Yep, of course decertification would lead to league contraction and less teams and thereby less players but again its no longer an association so the bigwig players that make the big money, and want decertification don't bloody care. Its not an association anymore anyway so go pound sand if you're not elite bro.
The Decertification ploy really stands in the face of the NHLPA stance that "we're doing this for our future hockey brethren"
btw is it just me or is there a contractual mandate that player reps be some of the most overpaid players in the game. As in "yeah you and your agent milked that deal, high five, yo bro, you're in."
ps Seems like every lockout theres some stupid player dream. Last time out it was starting their own league. Look how far that got.
The Decertification ploy really stands in the face of the NHLPA stance that "we're doing this for our future hockey brethren"agreed, I really don't see how decertification helps more than a few big stars.
It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that decertification was the end game of the NHL, not just a knee jerk reaction by the NHLPA. The same law firm assisting the NHL has been involved in decertification negotiations with the NFL and NBA. They would have expected this a year ago so maybe they planned for it.
Daly is on record saying that the law is very clear - antitrust lawsuits would be successful in only rare and specific violations. Having prior knowledge of these limits, the NHL could easily avoid them.
Maybe a few large market hawks are driving this bus. They would love to be free of the NHLPA and aren't concerned about sacrificing a few teams (collateral damage)
ps Seems like every lockout theres some stupid player dream. Last time out it was starting their own league. Look how far that got.
Yeah probably because they realized the actual dollars equated to owning and running a business of that magnitude. Those kind of dolalrs would cut deeply into the partying nights of jaggerbombs, ****** beer and cristalla; both dollar wise and time wise.
It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that decertification was the end game of the NHL, not just a knee jerk reaction by the NHLPA. The same law firm assisting the NHL has been involved in decertification negotiations with the NFL and NBA. They would have expected this a year ago so maybe they planned for it.
Daly is on record saying that the law is very clear - antitrust lawsuits would be successful in only rare and specific violations. Having prior knowledge of these limits, the NHL could easily avoid them.
Maybe a few large market hawks are driving this bus. They would love to be free of the NHLPA and aren't concerned about sacrificing a few teams (collateral damage)
Interesting idea.
I could see Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Philly and Boston all driving the bus for something like this.
Frankly, the players can't win. The NHL can afford to wait them out and are big enough *******s to do so. If it takes a season, or even two, the owners will get their contract. My hope is that they lose a boatload of fans in the process and start to re-evaluate how they treat us.
s7ark, you're taking this too personal. What exactly has the owners done to you the fan?
Fans think they have some say in this process - they don't. It's a battle between the owners and the players.
If the fans wish to come back whenever hockey starts up again, that's their personal choice - but the fan has no rights, nor do they have any obligations.
Yep, of course decertification would lead to league contraction and less teams and thereby less players but again its no longer an association so the bigwig players that make the big money, and want decertification don't bloody care. Its not an association anymore anyway so go pound sand if you're not elite bro.
Why would decertification lead to league contraction necessarily?
I can see that certain american hockey markets would have such low fan turnout returning after the lockout that it could crush those teams, but decertification in of itself shouldn't necessarily lead to league contraction... does it?
I can see the concern about the triple damage lawsuits, but that could be years away and tied up in the courts for a long time.
Aside from that, decertification would mean the big markets would grab all the best players but without a union, the smaller markets could survive without the restrictions on cap floor, guaranteed contracts etc. i.e. couldn't a team like Nashville or Columbus field a team with a team salary of $20 million and survive?
Why would decertification lead to league contraction necessarily?
I can see that certain american hockey markets would have such low fan turnout returning after the lockout that it could crush those teams, but decertification in of itself shouldn't necessarily lead to league contraction... does it?
I can see the concern about the triple damage lawsuits, but that could be years away and tied up in the courts for a long time.
Aside from that, decertification would mean the big markets would grab all the best players but without a union, the smaller markets could survive without the restrictions on cap floor, guaranteed contracts etc. i.e. couldn't a team like Nashville or Columbus field a team with a team salary of $20 million and survive?
Interest would plummet in those markets. With some divisions potentially resembling "relegation"
Even if 20M salary is the case we're speaking in those teams of quas AHL lineups and fans prudent enough to recognize it as such.
I'll make a specific point here. A league like the NBA can survive something like this because fans tend to see it as star driven entertainment and so appreciate the ability of the stars, what they do, and tend to worship that talent whether it be playing on the home team or opposition. Thus a LA Lakers game is boffo box office anywhere. The NHL is much more a 20 player TEAM game and if anything it tends to be depressing experience watching an opposing team come in and chronically beat up the local side. Welcome to the 90's here with the "Premium dates" just requiring greater dosage of antidepressants..I went to a lot of those games in the 90's partly due to the fascination of what had so quickly come and gone. To dynasty to Shane Corson etal.
