Confirmed with Link: Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th

[ULF_55]

I was just on vacation from December 3rd - December 22nd and in that time the majority of lockout news I got was from the ESPN ticker and TSN Mobile when I was able to read it on my BlackBerry. Anyway I remember hearing how in mid December when everyone thought the NHL and NHLPA were close to a deal, then all of the sudden things went bad with the talks. Last night when I was watching the TSN Year In Review show they showed a clip of Donlad Fehr saying talks took a turn for the worse and Gary Bettman saying they were never close to a deal. So I'm wondering were they actually close to a deal or not, because why would Bettman says something like that?

Bettman said they gave another take it or leave it offer. Fehr thought the take it leave it offer was close to what would get it done.

Bettman flipped out and ranted because the union wanted to negotiate off the take it or leave it offer.

Dying on a hill:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/20/deputy-commissioner-bill-dalys-nhl-lockout-qa-with-qmi-agency

QMI: Why is the five-year limit and 5% variance so important?

DALY: "They are both ways to deal with the long-term backdiving contract issue and a bigger issue from the league-wide perspective which is long-term liability that our clubs can accumulate with long-term contracts. It's been something that's been important to us from the start. The five and seven (offer) were important because they were part of the package our owners felt like they bought. That's why 5/7 are magic numbers. It's not really my quote, but that's why it's the hill our owners will die on.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Bettman said they gave another take it or leave it offer. Fehr thought the take it leave it offer was close to what would get it done.

Bettman flipped out and ranted because the union wanted to negotiate off the take it or leave it offer.

Dying on a hill:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/20/deputy-commissioner-bill-dalys-nhl-lockout-qa-with-qmi-agency

Oh wow, just reading all that puts things into a prospective. When I read the ESPN ticker they didn't mention anything you quoted and why we should appreciate the lockout coverage TSN and Sportsnet has been doing.

 

[Budsfan]

Bettman said they gave another take it or leave it offer. Fehr thought the take it leave it offer was close to what would get it done.

Bettman flipped out and ranted because the union wanted to negotiate off the take it or leave it offer.

Dying on a hill:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/20/deputy-commissioner-bill-dalys-nhl-lockout-qa-with-qmi-agency

It will be interesting to see what happens, if they do "Decertify", I wonder what would happen, if they offered a take it or leave it offer individually to each player and how many would take it.

 

[ULF_55]

It will be interesting to see what happens, if they do "Decertify", I wonder what would happen, if they offered a take it or leave it offer individually to each player and how many would take it.

If there is no union they'd offer contracts to individual players, if the courts agreed to void all the contracts.

There is no guarantee that the contracts would be voided, so contracts between owners and players could be enforceable without benefit of a CBA.

If all contracts are voided the players' agents will be negotiating contracts for their clients individually.

 

[4evaBlue]

It will be interesting to see what happens, if they do "Decertify", I wonder what would happen, if they offered a take it or leave it offer individually to each player and how many would take it.

Realistically, 80%+ of the players would probably take it. I don't see many players losing sleep over the likes Weber not being able to get 15 year contracts in the future.

The league will not resume without a union, though, so it's a bit of a moot point.

 

[Budsfan]

If there is no union they'd offer contracts to individual players, if the courts agreed to void all the contracts.

There is no guarantee that the contracts would be voided, so contracts between owners and players could be enforceable without benefit of a CBA.

If all contracts are voided the players' agents will be negotiating contracts for their clients individually.

The sticking point of the negotiations, seems to be contract length and some of the players are already tied into heafty long term contracts and as I'm saying, I wonder if they would accept, a take it or leave it offer of 5 years and for less money than what they have already signed for, if the courts voided their present contracts.

 

[ULF_55]

The sticking point of the negotiations, seems to be contract length and some of the players are already tied into heafty long term contracts and as I'm saying, I wonder if they would accept, a take it or leave it offer of 5 years and for less money than what they have already signed for, if the courts voided their present contracts.

Why would they sign for 5 years though?

Teams already have agreed to stupid length contracts, for all teams to offer only 5 years in length would reek of collusion.

Would the Rangers or Flyers not offer Crosby, Malkin, AO, Tavares, ... a ten year deal?

Yep, they would.

