obnoxious Hockey Trash Talk Thread, eh?
- Thread starter MeatyPortion
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
I'd rather they scrap the season than come to some awful agreement and have a bullsh¡t season. And its not like the feds helped negotiations last time they got involved in pro sports.
You would think the local areas around AHL and in my case ECHL teams would pick up televising some games on a local station. I for one would watch the SC Stingrays not finish checks and play pick up style hockey. Hockey is hockey and I would watch and drink a beer if it were on. Hell, replay the world juniors again on the NBC Sports channel.
Just read where the NHL and NHLPA are sending a few from each camp for direct discussions. No Gary Bettman, no Donal Fehr. Just 6-7 from each side.
Sounds like mediators have either failed, or have come to the conclusion that NOTHING will come from Bettman and Fehr leading talks.
I hope this is the point where both sides finally realize that they are both goign to lose with this kind of a stand.
Sounds like mediators have either failed, or have come to the conclusion that NOTHING will come from Bettman and Fehr leading talks.
I hope this is the point where both sides finally realize that they are both goign to lose with this kind of a stand.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 175
It's taken a week to decide who would go to this meeting. No wonder why no deal has been done...Idiots....
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
The mediators were finished last week. They said they determined that their involvement would not be productive at this time, and have no plans to resume meeting with the League/PA any time soon. They said they are available if asked to return.
Now I'm thinking that the players just want to take this to the breaking point of a lost season, so they can show the owners that they too have the power to stop games and income. They do have a point when they say that they're concerned the League will just lock out players every time a CBA is up, and ask for more concessions.
Until the season cancellation is imminent, there is no pressure for either side to ease up on their stance. I don't believe these meetings between the "ranchers and their cattle" will go well. Expecting the same zero-content banter afterwards. "They made their point, and we made ours. We are still far apart on sharing of revenue and contractual demands."
This same crap will continue through Christmas - after that, it'll get serious.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
So if Sidney Crosby saves the season, how will jkratzer feel about it?
Life's greatest mysteries...
Life's greatest mysteries...
Leeds1
Well-Known Member
paulster2626 said:
Fail
HoppyDaze
Well-Known Member
You slack jaws gonna have a season or what?
Bettman says no. Apparently (And I will admit I kind of skimmed since I am busy this morning) the players wanted 8 years contract length and the NHL says that "5-7 is the hill we die on."
Minutes after Fehr announced progress and that they were close, Bettman announced his disappointment and said they were far apart and rejected the NHLPA offer and closed talks.
Minutes after Fehr announced progress and that they were close, Bettman announced his disappointment and said they were far apart and rejected the NHLPA offer and closed talks.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
This is what Bettman does (I heard Paul Kelly or someone similar on the radio a few years ago). You say something that he's not interested in, he gets pissed. Then a couple days later you get a phone call and it's Bettman saying "you know, I've been thinking of this new idea..." - and it's the exact same thing you've already suggested. He just totally makes it sound like he came up with it.
Anyway we'll see what happens. Was hopeful for an early Christmas present, but that idea got Fehr'd up.
First it was "make whole". Then it was the salary split. Then it was "pensions". Now it's contract length. The NHLPA needs to make up it's effing mind as to what is important to them and stop moving the friggin' goalposts.
This last offer from the NHL was decent - everyone could make millions, and that's really what the final goal is.
solbes
Well-Known Member
Oh my, what a bunch of clowns on both sides. I don't think I've ever seen an announcement saying a deal was immenent. And then returning to the podium to say sides are so far apart that they are no longer talking. The sky must be red or purple on their planet.
Empty seats is what both sides deserve, even though we won't have the pleasure of seeing it happen.
Empty seats is what both sides deserve, even though we won't have the pleasure of seeing it happen.
arturo7
Well-Known Member
It's a fraggin circus.
Well what it comes down to is that the Owners don't care about playing hockey. They only care about taking as much of the pie as they can get.
Bettman himself said that the owners demand "3 or 4 things". They can work with the players on the other things. Nobody wants to negotiate with ultimatums like that.
It's not really a bargaining process. That would imply there is some give and take from both sides. Players aren't gaining a single thing from this. It's not like they are giving up 7% of revenue and getting something in return. Just maybe less of a buggering in some other area.
Bettman himself said that the owners demand "3 or 4 things". They can work with the players on the other things. Nobody wants to negotiate with ultimatums like that.
