Saw some news/tweets on the business board that the NHL is saying the PA wants more money and a raise. NHL is tired of making proposals.
I'd say this is not good news, I believe we have till about 1/1/2013 to make a deal or the season is lost. I'm more interested to see if their are other ways to get this done - Legal action, Mediation/Arbitration, etc. Anyone that knows the CBA and or or labor law have any ideas?
My season is done either way ... I refuse to watch a red-headed step child of a season like the one we saw in 94/95. I won't be buying Center Ice ever again either. I'll be living near Tahoe soon so I won't have to pay to see Sharks game anyhow. I hate you NHL.
I can understand that sentiment, but one of the greatest moments in Sharks history happened during 94-95: The Ray Whitney double OT Game 7 winner vs. Calgary.
Nobody then, or now, says "Oh yeah, I remember that, I remember not watching because it was part of a lockout-shortened season."
__________________
2011: Outcoached by Vigneault. 2012: Outcoached all season and postseason by Hitch.
2013: Outcoached by most coaches in the NHL. Who's left? 12 year olds on Xbox Live? SACK T-MAC NOW
Well, if there is no season, at least the odds are that we will get a much higher 1st rounder compared to if the season had played out.
That's the only good thing. Maybe the hockey gods will smile upon us like last time. Of course, odds are also that we'll squander the pick on a Devin Setoguchi when a perfectly good Anze Kopitar is available and everyone is screaming for him to be picked.
That's the only good thing. Maybe the hockey gods will smile upon us like last time. Of course, odds are also that we'll squander the pick on a Devin Setoguchi when a perfectly good Anze Kopitar is available and everyone is screaming for him to be picked.
This game of chicken between both sides is getting old. The longer it goes the worse off the league is. I'm not on either side..I just want Hockey back.
That's the only good thing. Maybe the hockey gods will smile upon us like last time. Of course, odds are also that we'll squander the pick on a Devin Setoguchi when a perfectly good Anze Kopitar is available and everyone is screaming for him to be picked.
Or they can draft another Logan Couture. There are no guarantees when it comes to the draft. In any sport.
That's the only good thing. Maybe the hockey gods will smile upon us like last time. Of course, odds are also that we'll squander the pick on a Devin Setoguchi when a perfectly good Anze Kopitar is available and everyone is screaming for him to be picked.
Here I am getting optimistic about getting a high pick and then you have to remind us all of this.
Here I am getting optimistic about getting a high pick and then you have to remind us all of this.
Always happy to help.
Although honestly, I'd be happy picking anywhere in the top-15 of this draft. It looks phenomenal. I've seen lots of the players play and boy is it a great group.
Sheppard's in the AHL and Setoguchi's in the ECHL. Wanna rethink that?
Uh... isn't it that Seto's on a 1-way contract and Sheppard's on a 2-way. So more specifically: Seto's too good to be allowed to play in the AHL when the NHL isn't around, and Sheppard is possibly playing in the AHL either way?
There is always a discussion of rich owners versus players short careers. Its pretty well understood that hockey doesn't have the same revenue opportunity as the other major sports. The players saw such a gigantic raise in average salaries under the last CBA just because they went with a hard cap on salaries - and yet many viewed that as a loss for the players. I'm still not sure why given the salary increases.
I see another lost season as a much bigger sacrifice for the players. In the end, it will get down to face saving for Fehr with a repackaging of a proposal so it looks like the got something for their hard-line, and the players are going to have to back down.
Its a financial reality when a team is owned by the league and there are recent team bankruptcies. Teams and owners aren't making a return on their investments (large markets are as I understand). Its not rational for players to expect the owners to kick in more of their own capital to cover operational losses. It shoud come from revenues and there is only so much to split.
I get their solution is to have the large market teams cover the smaller teams in revenue sharing as other leagues do, but look at what that does for competitiveness. It creates teams that look like they are welfare cases. It doesn't help the product and creates teams that are always looking to move.
Hopefully we will get a season but at this stage, the sides are only getting more entrenched.
Uh... isn't it that Seto's on a 1-way contract and Sheppard's on a 2-way. So more specifically: Seto's too good to be allowed to play in the AHL when the NHL isn't around, and Sheppard is possibly playing in the AHL either way?
