Not necessarily. The NHL could merely fold those teams and render a number of players out of a job. Relocation attaches is a costly venture, and not one to be taken lightly. The PA is walking on thin ice if they hope to pressure the league in this manner. Personally, I believe any possibility of the DOI not being thrown out of court was lost the moment they allowed the original to expire. How do they convince a judge it was nothing more than a negotiation ploy when they only ever bring it up to strong arm the owners?
The DOI has never been brought up to the owners. Nor has it been discussed in public by the PA (the considerations of). Fehr has kept it internal... for now.
Actually, I have the opposite feeling of how the courts will view a DOI now that the original Jan 2nd deadline passed. Fehr was shown to operate in good faith, with a mediator present. Now that the NHL has again withdrawn, and a second vote occurring, this one has a much better chance to succeed in the courts. An attempt was tried by Fehr. He forwent the DOI in favour of further negotiation. But now, it's back on the table because of the NHL's latest attempt to change the language of the CBA, and their latest withdrawal from the table. So the DOI has much more legitimacy in the eyes of the law.
The DOI has never been brought up to the owners. Nor has it been discussed in public by the PA (the considerations of). Fehr has kept it internal... for now.
Actually, I have the opposite feeling of how the courts will view a DOI now that the original Jan 2nd deadline passed. Fehr was shown to operate in good faith, with a mediator present. Now that the NHL has again withdrawn, and a second vote occurring, this one has a much better chance to succeed in the courts. An attempt was tried by Fehr. He forwent the DOI in favour of further negotiation. But now, it's back on the table because of the NHL's latest attempt to change the language of the CBA, and their latest withdrawal from the table. So the DOI has much more legitimacy in the eyes of the law.
True enough.
But it still looks to me that both sides are just posturing and looking for any leverage they can use and I presume this will go on until they reach the real, 100% drop dead date...which may or may not be the 11th of January.
And they are both just assuming that the fans will all return with love and kisses on opening night.
Where did all the Gary Bettman defenders go, anyway?
Quote:
The union believes the league’s stance changed after PA executive director Don Fehr decided against filing a disclaimer of interest at Wednesday’s midnight deadline that would have sent the dispute into court. The PA believes the NHL pulled a bait and switch in the immediate aftermath of Fehr’s continued commitment to the collective bargaining process.
The NHL, we’re told, attempted a late change in the language regarding penalties for clubs caught hiding Hockey Related Revenue (HRR) through audits by the NHLPA.
The previous CBA, and previous proposals, stipulated that clubs in violation of HRR-reporting requirements would be fined $1M plus the loss of one first-round draft pick for a first offense, with a second offense carrying a fine of $5M plus three first-round picks.
The NHL on Thursday attempted to change that so that Bettman himself would decide all the penalties. The league withdrew the changes when the PA objected.
And in one that is all but impossible to believe but has been confirmed by several sources, the NHL also has proposed that it be allowed to re-open the CBA if an arbitrator confirms an NHLPA audit that the league is hiding a substantial amount of HRR, with the amount pegged at 2-percent.
Where did all the Gary Bettman defenders go, anyway?
Gary Bettman is continuing to drive this process into the ditch. At least Deadspin gave him the "Worst Commissioner in Sports" title.
Is "re-open the CBA" the same thing that I think it means? Which is essentially being allowed to make changes to the CBA/negotiate new changes to the definition of HRR?
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Is "re-open the CBA" the same thing that I think it means? Which is essentially being allowed to make changes to the CBA/negotiate new changes to the definition of HRR?
Yup. Man...lost a lot of respect for both sides on this.
Although, the article is written by Brooks, who has been very pro PA on this lockout. I want to see someone else verify all this before believing anything
Yup. Man...lost a lot of respect for both sides on this.
Although, the article is written by Brooks, who has been very pro PA on this lockout. I want to see someone else verify all this before believing anything
I've been pro PA the whole time, and this just reaffirms my position. Wow I don't blame the PA for not trusting Bettman.
A few weeks ago I felt like there would only be a 10% chance that the whole season would be lost, negotiations were going so well.
