David Tanabe said rumor is that players passing deal is........

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spungo*

Guest
RDriesen16 said:
how is a weak union better than none for the owner of a business.

I believe the NHL needs a players union in order to make the draft, etc. legal. The only reason the draft is legal is because the NHLPA agrees to it. Without a union, junior players would be legally free to go to any team they wanted to.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
djhn579 said:
Are you sure the NHL will declare an impasse if the players vote no for this CBA? ...
What other options would the owners have ??

They want to get business going again and the only way to do it with some NHLers would be to declare an IMPASSE..

I do not see the NHL being blackmailed into giving more concessions to the NHLPA by a no vote .. Why would they return to the bargaining table??

The only real non-impasse option would be to continue the lockout and recruit 700 non NHLPA members in ECHL and Europe to fill teams ..


djhn579 said:
Just because the union does not vote for the CBA, that does not necessarily mean they will agree to decertify....
That is certainly true .. but what options would they have that a NO vote to this CBA would give them .. Owners are no longer obligated to negotiate.

Sitting out another year is an option in hopes of breaking the owners I suppose but I believe that majority of players are not prepared to do that .. So decerticifcation is real option to them .. It gives them a chance to play again this year .. Not sure how the NHL will handle the situation though ..

djhn579 said:
Personally, I think it would be highly unlikely for the players to reject this CBA. They have missed their paychecks for one year, I doubt they want to lose their money for a second year.....
As do I but this is more in response to Tanabe comment that is close or 50/50 if you prefer .. That is his opinion and how valid or correct he is we don't know .. They hold personal players polls on the NHLPA website all the time for players to get a feel ..

I remember other recent articles, including a Fischler article that said hardliners are getting together in hopes of detrailing these talks .. This fits with that

djhn579 said:
For all we know, Tanabe could be one of those hardcore Goodenow supporters (who now seem to be a distinct minority...) just trying to stir up trouble......
He could be .. From his speech it hard to tell which side he is on . .

"I get a sense that everyone wants to play," Tanabe said. "Whether or not that means a CBA gets done is still up for question.

"I still think that a deal needs to get by the players' vote and some are rumoring that it is 50/50 among the players as to whether or not it gets by the player vote."

However Manny Legace was much clearer when he said "I would be prepared to fight longer" .. That actually supports Tanabe claim of people opposing or a no vote..

djhn579 said:
And once again, if decertification was Goodenows plan from the start, he would have held a vote before the last CBA expired and would have told the NHL that the NHLPA will decertify if the NHL insists on bargaining for a hardcap and/or linkage...
This part I do not agree with because .. The owners caved in the past to the NHLPA and in order to test if that would happen again the NHLPA had to wait to see if they would cancel the season or cave into no Hard Cap mid season .. SO that was inevitable to happen .. The players got their answer and so now they need to decide their new move of which one is to decertify .. To truly have meaning you really need a CBA in place YOU DON'T LIKE to dispute. They loved the old CBA as players and decertifying would have stopped any change it was renewed again or a modified verson used. That timing would have been off when you suggest.

If Goodenow just said it as you suggest then the Owners would just have considered that an idol threat IMO as the vote is not public ..
 
Last edited:

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Crazy_Ike said:
Good to see Messenger claiming this was Goodenow's master plan, though. Some things never change. :D
I am not claiming that .. I am asking the question to the board here .. How do we know it isn't?

Goodenow has apparently been pushed to the side and Tanabe claims its 50/50 and with those two things together .. What harm does it do Goodenow and the hardliners to decertify .. Nothing

That is only to guess what options the NHLPA would have or motive to vote no ..

I personally don't think they will vote NO ..
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
The Messenger said:
IF the union voted it down ..

Then ..

1) NHL would declare Impasse and drop the Lockout and insert this CBA as its new IMPASSE CBA ..

2) The NHLPA would go on strike .

3) The NHLPA would then hold a decertification vote .. knowing they hold the majority with an NO vote to accept the CBA.

4) If it Decertify passed with a majority then that action would nulify the IMPASSE CBA in place ..

You would have no Hard Cap, no CBA, no Rules and 700+ UFA with every man for himself with lots of hungry GM's fighting over themselves to get them signed and TOTAL CHAOS ..

Basically if the NHL wants a whole new world then we are going to start from scratch.


HOW DO WE KNOW that this wasn't Goodenow END GAME PLAN all along ??

He said no Hard Cap and Free Society for his players and that is exactly what he could give them by this move in the end ..

We would be following the exact same game plan of the NFL in 1989 during their labour dispute . .
yet the NFL operates with a cap today.

Where are you going with this?
 

blamebettman*

Guest
The Messenger said:
I am not claiming that .. I am asking the question to the board here .. How do we know it isn't?

Goodenow has apparently been pushed to the side and Tanabe claims its 50/50 and with those two things together .. What harm does it do Goodenow and the hardliners to decertify .. Nothing

That is only to guess what options the NHLPA would have or motive to vote no ..

