HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout Discusion XXXIII: It's the same old song. **MOD WARNING POST 274

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-19-2012, 11:00 PM
  #26
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Last time the League wanted a cap. Goodenow didn't want the cap and told a number of people that the players were prepared to stay out for two years. It seems that he was wrong, the player weren't prepared to do that

But the fight was to bring in the cap and not break the union. The union fractured all on its own when the players decided that they didn't want to follow Goodenow over the cliff.
And so far the narrative being provided by Bettman et al is the exact same. It is the players who won't capitulate to our position, and until they do, it them who are to be blamed.

This whole process hasn't been about negotiating.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:01 PM
  #27
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Ogrodnick View Post
The union hasn't been broken like last time. Bettman is running the same exact playbook, and he's on the verge of losing another season and supposedly some franchises if that happened. Seems like he could do with learning from the past as well.
It's not like the players would be affected even worse with the loss of franchises, so, go PA!

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:03 PM
  #28
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
It's not like the players would be affected even worse with the loss of franchises, so, go PA!
A separate issue to be honest.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:03 PM
  #29
Dr. Ogrodnick
Registered User
 
Dr. Ogrodnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
It's not like the players would be affected even worse with the loss of franchises, so, go PA!
It's not good for anyone. But it certainly doesn't look good for Captain expansion to lose 2 seasons in 8 years and multiple franchises. Not exactly the best resume.

Dr. Ogrodnick is online now  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:04 PM
  #30
ThirdManIn
Mod Supervisor
 
ThirdManIn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 43,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoogs View Post
Good stuff! If we can't have hockey, we at least have motown
I thought the title was fitting at least. Love The Four Tops.

__________________
She runs through my veins like a long, black river, and rattles my cage like a thunderstorm.
ThirdManIn is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:08 PM
  #31
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
If you are referring to the voiding of contracts...it is specifically stated in the SPC that every player signed.
Yes it is specifically stated that without a CBA it has no value, and any successor CBA will change the terms of the SPC andvalue of the contract.

About 4 months ago i hinted at all of this being a possible end game but no one believed me. the conversation came from teams continuing to sign players and some fans thinking the players were right in their sense of entitlement to what they signed. My point was that not signing players would look like collusion... and that the SPC clearly states those contracts are of a certain share value for the PA revenue portion. That is all they are share size of the PA portion. They arent entitled to any specific cash value.
Remember when everyone was asking if Bettman and the league would throw out the Dipietro contract because it was the first that went beyond the CBA? Bettmans response was that it was a proper contract so it was allowed but would be held to the terms of any future successor CBA and that in signing the contract the player was agreeing to that in exchange for the security of a guarantee of employment in the NHL.

Its been known for a long time. I suspect the reason why Bob Mac and others havent talked about it much is becuase they dont need to and also i dont think the professionals want to kick Bettmans plan.

I have also been very clear since before the lockout that the league has looked into centralizing contracts. Supporting other leagues - transfer funds for NHL players, transfer deals... has greatly helped the NHLs position to centralize their contracts and run as one entity which happens to have different regional branches. Its a unique position to the NHL that they clearly have competition at home and abroad for player services and it would be the NHLs position that it is the BRANDING and ENTERTAINMENT packaging, combined with BUSINESS DECISIONS that seperates it from the competitors and not some idea of market control. The players have happily proven this. Coke doesnt have a monopoly and make more than most countries just because Pepsi sucks. Coke advertises and packages and has its own product which out earns others and can use its market influence to make relationships and ask those partners to not sell cmpeting products. completely legal. Try getting a Coke at KFC. The NHL is the best league but not because it is a monopoly...its because they are the COKE of their industry. Guilty of nothing. Companies are free to try to compete and do.

In the early spring of 2004- as word got out Bettman was going to formally file for legal right to allow replacement players- the League got an offer for the purchase of the league. Under the 300M dollar purchase the league would be re-organized to be centrally controlled and contracted. the franchises or branches would still be individually owned but the league headquarters would do all contracts and negotiations and determine who plays where. There would be an end to the draft (something that has always made it impossible to centralize the business) and RFA/UFA.
Bettman, as was his duty, informed the BOG and owners of the offer but advised them against it. Everything the league and frnachises had been short term and long term building towards would be erased or in jeopardy. Also Bettman had a very strong belief that fans, who already blamed him for missed goals, off sides, and hole in nets.. pretty much making him out to be in control of the games, would start calling games as fixed by him and head office officials. For the good of the game and the franchises the cost certainty of centralizing wasnot very attractive. Also the NHL did not have as many world wide competitors. Now the situations have changed.

Did the NHL want this? I said 4 months ago that this is something Bettman and the NHL never wanted but if it comes to it they will get cost certainty in a big way. the nhl will control all contracts because it will legally be the business with franchises as only branches of the main NHL arm. Franchise values qwill skyrocket.
The NHL will make unilateral business decisions regarding labor costs, allignment, expansion, exhibition, relocation and a host of other topics. No union to have to deal with.
But the NHL as we know it would no longer exist.

IVE TALKED ABOUT THIS SINCE AUGUST. The league is definitely not surprised or worried. They gave their best offer as well. Dont expect the NHL to feel pushed in a corner...they have been prepared all along (not all summer ...ALL ALONG...the SPC made in 05 shows how prepared they are)

Good post from the Oilers board. Food for thought.

