HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Buffalo Sabres (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   TSN: Fehr selected to lead NHLPA into next negotiations (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=855180)

joshjull 12-19-2010 10:10 PM

Fehr selected to lead NHLPA into next negotiations
 
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=346048


Quote:

Donald Fehr made his name in baseball. He negotiated five collective agreements, successfully sued the owners three times for collusion and had the unwavering support of his players through good times and bad including three work stoppages. It's a record the NHLPA couldn't resist despite his lack of experience in hockey.
Quote:

The union was divided; it turned to Fehr for guidance. Then asked the 62-year-old to put off retirement and lead them into the next round of collective bargaining in 2012.


Quote:

Back in the mid-1990's baseball was trying to prop up struggling markets, but Fehr has an unshakeable belief in survival of the fittest. Now that hockey's his game, that tough position could be hard news in places where hockey is a hard sell such as Phoenix, Nashville, South Florida and Atlanta, and give hope to relocation hungry markets like Quebec City and Winnipeg.
Quote:

The current agreement between hockey players and owners expires after the 2011-2012 season. So does a new union head with a free market ideology and tough negotiating history mean a nasty showdown is coming with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman?

Quote:

"Obviously we can't shut the game down, but who knows. We're not the only person with that decision. It's a decision that comes from two sides, it's not one side or the other, but it's definitely a possibility." admitted Rafalski.

Awesome :help:

Zip15 12-19-2010 10:17 PM

Very bad news for teams like the Sabres that Fehr is in the fold. Methinks that the first thing Fehr will try to get rid of is the hard cap. If he succeeds, welcome back to pre-lockout hockey where the big market teams run the league.

jfb392 12-19-2010 10:25 PM

I don't think he'll try to get rid of the cap and that he's just here to lead the players since they've went through five leaders in five years.
He listens to the players first and foremost.
But then again, I don't trust him and his stupid Igor eyes. :laugh:

Anyways, Bettman and 8 owners can reject a new CBA, so I don't think we have to worry about the cap going away, but we do have to worry about a lockout.
If there's another lockout, the NHL is dead IMO.

Afino 12-19-2010 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zip15 (Post 29675423)
welcome back to pre-lockout hockey where the big market teams run the league.

Uh, they already do. Too late for that.

Zip15 12-19-2010 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigZackKassian (Post 29675993)
Uh, they already do. Too late for that.

I don't disagree. Frankly, I think this CBA has far too many loopholes that benefit large market teams--pre-Kovalchuk circumvention, ability to hide big contracts in the minors without them counting against the team's cap, etc.

Fehr will look to act in the best interests of the Union, which will require him to find ways to get more money to the players. The hard cap is something I think he'll try to get rid of. I'm guessing that he'll push for a soft cap system where teams will have to pay a "luxury tax" if they exceed the cap, something teams like the Habs, Leafs, Rags, and Flyers will be too willing to accept if it gives them a competitive advantage on the ice.

jfb392 12-19-2010 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zip15 (Post 29676174)
I don't disagree. Frankly, I think this CBA has far too many loopholes that benefit large market teams--pre-Kovalchuk circumvention, ability to hide big contracts in the minors without them counting against the team's cap, etc.

Fehr will look to act in the best interests of the Union, which will require him to find ways to get more money to the players. The hard cap is something I think he'll try to get rid of. I'm guessing that he'll push for a soft cap system where teams will have to pay a "luxury tax" if they exceed the cap, something teams like the Habs, Leafs, Rags, and Flyers will be too willing to accept if it gives them a competitive advantage on the ice.

I don't think the the PA would try to get rid of the burying of contracts, as the players are still receiving their salaries.
If there was some way of getting out of paying them their full salaries, they'd have a problem, but there isn't.

I hate the idea of a soft cap system so much because it defeats the whole point of having a cap in the first place.
There will always be poor teams, middle of the pack teams, well off teams, and rich teams.
When it comes down to it, the rich teams are always going to win the bidding wars in a soft capped or uncapped league, because even if the well off teams have the money, they may not be able to afford the luxury tax, so a soft cap is just an enabler.

Look what happens in the NBA, like the abomination to the sport that is the Miami Heat, or the fact that over half of the championships in that sport have been won by two teams and almost all of them were won by like 6 teams, or that the same team appeared in the finals 7 teams in the past decade and won 5 of the championships.

The NBA is the only thing I've ever even tried following besides hockey (and I couldn't because of the fact that the league is just a couple of teams who are good and then a bunch who have no chance), but the MLB seems ridiculous too.
Of course I don't follow it, but it seems like the Red Sox and Yankees just signed all of the guys who were any good while the rest got the scraps.
No matter how much I hate football, look how competitive it is with a hard cap.

With the importance of in-house development in hockey, a soft cap or capless league would just make many teams into feeder teams for the large market teams, which is stupid to me.
The fact that really any team in the NHL that is managed well can have a shot is what makes it interesting, at least in my opinion.

Once he learns about hockey, I think he will realize that his ideas just don't work for it.
If he doesn't realize that, I hope that a rival league pops up, because I'd much rather follow that than follow a hockey league that is trying to act like the biggest joke of league you can find in North America.

goooal 12-20-2010 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfb392 (Post 29676514)
I don't think the the PA would try to get rid of the burying of contracts, as the players are still receiving their salaries.
If there was some way of getting out of paying them their full salaries, they'd have a problem, but there isn't.

