• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The thing is, in spite of the league making record revenues the owners want a huge reduction in salary by the players. Their biggest requests have little to do with remedying these massive contract lengths and cap hits. Most of their demands are just a money grab. They don't address any of the loopholes.

If there's a third lockout, Bettman should absolutely 100% lose his job. Yes it takes two to tango, but all three stoppages have been lockouts by management, not strikes. And this should be the easiest one to settle of all of them. Bettman has zero diplomacy skills and sets a hostile tone from the get go.

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post.

I don't deny what you are saying about Bettman losing his job though. There should not be a strike everytime the league CBA is up. At the same time, he is making the owners a lot of money. The chances of them firing Bettman is slim to none. At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both.

Thats just my .02 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the season is locked out, Bettman should lose his job. Plain and simple. That would be the 3rd work stoppage during his tenure, which would effectively kill the sport dead in the United States. It's already swimming against the tide in relation to baseball, basketball, and football, and if the season is shortened by any significant duration (half or more), there's no point in anyone aside from the die hards to continue watching. The die hards are already by my guesstimate, 3/4ths of the audience anyway. That 1/4 that are "casual observers" will be gone, and it won't matter.

So Bettman better hope there isn't a lockout, or else he can kiss his job goodbye. In the event he does get a Shanaban levied on him, is there anyone who can act as interim commish until another one is appointed/elected/promoted?

Can't disagree with that. But I've never really felt that hockey was a true national, network television competitor with those other sports anyway. In my opinion, that was a myth propagated by Bettman and fueled by a perfect storm of short-term East Coast hype (Rangers in '94, and Devils in '95), the heyday of SportsCenter coverage, and Bettman's ill-advised westward expansion.

Hockey doesn't look, play, or feel anything like the other sports. The only sports season that it really "competes" with from start to finish is the NBA, which is as about as opposite of hockey as you can get. In the late 90's, when hockey was getting play on FOX (glow puck, etc.), the majority of America who don't know this sport turn on the channel, see the white ice in the background, and quickly turn it off. It might as well be figure skating or equestrian to those people. There's really no point in pandering to that type of audience, pretending that your sport could ever be as big as football or basketball here. It can't.

At the same time, the league has done a lot of good things since the lockout to evolve into the type of sport that it needs to be going forward. Bettman deserves some credit for that, yes, but I'd have no problem seeing him gone as soon as possible - you could lose sleep thinking about how much better the league could have been with the direction of someone actually passionate about the product and its fans.

Think about it as a television analogy - I hear a lot of NHL fans still stuck in the 1990's, and Bettman is guilty of this too. They want the game to be "Friends" or "Seinfeld" - a central experience accessible to everyone that gets tens of millions of viewers on television. Well, guess what? The world has changed. Does anyone here like "Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", or "Game of Thrones"? Those shows get a fraction of the viewers that crap like the "CSI Miami" gets, yet they're considered some of the best shows on television, are extremely profitable for their networks, and are appreciated by a loyal collection of obsessed fans. Why does the NHL need to be "CSI Miami" or "Friends"? Why can't we keep costs within reason, and create a CBA without loopholes that result in star players making NFL or MLB-type money?

Bettman is totally ripable, but I think should be noted that public support in the 04-05 lockout was largely on the side of the OWNERS, despite the fact that the players are the actual face of the league and the source of the "product".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post.

I don't deny what you are saying about Bettman losing his job though. There should not be a strike everytime the league CBA is up. At the same time, he is making the owners a lot of money. The chances of them firing Bettman is slim to none. At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both.

Thats just my .02 cents.

If one side flat out refuses to bargain in good faith I have no problem calling them out on it. However, I also think neither side in this dispute is angelic. In some ways the initial league proposal is forcing the NHLPA to respond with an equally ridiculous offer to set the stage to eventually reach an equitable middle ground.

Maybe Fehr's reputation from his MLB days pushed the league to offer such an outlying proposal, but I'm inclined to think Bettman is just that much of a f**ktard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post.

The NBA has both max contract lengths and amounts (...well, kind of). The NHL has the $14 million compensation rule, but the cap calculations and bonus structure are messed up to the point where Weber, Parise, and Suter are basically making $25 million next year to play hockey.

I think it's time to put real limits on what the upper end players can make in a single deal. I think the long-term deals are counter-productive, and I think the doubling of the salary cap over 7 seasons is a mirage.

