HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-31-2012, 01:42 PM
  #426
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJ View Post
One could argue anything, but when a Lockout is legally enforced it is not a strike however much it is argued. It is clear you believe and agree with the owners, I do not. I can see why the owners feel they needed to lockout the players, and I can see why the players won't accept the offers on the table. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a Lockout.
The CBA expired in September and without an agreement there can be no hockey. Focusing on "lockout" versus "strike" is pretty pointless really because there was no CBA so there can be no hockey.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 01:43 PM
  #427
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
If you put the players situation and demands into any real world business model it's actually quite comical. Which is why I can't understand how pro-PA people can blindly support the players no matter what. I stand in the middle and what a deal that's good for the owners and players because in the end that good for the league and the fans.
What, pretell, is a "real world business model"? One without a salary cap?


Last edited by DyerMaker66: 12-31-2012 at 01:58 PM.
DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:06 PM
  #428
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Not true - NBA has no hard salary cap. No make whole was necessary.
The NBA may have a soft cap, but the salary linkage to basketball related income is a hard link.

Make whole isn't about the salary cap. It's about linkage.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:12 PM
  #429
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
What, pretell, is a "real world business model"? One without a salary cap?
Salary caps are used quite often in the "real world" actually. A lot of companies have structured salaries based on position, experience and what not.

I would love for someone to show me a successful buinsess model where employee salaries are not carefully calculated based on revenue in attempts to maximize profits.


Last edited by du5566*: 12-31-2012 at 02:19 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:16 PM
  #430
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
The CBA expired in September and without an agreement there can be no hockey. Focusing on "lockout" versus "strike" is pretty pointless really because there was no CBA so there can be no hockey.
The CBA did not expire... the owners opted out of it.

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:17 PM
  #431
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Is it accurate to say that in year 2 when the share is 50/50, the escrow rate may be over 30%?

I think there was a Friedman article today that mentions some figures.
Sounds excessively high. Let's say hypothetically:
- Every team spends to the $60m cap in 2013-2014 (not realistic imo)
- League revenue declines 10% from 2011-2012 to $3.0b (unlikely imo, but possible).
- Even in that dire case you're only talking about the players losing 17-20% via escrow.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:21 PM
  #432
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
The CBA expired in September and without an agreement there can be no hockey. Focusing on "lockout" versus "strike" is pretty pointless really because there was no CBA so there can be no hockey.
1. Nobody is focusing on it. But it is what it is. If you can't accept that, you;re starting on a the kind of shaky premise that leads to really bad logic.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:22 PM
  #433
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
The CBA did not expire... the owners opted out of it.
On September 15th 2012 the CBA expired.


Last edited by du5566*: 12-31-2012 at 02:46 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:24 PM
  #434
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Salary caps are used quite often in the "real world" actually. A lot of companies have structured salaries based on position, experience and what not.

I would love for someone to show me a successful buinsess model where employee salaries are not carefully calculated based on revenue in attempts to maximize profits.
Businesses have internal salary caps. They don't have an agreed upon salary cap between the top 30 businesses in an industry.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:27 PM
  #435
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
1. Nobody is focusing on it. But it is what it is. If you can't accept that, you;re starting on a the kind of shaky premise that leads to really bad logic.
My logic is and always has been very clear and rational. People continue to use the argument that the "players aren't on strike they were locked out." You can see it posted in this thread alone numerous times. My point is that train of thought is just silly because the CBA expired and there cannot be any hockey without a CBA. If the players were so concerned with missing hockey games they would have pushed Fehr to start negotiating last winter when the NHL wanted to, but that would not have given them any leverage.


Last edited by du5566*: 12-31-2012 at 03:01 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:29 PM
  #436
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Businesses have internal salary caps. They don't have an agreed upon salary cap between the top 30 businesses in an industry.
That is because the compete for and do not share revenue.

Now if you want to argue that the NHL has a monopoly on professional hockey and that the players cannot seek competetive salaries else where then I would agree. But then again that's why we have anti trust laws and CBA's.


Last edited by du5566*: 12-31-2012 at 02:34 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:30 PM
  #437
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
On September 15th 2012 the current CBA expired.
because the owners opted out... otherwise it would still be going...

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:32 PM
  #438
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
because the owners opted out... otherwise it would still be going...
Haha, so when a player contract expires and he seeks a new deal he is opting out of his original agreement?

