Is Another Lockout Coming / Possible ?

[interminded 1]

Good read:

The Soapbox

[Guest DetroitBoy313]

Never happen.If it does the NHL will just be a complete and utter joke.

[auxlepli 17]

I think the smaller market teams need to get their act together instead of complaining. They need to start pulling their own weight. I guess if they can't, maybe the owners could change how much revenue is shared.

[e_prime 1,936]

"The bottom line is both sides lack the stomach for another costly labor war, one that could not only cause further damage to their visibility problem in American sports market but also could cut into a fan base whose tolerance could be taxed too much by another lockout.

Issues exist, some potentially contentious, but ultimately the spirit of conciliation, the willingness to negotiate, the desire to keep the league going and the unwillingness to face another labor war should win out.

Another lockout is possible, but unlikely."

This is a well written and well thought out article. Unnecessary speculation? Maybe?

The league is still taking a lot of criticism with limited television deals, changes in rules, scheduling, player conduct etc. This criticism comes in regular blasts of varying intensity from die-hard fans, casual fans, and non-fans.

The last thing it needs in the next few years is another labor squabble.

I know there's a lot varying opinion as to how far Bettman has his head up his ass. ...but I think after the hit the league took the last time there was a lockout... it can't possibly be completely buried in there anymore.

"Seeming" team parity, as well as strengthening and building the popularity of the game is truly the only way a another lockout can be avoided.

Not like this hasn't been done before... but break out your list of "how-to's"

[edicius 3,269]

I don't see the league letting it happen again any time soon. Unfortunately, this'll mean that Bettman will probably just continue to put bandaids on problems until it all comes to a head in another decade or so.

[VM1138 1,921]

Screw the NHL, it's time for a new league to start up and absorb teams like the REd Wings, Montreal, Rangers, Toronto, and select other decent teams.

[Superman54 91]

It f***in Better Not!!!

[interminded 1]

I think the smaller market teams need to get their act together instead of complaining. They need to start pulling their own weight. I guess if they can't, maybe the owners could change how much revenue is shared.

Good point !

[alienanxiety 23]

Or maybe the small market teams should go bye bye.

[WingNutt 12]

Screw the NHL, it's time for a new league to start up and absorb teams like the REd Wings, Montreal, Rangers, Toronto, and select other decent teams.

well if you want "decent teams" then you better drop Toronto off your list, and if you were saying keep the orginal 6 and pickup other teams, then you forgot two. The Boston Bruins and the Chicago Blackhawks.

No NHL I don't know if I would be able to survive without hockey again.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

The owners have no one to blame but themselves, they got just about every damn thing they wanted in this CBA, and the players still took the fall for being greedy.

if they can't figure out how to make it work and even hint at another lockout (which would be the third in Bettman's reign), Bettman seriously does need to be fired, and the owners need to sell their franchises to someone who can run a profitable hockey team.

[juice71285 2]

Can anybody put the article on here. I can't seem to access spector's site at all.

[umredwing11 2]

Can anybody put the article on here. I can't seem to access spector's site at all.

Here you go

It’s been nearly three years since the great NHL lockout of 2004-05 ended in July 2005 with the ratification of the current collective bargaining agreement.

That deal was considered “the owners’ CBA”, giving them the cost certainty they claimed to need, mainly in the form of the salary cap, in order to survive.

But as the third NHL season under this CBA nears its end, some problems are emerging.

For one, the salary cap is rising much higher and faster than most expected, going from $39 million in 2005-06 to $50.3 million in 2007-08, with an estimated increase of $3-$5 million predicted for 2008-09.

If the conservative estimate of $3 million turns out to be correct, that’ll set next season’s cap at just over $53 million. It’ll also pull up the cap “floor” – the minimum allowable teams can spend on players’ salaries – up to $37 million.

While it’s not much publicized, there’s been speculation suggesting some team owners, particularly those in the smaller markets in the United States, aren’t happy with that sharp increase, expressing concern over how they’ll afford to keep up with the rising cap.

The reason for that is revenue-sharing isn’t all that’s cracked up to be, for if those teams eligible to receive it cannot exceed league revenue growth rate by 6 percent each season they lose a certain percentage for each season they fail to do so.

As the cap rises it clearly benefits the league top revenue earners (which thanks to the robust Canadian dollar now includes all six Canadian teams), which is bound to also cause some resentment amongst the lesser market owners.

That creates the potential to pit the small market owners against the league’s free spending teams in the next round of collective bargaining.

It could also make the NHLPA the scapegoat once again for the problems created by team owners.

The lowered eligibility age for unrestricted free agency, offer sheets to restricted free agents, no-trade/movement clauses and salary arbitration could become issues the owners and the league attempt to squeeze from the PA.

