How many agree NHL hockey will start up next month - 48 game schedule

[eye]

Another spin on the same topic but how many of you really believe that the NHLPA will cave on the Cost Certainty System in return for many other concessions so that hockey will start up in January.

Goodenow is a lot of things but there is one thing he is not - he is not stupid.

I'm not sure of the timeline but you would think that very soon he will propose to compromise his stance of the Cap issue in return for many other concessions. The sooner the better! We need a season that is at least 48 games long in order to maintain any integrity for this year's results to mean anything.

Click to read more...

 

[kerrly]

It all really comes down to whether or not they think they can eventually get the owners to move off cost-certainty. I think most of us on the board, realize that the owners are not going to back down from it. And if the NHLPA realizes you'd have to figure that they would accept it for other concessions. Its either get cost-certainty now, or get the exact same thing next year or the year after that.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Another spin on the same topic but how many of you really believe that the NHLPA will cave on the Cost Certainty System in return for many other concessions so that hockey will start up in January.

Goodenow is a lot of things but there is one thing he is not - he is not stupid.

I'm not sure of the timeline but you would think that very soon he will propose to compromise his stance of the Cap issue in return for many other concessions. The sooner the better! We need a season that is at least 48 games long in order to maintain any integrity for this year's results to mean anything.

Bettman is a lot of things.....be there is one thing he is...Stupid. There will be no season. If he puts a soft cap on the table I think Goodenow WOULD negoitate. Hopefully ONE side puts it on the table because I think that is the only thing that will bring hockey back this season.

 

[chriss_co]

Bettman is a lot of things.....be there is one thing he is...Stupid. There will be no season.

If there is no season, I would call Bettman... Smart.

Why? Because it means he didn't give in to the players like he sorta did in 94. (I believe they were fighting for a luxory tax at the time but decided against it to start the season... although they did think they had received a CBA in their favor)

Just to remind those pro-players, I miss the game and I want the game back as badly as you do. BUT I'm not willing to sacrifice the future of the NHL by having the league accept the terms of the players just so that I can see hockey again.

Do it right or don't do it at all.

 

[eye]

Bettman is a lot of things.....be there is one thing he is...Stupid. There will be no season. If he puts a soft cap on the table I think Goodenow WOULD negoitate. Hopefully ONE side puts it on the table because I think that is the only thing that will bring hockey back this season.

Soft cap is already on the table. That's exactly what Bettman proposed the other day. Bettman is not only intelligent - he is just as stubborn as Goodenow is and that's why the owners won't cave until they have regained control of their business. Reviewing the way the NHLPA appear to be panicking lately makes me feel they are close to realizing they have no choice but to cave on the cap issue if they hope to resume play. I really think the compromise will take place before Christmas.

 

[IWD]

This whole situation kind of reminds me of the cold war. The players represent freedom and capitalism: the right to pursue whatever avenues you wish. The league represents communism in the sense that they wish to dictate an "egalitarian" league where everyone is on equal ground. Like the Soviets, equal footing is unneccessary if you're the one running the place.

Granted, that's an oversimplification, but the general idea is there.

 

[chriss_co]

This whole situation kind of reminds me of the cold war. The players represent freedom and capitalism: the right to pursue whatever avenues you wish. The league represents communism in the sense that they wish to dictate an "egalitarian" league where everyone is on equal ground. Like the Soviets, equal footing is unneccessary if you're the one running the place.

Granted, that's an oversimplification, but the general idea is there.

Yea... kinda i guess...

i'd just tweak the owner's stand to representing socialism... not communism...

the owners want tighter overall control... not control to the point where the head decides the individual salaries of every player

Even a socialist label is tough... maybe just call it a Canadian style system... not market system but not socialist system either

 

[IWD]

Yea... kinda i guess...

i'd just tweak the owner's stand to representing socialism... not communism...

the owners want tighter overall control... not control to the point where the head decides the individual salaries of every player

Even a socialist label is tough... maybe just call it a Canadian style system... not market system but not socialist system either

I was thinking of referring to them as socialists. Comparing it to the cold war just seemed like a more powerful message. That and the whole idea that those at the top (owners) want to make those at the bottom (the players) pay the price for their luxury.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Another spin on the same topic but how many of you really believe that the NHLPA will cave on the Cost Certainty System in return for many other concessions so that hockey will start up in January.