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:34 PM
  #439
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Haha, so when a player contract expires and he seeks a new deal he is opting out of his original agreement?
you don't know what you are talking about...

the CBA had a clause that either side could opt out starting this year... the owners chose to opt out... otherwise the CBA would still be in effect... wasn't that simple

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:38 PM
  #440
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
you don't know what you are talking about...

the CBA had a clause that either side could opt out starting this year... the owners chose to opt out... otherwise the CBA would still be in effect... wasn't that simple
The CBA must have 2 participating parties in which both sides would have to agree to renew the expired CBA before play can resume. I haven't heard anything about the previous CBA being 12/10/50 years at length with the option to "opt out" at 6 years, but perhaps you could provide me with the link that says this? Because it is my understanding the word "expired" is not ambiguous.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:40 PM
  #441
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
The CBA must have 2 participating parties in which both sides would have to agree to renew the expired CBA before play can resume. I haven't heard anything about the previous CBA being 12/10/50 years at length with the option to "opt out" at 6 years, but perhaps you could provide me with the link that says this? Because it is my understanding the word "expired" is not ambiguous.
it was in reference to his comment ""The CBA expired in September and without an agreement there can be no hockey. Focusing on "lockout" versus "strike" is pretty pointless really because there was no CBA so there can be no hockey.""

other than that, you may look up yourself online for the opt out etc. it is well kbnown and I couldn't be bothered to prove it to be honest.

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:41 PM
  #442
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
On September 15th 2012 the current CBA expired.
Can't have it both ways

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:49 PM
  #443
Baron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
Right, but the rhetoric has been about blaming the owners for "locking out" the players and also complaining about the system. There's a reason why they're doing that, to fix the system!
I'll play. I think there is 4 ways to "fix the problem". The league is currently pushing one of those options, the 'easiest' for a resolution hence fans liking it and the best for themselves. The four being:
A) Increase the revenue pie - difficult to achieve obviously but mutually benefit to PA and NHL. A lockout obviously doesn't help this be achieved.
B) Better divide the profits among owners equally - better for the PA, good for 'suffering' NHL owners, very bad for profitable owners (both in less revenue coming in annually and a huge hit to their franchise's value - if every team is making the same money then they should all be worth similar numbers, with some variance due to extra factors.
C) Take from the players slice of the pie. Good for the NHL, bad for the PA. Easiest resolution to get hockey back on, but without A, B or D doesn't fix the problem. I.e. What if teams are still losing money at 50? 43? 25? At some point you have to stop giving parachutes to falling teams and let them actual build their business, I don't necessarily disagree with the percentages but there is a line somewhere where the onus falls on the owners to make themselves succeed.
D) Contraction. Cut off the weak. Potentially good for NHL owners who are 'bleeding', bad for owners buying them out, bad for PA. Least desirable.

We'll continue getting lockouts until it becomes economically illogical not too. I don't think I've seen an offer yet that would guarantee no future lockouts, although I'm not sure if one is actually feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post


Hyperbole. League has already given PA many of their demands.



I posted this before in another thread.

Revenue sharing is a red herring. We haven't heard a peep from the PA ever since the NHL upped revenue sharing numbers in subsequent offers.
Not a red herring but, but not part of the players end game strategy. As mentioned above it helps the weaker owners so in the next bargaining sessions they won't be asking for another pound of flesh, ultimately I think the players would like better sharing but they can't push too hard as there is strong financial reasons for it to be a bad idea for certain owners. PA's strategy was always to keep pushing for it to get it in and take what they could, then move to the core issues for them. Important long term but not to sign this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

If it's not an issue for the PA (and you KNOW they will use anything to grasp leverage), why is it an issue for pro-PA posters to hang their hat on?

Also, nobody dictates how the players individually get to spend their money, so why do the players get to dictate how each team spends their profits? Why don't we do revenue sharing with player salaries - so Crosby revenue shares his earnings with other players?
See above. One of the ways to solve these economic 'woes', its a luxury for players to push for this as it helps minimize what the owners will ask from them. It affects economics of the league and hence should be allowed in negotiations, for better or worse. Similar vein of thinking to why there is a draft and why the owners can 'control' players living situations through trade and what not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

Other red herrings:
- It's a "lockout", not a "strike", even though Fehr says it's a strike
It's a 'lockout', to say otherwise is disingenuous. It's a lockout purely because it allows the owners to remove a power edge from the PA in negotiations. The implication of players suddenly striking towards play-offs is a real threat so the owners had be pre-emptive and lockout. The owners are the ones who decided they didn't want to honour the expired contract. Certainly their right, and it would be a poor move if they did honour it, but the ball was in their court... Anything Fehr says now is irrelevant and posturing to the fact it originated via lockout. Not that at this point strike vs. lockout means a whole lot of anything, now its just simply negotiating a new contract. Though I suppose if you want to be truly technical it isn't either a lockout or strike but simply a negotiation. There isn't currently a contract to honour. (Or if they had extended and the players rescinded that extension, it wouldn't be a 'strike'.)

