Bob McKenzie's article...NHL has six options

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by ladybugblue, Mar 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ladybugblue

    ladybugblue Registered User

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Graduate student
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    I haven't seen it posted here yet...sorry if this is a double post.

    http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=117649

    I guess the NHL is trying to see what they would like to do. I would hope they want to settle with the players themselves but at this point both sides have to look at what their options are. I am sure the meeting taking place this week will give an indication of what direction both sides go...either closer to a deal or the hard way to a deal.
     
  2. ScottyBowman

    ScottyBowman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
  3. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    I think I lose more respect for you every post of yours I read. They are both reporting on the same thing. How different can the articles be? :dunno:
     
  4. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    Forget all the talk about Bob's head. This article merits discussion on its own; thanks for posting. So here we see--again--mention of the infamous "third option" (the one Burke mentioned). And, funny enough, it's even #3 on this list. We also have mention of the "selective lockout" and even the explicit suggestion that it be selective based on salary. It's certainly interesting that they are presenting these options to the teams and asking for input... there's at least an implication here that they have at least some confidence that there's a legal leg to stand on in each of these cases, no?
     
  5. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Bring Back Bucky

    Bring Back Bucky Registered User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,954
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    Hamster Trainer
    Location:
    Delicieux!

    You needn't pay him much mind, he just wants to make trouble. By the way, how do you feel about B.M.'s noggin??
     
  7. Flukeshot

    Flukeshot Hextall Activate!

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,238
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Occupation:
    9-5'ing
    Location:
    Brampton, Ont
    Any idea where that 60 game schedule came from? I understand why he suggests fewer games. Fewer games with replacement players mean that the overall attendance doesn't need to be as high. But 60 seems so random.

    I really don't know how well that "selective lockout" option would work. It is one thing to cross a line if an impasse is declared. Yes you are hated by your PA fellows but they all had a chance to do the same. Whereas with a selective lockout only the guys within those specified limits can choose to play or not. That would be the ultimate divide and conquer attempt by the league.
     
  8. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    A selective lockout, while trying to maintain the appearance they arent union busting. Good one.
     
  9. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It could be just a diversionary tactic. Get the union thinking about it, especially the union members that make less than $1 million. The two recent NLRB decisions that allow a selective lockout don't really support the idea of using pay rate as the basis of who is locked out. I don't know why the league would think they could get away with it.
     
  10. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My guess is the 60 game schedule has to do with season ticket holders. A lot of teams are still holding a 50% deposit from those customers for the 2004-05 season which they are applying to the 2005-06 season. A refund can be had until the 2005-06 season is confirmed. Many ticket holders will be upset if the league announces the season will start with replacement players. Their deposits will be applied to the new season anyway.

    How do you placate those ticket holders? Lower their prices. You could cut prices in half and their 50% deposit would cover the whole season. It's a good idea, since people are less likely to complain if they aren't forced to spend more money.

    But that's a problem if the labor negotations are successful. The teams will bleed money if they have to start paying real NHLers again. So how do you mitigate risk? Shorten the season. You're effectively giving a 33% discount to your customers, not requiring them to pay any more money, and giving yourself some margin for error.
     
  11. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,070
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***

    Maybe ticket holders could elect one of three schemes

    1. double the season tickets length (one of your suggestions)
    2. 2 for 1 during replacement games (not sure how the seating would be worked out though)
    3. defer some of payment until a future time, so 50% of the money stays in trust somewhere (nhlers come back).
    4. Defer 100% until the NHLers come back


    #2 has some good features if they get the seating worked out. It would make the rinks look fuller and the teams would not have to deal will season ticket holders clashing over seating. If 5000 fans take the #2 option then rinks 10000 fans plus who ever else comes. You could see 10000-14000 at games which would look better on TV than 5000-9000.
     
  12. shveik

    shveik Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Inspired dilettante
    Home Page:
    This is one thing that the NHL should be very careful about. The season ticket holders should be allowed to make a choice of whether to keep their ticket in case the league restarts with replacements. It would be very foolish to alienate them by forcing anything down their throat (even if it is half price). This is where a petty greed can prove disastrous.
     
  13. LordHelmet

    LordHelmet Registered User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    Ummmm... By no means am I a labor law expert, but how in the world is this at all legal? If this is really an option, why didn't the league go forward with this plan on February 20th?
     
  14. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The teams jerk their season ticket holders around all the time. Look at how many of them told customers they'd lose their seats if they didn't leave their deposit for the 2004-05 season as a deposit for the 2005-06.
     
  15. alecfromtherock

    alecfromtherock Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does anyone have a list of the players that made under $1,000,000 last season? Or how many NHL players made under $1M last season.

    Ryder was a U$1M player last season, all the HABS need to do is build a team around Ryder with other U$1M’ers and replacement players to win yet another Stanley Cup.

    Ticket costs should be lowered so we can believe the BS spuing from the NHL that they are thinking of the fans, a sign of good faith or a penance if you will.

    Instead of a team wide salary cap, the ‘replacement’ NHL season could have a $1 million individual player salary cap.

    If this selective lockout comes by way of impasse could the NHL still hold its draft as scheduled?

    850K rookie salary cap could see the disparity of the rookies/veterans being only 150K
     
  16. rekrul

    rekrul Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    bittersville,ca
    Home Page:
    selective lockout....

    ok if your a owner you want the best product possible, if your Ottawa for instance do you tell Jason Spezza to report? if so does he or does the NHLPA and their cronies tell him " cross that line and you are going to get whacked" so to speak.

    I mean what do teams do with the really good youngsters- the Bouwmeesters, Bergerosn, Eric stalls of the AHL?
     
  17. LordHelmet

    LordHelmet Registered User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    Another problem with this option - No CBA = No Draft.
     
  18. dolfanar

    dolfanar Registered User

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,948
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Some see the glass as half-empty, some see the gla
    Location:
    Like a midget at a urinal, I'm going to have to st
    Home Page:
    No draft could mean open season on prospects as well, depending on how the NHL and CHL decide to go ahead with a new agreement. Could get VERY interesting.

    I wonder who a guy like Crosby would play with if the money was comparable (rookie caps) and he had an open choice?
     
  19. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think the PA would stop Spezza from crossing. It's more likely that once the NHL allows certain players to cross, Goodenow will tell all players to report. The league will lockout the higher end players. But if the PA succesfully challenges the partial lockout, they should be able to get back pay for the players who were not allowed to report.

    It's a pretty big gamble for the league. I don't think they'll actually try it.
     
  20. Atlas

    Atlas Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,355
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The principled stand for the owners is to create the terms for their own business. If the employees don't want to be a part of the owner's version of the NHL that's their right.

    But the owners have tried to appease the NHLPA for years now and the whole damn thing is a mess. Appeasement never works in anything. It's like playing a Prevent Defense in the NFL. You give away your leverage for nothing. The fact that Bettman would accept the last CBA tells me that he isn't the man to make the NHL strong. No appeaser ever could be.

    Goodenow, on the other hand, is a $hark plain and simple. All he knows is leverage.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"