The league could also seek to impose a stricter cap or attempt to reduce the players’ percentage of revenues.

These issues sound like the perfect recipe for another lockout.

But not so fast, for while these are issues that are bound to be raised in the next round of collective bargaining in 2011 (or 2012 if the NHLPA decides to extend the deal by another season), they may not lead to another lengthy work stoppage. In fact, they might not lead to a stoppage or labor dispute at all.

The climate has changed between the NHL and the NHLPA, between the owners and the players, between the league commissioner and the executive director of the PA.

No longer is there a contentious “us versus them” attitude that poisoned the last three rounds of labor talks, resulting in a strike and two lockouts.

Obviously the hiring of Paul Kelly as the PA’s new executive director has much to do with that, replacing the militant Bob Goodenow and his controversial replacement Ted Saskin.

Kelly’s tone is more about conciliation, of working with the league rather than against it, which goes a long way toward changing the tone of future negotiations. That conciliatory tone is obviously reflective of the majority of the NHLPA membership weary of labor wars.

But that doesn’t mean Kelly’s a pushover for the league, as his recent comments regarding NHL teams playing in Europe next season being announced before the PA gave its approval would indicate. So too does the PA’s hiring of forensic accountant Bob Lindquist to dig into Hockey Related Revenues to ensure the league doesn’t cry wolf over its revenues as it did prior to and during the last lockout.

Kelly will be a tenacious negotiator for the PA, but he’s more willing to negotiate than the hard-nosed Goodenow, nor will he be perceived as climbing into bed with the league as Saskin was.

It’s not just the players however who’ll want to avoid another lockout. So do many at league headquarters, among them commissioner Gary Bettman, as does many of the team owners.

While the lockout failed to adversely affect league revenues over the long term, it nevertheless threw a scare into many on the league side, and there were justifiable concerns coming out of the last lockout over the potential fallout. Everyone knows they dodged a bullet last time and realize they won't get that lucky again.

Moreover, the league remains almost invisible throughout the American sports scene, and while most American teams might be doing well locally, it doesn’t help the NHL to further develop its product if it remains off the American national radar.

In short, neither side wants another work stoppage. While there are unforeseen issues that arose out of this CBA, the overall feeling thus far is that these could be worked out without shutting down part or all of a season.

Of course it’s possible that attitude could change over the next four-five seasons. If there is a change in the league’s attitude toward future negotiations with the PA, it's Bettman who’ll be the bellwether, just as he was during the last CBA.

It was roughly four years into the previous CBA that Bettman first began saber rattling, so if he starts complaining between now and 2011, then it could be batten down the hatches time once again.

So far, however, Bettman’s been staunchly defending this CBA – his CBA as much as the owners’- against criticism, as well as being on seemingly good terms with PA honcho Kelly. As long as he keeps doing that, the possibility of another labor war is a remote one.

The bottom line is both sides lack the stomach for another costly labor war, one that could not only cause further damage to their visibility problem in American sports market but also could cut into a fan base whose tolerance could be taxed too much by another lockout.

Issues exist, some potentially contentious, but ultimately the spirit of conciliation, the willingness to negotiate, the desire to keep the league going and the unwillingness to face another labor war should win out.

Another lockout is possible, but unlikely.

[Duck Guy 86]

Never happen.If it does the NHL will just be a complete and utter joke.

Agreed. And why does Bettman still have a job? He should be making fries at a Burger King.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

Agreed. And why does Bettman still have a job? He should be making fries at a Burger King.

Because he's the only person in the world who believes that hockey is succeeding in America.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Agreed. And why does Bettman still have a job? He should be making fries at a Burger King.

Because he reports to the owners and his #1 job, in my opinion, is to first keep the owners happy. A majority of the owners have been happy. Hence, him still having a job.

[Jwo 7]

If the smaller teams can't make it then they should be moved or folded.

[Lebda22 Cleary11 0]

This is getting ridiculous. All these owners wanted parity, they got it. Now teams are complaining that they have to spend money. I don't think the NHL is a stomping ground for smart businessmen these days. The old adage goes you have to spend money to make money. If you can't make money off your investment get rid of it to someone who can do something with it. And this is where Bettman is a total fool. Instead of taking the NHL into a market where 14,000 season tickets were sold before an official announcement of a team was made(Hamilton) he would much rather veto the deal and keep the team in a place where they actually had to hold "Save the Team" rallies(Nashville) Where they did not even come close to Hamilton numbers. And if thats not dumb enough he wants to expand the league to places like Kansas City(where even it is hard to keep the baseball team afloat), Las Vegas(is intriguing, but totally far fecthed because you have to get rid of NHL gambling, which is not happening). The only reasonable place where the NHL could possibly work right now is Hamilton, Winnipeg, Portland to an extent, and a throw out in Green Bay. Green Bay has a building they could possibly put a team in and people dig hockey in Wisconsin from what I hear. Gary has to look at this as simple economics when picking where to go. The only thing he is worried about is completing his master plan of making the NHL a big market in a little big top. Well, you have had 20+ years to do this gary and what do you have to show? A 30 team league where half are barely holding on. If he would be a smart business man instead of a hard headed my way or the highway prick this stuff could be figured out in a second.