 

[4evaBlue]

Reasonable answer, just not for the question asked.

Just imagine if the NHLPA's every decision was made by conducting a full scale player vote instead of leaving it up to the Fehrs and the 10 or so players with retirement contracts. Do you believe the PA would have voted to accept the last take it or leave it proposal?

 

[Budsfan]

Why would they sign for 5 years though?

Teams already have agreed to stupid length contracts, for all teams to offer only 5 years in length would reek of collusion.

Would the Rangers or Flyers not offer Crosby, Malkin, AO, Tavares, ... a ten year deal?

Yep, they would.

Well they are in a situation where the League is failing and I'm sure they realize that they may have to do something, that will keep it together and if they don't, a team like the Leafs, can out bid them all and sign an entire team of elite players and tell them no more revenue sharing because we will sign every great player out there.

You may call it collusion but with the threat of having to support themselves, they could internally set a self imposed Cap or budget and term length or pay the real price.

I would love to see the leafs with Malkin, Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos and many more star players but the League would fail big time.

The Leafs hold the hammer, contibuting 40% of the revenue sharing.

 

[ULF_55]

Reasonable answer, just not for the question asked.

Just imagine if the NHLPA's every decision was made by conducting a full scale player vote instead of leaving it up to the Fehrs and the 10 or so players with retirement contracts. Do you believe the PA would have voted to accept the last take it or leave it proposal?

Considering 90%+ players have agents do you think they'd be doing anything without involving their agents?

If it isn't Fehr it is their agent making the call.

Players aren't making million dollar decisions on their own anymore than you or I will buy a house without a lawyer looking over the contract for a $500k house.

 

[4evaBlue]

It's fine if you don't want to answer the question. Pretty sure even the most pro-PA fans know which dozen or so players the NHLPA is holding out for. It does beg the question of how representative of the individual players' interests the union is.

 

[ULF_55]

Well they are in a situation where the League is failing and I'm sure they realize that they may have to do something, that will keep it together and if they don't, a team like the Leafs, can out bid them all and sign an entire team of elite players and tell them no more revenue sharing because we will sign every great player out there.

You may call it collusion but with the threat of having to support themselves, they could internally set a self imposed Cap or budget and term length or pay the real price.

I would love to see the leafs with Malkin, Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos and many more star players but the League would fail big time.

The Leafs hold the hammer, contibuting 40% of the revenue sharing.

If there is no union everything changes.

To compete the have-nots would have to offer good deals to get good players.

With one third the league making a decent return, and one third breaking even, the one third struggling would have to make very smart decisions on the players they pursue, but perhaps the most important decisions would be in coaching. Lemaire proved you can make a difference with coaching when you can't afford to compete with the Goliaths.

EPL, MLB, you usually know who is going to be rising to the top of the ladder. There is no reason why the NHL has to be 30 teams.

 

[Budsfan]

If there is no union everything changes.

To compete the have-nots would have to offer good deals to get good players.

With one third the league making a decent return, and one third breaking even, the one third struggling would have to make very smart decisions on the players they pursue, but perhaps the most important decisions would be in coaching. Lemaire proved you can make a difference with coaching when you can't afford to compete with the Goliaths.

EPL, MLB, you usually know who is going to be rising to the top of the ladder. There is no reason why the NHL has to be 30 teams.

I agree and most of the long term contracts, are only for cap circumvention, if a player has signed for 80-100 million for 10 or more years, the Leafs could offer the same amount for 5 years and not having to pay out any revenue sharing with no cap would be well ahead of the game and still have a pretty big wallet, to spend even more.

With this threat over the owners heads, they would quickly come into line but with a reduced number of teams however every owner would have to decide to throw in the towel or lose money to continue as an NHL franchise.

 

[The Magic Man]

I don't know how anyone could be so one sided in opinion on this anymore. I think both sides are equally at fault by now. Neither side is in the right when we are this close and they can't agree. It's not worth all the loss anymore when it's a matter of term.

 

[4evaBlue]

I don't know how anyone could be so one sided in opinion on this anymore. I think both sides are equally at fault by now. Neither side is in the right when we are this close and they can't agree. It's not worth all the loss anymore when it's a matter of term.

