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

[Crazy_Ike]

Maybe the wonderful Mr. Bettman should have thought of that before offering his "last, best" deal about 3 days before the deadline.

Bettman would have loved to negotiate long before the deadline. He just didn't have a negotiating partner based in reality. It was the PA that sat at home waiting for the last moment.

 

[me2]

Secondly, the negotiators do not have the power to tell the players to do anything.

Yes, they do. They just can't make them do it.

 

[Kritter471]

Bettman would have loved to negotiate long before the deadline. He just didn't have a negotiating partner based in reality. It was the PA that sat at home waiting for the last moment.

See, I don't buy that for one minute. Both sides were willing to negotiate before the Feb. cancellation, but both wanted to negotiate off of their framework. Neither made any meaningful advances until things got started up again recently.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

See, I don't buy that for one minute. Both sides were willing to negotiate before the Feb. cancellation, but both wanted to negotiate off of their framework. Neither made any meaningful advances until things got started up again recently.

The PA framework with no cap or linkage was not based in reality. It was counterproductive and was in the end what cost the NHL a season, especially since they ended up giving up on it.

Had the PA given up on their unwinnable stance and deliberately ineffectual proposals earlier, we would have had a season. Of course, that would have taken more intelligence and less greed than the PA has so far shown. The owners, on the other hand, had no room left to give. The PA's failure in understanding that is also at fault for the length of the lockout. "Meaningful advances" finally started happening when the PA came off their high horse and admitted they were bluffing all along.

 

[Spungo*]

Actually, that isn't true. What happens is that a portion of the player's salary is going into an Escrow fund. If the league loses money, then the league gets the money in the escrow. If the league make money, then the money from the escrow fund is given to the players.

The only problem I see is that if you have a couple of franchises wallowing in red ink, that could be just enough to ensure that the league isn't making money and that the escrow fund goes to the owners.

The escrow fund and the salary cap are two different things. 54% of revenues go towards player salaries regardless of if the league is profitable or not. The escrow account is just a way of insuring the players get 54% of revenues paid to them in salary, and not more than 54%.

Make no mistake, the salary cap is relative to league revenues. That's what linkage is; the salary cap is directly linked to league wide revenues. Everyone, from Bettman, to Goodenow, to the players, to agents have all said this. If revenues take a nose dive this year, you can bet your bottom dollar the cap will be adjusted downward for that.

 

[scout46]

I say it gets ratified, then goodbye Bob G.

 

[kdb209]

how is a weak union better than none for the owner of a business. no union means they can do whatever they one. even in a weak one they must do some things they dont want to. there is a huge diff, ive worked hard labor for a non union company before, believe me, thats the best way for the owner(and the worst for a worker )

For a single business, no union may be better than a weak one, although a weak one has distinct advantage - it prevents the formation of a new strong union, but I digress.

But the NHL is not a single business - it is a collection of 30 businesses. Without the protection of a union and a CBA, much of what the league currently does would be illegal under anti trust law as restraint of trade. No union, no draft, no limits on entry level salaries, no restrictions on free agency - every player is always a UFA when their contract expires. Any actions taken in concert by more than one team leaves them open to lawsuits.

 

[NYR469]

does anyone know for sure how many players have to say yes to ratify the deal?? is it simply 50% + 1 or is it 2/3?? or ??

 

[Scoogs]

On The Score, they had a clip of Scott Walker on a radio station The Team 1040 saying the same thing. He honestly believes this could be 60/40 in the wrong way.

He said "I'm really not sure what's gonna happen. I guess anything can happen. You know, 70/30, 60/40. While we understand that we're not likely to get much better, there are alot of things that guys are finding hard to swallow. This could possibly go 60/40 in the wrong way."

I'm paraphrasing but it was something like that.

 

[19nazzy]

He said that on the team 1040.
Sounded like its very possible this deal could be voted down by the players.

 

[_Del_]

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.

I completely agree that it was the owners that have screwed up the salary structure in the NHL. It's an owners fault if he's losing money hand over fist each season.
If I hire 25 ppl to work for my widget factory, and I pay them very generously (twice as much or more than they would get at another widget factory) b/c I like them personally, and I'd like to be the best Widget producer around and really good widget line workers are in high demand across the market it's my fault if I begin losing money.

BUT what if I go to them and say, 70%+ of our gross is going toward your salaries, and I'm really sorry but if we continue at this rate I'm going out of business and you'll be out on your a$$ if we can't work out some other pay schedule that will still pay them more than other widget workers because they are the best around, but less than they are currently making, because I can't afford it. And now they all refuse and begin to talk about how great widget welders are and how they now DESERVE to be paid what I'm currently paying them. They would never work under a salary structure with a cap, nor will they take a pay cut (despite most every other factory is run this way). How many options do i have as an owner? i might be able to get widget welders for less money, but the widget quality would lapse and I LIKE my workers and respect that they are the best around. I don't want to make them mad, nor do I want to upset my widget consumers, who might not like paying top $ for lower quality widgets. I might be able to pay my current workers a few more months, but eventually I'm going under and the widget workers will be unemployed at worst or working at another factory for less money at best. Under those circumstances, I think it's in the best interest of everyone for the workers to compromise on their wages.
If they don't, as an owner, I'd lock them out and pay other workers, even though the quality would go down, b/c the other option is closing my doors forever.

The owners screwed it up, but it was up to the players to realize they had it good for awhile but it couldn't last and to take the best deal they could without shutting down the league.