[eva unit zero 271]

This is getting ridiculous. All these owners wanted parity, they got it. Now teams are complaining that they have to spend money. I don't think the NHL is a stomping ground for smart businessmen these days. The old adage goes you have to spend money to make money. If you can't make money off your investment get rid of it to someone who can do something with it. And this is where Bettman is a total fool. Instead of taking the NHL into a market where 14,000 season tickets were sold before an official announcement of a team was made(Hamilton) he would much rather veto the deal and keep the team in a place where they actually had to hold "Save the Team" rallies(Nashville) Where they did not even come close to Hamilton numbers. And if thats not dumb enough he wants to expand the league to places like Kansas City(where even it is hard to keep the baseball team afloat), Las Vegas(is intriguing, but totally far fecthed because you have to get rid of NHL gambling, which is not happening). The only reasonable place where the NHL could possibly work right now is Hamilton, Winnipeg, Portland to an extent, and a throw out in Green Bay. Green Bay has a building they could possibly put a team in and people dig hockey in Wisconsin from what I hear. Gary has to look at this as simple economics when picking where to go. The only thing he is worried about is completing his master plan of making the NHL a big market in a little big top. Well, you have had 20+ years to do this gary and what do you have to show? A 30 team league where half are barely holding on. If he would be a smart business man instead of a hard headed my way or the highway prick this stuff could be figured out in a second.

Hamilton did not sell 14,000 season tickets. Hamilton sold ZERO season tickets. A partial deposit is NOT a sold ticket, no matter what the Anti-Nashville slappies will say.

Also...Bettman vetoed nothing. Since there was never a binding agreement, due to Balsillie's refusal to put his money where his mouth is, there was never anything for Bettman to veto.

It's easy to say 'Hockey would be better if Nashville had moved to Hamilton, but Bettman prevented that' except that there was no realistic chance of it happening as Balsillie wasn't willing to put down a single cent without a guarantee he could move the Preds IMMEDIATELY. The league's bylaws do not allow for that scenario when a team is purchased. Therefore, no sale to Balsillie was possible.

As far as expansion is concerned, you clearly do not understand how expansion works. It isn't "We're going to add teams in these cities, let's go find us some owners" it's "We're going to add this many teams, and owners are interested in putting a team in these cities. Let's figure out which are the best fit." Only two northern markets have been rejected for expansion in Bettman's tenure; Hamilton and Portland, both of which had arena plans that relied entirely on arenas that were older, smaller arenas with worse sight lines, few (if any) luxury boxes, and third-party ownership with unfavorable leases. Had the Hamilton expansion bid involved a new arena, there would be a Hamilton team looking at its ten-year anniversary soon.

And finally...Bettman has been in office 15 years. Since you clearly are slow at math, 15 is LESS than 20, not more.

[vangvace 12]

This is getting ridiculous. All these owners wanted parity, they got it. Now teams are complaining that they have to spend money. I don't think the NHL is a stomping ground for smart businessmen these days. The old adage goes you have to spend money to make money. If you can't make money off your investment get rid of it to someone who can do something with it. And this is where Bettman is a total fool. Instead of taking the NHL into a market where 14,000 season tickets were sold before an official announcement of a team was made(Hamilton) he would much rather veto the deal and keep the team in a place where they actually had to hold "Save the Team" rallies(Nashville) Where they did not even come close to Hamilton numbers. And if thats not dumb enough he wants to expand the league to places like Kansas City(where even it is hard to keep the baseball team afloat), Las Vegas(is intriguing, but totally far fecthed because you have to get rid of NHL gambling, which is not happening). The only reasonable place where the NHL could possibly work right now is Hamilton, Winnipeg, Portland to an extent, and a throw out in Green Bay. Green Bay has a building they could possibly put a team in and people dig hockey in Wisconsin from what I hear. Gary has to look at this as simple economics when picking where to go. The only thing he is worried about is completing his master plan of making the NHL a big market in a little big top. Well, you have had 20+ years to do this gary and what do you have to show? A 30 team league where half are barely holding on. If he would be a smart business man instead of a hard headed my way or the highway prick this stuff could be figured out in a second.

