chances14

NHL AND NHLPA RESUME CBA TALKS, THIS TIME WITH MEDIATION http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410437

nhl sponsor client rips into the league and here's an article which points out a good example of why i think all the bettman hate is misguided. it needs to be directed towards the owners like jacobs. also, a great read by ted lindsay

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money

Of course the players were willing to play under old CBA, They were raking in the money. if the players felt the same way about the current CBA as the owners do, we would have seen a strike. And with fehr's history of striking during the playoffs, there was no way the league was going to risk getting the playoffs (their biggest revenue making part of the season) wiped out. That would have given the players basically all the leverage. Back in 1992, bob goodenow led the players on a strike on the eve of the playoffs. Bettman was promptly brought in the following year. I know that the players are the ones who put on the entertainment, but without the owners, the players wouldn't be able to put on that entertainment in the same capacity as we have now. They pay the players and they assume all the financial risks that comes along with putting the product out on the ice. Bottom line, the players and owners both need each other in order to survive and prosper.

i think what angered the league is that the pa slipped in a de linked component in their proposal that states that player revenues can never be lower than the previous year even if revenues drop. the owners have made it clear that they want linkage. until the pa gives in to that, there won't be much progress on contracting issues. i think it's a bit of both. for the pa, this is the final step before they decertify. that way when they go to court, they can say that they tried everything to negotiate a deal and aren't trying to use simply for leverage in negotiations.

yes and the owners allowed him to carry on with that mindset.

i don't think anyone is completely giving bettman a pass on this lockout. I just think some people have gone overboard with all the bettman hate. i read and hear people saying that they will only watch the nhl again if bettman is fired. that just shows to me a lack of understanding about how this entire process works. I believe that under the nhl constituation and by laws,bettman is allowed to make recommendations for expansion and relocation. however, the owners must vote on it for it to become final. so the owners deserve as much blame for the failed franchises as bettman (though we never hear criticism about the owners. this is just speculation on my part but now that the winter classic has been cancelled, it wouldn't surprise me if illitch was very much against giving into the players. it is a fact that illitch was very much against revenue sharing during the last lockout. also, for those saying that the maple leafs are against the lockout. keep in mind that the leafs owners are also part of the bell/rogers broadcasting companies. they are pushing hard to get cbc's hockey rights when their tv contract is up so they might be trying to be good soldiers to the league right now. agreed. i don't see much coming from this but i guess mediation wouldn't hurt. it might tell us more about who truly doesn't want to negotiate or not, though that doesn't really do much in getting a deal done

how did bettman go about adopting the 8 team vote? i find it hard to believe that the owners would give any commisioner the sole power to rewrite the nhl constitution without at least half of the owners consent.

nobody knows for sure who is for or against this lockout. everything else has simply been speculation and assumptions. i just find it laughable how so many people think that bettman is the sole reason for these lockouts. the owners have to love the fact that he takes all the beating and they get off without a shred of criticism.

from that article, it looks like the european soccer leagues aren't in very good shape financially across the board.

honestly i don't know much about how the european leagues work. however i did find this article dated last year in which a salary cap was discussed to help curb english soccer team debt crisis. Also, unlike the nhl, there is more than one big league in europe that is attractive to the big name players, thus creating competition. and like i said before, soccer is by far the number 1 sport across europe. people will watch teams regardless. hockey can barely keep the 4th spot in the united states. here's another article talking about a spending cap in the premier league from august of this year http://soccernet.esp...ap-plan?cc=5901

can't compare it to european soccer because that is by far the number 1 sport in the world, aside from north america. hockey can barely stay at the 4th spot in the united states. in mlb, there is still a draft, so small market teams can still have a chance of developing a good team before their star players get bought off by the big market teams. the only players who would come out on top playing with no cba are the marquee players. the 3rd/4th liners would be screwed. i mean the players are complaining now about contracting issues. what's going to happen when the owners only want to sign these guys on a game by game basis? when they get hurt or don't perform, their money and contract goes out the window. the last thing the players should want is teams folding, means less jobs for them.

owners might be willing to dole out those perks for the superstar guys but i doubt they give them to the 3rd/4th line guys. lack of a cba would hurt them the most there would be no draft. all the top prospects would go to the highest bidder. the red wings would no doubt benefit from no cba, but the nhl wouldn't survive in the long run

but without the cba, there most likely won't be guaranteed contracts, pensions, health benefits , minimum salaries, etc. will the players be willing to play for the owners without any of those perks. i doubt it. here's a good article on the decertification process http://www.cbc.ca/sp...-questions.html

not the point. these guys are professional athletes who know they closely followed by the media and anything they say will be closely scrutinized. so bolland should know that people are going to take a wanting bettman dead tweet as him actually threatening bettman's life, even if bolland didn't mean it like that. these guys are professional athletes. they need to act like it, at least in public anyways. especially in times like these where the relationship between the nhl and pa is so dysfunctional. the easiest approach is to just keep your mouth shut to the media and voice your concerns in pa meetings and conference calls.

the problem is, i don't see the owners caving into decertification like the nba and nfl did. nhl owners already shown once that they are willing to lose an entire season. i think they will be willing to do it again. If the union goes that route, i think it will only galvanize the owners and make them dig in even deeper, similar to what the owners first lowball offer did to the players. I sure hope i am wrong

and i agree with don cherry about the players. just shut your mouth and try to get a deal done http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/1291710--nhl-lockout-don-cherry-to-players-smarten-up

because both sides have not negotiated in good faith during this process. off the top of my head players refused to negotiate in january when the owners wanted to and then they dragged their feet on putting forth proposals after their original offer in august. plus, you have don fehr showing up hours late to cba meetings and witholding/misleading information from the players regarding nhl proposals on the owners side they put forth an insulting lowball offer to start these negotiations with no concessions from the owners. They have at several times throughout this process refused to meet without preconditions. The nhl complained that the pa wasn't coming up with a proposal but when the pa finally did come up with a proposal, the nhl only took 10 minutes to reject all of them.

i agree about the contract length limit but i have a feeling that if the nhlpa presents an actual linkage proposal i think you will see the nhl give on the contract issues. but i do know that until the nhlpa backs off the ridiculous notion that the players share never falls throughout the cba, even if revenues do, we are never going to see a deal get done. on the positive side, both daly and fehr agreed that they are only $182m apart on the make whole. at least they agree on at least one number. that's at least progress lol

couple articles NHL's offer on player contracting issues Players are losing and they know it

so basically fehr put forth a linked proposal that's not even linked. sounds like more pr bs like with the 50/50 stuff. until the pa puts forth a proposal that is a true linked proposal, the nhl isn't going to give on the contracting issues. i think it's insane for the players to think that they should get the same amount of money, regardless if league revenue goes down in the following years. this clause is just as ridiculous as the nhl's demands on contracting issues. the first signs of the union cracking? http://www.sbnation....n-hamrlik-nhlpa

devil is always in the details

don't think owners will be fond of this Here's an interesting tidbit from the offer

hopefully that is true.

yes but i think if the nhl wants to get sponsors back, they will want long term security. 5 years is nothing. if i recall, that was one of the sticking points very early on in negotiations. players wanted a short cba and the league wanted a longer term cba. after the damage this lockout is going to cause to the league, i think it would be in both sides best interest to get long term security and stability for the league. the reason why the league will suffer a decrease in revenue is because of these lockouts.