HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Why there were no lockouts in the NHL until 1994?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2012, 11:29 AM
  #26
pepty
Let's win it all
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,290
vCash: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian28 View Post
Bettman isn't the whole problem. That's a very simplistic way to look at things. Yes Bettman is a cold and collected business type but Fehr's actions in regard to MLB and the 94 World Series changed labour negotiations for ALL leagues regardless of commissioner. Off hand I can't think of any league operating the way they did prior to 1994 following the strike.

Even then the World Series strike is only part of the problem as well.
Fehr had a hand in the loss of the season and the Stanley Cup Playoffs in 2004/05.He was close to Goodenow(reportedly, still is) and adviser in those years and encouraged Goodenow's hard line urging him to hold out for as long as it took to avoid the cap..

Goodneow was apparently prepared to sit out 2 years, the players not so much.

So it is Fehr, Goodneow and the group around them who have turned the NHLPA into the belligerent and obdurate outfit it is today and a major reason for all the labour stoppages.

Fehr is also the reason that no League will start a season without a CBA because of his tactic of dragging out negotiations(which is what he does at the best of times) and then striking before the playoffs.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 05:30 PM
  #27
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Bring back Alan Eagleson

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:11 PM
  #28
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Fehr had a hand in the loss of the season and the Stanley Cup Playoffs in 2004/05.He was close to Goodenow(reportedly, still is) and adviser in those years and encouraged Goodenow's hard line urging him to hold out for as long as it took to avoid the cap..

Goodneow was apparently prepared to sit out 2 years, the players not so much.

So it is Fehr, Goodneow and the group around them who have turned the NHLPA into the belligerent and obdurate outfit it is today and a major reason for all the labour stoppages.

Fehr is also the reason that no League will start a season without a CBA because of his tactic of dragging out negotiations(which is what he does at the best of times) and then striking before the playoffs.
I remember once a hospital put an add in the paper looking for participants for a study in OCD. And when they got back to work on monday, they had 3000 responses - All from the same guy!

If we look back at your last 100 posts say ...

You accuse the players of fighting old battles, then come in here talking about how Fehr won labour peace in baseball 20 years ago by going on strike. A strike that was ended by the way when the american courts slapped down those owners for stupidly colluding as the arrogant plutocrats they were who actually thought they could get away with it.

When Bettman trounced Goodnenow last time, getting everything he said he wanted, the PA fell apart. It has taken a long time to rebuild. Fehr has done an excellent job of that. Obviously we understand how most Fehr strawmen builders wont have the mental make up or open mind to be able to come to grips with that. But these old battles you are pointing to were the tough times they had to go through to get where they are, pick themselvesup, and rebuild themselves.

And this evil svengali guy they hired is not trying to get rid of the cap, or go on strike, or cause problems as you continually and obessively attempt to portray. His actions show the exact opposite of the old propaganda you are trying to pretend is what is happening now while complaining everyone else is living in the past.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:15 PM
  #29
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,226
vCash: 500
Because up until shortly before 1994 the players made relatively squat and no one knew what each other was making so owners could low ball players..

You know, like how your employer somehow thinks they can forbid you and your co-workers from discussing salaries for the same reason.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:16 PM
  #30
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan View Post
Its a simple answer. Gary Bettman, he became the commissioner in 1993. It shows that with a competent commissioner that labor disputes were fixed.
Ahahaha sorry.. just had to laugh at how competent figurehead John Ziegler was.. hahahaha

I don't like Gary Bettman at all, but he is 1000 times more competent than John Ziegler. Bettman just has the unfortunate job of trying to save the owners from their own stupidity these days. Bettman's ego doesn't help, though, I'll give you that.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:22 PM
  #31
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
Until 1994, the owners were acting like a classic mob syndicate from the 1930's. Then Goodenow won the players free agency and exposed the owners for the crooks they were.

SInce then, owners have been fighting to regain what they used to have. And the mob syndicate has learned how to polish their public image.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:38 PM
  #32
Long Duk Dong
Sammich King
 
Long Duk Dong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Beaver Falls, PA
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 3,200
vCash: 500
Hockey until the 90's was a major niche sport in most of the US. Arenas weren't named after companies, there wasn't the "Power play sponsored by Taco Bell" type thing. Concession stands consisted of hot dogs, nachos and beer, luxury boxes weren't a major consideration, etc. They knew they couldn't compete with the NFL/MLB, so they didn't try. Once owners started making more money on stuff like I mentioned before, the players wanted their share as well.

Long Duk Dong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 06:51 PM
  #33
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
The players have never come asking for their share since 1994. Bargaining has been completely concessionary on their part since then,. They have not been going on strike to increase their share - it is the owners that first locked them out to force that on them and now are doing that again

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:19 PM
  #34
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Until 1994, the owners were acting like a classic mob syndicate from the 1930's.
More proof that the supposed 'new NHL' needs to be reverted to the old system.