Groucho is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:14 PM
  #32
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,558
vCash: 500
I dunno if I'd be interest in that league

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:17 PM
  #33
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Good post from the Oilers board. Food for thought.
This is the equivalent of dropping a nuclear bomb on the league. Count me out.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:17 PM
  #34
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Good post from the Oilers board. Food for thought.
Sounds like a major headache. Last lockout was 300m to purchase the league (I assume some form of control), what would it be now?

HavlatMach9 is online now  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:18 PM
  #35
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,109
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Good post from the Oilers board. Food for thought.
Are there other leagues run on that basis?It seems to me that I heard that some European soccer teams are.

Eric Macramala also mentioned something about that on his show last night , if the union goes all the way with decertification, I guess they might be forced into it.

pepty is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:21 PM
  #36
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Are there other leagues run on that basis?It seems to me that I heard that some European soccer teams are.

Eric Macramala also mentioned something about that on his show last night , if the union goes all the way with decertification, I guess they might be forced into it.
The union isn't going all the way with a deceritification. They are considering a disclaimer of interest - allowing for the reformation immediately.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:21 PM
  #37
McRib
2nd Rate Fan
 
McRib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Are there other leagues run on that basis?It seems to me that I heard that some European soccer teams are.

Eric Macramala also mentioned something about that on his show last night , if the union goes all the way with decertification, I guess they might be forced into it.
I would no longer pay attention to the NHL if this happened. And I bet there are a lot of people who feel the same. The league is fine the way it is. We just need a CBA settled by the two sides. Not by a guy with a gavel behind a desk.

McRib is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:23 PM
  #38
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Good post from the Oilers board. Food for thought.
I would like to add that if what this poster wrote were true, it would be clear as day that the league was negotiating in bad faith. That is, the prospect of a compromise was never on the table.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:39 PM
  #39
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,109
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
The union isn't going all the way with a deceritification. They are considering a disclaimer of interest - allowing for the reformation immediately.
Maybe thats the plan. But if things go off the rails, who knows what will happen
once they go to court.

pepty is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:42 PM
  #40
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
I would like to add that if what this poster wrote were true, it would be clear as day that the league was negotiating in bad faith. That is, the prospect of a compromise was never on the table.
Not true, the league has moved on plenty of issues and put forth numerous proposals. They have been the very definition of a negotiating partner...

Groucho is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:50 PM
  #41
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Not true, the league has moved on plenty of issues and put forth numerous proposals. They have been the very definition of a negotiating partner...
The league has moved off its own benchmark. That is not the definition of giving and taking. Look at it another way: in terms of a zero sum gain, the owners will have gained all following this negotiation regardless.

What the one poster suggested was that if the owners don't gain enough, they could blow it all up.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:56 PM
  #42
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,619
vCash: 500
I don't think you're looking at this correctly.
It's not the league's perogative to 'blow it up'
This is a contingency plan that they've had in place since 2005.

Groucho is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 11:58 PM
  #43
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
I don't think you're looking at this correctly.
It's not the league's perogative to 'blow it up'
This is a contingency plan that they've had in place since 2005.
Who's prerogative is it exactly?

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 12:03 AM
  #44
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
Who's prerogative is it exactly?
I don't know. Fehr's? He's had a hand in things since 1995, being advisor to the NHLPA's executive director.
DOI and Decertification have been threatened before, it makes sense to me for the NHL to prepare for it.

Groucho is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 12:07 AM
  #45
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
I don't know. Fehr's? He's had a hand in things since 1995, being advisor to the NHLPA's executive director.
DOI and Decertification have been threatened before, it makes sense to me for the NHL to prepare for it.
Fehr represents the players. The players do not wish to capitulate completely. The league blows it up if this is the case. That is not negotiating and it is certainly not an act of good faith.

No one is forcing the owners, or the league, to take such a hardline stance. It is not inherent that they do so.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 12:43 AM
  #46
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
The league has moved off its own benchmark. That is not the definition of giving and taking. Look at it another way: in terms of a zero sum gain, the owners will have gained all following this negotiation regardless.

What the one poster suggested was that if the owners don't gain enough, they could blow it all up.
Isn't that exactly what the nhlpa is doing when it threatens to decertify?

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 01:00 AM
  #47
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Isn't that exactly what the nhlpa is doing when it threatens to decertify?
The NHLPA is not decertifying.

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 01:13 AM
  #48
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans View Post
The NHLPA is not decertifying.
Neither is the NHL bringing "blowing up" the negotiations by bringing in replacement players.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 01:22 AM
  #49
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Neither is the NHL bringing "blowing up" the negotiations by bringing in replacement players.
I don't follow. You implied that the NHLPA was looking to decertify, whereas reports are that there is a vote for a DOI - something different than decertification.

As for what replacement players have to do with anything, I guess you can enlighten me?

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 02:01 AM
  #50
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,552
vCash: 500
I know the NHL is negotiating against itself, but at least it's easy to follow, it's somewhat clear how their proposal has been changing. Fehr's proposals aren't as straight forward. It's as if he listens to what the NHL gives up, then changes his own proposal accordingly.

HavlatMach9 is online now  
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 10:26 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.