Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Friday Hockey Fix

Bill whats the over under on seeing one of ESPN2, Vs (NBC Sports), or even the NHL Network airing some more games, like KHL, College...etc. They did the replay of the one KHL game like a week ago and had college on last week as well.....im itchin for some hockey and the phantoms done come to the "area" of Hershey for quite a while.

Bill whats the over under on seeing one of ESPN2, Vs (NBC Sports), or even the NHL Network airing some more games, like KHL, College...etc. They did the replay of the one KHL game like a week ago and had college on last week as well.....im itchin for some hockey and the phantoms done come to the "area" of Hershey for quite a while.
- Pyzik

NBC Sports will be showing quite a few college games this year and there are the daily webcasts that I post for Flyers-related games from assorted leagues. Here's the NBC Sports schedule for college hockey this season: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=46513

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Friday Hockey Fix
- bmeltzer

thank you for your guidance

NHLPA=GREEDY WHORES !!!!

NHLPA=GREEDY WHORES !!!!
- Pairo11

if you are not greedy to some extent you fail at life

if you are not greedy to some extent you fail at life
- watsonnostaw

Agreed. But you 're not making me feel better.

NHLPA=GREEDY WHORES !!!!
- Pairo11

we all our greedy to some extent...it's called life. but this PR war is childish...just get it done.


Nice read Bill...

Agreed. But you 're not making me feel better.
- Pairo11

I am sorry

if these idiots spent more time trying to negotiate and less time in fornt of microphones trying to spin public opinion toward their side, we would be watching hockey..........

I say make it 50/50....keep the contract flexibility they have now...Let players with career ending injuries retire in peace. Everything else should stay the same.

What i dont get is that if the players loose more than 9 games this season they take the 12% haircut anyways. So in order to make it fair heres what they can do to grandfather contracts:

Take the 12% cut for this year, because if this goes on more than 9 games you loose more than 12% anyways:

Next year increase all contracts which took the cut by the percentage that Hockey related revenue increase....So revenue goes up by 7% increase the existing contracts that got cut this year by 7%......So the owners would be slowly giving back the money overtime. Obviously if revenue goes down the contract cut remains.


So in essence it becomes a true partnership.

I believe the longer this goes the worse it is for the players and the more money they will loose.

"It’s disgraceful" that is the best explanation I have heard of this crap.

Go to 20/20. Any contract that won't be honored in full becomes a free agent. Signing bonuses must be refunded. That'd set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Install not a revenue tax, which basically is a fine on the fans for supporting a successful franchise, but a salary luxury tax, which is a fee for being more competitive. I just have an issue with paying among the highest ticket prices to see a team that will be disadvantaged by the new plan because it has the 3rd highest ticket revenues. It would be less hard to swallow if my high prices were paying to make the team better than others.

It's obvious why players insisted on high signing bonuses. They suspected the contracts they were signing weren't worth the paper they were written on.

I wish I could say I was surprised by the negotiations so far, but did anyone think this would really be over quickly? There have been 2 previous lock outs in the past 18 years and neither of them were resolved quickly.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Friday Hockey Fix
- bmeltzer

Bill, I keep hearing that the league Gould have made their proposal much sooner, but it seems like it was their plan to wait. The league, in my mind, thought they could put the pressure on the players by negotiating so late thinking the players wouldn't want to moss playing time again so soon. I feel the NHLPA called their bluff and now the NHL put themselves into a corner by making their offers so late. The negotiating tactic of using the lockout as the go to strategy is really unfortunate and disappointing. I only hope something can be worked out by January before its too late.

I wish I could say I was surprised by the negotiations so far, but did anyone think this would really be over quickly? There have been 2 previous lock outs in the past 18 years and neither of them were resolved quickly.
- funmaster18

I did. In fact I never thought we'd be in this situation in the first place. After losing a season 7 years ago I would have imagined that cooler heads would prevail. They haven't.

Worst case scenario I figured a week or so at most in September. I'm beyond disappointed.

I'm to the point now that any "deal" that doesn't include honoring existing contracts 100%, with no fancy footwork of robbing me now to pay me later, is a total non-starter.

I'm generally pro-business but the owners are being scummy Richards about this so f 'em.