It's not really a bargaining process. That would imply there is some give and take from both sides. Players aren't gaining a single thing from this. It's not like they are giving up 7% of revenue and getting something in return. Just maybe less of a buggering in some other area.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
Bettman and the owners believe that the things they are asking for are necessary for the future sustainability of a 30-team league.
They also want the CBA to be 10 years so we (fans) don't have to go through this any time soon.
Please explain to me how these players are getting buggered. They made 57% of revenue last season. That's $1.8 billion. No expenses, just payment. The NHL as a whole made $250 million after paying for, well, everything.
You tell me who's getting buggered in that situation.
Also please tell me what the League has TO give the players. As in, what could they possibly offer? More revenue sharing to keep teams afloat and thus keep more players employed? Well they did that. Increased perks like private hotel rooms? They did that, too. Honoring all the existing contracts? Yup. They said they'd do that as well.
For what it's worth (nothing?) I think we'll have a deal next week. Fehr just wants to make sure he's squeezed every last drop of frustration out of Gary Bettman. The sides are soooo close on a deal, neither of them could be stupid enough to throw it all away. Right???
If that's Fehr's goal then we'll be here forever. Bettman is a bottomless source of frustration.
Those things you mentioned the owners were giving to the players were things that they took away at the start of the negotiations. It's not like the players are anywhere near gaining. They are still losing badly.
The league has no interest in finding other ways of making money for themselves with the portion they receive. They took 25% just the last contract and ended up in worse shape than ever even when you add their portion of the massive increase in revenue.
It's time they got serious about ending the lockout. At this point it's all about Bettman saving face. He came on camera spitting and sputtering mad about the union taking their concession and wanting to move on to the next provision. That's negotiating. Did he expect them to suddenly roll over on all the other provisions? If so then he is even more ignorant than people think.
He's in a tough spot. The union can disband and sue if it comes to that. Then the league can hire scabs and replacements if it dares. Not sure how that would work out as far as fans go. That's like someone taking the engine out of your 550 HP sports car and replacing it with an L4 Chevy.
I just started to wonder if the league planned on cutting ticket prices if they end up getting a certain amount of concessions from the players. They might be able to afford to attract more fans to the arenas if they spend less on player salaries and perks...
I bet that's what they are trying to do. Make games more afordable for the fans. Yeah. That's it.
Those things you mentioned the owners were giving to the players were things that they took away at the start of the negotiations. It's not like the players are anywhere near gaining. They are still losing badly.
The league has no interest in finding other ways of making money for themselves with the portion they receive. They took 25% just the last contract and ended up in worse shape than ever even when you add their portion of the massive increase in revenue.
It's time they got serious about ending the lockout. At this point it's all about Bettman saving face. He came on camera spitting and sputtering mad about the union taking their concession and wanting to move on to the next provision. That's negotiating. Did he expect them to suddenly roll over on all the other provisions? If so then he is even more ignorant than people think.
He's in a tough spot. The union can disband and sue if it comes to that. Then the league can hire scabs and replacements if it dares. Not sure how that would work out as far as fans go. That's like someone taking the engine out of your 550 HP sports car and replacing it with an L4 Chevy.
I just started to wonder if the league planned on cutting ticket prices if they end up getting a certain amount of concessions from the players. They might be able to afford to attract more fans to the arenas if they spend less on player salaries and perks...
I bet that's what they are trying to do. Make games more afordable for the fans. Yeah. That's it.
Leeds1
Well-Known Member
A 30 team league isn't viable, contraction would a good thing for the NHL.
Leeds1 said:
It would have been a good thing if they didn't expand so aggressively in the first place, but to go back and contract the league would be utterly disastrous for MANY parties - MANY players, MANY owners, MANY teams, MANY fans, and even MANY other businesses.
This is probably as extreme a case of "easier said than done" as it can possibly get.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
You said it's the players who are giving everything - the owners are offering no concessions. I agree with this, but please tell me what exactly the owners have to offer. What could they offer?
Also I'm curious as to how much cheaper you think ticket prices should get to attract fans to places like Phoenix and Tampa.
dudius
Well-Known Member
Well teams like the LA Clippers have $11 tickets.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
Do you know how much tickets are in Phoenix? Tickets as low as $20, and that's face-value. They're even cheaper from scalpers. I bought 2 tickets that would have cost $185 each in Toronto for $25 each in Phoenix. And the place is 1/2 full, and they have a great team.
