• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

2,459 posts in this topic

I don't think they would have played "for years' under the current agreement. All labour organizations try to negotiate a newer, fairer deal for their membership, one that reflects changes in the workplace and, in this case, the economy, i.e., more revenue being made. Uncle Gary couldn't crow loudly enough how much money has been made over the last few years, as if he was the one who made all this new revenue appear. This was before his backtrack of how teams are finding it economically more difficult to run their teams. Consider how much more money may have been made if not for some of his ill-advised franchise placements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people absolutely, positively certain that if there had been no lockout the players would have gone on strike? I'm not.

The players would have been happy playing the season, and then when it;s playoffs/Stanley Cup time, Fehr would have pulled the plug and organized a strike. He knows that's where ownership makes a lot of money, and he knows that the players would be flush with money from the season so they could stay on strike longer. He's done it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people absolutely, positively certain that if there had been no lockout the players would have gone on strike? I'm not.

The PA is on record wanting to play under the terms of the expired CBA until a new one is worked out. In any event, in order to strike, they would have to have an existing CBA. Otherwise there's nothing to strike against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the last few pages...

Its silly to even talk about eliminating the union and instead having a free market system, as the owners themselves would never in a million years agree to a free market system, where they either have to make smart business decisions or fail.

Edited by sleepwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players would have been happy playing the season, and then when it;s playoffs/Stanley Cup time, Fehr would have pulled the plug and organized a strike. He knows that's where ownership makes a lot of money, and he knows that the players would be flush with money from the season so they could stay on strike longer. He's done it before.

This alleged strategy would be in order to get what? If they were already playing under the old CBA, then the strike would only make sense to get something better for the players than the old CBA. But all players proposals so far were worse for them than the old CBA, they are not asking for more, just hoping to give up less. And in that case the ploy you allege doesn't make any logical sense.

Edited by sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about leverage. The players are being slightly reasonable *because* the owners locked them out. You better believe if they were playing the season, they'd be just as unreasonable as the owners initial offer. With the threat of losing the playoffs or the Finals, Fehr and the NHLPA could demand whatever they wanted.

Again, Fehr has done this before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about leverage. The players are being slightly reasonable *because* the owners locked them out. You better believe if they were playing the season, they'd be just as unreasonable as the owners initial offer. With the threat of losing the playoffs or the Finals, Fehr and the NHLPA could demand whatever they wanted.

Again, Fehr has done this before.

As has Bettman. Three times now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about leverage. The players are being slightly reasonable *because* the owners locked them out. You better believe if they were playing the season, they'd be just as unreasonable as the owners initial offer. With the threat of losing the playoffs or the Finals, Fehr and the NHLPA could demand whatever they wanted.

Again, Fehr has done this before.

If the players have the goal to improve their position in a new CBA, then whyever would they submit any proposal that makes their position worse? What if the owners accept one of those offers?

When Fehr "done it before" did he submit a proposal that was worse for his players than the status quo, and then called a strike demanding better conditions than the status quo? That wouldn't make any sense.

And if the players did plan something like that, it would have become known to the other side, there's no way 900 people can keep a secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has Bettman. Three times now.

Bettman and Fehr have combined to cause a lockout or strike that has resulted in missing their respective championship playoff series 1 each. Not 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bettman and Fehr have combined to cause a lockout or strike that has resulted in missing their respective championship playoff series 1 each. Not 3.

What could I possibly have been referring to when I said Bettman has done this three times?

Anyone? Any guesses?

Ally likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bettman and Fehr have combined to cause a lockout or strike that has resulted in missing their respective championship playoff series 1 each. Not 3.

To be fair to Gary, he's only had two chances so far, and the first time he was over-ruled by some owners who broke ranks so it shouldn't count.

Fehr does lead 3-0 in negotiations settled without losing any games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Gary, he's only had two chances so far, and the first time he was over-ruled by some owners who broke ranks so it shouldn't count.

Fehr does lead 3-0 in negotiations settled without losing any games.

3-0 so far. On Thursday night, it will be 3-1.

What could I possibly have been referring to when I said Bettman has done this three times?

Anyone? Any guesses?

The lockout obviously....

The previous poster mentioned this though.

It's all about leverage. The players are being slightly reasonable *because* the owners locked them out. You better believe if they were playing the season, they'd be just as unreasonable as the owners initial offer. With the threat of losing the playoffs or the Finals, Fehr and the NHLPA could demand whatever they wanted.

Again, Fehr has done this before.

I think the key is "playoffs or finals". At least that is what jumped out at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-0 so far. On Thursday night, it will be 3-1.

You misunderstand. I mean that 3 times Fehr has been a leader in CBA negotiations that were resolved without a lockout or strike that resulted in lost games. Something Gary has not managed to do yet. (Fehr 3 - Bettman 0)

Unless you're suggesting that in the next few days Fehr will be fired, a new CBA reached, and this NHL season will be a full 82 games...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I listen to a lot of sports talk radio, and I've read my fair share of sports books)

I heard Fehr in an interview with the Toronto Star say he wants to get rid of the Cap. There must be something going on if he's said something that extreme...

I think what's going on is only 8 teams agree with what Bettman is doing, while 22 don't. I've heard all Bettman needs is 8 owners to agree with him to tell the rest what to do. I would highly doubt all the owners are happy with Bettman's economics, because there's way to many teams losing money. Only reducing the % the players make won't fix the problems for teams like Phoenix, Nashville, and Dallas, there needs to be proper revenue sharing. I hear the two biggest supporters of Bettman and Philly and Boston.

I think what else is going on, the PA and 22 owners are trying to kick Bettman out, which is the reason why Fehr has been brought in. I said it in the Zetterberg discussion, Fehr has taken on and beat MLB, Bettman and the NHL is only half the size of MLB.