If one side flat out refuses to bargain in good faith I have no problem calling them out on it. However, I also think neither side in this dispute is angelic. In some ways the initial league proposal is forcing the NHLPA to respond with an equally ridiculous offer to set the stage to eventually reach an equitable middle ground.

Maybe Fehr's reputation from his MLB days pushed the league to offer such an outlying proposal, but I'm inclined to think Bettman is just that much of a f**ktard.

Agreed. And what's sad is that while all of the CBA issues matter significantly to the financial health of the game (and, more noticeably, to competitive balance), this potential lockout kind of snuck up on people and swallowed the whole realignment effort, which I thought was a legitimate improvement that would help FANS see their teams play at reasonable hours, and foster realistic rivalries.

I got the sense that everyone just assumed there was NO WAY the two sides would get close to a lockout again after losing a year, and then the realignment thing got quashed and I thought "uh oh".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what else does the league want? The got their "parity" throughout the league, revenue is up, they got the Cap in place, they got their "KID" the Cup (maybe one wasn't enough and they need changes to make sure he gets every two out of three?) I don't know what else the league would want from the players. If the NHL suffer another lockout or lose of an entire season, it is over. It cannot survive another whole, half or any part of the season being cancelled... I cannot see why Bettman still has his job, half a season lost in 1994-95, entire 2005 season lost AND now this possibility!?!? Why does this fool still have a job? He has done hardly anything GOOD for the NHL and tons bad!

"This fool" keeps his job because he's a tool of management and the owners. They don't care if fans boo him off the ice, as long as their profits are up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both.

Thats just my .02 cents.

Nuh UH! It's all Bettman's fault and not the players at all. They should totally make like 90% of the league revenue, and the owners can all live off of the 10% the players decide to leave. I mean, the players play the game, so they should make all the money. The owners are just rich old men that write checks and sit in their owners boxes. What do they contribute to the game? Once the players get 90% of revenues, then the minimum salary can go up to like 3 mil per year, which is only fair, since the players sacrifice so much to get where they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame Bettman. All he is is the mouthpiece for the owners. And they want a bigger share of the pie.

If I were the players I wouldn't back down on this. A salary cap was out in place to save the owners from themselves and now its not good enough. Screw that! Players are worth what owners are willing to pay them. Period. If a franchise can't afford to sign big contracts the salary cap means they can still be competitive and can still be elite with good management.

Hockey is my favorite sport and the Wings my favorite team but should we lose the season I would have to seriously think about spending a single dollar with the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I reconfirmed something that the union has been told multiple times over the last nine to 12 months, namely that time is getting short and the owners are not prepared to operate under this Collective Bargaining Agreement for another season, so we need to get to making a deal and doing it soon," Commissioner Bettman said in remarks after Thursday's negotiating session at the League office. "We believe there is ample time for the parties to get together and make a deal, and that is what we're going to be working toward."

This is in response to Fehr's suggestion that the union membership was prepared to go past the "drop dead date" and begin the new season under the old Collective Agreement, showing that they wanted to get a new agreement done, no matter how long it takes.

Uncle Gary, the supposed "mouthpiece of the owners", has not shown that he wants to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody think it's really irresponsible for Bettman to make a "nuclear option" statement like this before both proposals are even on the table? This is like starting peace negotiations by saying, "We are prepared to detonate tactical nuclear weapons above your country if you don't sign". I mean, he's the commissioner of the sport.

Edited by grimace1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in response to Fehr's suggestion that the union membership was prepared to go past the "drop dead date" and begin the new season under the old Collective Agreement, showing that they wanted to get a new agreement done, no matter how long it takes.

Uncle Gary, the supposed "mouthpiece of the owners", has not shown that he wants to do that.

The lockout might be a good thing. If we see contraction of weak markets due to no play in the 12-13 season, then there will be less of this BS. The only reason that the owners are being so unreasonable is due to the large number of non-hockey market owners on the board of governors, pushing for this nhl-style socialism/parity. I say let the lockout happen, and the "real" teams can have more of a voice, as they used to.

That is the whole point of this, and I am surprised that I haven't seen much commentary about it in the media.

The Wings sucked and sucked hard for a long time before the Ilitches bought the franchise. Good management paved the way for the rise to prominence and excellence.

:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lockout might be a good thing. If we see contraction of weak markets due to no play in the 12-13 season, then there will be less of this BS. The only reason that the owners are being so unreasonable is due to the large number of non-hockey market owners on the board of governors, pushing for this nhl-style socialism/parity. I say let the lockout happen, and the "real" teams can have more of a voice, as they used to.

That is the whole point of this, and I am surprised that I haven't seen much commentary about it in the media.

While I see the point you're trying to make, I think it's a little off.

There has to be a majority board support in order for the small market teams to even be considered let into the league. So by your reasoning, the same board members who voted these teams in are the same ones who want them out now?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I see the point you're trying to make, I think it's a little off.

There has to be a majority board support in order for the small market teams to even be considered let into the league. So by your reasoning, the same board members who voted these teams in are the same ones who want them out now?!

Of course. You don't think they've changed their minds since Bettman sold them the dream of thriving southern hockey teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen several people say that if the league does lockout, it's not Bettman's fault, it's the owners' fault. To a degree, I agree with that. However, three work stoppages in less than 20 years? SOMEONE has to lose their job for that. If what some of you have said is true, and he's just a mouthpiece for the owners, he's not a very good commissioner, now is he? He may not be directly at fault for what's going on, but his inept leadership, re: his relationship with the owners', needs to be dealt with and if that means bye bye Bettman, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. You don't think they've changed their minds since Bettman sold them the dream of thriving southern hockey teams?

So then why would they give a contract extension to the man who proposed the salary cap and brought in these small market teams? And if any of the NHL's teams fold during this off-season, I shudder to even try and imagine the legal fallout that would encompass the entire league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen several people say that if the league does lockout, it's not Bettman's fault, it's the owners' fault. To a degree, I agree with that. However, three work stoppages in less than 20 years? SOMEONE has to lose their job for that. If what some of you have said is true, and he's just a mouthpiece for the owners, he's not a very good commissioner, now is he? He may not be directly at fault for what's going on, but his inept leadership, re: his relationship with the owners', needs to be dealt with and if that means bye bye Bettman, then so be it.

But he's the same guy who grew their revenues & got them their cost certainty with the salary cap. If anything, a 3rd lockout & a 3rd "win" for the owners, if fans come back like they did last time, will probably turn into a lifetime contract for the little midget. (No offense to actual little persons here on the boards) Overall, he's done a good job in lining the owners' pockets, players & fans be damned. Sadly, I don't see him going anywhere unless there's a absolute & utter abandoning of the sport if we see another lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post.

I don't deny what you are saying about Bettman losing his job though. There should not be a strike everytime the league CBA is up. At the same time, he is making the owners a lot of money. The chances of them firing Bettman is slim to none. At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both.

Thats just my .02 cents.

Right. One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes. Most of it is a money grab. The restrictions on rookie contracts, getting rid of arbitration, extending the length before a player can become a UFA. Even with contract length, you've got GM's signing 13 year deals as they're negotiating to knock it to 5 years in the CBA. That's somehow the players fault?

The NHLPA has offered to start the season and continue negotiations. That's not bargaining in good faith? What evidence has the NHLPA shown that they're not? Now take a look at what Bettman has said in the media combined with the NHL's idiotic initial proposal. That's not good faith. Their offer is the equivalent of leaving a few pennies for a waiter so he knows it's an "F you!" and not that you just forgot to tip.

Like I said, obviously there's two sides to the negotiation. But with what we've heard so far, the owners and Bettman are BY FAR the ones pushing this to a lockout. How much hockey will we have to lose to try once again to keep these owners from screwing up their own franchises? Ilitch must be so frustrated having to be lumped in with these fools. He took a franchise at its lowest point and resurrected it, and now unfortunately is in an era of hockey were they keep punishing his franchise more and more in order to help support the poorly run ones.

The problem will be solved by owners figuring out how to run a successful business, not by constantly going back to take more money from the players.

