HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 03:04 PM
  #676
Do Make Say Think
Registered User
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,411
vCash: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Well what I was wondering if this could open the door for the NHL to, say, revert back to its original proposal (43% for players / 57% for owners) and open the door for anyone willing to play under that framework?

Probably not, it sounds too easy.
The owners were never looking for the players to play under that proposal: it would be rather poisonous.
Unlike what many seem to believe the owners are not seeking to make the players into unhappy employees.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:06 PM
  #677
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
So basically, this is it.
The PA either collapses or takes the game to the next level.

If the players vote to give the executive the ability to go forward, the owners are going to have get serious or risk the Fehr factor.

If the players tell the PA they don't want to go forward, the PA will be forced to sign for whatever ever the NHL offers.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:09 PM
  #678
WinterEmpire
Praise Dalpe
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Well what I was wondering if this could open the door for the NHL to, say, revert back to its original proposal (43% for players / 57% for owners) and open the door for anyone willing to play under that framework?

Probably not, it sounds too easy.
No, because there would be no PA, hence no CBA, hence no legal method of controlling salaries and contracts league wide, hence either its collusion and the owners lose big time or its a free market system.

WinterEmpire is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:16 PM
  #679
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,154
vCash: 500
All I know is that if I were in the league's position, the moment disclaimer or decertification was raised, I would turn to the best lawyers available and look at what in the contracts would likely be enforceable and what conditions are required for either party to walk away from the contracts. Once I had enough proof that nothing that was collectively bargained in the CBA (and therefore not negotiated in individual contracts) wasn't applicable, I would lift the lockout and see how the strong union helps their lesser brothers out. That is of course if I were a pissed off owner and was willing to break the union.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:32 PM
  #680
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,918
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes View Post
So you really think that the Leafs and the rest of the profitable clubs and owners would really go to that extent? I can't see them doing that at all if the PA won.
What is their alternative? If Forbes is to be believed only 5 teams were profitable last season, and only 3 of those made a lot of money.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...snt-have-them/

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:47 PM
  #681
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
I don't want the owners to give up things just to get a deal done sooner because we're gonna have to live with it for the next 7-10 years. If they're too hasty and sign a bad deal, teams are gonna be in trouble and we're gonna have another lockout once the CBA is up.

I want the owners to get a deal that makes 30+ teams viable and makes it so they don't have to fix anythign with lockouts anymore.
If the owners get what they want then the clock starts ticking on the next lockout. The only way another lockout is avoided is if the players make this lockout hurt really bad. Otherwise lockout will always be the go to strategy for the owners.

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:55 PM
  #682
McLlwain
Trevor Forever
 
McLlwain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cologne/Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
If the owners get what they want then the clock starts ticking on the next lockout. The only way another lockout is avoided is if the players make this lockout hurt really bad. Otherwise lockout will always be the go to strategy for the owners.
Well said.
That's basically the one reason for the players' "win-at-all-costs"-approach in this battle.
All they money they lost already in paychecks, they have to make this count, obviously.

McLlwain is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:02 PM
  #683
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJ View Post
DOC is essentially the same as decertification, just quicker. Used as a bargaining tactic it will likely lead to a cancelled season, but the season will be cancelled anyway so the point is pretty much moot.

I would like to see the Union go through with this though and not just pretend to. Send the league back to a free market system,it is so broken already anyway.
This....^

Capsized is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:08 PM
  #684
Do Make Say Think
Registered User
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,411
vCash: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
If the owners get what they want then the clock starts ticking on the next lockout. The only way another lockout is avoided is if the players make this lockout hurt really bad. Otherwise lockout will always be the go to strategy for the owners.
The owners told the PA back in November 2011: we need to talk, this CBA is not working for us.
The players said no and waited until the very last minute to start the talks.