Most people had no interest at all in this and tickets for any game could be had from scalpers for 20bucks or less.
Many markets, and even this one, is not going to pay any moderate ticket price to see a low talent non competitive club. So the end result being that no matter how low payroll goes revenue arguably takes more of a dive.
Elite clubs may be more marketable in Basketball or Baseball. In hockey parity I believe is more of a necessity.
s7ark, you're taking this too personal. What exactly has the owners done to you the fan?
Fans think they have some say in this process - they don't. It's a battle between the owners and the players.
If the fans wish to come back whenever hockey starts up again, that's their personal choice - but the fan has no rights, nor do they have any obligations.
I am not taking it personally. I am just pointing out that most of the 3B these two groups are fighting over comes from the fans. The fans have no say over the collective bargaining, but they do have the choice as to whether they want to continue to support these people with their money. My hope is that a 20% drop in ticket sales, like after the last MLB strike, will drive home the point that these groups shouldn't take the fans for granted anymore. It may be the only thing that will stop another lockout/strike after the next CBA expires.
Aside from that, decertification would mean the big markets would grab all the best players but without a union, the smaller markets could survive without the restrictions on cap floor, guaranteed contracts etc. i.e. couldn't a team like Nashville or Columbus field a team with a team salary of $20 million and survive?
You tell me if you think a team full of Paul Bisonettes, Zach Stortinis, Cory Potters and Ty Conklins will stand a chance in a league against a team that has Crosby, Stamkos, Nash and other high end players.
Owners wouldn't agree to this. They would say that make it whole shifts the split above 50% for the players.
Frankly, the players can't win. The NHL can afford to wait them out and are big enough *******s to do so. If it takes a season, or even two, the owners will get their contract. My hope is that they lose a boatload of fans in the process and start to re-evaluate how they treat us.
This is a decidedly immoderate take. You're maybe somewhat like me. Arguing with the passion. But as it is with me sometimes the bias is clear.
Not sure the burn it up real good approach is too immediately becoming. So put the pitchforks away.
I say this with sense of humor, and tongue in cheek firmly attached and hope its perceived in similar light.
I am not taking it personally. I am just pointing out that most of the 3B these two groups are fighting over comes from the fans. The fans have no say over the collective bargaining, but they do have the choice as to whether they want to continue to support these people with their money. My hope is that a 20% drop in ticket sales, like after the last MLB strike, will drive home the point that these groups shouldn't take the fans for granted anymore. It may be the only thing that will stop another lockout/strike after the next CBA expires.
Well, they had their say in 2006 when they came back. Now it is assumed we will do the same. It is a shame, I think the NHLPA in particular is really taking that for granted.
I agree though, I rally hope there is a drop in ticket sales and revenue. A considerable drop is the only way to assure this will never happen again.
My hope is that a 20% drop in ticket sales, like after the last MLB strike, will drive home the point that these groups shouldn't take the fans for granted anymore. It may be the only thing that will stop another lockout/strike after the next CBA expires.
I think if there's a 20% drop in revenues, then there's every guarantee that a lockout/strike would most definitely happen again. The owners will be convinced that its the only way they can survive with even less revenue while the players are still in la-la land thinking they can demand the same contracts as NBA or NFL players.
The only way for there to be no lockout/strike again is for the league (and every team) to be so profitable that they can afford the outrageous player demands. Or have a hard cap that ensures profitability.
You tell me if you think a team full of Paul Bisonettes, Zach Stortinis, Cory Potters and Ty Conklins will stand a chance in a league against a team that has Crosby, Stamkos, Nash and other high end players.
Nope of course not, but I nearly guarantee that such a team won't be it.
The reality is that there's only so many roster spots on each team. A team like NYR or Toronto for example, might field a top six of Malkin - Crosby - Zetterberg, and Oshie - Richards - Gaborik, but theres' no point in them spending big money on their third and fourth lines.
Which means there will still be skilled, quality players looking to play for the lesser teams. Some will undoubtedly go to Europe or Russia, there will still be opportunities for quality players on the lesser teams.
Take a look at the current Nashville or Phoenix forwards to see what that lineup may look like. Teams are going to be in certain tiered levels. The big market teams will probably be six or so. The middle tier will probably be ten to twelve teams. That leaves another twelve teams team in the third tier all with much lower payrolls for players to fight each other to find a role.
I think if there's a 20% drop in revenues, then there's every guarantee that a lockout/strike would most definitely happen again. The owners will be convinced that its the only way they can survive with even less revenue while the players are still in la-la land thinking they can demand the same contracts as NBA or NFL players.
The only way for there to be no lockout/strike again is for the league (and every team) to be so profitable that they can afford the outrageous player demands. Or have a hard cap that ensures profitability.
I don't agree. If every team is profitable the players will want more and more of the profit. THe players are being told by Fehr that the main reason the current owner demands are so unfair is becuase NHL revenue is going to keep going up. If they get the reality that nhl revenue will not keep going up. Well, they will be a lot more reasonable. Reality is the players think all the fans will come back and the NHL will continue to grow. They are wrong on both points.