And to be clear, I wasn't predicting Bettman would be fired. I was saying he should be. I understand that he reports to the owners so of course many will approve of him lining their pockets, even when it hurts the game. The only hope for him getting fired is if he screws this sport so badly that enough owners that actually care about hockey outvote those willing to run it into the ground to make more money in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greedy bastards all around! Lock it out. Do it. Fold all these small market teams too. Let the large market teams with owners who love hockey re-organize into a capless, win first league. Fans will go nuts. All this collectivist BS should have died with the Soviet Union.

bettman needs to go, I hope he dies a slow and agonizing death for what he has inflicted on the hockey world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting ahead of ourselves aren't we fellas? Just because Bettman says they will lock out doesn't mean there will be one. That crazy bastard in Iran keeps saying he's going to wipe Israel off the map but we haven't see any of that either. So far, it's all theater and should be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting ahead of ourselves aren't we fellas? Just because Bettman says they will lock out doesn't mean there will be one. That crazy bastard in Iran keeps saying he's going to wipe Israel off the map but we haven't see any of that either. So far, it's all theater and should be treated as such.

Bettman has never renegotiated a CBA without a lockout so when he threatens to lock players out again, it's hard not to fear the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes. Most of it is a money grab. The restrictions on rookie contracts, getting rid of arbitration, extending the length before a player can become a UFA. Even with contract length, you've got GM's signing 13 year deals as they're negotiating to knock it to 5 years in the CBA. That's somehow the players fault?

The NHLPA has offered to start the season and continue negotiations. That's not bargaining in good faith? What evidence has the NHLPA shown that they're not? Now take a look at what Bettman has said in the media combined with the NHL's idiotic initial proposal. That's not good faith. Their offer is the equivalent of leaving a few pennies for a waiter so he knows it's an "F you!" and not that you just forgot to tip.

Like I said, obviously there's two sides to the negotiation. But with what we've heard so far, the owners and Bettman are BY FAR the ones pushing this to a lockout. How much hockey will we have to lose to try once again to keep these owners from screwing up their own franchises? Ilitch must be so frustrated having to be lumped in with these fools. He took a franchise at its lowest point and resurrected it, and now unfortunately is in an era of hockey were they keep punishing his franchise more and more in order to help support the poorly run ones.

The problem will be solved by owners figuring out how to run a successful business, not by constantly going back to take more money from the players.

And to be clear, I wasn't predicting Bettman would be fired. I was saying he should be. I understand that he reports to the owners so of course many will approve of him lining their pockets, even when it hurts the game. The only hope for him getting fired is if he screws this sport so badly that enough owners that actually care about hockey outvote those willing to run it into the ground to make more money in the short term.

I guess the point on the loopholes is that we saw the deal from a very high level. I would assume that these loopholes would be closed in the next CBA. Just as you are assuming they will be left open. So who is right here? I guess without the proposal to read, neither of us. So we really can't assume its a money grab or the loopholes were closed without that key piece of information. That was my point.

Agreeing to start the season and continue negotiating was what Fehr said was possible, not what he said he would do. Lets face facts here. The current CBA is not going to work for the long term for the NHL. Yes, the league approved it, but the issues with it need to be hammered out and will be with the new CBA. Of course the players want to keep the gravy train rolling. Thats a no brainer, but as I said before, Fehr didn't say without a doubt he wouldn't lock the league out.

I believe both sides are bargaining in good faith. More specifically, I will believe that the players association is bargaining in the best faith when I hear their proposal on Tuesday. If they lowball the league like the league lowballed them, then I will be convinced that they are both greedy.

I guess the problem I have with the "NHLPA fans" are that they are willing to take everything at face value, you included. Of course you say it takes both sides to make a deal happen, but if it doesn't happen, then its the damn league's fault. That is faulty thinking right there. Concessions have to be given by both sides. Yes, what the league is asking for is crazy. Just as I suspect that is what the players are going to ask for, which we will find out on Tuesday. So, in your mind and the rest of the "NHLPA fans" minds are that the league is being totally unreasonable asking for concessions and threatening a lockout. As a hockey fan just wanting to see a deal get done by both sides, I can firmly look at both sides and confirm that they are both equally at fault if there is a lockout.

I would urge people who take sides to step back and look at the bigger picture. Do you think that if the league and players were bargaining in the good faith that there would even be a possibility of a lockout? I think not. Both sides would concede certain things, and deal would happen.

I completely understand that, but like I said, until it happens there's really no need to be so reactionary about it.

I agree with this as well. Right now though, I don't want to test that theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the point on the loopholes is that we saw the deal from a very high level. I would assume that these loopholes would be closed in the next CBA. Just as you are assuming they will be left open. So who is right here? I guess without the proposal to read, neither of us. So we really can't assume its a money grab or the loopholes were closed without that key piece of information. That was my point.