I personally don't think they will vote NO ..

it was rumored for a while that the reason negotiations had been moving along was that Gartner seized power from goodenow some time ago, but we learn last week that Gartner had just joined the discussions. so perhaps it was Goodenows plan.

I remember hearing an Eklund interview a few weeks ago, there he discusses the Gretzky/Lemieux/Bettman debacle, and mentions that Goodenow pretended to be fired, the NHL was sure the PA had already collapsed going into NY....

perhaps Goodenow is once again pretending to be pushed to the wayside, after all Saskin is still heavily involved, and he is about as hardline as Goodenow.
 

KOVALEV10*

Guest
Oh dear got ****in players they deserve to die man. I've really had it with them. If you're gonna play play damit. ****in pricks :shakehead
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
SuperNintendoChalmrs said:
Agreed. Better sign it....Wasabi Tanabe.

:teach:

They'll sign it if they believe it's the best deal they can get.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
Recent history suggests the PA no longer has very good eyesight when it comes to getting the best deal they can get.

8)

The morbid cynic in me almost wishes they do vote it down, just to see so many idiots watch their careers pointlessly go down the drain. I've never seen a group of anyone so collectively stupid as the NHLPA.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,333
Newsguyone said:
They'll sign it if they believe it's the best deal they can get.
Which it will be. Gary's maxim of "it's only going to get worse" has held true thus far.
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
well i can see i drew a few nasty responses. to be honest, if i was a player, i'd believe that the deal which is going to be signed now will be better than it would have been in february. this new deal allows the cap to rise with salary arbitration and QOs still in place.

however, i'd feel like my union has made all of the concessions. i would still need something to entice me...such as honouring the 04-05 contracts and significant revenue sharing. the big market teams can each afford to give up 20 M to the smaller market clubs. the league has me on my knees ready to give up...but not without a fight!
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
jericholic19 said:
the league has me on my knees ready to give up...but not without a fight!

Sounds like a good synapsis of their attitude twelve months ago. Hey, it worked so well then....

:yo:
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
norrisnick said:
Which it will be. Gary's maxim of "it's only going to get worse" has held true thus far.
This raises an interesting question for me. Some people had a discussion a while back about concessions coming because financial pressure was soley on the NHLPA's shoulders. If (and I think that's a fairly small possibility) the deal gets voted down by the PA and we miss another season, doesn't the burden start shifting to the owners as financial values of the franchises go into a tailspin? The franchises aren't generating revenue, and the league as a whole (multiplying out from the $300-$400 they say they've lost) loses $600-$800 million again while the players' losses drop (less players had contracts for this season, so the amount of guaranteed money goes away). And if the owners come under financial pressure, wouldn't it stand to reason they would make concessions as well (not in the area of player salary, but perhaps in UFA rules, the so-called "franchise player" exception, contract rollovers minus the rollback, et al)?

I think it's been fairly well documented that the vast majority of the concessisions in these talks have come from the union's side. If there's a no vote, I think we may see a quick concession or two (again, the most obvious is the contract rollover) by the league in order to get the players to vote yes. Neither side can really "afford" to lose another season, but if the players as a whole vote no, it's really up to the league to tempt them into voting yes with some sort of concession.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Crazy_Ike said:
Recent history suggests the PA no longer has very good eyesight when it comes to getting the best deal they can get.

8)

The morbid cynic in me almost wishes they do vote it down, just to see so many idiots watch their careers pointlessly go down the drain. I've never seen a group of anyone so collectively stupid as the NHLPA.

Recent history?

So far the offers are worse.
But the players haven't agreed to anything yet.

Like I said four or five days ago, if the players reject the rumored deal, I won't be surprised.
Do I expect it? No.
But I can understand why a player would vote against the deal.

Also, unlike the hundreds of brainless followers on these boards, I do not pretend to know how a player rejection would effect future negotiations.

Would owners sweeten the pot?
Or would the cut the deal even further?

No one knows. The NHL has tried the patience of the tv networks and its corporate sponsors. Not to mention the fans.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
4) If it Decertify passed with a majority then that action would nulify the IMPASSE CBA in place ..

Too bad that isn't how it would work. The decertification fo the union would do nothing to the NHL's CBA and make every player an individual and they would have to sue for damages if they chose to go that route. If the NHLPA decertified it would allow the NHL to open the doors to anyone who wants to play (50% of the players plus a huge number from the AHL and Europe) giving them the power to start a new union or extend the PHPA to cover the NHL as well. The NHLPA would be dead and gone and the only reminants of that body would exist in court. The NHLPA gives up all power and rights as a collective the minute it decertifies and acts as a representative to only the individuals in court. Since close to half the body would be in the NHL (likely more as a lot would change their tune after decertification and the threat of union reprisal is gone) the NHLPA would become a historical insignificance as the players form a new body.