Interest would plummet in those markets. With some divisions potentially resembling "relegation"
Even if 20M salary is the case we're speaking in those teams of quas AHL lineups and fans prudent enough to recognize it as such.
The NHL is much more a 20 player TEAM game and if anything it tends to be depressing experience watching an opposing team come in and chronically beat up the local side. Welcome to the 90's here with the "Premium dates" just requiring greater dosage of antidepressants..I went to a lot of those games in the 90's partly due to the fascination of what had so quickly come and gone. To dynasty to Shane Corson etal.
Agreed that hockey depends on 20 player teams instead of star players like the NBA. But I strongly suspect that we won't be seeing AHL quasi player as the best player on the team. We already have AHL quasi players now on the Oilers and other teams.
I recall the 1990s Oilers and remember when other teams bought our best players (Weight, Cujo etc.) But its a different hockey world now. The United States is hurting economically and post lockout I suspect a fair number of American teams will be hurting.
I suspect that there will be five or six big market teams with huge resources, and then everyone else will either be in the Middle rung (second tier) or third tier where there isn't that much discrepancy in team salaries. I don't think there's enough huge money U.S. teams like there were in the 1990s to buy out the Doug Weight and Curtis Joseph of today.
It could be NYR, Toronto with $100 million plus team salaries, Montreal, Philly, Boston at $70 million, then a fair amount of teams around the $40 to 50 million and a five or six teams at a level below that.
I'm by no means an expert, but if the NHLPA decertifies what's to stop players who sign with the "lesser" teams/markets in the league from getting a clause included where by a "good" team/market can buy said player's contract from the "lesser" team/market at a certain price?
Example: Player A signs with Columbus for 2 yrs and $5M, is having a good season, and it gets to February and Toronto wants him, so they buy him out for, say, $4M , then sign him to a deal for the rest of the season
This way teams could "have" good players, pay them and still kind of get paid themselves, right?
Nope of course not, but I nearly guarantee that such a team won't be it.
The reality is that there's only so many roster spots on each team. A team like NYR or Toronto for example, might field a top six of Malkin - Crosby - Zetterberg, and Oshie - Richards - Gaborik, but theres' no point in them spending big money on their third and fourth lines.
Which means there will still be skilled, quality players looking to play for the lesser teams. Some will undoubtedly go to Europe or Russia, there will still be opportunities for quality players on the lesser teams.
Take a look at the current Nashville or Phoenix forwards to see what that lineup may look like. Teams are going to be in certain tiered levels. The big market teams will probably be six or so. The middle tier will probably be ten to twelve teams. That leaves another twelve teams team in the third tier all with much lower payrolls for players to fight each other to find a role.
So winning a stanley cup wouldn't be a good enough point? Do you think the Yankess only spend big money on their top 2 pitchers and a closer? Do you think they only spend big money on a shortstop, center feilder and Catcher and then just fill the holes with cheap players?
Not gonna make any predictions, but I believe December is going to be a CRITICAL month. Whatever happens in December will ultimately decide the fate of the season IMO. Players are slated to lose their 5th and 6th paycheque so I'm assuming players are going to get desparate and start joining the Hamrlik/Neuvirth camp of disgruntled players.
I think once the "drop-dead" date has been established, desperation will set in on both sides.
The critical month should have been July or August.
I'm getting pretty tired of this dog and pony show.
I'm pretty conflicted over this, I spent so long on the wait list, and watched our team be completely ****** for season after season and finally we have some light at the end of the tunnel. I'm so disgusted with the NHL and PA that I'm seriously considering cancelling my season seats.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted as well. This is a just a glorified pissing match between billionaire owners and millionaire players. Like fat kids fighting over a chocolate cake bought with fan's money.
Why would decertification lead to league contraction necessarily?
I can see that certain american hockey markets would have such low fan turnout returning after the lockout that it could crush those teams, but decertification in of itself shouldn't necessarily lead to league contraction... does it?
I can see the concern about the triple damage lawsuits, but that could be years away and tied up in the courts for a long time.
Aside from that, decertification would mean the big markets would grab all the best players but without a union, the smaller markets could survive without the restrictions on cap floor, guaranteed contracts etc. i.e. couldn't a team like Nashville or Columbus field a team with a team salary of $20 million and survive?
essentially it does, some teams would just say "its not worth it, we just lost 200 million"
I'm not even mad at the thought of a full year lockout.
The thought of one less year of watching Shawn Horcoff makes me happy.
I wouldn't be SO annoyed and stir crazy if there was some other hockey to watch, but it's not like I can just role up to Oilkings games whenever. There needs to be some other hockey on TV, because just Friday night hockey isn't cutting it.
So put the pitchforks away. 