The players are to blame for not taking the opportunity to avoid something the League told them was going to happen, and told them almost a year before it happened.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:26 PM
  #685
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,918
vCash: 50
NHL makes preemptive strike

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410312
Quote:
The NHL could move pre-emptively - and they probably should if they feel the threat of litigation is real. By filing first and doing so in a jurisdiction that both sides are connected to, it makes it more difficult for the players to have their case heard in a sympathetic circuit like the Ninth Circuit. For the NHL, they could look to file in the Second Circuit, which handles cases, in part, out of New York. That circuit has more owner friendly decisions. In fact, that's precisely what the NBA did faced with the possibility of the NBPA dissolving itself. The NBA went to court first and did so in the Second Circuit.
The league did exactly that today.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411653
Quote:
The National Hockey League has filed a class action complaint in federal court in New York seeking a declaration confirming the ongoing legality of the lockout.
A favorable ruling could be used to prevent the NHLPA having the lockout lifted by decertification or filing a DOI.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:42 PM
  #686
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 5,843
vCash: 500
So, the way I'm reading this situation is the calling the PA's bluff, and also making sure that if it does go to court, that it goes to a court sympathetic to their needs.

So, as Captain Bob stated, the ball's in the player's court.

Basically you vote to DOI and that means the season is done, or if the players choose not to DOI, then that pretty much means enough players are leaning towards accepting the owners current offer-again, that's how I read it.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:45 PM
  #687
Kingbobert
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kingbobert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Greece
Posts: 4,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
If the owners get what they want then the clock starts ticking on the next lockout. The only way another lockout is avoided is if the players make this lockout hurt really bad. Otherwise lockout will always be the go to strategy for the owners.
Every CBA will be finite.
What if the deal the sign seems good for the players now and in 5 years winds up being horrible but they're stuck with it?
If you take away the ability to lockout from the owners, then you also take the ability to strike from the players.

It goes both ways.

Kingbobert is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:05 PM
  #688
Tonellisghost
WE ARE THE KINGS!!!!
 
Tonellisghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: twillingate NFLD
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Yah,

The way it is today is the way that it will be always in regards to the CBA unless someone comes up with a different method for the players and league to represent themselves correctly/differently.

Every CBA has an end date negotiated into its language.

Tonellisghost is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:06 PM
  #689
Freudian
luck paper scissors
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,825
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
If the owners get what they want then the clock starts ticking on the next lockout. The only way another lockout is avoided is if the players make this lockout hurt really bad. Otherwise lockout will always be the go to strategy for the owners.
There is no reason to think that a lockout is NHLs preference. It's just a consequence of a CBA expiring. The players created this lockout as much as the owners did, judging by how they dragged their feet all the way to September 15th.

I think the players are stuck in this vicious cycle of them convincing themselves they need to stand up for themselves, so they choose a hard line leader and hard line player representatives. This leads to conflict which reinforces their belief their have to stand up for themselves. The only chance they had of breaking this cycle was when they had Kelly after Goodenow and the hard liners threw Kelly out in a midnight coup and replaced him with hard liner Donald Fehr.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:16 PM
  #690
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
If the owners get what they want then the clock starts ticking on the next lockout. The only way another lockout is avoided is if the players make this lockout hurt really bad. Otherwise lockout will always be the go to strategy for the owners.
If the owners were pushing for something more restrictive than what any North American pro league already has, you might have a point. But when you're hanging on by a financial thread and giving more to your players than any of pro league in the country, there's no reason to believe they do this for sport.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:22 PM
  #691
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
There is no reason to think that a lockout is NHLs preference. It's just a consequence of a CBA expiring. The players created this lockout as much as the owners did, judging by how they dragged their feet all the way to September 15th.

I think the players are stuck in this vicious cycle of them convincing themselves they need to stand up for themselves, so they choose a hard line leader and hard line player representatives. This leads to conflict which reinforces their belief their have to stand up for themselves. The only chance they had of breaking this cycle was when they had Kelly after Goodenow and the hard liners threw Kelly out in a midnight coup and replaced him with hard liner Donald Fehr.
Dont think it would have been any better under Kelly. I cant see the owners offering a better a deal just because they had Kelly as a representative rather than Fehr. All it might have meant is the players caving early which might have meant a worse deal but less losses due to less games missed and revenues lossed. How that works out in the long run is hard to determine.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:24 PM
  #692
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
I think I get it. The problem seems to lie in how the cap hit is calculated, not the actual yearly variance.

If they want to truly address cap circumvention, the NHL should make the actual yearly salary paid the cap hit for that season. Obviously, they'd have to re-structure some existing contracts to make that work. But it would be a win-win for everyone involved, possibly more for the players.

- The star players (with 5/7 year contract limits) make more money and can capture the benefits of revenue growth in their 2nd/3rd contracts, rather than signing one 10-15 year deal which doesn't allow for that.

