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
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.

Mirtle: NHLPA’s hard-liners hint at decertification after latest offer rejected

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 12:03 AM
  #551
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 60,084
vCash: 500
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/11...a-last-resort/

Schneider - decertification viewed only as a last resort

Quote:
“This whole process we’ve viewed that [decertification] as a last means and that’s why we’ve always pushed to negotiate,” stressed Schneider, a member of the 31-player NHLPA negotiating committee. “They [owners] don’t take us seriously and don’t have any motivation to negotiate and do some give-and-take to make it happen. One of the only options we have to apply a little pressure on them and show we’re serious is to decertify. I can’t speak to whether it’s going to happen or what the thought mindset is right now.”

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 08:56 AM
  #552
NJDevs26
Moderator
No more status quo?!
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,376
vCash: 50
There's never going to be any concrete 'proof' the owners are split, little Napoleon saw to that with his gag order. The only real proof is common sense. You really think the profitable teams want this lockout? Or the moderates who aren't looking to break the union?

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 09:04 AM
  #553
sina220*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
There's never going to be any concrete 'proof' the owners are split, little Napoleon saw to that with his gag order. The only real proof is common sense. You really think the profitable teams want this lockout? Or the moderates who aren't looking to break the union?
Yes, the profitable teams would do better if the less profitable ones got closer to breaking even, and thus required less from the profitable ones in revenue sharing. The better the bottom teams do the more of their own money the big clubs can keep.

And the moderates for sure. Most of them barely break even. They certainly want a system that at least gives them a chance to turn good profits. Lemieux for example, isn't anti-union or hardline against the players, but hes certainly behind bettman. Hes a businessman first, a hockey guy 2nd. He knows first hand the importance of having teams that generate profit, not lose it.

sina220* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:07 AM
  #554
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,861
vCash: 500
I can't help but feel that we're gonna have NHL hockey really soon now.

Both sides have fought hard and mediation seems like a good out for them. Neither side will be seen as giving in on principle and hockey starts before Xmas.

If not I'd be worried that something more than just hockey is going on here.


Last edited by middletoe: 11-27-2012 at 10:40 AM.
middletoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 06:14 PM
  #555
leeaf83
HFBoards Sponsor
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,044
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
one question I haven't had answered regarding decertification;

Is it possible that if it goes through, they'll basically be ordered back to work immediately (unless it's not in the offseason). For instance if it goes through in mid march, would the NHL be forced to squeeze in a season since the 'regular' work schedule ends mid april?

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 06:34 PM
  #556
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
one question I haven't had answered regarding decertification;

Is it possible that if it goes through, they'll basically be ordered back to work immediately (unless it's not in the offseason). For instance if it goes through in mid march, would the NHL be forced to squeeze in a season since the 'regular' work schedule ends mid april?
There becomes a point where it just becomes unfeasible and we are nearing very close to that point. Most have suggested January being that tipping point.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 06:47 PM
  #557
leeaf83
HFBoards Sponsor
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,044
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
There becomes a point where it just becomes unfeasible and we are nearing very close to that point. Most have suggested January being that tipping point.
But can they do that IF the lockout is deemed illegal? It seems the precedence is that they will not run less than half a schedule if the choice is in their hands.

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 07:38 PM
  #558
Erik Estrada
Registered User
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
But can they do that IF the lockout is deemed illegal? It seems the precedence is that they will not run less than half a schedule if the choice is in their hands.
If the Players decertify after February 15, I think the NHL would have a good argument to make that the resulting cancelled games (for the 2012-2013 season) were the direct result of a permissible labor market restraint taken during cba talks.

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 08:59 PM
  #559
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 13,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
one question I haven't had answered regarding decertification;

Is it possible that if it goes through, they'll basically be ordered back to work immediately (unless it's not in the offseason). For instance if it goes through in mid march, would the NHL be forced to squeeze in a season since the 'regular' work schedule ends mid april?
It's unlikely a court would order them back to work by issuing an injunction against the lockout. A district court in Minnesota did that during the NFL labor dispute only to be overturned by the 8th Circuit court of appeals that the district court lacked authority to do so under the LaGuardia act.

The NHLPA could shop for a more favorable circuit to grant an injunction like the 9th, but there's no guarantee of success or how long it might take even with that strategy. The NBAPA didn't pursue an injunction in their suit against the NBA last year after decertifying [having seen the NFLPA injunction fail earlier], instead simply asking for treble anti-trust damages. We don't know where the NBA suit might have ended up since both sides settled but it would have taken at least a year or two to wind its way through the courts, again without guarantee of success. Some obstacles to overcome like Brown v NFL.

Could the players ultimately win an anti-trust suit? Certainly it's possible, but it would likely involve the cancelation of at least this and next season to accomplish. Better for both sides to work out an agreement outside of court.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 09:53 PM
  #560
echlfreak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,023
vCash: 500
NHLPA will likely file a disclaimer or de-certify within the next week. It will go to executive board and be sent to a vote. Time is now!

