Read McKenzie before you play out scenarios beyond court rooms and mediation tables. This forces the legal process along. We will never see a non CBA era hockey game. Its not worth the worry or irritation because its not happening.
I did read McKenzie. Just because it worked in the NBA doesn't mean it works here. As you yourself have pointed out multiple times, the parallels aren't exact. When it comes to decertifying some of these differences go against the players:
- The imbalance between weak teams and strong teams is much greater in the NHL.
- There are many more teams that are flat-out unprofitable in their core sports operations.
- The hawks run the league, whereas in the NBA the moderates have a much greater voice.
- There are a whole lot more players outside the superstar rung who would a) have a lot more trouble surviving the long hiatus and b) would likely fair much, much worse under a true free market system.
- The NHL has guys like Jacobs, who will have a profitable team no matter what happens and who I believe would have no problem playing this **** out to the death.
Personally, I think we're making progress. As I posted yesterday, I think you see them re-engage via back channels over the weekend, the league conveys the message that the players need to drop their ridiculous floor clause and make the back-diving fix something that actually, you know, WORKS during the actual term of the contract... and then there is more movement to be had from the league on the contracting issues.
My only concern is that guys like Fehr and Bettman along with the Jacobses and Rupps on either side have their own egos too intertwined with "winning" and have their emotions at too high a level. It's so obvious where they need to go - which is where they've needed to go all along - that only the personal stuff can really muck it up now. They need to just stop with the unmitigated outrage that appears from either side each time a proposal is made and the other doesn't simply accept it verbatim.
After last lockout every team including the rangers reduced ticket prices
Dolan lowered the prices because the team sucked. Now they are a contender and he just spent a billion dollars renovating. Tickets are not going down, they might even go up.
From what I read the desired outcome from the players threatening and starting the process of decertification, is it would force the league to come to an agreement before the players actually decertify.
Because practically every part of the system in the league would become illegal, and the league won't allow that to happen.
It would pretty much force an end to the lockout.
Apparently this is what happened with the NBA lockout.
Dolan lowered the prices because the team sucked. Now they are a contender and he just spent a billion dollars renovating. Tickets are not going down, they might even go up.
This.
This organization's building has been renovating for the last 2 years and the Rangers and Knicks are ULTRA competitive right now. Both teams could be in the picture for their respective championships (if we have a season this year). Ticket prices aren't going down at all.
This organization's building has been renovating for the last 2 years and the Rangers and Knicks are ULTRA competitive right now. Both teams could be in the picture for their respective championships (if we have a season this year). Ticket prices aren't going down at all.
Ticket prices never go down when demand exceeds the supply. It is a simple concept and Dolan knows it.
I am judging the players on their offer based on the asinine insistence that their income is not directly linked to revenue, not the last CBA. Like I said before, they absorb no risk and want guarenteed revenues in their "partnership". It's ludicrus.
Ok, that's a bit more articulate than your idea that the previous CBA has no impact, or the other poster's statement that the union has not made any concessions.
Linkage is there. Its not enough for Gary or you, but I think its stubborn to not negotiate off this offer. The league offered make whole, the union offered 50% beyond that, so it is disingenuous to harp on linkage. The concept is agreed on. The amount is not. At this point, it seems like fans are focusing on linkage more than the owners.
The PA came up with a creative proposal. I think the cap and calculation concepts were built in to leave some bargaining room with contract control. Gary should have at least brought it to the owners or used it for a counter offer. He asked for proposals for a month, then rejects a good starting point out of hand. Just like the 43% offer, everything is meant to be a step, not an end point.
From what I read the desired outcome from the players threatening and starting the process of decertification, is it would force the league to come to an agreement before the players actually decertify.
Because practically every part of the system in the league would become illegal, and the league won't allow that to happen.
It would pretty much force an end to the lockout.
Apparently this is what happened with the NBA lockout.
This is what I wanted to convey, and BRF, I'm not sure if I tweeked you but my post did not intend to be condescending. Nothing is viewed in a bubble, the NFLPA was unsuccessful in the decert and they have all the things for them that BRF pointed out against the NHLPA.
I don't think for a second the players want a non CBA league. This move is structured to get a deal.
On a separate note, I think there is a*vast majority of moderates on both sides. They both need to put a vote out. Unfortunately for the process, I'm not sure what the mechanisms are to get a deal to the owners if Gary and the negotiation committee veto it. Then its a 75% vote from there. There are hurdles on the player side, but it seems like they are more streamlined.
We need another exchange and volley of proposals. They know whats up and no one really wants a lost season. The union needs to accept the structure the league insists on and the owners need to compromise on contracts.
If the season is canceled this year, the owners sole point of revenue are the season tickets that they sold. If there is no season next year, the owners are now staring at a season where not a single season ticket has been sold, while still having to pay fixed costs. There are teams in the NHL which will not survive that. If there are two seasons canceled, there are teams that will not come back.
The point is that after Bettman cancels the season, the next time that Fehr and the players begin to get any semblance of leverage is when the owners are faced with the possibility of not having any ticket sales. Not to mention the fact that what meager TV contract they have, will now have two seasons on the back end, in which the owners are not getting a dime's worth of revenue from. Not to mention the loss of sponsors.
