Perry signs extension with Anaheim

[cw]

MLSE were NOT "continually being on board with a CBA that effectively neuters the competitive advantage". They were simply and significantly outnumbered by other owners who saw the CBA as a path to some of MLSE's money.

A CBA they voted in favour of(twice!). If they weren't on board, they'd have voted against it.

They were unanimous votes for symbolic media consumption after all the infighting among the owners and after the lockouts. But MLSE were not happy with the final CBA - particularly in 2005.

There were several reports of what had gone on in the BoG meetings with the Leafs being largely alienated by the majority of owners.

 

[Corn Flake]

I'm actually somewhat relieved for the closure with these guys now.

 

[Kin]

They were unanimous votes for symbolic media consumption after all the infighting among the owners and after the lockouts. But MLSE were not happy with the final CBA - particularly in 2005.

You can say it was for media consumption but lets be real, it was for public consumption and that's exactly what I'm talking about. The CBA's were going to sail towards approval regardless of how MLSE voted and if they had actual genuine objections and cared about communicating those to the fans who they were more than content to raise prices on for a weaker and weaker product they could and should have voted against the CBA's. That they only feigned solidarity is, if anything, more insulting.

It's all very well and good to believe "reports" about how the Tanenbaum or whoever raised a stink in a meeting or another(although whether that was about other teams "helping themselves to MLSE's money" via revenue sharing as opposed to pocketing more revenue themselves and not giving it to the players we don't know) but it's precisely their public stance that I'm talking about. Especially considering that to an outside observer, one might think that these new CBAs actually did fairly well by MLSE financially.

 

[Deebo]

They were unanimous votes for symbolic media consumption after all the infighting among the owners and after the lockouts. But MLSE were not happy with the final CBA - particularly in 2005.

You can say it was for media consumption but lets be real, it was for public consumption and that's exactly what I'm talking about. The CBA's were going to sail towards approval regardless of how MLSE voted and if they had actual genuine objections and cared about communicating those to the fans who they were more than content to raise prices on for a weaker and weaker product they could and should have voted against the CBA's. That they only feigned solidarity is, if anything, more insulting.

Are you just saying the feigned solidarity offends you or are you denying the solidarity was feigned?

 

[Kin]

Are you just saying the feigned solidarity offends you or are you denying the solidarity was feigned?

I suppose I'm saying that if the solidarity was feigned it would be more insulting than if it were genuine while leaving the question of whether or not it was open.

edit: And just to sort of clarify, the reports that I'm fairly sure that cw is referring to, at least to the best of my recollections, described a tension between MLSE and other owners about the negotiating process, whether the lockouts were worth the gains, rather than the actual CBA's themselves. Once agreements were reached, I don't recall anything saying that the Leafs were in any way opposed to having tight limits on what they could spend on salary.

 

[maplesyrup]

Not sure I follow.  ???

 

[Redleaf]

Not sure I follow.  ???

You're supposed to plank.

 

[cw]

They were unanimous votes for symbolic media consumption after all the infighting among the owners and after the lockouts. But MLSE were not happy with the final CBA - particularly in 2005.

You can say it was for media consumption but lets be real, it was for public consumption and that's exactly what I'm talking about. The CBA's were going to sail towards approval regardless of how MLSE voted and if they had actual genuine objections and cared about communicating those to the fans who they were more than content to raise prices on for a weaker and weaker product they could and should have voted against the CBA's. That they only feigned solidarity is, if anything, more insulting.

It's all very well and good to believe "reports" about how the Tanenbaum or whoever raised a stink in a meeting or another(although whether that was about other teams "helping themselves to MLSE's money" via revenue sharing as opposed to pocketing more revenue themselves and not giving it to the players we don't know) but it's precisely their public stance that I'm talking about. Especially considering that to an outside observer, one might think that these new CBAs actually did fairly well by MLSE financially.

I don't think "symbolic media consumption" implies they intended to keep it from public consumption, does it? (rhetorical question)

Both situations involved acrimonious lockouts. Therefore, what needed to be done for the good of the league and the sport was for the owners to park their particular concerns, shut up and get on with repairing the damage done - which is what they did and why they did so. And I think they were very right to do so.

Later, MLSE aired some of their grievances. For example, you may recall Peddie describing revenue sharing as shuffling the chairs on the Titanic.

You didn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out (or need to be told) that the big market teams lost a bunch of their competitive edge with money for payroll  under the new CBA and in doing so, would bank some of the proceeds that didn't go to revenue sharing. It was pretty obvious to the vast majority observers without anyone having to declare a thing. And that's the way it got reported without MLSE having to say a thing because it was so darn obvious.

So you can carry on feigning that you were insulted.

 

[Kin]

Both situations involved acrimonious lockouts. Therefore, what needed to be done for the good of the league and the sport was for the owners to park their particular concerns, shut up and get on with repairing the damage done - which is what they did and why they did so. And I think they were very right to do so.

Yes. That seems to be the crux of the disagreement. You think it's better that they did what was best for the league, I think they should have done what was best for their fans(or customers if you prefer).

Later, MLSE aired some of their grievances. For example, you may recall Peddie describing revenue sharing as shuffling the chairs on the Titanic.

Yes. Peddie, however, wins no bonus points with me as a fan for being sad that MLSE had to give away some small part of their enormous profits in the service of fixing the league's financial problems that these acrimonious lockouts(that MLSE voted in favour of) were ostensibly about.

You didn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out (or need to be told) that the big market teams lost a bunch of their competitive edge with money for payroll  under the new CBA and in doing so, would bank some of the proceeds that didn't go to revenue sharing. It was pretty obvious to the vast majority observers without anyone having to declare a thing. And that's the way it got reported without MLSE having to say a thing because it was so darn obvious.

Indeed. It was obvious. And MLSE's vote on the CBA was equally obvious in stating where they fell on the pocketing revenue vs. maintaining their competitive advantage axis.

And for what it's worth, I just said it was insulting to the fans of the team. I personally have become relatively inured to MLSE not giving a damn about winning when there's money to be made.

 

[lamajama]

Well I would think this means Phil is staying - which I'm happy about.

He may not be a "perfect" superstar but there are only a handful of players
in the NHL with his offensive ability.

And it's probably time all us TML fans forget about the "fantastic UFA" coming available that we're going to go after because the very best ones never make it to UFA status. So although it's meaningless with Burke gone, our July 1 is just another day.

 

[princedpw]

This kind of contract makes Crosby's deal look like even more of a steal.