Players sick of being pushed around by greed. NHL has its 50/50 split over time and the make whole agreement has wiggle room...NHL wants money and rights. F-Them! This is NHLPA's ONLY option besides waving a white flag.

echlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 08:16 AM
  #561
sina220*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post


Agree to disagree. The league can thrive under different conditions. Bettman, imo, is married to Proskauer Rose and their philosophy on sports labor management. Imo, he should have taken to task whoever it was that forgot to weigh the relative contributions, and then do some revenue growth modeling under a few scenarios that consider that weight and currency fluctuations.



I think that's reflective of the split in the owners' group. One of his problems may be, in addition to that divergence, that he himself is seen as closer to the hardliner camp. It is possible he has taken sides when the role he has is to give the perception that he considers all sides needs/wants firstly, then to work on bridging those gaps. If some owners thought he went too far, it would seem to me that they're not looking at this from the 30-team perspective. The labor issue cannot be over something that a mere handful of teams want.



I'm not convinced-- yet.
You're entire position is based on some hypothetical ideas that the owners really aren't losing money and that there is some other way this 30 team league could be better run if only evil bettman would peel back the sheet and reveal it to us.

Yet you NEVER provide proof of any of these claims. Only vague or hypothetical ideas about how things "could" or "seem" to be.

[MOD] under this current 54+% to the players system mid-market teams like Pittsburgh NEED extremely team friendly leases/arena deals on the backend to cover the rising player/operation costs on the front end. You tried to imply lemieux swindled us taxpayers with a sweetheart deal, when all along he made it very clear that in order for the team to survive these additional revenue streams would need funneled back to the team, not local govt. And our local govt felt the team, and revenue associated with it, was important enough to broker a team friendly deal. That's the reality you chose to ignore to pursue your agenda, instead of the truth.

And ironically, even with such a sweetheart deal/lease, 41 sellouts, all the new revenue, sponsors, and advertising the team still cant spend within a few mil of the cap and break even during the regular season, let alone generate a sizeable profit. That's the reality. The pens have everything going their way and they barely break even. Imagine how hard it must be for other teams in even slightly worse situations.

Oh wait, thats just what happened in Phoenix. Their initial lease was not team friendly and intended them to pay back the jobing.com arena bonds quickly. Things like the coyotes "leasing" every spot in the parking lot for $1.75 prior to each home game were included so the city could recoup quickly. What ended up happening was the city siphoned the teams revenue streams on the backend, they couldn't cover rising operation/player costs on the front, and here we are 4 years later with no resolution because the city still wants a bullish lease and the new owner knows its impossible without a friendly one.

So you were *****ing about governments funding arenas or signing team friendly leases for billionaires in lemieuxs case, but your defending the system that forces teams into needing those very sweetheart deals you detest or they end up going down the coyotes, devils, isles, etc path.

The teams need relief on one of the ends. Either taxpayers take the burden or owners under this system. Players contracts are guaranteed. Its about time the players accept some of the burden along with us.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-28-2012 at 12:05 PM. Reason: flaming
sina220* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 08:27 AM
  #562
sina220*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 711
vCash: 500
And to further my above post, look at what just was required for phoenix to be successful. A 20 year management fee paid to the owner of the team. That's the reality of this system. Tax payers or owners have to cover hockey operation costs. The players dont have a stake in this situation, or Pittsburgh, or any. All the risk is with taxpayers and owners. That's not "fair", and I though the nhlpa was all about "fairness"?

sina220* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 09:27 AM
  #563
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,019
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
And to further my above post, look at what just was required for phoenix to be successful. A 20 year management fee paid to the owner of the team. That's the reality of this system. Tax payers or owners have to cover hockey operation costs. The players dont have a stake in this situation, or Pittsburgh, or any. All the risk is with taxpayers and owners. That's not "fair", and I though the nhlpa was all about "fairness"?
That's usually what happens when a team lacks fan support.

Also, do the owners have a finite business life as short as the players? Do the owners risk physical harm? Are the owners the revenue drivers? And since when do employees or independent contractors take on the business risk?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:01 AM
  #564
pepty
Let's win it all
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,496
vCash: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by echlfreak View Post
NHLPA will likely file a disclaimer or de-certify within the next week. It will go to executive board and be sent to a vote. Time is now!

Players sick of being pushed around by greed. NHL has its 50/50 split over time and the make whole agreement has wiggle room...NHL wants money and rights. F-Them! This is NHLPA's ONLY option besides waving a white flag.
There is greed enough and to spare, but on both sides.

There is entirely too much obsessing about winning and white flags instead of finding a way to get back on the ice for the good of the game and everyone involved.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:09 AM
  #565
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Players are sick of being pushed around by greed but they push back with their own brand of greed.

