Timmy
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2005
- 10,691
- 26
Wetcoaster said:I was responding to the point that the NHL owners know what they are doing.
So what does "History is on the side of the players," mean?
I don't get it.
Timmah!
Wetcoaster said:I was responding to the point that the NHL owners know what they are doing.
Also when you have bluffed once and been called on it, forcing you into backtracking and double talking to try to explain it .. It lends uncertainty to future bluff attempts now as this will have credibility issues in the future. I can also guess a few owners that do not support Bettman's new stance that the season will be delayed and that exists on both ends of the spectrum, both teams that made money under the Old CBA system and those that are using up their war chest money quickly.Wetcoaster said:It would not be the first time pro sports owners have badly miscalculated - see the failed MLB experiment with replacement players for example.
In the NFL case the NFLPA simply did an end around, decertified and won what they sought using anti-trust law.
In the case of the NBA, the NBAPA simply threatened decertification and the NBA backed down.
History is on the side of the players.
Wetcoaster said:Declaring an impasse only is an issue if you are intending to use replacement players and the NHL has apparently conluded that is not a viable option.
The Messenger said:Also once you have bluffed once and been called on it, forcing you into backtracking and double talking to try to explain it .. It lends uncertainty to future bluffs attempts now as this will have credibility issues in the future. I also thought that the NHL really started second guessing IMPASSE strategies .. The NHL have done many questionable things during this dispute that if they did declare it, would give fuel to the NHLPA in the courts that question the intention in bargaining issues.. Also without the courts questioning the Financial figures the NHL can continue to claim the Levitt Review was accurate ..
hockeytown9321 said:But it'd be real funny if the league declared impasse and still didn't play.
While that certainly could be viewed that way ..Bring Back Bucky said:Kind of like players talking about joining the fabulous WHA..
The Messenger said:Also when you have bluffed once and been called on it, forcing you into backtracking and double talking to try to explain it .. It lends uncertainty to future bluff attempts now as this will have credibility issues in the future. I can also guess a few owners that do not support Bettman's new stance that the season will be delayed and that exists on both ends of the spectrum, both teams that made money under the Old CBA system and those that are using up their war chest money quickly.
I also thought that the NHL really started second guessing IMPASSE strategies .. The NHL have done many questionable things during this dispute that if they did declare it, would give fuel to the NHLPA in the courts that question the intention in bargaining issues.. Also without the courts questioning the Financial figures the NHL can continue to claim the Levitt Review was accurate ..
The Messenger said:While that certainly could be viewed that way ..
It also effects the possible success of the WHA .. Now that players do not see the Replacement oportunity it lets the WHA plan better and recruit players for its league, now that the smoke has cleared a little..
You are assuming that the majority of teams actually lost money.Bring Back Bucky said:What range of appealing options do the players have?? Given the number of outright failures in the "NHLPA invades the Euro leagues" fiasco, and that they face another year of lower earnings, I'm not sure things look much rosier from the players' perspective than they did a year ago. If an owner loses less by not playing, how do you assume the players have any greater bargaining position than before last season?? I would say the general consensus is that the large portion of players who are in their peak or last few earnings years are going to be getting pretty damned antsy to return to what's left of their goldmine contracts of yesteryear.
Wetcoaster said:You are assuming that the majority of teams actually lost money.
IMHO when the entire business picture is taken into account many teams were making, not losing, money.
Take the Canucks as an example. Forbes Magazine pegged their profit for the past two seasons at $.7 million and $2 million based upon publicly verifiable information. According to the Canucks themselves they made profits of $20 million and $25 million respectively. The candian teams were profitable.
So was Philadelphia in spite of Snider's claim to the contrary.
For many teams the loss of hockey affects their cable tv companies and packages and real estate deals as well as any number of interlocking businesses.
Also by not playing the team values (which had been climbing for the most teams with steady if not spectacular growth over the last decade) are taking significant hits and that directly impacts their financing and their line of credit rates. Like 1994 the bankers are getting very nervous not to mention the the broadcasters. The ability of the teams to charge the top end advertising dollars they had become used to will not survive another year of lockout
While many NHL teams could take a one year hit, two years is too much to bear.
