The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners
For players, you can sort of categorize various players based on their general comments to the media regarding the proposals (not talking about their thoughts on Bettman)
Hardliners, run thru a wall for Fehr - Cole, Crosby, Gorges
Moderate I, pro-PA but playing is equally important - Schnieder, Bieksa
Moderate II, pro-PA but playing likely more important - BizNasty
Just want to play, indifferent to the process -
Just want to play, Discontent with the PA - Hamrlik
700 players... you are going to see your full range...
If i were to guess
100 Hardliners, 100 Discontents
100 Moderate I's, 200 Moderate II's
200 Indifferent - This would likely be many of the very young bubble guys that have only been in the league a couple yrs or rookies - too busy developing their craft for when the game resumes.. or other players playing elsewhere, focused on other things, etc... These guys MIGHT check their PA app every once in awhile.. but otherwise are like - let me know when its it done.
I'm sure many can probably accurately place certain players in certain categories based on their comments...
Go ahead list others if you heard em..
Michal Neuvirth backed Hamerlik. Toews is a hardliner
There are players like D. Boyle who see both sides as being intransigent.
For ages, agents have always espoused the principal that the "star" players drag the salaries of the rest of the group up. My take is that this is no longer the case in a linked, capped system. However, there have been quotes from agents since the 05 CBA that continue to espouse this line.
There can be some group think in the process where a minority can control the majority by marginalizing opposing opinion, even though the opposing opinion is that held by the majority (or plurality). Even though there have been conference calls by Fehr, it is entirely possible that a militant minority can control opposing opinion by effectively shouting down the opposition and the minority doesn't have to be controlled or directed by Fehr himself. And, Fehr's opinion is on the more militant side which would add weight to that minority.
Long ago, I was a volunteer subject in a replication of the Milgram experiment. I was not familiar with the experiment or its purpose before participating. The information presented to behave in accordance with the majority was presented as expert and the consequences of not going along was presented as not in my self-interest. I didn't go along and went back for their results to find that I was in a minority of 2% that didn't follow the "company" line.
Jacobs and Leonsis on the owners side to name a few.
Leipold too. And on the polar opposite side is Molson of the Canadiens, who is losing a **** ton of beer sales every day, so you know he wants to play.
Leipold too. And on the polar opposite side is Molson of the Canadiens, who is losing a **** ton of beer sales every day, so you know he wants to play.
Hardline owner Jacobs is probably losing more than most due to his various arena contracts to provide concessions.
Such a shame that Crosby and Ovechkin were the faces of the new post-2004/05 lockout era and became the hardliners of this lockout which coould potentially cancel the 2012/13 season.
Such a shame that Crosby and Ovechkin were the faces of the new post-2004/05 lockout era and became the hardliners of this lockout which coould potentially cancel the 2012/13 season.
I hate this world.
Crosby seems to just obsess about contract rights (arbitration/entry level stuff) now. Really, on those issues, its Bettman, not any players, who are being needlessly intransigent (ie hardliners).
Keep thinking of a Garrioch article where he spoke with 3 anonymous governors about contract changes. All 3 said they don't like back-diving deals, but that, other than that, contract changes "mean nothing to me."
There's no question in my mind, though, that Ovechkin's one of the guys driving the bus on the economic issues that keep manifesting themselves in PA offers as de-linked proposals.
I agree with that the backdiving contracts need to be addressed. But the five year term limit and the salary arbitration demands the owners want are a little bit ridiculous. They need to back off on those demands.
A breakthrough can be made if they can back off from those. Just demand the 5% variance rule. I'm sure the PA would be willing to accept that and this should lead to a pathway for a deal to be made. IMO, there is a deal to be made soon.
I suspect a lot of players are natively moderate but occasional hardliners depending on how the negotiations are going.
I think most of them love the life style of being NHL players and are just looking for the NHL to give them something so they can go back to playing. This is why I think Bettman has done a lousy job. He doesn't read the situation at all but think of it only in terms of what he can get out of the players, simply because he can.