Yes, the players will then be looking at two seasons of no salaries. But again, they did not hire Fehr simply to repeat 2004. No. Fehr will make the owners stare at the above possibilities before he returns to the table (if this season is canceled).
But leverage for what exactly? They will never ever get more than 50% under the current system (ie. no dercertification or other complete revamps of the NHL). They will never get as much money for the first two seasons either (including make whole). And there will be no new CBA without the cap circumvention fixed.
So what's left that the PA could fight for? 27/7 UFA age, salary arbitration? Basically that's it in my opinion. Whether that's worth canceling a season is debatable (both from the league and the players), but canceling one for the revenue percentage or contract limits is quite simply pure lunacy as the players can only lose.
If the PA actually de-certifies you can kiss any hope of a season goodbye. The main point is to be able to bring antitrust lawsuits against the league which will tie this thing up in court for a looong time.
Agreed. The season and next season will be done for. At that point, kiss the NHL good-bye.
New owners are not going to like that. Tampa and Buffalo did not sink in all this money, just to wash it away.
The contract point is an interesting one. If, in a court, an owner tries to state that the player contract is valid and they belong playing under such conditions, the players would then state how is it that said owner is trying to get out from paying the full worth?
Decertification is not cut and dry. I do think that it is a player's ultimate trump card. The article is correct when it states that NO owner wants to be in court facing unfair labor practices questions.
Leverage to get a better deal than they would otherwise get. It is a different dynamic if the owners head into another season of no revenue like this year and in 2004, but once you add on not selling a single season ticket? That is a different beast. Add that to having to play under their current TV contract for an extra two years, for absolutely free and, IMO, that will get the players a better deal than what they would otherwise get.
Right now, it is about two things for the players. Getting paid on the contracts that are currently signed. And getting the best deal possible. I believe that the pressure on owners that will come with staring at a season with no single season ticket sold will be great. Both this year and in 2004, while loosing all of the ancillary revenue, they still sold season tickets. Would the NHL be willing to try that, knowing that such an action would more than likely wipe out some teams? Debatable. Off course, the players will loose two years of salaries and have lots of players loose careers to the lockout. At that point, it is much more than simply a game of who will blink first. It is the entire NHL that would be at stake.
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Cancellation of games through December 14 expected within the hour . NHL will also cancel the 2013 NHL All-Star Weekend.
Finally something for the fans. The allstar game is a corporate schmooz fest. The game itself sucks. The cool skills events are so bastardized at this point it is unwatchable.
Read the McKenzie piece. It makes the lockout illegal. The players say they are ready to play for their individual contracts and if it is held up in court, the owners have to proceed. The CBA is out, when contracts expire everyone is ufa regardless of age, no draft, no cap, no arbitration. Those things that are fundamental and assumed in every cba (proof that the previous one is relative to the negotiation process, why its the basis for negotiating), are gone.
Also, no more guaranteed contracts if they de certify. Those are something collectively bargained for.
since the owners are the ones handing out contratcs, they can re define a SPC without any input from the players.
So I can just move on. At this point we'll be looking at some garbage 30-40 game season. If I had to say, at this point i'd say starting on time even next season is in jeopardy. Bunch of buffoons running the show here.
One would certainly hope that Bettman and the owners are not seeing the move towards them as a sign that the union is about to collapse and dig in on what amounts to be $1.2m per team as far as "make-whole" goes. The union made more than enough of an offer for the owners to negotiate off of. If the Jaocbs of the world are running things, they will see this as weakness and not budge. Then, the season is done.
If the hard line owners dig in, there could be issues:
Quote:
It’s possible, for example, that hard-line owners will pressure Bettman into minimizing the $211 million "make-whole" amount or taking it off the table altogether. That would be plain dumb. And a deal killer.
It’s also possible the league’s negative in-room reaction to the NHLPA’s offer Wednesday will serve to only further galvanize the players, particularly after moderate players had won out over the hard-liners Tuesday in pushing for a proposal that went percentage-based -- i.e., a framework that spoke the league’s language.
Now those moderate players who stuck their neck out in pushing for that might feel beyond enraged at how the league took to their efforts.
"They just united us," one NHL player told me Wednesday night, pointing to the way the league handled the players’ offer.
That kind of players-wide anger could easily entrench their position and allow executive director Don Fehr to really drag this out if he feels that’s the best course of action to get a better deal. And you likely will hear more talk about decertification as an option for the union.
I don't see how people still don't think the real problem in the NHL is the upper management. This is Bettman's 3rd lockout. It's a different group of players and a diff person representing the union and it's the same result again, owners lock out players. Bettman and Daly both have to go and the owners really make me sick. Without the players there is what? Exactly what there is now, nothing
It doesn't really matter who the fans blame, because I don't honestly think either side cares too much. The NHL didn't die after 2 lockouts, I doubt they think it'll die after a 3rd.
How anyone can still have a side in this is mind boggling. The players, owners, NHL management, the whole lot of them are corrupt selfish pieces of feces.
That may be an insult to feces, it at least serves a purpose.