Now I feel like there is a 60% chance that the season will be lost, and every day that goes by it goes up by 5%.
It's going to take a very long time for the NHL to recover from a full season lockout, it wont be the same as the last lockout.
Yup, I think so too, but I still think they'll get a deal done at the last minute though.
Tough to say. The first DOI vote was a landslide in favor of disclaiming interest so perhaps the players are more united then people think? It really all depends on how close the NHL's "final" offer is to what the players want. You're probably right though.
I also wouldn't be overly surprised if the drop dead date got pushed back, much like the Phoenix Coyotes sale drop dead date.
Where did all the Gary Bettman defenders go, anyway?
Gary Bettman is continuing to drive this process into the ditch. At least Deadspin gave him the "Worst Commissioner in Sports" title.
This was in the proposal the NHL gave the PA that started this whole process. The one the PA supposedly "thoroughly reviewed" before responding. It was also, apparently, highlighted.
This is a manufactured story by the PA. More spin. More stalling. The PA being "upset" about this gives them reason to shuffle their feet while the new disclaimer vote happens and that hammer is back over the heads of the league. Both sides do it. The NHL didn't really "change" anything. This language was included in their original offer this week.
If it took the PA leadership that long to find that language, they need new leadership. I'm sure it didn't, though, and they were saving that in their back pocket to use as a reason to shuffle their feet for a day or two.
Where did all the Gary Bettman defenders go, anyway?
Gary Bettman is continuing to drive this process into the ditch. At least Deadspin gave him the "Worst Commissioner in Sports" title.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
I've been pro PA the whole time, and this just reaffirms my position. Wow I don't blame the PA for not trusting Bettman.
The article doesn't even make sense. You guys need to take a moment and think about it. Why would the NHL change their stance after the PA didn't file a disclaimer of interest if the PA can just revote and file one almost immediately? Obviously the NHL knows this. These parties are both sophisticated, and there is no way the NHL would/does think that the PA's failure to file a disclaimer of interest really changes anything. This is reinforced by the fact that the PA, almost immediately after the period of which they could file a disclaimer of interest lapsed, announced a vote to give Fehr the power to do so.
I don't really have a horse in the race; with each passing day, I find myself disliking both the owners and the PA more and more.
To be honest, I need someone to explain to me why anyone would take a side here. I don't get it. They are both trying to protect their interests and maximize the best deal for themselves. In other words, they're just doing business. Why would anyone get all emotional and choose one over the other?
To be honest, I need someone to explain to me why anyone would take a side here. I don't get it. They are both trying to protect their interests and maximize the best deal for themselves. In other words, they're just doing business. Why would anyone get all emotional and choose one over the other?
Because I'm tired of seeing teams in Phoenix, Florida, etc. that aren't supported and no one cares about, while there are markets in Canada like Quebec, Hamilton, even Saskatoon/Regina that would be better supported and provide more entertaining rivalries.
The article doesn't even make sense. You guys need to take a moment and think about it. Why would the NHL change their stance after the PA didn't file a disclaimer of interest if the PA can just revote and file one almost immediately? Obviously the NHL knows this. These parties are both sophisticated, and there is no way the NHL would/does think that the PA's failure to file a disclaimer of interest really changes anything. This is reinforced by the fact that the PA, almost immediately after the period of which they could file a disclaimer of interest lapsed, announced a vote to give Fehr the power to do so.
The point isn't the disclaimer: it's that the league's attempt to insert different language into things they'd already agreed upon.
I don't care if it was highlighted or not in the midst of their exceptionally long proposal. The gall of suggesting that the league should be able to re-open the CBA if they're caught lying about HRR is mind boggling, as is the suggestion that Bettman should be the one to penalize owners for hiding HRR. That's patently absurd, to the point that I can't imagine that anyone hearing it would think it was anything but absurd.
Considering the NHL can't even make it through a Fehr press conference without leaving an angry voice mail like a 5-year-old, it's not really surprising.
To be honest, I need someone to explain to me why anyone would take a side here. I don't get it. They are both trying to protect their interests and maximize the best deal for themselves. In other words, they're just doing business. Why would anyone get all emotional and choose one over the other?