Iggy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:10 AM
  #566
InfinityIggy
No Longer Flammable
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,914
vCash: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
There becomes a point where it just becomes unfeasible and we are nearing very close to that point. Most have suggested January being that tipping point.
Pretty much the new year is make or break, after Jan.1st there just isn't enough time left to cobble together a feasible season.

InfinityIggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:15 AM
  #567
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,019
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
Players are sick of being pushed around by greed but they push back with their own brand of greed.
To an extent. I can see where the players are coming from. The NHL is essentially asking for a pay cut (of their revenue share), as well as all of these other things. The NHL isn't willing to give anything up to the players.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:17 AM
  #568
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
To an extent. I can see where the players are coming from. The NHL is essentially asking for a pay cut (of their revenue share), as well as all of these other things. The NHL isn't willing to give anything up to the players.
I'm tired of this logic, what has the NHL given up? Both sides benefit when the league is healthiest. The question should be, which side is putting forward the proposal that will result in the healthiest NHL?

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:19 AM
  #569
tbcwpg
Registered User
 
tbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by echlfreak View Post
NHLPA will likely file a disclaimer or de-certify within the next week. It will go to executive board and be sent to a vote. Time is now!

Players sick of being pushed around by greed. NHL has its 50/50 split over time and the make whole agreement has wiggle room...NHL wants money and rights. F-Them! This is NHLPA's ONLY option besides waving a white flag.
It doesn't really, it has a 50/50 split over time, which could be more than 50/50 in the players favour if revenue growth is less than anticipated. They have repeatedly asked for minimums, even in their recent "linked" proposal.

tbcwpg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:50 AM
  #570
s7ark
Moderator
McDavid!!!!!!!!!!!
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
And to further my above post, look at what just was required for phoenix to be successful. A 20 year management fee paid to the owner of the team. That's the reality of this system. Tax payers or owners have to cover hockey operation costs. The players dont have a stake in this situation, or Pittsburgh, or any. All the risk is with taxpayers and owners. That's not "fair", and I though the nhlpa was all about "fairness"?
The players aren't forcing the NHL to keep the team in Phoenix. Perhaps if the NHL would agree to move money pit teams to more viable markets the NHL wouldn't have to lock out its players every time the CBA ends. Why should the players have to pay so the NHL/Bettman can continue being intransigent by trying to make the failed Southern expansion work?

s7ark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:01 AM
  #571
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 11,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy77 View Post
Players are sick of being pushed around by greed but they push back with their own brand of greed.
Yep. We don't like that your first offer said 46% (or 43% or whatever). That isn't fair. What is fair is mandatory raises! Oh and if revenues go down we want no part of that and want to keep on making what we were making when revenues were higher!


^^^
Nope the players aren't forcing the league to keep the team in Phoenix. Heck the league could unilaterally fold that team any time they wanted and 25 PA members would be out of a job. They haven't forced the league to keep 29 teams but they sure do like the jobs and money that have resulted from the league taking the action they have!

tantalum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:13 AM
  #572
leeaf83
HFBoards Sponsor
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,044
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
The players aren't forcing the NHL to keep the team in Phoenix. Perhaps if the NHL would agree to move money pit teams to more viable markets the NHL wouldn't have to lock out its players every time the CBA ends. Why should the players have to pay so the NHL/Bettman can continue being intransigent by trying to make the failed Southern expansion work?
THIS ^

and to the person who responded to you, where is it saying that teams have to fold? Look at the positive impact last year from turning 1 bottom tier financial team (Atlanta) to a top tier financial team. It's a minor crime that it took until 2011 for Winnipeg to return, imagine had they let Phoenix go there 3 years earlier?

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:17 AM
  #573
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
Perhaps if the NHL would agree to move money pit teams to more viable markets
Then the next time it's the Jets or Oilers or Flames who are in revenue trouble, they should get moved too, eh?

Be careful with the self-righteous indignation toward the poorer teams. It may be your team in the crosshairs one day.

optimus2861 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:39 AM
  #574
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoctor10 View Post
Why on earth would the league deal with the players that way? The BOG would never agree to it, and so what's going to happen? Are a third of the teams going to start their own league?
because they would have no choice if the NHLPA decertified. The only reason why the NHL is legally allowed a salary cap is because of the players union. Without a union there are no rules.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:39 AM
  #575
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Then the next time it's the Jets or Oilers or Flames who are in revenue trouble, they should get moved too, eh?

Be careful with the self-righteous indignation toward the poorer teams. It may be your team in the crosshairs one day.
A general Oh well to that then.

If a market cannot sustain a Hockey Franchise, then that franchise should seek out a market that CAN support a hockey franchise.

Propping up the Yotes today ensures continued years of red ink all over the place and delays the eventual move.

Hamilton and Quebec and Seattle are waiting with open arms.

Stop wasting $$ in Phoenix. It's not a Hockey market. For that matter, neither is Miami

pld459666 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 08:51 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.