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.
They could have operated under a no-strike no-lockout agreement.
There is no strike.
There is a lockout.
The NHL can't blame its' decision to implement a lockout on the players.
I just don't get the reasoning behind this kind of thinking. People are sayin if they just played under old CBA, a deal would have been reached along with no games missed... The thing is, no deal would have ever happend! The PA would keep stalling because they would have no reason to negotiate while they are making 57 percent of the $. We would be in the same situation next year. Honesty, a lockout was the only path available once the PA showed that it was unwilling to negotiate back in January.
I just don't get the reasoning behind this kind of thinking. People are sayin if they just played under old CBA, a deal would have been reached along with no games missed... The thing is, no deal would have ever happend! The PA would keep stalling because they would have no reason to negotiate while they are making 57 percent of the $. We would be in the same situation next year. Honesty, a lockout was the only path available once the PA showed that it was unwilling to negotiate back in January.
You make a valid point.
However, unlike the other poster, you're not suggesting that the lockout is not really a lockout, but a strike.
The owners had a choice, and they chose a lockout. That's all.
Linkage makes a playoff strike MORE costly for the players.
Enough with the fear-mongering.
True, but threatening a strike before the playoffs would be the ultimate leverage for the players. There is no leverage in the off-season for either side that comes even remotely close to that situation. That's when the profit is made.
"They know we're not very far apart," Fehr said on Sportsnet 590 The Fan Wednesday. "They say they have nothing left to give but what exactly have they given? All the giving here has been done by the players. In terms of a deadline, it's only the NHL setting deadlines... We're already on strike.
However, unlike the other poster, you're not suggesting that the lockout is not really a lockout, but a strike.
The owners had a choice, and they chose a lockout. That's all.
Bingo.
Anything else is speculation and fairy tales. Three lockouts in a row, and it's all the players fault. The fault lies squarely with bettman and his ridiculous idea to shove hockey down the throats of people who clearly don't want it, and the owners who continue to prop him up, to the detriment of all.
Lockout v strike stopped being relevant the moment the first offers were exchanged. As soon as that happened, both sides had equal power to end it, and still do.
Anything else is speculation and fairy tales. Three lockouts in a row, and it's all the players fault. The fault lies squarely with bettman and his ridiculous idea to shove hockey down the throats of people who clearly don't want it, and the owners who continue to prop him up, to the detriment of all.
Yes, those people clearly don't want hockey, most of them just were able to sell out their arenas when they team was remotely successful and rec-leagues have been developing like crazy, but who cares about that when one can ignore the facts instead
Heck, who even cares that it wasn't Bettman who decided to expand the league, just like it wasn't him who decided where teams would be put. It's just so much more fun to bash him for it, hides the own ignorance and complete lack of knowledge on the matter, and who doesn't like that?
The first lockout happened because things were getting out of hand. The second one happened because the owners stabbed Bettman in the back during the first one, thus leading to a much bigger problem that needed to be solved by a second lockout. So that one was mostly on the owners, paired with the players refusal to accept something that didn't hurt them at all. The third one happened because they didn't think things would develop like they did, and when they tried to fix the few problems, the players pouted, stating their oh so bad "loss" from the last lockout.
There probably wouldn't have been any games lost if the NHLPA had actually tried to negotiate instead of stalling for months, before coming up with one utterly horrible offer after another, all with poison pills that were completely unacceptable to anyone who spend more than 5 seconds looking at it. Funny how the NHLPA commented multiple times on how a league offer was such a great starting point, only to suddenly say that the league never negotiated. Heck, what the players are currently doing costs them more than the leagues offer from October would have.
This is just like the last time. The players threw away lots of money to prevent a system that ended up being great for them. Nothing helps the players more than a league that makes a lot of money, yet somehow they prefer to bite the hand that feeds them instead. Their current behaviour not only costs them money now, they also hurt their salaries in the future. Apparently, "winning" is more important than making money or playing hockey.
"The idea behind the disclaimer is that the NHLPA is saying it's no longer representing the players. So Fehr can't on the one hand say the NHLPA is out of the picture, and on the other hand lead negotiations. If he did, the NHL's sham argument would be that much easier to make. So if the players sue, expect outside lawyers to take over negotiations. That's what happened in the NBA lawsuit. "
I don't think it's any cooincidence that once the head union rep is removed that things get done. Just look at what happened when Fehr was out of the room--the sides got very close. As soon as he re-entered the picture, it blew up. If filing for disclaimer means that Fehr has to walk away, then that could be a good thing.
I don't think it's any cooincidence that once the head union rep is removed that things get done. Just look at what happened when Fehr was out of the room--the sides got very close. As soon as he re-entered the picture, it blew up.
While being true the league did say they wanted to negotiate during the season, any fan upset over the PA not negotiating at that point has fallen spell to that glorious PR stunt. If you look at the owners PR releases they are worded in ways and come at times to make the PA look like the bad guy for not accepting. Look at how difficult it is for them to meet when its a frighin lockout. Do you honestly expect the players to be able to pay attention to negotiations and travel to meetings etc while playing the season and possible playoffs? The players are people too. Hard to keep the family life happy when youre already out of town most of the season and adding distracting CBA talks when youre concussed and acheing. Also how could the GMs make any moves without bringing up conspiracy collusion for the next CBA? One of the latest subliminal PR stunts is the CBA length, the league wants 10 years. PA wants less. Why? If the PA thinks theyre gunna get screwed this time they dont want it to last long. But to the casual fan they see the players as wanting another lockout sooner. If the PAs proposals were 10 years and people took them seriously, the owners would be the ones asking for less years.