For the record, yes it is legal to operate under an expired contract while a new one is being drafted. However, it has to be agreed by both parties. The owners would still be foolish to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- PA have agreed to 50-50. Uh, no. Do the math yourself on the offers. Comes out still to over 56% or something. Or just read posts by our resident math wiz mossey3535.
Minor disagree. Correct, they are not currently at 50-50 but incorrect in that they've agreed to move to 50-50 albeit slowly. I suspect next negotiations they'll have no issue with honouring the 50-50 going forward (or presumably move towards another number lower), but they will want to hit the owners with more revenue sharing again next time too. But yes, it is a very delayed 50-50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- the "outrageous" first offer from the NHL, welcome to December 2012 plus why did the PA not agree to start negotiations earlier like the NHL asked? The PA declared war by hiring Fehr, rejecting re-alignment and refusing to negotiate a year ago, so that's why we shouldn't be surprised at the first offer. Plus that is exactly the proportion the PA got in the last CBA - 57 to 43! If that was so outrageous then what can you say about the PA getting this in the last CBA? Fair?
Last CBA was fair as both sides mutually agreed. Just because the economics may have changed or one side 'won' the last CBA doesn't mean that they both didn't agree at the time, so yes it was fair. The offer was ridiculous, but again it would have been horrible negotiating tactic to not be ridiculous. You start with a 'clear win' and slowly move to the middle, theres always give and take in a negotiation and to start and your end point only means you'll end up giving more than you'd like.

PA wouldn't negotiate a year ago, because its not in their interest too. There is absolutely no pressure then to get the deal done, so they can't gain any 'leverage'. In fact, I would argue the only viable negotiation tactic for the PA (and might I add that I argued this back in Aug / Sept) is to not budge at all and just slowly take things from the owners until caving when they perceive the extra benefits to be less than worth holding out. Personally, I think they passed this threshold a week or so ago, but its obviously based on the PA's opinion not mine.

