Can someone explain to me why the owners can't just operate under the current CBA and continue to negotiate after the season begins?
Not 100% sure, but I assume it would be a legal issue. Once a contract expires I imagine you aren't able to legally hold people to it, so therefore it would be a risk to assume everyone would act on good faith in going about business under the old CBA.
__________________
"I used to pray for good things . I used to ask the Hockey Gods for puck luck for the NYR .
Now all I want is Torts the smug stupid goatee clown to be fired , . I hate Torts . Please hockey gods make him get fired. Please Sean punch him in face" -- Dorado
I never subscribed to the logic that it's the players' fault because they can end this by just saying ok.
To me, the owners could reduce the outrageous costs by not offering insane contracts. They could work together and share revenue. There are plenty of solutions on their side of the table. Attacking the players share, established when they succumbed to the league, should be the last resort, not the starting point.
The last lockout was to "return the game to the fan" through cost certainty and parity. Neither was established, unless the losers point was a revenue tool.
I've gone to fewer games than ever and costs are insane for the fan. I can't imagine why anyone would support the owners side after their bs last time and their insane negotiations this time.
because it leaves the players the opportunity to strike at any time they want. happened in 92, happened with baseball in 94
it also reduces the leverage they have against the players.. good enough reason for me
The current CBA has a no-strike clause. If the CBA was extended one more year, it would still include that no-strike clause. I think the bigger issue is that some owners would rather shut down business than be forced to operate in the red for another year.
Because some of the owners lost money last year. They, understandably, would rather close their doors than operate in the red.
No interest in using the year to hammer out revenue sharing with the other owners though? Yeah, their problems are more of an issue with location, not player costs. If they can't fill a building thats an owner problem. Reduce the floor, and put a crappier team on the ice, sound logic.
A few days ago,Daly indicated there were close on some of other issues. Tentative agreements are in place. The core economic issue of HRR % and then contracts are the two big issues. The NHL doesn't like the contracts which they feel cheat the system. Looking at what the players in the other 3 leagues get and the type of contracts they get,the NHL has a point. NBA has contract term limits. 5 years to re-sign your players and 4 years for a free agent. The NFL contracts are non-guaranteed. The signing bonus money is guaranteed. They might guarantee a smaller % in addition to the bonus money. You don't see crazy long term contracts in MLB. There are no 13 year SPCs in MLB.
Quote:
PA deal not perfect obviously. One thing I do agree with league is they must have contract term cap. Even if it's eight years or whatever.
because it leaves the players the opportunity to strike at any time they want. happened in 92, happened with baseball in 94
it also reduces the leverage they have against the players.. good enough reason for me
I'm pretty sure the players wouldn't be able to strike.
I do agree with your second point, but the benefits of not having a lockout exceed any lost leverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile
Not 100% sure, but I assume it would be a legal issue. Once a contract expires I imagine you aren't able to legally hold people to it, so therefore it would be a risk to assume everyone would act on good faith in going about business under the old CBA.
Both sides can agree to continue the current CBA while in negotiations and the contract would be legally binding. The players want this, but the owners refuse. And what cracks me up the most is that the owners basically designed the current CBA and are now saying its unacceptable.
No matter which way you spin it, the owners are at fault. They are not the ones playing the game and sacrificing their bodies every night. All the owners do is sit in the press box and raise ticket prices -- they don't deserve more money !!!
__________________ "Matteau! Matteau! Matteau!"~H. Rose
I'm pretty sure the players wouldn't be able to strike.
I do agree with your second point, but the benefits of not having a lockout exceed any lost leverage.
this is exactly the scenario that happened in 92. cba expired in september of 91.. the season went on and the players went on strike a few weeks before the season. its exactly the reason why the owners wont open the gates.
also like a few other people said, owners would rather not operate in the red
this is exactly the scenario that happened in 92. cba expired in september of 91.. the season went on and the players went on strike a few weeks before the season. its exactly the reason why the owners wont open the gates.
also like a few other people said, owners would rather not operate in the red
So they would rather not operate at all and be even more in the red? Only a few teams are in the red and a new CBA isn't going to bring them out of it come long term.
Both sides can agree to continue the current CBA while in negotiations and the contract would be legally binding. The players want this, but the owners refuse. And what cracks me up the most is that the owners basically designed the current CBA and are now saying its unacceptable.
No matter which way you spin it, the owners are at fault. They are not the ones playing the game and sacrificing their bodies every night. All the owners do is sit in the press box and raise ticket prices -- they don't deserve more money !!!
dude things change in 8 years, the sports world has changed dramatically. the nfl and nba owners got great deals, how could you even fault the nhl owners for wanting something like that?
and no the owners aren't COMPLETELY at fault. the players took way too long to come to the table. way too long. the league was ready to sit down 6 to 10 months before the players sat down.
and by your last point, yes players sacrifice their bodies every night. you're right. but they do not have the expenses the owners do. the players don't have to pay all of the bills. the players don't have to invest money in renovations like our owner is to generate more revenue. and who benefits from more revenue? both the owners and the players.
both sides need each other, and both sides are to blame.