Bring back the mob.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:31 PM
  #35
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,533
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
The players have never come asking for their share since 1994. Bargaining has been completely concessionary on their part since then,. They have not been going on strike to increase their share - it is the owners that first locked them out to force that on them and now are doing that again
1968, 1974 and 1982 NFL strikes, MLB 1972, 1980, 1981, 1985 player strike, 1994, and the 1992 NHL strike all say hello. The first labor stoppage in those three sports were all strikes. Oddly enough, the only league to have no strikes and only lockouts is the NBA. And while the NHL has had the longest, they are not the league with the most labor stoppages and not the league with the most in the shortest amount of time.

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:42 PM
  #36
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
Well i was specifically referring to hockey. Those leagues didnt go on strike other than to win their rights

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:42 PM
  #37
sawchuk1971
Registered User
 
sawchuk1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
Fehr had a hand in the loss of the season and the Stanley Cup Playoffs in 2004/05.He was close to Goodenow(reportedly, still is) and adviser in those years and encouraged Goodenow's hard line urging him to hold out for as long as it took to avoid the cap..

Goodneow was apparently prepared to sit out 2 years, the players not so much.

So it is Fehr, Goodneow and the group around them who have turned the NHLPA into the belligerent and obdurate outfit it is today and a major reason for all the labour stoppages.

Fehr is also the reason that no League will start a season without a CBA because of his tactic of dragging out negotiations(which is what he does at the best of times) and then striking before the playoffs.
whoa....i did not know that goodenow and fehr were buddy-buddy during the 04-05 lockout...and fehr gave him some advice along the way too...

wow...

sawchuk1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:44 PM
  #38
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,533
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Well i was specifically referring to hockey. Those leagues didnt go on strike other than to win their rights
Take it with a grain of salt if you like but......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_NHL_strike

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:47 PM
  #39
sawchuk1971
Registered User
 
sawchuk1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Because up until shortly before 1994 the players made relatively squat and no one knew what each other was making so owners could low ball players..

You know, like how your employer somehow thinks they can forbid you and your co-workers from discussing salaries for the same reason.
salary disclosure didn't exist back then..

remember the story when bobby baun told gordie howe that he made more money than him....

here is gordie howe, one of the greatest nhlers was making less money compared to others...was getting fleeced by ownership during his 20 odd years in the league...

sawchuk1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:49 PM
  #40
Jussi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The List Of Jericho
Country: Finland
Posts: 56,609
vCash: 500
Because Don Fehr wasn't around.

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:51 PM
  #41
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Take it with a grain of salt if you like but......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_NHL_strike

And what is it you are hoping to implicate from dropping that link without actually having to make an argument? Im fine with it.

It talks about the '92 strike where players stuck to get more justly paid for the playoffs, instead of basically nothing, and won rights to their likeness for marketing, and free agency. These are their rights; it took PA's many years to start finally winning these. Since then, owners got salary caps which meant concessionary bargaining only by the players.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:52 PM
  #42
Jussi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The List Of Jericho
Country: Finland
Posts: 56,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawchuk1971 View Post
whoa....i did not know that goodenow and fehr were buddy-buddy during the 04-05 lockout...and fehr gave him some advice along the way too...

wow...
Look up Don Fehr at wikipedia and the number of lock-out's he's been involved in. And people keep blaming Bettman for the lock-out...

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:55 PM
  #43
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,846
vCash: 500
The NHL also expanded fairly quickly from 21 to 26 teams just prior to 94. SJ (91), Ott (92), TB(92), Fla (93), Ana(93). Posters who have little economic backgrounds will struggle with this connection.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:57 PM
  #44
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,533
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
And what is it you are hoping to implicate from dropping that link without actually having to make an argument? Im fine with it.

It talks about the '92 strike where players stuck to get more justly paid for the playoffs, instead of basically nothing, and won rights to their likeness for marketing, and free agency. These are their rights; it took PA's many years to start finally winning these. Since then, owners got salary caps which meant concessionary bargaining only by the players.
Well I think I misread your original quote and interpreted your comment about not striking for rights and only being concessionary and forgot the part about you conventiently starting right after the first strike by the PA.

And I would argue that increased arbitration rights, lower UFA age and a few other things are things that they won in the last lockout. And in 1995 the NHL wanted to put a cap then but weren't successful. Semantically you could call that a win.

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 08:58 PM
  #45
sawchuk1971
Registered User
 
sawchuk1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Ahahaha sorry.. just had to laugh at how competent figurehead John Ziegler was.. hahahaha

I don't like Gary Bettman at all, but he is 1000 times more competent than John Ziegler. Bettman just has the unfortunate job of trying to save the owners from their own stupidity these days. Bettman's ego doesn't help, though, I'll give you that.
i remember ziegler...

mr. invisible during the 1988 playoffs when the referees went on strike because of a spat between schonfeld and koharski, where schonfeld called him a donut lover....

i remember back in that same year, the league signed with sportchannel, where most of the people in the states did not get it..except in the new york area (new york islanders appeared on sportschannel for years).....

the NHL had a great working relationship with ESPN for three years (1985-1988) but ziegler, the greedy one, picked sportschannel since they offered more money than ESPN..

you just had the gretzky trade the same year....and nobody in the US saw his king debut because it was shown on sportschannel..

worst NHL president ever....

sawchuk1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:20 PM
  #46
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
And I would argue that increased arbitration rights, lower UFA age and a few other things are things that they won in the last lockout. And in 1995 the NHL wanted to put a cap then but weren't successful. Semantically you could call that a win.
It never ceases to amaze me how fans can think that after being locked out for a year and forced to accept a salary cap with linkage which saw the total percent of revenues they were getting drop from 70% to 54%, a win because there was linkage and so as revenues rose so did their salaries! That is quite an artful bit of wordsmithery.