Simple fact, they can't say to the owners that they'd prefer a 65-35 split in their favour, as everyone would laugh. Hence they can't really negotiate for 'wins' in the straight economics department. So they have to wait for treats in other sections ala revenue sharing, and working conditions while traveling, contract benefits, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- why won't NHL play and negotiate, see history of Fehr plus same question in last point - if the PA wouldn't even start negotiations last year, why would they agree to any deal while playing?
Bingo. They'd agree, but it would definitely give them the position of power. Same reason negotiating last year gave the owners power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- teams are actually making money and hiding it - really? Any PROOF of this? You are aware that the PA has the right to audit the books and would scream to high heaven if there was any hint of dirtiness? This is probably another reason why the PA doesn't talk about revenue sharing - they know the numbers are NOT there.
Teams may be losing money, yes. 100% agree.They can audit certainly. But every team losing money would be for sale if there wasn't some additional perks. While the auditable company may be losing money, it may also be propping up a completely different legal entity (coincidentally owned by the same ownership group) which makes the first companies loss acceptable. This is a known business tactic, and I don't think it is ever black and white. A lot of business groups divide this way for a variety of reasons. I obviously can't speak to the teams as I'm not privy, but I do know of other examples where companies 'lose money', yet the ownership group has no problems with the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
- PA have conceded "everything", NHL have conceded "nothing". Nope - it's been posted/re-posted endlessly the list of items that the PA will get in the new deal. These items will up the cost significantly. Plus $300 MILLION make whole which NBA and NFL never got.
Based on the previous goal posts, the PA has certainly only conceded things economically. However, this was known going into negotiations and yes the players have certainly been given concessions to entice a deal. If your going to argue the 300 million is a give, I'd probably suggest you also add the 7% the league gave by moving from 43 to 50. But that is also moving the goal posts (which did have to happen).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- Bettman-demonization. LOTS of Bettman-demonization. "Puck Gary" avatars, anti-Gary tweets/re-tweets, reposting anti-Gary articles which are clearly one-sided when looking at facts. Making fun of everything from his height, his attorney background, he's not a "hockey guy" when he is. Blaming him on Southern expansion even though he did not start it, or for bad markets/bad TV deal/bad everything! Wow, as someone who works for 30 different owners there seems to be a lot of emphasis and full-blown hate on just one guy. It is getting overblown and tired. Not like Fehr has been a saint either, what with the 45-minute "water breaks", being hours late for negotiations, and making offers on napkins without doing the numbers. Oh, and that press conference.
Bettman is looking out for the best interest of the owners and the league and is very good at it. Fehr is very good at looking out for the union. Neither of them were hired to care about the love of the sport, and rightfully shouldn't. THAT ISN'T THEIR JOB. Their job is the business side, and they're both very good which understandably makes the other side hate them. To take pot shots at either is childish, and unnecessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
- teams did not have to give players these big contracts. See "collusion", teams' willingness to compete, fan support/backlash. If the system is broken and this is the only time they can fix it, why not do it now?
Correct. Owners will always win these negotiations and it'll slowly move to the PAs favour over the term of the CBA. Which on the surface makes it seem like players would favour longer CBAs. However, if their long term strategy is as I suspect, it is in their interest to have shorter CBAs so they can slowly chip away at certain things as the owners would never allow for the transition to occur in a large chunk. I'm speculating though, based on how I'd play it out if I was them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
- any sort of pro-union/anti-owner stance not based on this situation, but from past experience/other situations/other industries. The PA is not a normal, traditional union so this is not a case of evil owners screwing the little guy by paying them low wages and having them work in unsafe or harsh situations. There are lots more examples around the world where workers are being mistreated - this is not one of them. Yet we get the "poor NHL player", who just wants to play hockey while the evil owners are suppressing them. For a group that is still going to get a better deal than the NBA and NFL, that is a major stretch.
Every union is unique, for better or worse. You can't say that they have it better than some in certain facets and completely ignore arguments that other facets may not be as good in others. It is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- players are the product, I pay to watch specific players, not owners, replacement players. Nope - the teams are the product, not the players. It's what is on the front of the jersey, not the back. Or do you move and change teams everytime your favourite players are traded? If you don't, then isn't that hypocritical? Also, how many people tuned into the games the players play outside the NHL, like the charity games? I know I didn't, and wasn't there word that one or two of them were cancelled because of lack of support? Players come and go but the teams stay. Yesterday's junior players are tomorrow's stars. And today's juniors/replacements will be tomorrow's stars. Does not take long for talent pool to catch up when average NHLer only lasts 4 years.
The teams are the brand. The players are the product. They go hand in hand.

Certain players like Crosby are huge for marketing. Yes some people cheer for the hometeam, but when I played road hockey with my friends, I wasn't ever pretending to be a Nordique, I was pretending to be a Stastny. Kids nowadays want to be like Crosby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- players or someone else will start up a competing league and I will watch - really? Where will they play? Do you realize how much money it takes to secure building rights, front staff, plus a whole ton of expenses that NHL owners have to pay for, but the players never have to? Welcome to the real world.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post

- any sort of pro-contraction stance disguised as anti-owner/pro-PA stance - this is actually a stance that hurts BOTH the PA and the NHL. PA will lose significant jobs and the less NHL players there are, the less the need for a union.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
- players are fighting for the future, not money. Why did the PA ask for a 5-year CBA if it's not about money? That doesn't seem very future-oriented or long-term thinking. Why not make a big fuss about ELCs or something for the new players? Why take the extra make whole money and nothing else thank you very much? Why make de-linked offers with guaranteed raises, over and over and over?
They're thinking long term, but not necessarily correctly. They want to break the cycle of taking % from the players every time the CBA expires. There is a number the % will eventually settle to and they want to maximize the other concessions before it gets there. If I was a player I'd hate this strategy as it takes from me, but as a union there is some semblance of sense - assuming they stay in a union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
- NHL won the last work stoppage (no they didn't - ask yourself which party wants to keep current CBA), and if the PA buckles under now then the NHL will keep taking and taking and taking forever - nope, for a work stoppage to happen, at least one side of the two has to be significantly unhappy with the current deal to stop. If both sides are making money and are happy, there would be no work stoppage. If the majority of owners are making money under a true 50-50 deal, logically would it even make sense for them to support a future work stoppage?
NHL won the last CBA, but as teams try to get an edge on each other it certainly does slide to the players favour. Correct, but who is to say 50-50 will be the magic number to stop the stoppages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
- owners completely wrote the last CBA, they screwed up so they should pay for it. Um, no. See "cap floor", 57 to 43, plus the NHLPA did not completely roll over - they still want to play with the last deal. And if mistakes were made, why can't we ever fix them, at a time when it is the only time (between CBAs) to do so?
Agree, but to pick and choose certain elements they like is no different than the players picking and choosing from the owners offers. Its a negotiation and to complain about this on either side is silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
- players just want "existing contracts to be honoured". Newsflash - they NEVER got exactly what their contract stipulated 100% because the amount was always subject to actual revenues - something called linkage. So for the players to say that they would no longer be getting what they were promised is disingenuous, as they NEVER got that amount in the first place! Plus, ALL NHL contracts have a clause that they would be subject to changes under new CBAs, so ironically, "honouring" the contracts is actually de-linking the contracts from revenues.
Arguing semantics. Yes subject to actual revenues, but that would require HRRs to decrease which is unlikely at best. Yes as it is written the owners legally have an out clause and certainly honouring it as written, but I think most people are arguing the intent of the previous contracts, which I'd say the owners are not meeting (and are not required to meet).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
Anything I missed?


