NHL Lockout

[Hank Hill]

So, what are everyones opinions on this?

Will we see any Hockey this season?

Who do you think will buckle first (players or owners).

I was looking forward to seeing Hasek play for the Sens....

[donh]

Gday hank

Hockey... only the minors, kids, etc...

NHL --> January 2005 at best, potentially 18 months.

Who'll buckle first? owners. They've always buckeled inthe past.

However, according to Howard Bloom from SportsBusinessNews.com (he was on FAN590 yesterday), Gary Bettman has a clause in his contract that indicates he only needs 8 owners to agree with any position he takes in this mess and he's golden!
So, he can put out any position, no matter how hard-lined it is. This Bloom fellow also suggested that Mr. Bettman, has taken the 91, 92, 94 and 97 negociations with the NHLPA quite personally. So, he's got a chip on his shoulder and he's set himself up with a nice deal when dealing with the owners... carry on Gary!

Lockout lasts forever? who cares., bring on the Ryder Cup!!

[NoBack]

I'm sorry to say but I dont care anymore about hockey (NHL that is).
I used to alot but when grown men want 3 gazillion million dollars (in american money) with every concievable perk avialable to mankind, to play a game they say they love, and want more??? I'm done. I say shut the doors, lock them out for 5 years. Let them get real jobs for that amount of time, and let them see what it's like on the other side of the reality.

[broken27]

Well, in my opinion, this lockout will last at least until January, probably through the whole season. Although neither side has been particularly sincere in their negotiating attempts, I primarily blame the union for the impasse they have reached.

It is my belief that unions have little if any purpose in today's North American business landscape, especially in a business that pays salaries in the millions of dollars per annum to their average employee ($1.8 mil was the 2003-04 season avg salary).

Firstly, I take great exception with the players' position that $1.8-million is not enough money per season as an average salary. While they have not phrased it in quite as plain language, the notion of "letting the market decide what a player is worth" has led to Martin Lapointe making $5-million per season on Boston's 3rd or 4th line, Bobby Holik making $9-million per season as a 3rd line center in the Rangers lineup, and Alexei Yashin netting $9-million per season over 10 years.

Now that they are in a lockout position, players seem perfectly willing to accept $200K per annum to play in the AHL, Europe, or other non-NHL leagues. If $200K is enough, then what's the big worry about a salary cap system that guarantees 55% or more of total revenues to the players? I'd be willing to bet my left nut that would work out to more than $200K per season.

Brian Burke's 15-step plan for a new CBA deal seemed reasonable to me, but clearly needed a lot of modification before being even seriously looked at by the NHLPA. Sadly, this has become a political battle rather than a battle to save the game's top league.

Gary Bettman has got to go as well. He is the one who created this mess, with his NBA-like business attitude at the start of his tenure as commissioner. Expansion into the Sun Belt states, growth at all cost, distancing of NHL heritage (conference name changes, realignments etc) and weak TV deal negotiations are much of the reason why the NHL is not a viable top-end sports league. All of those factors were precipitated by Bettman, who to his credit did a great job in promoting the NBA.

Anyways, I'm not being paid for my editorial, at least not on this forum, so I'll give it a rest. I'm just a pissed off hockey fan with nothing much to look forward to.

For more coverage on this issue, check in periodically at www.thefourthperiod.com

Dan

[Hank Hill]

Although Betmann is a dick, the players are killing the game by asking for more cash.

Do they think that the average fan is doing a job that they love and is getting all the bonuses and perks of the job? Most fans work their butts off in boring jobs, but one of their only pleasures is to go to a hockey game/play golf etc. It's the fans money that the players are getting (one way or another).

It seems to me that the dicussions are becoming/have become personal and Hockey is no longer at stake, the personal pride of both sides is now at stake.

[NoBack]

Anyways, I'm not being paid for my editorial, at least not on this forum, so I'll give it a rest. I'm just a pissed off hockey fan with nothing much to look forward to.

For you "real" hockey fans ...................... Ottawa 67's!!

[The Shtick]

The whole thing just plain sucks. I blame the players for being so damn selfesh.

It's also a bad situation when there are teams that will actually make more money with the lockout than they would if there was a season.

The players are the ones who are killing OUR game...... and who gets the worst of it in the end? Us, the pissed of fans! :reallymad

[Colby]

Well, in my opinion, this lockout will last at least until January, probably through the whole season. Although neither side has been particularly sincere in their negotiating attempts, I primarily blame the union for the impasse they have reached.

