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

[rumman]

The owners have locked out the players, period. They are their own worst enemies, always over paying for players, who, lets face it, are overpaid, but that being said, why play for less if the OWNERS are willing to pay more? On the bright side who'd of thought the Leafs would be undefeated at Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[4evaBlue]

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.

Couldn't agree more:

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.

I've stated numerous times that both sides were to blame for this situation to some extent.

From the Owner's PoV, the lockout isn't happening to ensure that teams like the Maple Leafs can make an even larger profit margin (when they increase ticket prices to offset the increased revenue sharing), but to ensure that the less profitable teams are given a chance to establish a steady fanbase.

I have no doubt that every single one of the NHL owners is greedy as ****, otherwise they wouldn't be billionaires, but I don't believe greed is the driving force behind the proposed changes. It's hard to even take such a claim seriously when almost half of the teams are losing money. All we hear about is PHX this, and PHX that. Guess what? It's not just about PHX, it's about half of the league.

If the likes of Tanenbaum, or the Molson brothers would be the main driving force behind the lockout because of some mad money grab scheme in an otherwise financially stable organization, my feelings towards the PA would probably be different. Ironically, this is pretty much what the PA is trying to pull right now.

 

[Mess]

I have no doubt that every single one of the NHL owners is greedy as ****, otherwise they wouldn't be billionaires, but I don't believe greed is the driving force behind the proposed changes. It's hard to even take such a claim seriously when almost half of the teams are losing money. All we hear about is PHX this, and PHX that. Guess what? It's not just about PHX, it's about half of the league..

Limiting player contracts to 5 years max (the hill the NHL is willing to die on) and 10 year CBA is how exactly going to put more butts in seats in Arenas and make Phoenix and 1/2 the league more profitable exactly?

 

[4evaBlue]

Limiting player contracts to 5 years max (the hill the NHL is willing to die on) and 10 year CBA is how exactly going to put more butts in seats in Arenas and make Phoenix and 1/2 the league more profitable exactly?

By making sure that small market teams can keep their Weber-type players without having to match some Pejorative Slured contract that will come back to haunt them in a decade.

As for 10 year CBA term, the league could give in on this, and this would be my bargaining point. Let PA have their 5 year CBA length (they seem to have grown fond of CBA negotiations) if it gets the league the 5-7 year contract cap.

 

[Mess]

By making sure that small market teams can keep their Weber-type players without having to match some Pejorative Slured contract that will come back to haunt them in a decade.

As for 10 year CBA term, the league could give in on this, and this would be my bargaining point. Let PA have their 5 year CBA length (they seem to have grown fond of CBA negotiations) if it gets the league the 5-7 year contract cap.

So instead of Tavares getting a 10 year deal with a Cap average of $5 mil, he now will get a 5 year deal at $10 mil per with a Cap average at $10 mil and this will help NYI become more profitable and prevent the big rich teams from pillaging him away from the Isles?. A shorter contract term doesn't eliminate contracts that small market teams can't afford only shortens the years they need to pay them out, before its renewed for another 5 year term.

The reason the Owners want a 10 year deal is because they know they're clawing back HRR%, not paying guaranteed contracts in full and restricting player rights in all areas all to their own benefit at the expense of the NHLPA, and want to lock in those savings for as long as possible now that they have the PA cornered and at their mercy required to surrender to end the owners lockout, or face even more loss of wages in the process.

 

[4evaBlue]

So instead of Tavares getting a 10 year deal with a Cap average of $5 mil, he now will get a 5 year deal at $10 mil per with a Cap average at $10 mil and this will help NYI become more profitable and prevent the big rich teams from pillaging him away from the Isles?. A shorter contract term doesn't eliminate contracts that small market teams can't afford only shortens the years they need to pay them out, before its renewed for another 5 year term.

In that sense, there's a few things to consider. One is insurance:

The NHL's insurance plan insures player contracts for seven years, and "beyond that, if the player gets hurt, the team is on the hook for the full amount of his contract,"

A star having a career ending injury could potentially cripple a franchise not named Leafs, Rags, Habs, or Canucks for 3 years.