Do you know how much tickets are in Tampa? Upper bowl is $20 as well.
Are you telling me that it's the fact that tickets are $5-10 too much that people don't show up? Point is these teams exist and they aren't going anywhere. It's best for the League and the NHLPA to figure out a way where these teams can exist and not bleed money all year. That's what the owners are trying to do.
I couldn't give a crap about ticket prices in Phoenix. I'm talking ticket prices in the league overall. Frankly, I'm really only interested in buying ticket for either Detroit or Chicago, since they are the only place I'm ever likely to buy tickets. (And since the cost to driving down, attending the game, eating, and probably staying the night somewhere makes going to one of those two places WAY more money than I'm willing to spend to watch an NHL game.)
My question was not about a particular market, but rather would the league lower prices overall in order to make it up to the fans, or to gain revenue by quantity. I'm not complaining about ticket prices. I think you must have read that into my post. I wouldn't care if prices were double. It would not affect me in the least. It was a statement about how the league sees the cost of player salaries vs the cost of fans going to games.
I'm sorry for phoenix and places like that. Sorry they don't have enough fans who care about hockey enough to actually go out and see a dirt cheap hockey game. They have a very good team and if they can't get people to see those guys play at those prices then that only reinforces my belief that they will never make it work out there.
If they dropped two teams they could make realignment work better. Just a thought.
Detroit has high ticket prices because they sell a ton of tickets and they can afford to cut out the people who can't pay to see a game.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
Ticket prices in the markets you are concerned with are high because that is what people are willing to pay. I'm not sure what your argument is - you are saying that the Leafs/Hawks/Red Wings should lower their ticket prices to make more money? What??? By the way there are already $27 tickets available for the Blackhawks in the nosebleeds. Problem is they're all sold out - maybe they should lower the prices... er, what?
If you care about the NHL as a whole, then you must certainly care about what happens in Phoenix and Tampa (and Florida and New York Island and Dallas and New Jersey and Nashville and Columbus and Colorado and St. Louis and Anaheim and LA and Carolina). There are 30 teams, and they aren't going anywhere. Maybe one or two will eventually be relocated, but that's not happening any time soon.
Also you still haven't explained what the owners could have offered the players as concessions of their own when asking the players to make less money (that was you complaining it's been the players doing all the giving, right?).
If you care about the NHL as a whole, then you must certainly care about what happens in Phoenix and Tampa (and Florida and New York Island and Dallas and New Jersey and Nashville and Columbus and Colorado and St. Louis and Anaheim and LA and Carolina). There are 30 teams, and they aren't going anywhere. Maybe one or two will eventually be relocated, but that's not happening any time soon.
Also you still haven't explained what the owners could have offered the players as concessions of their own when asking the players to make less money (that was you complaining it's been the players doing all the giving, right?).
They could give in on contract length, CBA term, Free agency age, all kinds of things that have much less to do with their share of revenue. Not really meaning that owners should give more than they did with the old agreement, only that they should be more willing to work with the players on those "other" items to end the lockout.
In the end it doesn't matter because the owners will still find ways around the CBA to spend too much. They've done it every time. The league has locked out, gotten salary lowered and they still pay too much through signings or extended contracts, etc. It just seems that if they can lower salaries so much they might pass some of that savings on to the fans. I'm more curious than anything, since as I already mentioned, it won't affect me going to a game in the least. Maybe they will just end up putting all of that money they are saving in players salaries to hold up the teams where they can't get the locals to watch.
And I do care about what happens in places where people want to watch hockey. But it makes no sense to prop up a team in a market where nobody wants to watch hockey just because. I might be tempted to make a claim that the league hasn't dropped Phoenix for the simple reason that they need the club to lose money so they can make their point about needing more concessions on players salary. In the end I really don't care if there are 30 teams, or 28, or 24 or whatever. I don't have a specific number in my head that a league is required to have to make it profitable. There are actually places where playoff hockey has been played and when I check their local newspapers online, there is nothing being said on the front page. PLAYOFF HOCKEY! Why is there a team there??
Oh well, I'm better off without NHL hockey anyway. I get more done in the evenings when I'm not bothered with a couple of hours of staring in front of the TV. The season is lost at this point IMO. I remember the last time this happened so very long ago. Kind of felt like a sham season.