After the PA collapsed, and had surrendered, there was no dynamic in play where the owners had to accept something they didnt want otherwise the season wouldnt have started.

The players may have traded off earlier free agency for a cap, im not exactly sure what you feel they won out of arbitration, but the point is that is was a trade off.

What are the trade offs this time? Even the mighty republican spin machines paid advice to the owners was to use the phrase shared sacrifice when duping fans into coming back. Well, where is that sharing of sacrifice coming on the owners part? We have yet to see it, or trade offs, or negotiating.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:29 PM
  #47
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,533
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
It never ceases to amaze me how fans can think that after being locked out for a year and forced to accept a salary cap with linkage which saw the total percent of revenues they were getting drop from 70% to 54%, a win because there was linkage and so as revenues rose so did their salaries! That is quite an artful bit of wordsmithery.

After the PA collapsed, and had surrendered, there was no dynamic in play where the owners had to accept something they didnt want otherwise the season wouldnt have started.

The players may have traded off earlier free agency for a cap, im not exactly sure what you feel they won out of arbitration, but the point is that is was a trade off.

What are the trade offs this time? Even the mighty republican spin machines paid advice to the owners was to use the phrase shared sacrifice when duping fans into coming back. Well, where is that sharing of sacrifice coming on the owners part? We have yet to see it, or trade offs, or negotiating.
Umm. Can you please point out where in my statement I said that linkage was a win for the PA? In the context of cap or no cap, having it linked to revenue than simply having an artificial hard cap is a win however that's not what I said in the above.

So wait are you saying that a trade off is a bad thing? As far as where the tradeoffs are right now, it's not possible to say because we don't know what the CBA will look like. I continually say that they should be trading the percentage drop for same definition of HRR and better make whole provision. They should also trade stricter contract limits (length and percent it can change) for modified UFA age and increased arbitration. But that's a conversation for another thread .

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:40 PM
  #48
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawchuk1971 View Post
i remember ziegler...

mr. invisible during the 1988 playoffs when the referees went on strike because of a spat between schonfeld and koharski, where schonfeld called him a donut lover....

i remember back in that same year, the league signed with sportchannel, where most of the people in the states did not get it..except in the new york area (new york islanders appeared on sportschannel for years).....

the NHL had a great working relationship with ESPN for three years (1985-1988) but ziegler, the greedy one, picked sportschannel since they offered more money than ESPN..

you just had the gretzky trade the same year....and nobody in the US saw his king debut because it was shown on sportschannel..

worst NHL president ever....
Ziegler was not the greatest businessman, but he was good in every other areas. The guy had class and knew how to make himself invisible.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:48 PM
  #49
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
It never ceases to amaze me how fans can think that after being locked out for a year and forced
Yes, they were FORCED.

Forced to play hockey for millions of dollars. What a terrible life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
...to accept a salary cap with linkage which saw the total percent of revenues they were getting drop from 70% to 54%
Again, how terrible! Now they can only buy 13 Ferraris instead of 17!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
...a win because there was linkage and so as revenues rose so did their salaries!
Making millions of dollars IS WINNING! Especially when you have NO RESPONSIBILITIES!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
After the PA collapsed, and had surrendered, there was no dynamic in play where the owners had to accept something they didnt want otherwise the season wouldnt have started.
Sure there was, the Owners needed that money to make up for the money they LOST because of the Players' Union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
The players may have traded off earlier free agency for a cap, im not exactly sure what you feel they won out of arbitration, but the point is that is was a trade off.
That's a blatant lie, there was never any real discussion about cap removal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
What are the trade offs this time? Even the mighty republican spin machines
Oh, so it's a political thing now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
...paid advice to the owners was to use the phrase shared sacrifice when duping fans into coming back. Well, where is that sharing of sacrifice coming on the owners part? We have yet to see it, or trade offs, or negotiating.
We've seen the Owners bend over backwards. The vast majority of fans know it. We know Bettman isn't the real agitator, but Fehr is, and we'd really just like to see them take it to the parking lot and slug it out, and the winner gets their proposal. Sounds great to me.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 09:52 PM
  #50
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukcha View Post
Can anyone explain?
Before then, player salaries had not escalated to a point where they had a significantly damaging effect on team finances. In the 80s, players probably made 25% of revenues so teams were not bleeding to death like they are today.

Right now, 18 teams are better off financially by not operating. In the 80s, just about every team was better off by operating and for the ones that weren't, player salaries was not the issue.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:48 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.