The longer the term, and the larger the year to year variance is (both on PA's agenda), the larger the contract can be "front-loaded", which the league wants to get rid of, for obvious reasons.

Long term contracts are not in the interest of the owners, unless salaries (and cap hits) can be tied to some performance bonuses. We know a lot of things can happen to a player in 10 years that could make GMs / owners regret caving into the player's agent's demands.

The reason the Owners want a 10 year deal is because they know they're clawing back HRR%, not paying guaranteed contracts in full and restricting player rights in all areas all to their own benefit at the expense of the NHLPA, and want to lock in those savings for as long as possible now that they have the PA cornered and at their mercy required to surrender to end the owners lockout, or face even more loss of wages in the process.

Let's assume your conspiracy theory is 100% accurate. The players get completely bent over, and don't end up doubling their salary in the next 5 years...

Do you seriously believe all those "greedy owners" would give the poor players anything back, be it 5 years or 10 years from now?

 

[Razz]

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.

Not taking the bait mess, your stance has not progressed one iota in all of this which precludes my ability to have a thoughtful debate with you, but will only ask you this. Why on earth as a fan would you support a shorter CBA regardless of whose side you are on?

 

[Mess]

Not taking the bait mess, your stance has not progressed one iota in all of this which precludes my ability to have a thoughtful debate with you, but will only ask you this. Why on earth as a fan would you support a shorter CBA regardless of whose side you are on?

I have no problem with a longer CBA, and in fact when the owners finally decide to negotiate and relinquish some of their present demands and a deal gets done that both sides can live with lock them in for 100 years.

As a Leaf fan I realize that current Owners CBA demands all negatively effect the Leafs ability to build a team, and neuter their financial muscle, so the NHLPA has to continue to hold strong and not surrender or even better "blow it all up' and then I really like Leafs chances to find new star players among the 800+ UFAs.

 

[hotpaws]

I have no problem with a longer CBA, and in fact when the owners finally decide to negotiate and relinquish some of their present demands and a deal gets done that both sides can live with lock them in for 100 years.

As a Leaf fan I realize that current Owners CBA demands all negatively effect the Leafs ability to build a team, and neuter their financial muscle, so the NHLPA has to continue to hold strong and not surrender or even better "blow it all up' and then I really like Leafs chances to find new star players among the 800+ UFAs.

Does anyone really know what NHLPA even wants ? I know what they're against but i've never heard of them even presenting a complete offer to the owners . It seems all they're doing is stalling while Bettman ups his offers , Fehr's tactics were working to a certain degree but it seems Bettman finally wised up and is now refusing to play Fehrs game .

Also how much negotiating is left to be done . If the PA has truly agreed to a 50/50 split in revenues and isn't interested in trying to circumvent the cap then this deal should have been completed weeks ago .

 

[Budsfan]

I have no problem with a longer CBA, and in fact when the owners finally decide to negotiate and relinquish some of their present demands and a deal gets done that both sides can live with lock them in for 100 years.

As a Leaf fan I realize that current Owners CBA demands all negatively effect the Leafs ability to build a team, and neuter their financial muscle, so the NHLPA has to continue to hold strong and not surrender or even better "blow it all up' and then I really like Leafs chances to find new star players among the 800+ UFAs.

I have a problem with a CBA contract that is too long and unless they have a stipulation, that should a problem within the CBA arise, that one side or the other could file to reopen a segment, that is causing a concern, to one side or the other, just as the player contract length, has caused a problem in the current negotiations but was not part of the last CBA.

I would think that hockey would not be disrupted by a total renegotiation of the entire CBA and that hockey could go on until resolvement of an issue however if an agreement cannot be reached, the CBA could be dissolved after 5 years, by a say 80% of the owners or players voting to do so.

In this way the players and owners would be entering into more of a partnership, instead of having two factions arguing about money, with hockey and fans being held hostage.

Few contracts like the CBA, can stand the test of time but having a way to tweak an agreement would maybe ensure that there would not be any more hockey stoppages going forward.