So why is hockey in Phoenix such a great thing? I don't see the benefit.
In the end it doesn't matter because the owners will still find ways around the CBA to spend too much. They've done it every time. The league has locked out, gotten salary lowered and they still pay too much through signings or extended contracts, etc. It just seems that if they can lower salaries so much they might pass some of that savings on to the fans. I'm more curious than anything, since as I already mentioned, it won't affect me going to a game in the least. Maybe they will just end up putting all of that money they are saving in players salaries to hold up the teams where they can't get the locals to watch.
And I do care about what happens in places where people want to watch hockey. But it makes no sense to prop up a team in a market where nobody wants to watch hockey just because. I might be tempted to make a claim that the league hasn't dropped Phoenix for the simple reason that they need the club to lose money so they can make their point about needing more concessions on players salary. In the end I really don't care if there are 30 teams, or 28, or 24 or whatever. I don't have a specific number in my head that a league is required to have to make it profitable. There are actually places where playoff hockey has been played and when I check their local newspapers online, there is nothing being said on the front page. PLAYOFF HOCKEY! Why is there a team there??
Oh well, I'm better off without NHL hockey anyway. I get more done in the evenings when I'm not bothered with a couple of hours of staring in front of the TV. The season is lost at this point IMO. I remember the last time this happened so very long ago. Kind of felt like a sham season.
So why is hockey in Phoenix such a great thing? I don't see the benefit.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
The players already had unlimited contract length. I can't see how the owners could concede anything on that front. The NHLPA has not asked for lower free-agency age, so no reason to offer that up. In fact, the NHLPA hasn't really asked for anything - what they consider important changes on a weekly basis. First it was the share of HRR, then a de-linked cap, then pensions, then "make whole", now it's contract length, variance, and CBA term. After the NHL gives on those, what's next?
Looking at what the owners want vs. the players, it's obvious what side's wishes will result in more stability going forward. Everyone knew it was the players who'd be doing all the giving here - I think it was just Fehr's job to get the best deal possible and make sure that the League is hesitant to do this again, accomplished by waiting until the last possible second to make a deal (January 1st-ish?) and getting a shorter CBA term.
Phoenix is a different animal altogether. Why they insist on keeping this franchise there, I do not know. But I understand why they fight to keep franchises in markets that are struggling. You just can't go ahead and keep shuffling hockey teams around like a game of musical chairs. It's not fair to the fans, the owners, the sponsors, or the players.
But really - when a team doesn't have an actual owner, the arena they play in is under some strange lease negotiations, and there have been rumours of the team leaving town for the past 4 years while all this crap has been going on, can you really blame people for being disinterested in it? I've been to Phoenix - they actually have some pretty hard-core hockey fans there, and the way they've got the arena set up with surrounding bars and restaurants is second to none. I'd like to see what could happen with a stable ownership running things there.
Looking at what the owners want vs. the players, it's obvious what side's wishes will result in more stability going forward. Everyone knew it was the players who'd be doing all the giving here - I think it was just Fehr's job to get the best deal possible and make sure that the League is hesitant to do this again, accomplished by waiting until the last possible second to make a deal (January 1st-ish?) and getting a shorter CBA term.
Phoenix is a different animal altogether. Why they insist on keeping this franchise there, I do not know. But I understand why they fight to keep franchises in markets that are struggling. You just can't go ahead and keep shuffling hockey teams around like a game of musical chairs. It's not fair to the fans, the owners, the sponsors, or the players.
But really - when a team doesn't have an actual owner, the arena they play in is under some strange lease negotiations, and there have been rumours of the team leaving town for the past 4 years while all this crap has been going on, can you really blame people for being disinterested in it? I've been to Phoenix - they actually have some pretty hard-core hockey fans there, and the way they've got the arena set up with surrounding bars and restaurants is second to none. I'd like to see what could happen with a stable ownership running things there.
If the players already had open-ended contract length, then it seems the ownership would be plenty pleased to get almost any length of contract length. I think the NHLPA has asked for certain things, but since the ownership controls everything, it makes sense that the union would be the ones to start the negotiations on each item. And they can bargain on each item as it comes up.