Fans should do some research on the PR firm the NHL hired
Isn't that why they hire people to represent them? This is the work they chose for themselves, and the CBA talks are a very important part of it. It seems they only take it seriously when they are told to.
Could a deal have been done if the players said, keep the status quo and we can give up the cap floor? Or would that have gone against Bettman's artificial parity scheme?
I swear, Bettman could declare that the players must give him their first born children and some people here would think that's a perfectly reasonable request.
I swear, the NHLPA could declare that the owners must give each player an average salary of $2.35M and some people here would think that's a perfectly reasonable request.
Wait a second... that is their average salary. Oh.
I can come to that conclusion because I've spent 30 years or so working in the field of litigation. I know from firsthand experience how the the game is played. I know that no matter how many times folks hang their hats on the "hill to die on" and "take it or leave it" statements as a way to condemn the league that those statements are simply rhetoric, probably brought about because they feel it may be the only way to get Fehr to stop slowing down the process.
The league has said "take it or leave it" more than once, and has come back to the table and changed their offer each time. Daly has as much as said they will do it again.
I'm not arguing against it being a viable strategy, it is. The point is that the strategy the league is using is delaying negotiations every bit as much as the players dragging their feet. All the blame is being put on the players for dragging this thing out when in reality their "tactics" are a direct response to how the league has chosen to negotiate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan
It's mythical because it only happens under a certain set of circumstances where the players don't actually give up anything. And this was before all of the damage. And you say they gave up some contract rights and variance. That it? That doesn't really seem like a lot for a side who is claiming to have given up a ton already and is the only side giving. Is this a two issue CBA negotiation?
100's of millions going forward + contract restrictions is very significant. If you don't think so, you don't understand the negotiations. I've also never said the players are or should be done giving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio
The PA could have grown up and started negotiations early this year. You don't seem to acknowledge this. The PA have been very tactful just like the owners. They are playing the same game the owners are now playing, but started to plan this in January when they were too "busy" to negotiate. That's why they cried to the fans in September that they wanted to play under this CBA and negotiate. They planned this all along.
The "owners" side keeps saying the players should get over that first offer.... maybe it's time the other side got over this?
The league has decided to use the leverage they get from making the players miss cheques, starting earlier wouldn't have helped. The owners were going to make the players pay for anything they want to keep with game cheques, no deal was going to be reached before now.
100's of millions going forward + contract restrictions is very significant. If you don't think so, you don't understand the negotiations. I've also never said the players are or should be done giving.
Never said it wasn't significant but you (and the PA) have yet to argue in some concrete way that there is a guarantee that the league will save 100's of millions of dollars. And you have also yet to show what the players have given up aside from what you just mentioned.
What the owners are asking for is 50/50 somewhat immediately and contract restrictions. I say somewhat immediately because the inclusion of the make whole means that they defer the payments of 12.5% of the first two years salary rather than cut it. In exchange for that, they are offering better pension plan, make whole, revenue sharing, increased standards for visitors dressing room and ice, more days off during the year and training camps, team covers cost of 2nd medical opinion, player discipline 3rd party independent committee, trading cap space, removing re-entry waivers, emergency roster cap exceptions, performance bonus cushions in every year, more easy to go on waivers, expanded NMC/NTC, more health and safety in general.
If you actually do the math, with the make whole they'd be about 54% the first year and 52% the second year before reaching 50% the third year. On top of that, the revenue sharing is changed so that the money doesn't go to the top owners but rather the bottom ones. And of the money that the players are giving back, about 37% if i remember my math goes to revenue sharing and another 6-10% (guesses since not much information out there) will go to making the lives of the players better.
I will agree that 5/7 contract lengths is too restrictive but if should be 6/8 or 7/9 and 15% variance. If the players came back with that rather than 25% and then cap exceptions and buyouts and all the other poison pills then we'd be playing.
All the blame is being put on the players for dragging this thing out when in reality their "tactics" are a direct response to how the league has chosen to negotiate.
I'm sorry, but you have to look at the whole picture, not just the last few weeks. The players have been stalling since the very beginning. If you want to consider the owners' current stance a stall, it's probably more a direct response to the players' continual, long-term stalling. The stall is Fehr's chosen course of action. He used it to delay starts of talks. He used it to delay responding to the league's first offer. He used it to frustrate the owners by waiting months to submit the PA's first formal proposal. Brass tacks, stalling tactics were initiated by the players and, for that reason, I don't think they have much right to complain at this point.
The league wants an agenda for any meeting before scheduling it. That's not stalling, that's simple common sense.
Quote:
The league has decided to use the leverage they get from making the players miss cheques, starting earlier wouldn't have helped. The owners were going to make the players pay for anything they want to keep with game cheques, no deal was going to be reached before now.
I keep hearing this, so someone is going to have to explain to me why, then, the league asked not once, but twice, to begin negotiations starting over a year ago. How were they going to get to the lockout stage from there had the players agreed to begin talks? They were going to spend almost a year doing... nothing, even though they requested to start talking? That makes no sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66
It's not "some fairy tail world": Fehr openly agreed to do so.
OK, I'll chime in. I've never heard this and I'd be shocked if Fehr would agree to this. Need a link on this one, thanks.
I could see this blowing up against the PA, every other sports league voted to dissolve the union rather than this action.
My question on this is how far until the punish is put out to send a message, at one point a federal judge is going to have enough of grown men babies and it will come down to public policy to send a message down to other unions in this country.
Its called the hold up game, its gonna hurt at one point or another.
I keep hearing this, so someone is going to have to explain to me why, then, the league asked not once, but twice, to begin negotiations starting over a year ago. How were they going to get to the lockout stage from there had the players agreed to begin talks? They were going to spend almost a year doing... nothing, even though they requested to start talking? That makes no sense to me.