 

[crump]

interesting page showing lost pay etc.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/clock/

Average salary lost per game: $1,438,390.08
Average salary lost per hour: $479,463.36
Average salary lost per week: $64,596,790.98
Average salary lost per month: $355,282,350.40

 

[p.l.f.]

Dec. 21
The NHL Players' Association's membership completes its voting, choosing to give the union the power to file a disclaimer of interest by Jan. 2.

so if nothing new happens before Jan. 2 this goes to court?

 

[4evaBlue]

Dec. 21
The NHL Players' Association's membership completes its voting, choosing to give the union the power to file a disclaimer of interest by Jan. 2.

so if nothing new happens before Jan. 2 this goes to court?

No.

If the union doesn't file a disclaim of interest by Jan 2nd, they would need to have another vote to disclaim interest past that date. It'd essentially be the owners calling the PA's bluff.

If the disclaim of interest is filed, that's when the years long court process may begin.

 

[p.l.f.]

got it thx

 

[Warden of the North]

No.

If the union doesn't file a disclaim of interest by Jan 2nd, they would need to have another vote to disclaim interest past that date. It'd essentially be the owners calling the PA's bluff.

If the disclaim of interest is filed, that's when the years long court process may begin.

I doubt it will get that far.I think the courts will side with the owners.

 

[ULF_55]

I doubt it will get that far.I think the courts will side with the owners.

Going to be interesting to see what happens. The NHL itself has said the Union is unwilling to negotiate, so I would find it difficult for the NHL to go to court and say the union is negotiating on behalf of the players when it is already saying it is not negotiating.

I think the NHL filed the suit to protect itself from 3*damages. If there is no union the lock-out could be declared illegal, and then we'd get into the 3*damages. IMO the NHL doesn't care diddly about the season, they're just worried about the money they'd have to pay out.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports...-players-union/article6390508/?service=mobile

The 43-page class-action suit filed Friday contains several potentially controversial sections, including No. 14, which calls for existing contracts to “be void and unenforceable” if the union decertifies and several of the league’s other requests are not granted.

“The similarities between this complaint and the NBA’s last year are striking,” said Nathaniel Grow, a sports labour law expert from the University of Georgia who noted both leagues use the same New York law firm, Proskauer Rose.

Grow added that the NHL’s litigious response to talk of dissolving the union wasn’t a surprise.

“The NHL would argue that today’s news that the NHLPA was beginning the disclaimer of interest process gave rise to an actual legal dispute between the parties, giving the court jurisdiction over the case,” he said.

“The league wanted to file suit first in order to decide for itself which court the case will be heard in. New York courts’ interpretation of federal antitrust and labour law is generally more favourable to the league than would be the case in other states.”

More than a prolonged court fight, pro sports unions have generally turned to a disclaimer of interest as a way to give them additional leverage in negotiations.

Whether the manoeuvre is effective is up for debate. Players in the NFL and NBA went that route last year during their lockouts, and advocates on their side still believe the move helped them get a better deal.

Jeffrey Kessler, who represented the NFLPA and NBPA in those disputes, said in both cases the players received more concessions after dissolving the union than they otherwise would have.

“In the NFL, the players concluded there was no benefit to being a union,” Kessler said. “The owners were so dug in. As a result [of disclaiming interest] they eventually settled litigation which led to them getting 55 per cent of NFL revenue last year without losing one game.

“In basketball, the players were completely stymied by impossible negotiating tactics,” he added. “So the players decided to end the union and two weeks later they reached a settlement which preserved basically their entire free agency structure with no change.

“Are those good results or bad results compared to what NHL players are facing today?”

That recent history is why, despite the growing ugliness between the two sides, many observers believe the legal battle the NHL initiated on Friday doesn’t necessarily mean the entire 2012-13 season will be wiped out.

The NBA’s example is the most striking. On Nov. 14, 2011, commissioner David Stern declared that the “season is now in jeopardy” after players filed a disclaimer of interest earlier in the day.

Twelve days later, they had a tentative agreement on a 66-game season.