I agree with this to a certain extent, however a certain amount of blame has to go to a few owner/management groups who were fiscally irresponsible when it came down to trying to buy a championship, or whatever they were doing. Take the Rangers with the stupidest payroll in the league and no playoff games in 7 years. Take the Carolina Hurricanes who, a few years ago, made Federov a stupid offer that they knew Detroit would match. Because of what Milbury did on Long Island with Yashin, Colorado has to pay Joe Sakic huge dollars to keep him. Ottawa got a steal for Chara, but it could have been worse considering what Toronto gave Brian McCabe.

The players will take whatever they can get, right up to the limits of the agreement. It was up to the owners to work within it responsibly. Now, we will have to see what comes of it. I believe that the NHL will try to break the union a year from now. What players will come back to a new league? It's hard to say. But if they are willing to play elsewhere for less money, that's wrong.

[jeffc]

players. There are 5-6 stupid owners who pay exhorbant contracts to guys that don't deserve it. Really, if your boss offered to double your salary would you say no? I side with no one and blame them both for not coming to an agreement before the contract ended.

That being said, the whole system is busted and has to be fixed and everyone is part of the problem and solution. The owners need a system to protect them from themselves. We will not see hockey this entire year. I think the NHLPA is stunned to not see how well things are working in the NFL and NBA under a salary cap.

As much as a fan as I am, I'll find other things to occupy my time.

[mberube]

There should be a law preventing the players from playing in another league when on strike. It seems easy to stay on strike when money is still coming in. The owners have a lot of bills to pay and no money coming in or very little.

Will there be hockey this season? YES but not in the NHL. A 4 on 4, 8 player team league is scheduled to start very soon. The games will be televised. Its going to be fast and clean. Looking forward to It.

I hope that they stay locked out for a long time. At least until 5-6 teams go bankrupt. Bring the NHL back 24 teams. THAT would be good for hockey.

[Hank Hill]

Do you think Hockey night in Canada will show the WHA or minor league teams like the 67s or the Olympiques?

[Hank Hill]

Do you think Hockey night in Canada will show the WHA or minor league teams like the 67s or the Olympiques?

I say fire all the players and promote all the younsters from the farm teams on sensible money and start over. The greedy players will then have to get real jobs or go and play in the minor league until they can be promoted.

[el tigre]

Although Betmann is a dick, the players are killing the game by asking for more cash.

I don't understand where this is coming from. The players are proposing wage cuts and a luxury tax system. This situation is not that much different than Air Canada and their unions arguing over what wage cuts and concessions are needed to avoid bankruptcy. Nobody is talking about raises - they are arguing over how much to cut salaries and what systems will be used to control them.

The concept of "cost certainty" is a joke, and the legality of a "hard salary cap" is questionable. We live in a capitalist society where the prices are determined by the open market based on supply and demand. No business has "cost certainty" - things happen and costs go up or down accordingly. If you make OJ and a hurricane wipes out Florida, your costs will go up. If that means you have to raise your prices and "average" families can no longer afford OJ, so be it. That's capitalism. Trying to set costs or prices at fixed rates is generally viewed as restraint of trade and therefore illegal. Of course, they are many creative ways to get around these "pesky laws", and professional sports leagues have certainly been at the forefront when it comes to finding them.

Do they think that the average fan is doing a job that they love and is getting all the bonuses and perks of the job?

Hmmm, I believe envy is still one of the seven deadly sins. IMHO, this is not far removed from the "you should be thankful you have a job" position, which the average fan has come across in their career.

The owners have no one but themselves to blame for the mess they are in. They have let their own egos overule "business common sense" by trying to outbid each other for players. The irony is that the NHLPA has used the same free market, capitalist system to make their members rich that most owners have used in the past to make their millions.

Hey, if you live by the sword then you die by the sword.

[broken27]

There should be a law preventing the players from playing in another league when on strike. It seems easy to stay on strike when money is still coming in. The owners have a lot of bills to pay and no money coming in or very little.

Will there be hockey this season? YES but not in the NHL. A 4 on 4, 8 player team league is scheduled to start very soon. The games will be televised. Its going to be fast and clean. Looking forward to It.

I hope that they stay locked out for a long time. At least until 5-6 teams go bankrupt. Bring the NHL back 24 teams. THAT would be good for hockey.

Mike, the players are not on strike, they've been locked out. Some players have little choice in where they end up this season, like Jay Bouwmeester, who could be assigned to San Antonio (Florida's farm team) by the Panthers. He has no choice but to report or he is in violation of his contract. Same thing in the case of Jason Spezza. Other players, like Nate Horton of Florida (they're a young team...) could be assigned to their junior teams, as they still qualify for CHL play. The problem is that they would not be allowed to return to the NHL should a deal be reached within a certain timeframe.