When the players say contracting is important to them and they can't believe why the league has to have that too, I get the impression that players really need to get something they can point to as worth fighting for. A win so they can save face and feel they fought for a good reason. I don't think any of them burn passionately about anything in there with the exception of UFA age and arbitration.
I think there are a lot of moderates but Bettman is working really hard trying to turn them into hardliners. Which is good news for 2017-18.
I agree with that the backdiving contracts need to be addressed. But the five year term limit and the salary arbitration demands the owners want are a little bit ridiculous. They need to back off on those demands.
A breakthrough can be made if they can back off from those. Just demand the 5% variance rule. I'm sure the PA would be willing to accept that and this should lead to a pathway for a deal to be made. IMO, there is a deal to be made soon.
They likely will. I doubt the NHL seriously thinks they will be getting a 5 year max. I think they are probably going to settle for 7, maybe even 8.
Yeah, Stl owner Tom Stillman needed Bettman to help him get a fair deal from our previous owner. There is no way he is one of the hardliners, he is probably supporting whatever Bettman wants to do which is probably the case with most the owners in the league. Cost of running a team has gone up while players salaries continue to rise, not hard to believe that most owners will endure a lockout to get a better deal.
I suspect a lot of players are natively moderate but occasional hardliners depending on how the negotiations are going.
I think most of them love the life style of being NHL players and are just looking for the NHL to give them something so they can go back to playing. This is why I think Bettman has done a lousy job. He doesn't read the situation at all but think of it only in terms of what he can get out of the players, simply because he can.
When the players say contracting is important to them and they can't believe why the league has to have that too, I get the impression that players really need to get something they can point to as worth fighting for. A win so they can save face and feel they fought for a good reason. I don't think any of them burn passionately about anything in there with the exception of UFA age and arbitration.
I think there are a lot of moderates but Bettman is working really hard trying to turn them into hardliners. Which is good news for 2017-18.
Have you heard some of the players comments lately? They think they offered a 50/50 split in their last offer. Retired players have came out telling them to end the lockout and take the pay cut buy they just keep drinking the cool aid thinking they will get a better deal the longer they wait.
They likely will. I doubt the NHL seriously thinks they will be getting a 5 year max. I think they are probably going to settle for 7, maybe even 8.
NHL contracts are now only insured for 5 years. Some teams can not afford to pay for extra insurance for the extra years. So having any contract length beyond 5 years gives an advantage to wealthy teams.
NHL contracts are now only insured for 5 years. Some teams can not afford to pay for extra insurance for the extra years. So having any contract length beyond 5 years gives an advantage to wealthy teams.
But Molson added that he and other owners are being kept informed of the situation and that he has confidence in commissioner Gary Bettman and his small inner circle of owners.
Nine of the 10 most valuable franchises are sitting on the sidelines.
So according to this article: Boston ( because of greed ) and the teams losing money are the reason we have a lockout.
NHL contracts are now only insured for 5 years. Some teams can not afford to pay for extra insurance for the extra years. So having any contract length beyond 5 years gives an advantage to wealthy teams.
I must admit, I didn't realize that at the time, but I still see the NHL moving on that issue, just maybe not as much, and certainly not as easy, as I first thought.
But Molson added that he and other owners are being kept informed of the situation and that he has confidence in commissioner Gary Bettman and his small inner circle of owners.
Nine of the 10 most valuable franchises are sitting on the sidelines.
So according to this article: Boston ( because of greed ) and the teams losing money are the reason we have a lockout.
Basically right on the money. Teams like the Habs, Leafs and NYR should throw their collective weight around. Molson comes off as one of the owners that would like to see the lockout resolved ASAP and is generally sympathetic to the fans and small business owners losing money.
Why should the teams that aren't really losing money annually have the power to decide how to handle a situation where many teams ARE losing money annually?
Sounds just like our recent election. Voting to tax OTHER people to fix things.
OOps, I'm in California that I'm referring to, although nationally not much different