Would the players prefer to earn NHL salaries - sure but they can get by on what is available in Europe. Also this time around there is last year's experience for the Euro teams to draw upon and they are not stupid. They will have learned how better to maximize the NHL players this time around.IMHO the owners cannot say the same. YMMV
Not sure what that would accomplish though !!!..Gee Wally said:at this stage even that wouldn't surprise me.
Wetcoaster said:You are assuming that the majority of teams actually lost money.
IMHO when the entire business picture is taken into account many teams were making, not losing, money.
Take the Canucks as an example. Forbes Magazine pegged their profit for the past two seasons at $.7 million and $2 million based upon publicly verifiable information. According to the Canucks themselves they made profits of $20 million and $25 million respectively. The candian teams were profitable.
So was Philadelphia in spite of Snider's claim to the contrary.
For many teams the loss of hockey affects their cable tv companies and packages and real estate deals as well as any number of interlocking businesses.
Also by not playing the team values (which had been climbing for the most teams with steady if not spectacular growth over the last decade) are taking significant hits and that directly impacts their financing and their line of credit rates. Like 1994 the bankers are getting very nervous not to mention the the broadcasters. The ability of the teams to charge the top end advertising dollars they had become used to will not survive another year of lockout
While many NHL teams could take a one year hit, two years is too much to bear.
Would the players prefer to earn NHL salaries - sure but they can get by on what is available in Europe. Also this time around there is last year's experience for the Euro teams to draw upon and they are not stupid. They will have learned how better to maximize the NHL players this time around.
IMHO the owners cannot say the same. YMMV
Beauty said:Next stop, Impasseville!
nyr7andcounting said:You are lost. Completely.
Anyway, this is definetly good news. This leaves less options for BOTH sides and gives incentive to BOTH sides to get to the table now, and make a deal now. Replacements would never have worked anyway and I'm glad the owners have realized that.
Ruling out replacements, combined with the fact that there has obviously been some sort of progress in the last couple of weeks, is a good sign.
Wetcoaster said:Take the Canucks as an example. Forbes Magazine pegged their profit for the past two seasons at $.7 million and $2 million based upon publicly verifiable information. According to the Canucks themselves they made profits of $20 million and $25 million respectively.
no lie - now of course the owners - jacobs especially - are all bubbly and positive -nyrmessier011 said:
Not by a long shot ..Timmy said:So do you think that the NHLPA has the NHL by the hairs, and should now be able to drive home a favourable deal for the players now that this option isn't available?
Are the owners on the ropes, in your opinion?
Egil said:ODC, I couldn't disagree more.
Replacements is a easily achieved target with a clear exit strategy for the PA. Not going to replacements iliminates this target and ensures that the only way an agreement will be reached is if the players negotiate a setlement. Not agreeing to anything is no longer an option for the players.
Bring Back Bucky said:Somewhere, in the midst of an incoherent diatribe about reporters ruining everything, Bobby Hull just snapped to attention.
Sorry, I'm really trying not to be too sarcastic, but when is the world going to realize that there is no such thing as the WHA??
John Flyers Fan said:Agreed this was the best move by the owners. It still gives them the hammer. Replacement players, left the hammer up to the fans.
ODC said:I don't know about you but I'd rather watch replacement than deal with another year of no hockey.
Strange take on today's events ..Crazy_Ike said:Yep. This news, that impasse is going off the table, is actually the worst possible news for the NHLPA. If true, now they know they'll have to actually come to an agreement with a league who has already decided where their minimum possible offer lies. They can never and will never get better than that and the owners will let them sit until they figure that out.
The one person who wanted replacements was Bob Goodenow. Once again, he's been outmaneuvored by the league. What does he have left? Wrecking yet another set of NHLPA members' careers over principles the union has already caved on just won't happen.
The NHLPA has had the rug yanked out from under them again, and though it may take some time for them to realize it (witness how many people here think they are actually in better shape), their position is even worse now than it was two days ago.
Much worse.
So much for Bob's stalling tactics.