I hate the idea of a soft cap system so much because it defeats the whole point of having a cap in the first place.
There will always be poor teams, middle of the pack teams, well off teams, and rich teams.
When it comes down to it, the rich teams are always going to win the bidding wars in a soft capped or uncapped league, because even if the well off teams have the money, they may not be able to afford the luxury tax, so a soft cap is just an enabler.

Look what happens in the NBA, like the abomination to the sport that is the Miami Heat, or the fact that over half of the championships in that sport have been won by two teams and almost all of them were won by like 6 teams, or that the same team appeared in the finals 7 teams in the past decade and won 5 of the championships.

The NBA is the only thing I've ever even tried following besides hockey (and I couldn't because of the fact that the league is just a couple of teams who are good and then a bunch who have no chance), but the MLB seems ridiculous too.
Of course I don't follow it, but it seems like the Red Sox and Yankees just signed all of the guys who were any good while the rest got the scraps.
No matter how much I hate football, look how competitive it is with a hard cap.

With the importance of in-house development in hockey, a soft cap or capless league would just make many teams into feeder teams for the large market teams, which is stupid to me.
The fact that really any team in the NHL that is managed well can have a shot is what makes it interesting, at least in my opinion.

Once he learns about hockey, I think he will realize that his ideas just don't work for it.
If he doesn't realize that, I hope that a rival league pops up, because I'd much rather follow that than follow a hockey league that is trying to act like the biggest joke of league you can find in North America.

Except the yankees havnt signed anyone this offseason really and they almost lost their own division last season. As far as the red sox, they didn't even make the playoffs last year so yeah they're gonna push hard in free agency to compete this year. Im not saying that there's no truth in your words, just trying to point out that its NOT just the red sox and yankees like many non baseball fans think.

As far as the nba, I just casually watch but the lakers won many championships cause they've had two hyper dominant players (shaq in the early 00s and kobe in the latter 00s) and a legendary coach. They've become an organization that players want to play for, just like detroit in the nhl football and the pats in football.

jfb392 12-20-2010 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goooal (Post 29677021)
Except the yankees havnt signed anyone this offseason really and they almost lost their own division last season. As far as the red sox, they didn't even make the playoffs last year so yeah they're gonna push hard in free agency to compete this year. Im not saying that there's no truth in your words, just trying to point out that its NOT just the red sox and yankees like many non baseball fans think.

As far as the nba, I just casually watch but the lakers won many championships cause they've had two hyper dominant players (shaq in the early 00s and kobe in the latter 00s) and a legendary coach. They've become an organization that players want to play for, just like detroit in the nhl football and the pats in football.

Well, all ESPN went on about last week was how the Yankees lost the bidding war for Cliff Lee.
Like I said, I don't care about baseball but it's ridiculous.
Literally a day after the season ended, they started in with the talk of Lee moving to a larger market team.

And the Red Sox almost lost their division, so what?
They already have a bunch of talented players and they signed a guy who I just looked up that was named "the face of the Rays' franchise" and ESPN showed that now almost all odds makers have the Red Sox as sure winners of the World Series.
And since I watch SportsCenter, I know both the Rays and the Rangers were decent teams but they've now both lost huge parts of their team to the Sox and Phillies because of bidding wars.

Even if the Lakers have insanely talented players, you don't see the domination to that degree in hockey when teams have uber players.
I don't know who their players are really or their salary situation, but they are able to surround their players with talent that brings the whole team to an unreal level it seems, and one would think that is possible because they are the most popular team and have the money to pay luxury taxes.
As for the Celtics, they have the big three or whatever that they signed, plus Rondo, plus Shaq now and they still have a decent bench.
The Heat have their big three and a supporting cast of scrubs mostly, but I think they went over cap with those three signings or something, so the soft cap is just encouraging bad habits because they can load up on free agents and sign minimum deals to fill the team.
The Knicks are going to buy up Carmleo Anthony from the smaller market Nuggets and already got Stoudemire this summer.

I don't follow football, but when was the last time Detroit signed a big free agent?
Marian Hossa, who signed a one year contract?
How'd that one work out?
They are just good at developing their players.

Hockey of course isn't as popular as "America's pastime" or basketball, so even if large market teams dominated because of the lack of a cap, there wouldn't be much money.
It's still a niche sport and the NHL is trying to grow the game, not just sell it to markets that already care and even then have nowhere near as much interest as the other major sports.
Going back to not having a cap would go against everything the league has been trying to do.

struckbyaparkedcar 12-20-2010 01:45 AM

Eh. Fehr's not an idiot and the players don't have leverage. I posted this in the main board thread on this, but someone who's represented a lot of hockey players and is a current MLBPA rep came to speak at my school and he said that we shouldn't look at Fehr's history with baseball because of how different the situations are. I interpreted that as basically, striking is never really off the table, but its unlikely in the current environment.

Granted, this is the same guy who went off on how salary caps are bad because the Blackhawks "gutted" their team (at which point I almost walked out of the lecture), so I don't know how honest the guy was, but it's worth sharing.

Additionally, I like the cap. It lets rich teams be rich with cost certainty, but prevents poorer clubs from being major league farm teams and prevents stupid **** like the Holik contract.

gaf 12-20-2010 07:33 AM

do. not. like....

So we got a basketball guy running the league and a baseball guy running the PA. I hope in the end- they give enough of a crap about the sport and the fans to work together... :help:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.