As far as Phoenix goes, I might commend the bars and stuff nearby, but I don't see how that necessarily makes the team profitable. I think it's time to cut the losses and maybe even trim the league. But I agree that's not likely to happen. Perhaps in a year or so after this CBA Fiasco is finalized and the league gets what it needs out of it, but keeping it after all of these unsuccessful years doesn't make sense. I doubt there is a grand plan coming up that would turn it around for them. If they were a sucky team, I would maybe suggest building a better team, but you and I both have seen how good they are. If people in that area can't appreciate what they have, then there is no hope.
I gotta go. Need to transfer an Autocad license and then pick up my kid. Maybe there will be an announcement of more talks today. I haven't had much time to check the news.
As far as Phoenix goes, I might commend the bars and stuff nearby, but I don't see how that necessarily makes the team profitable. I think it's time to cut the losses and maybe even trim the league. But I agree that's not likely to happen. Perhaps in a year or so after this CBA Fiasco is finalized and the league gets what it needs out of it, but keeping it after all of these unsuccessful years doesn't make sense. I doubt there is a grand plan coming up that would turn it around for them. If they were a sucky team, I would maybe suggest building a better team, but you and I both have seen how good they are. If people in that area can't appreciate what they have, then there is no hope.
I gotta go. Need to transfer an Autocad license and then pick up my kid. Maybe there will be an announcement of more talks today. I haven't had much time to check the news.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
True dat.
I believe they want 5-year limits because insurance will no longer cover any contracts longer than that. So they're basically taking a huge risk in signing them.
Although, one wonders if something is such a stupid thing to do, why do they keep doing it? And don't say collusion - fiscal responsibility is not collusion.
I believe they want 5-year limits because insurance will no longer cover any contracts longer than that. So they're basically taking a huge risk in signing them.
Although, one wonders if something is such a stupid thing to do, why do they keep doing it? And don't say collusion - fiscal responsibility is not collusion.
So...about that recent optimism that, like Icarus, went to high and then came crashing down...
I would like to commend all of you for keeping this thread going during the lockout. I haven't been around in awhile so maybe you've already discussed this, but how the hell can Bettman keep his f'n job after yet another disastrous labor negotiation? Worst commish of all time.
I would like to commend all of you for keeping this thread going during the lockout. I haven't been around in awhile so maybe you've already discussed this, but how the hell can Bettman keep his f'n job after yet another disastrous labor negotiation? Worst commish of all time.
Because he gets the owners money in the long run.
I would think the commissioner would be someone who would work with both sides for the good of the game and their relationship, not take sides, but then again, I don't know his job description specifics.
emjay said:
And pandering to owners and locking the players out are equally ineffective at promoting a healthy, successful league.
jtkratzer said:
Not necessarily. If the owners and the league see it as necessary to fight the players on this instead of just giving in, then he would certainly be working towards a successful league. I mean, nobody's clairvoyant, so it does ultimately come down to opinions, but implying that the league bending over to avoid a lockout at all costs is the only way to make it successful is a bit ridiculous. If he thinks he's doing what is right, then he's doing his job as best he can.
Don't get me wrong, I hate Bettman for many things, but saying that it's his job to give in whenever there's a chance of a lockout is pretty absurd.
dudius
Well-Known Member
Exactly because appeasement creates bad things. People are made because they think the leagues lock out the players to get what they want. But if the leagues gave the players everything they wanted then the players would be the ones always asking for more. Its a two way street, and you can guess why negotiations are going so well.
emjay said:
I'm pretty sure that is not at all what I said. I was countering your point. I never said give in, bend over, give the players everything they ask for.
But they took from the players last time around and had record attendance and revenue and want to take more again this time.
There's no compromise, on either side. Owners need to realize there are other leagues and players will go elsewhere if they can't play in the NHL.
dudius said:
Uh, let's take a sec to look at this - it's a lockout, not a hold out or boycott or strike. This isn't about player demands and the owners saying no, this is a case where the owners want to take more money from the players, reduce rights, extend entry level contract and RFA length, and shorten contract lengths...this is not about player demands, it's about owners wanting more and the players aren't agreeing to it.
Both sides are at fault here, but I think far more responsibility falls on the owners based on the severity of their demands and the reductions they expect the players to accept.
Boleslaus
Well-Known Member
As much as it sucks that the NHL is still locked out this far into the season, I think for those of us who are true fans of the game, at least for me, its made me realize how much hockey means to me as a game. I've played hockey without a single season off since I was 4 and I think I've had one of the most fun seasons so far this year.
dudius
Well-Known Member
Sorry I was just playing devil's advocate. I believe the NHL is in the wrong and they try to pin it on the players and a lot of people are like "they make enough money they shouldn't worry about cutting back."
