National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman told reporters on Thursday that the NHL will lock out its players if there is no new collective bargaining agreement by the time the old agreement expires on Sept. 15.
If there is a lockout, I'll be selling all my tickets for the foreseeable future. If this is how fans are treated by both sides, I won't be seen to be supporting either side by showing up or caring in the least about this sport.
Both sides are getting rich off regular joes like us, and that's still not good enough.
I always wondered what happens to the season tickets if there's a lockout? Do they just get pushed back a year?
I wouldn't worry abut that. The sides aren't nearly as far apart as in 2004. This will probably play out like the recent NFL (abreviated pre-season, but regular season unaffected) and NBA (played a somewhat shortened season) labour stoppages.
The lockout was always a lock if they didn't get a deal done by the time the CBA expired.
For me this is business and we got the team back in Winnipeg partially due to cost certainty born on the back of the last lockout so I look at this ugly process as a nessesary evil to ensure Winnipeg remains viable and can compete for a cup.
To be crystal clear I am not on the side of the players, I am not on the side of the owners, I am on the side of Winnipeg Jets owners and whatever "we need" in the CBA to keep our team long term and have a chance to win the cup......."us" vs. the other owners with divergent interests and players.
My hopes would be that both sides could get this done in time for the regular season but if they need time pressure (lock out) to insure my interests are protected then so be it. we spent 15 years in the wilderness and if it takes a few months of missed hockey every 8 to 10 years then so be it.
So here we are......pistols at dawn.....12 paces......may the best man win
Not much you can say about this. There's players, owners, and fans ... and only one of those groups isn't in this solely to hoard as much money as possible.
Well maybe I shouldn't be so cynical, there's probably at most 0.05% of players who aren't just in it for the money.
The lockout was always a lock if they didn't get a deal done by the time the CBA expired.
For me this is business and we got the team back in Winnipeg partially due to cost certainty born on the back of the last lockout so I look at this ugly process as a nessesary evil to ensure Winnipeg remains viable and can compete for a cup.
To be crystal clear I am not on the side of the players, I am not on the side of the owners, I am on the side of Winnipeg Jets owners and whatever "we need" in the CBA to keep our team long term and have a chance to win the cup......."us" vs. the other owners with divergent interests and players.
I think this is going to come down to owners versus owners. You have a number of teams consistently losing money, and a number of other teams making huge amounts of money. The owners opening offer "solved" that problem but cutting overall salaries so the poor teams wouldn't lose money, and the rich teams make even more money.
Fehr is going to come back next week pointing out how the league's problems can also be solved with greater revenue-sharing...
Last edited by Hammer Slammer: 08-11-2012 at 08:15 PM.
Reason: fixed quote
Meh, this isn't surprising in the least. It's a business and this is just part of it. There is still plenty of time for a deal to be made not sure why some of you are up in arms about this.
I think this is going to come down to owners versus owners. You have a number of teams consistently losing money, and a number of other teams making huge amounts of money. The owners opening offer "solved" that problem but cutting overall salaries so the poor teams wouldn't lose money, and the rich teams make even more money.
Fehr is going to come back next week pointing out how the league's problems can also be solved with greater revenue-sharing...
That's exactly what he'll come back with its been his M.O. However Gary proved last time around that he can keep the owners inline and on the same page so Fehr has his work cut out from him, it won't be like MLB where he'll be able to divide the owners.
The owners will more than likely receive a bigger piece, not the 54 that their asking for but probably around 50%.
Last edited by Hammer Slammer: 08-11-2012 at 08:15 PM.
Reason: fixed quote
That's exactly what he'll come back with its been his M.O. However Gary proved last time around that he can keep the owners inline and on the same page so Fehr has his work cut out from him, it won't be like MLB where he'll be able to divide the owners.
The owners will more than likely receive a bigger piece, not the 54 that their asking for but probably around 50%.
I agree Fehr will probably have some compelling revenue sharing ideas and it could all boil down to owners vs owner "VS" player vs players. Who's constituency has more solidarity? Last time it was the owners the time before that it was the players.......who wins the rubber match? Fehr and Bettman are both veterans at this game but they are only as strong as their respective camps.
Last edited by Hammer Slammer: 08-11-2012 at 08:16 PM.
Reason: fixin' quotes all up in hizzy
If we lose another season you can bet Phoenix and Florida will be devastated. Fans were just beginning to gain interest again. 7 years later after we lose a season we face that possibility again? Unacceptable. This would be Gary's 3rd lock out.
The lockout was always a lock if they didn't get a deal done by the time the CBA expired.
For me this is business and we got the team back in Winnipeg partially due to cost certainty born on the back of the last lockout so I look at this ugly process as a nessesary evil to ensure Winnipeg remains viable and can compete for a cup.
To be crystal clear I am not on the side of the players, I am not on the side of the owners, I am on the side of Winnipeg Jets owners and whatever "we need" in the CBA to keep our team long term and have a chance to win the cup......."us" vs. the other owners with divergent interests and players.
My hopes would be that both sides could get this done in time for the regular season but if they need time pressure (lock out) to insure my interests are protected then so be it. we spent 15 years in the wilderness and if it takes a few months of missed hockey every 8 to 10 years then so be it.
So here we are......pistols at dawn.....12 paces......may the best man win
Agreed 100%!!
Last Lockout was a HUGE step but it didn't fix everything this is inevitable.
Now I've only taken introductory economics/business courses for electives so I'm faaaar from an expert on this relative to a lot of people here... but isn't really the only long term answer a better revenue sharing program and even that won't be perfect.
No matter what you will have winners and losers. If you don't have winners than no one will be making a proffit. If you don't have losers than the cap floor/ceiling will continue to move up until there is a loser.
Last edited by garret9: 08-10-2012 at 08:55 AM.
Reason: should probably say what courses I took :P
Now I've only taken introductory economics/business courses so I'm faaaar from an expert on this relative to a lot of people here... but isn't really the only long term answer a better revenue sharing program and even that won't be perfect.
I wouldn't say it's the only answer, but it's probably the most logical one. And it's almost certainly what the PA's counteroffer will revolve around.
The biggest issue with revenue sharing is there's an absence of large TV contract money that can prop up the bottom end teams while still allowing the top end to retain their values. It then becomes a matter of the top end teams subsidizing low revenue teams. They already do to an extent, but the current system is so convoluted in terms of the requirements that need to be met, many of the teams in most dire need aren't benefitting.
Judging by their first proposal, the owners clearly feel they'll have more success asking the players to subsidize the bottom feeders than they will asking the top earning teams to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9
No matter what you will have winners and losers. If you don't have winners than no one will be making a proffit. If you don't have losers than the cap floor/ceiling will continue to move up until there is a loser.
More to the point, you'll always have problem franchises, which is why I have a hard time taking contraction talk seriously. 5 years ago, Nashville probably would have been a prime contraction candidate, but they've done a pretty good job of treading water in recent years.
However, the league is going to have to look long and hard about keeping teams in locations that consistently lose money (eg. Phoenix).
Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 08-10-2012 at 09:23 AM.
Pretty standard stuff. The one thing the owners have in their pocket this time around is that under no circumstances can the players let this go to an independent arbitrator.
I think that the pure money side (% of revenue split) of this deal will fall into place fairly easily if they can agree on how revenue should be calculated. I think some of the bigger issues this time around will be things like maximum contract length, time to UFA, supplemental discipline, etc.