So they would rather not operate at all and be even more in the red? Only a few teams are in the red and a new CBA isn't going to bring them out of it come long term.
how would they be even more in the red if they have virtually no expenses?
dude things change in 8 years, the sports world has changed dramatically. the nfl and nba owners got great deals, how could you even fault the nhl owners for wanting something like that?
and no the owners aren't COMPLETELY at fault. the players took way too long to come to the table. way too long. the league was ready to sit down 6 to 10 months before the players sat down.
and by your last point, yes players sacrifice their bodies every night. you're right. but they do not have the expenses the owners do. the players don't have to pay all of the bills. the players don't have to invest money in renovations like our owner is to generate more revenue. and who benefits from more revenue? both the owners and the players.
both sides need each other, and both sides are to blame.
Your right, things change -- however the NHL is not the NBA or the NFL. It is a much smaller league, especially in the US. The owners need to realize they are the 4th major sport and move on.
And lets be honest, owners do have plenty of expenses. But this lockout is not about meeting those expenses, it is about greed. They want more money because what they have now is not enough. With the exception of a few teams, the owners are trying to get as rich as possible at the expense of the fans and players.
We can agree to disagree, but I think the owners are 100% wrong. Gary Bettman has ruined the sport.
Your right, things change -- however the NHL is not the NBA or the NFL. It is a much smaller league, especially in the US. The owners need to realize they are the 4th major sport and move on.
And lets be honest, owners do have plenty of expenses. But this lockout is not about meeting those expenses, it is about greed. They want more money because what they have now is not enough. With the exception of a few teams, the owners are trying to get as rich as possible at the expense of the fans and players.
We can agree to disagree, but I think the owners are 100% wrong. Gary Bettman has ruined the sport.
you're right, it isn't the NBA or NFL. which is why the owners need a deal similar to those two sports even more. they need to get more of a share of the revenue. lets face it, most of the expenses they have are exactly the same that an nba team has. both of those leagues have huge tv contracts.
and im sorry, but im so sick of this gary bettman ruined the sport crap. gary bettman gets the people who sign his paycheck what THEY want. not what gary bettman wants.
how would they be even more in the red if they have virtually no expenses?
They will absolutely have expenses. Employees, rent, other misc. contracts. That stuff doesn't just go away just because they are not playing the game, does it?
However, one thing is certain, that there will be no revenue.
and im sorry, but im so sick of this gary bettman ruined the sport crap. gary bettman gets the people who sign his paycheck what THEY want. not what gary bettman wants.
Both the owners and Bettman are ruining the sport, since Gary Bettman is the essentially the face of the owners. There will be 3 lockouts with him as commissioner, something unprecedented in any other sport. Something is clearly not right with that.
I can't imagine why anyone would support the owners side after their bs last time and their insane negotiations this time.
My feelings exactly.
Since Gary Bettman said "The lockout has made attending the game more affordable for the average fan", my tickets have gone from $42.00 to $73.00. I wish I could hear him explain that one away...
The current CBA has a no-strike clause. If the CBA was extended one more year, it would still include that no-strike clause. I think the bigger issue is that some owners would rather shut down business than be forced to operate in the red for another year.
The CBA can expire and the league can run without an agreement. It doesn't have to be extended to open up the year. The league is required to honor the contracts they signed with the players, CBA or no, unless they lock them out, which is what the league pledges will happen if the agreement does expire. They aren't required to lockout upon expiration, but they do in order to prevent a strike. If the league were running without a CBA, the threat of a player strike would be very large. That's what happened in 92 with the NHL and 94 with the players. In both cases, the strikes happened pretty much in the midst of the regular season.
But no, there wouldn't be a threat of a strike if the CBA had been extended, which clearly the owners weren't willing to do.
They will absolutely have expenses. Employees, rent, other misc. contracts. That stuff doesn't just go away just because they are not playing the game, does it?
However, one thing is certain, that there will be no revenue.
They still get merchandise revenue, plus they're getting national TV revenue whether they play this season or not. I would guess the local TV revenue stream would vary from agreement to agreement.
it's so complicated. but one way to look at it is, the owners can't pay their bills so they take more from the players cash pool. just like the government. spend too much, take more from the taxpayers. pretty good deal. of course, the players have it good. playing a sport and earning tons of money. but i'd love to see an accounting of where the money goes. anyhow, in the end, it's hardly collective bargaining when one side holds all the cards. the players need hockey. the owners can hold the game hostage.
anyhow, i don't know the whole story, of course. just rambling...
Since Gary Bettman said "The lockout has made attending the game more affordable for the average fan", my tickets have gone from $42.00 to $73.00. I wish I could hear him explain that one away...
Ok, thats enough of me ranting for today
the owners - particularly of teams like the rangers - know that *someone* will pay that fee. and it's their right to sell that seat for whatever they can. still, it sucks. i feel for you.
Can someone explain to me why the owners can't just operate under the current CBA and continue to negotiate after the season begins?
Because of greed.
The players lose any incentive to negotiate when their backs are not against the wall and the owners lose any leverage when they can't institute a lockout.
Didn't know where to put this and wasn't sure if it was mentioned, but Jim Cerny did two interviews in the past week with Brian Boyle and Taylor Pyatt. They are on the Rangers website. I know I'm not the only one dying for hockey, especially to see Rick Nash skating around in rangers gear. They have video clips from the guys working out in each video with some clips of Nash, Halpern, Pyatt, Staal, Richards, and others. There's one point during the Boyle video where the team is huddled around Richards who is drawing up plays on the white board, I found that to be pretty cool. They were both good interviews.