It's a game a lot of people love, so there's going to be emotion involved.
For myself, my anger really stems from the fact that there was virtually zero negotiation prior to the CBA expiring. The lockout was inevitable and we all knew it was coming, so it's just upsetting that it had to transpire like that.
I fully understand both sides protecting their interest, I just wish they could have actually gotten down to this serious negotiating a lot sooner. When I think of all the time that was wasted with both sides stubbornly refusing to meet, take it or leave it proposals, publicity stunts and temper tantrums, when a lot of this could have begun while we still had hockey to watch...it just blows my mind.
Both sides intentionally waited until games were being lost to put heat on one another, when the real victims of that decision were always going to be the fans. It sucks, and I know that both sides did it and are continuing to do it consciously.
My gut feeling is that a deal will get done, but I'm equally displeased with both sides for allowing this farce to play out the way it has.
To be honest, I need someone to explain to me why anyone would take a side here. I don't get it. They are both trying to protect their interests and maximize the best deal for themselves. In other words, they're just doing business. Why would anyone get all emotional and choose one over the other?
Because the league threw away half a season of hockey to get unnecessary concessions -- and they haven't even address the most obvious fix: making a bigger gulf between the floor and the ceiling. Does anyone actually think the players would have gone on strike for half a season if the league hadn't tried to hit a home run, despite huge growth and record profits?
They threw half a season away out of greed. Some of us actually like watching hockey and find it irksome that the NHL can't get out of its own way (over and over again).
My gut feeling is that a deal will get done, but I'm equally displeased with both sides for allowing this farce to play out the way it has.
I don't get this. I'd be curious to see what demands the NHLPA has made that seem unreasonable to anyone, because what they've asked for seems eminently reasonable to me, given the league's economic growth and previous agreements.
So what's the issue with the NHLPA? It seems like some people just wanted them to capitulate to a ridiculous, pre-orchestrated lockout by the league. Why should the league be rewarded for damaging its own product?
I don't get this. I'd be curious to see what demands the NHLPA has made that seem unreasonable to anyone, because what they've asked for seems eminently reasonable to me, given the league's economic growth and previous agreements.
So what's the issue with the NHLPA? It seems like some people just wanted them to capitulate to a ridiculous, pre-orchestrated lockout by the league. Why should the league be rewarded for damaging its own product?
It just seems illogical to me.
Where did I say I wanted them to capitulate? I said they should have started negotiating far, far, far sooner than they did.
Where did I say I wanted them to capitulate? I said they should have started negotiating far, far, far sooner than they did.
But, again, what unreasonable demands did the NHLPA make? It's the league that started from a point (in June) where no reasonable negotiation could start from. It just seems to me like throwing your hands up and blaming both sides is a cop out.
Keep in mind I was absolutely on the "side" of the league during the last lockout, if you want to call it that. I don't think it's about taking a side so much as just observing a very obvious pre-orchestrated lockout by the league. There were rumours last winter that Bettman wouldn't "give in" like his buddy David Stern and would prove his mettle.
But, again, what unreasonable demands did the NHLPA make? It's the league that started from a point (in June) where no reasonable negotiation could start from. It just seems to me like throwing your hands up and blaming both sides is a cop out.
Keep in mind I was absolutely on the "side" of the league during the last lockout, if you want to call it that. I don't think it's about taking a side so much as just observing a very obvious pre-orchestrated lockout by the league. There were rumours last winter that Bettman wouldn't "give in" like his buddy David Stern and would prove his mettle.
Well, I guess he did.
I think both sides could have done an awful lot more to meet an awful lot sooner. There was virtually no attempts to build good will between the PA and the League (from either side) in advance of June, July, September or any time during this process. I'm not saying the league has been reasonable (I actually agree, many of their demands are patently the opposite), but to say the PA has been completely forthcoming and justified in this process seems disingenous to me.
I still don't know why both sides can't agree on a mechanism that blows up the season if the next CBA isn't agreed to prior to the start of said regular season? Just create a nuclear deterrent so that this doesn't happen again.