For me, it comes down to motivation. Why do the owners want what they want? To try to fix an obviously broken business model. Why do the players want what they want? The answer is just as obvious.

 

[Razz]

I don't know how anyone could be so one sided in opinion on this anymore. I think both sides are equally at fault by now. Neither side is in the right when we are this close and they can't agree. It's not worth all the loss anymore when it's a matter of term.

I agree. Early on I was very much pro owner. Now I'm pro fan, both sides have failed to represent my interests in this dispute.

The battle has become personal and for that I blame both sides. The truth is, neither side cares enough about the fans to make a deal. The owners clearly can do better than 5 yr max and the players owe it to the fans to sign a long term CBA. Much longer...

 

[Mess]

I agree. Early on I was very much pro owner. Now I'm pro fan, both sides have failed to represent my interests in this dispute.

The battle has become personal and for that I blame both sides. The truth is, neither side cares enough about the fans to make a deal. The owners clearly can do better than 5 yr max and the players owe it to the fans to sign a long term CBA. Much longer...

The players only owe it to the fans to sign a long term lockout so that the owners greed will not result in another lockout and work stoppage any time soon.

Or the Owners could simply stop tossing up lockouts every time a CBA expires regardless of the CBA length, as they're after all the ones that ultimately control their own actions. The players need to hold the Owners accountable for our sake, because we know they're incapable of doing it on their own.

Unfortunately for the fans every time a CBA expires the owners use that opportunity to line their pockets financially at our expense and with our money.

 

[The Magic Man]

For me, it comes down to motivation. Why do the owners want what they want? To try to fix an obviously broken business model. Why do the players want what they want? The answer is just as obvious.

The owners are trying to fix a broken system with the wrong tools. If they really want to fix it, they will use a better profit sharing set up like the other leagues. NFL profit sharing % is massive compared to NHL. If all teams, especially TOR, NYR, MTL, PHI and VAN, share their TV revenue, it would go a lot further to support the poorer teams in the long run. This along with a 50/50 cap would make the NHL a profitable league for everyone.

Lets not forget that the Leafs make a tonne of money playing the Panthers in FLA due to their TV revenue. The Panthers put on the show at their cost and the Leafs are the only team making money. Why not share just TV revenue. ~40-50%, similar to NFL.

The players just don't want to keep giving. No one does. It seems like greed, and is in a sense, but can you blame them? The owners don't want to make sacrifices for the betterment of the league, why should the players keep giving? It may be a 50/50 cap, but not for the real money teams. It's more like 30/70 in favour of the owners in TOR et al.

Another real solution that doesn't help either party in the short term is contrition. Move two teams to more traditional markets like Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Milwaukee or Portland and drop two teams. That drops two teams out of the cellar of finance in the league and moves two teams to a place that has a much better chance of survival.

But none of these solutions are beneficial to current owners or players. It's only good for the league and fans as a whole.

I agree. Early on I was very much pro owner. Now I'm pro fan, both sides have failed to represent my interests in this dispute.

The battle has become personal and for that I blame both sides. The truth is, neither side cares enough about the fans to make a deal. The owners clearly can do better than 5 yr max and the players owe it to the fans to sign a long term CBA. Much longer...

Exactly how I feel. I did side with the players originally though. But everything here is exactly how I feel. I think if the owners and players did what's best, even just for themselves, instead of being stubborn, they'd have had a deal by now. Either take the owners offer, or accept the last few adjusted PA details. Either way that is better then spoiling all lost revenue and pay cheques.

 

[ULF_55]

The owners are trying to fix a broken system with the wrong tools. If they really want to fix it, they will use a better profit sharing set up like the other leagues. NFL profit sharing % is massive compared to NHL. If all teams, especially TOR, NYR, MTL, PHI and VAN, share their TV revenue, it would go a lot further to support the poorer teams in the long run. This along with a 50/50 cap would make the NHL a profitable league for everyone.

Lets not forget that the Leafs make a tonne of money playing the Panthers in FLA due to their TV revenue. The Panthers put on the show at their cost and the Leafs are the only team making money. Why not share just TV revenue. ~40-50%, similar to NFL.