Oh, and I highly doubt Goodenow is going to opt for decertification. I do believe that a decertification would also terminate any contract he has with the NHLPA along with any monies owed to him. No way does he walk away from $10.5 million. Not a chance in hell. Nice pipe dream though. Keep them coming!
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,333
Kritter471 said:
This raises an interesting question for me. Some people had a discussion a while back about concessions coming because financial pressure was soley on the NHLPA's shoulders. If (and I think that's a fairly small possibility) the deal gets voted down by the PA and we miss another season, doesn't the burden start shifting to the owners as financial values of the franchises go into a tailspin? The franchises aren't generating revenue, and the league as a whole (multiplying out from the $300-$400 they say they've lost) loses $600-$800 million again while the players' losses drop (less players had contracts for this season, so the amount of guaranteed money goes away). And if the owners come under financial pressure, wouldn't it stand to reason they would make concessions as well (not in the area of player salary, but perhaps in UFA rules, the so-called "franchise player" exception, contract rollovers minus the rollback, et al)?

I think it's been fairly well documented that the vast majority of the concessisions in these talks have come from the union's side. If there's a no vote, I think we may see a quick concession or two (again, the most obvious is the contract rollover) by the league in order to get the players to vote yes. Neither side can really "afford" to lose another season, but if the players as a whole vote no, it's really up to the league to tempt them into voting yes with some sort of concession.

They won't get anything directly tied to more money or quicker salary inflation. They might get younger UFA status but rejecting this deal will make the monetary hit so much worse that it wouldn't matter. What good is being a star UFA at 24 if the best anyone can offer you is $3M?

That is provided all 30 teams stick it out together. At some point the option of lopping off the bottom 5/10 teams and creating an overall smaller, but higher average economic framework. But then that isn't going to fly with 25-33% of the 'PA membership because they'll be out of a job.

I don't see any deal outside of this one currently being drafted being better for all 700+ 'PA members.
 

Spungo*

Guest
jericholic19 said:
well i can see i drew a few nasty responses. to be honest, if i was a player, i'd believe that the deal which is going to be signed now will be better than it would have been in february. this new deal allows the cap to rise

The imprtant part is that it allows the cap to drop significantly. We could be looking at a 29 million hard cap next year if the league loses revenue potential due to the lockout.
 

Strangelove

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
2,047
1,016
The Messenger said:
HOW DO WE KNOW that this wasn't Goodenow END GAME PLAN all along ??

:biglaugh:



Yeah, he's a GENIUS !!


:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:


OMG... you crack me up Mess.......
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
Spungo said:
The imprtant part is that it allows the cap to drop significantly. We could be looking at a 29 million hard cap next year if the league loses revenue potential due to the lockout.

player salaries would drop anyway if there was a cap of 42.5 M with no salary arb or QOs.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
norrisnick said:
They won't get anything directly tied to more money or quicker salary inflation. They might get younger UFA status but rejecting this deal will make the monetary hit so much worse that it wouldn't matter. What good is being a star UFA at 24 if the best anyone can offer you is $3M?

That is provided all 30 teams stick it out together. At some point the option of lopping off the bottom 5/10 teams and creating an overall smaller, but higher average economic framework. But then that isn't going to fly with 25-33% of the 'PA membership because they'll be out of a job.

I don't see any deal outside of this one currently being drafted being better for all 700+ 'PA members.


They walk away from this there might not even be another offer to the players. They would probably be replaced with new players, without a line to even cross.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
if its true that the players are split 50/50 or even close then that then it doesn't mean that the deal will get voted down, it means that the deal won't even be taken to the players for vote. the guys representing the nhlpa in talks know how other players stand and know how their respective teams stand. if it is that split they aren't going to take it back to be voted, they are going to try to find out what might tip it toward yes and then say to the league 'look it won't pass like this but if you give us X i think we can sell it'

neither side is going to agree to a deal and take it back to their respective sides for a player vote or for a BOG vote unless they are 100% sure it will get approved because they don't want to look like idiots for agreeing to the deal. its much easier to just keep negotiating in the small groups till you get a deal that works for both sides...

and its very possible that this is why we keep hearing they are close but it is taking forever to complete...maybe they are trying to tweak certain things to make sure both sides will vote yet.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
Master Shake said:
Why honor the contracts? The players have nobody to blame but themselves. They cant cry for a do over.

and what exactly do the players have to blame themselves for??

being smarter than the owners in the last labor negotiations??

being smarter than the owners in every contract negotiations since then??

being smart enough to take the $$ and run when idiot out of control owners offered them more $$ then they could afford?? was it the players responsibility to budget the team and reject an offer that was for too much $$??

please tell me what the players did wrong or how they violated any rules??

are player salaries out of control?? yes and do they need to come down?? yes...but that doesn't change the fact that the mess was 110% created by the lack of control on the owners part, not the players. point the blame where it belongs.
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
RDriesen16 said:
yep, thats life. you take risks like this when you go on strike. i would love to see an nhl player talk to one of the manufacturing workers or plant workers in my town :biglaugh:

what strike??

if the nhlers were on strike then you might have a point, but they aren't. they were locked out by the owners HUGE difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->