Where exactly did I say these loopholes would be left open? I wasn't talking about where things will end up, but how the league chose to start the process.

My point was that the majority of what the owners are demanding have little to do with the adjustments that need to be made to the CBA. I feel like most knowledgable hockey fans could come up with a workable solution for a new CBA in a couple days.

Instead, the NHL wants to redefine what constitutes hockey related revenue while also notching down player salaries to what effectively could mean a 20% rollback like the last lockout. That's in spite of the league making record revenues. Add to that wanting to eliminate any arbitration, making players wait a decade before they're UFA's, and lengthening entry level contracts to 5 years. All of those are moves to delay as long as possible having to pay players fair market value for their services, so it's not exactly a stretch to see it as a money grab.

With an effective cap in place, you shouldn't need such punitive lengths on all the other elements of contracts too.

Agreeing to start the season and continue negotiating was what Fehr said was possible, not what he said he would do. Lets face facts here. The current CBA is not going to work for the long term for the NHL. Yes, the league approved it, but the issues with it need to be hammered out and will be with the new CBA. Of course the players want to keep the gravy train rolling. Thats a no brainer, but as I said before, Fehr didn't say without a doubt he wouldn't lock the league out.

So you're going by what Fehr hasn't said, as opposed to what Bettman has?

And it's not just a gravy train for the players, in spite of what the owners claim, they actually make make money off it as well.

I believe both sides are bargaining in good faith. More specifically, I will believe that the players association is bargaining in the best faith when I hear their proposal on Tuesday. If they lowball the league like the league lowballed them, then I will be convinced that they are both greedy.

The league's initial proposal was hardly bargaining in good faith. Those demands were a ridiculous starting point for negotiations.

I guess the problem I have with the "NHLPA fans" are that they are willing to take everything at face value, you included. Of course you say it takes both sides to make a deal happen, but if it doesn't happen, then its the damn league's fault. That is faulty thinking right there. Concessions have to be given by both sides. Yes, what the league is asking for is crazy. Just as I suspect that is what the players are going to ask for, which we will find out on Tuesday. So, in your mind and the rest of the "NHLPA fans" minds are that the league is being totally unreasonable asking for concessions and threatening a lockout. As a hockey fan just wanting to see a deal get done by both sides, I can firmly look at both sides and confirm that they are both equally at fault if there is a lockout.

I would urge people who take sides to step back and look at the bigger picture. Do you think that if the league and players were bargaining in the good faith that there would even be a possibility of a lockout? I think not. Both sides would concede certain things, and deal would happen.

how about you actually discuss my points instead of labeling me an "NHLPA" fan?

I guess it's easier to just tell me what I think so you can dismiss the argument you invented for me.

This should be a relatively painless CBA negotiation but it looks like it could get ugly. I'm going on face value in that I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen and read so far. Bettman has led in again with his hostile and divisive tone. The owners initial offer was a joke. What are you basing your opinions on?

The point you're missing or choosing to ignore is that the NHL is always in a position of greater strength. They are the ones locking players out. They are the ones with the stronger voice in the media. We go to NHL games, not NHLPA games. The NHL has the bully pulpit.

The NHL tried to change the makeup of the divisions and conferences of the league without bothering to consult with any of the people who would actually be playing the games. Why? Because as Bettman pointed out, they weren't required to. It's this kind of open disdain Bettman has for the players union that sets a divisive tone before negotiations even began. It was the warning shot. The league isn't required contractually to discuss realignment with the players, but it's not hard to see why it would've been a good idea to include the guys whose lives and careers would be most effected by the changes.

As I've said many times before, ultimately Bettman is supposed to be a steward of the NHL, not just a shill for current ownership. He is responsible for the overall health of the game, and a collection of owners do not always have that as a priority. His job also requires diplomacy, which is his biggest public failing.

Unless the NHLPA makes some absolutely insane request they refuse to back off of then yes, if we have another work stoppage, ultimately I do hold Bettman more responsible more than anyone else.

That's not to say he's the only one to blame, but he is the one in the best position to prevent it.

Unfortunately, lockout seems to be his go-to move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Sportsnet:

With a lockout looming larger, the National Hockey League Players' Association is quietly making plans for a series of star-studded exhibition games should the NHL shut down this fall.