“That happened only two weeks after decertification,” Kessler said. “A complete change in the owners’ position.”

If the court sides with the owner, and makes all players UFA I'd be okay with that.

 

[showtime8]

Going to be interesting to see what happens. The NHL itself has said the Union is unwilling to negotiate, so I would find it difficult for the NHL to go to court and say the union is negotiating on behalf of the players when it is already saying it is not negotiating.

I think the NHL filed the suit to protect itself from 3*damages. If there is no union the lock-out could be declared illegal, and then we'd get into the 3*damages. IMO the NHL doesn't care diddly about the season, they're just worried about the money they'd have to pay out.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports...-players-union/article6390508/?service=mobile



If the court sides with the owner, and makes all players UFA I'd be okay with that.

If everything does pass through and the entire NHL become free agents, what happens to the prospects? They would become free agents as well too, wouldn't they?

Then its additional fighting, isn't it?

 

[Warden of the North]

Eklund broke news today that nhl presented a new offer



Hilarious he beat the insiders. Bobby mac gave him props.

Sorry cant link on phone

 

[BlueandWhite72]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412368

It appears the NHL did make a new offer. Increasing the contract length, keeping the $300 mil make whole and boosted the varience from 5 to 10%

 

[4evaBlue]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412368

It appears the NHL did make a new offer. Increasing the contract length, keeping the $300 mil make whole and boosted the varience from 5 to 10%

That's actually a decent upgrade from the last proposal. When I read blasted's post, I thought it'd be a really minor alternation in the previous proposal for the sole purpose of being able to demonstrate in courts that even with an impending disclaim of interest, the league kept negotiating in good faith.

Hopefully it will be enough to end this BS.

 

[ULF_55]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412368

It appears the NHL did make a new offer. Increasing the contract length, keeping the $300 mil make whole and boosted the varience from 5 to 10%

According to TSN Hockey Insider Darren Dreger, the NHL adjusted its maximum contract length from five to six years (seven years if a team is re-signing its own player) and boosted the variance from five to 10 per cent.

TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun adds that the new offer includes the 'Make Whole' provision that stays at $300 million and allows each team one compliance buyout prior to the 2013-14 season. The buyout would not count against the cap, but it would against the players' share.

Not sure how an owner's buy-out should count against the players' share?

If you reduce the player's share how does that not reduce the amount available for the cap?

 

[Liferleafer]

That's actually a decent upgrade from the last proposal. When I read blasted's post, I thought it'd be a really minor alternation in the previous proposal for the sole purpose of being able to demonstrate in courts that even with an impending disclaim of interest, the league kept negotiating in good faith.

Hopefully it will be enough to end this BS.

So when they say Friday, do they mean today or last Friday when the offer was made?

 

[4evaBlue]

So when they say Friday, do they mean today or last Friday when the offer was made?

Today, by all indications. LeBrun's tweets are about an hour old.

An NHL player says the NHL made a new offer to the NHLPA on Thursday, one which moved on contract term limits, buyouts and variance...

Unfortunately, he doesn't elaborate on the compliance buyout, but it sounds like a gimmic.

 

[mikebel111*]

players will find a stupid reason to not accept it

so greedy, it's sad

stay strong owners

 

[Ari91]

Not sure how an owner's buy-out should count against the players' share?

If you reduce the player's share how does that not reduce the amount available for the cap?

Maybe the league's thinking is 'we don't want buyouts but if you insist on them, it comes out of your share'? I'm pretty sure the compliance buyouts in the NBA come out of the players share and the excess from their capped escrow also come out of the PA's benefits fund. If the players get any of these things (which seems they may have taken it from the NBA CBA), then I think the league will counter with the same kind of set up that the NBA has currently.

It technically should reduce the cap but that would leave several teams over the cap and would cause teams to have to reshuffle their teams to fit under the cap so there's a two year transition period proposed that would be independent of the players share and total revenue. The issue is that this transition may result in hefty escrow payments which is why I suspect that the players wanted capped escrow so that they could artificially lower their share.