Did you miss the Capitals rallies? They're the original problem-child that Nashville seems to be. And if it wasn't for Kolzig and now AO they'd probably be in somebody's sites for a buy and move.

Is there a hockey city in NA that doesn't have gambling nearby? The gambling argument was a good one a decade+ ago but now it's becoming more and more irrelevant as a reason to stay out of Vegas... even though I'm skeptical how well Vegas would work.

I feel some deja vu...

[jim3033 1]

Expanding the NHL seemed like a good idea in the 90's when the US economy was booming. I'm guessing it was a lot more logical to put a hockey team in any large market then because blue collar people could afford to go to the games and to play hockey. But hockey is one of the most expensive sports out there to play.

Now the US is in a recession and it's hard to spark interest in non-traditional hockey cities without anything short of winning a cup and standing on your head because people don't have a plum nickle to get their kids playing hockey and go to the games. Just look at the ticket price cuts in Detroit and southern teams like Dallas. Interest in the sport is synonymous with having enough money to facilitate that interest Bettman!

The thing with football, basketball and baseball is that people all over the country play that growing up, in highschool and college and it's cheap. Hockey is way more sensitive to the economy though because it is so expensive and difficult to play. Also, it hasn't been played in the south for a 100 years like baseball. I think Bettman was gambling when he grew the league too fast in the 90's.

If the economy had stayed strong he might be a hockey hero in the US. But then, when it didn't, the weight of all those teams blew up in his face. I suppose you could wait it out and see if the economy surges again but honestly, it is so bad right now I think even if it did surge it would take several years of a strong stable economy to see that translate into hockey flourishing in those southern cities. Even then, you've got to have the right people doing the job.

Hockey can be a dominant sport even when the economy sucks but it will only stay stable in places where lots of people play and love hockey. So I hope we don't see another lockout and definitely no more rule changes. Eliminating a team or two and putting a team in a town that loves hockey will do a lot more for hockey in the US even if that town is in Canada. If not, they'll probably keep throwing parity at us until the quality of hockey is so diminished all the hardcore fans will start to leave.

And what the heck is with all these rule changes. If I wanted a game more like football or basketball I'd just watch football or basketball. Players get hurt just as much now as they did before and scoring is probably the same or less. Except now I don't even know what the players can and cannot do from game to game because everything is a penalty. 25% of the games are determined by questionable calls and they might as well replace the refs with superhuman robots because it is impossible for a human to catch the little things these guys are calling on a consistent basis. For heaven sakes, it's not the way the game used to be played or is played that people aren't watching the friggin' game!!

Bring back the glow puck!

Edited February 15, 2008 by jim3033

[auxlepli 17]

The owners have no one to blame but themselves, they got just about every damn thing they wanted in this CBA, and the players still took the fall for being greedy.

if they can't figure out how to make it work and even hint at another lockout (which would be the third in Bettman's reign), Bettman seriously does need to be fired, and the owners need to sell their franchises to someone who can run a profitable hockey team.

QFT!

Hockey is way more sensitive to the economy though because it is so expensive and difficult to play.

It's also more sensitive to the economy because the NHL relies on gate receipts more than just about any other sport.

Bring back the glow puck!

Please no. That was horrible and a distraction.

[DFWBruiser 0]

Agreed. And why does Bettman still have a job? He should be making fries at a Burger King.

Hey now, I make fries at Burger King and I am smarter than Bettman. Don't bring me down to his level! I know I'm a n00b here but geez guys.

[2probert4 8]

Hey now, I make fries at Burger King and I am smarter than Bettman. Don't bring me down to his level! I know I'm a n00b here but geez guys.

I dont think they lock the doors anymore, hopefully they learned their lesson. Salary levels are back to what they were, and it is on the path to where there are only a few teams (Wings included) that will have the deep checkbook in the arsenal. Leafs have more than anyone, but their organization is such a mess that it doesn't matter. Rangers always spend tons though, and they once again have all the names, and not much chemistry. Locking up Lundqvist was smart though, I would have liked to see him move to Michigan...Oh well maybe Ryan Miller would want to move home

[2probert4 8]

Actual tickets as you've stated weren't sold however deposits were accepted by TicketMaster Canada (16,000 of them), a plan was in place with the city of Hamilton, & Balsillie for a lease of Copps Coliseum which included renovations outta Jimmy B's own pockets...Yeah the owners/Gary B wouldn't allow the instant re-location of the Nashville franchise which is a shame considering how well the team would be doing financially speaking if the move would've been made.

To allow the Predators to move would force Bettman to admit that hockey in the South is failing. He will do any and everything possible to make them stay afloat.