To those of you who say that a select few owners are to blame for their overspending, it's certainly a factor, but those teams aren't the ones losing money. The Rangers make tons of money, as does Toronto (for some reason). The big spenders are not in danger, and could continue conducting business under the current system indefinitely.

It's the small market teams like Ottawa, Calgary, Phoenix, Nashville and others who are in jeopardy of folding. The problem is that they aren't the ones spending the money, and yet are competitive clubs, but can't get their revenues up to the level of big-market teams. It shouldn't be possible for the Senators to lose money while the Rangers are profitable. They have comparable attendance figures, but Ottawa had about 1/3 the Rangers payroll 2 seasons ago. How does that happen???

To me, the best thing that could happen is a long lockout of at least two seasons. The NHL would disband 14 teams, leaving 16. The 16 teams that remain will be the "North American" conference. 16 new teams will be put together in Europe and Russia, to make the second conference. Like in soccer, these could be "Champions League" teams that won their respective league titles... In each conference, 8 teams would make the playoffs, with the Conference Champs facing each other for the Stanley Cup.

The above mentioned plan would create a more healthy hockey environment. The 16 NA teams would be strong, as market places could be selected based on regional market economics. Salaries for each conference would be more in tune with their domestic economies as well (Radek Bonk said after his first season that he could retire as a King in the Czech Republic). Overall, payroll figures would drop somewhat.

On the revenues side of things, it would likely be easier to sell a 16-team NHL to the major networks than it is to sell a 30- team NHL. "Investors" like ESPN and CBS and other networks want a return on the money they float to the league, and with the current economic outlook, it is no wonder that they aren't willing to give up MLB/NBA/NFL bucks.

Players would be drafted, much the same way they are now, but because of the geographic issues that the new system would create, it is more likely that Euro players would stay in Europe, and NA players would stay over here. This serves an added purpose of generating fan-familiarity, and home-town pride. According to recent discussions in this very forum, most people in Canada have an affinity for Canadian players, while Europeans are more in tune with European players, likely because of different game-styles and fan familiarity...

I'll be watching junior hockey this season, although I must say that the quality of players is nowhere near NHL standards for the most part. Fortunately, while the NHL has been perfecting the art of trap-hockey, OHL, QMJHL, WHL and others have maintained a more oppen-ice approach.

Dan

[el tigre]

There should be a law preventing the players from playing in another league when on strike. It seems easy to stay on strike when money is still coming in. The owners have a lot of bills to pay and no money coming in or very little.

So, if I go on strike (or get locked out by management), then there should be a law saying I can't work at McDonalds to feed my family? I've got lots of bills to pay (anyone want some?)!!

Of course, to be fair that law would also need to require businesses to shut down when their workers go on strike. Sorry, not allowed to have money coming in during a strike. Hmmm, I don't that's going to happen.

[jeffc]

The current system is not a free market. It is anything but. A free market would not include guaranteed contracts for guys that don't perform. The players want the best of both worlds, guaranteed contracts and the right not to be paid less than what they signed for. In a true free market, players would sign one year contracts and if they had a crappy year, they would have to sign for significantly less the next, or, be cut by the team and if no one wanted them, they would be stocking shelves at Loblaws.

[NoBack]

This situation is not that much different than Air Canada and their unions

Not much different???
Air Canada employee making $30,000 a year vs mediocre NHL player making $5 milions dollars a year?

[broken27]

So, if I go on strike (or get locked out by management), then there should be a law saying I can't work at McDonalds to feed my family? I've got lots of bills to pay (anyone want some?)!!

Of course, to be fair that law would also need to require businesses to shut down when their workers go on strike. Sorry, not allowed to have money coming in during a strike. Hmmm, I don't that's going to happen.

A perfect example of why we need to abolish unions. My wife is facing a strike situation with PSAC, but because we can't afford to miss out on her paycheque, she's going to be breaking the picket lines (as any self-respecting person who signed a contract of employment should do!). This will no doubt create a rift between her and her co-workers that have the Yashin mentality and think they deserve more than they agreed to accept when they were hired and signed their contracts...

Unions are antiquated and should be made illegal. At least, the rules of striking should be totally revised to make sure people can't just hold their employers hostage.