- The rank and file players would benefit in two ways. It would reduce the likelihood that the players' share would exceed (50%) of HRR because front-loaded deals would no longer exist - the cap hit couldn't be less than actual salary paid out. It would also mean that when these players are earning $1 million at the end of their long term deal (with a $7 million cap hit) that cap space is freed up for everyone else.

I have a massive headache - so does this make sense or am I completely out to lunch?
It is also the matter of Make Whole. It boils down to the escrow system. The players want contracts that actually pay the face value. As soon as the players put emphasis on paying face value, the league would have been stupid not to strengthen their emphasis on the items that gave rise to the issue in the first place in their system. Remove the avenues for circumvention that cause face values to rise above actual dollars paid.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:28 PM
  #693
ONO94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
So basically, this is it.
The PA either collapses or takes the game to the next level.

If the players vote to give the executive the ability to go forward, the owners are going to have get serious or risk the Fehr factor.

If the players tell the PA they don't want to go forward, the PA will be forced to sign for whatever ever the NHL offers.

Your second point misses the whole effect of the disclaimer...the NHLPA disclaims and Fehr is out of the whole shooting match, he is effectively retired.

ONO94 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:31 PM
  #694
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
The owners told the PA back in November 2011: we need to talk, this CBA is not working for us.
The players said no and waited until the very last minute to start the talks.

The players are to blame for not taking the opportunity to avoid something the League told them was going to happen, and told them almost a year before it happened.
The PA was not listening, and that's what started the whole not negotiating in good faith stuff, by the "Don"...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:35 PM
  #695
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Dont think it would have been any better under Kelly. I cant see the owners offering a better a deal just because they had Kelly as a representative rather than Fehr. All it might have meant is the players caving early which might have meant a worse deal but less losses due to less games missed and revenues lossed. How that works out in the long run is hard to determine.
I think you would have seen a different style from Kelly. But that is just it, style. And ultimately, I think the players would have come out ahead if only for less lost time. My take is that Kelly would have looked to create loopholes and might have more easily gotten away with it within the context of a better working relationship with the league. Sort of the difference between hot war and cold war. Lobbing bombs vs slipping a knife in the back. I also think that a Kelly agreement might have better addressed structural issues within the leagues system. The hot points in this negotiation are not even getting close to the types of structural changes needed except as lip service (RS and percentage rather than fixed range). The numbers for those 2 items don't get close.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:37 PM
  #696
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ONO94 View Post
Your second point misses the whole effect of the disclaimer...the NHLPA disclaims and Fehr is out of the whole shooting match, he is effectively retired.
I suspect he'd still be around giving "advice" to the players, just behind the scenes.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:38 PM
  #697
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
I'd be willing to bet the hawks in the PA would be ready to crucify Kelly for accepting 50% (to whatever extent Don Fehr can be said to have accepted it). You might even argue that Fehr's reputation as a hardliner gave credibility to the idea that 50% was a necessity, and may have helped.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:47 PM
  #698
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
If the owners get what they want then the clock starts ticking on the next lockout. The only way another lockout is avoided is if the players make this lockout hurt really bad. Otherwise lockout will always be the go to strategy for the owners.
Because that worked so well last time?

The players fought the cap...Made the lockout hurt really bad. God we lost a season.
Using your logic this lockout should not be happening.... the players made it hurt bad last time.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:52 PM
  #699
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
If i'm an owner the first thing I go after is their current contracts. Those were signed under the CBA. Get those babies null and voided and watch the players poop bricks.

I think the owners will rip the players to shreds in court. They may lose an anti-trust suit and have to pay a couple of dollars in compensation like in the past. But if they get their contracts voided... instant defeat.

The good part is every player would be pissed at each other and we'd see some good hockey!

Lacaar is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:55 PM
  #700
Thrill22
Feelin' it
 
Thrill22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
I suspect he'd still be around giving "advice" to the players, just behind the scenes.
So, to get the courts to side in their favor, the NHLPA would have to make the whole Disclaimer of Interest seem as a real and viable move, and not just a negotiating tactic - if that happens, is there any way that the NHL could ask for a sort of a "no-compete" clause against Fehr, banning(?) him from associating with his now former union? Totally cutting him out from still being the de-facto leader? Or is that stupid and impossible?

Thrill22 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.