Sources tell Sportsnet's John Shannon that games between a team of Russian all-stars from the Kontinental Hockey League and "world" all-stars from the NHL are tentatively set for Moscow, Halifax and Quebec City, as well as an undetermined site in Southern Ontario. Donald Fehr, the NHLPA's executive director, spoke with representatives of the Russian league while overseas last week.

...

On the Public Relations front, I'd say the NHLPA is up 2-0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where exactly did I say these loopholes would be left open? I wasn't talking about where things will end up, but how the league chose to start the process.

You said...

"One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes."

So, you said these loopholes were going to remain open. You going to tell me how you know this? Maybe you will provide a link with information on the league proposal.

My point was that the majority of what the owners are demanding have little to do with the adjustments that need to be made to the CBA. I feel like most knowledgable hockey fans could come up with a workable solution for a new CBA in a couple days.

Instead, the NHL wants to redefine what constitutes hockey related revenue while also notching down player salaries to what effectively could mean a 20% rollback like the last lockout. That's in spite of the league making record revenues. Add to that wanting to eliminate any arbitration, making players wait a decade before they're UFA's, and lengthening entry level contracts to 5 years. All of those are moves to delay as long as possible having to pay players fair market value for their services, so it's not exactly a stretch to see it as a money grab.

With an effective cap in place, you shouldn't need such punitive lengths on all the other elements of contracts too.

I agree that it was a lowball offer. So, if the NHLPA lowballs the league, you going to have the same harsh criticism for them? We will find out on Tuesday next week.

So you're going by what Fehr hasn't said, as opposed to what Bettman has?

I think the same could be asked of you. The point is that both sides are posturing for what is going to be a fight. Who knows what the hell is going to happen. I am not going to side either one because no one knows what the heck is going to happen.

how about you actually discuss my points instead of labeling me an "NHLPA" fan?

I guess it's easier to just tell me what I think so you can dismiss the argument you invented for me.

This should be a relatively painless CBA negotiation but it looks like it could get ugly. I'm going on face value in that I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen and read so far. Bettman has led in again with his hostile and divisive tone. The owners initial offer was a joke. What are you basing your opinions on?

The point you're missing or choosing to ignore is that the NHL is always in a position of greater strength. They are the ones locking players out. They are the ones with the stronger voice in the media. We go to NHL games, not NHLPA games. The NHL has the bully pulpit.

The NHL tried to change the makeup of the divisions and conferences of the league without bothering to consult with any of the people who would actually be playing the games. Why? Because as Bettman pointed out, they weren't required to. It's this kind of open disdain Bettman has for the players union that sets a divisive tone before negotiations even began. It was the warning shot. The league isn't required contractually to discuss realignment with the players, but it's not hard to see why it would've been a good idea to include the guys whose lives and careers would be most effected by the changes.

As I've said many times before, ultimately Bettman is supposed to be a steward of the NHL, not just a shill for current ownership. He is responsible for the overall health of the game, and a collection of owners do not always have that as a priority. His job also requires diplomacy, which is his biggest public failing.

Unless the NHLPA makes some absolutely insane request they refuse to back off of then yes, if we have another work stoppage, ultimately I do hold Bettman more responsible more than anyone else.

That's not to say he's the only one to blame, but he is the one in the best position to prevent it.

Unfortunately, lockout seems to be his go-to move.

So, let me get this straight, you believe....

1. The league bargains from a position of strength while the NHLPA is weaker.

2. Because the league lowballed the NHLPA, that the league is totally in the wrong and not bargaining with good faith.

3. If a deal doesn't get done, its all on the league

4. Meanwhile, you are ok with assuming the NHLPA has been bargaining in good faith from the beginning. Making a deal requires no concessions on their part.

Yea, I think I got it. :P

Meanwhile, in reality....

1. The NHLPA and league are both equal in terms of pull. There are no replacement players, just as there are no replacement owners.

2. The NHLPA has yet to give them an offer. The question is, will you be as harsh if the NHLPA comes back with a lowball offer? To assume their offer will be fair is an assumption.

3. If a lockout ensues, both sides are to blame.

4. Both sides will have to concede things equally to get a deal done.

Don't get me wrong, you bring up great points when it comes to dancing around these key points. Like realignment, which I agree upon. I am not surprised it was shot down because the league did not involve the NHLPA. Could communication be better between them? Absolutely. That is the problem with these negotiations is that they waited until the final month to really get to work, to which I blame both sides for that nonsense.

If I have your positions wrong, please correct me and tell me your positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this