I was supposed to be on strike when CCRA went on strike a bunch of years ago, but I broke the lines every day. Shortly after that strike was resolved, we went on strike again. Seems that PSAC wasn't happy with what they had negotiated. Idiots.

I wonder if union membership in the NHLPA or PSAC was optional, how many people would join? Personally, I don't feel I got my $60/month's worth from PSAC, but then again I didn't ask for anything more than what was indicated on my contract when I signed it.

Just my opinion, I'm sure most of you will disagree...

Dan

[jeffc]

the NHL is not an open market. It is a closed league where no one can just create a team and join. The league is dependant on having healthy, viable franchises and not a few rich ones and a bunch of mediocre to poor ones. Having a couple of teams dominate year after year is not good for any league and there needs to be a level playing field, some sort of cost certainty and limits to what teams can spend.

Look at the NFL. Green Bay has a team that has been in existance and competitive for years, despite a population of about 100000 people. They can compete against NY, Chicago, etc. because of the structure put in place.

[jeffc]

while I agree with you to a certain extent broken27, think about this...

you and your wife joined organizations where unions have been present for a long time (well before you started there). The union has fought for significant benefits for its employees over that time, all of which you were allowed to benefit from since the day you joined. I'm sure you are happy with all of the benefits that come with your job, but would you be willing to forfeit those extra sick days, maternity benefits, leaves of absense, etc that the union fought for well before you arrived?

Just playing devil's advocate here...

[NoBack]

but would you be willing to forfeit those extra sick days, maternity benefits, leaves of absense

He cant, he's a golfer............

[Andru]

Who gives a crap Honestly I won't miss hockey until spring when the playoffs are rolling. Fall hockey is dull and meaningless.

The best leagues in terms of parity and fiscal success are the NFL and NBA. Both have different versions of the salary cap. The worst leagues are the NHL and MLB. They have nothing.

I'm all about getting what you're worth on a free market. But like jeffc said. It's not free market. It's guaranteed deals. If you want no salary cap then eveyone gets non guranteed money, the team can cut the player whenever they want with no penalty. The players have a sweet freaking deal now. It's like no other deal in any industry. The owners are correct to demand some "cost certainty".

BTW I don't have a problem with players making millions. If you were one the the top 100 anything on the planet you'd be making great money too. If you want to send a message to the players stop watching hockey. If the NHL comes back and the ticket prices don't come down to resonable levels. Boycott hockey. Don't buy any tickets, don't watch any games. If the players want the market to decide then let's decide that tickets should be no more than 80 bucks for the best seats and 10 bucks for the not so good seats. That sounds fair to me.

Ofcourse most won't do it. I have the fortitude to hold out. It must be old age creeping in but I've cared less and less. Just think. You take 10 % of your yearly worth, both in tickets, time watching, reading, and thinking about NHL. So they( players ) can make enough in one year to retire.

We're a busted society when we pay a guy 50K per game to play hockey and a person who runs into burning building to save a life 50K per year. Twisted.

Wheew Thanks for listening. I needed that.

[broken27]

while I agree with you to a certain extent broken27, think about this...

you and your wife joined organizations where unions have been present for a long time (well before you started there). The union has fought for significant benefits for its employees over that time, all of which you were allowed to benefit from since the day you joined. I'm sure you are happy with all of the benefits that come with your job, but would you be willing to forfeit those extra sick days, maternity benefits, leaves of absense, etc that the union fought for well before you arrived?

Just playing devil's advocate here...

I'm not disagreeing that unions USED to be important. All those wonderful benefits and perks that you mentioned are great, and I enjoyed them. The problem is that now that those things have been "won" for the employees, there is little left to fight for other than selfish things.

If my contract hadn't included those benefits, I'd make my decision on it as is. I'd probably have still signed it because I feel that a lot of positions in the federal government are overpaid, which is okay with me. I wouldn't sign the contract if I didn't think it was fair, and I certainly wouldn't sign it and then whine and complain for more...

To me, there is no real purpose for unions in today's labour world. Scrap them all, starting with emergency workers, teachers, public service (isnt the gov't just a union of the people anyways?), pro sports, actors, artists, etc.

Dan

[g8r]

To me, the best thing that could happen is a long lockout of at least two seasons. The NHL would disband 14 teams, leaving 16. The 16 teams that remain will be the "North American" conference. 16 new teams will be put together in Europe and Russia, to make the second conference. Like in soccer, these could be "Champions League" teams that won their respective league titles... In each conference, 8 teams would make the playoffs, with the Conference Champs facing each other for the Stanley Cup.