The players just don't want to keep giving. No one does. It seems like greed, and is in a sense, but can you blame them? The owners don't want to make sacrifices for the betterment of the league, why should the players keep giving? It may be a 50/50 cap, but not for the real money teams. It's more like 30/70 in favour of the owners in TOR et al.

Another real solution that doesn't help either party in the short term is contrition. Move two teams to more traditional markets like Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Milwaukee or Portland and drop two teams. That drops two teams out of the cellar of finance in the league and moves two teams to a place that has a much better chance of survival.

But none of these solutions are beneficial to current owners or players. It's only good for the league and fans as a whole.

Exactly how I feel. I did side with the players originally though. But everything here is exactly how I feel. I think if the owners and players did what's best, even just for themselves, instead of being stubborn, they'd have had a deal by now. Either take the owners offer, or accept the last few adjusted PA details. Either way that is better then spoiling all lost revenue and pay cheques.

I find it funny that one side can be considered greedy and the other side not greedy.

If there was no greed involved all HRR-AE would be shared equally between all teams and players.

So MLSE would make the same as the Coyotes. Why does MLSE take any profit from the games if it isn't greed?

Greed isn't a bad thing, it motivates, but don't cherry pick to claim one side is greedy.

 

[The Magic Man]

I find it funny that one side can be considered greedy and the other side not greedy.

If there was no greed involved all HRR-AE would be shared equally between all teams and players.

So MLSE would make the same as the Coyotes. Why does MLSE take any profit from the games if it isn't greed?

Greed isn't a bad thing, it motivates, but don't cherry pick to claim one side is greedy.

I think both sides are being greedy. More the owners, TBH, and the players are being more stubborn, but both are guilty of both attributes.

 

[The Magic Man]

I think both sides are being greedy. More the owners, TBH, and the players are being more stubborn, but both are guilty of both attributes.

The more I think of it, the less I think the players are stubborn, considering they're the only side that has moved considerably.

 

[The Magic Man]

Honestly ULF, I'm not sure who you think I'm saying isn't greedy?

I thought I conveyed my point of dual fault clearly.

 

[ULF_55]

Honestly ULF, I'm not sure who you think I'm saying isn't greedy?

I thought I conveyed my point of dual fault clearly.

I wasn't suggesting you said only one side is greedy, but some on here are so heckbent on throwing mud they can't see both sides of the situation.

 

[The Magic Man]

I wasn't suggesting you said only one side is greedy, but some on here are so heckbent on throwing mud they can't see both sides of the situation.

Oh, ok. Then yes, I definitely agree with you on that.

 

[RogerRoeper*]

The owners are trying to fix a broken system with the wrong tools. If they really want to fix it, they will use a better profit sharing set up like the other leagues. NFL profit sharing % is massive compared to NHL. If all teams, especially TOR, NYR, MTL, PHI and VAN, share their TV revenue, it would go a lot further to support the poorer teams in the long run. This along with a 50/50 cap would make the NHL a profitable league for everyone.

Lets not forget that the Leafs make a tonne of money playing the Panthers in FLA due to their TV revenue. The Panthers put on the show at their cost and the Leafs are the only team making money. Why not share just TV revenue. ~40-50%, similar to NFL.

The players just don't want to keep giving. No one does. It seems like greed, and is in a sense, but can you blame them? The owners don't want to make sacrifices for the betterment of the league, why should the players keep giving? It may be a 50/50 cap, but not for the real money teams. It's more like 30/70 in favour of the owners in TOR et al.

Another real solution that doesn't help either party in the short term is contrition. Move two teams to more traditional markets like Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Milwaukee or Portland and drop two teams. That drops two teams out of the cellar of finance in the league and moves two teams to a place that has a much better chance of survival.

But none of these solutions are beneficial to current owners or players. It's only good for the league and fans as a whole.



Exactly how I feel. I did side with the players originally though. But everything here is exactly how I feel. I think if the owners and players did what's best, even just for themselves, instead of being stubborn, they'd have had a deal by now. Either take the owners offer, or accept the last few adjusted PA details. Either way that is better then spoiling all lost revenue and pay cheques.

The NFl splits their national tv deal. So does the NHL. You're talking about local tv money.The Leafs already give more than their share to the poor teams. Why should they give their tv money from their customers in Toronto to the Panthers for that game?

If you can't survive on your own leave the NHL.