Last edited by Baron: 12-31-2012 at 03:28 PM.
Baron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:53 PM
  #444
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
you don't know what you are talking about...

the CBA had a clause that either side could opt out starting this year... the owners chose to opt out... otherwise the CBA would still be in effect... wasn't that simple
I can't find anything in the actual CBA that says it could have continued and that the owners needed to "opt" out. The players had the right to opt out in 2009 or extend it in 2011, which they did, but no where do I see an option where the owners could have just kept things going under the old CBA.

If you could provide a link that details this provision in the last CBA I would appreciate it.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:00 PM
  #445
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,856
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
I can't find anything in the actual CBA that says it could have continued and that the owners needed to "opt" out. The players had the right to opt out in 2009 or extend it in 2011, which they did, but no where do I see an option where the owners could have just kept things going under the old CBA.

If you could provide a link that details this provision in the last CBA I would appreciate it.
the cba continues until a new one is agreed upon, it is indefinite it simply has clauses when lockouts or strikes can happen.

Haven't you been reading pro-owners defense that if the owners didnt lock the players out, Fehr would have striked before the playoffs? Or the much celebrated fact that the owners unanimously voted to lock the players out? It was not inevitable

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:03 PM
  #446
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
My logic is and always has been very clear and rational. People continue to use the argument that the "players aren't on strike they were locked out." You can see it posted in this thread alone numerous times. My point is that train of thought is just silly because the CBA expired and there cannot be any hockey without a CBA. If the players were so concerned with missing hockey games they would have pushed Fehr to start negotiating last winter when the NHL wanted to, but that would not have given them any leverage.
It's not a train of thought.
It's a fact.
Quit running from the truth

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:04 PM
  #447
bustaheims
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 20
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
because the owners opted out... otherwise it would still be going...
No, it was because the owners didn't agree to extend it. It may seem like a semantic difference, but, it's a very important one. There was no "out clause" that the owners exercised to "opt out." The contract ended and the owners decided they wanted to negotiate a new one rather than agree to an extension of the expiring one.

bustaheims is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:09 PM
  #448
bustaheims
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 20
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
the cba continues until a new one is agreed upon, it is indefinite it simply has clauses when lockouts or strikes can happen.

Haven't you been reading pro-owners defense that if the owners didnt lock the players out, Fehr would have striked before the playoffs? Or the much celebrated fact that the owners unanimously voted to lock the players out? It was not inevitable
That's not really how it works. Management and the union can agree to operate under the terms of the expiring contract if they wish to avoid a work stoppage, but, if that doesn't happen, the CBA expires and its terms are no longer valid. In this case, the owners chose not to agree to operate under the terms and locked the players out - partly out of fear of a mid-season strike (a tactic Fehr has used before) or a pre-playoff strike (a tactic the NHLPA has used before) and partly because they simply didn't want to operate under those terms anymore.

bustaheims is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:15 PM
  #449
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It's not a train of thought.
It's a fact.
Quit running from the truth
It is not the truth..... The owners and players would have had to agree to extend the old CBA. They did not so the CBA expired; the owners did not use an "opt" out provision written into the CBA like the players could have done in 2009. There is a big difference!

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:17 PM
  #450
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
the cba continues until a new one is agreed upon, it is indefinite it simply has clauses when lockouts or strikes can happen.
The CBA could have been extended if the players and owners agreed to extend it but they did not so it expired.

Voting on the "lock out" is a formality when the owners and players have no agreement on a CBA.


Last edited by du5566*: 12-31-2012 at 03:33 PM.
du5566* 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 11:25 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.