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
The owners wanted to create a partnership with the PA a long time ago. Bettman was working with Paul Kelly well before the CBA was close to expiring, and the PA saw this as an act of weakness and organized a late-night coup to get rid of him (he was fired at 2am).
Then, they bring in Donald Fehr. This is a guy with a track record of work stoppages, and has said time and again he is 100% opposed to salary caps. He was brought in not to work with the League and create harmony, but to start a war.
Bettman and the League offered to begin negotiations waaaaaaay back in January of 2012, the PA said no. Bettman wanted to begin working on a new CBA near the end of the season, the PA said no. Bettman wanted to get going on a new CBA early in the summer - PA said no. So the NHL concocts some asinine proposal to get things started, and the PA says "this is insane" and then takes an entire month to counter. Funny thing is the proposal was a complete reversal to what the owners/player split was during the last CBA.
Anyway, if the League had just continued to play, the players would hold all the leverage as they'd be able to strike whenever they wanted. Donald Fehr has a reputation for work disruption, and this would have been no different.
One side has been dragging its feet and unwilling to cooperate, and it's the NHLPA. The owners list of demands is high, but the unwillingness of the PA to work off of their requests is what has cost us 1/2 a season and created such animosity in the boardroom. At least, that's how I see it.
Either way I think every single person involved in this can suck a big one. This shouldn't be so difficult to sort out.
paulster2626
Well-Known Member
Here's an interesting article explaining a bit of what I'm talking about.
Now you tell me a significant part of the blame for this mess of a season doesn't lie on the shoulders of the Players and Donald Fehr.
Now you tell me a significant part of the blame for this mess of a season doesn't lie on the shoulders of the Players and Donald Fehr.
I'm not suggesting they should play without a contract. I just see what you say about Fehr as similar if not the same about Bettman. Three work stoppages during his career? I believe all three have been because of the recessions and reductions in pay/rights he's trying to get the players to accept.
Sure, the NHLPA has drug their feet, but the league at times has played hardball and refused to meet unless certain conditions are met or certain aspects of the proposal are off the table for discussion.
This is entirely a two way street, but the one consistency is that the league, owners, and Bettman are always demanding the players accept less than they previously had. There has been nothing beneficial to the players proposed in return for the concessions they're continuously asked to make. There's been no compromise.
The players can play elsewhere. The owners don't have a league, at least with the revenue they've seen in the past, without top tier players. Sure, people are still paying to see AHL and ECHL games, but the revenue certainly isn't anywhere near the level of the NHL.
Both sides really need each other. The income the players get, across the league, as an average, is not available anywhere else in the world, and the money the owners want to make will only exist if they have the top (mostly) talent.
There needs to be an indifferent, objective, unbiased person who is the liaison between the two sides. Each side appointing a spokesperson, ie Bettman and Fehr isn't working out. Both have the interest of their own side more than the game itself. Might be impossible to find such a person unless his/her salary is split evenly by the two organizations.
The current mess is like an agent fighting for pay and years on the contract for his players against the GM/owner of the team. The problem is that both sides appear to be standoffish enough that the goal isn't to play, but to see how far they can screw the other side. There is a lot of talk about desire to get a deal done to save the season, save the game, but not enough action and real compromise to make it happen.
It's no different than the political mess in the US right now over just about everything. Lots of talk, smoke and mirrors, huffing and puffing, but both sides are standing their ground.
I could see, if I were a player, taking less than 50% of all hockey revenue since I don't have the risk of financial loss, taxes, liability, etc that the ownership has with the team, the buildings, etc...but I also want to make as much (within reason) as possible. This is where a disinterested person needs to make liaison between the two sides and pull things together, to help each side see the other's point of view, because right now, we have nothing but two sides playing the "I want what I want and I'm not going to be happy unless I get it" game and you can see where that has us.
I'll add, after reading the article, that I can see how the league is making ridiculous demands due to the inexperience of Fehr when it comes to hockey. I also see how Fehr is in a tough spot that if Kelly was viewed as soft, and Fehr wants to keep his job, he at least needs to put on a front of being a tough negotiator.
The situation sucks all around. Both sides are playing the pissing contest.