The above mentioned plan would create a more healthy hockey environment. The 16 NA teams would be strong, as market places could be selected based on regional market economics. Salaries for each conference would be more in tune with their domestic economies as well (Radek Bonk said after his first season that he could retire as a King in the Czech Republic). Overall, payroll figures would drop somewhat.
I'll be watching junior hockey this season, although I must say that the quality of players is nowhere near NHL standards for the most part. Fortunately, while the NHL has been perfecting the art of trap-hockey, OHL, QMJHL, WHL and others have maintained a more oppen-ice approach.
Dan

I like this idea but I would be upset at having to cheer for a team in Toronto, since they would likely get a team before Ottawa. I think an option of having Provincial/Regional teams would be a good idea (i.e. Ontario, Quebec, West, Atlantic in Canada, NE USA, central US) with teams playing "home games" in many different cities.

Althoug it would be great to have some kind of "cost of living" salary, it would be impossible to nail down. Especialy in Europe, where the Eastern European countries have a much lower cost of living to say Sweden, Finland or GBR.

Would they be able to get away with paying a North American less because he is playing in Eastern Europe? Sure he'd be rich during the season in the country he plays for, but he could barely afford a plane ticket back to Canada in the off-season.

[EDSGOLF]

I agree with Steve, lock them out and let them get real jobs or go to the minors, once their large mortgage payments start going in arrears, they will say "Wait a minute $1.8 million/year is not that bad" I'm also pissed that my hockey pool won't happen, that is the real sad story :cryin

[mberube]

The employers are not allowed to hire new employees or if they do, the strikers create conflicts with the strikers. Why cant it be the same for the strikers?

I have not followed this topic at all so excuse me for my ignorance.

What I don’t understand is why don’t the owners make a salary cap and enforce that between them. A team should not have more the X number of dollars spent in salaries. They are the ones saying yes to all the deals. It’s just time to say no. I know that its more political then that but if the league would enforce this between the owners, the players would have no choice.

I know most of you will say the players will go elsewhere but I don’t thinks so cause money is the issue. If they play in Europe, they wont get 6 millions dollars a year contracts. At least not a second or third line player.

To blame all the owner is unfair although there is a handful to blame for this lockout. That said, the players are greedy sons of be***ch.

[broken27]

What I don’t understand is why don’t the owners make a salary cap and enforce that between them. A team should not have more the X number of dollars spent in salaries. They are the ones saying yes to all the deals. It’s just time to say no. I know that its more political then that but if the league would enforce this between the owners, the players would have no choice.

This is where you get into the legalities of "collusion" or "price fixing". If there were no union, the owners could do exactly this. But, since there is a union, they'll never get away with arbitrarily setting a salary cap. It's technically illegal...

Dan

[el tigre]

I wonder if union membership in the NHLPA or PSAC was optional, how many people would join? Personally, I don't feel I got my $60/month's worth from PSAC, but then again I didn't ask for anything more than what was indicated on my contract when I signed it.

FYI, union membership is optional in Canada - it is the $60/month payment that is mandatory. I believe you can elect to have your "union" dues paid to charity if you wish - you may want to check with your employer if you feel that strongly about it.

Contracts do not last forever. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a contract with a fixed term, and forms part of your personal "contract of employment". You cannot go on strike (or be locked out) until the term of the CBA is up. When the CBA expires, you no longer have a contract until a new one is agreed to.

[broken27]

FYI, union membership is optional in Canada - it is the $60/month payment that is mandatory. I believe you can elect to have your "union" dues paid to charity if you wish - you may want to check with your employer if you feel that strongly about it.

Contracts do not last forever. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a contract with a fixed term, and forms part of your personal "contract of employment". You cannot go on strike (or be locked out) until the term of the CBA is up. When the CBA expires, you no longer have a contract until a new one is agreed to.

The $60 per month is no longer divertible to charity. You can only get around paying it to the union if you have religious reasons.

Regardless of the status of the CBA at CCRA, or the strike conditions, I knew people who were still under THEIR contract of employment who were on the picket lines...

Dan

[el tigre]

This is where you get into the legalities of "collusion" or "price fixing". If there were no union, the owners could do exactly this. But, since there is a union, they'll never get away with arbitrarily setting a salary cap. It's technically illegal...

Price fixing and collusion in order to restrain trade are illegal regardless of the existence of a union. The union makes it harder for them to do it without being caught, but that doesn't make it any more or less "illegal".

I find it interesting that many people seem to think "collusion" and "price fixing" are perfectly okay for the NHL to do, but horrendously unfair when the gas companies do it.