It would not be so horrible if this week's events had happened back in August or the first week of September. The negotiations are at a starting point, with a long way to go until resolution. Both sides are spouting their PR spins about the other being unreasonable, but that's par for the tiresome and predictable course.
- bmeltzer

This is the point that irks me. It was said that there were no negotiations during last season because the players were focused on the games (paraphrased). Fine, I can sort of get behind that, but to wait as long as they did before getting started on talks just irritates the crap out of me. The negotiations are at a serious starting point in the middle of October? Really? Both sides can go pound sand.

I'll watch the games when they start up again because I love the sport, but it'll be a while before I pull any money out of my pocket for the NHL, other than paying my cable bill.

This is the point that irks me. It was said that there were no negotiations during last season because the players were focused on the games (paraphrased). Fine, I can sort of get behind that, but to wait as long as they did before getting started on talks just irritates the crap out of me. The negotiations are at a serious starting point in the middle of October? Really? Both sides can go pound sand.

I'll watch the games when they start up again because I love the sport, but it'll be a while before I pull any money out of my pocket for the NHL, other than paying my cable bill.
- tangent_man

Totally agree

I'm to the point now that any "deal" that doesn't include honoring existing contracts 100%, with no fancy footwork of robbing me now to pay me later, is a total non-starter.

I'm generally pro-business but the owners are being scummy Richards about this so f 'em.
- Scoob

I also believe current contracts should be honored. I think they should be working for a resolution that helps the future, not take away from anything that's happened in the past. That sounds like a money grab to me.

if these idiots spent more time trying to negotiate and less time in fornt of microphones trying to spin public opinion toward their side, we would be watching hockey..........

I say make it 50/50....keep the contract flexibility they have now...Let players with career ending injuries retire in peace. Everything else should stay the same.

What i dont get is that if the players loose more than 9 games this season they take the 12% haircut anyways. So in order to make it fair heres what they can do to grandfather contracts:

Take the 12% cut for this year, because if this goes on more than 9 games you loose more than 12% anyways:

Next year increase all contracts which took the cut by the percentage that Hockey related revenue increase....So revenue goes up by 7% increase the existing contracts that got cut this year by 7%......So the owners would be slowly giving back the money overtime. Obviously if revenue goes down the contract cut remains.


So in essence it becomes a true partnership.

I believe the longer this goes the worse it is for the players and the more money they will loose.
- Philly1980

Your logic is a bit off there. If HRR goes up 7% next year, the contracts should only go up 3.5%. The 50/50 split would still have to be preserved. Overall, I like the idea and agree with all your points... I also really like the fact that the owner proposed cba closes the loop hole of burying players in the minors.

I hear ya Bill

I am sorry
- watsonnostaw

I'm not sure how they talk in Atlanta, but we don't curse and use foul language (e.g. "greedy whores") in Philadelphia.

Our nickname, in case you are unaware, is the city of Brotherly Love. Please learn your audience and the language that they speak.

I did. In fact I never thought we'd be in this situation in the first place. After losing a season 7 years ago I would have imagined that cooler heads would prevail. They haven't.

Worst case scenario I figured a week or so at most in September. I'm beyond disappointed.
- hockeylover

I'm in the same boat as you. I never thought this was ever going to happen. I honestly thought both sides knew how important it was to avoid a lockout this time around.

This is the point that irks me. It was said that there were no negotiations during last season because the players were focused on the games (paraphrased). Fine, I can sort of get behind that, but to wait as long as they did before getting started on talks just irritates the crap out of me. The negotiations are at a serious starting point in the middle of October? Really? Both sides can go pound sand.

I'll watch the games when they start up again because I love the sport, but it'll be a while before I pull any money out of my pocket for the NHL, other than paying my cable bill.
- tangent_man

My good flyershat fell off fell off the rack the other night and 130 pound dog laid on it all night now it's ruined. So I will be putting money in their pockets

Take the 12% cut for this year, because if this goes on more than 9 games you loose more than 12% anyways:

Next year increase all contracts which took the cut by the percentage that Hockey related revenue increase....So revenue goes up by 7% increase the existing contracts that got cut this year by 7%......So the owners would be slowly giving back the money overtime. Obviously if revenue goes down the contract cut remains.


- Philly1980

I disagree.

This process isn't only for the next CBA period, but it sets the table for the future. Imho, there should never be a situation where a signed contract isn't fully honored. Allowing a cut now (again!) is a bad idea. And tying the "give back" to potential future growth is risky to the players. They may never see the give back.

Owners signed the contracts, they should honor them 100%, as signed, with no funny business. Doing business any other way is dishonorable and sleazy.