I predict the season is officially cancelled on December 1. I don't think the owners are going to wait beyond that point to shut it down for good and start focusing on trying to get something in place for next season. A half season at this point would be worse than no season, IMO.
There is always a discussion of rich owners versus players short careers. Its pretty well understood that hockey doesn't have the same revenue opportunity as the other major sports. The players saw such a gigantic raise in average salaries under the last CBA just because they went with a hard cap on salaries - and yet many viewed that as a loss for the players. I'm still not sure why given the salary increases.
I see another lost season as a much bigger sacrifice for the players. In the end, it will get down to face saving for Fehr with a repackaging of a proposal so it looks like the got something for their hard-line, and the players are going to have to back down.
Its a financial reality when a team is owned by the league and there are recent team bankruptcies. Teams and owners aren't making a return on their investments (large markets are as I understand). Its not rational for players to expect the owners to kick in more of their own capital to cover operational losses. It shoud come from revenues and there is only so much to split.
I get their solution is to have the large market teams cover the smaller teams in revenue sharing as other leagues do, but look at what that does for competitiveness. It creates teams that look like they are welfare cases. It doesn't help the product and creates teams that are always looking to move.
Hopefully we will get a season but at this stage, the sides are only getting more entrenched.
The expired CBA did create and make worse welfare cases. The sharing itself does not create them. The cap floor enforces spending of money that teams may not have. Rev share can help the product to be more competitive (balanced) leaguewide. Less teams that are perennial basket cases.
Couple of things. Part of the problem for low rev teams is that the floor is rising faster than league growth. They had the cap range as static so that the lower end of the range by the previous CBA was going to accelerate faster than league growth. Without an increase of rev share or a change in the ranging system, the low rev teams had two strikes against them. The NHL redistributes 1/3 the amount by percentage of the next lowest sharing league of the big 4. That isn't close. The net profit for the league is well below by percentage of all of the other 3 of the big 4. The NHL players receive 14% more of the total revenue of the league than the next closest league distributes to their players.
Top this off with a low rev team wanting to improve its lot. It has to spend yet more for better players to be better able to compete to draw fans. Vicious cycle. Major kudos to low rev teams who succeed despite the odds stacked against them. That isn't just success, it is a miracle.
One main issue is that the PA recognizes the state of low rev teams but they are violently and unalterably opposed to giving another windfall to high rev teams to create a higher trickle to the low rev markets. The last CBA was among other things effectively a revenue transfer from low rev teams to high rev teams by capping the expenses of high rev teams and enforcing higher expenses on low rev teams. The last CBA was a windfall for the big guys.
The mechanism of the last CBA gave pay increases to all but the first tier of players if you divide skills into 4 tiers. The top tier took it in the neck. The proposals from both sides seem to aim to increase the relative pay of the top tier.
I predict the season is officially cancelled on December 1. I don't think the owners are going to wait beyond that point to shut it down for good and start focusing on trying to get something in place for next season. A half season at this point would be worse than no season, IMO.
Why do you think that?
Wasn't 94-95 a 44 game season, so basically a half season? As Sharks fans remember, it produced an exciting first round matchup with the Flames and I have never, ever heard anyone (in Hockey Media or otherwise) suggest that the Devils 1995 Cup was tainted or worthy of an asterisk.
In fact, I never hear anyone ever say Devlis 95 Cup and lockout in the same sentence.
Wasn't 94-95 a 44 game season, so basically a half season? As Sharks fans remember, it produced an exciting first round matchup with the Flames and I have never, ever heard anyone (in Hockey Media or otherwise) suggest that the Devils 1995 Cup was tainted or worthy of an asterisk.
In fact, I never hear anyone ever say Devlis 95 Cup and lockout in the same sentence.
The game of hockey was very different 17 years ago than it is today. If they tried to play a half season now, it would be a joke, both in terms of the product on the ice and the result in terms of a Stanley Cup champion. You can't squeeze a proper training camp into a week and you can't squeeze the natural ebb and flow of a hockey season into 3 months.
On the business side, the reality is that once the owners reach a certain point with losses this year, their willingness to give actually moves in the other direction, i.e., they are not going to be as flexible to make a less attractive deal just to salvage some circus of a short season. They're getting very close to the point where it makes more sense for them to just say, season's over, players go start thinking about whether you want to play hockey next year.