Currently MLB has a Luxury Tax and Revenue Sharing which almost every team is happy with (I've read the only teams not happy with the current system is Toronto and Baltimore because they're in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox). Fehr had a big hand in bringing labor peace to MLB. Maybe the majority of Players and Owners want the same type of system in the NHL, but only 8 owners are keeping Bettman employeed?

Edited by Barrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I listen to a lot of sports talk radio, and I've read my fair share of sports books)

I heard Fehr in an interview with the Toronto Star say he wants to get rid of the Cap. There must be something going on if he's said something that extreme...

I think what's going on is only 8 teams agree with what Bettman is doing, while 22 don't. I've heard all Bettman needs is 8 owners to agree with him to tell the rest what to do. I would highly doubt all the owners are happy with Bettman's economics, because there's way to many teams losing money. Only reducing the % the players make won't fix the problems for teams like Phoenix, Nashville, and Dallas, there needs to be proper revenue sharing. I hear the two biggest supporters of Bettman and Philly and Boston.

I think what else is going on, the PA and 22 owners are trying to kick Bettman out, which is the reason why Fehr has been brought in. I said it in the Zetterberg discussion, Fehr has taken on and beat MLB, Bettman and the NHL is only half the size of MLB.

Currently MLB has a Luxury Tax and Revenue Sharing which almost every team is happy with (I've read the only teams not happy with the current system is Toronto and Baltimore because they're in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox). Fehr had a big hand in bringing labor peace to MLB. Maybe the majority of Players and Owners want the same type of system in the NHL, but only 8 owners are keeping Bettman employeed?

I can't speak to what Fehr said in the Star but I have heard him point out multiple times that the pattern with the salary cap in pro sports is once the owners get it established, they try to lower the cap in every following CBA negotiation regardless of the economic situation.

If the NHLPA really wants to put the cap back on the table, then this is going to get even bloodier. And the fans are going to lose a lot more hockey.

I have to wonder if Fehr is kicking himself for not using the removal of the salary cap as a starting point for negotiations because it would've left him lots of room to move forward. Instead the league started at ridiculous point, moved a few steps off it, and is now complaining it's the union's turn to respond in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand. I mean that 3 times Fehr has been a leader in CBA negotiations that were resolved without a lockout or strike that resulted in lost games. Something Gary has not managed to do yet. (Fehr 3 - Bettman 0)

Unless you're suggesting that in the next few days Fehr will be fired, a new CBA reached, and this NHL season will be a full 82 games...

I don't see how you can make that claim. Fehr sacrificed a world series, and now due to the greed, he is going to cost the NHL at least part of a season. Unless of course you are putting the entire blame for the lockout on the league's shoulders. IMHO, both parties that are involved are at fault for a lockout or strike, not one side or the other.

I can't speak to what Fehr said in the Star but I have heard him point out multiple times that the pattern with the salary cap in pro sports is once the owners get it established, they try to lower the cap in every following CBA negotiation regardless of the economic situation.

If the NHLPA really wants to put the cap back on the table, then this is going to get even bloodier. And the fans are going to lose a lot more hockey.

I have to wonder if Fehr is kicking himself for not using the removal of the salary cap as a starting point for negotiations because it would've left him lots of room to move forward. Instead the league started at ridiculous point, moved a few steps off it, and is now complaining it's the union's turn to respond in kind.

If Fehr is kicking himself, it is for dragging his feet during this whole negotiation process. The last NHL proposal was at 49%, which is a lot closer than the 50% split that many people envision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can make that claim. Fehr sacrificed a world series, and now due to the greed, he is going to cost the NHL at least part of a season. Unless of course you are putting the entire blame for the lockout on the league's shoulders. IMHO, both parties that are involved are at fault for a lockout or strike, not one side or the other.

If Fehr is kicking himself, it is for dragging his feet during this whole negotiation process. The last NHL proposal was at 49%, which is a lot closer than the 50% split that many people envision.

I don't see how you can, again, fail to understand what I said.

Fehr has been a part of several CBA negotiations (prior to this year) in MLB. 1990, 1994, 2002, and 2006. Three of those were resolved without missing any games. Fehr = 3.

Bettman has been a part of two CBA negotiations, both of which resulted in lockouts. Both lockouts resulted in lost games. He has not yet been a part of any successful (0 games lost) negotiation. Bettman = 0.

And for the record, I am putting pretty much all the blame for this lockout on the league's shoulders. Also, the owner's latest offer was around 47.5%, not 49.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fehr insists that they discuss non-core issues and find agreements. this is a waste if they can't form agreement over bigger issues. these peripheral issues can be negotiated on as part of the bigger issue as a give and take. Talk is cheap unless they work on the fundamental issue at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the NHL made an offer that is easier to measure, with players getting 49 percent of HRR to start a six-year deal and getting 47 percent to end the deal.

So it is somewhere between 49% and 47% over the lifetime of the deal, not 49%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is somewhere between 49% and 47% over the lifetime of the deal, not 49%.

Hey, its the same as the last NHLPA offer.

Starts at 53% and goes up to 57% at the end of the deal. Its not 53%, its 57%. I do get what you are saying though. IMHO, the NHL has hit 49% while the Players have relinquished to 53%. Why not just hit 51.5% and make the deal happen? This fight over those extra couple percent is going to cost them more in fans leaving the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starts at 53% and goes up to 57% at the end of the deal. Its not 53%, its 57%. I do get what you are saying though. IMHO, the NHL has hit 49% while the Players have relinquished to 53%. Why not just hit 51.5% and make the deal happen? This fight over those extra couple percent is going to cost them more in fans leaving the game.

My guess is that players would take 51.5% as long as already signed contracts are not reduced in value.

Share this post


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