Goodenow is a lot of things but there is one thing he is not - he is not stupid.

I'm not sure of the timeline but you would think that very soon he will propose to compromise his stance of the Cap issue in return for many other concessions. The sooner the better! We need a season that is at least 48 games long in order to maintain any integrity for this year's results to mean anything.

I agree that it seems likely the players will eventually give in, barring an uneforseen event. However, with so much of the season already gone, I don't think they'll cave this season.
They might give the WHA a shot or explore other avenues before heading back to the NHL

 

[Morbo]

No chance.

No hard cap has ever been negotiated, and this one will be no exception.

 

[HckyFght*]

The players represent freedom and capitalism: the right to pursue whatever avenues you wish. The league represents communism in the sense that they wish to dictate an "egalitarian" league where everyone is on equal ground. Like the Soviets, equal footing is unneccessary if you're the one running the place.

Unionism is an inherently socialist idea, albeit a good one. The pendulum swings however, and in the last half of the 20th century it swung far to unions side. It's the union that represents communism because they feel they have a right to a say in capital outlay, they feel they, the workers, are the ones who should control the means of production. Pure Marx and Engles. Not the other way around...
-HckyFght

 

[FLYLine27*]

Soft cap is already on the table. That's exactly what Bettman proposed the other day. Bettman is not only intelligent - he is just as stubborn as Goodenow is and that's why the owners won't cave until they have regained control of their business. Reviewing the way the NHLPA appear to be panicking lately makes me feel they are close to realizing they have no choice but to cave on the cap issue if they hope to resume play. I really think the compromise will take place before Christmas.

Am I missing something...im pretty sure he proposed a hard cap of 38 million.

 

[HckyFght*]

One big problem is that both sides have used the word "never." SO whomever does eventually cave, the results will be devastating. Clearly, they should never have used that word.

-HckyFght!

 

[copperandblue]

Goodenow is a lot of things but there is one thing he is not - he is not stupid.

Before yesterday's sorry attempt at spin I would have agreed with you but that was just sad....

He may very well be much less intelligent than he had everyone believing....

 

[IWD]

Unionism is an inherently socialist idea, albeit a good one. The pendulum swings however, and in the last half of the 20th century it swung far to unions side. It's the union that represents communism because they feel they have a right to a say in capital outlay, they feel they, the workers, are the ones who should control the means of production. Pure Marx and Engles. Not the other way around...
-HckyFght

I don't pretend to be an expert on Marxism or the Soviet Union, but my original post referred to the cold war, not Marxism. I know know, however, that Soviet communism is a complete and utter bastardization of what Marx pictured. The players indeed represent freedom and capitalism. They're fighting for their right to earn money in a free market that allows access to pursue capital. The owners are, afterall, trying to limit the amount of money players can make while, at the same time, exploiting the workers (in this case, the players) to make as much capital for themselves as possible.

I'm not exactly sure how you come to your conclusion. it's slightly off, I would say.

 

[eye]

Am I missing something...im pretty sure he proposed a hard cap of 38 million.

There are different types of soft caps. Because there is a range with a minimum and maximum Bettman introduced theirs as being a soft cap. Details as follows;

Players receive 54% average of Hockey-Related Revenues (increase over prior offer of 53.2%)

Individual Clubs are obligated to spend no less than 51% and no more than 57% of their 1/30 share of Hockey-Related Revenues

No Payroll Tax -- requires guesswork, continues payroll disparities, and is inflationary

Like I said in another thread if I had to guarantee my employees 54% of my gross revenue I would be bankrupt. Quite a generous offer! One that players should be grateful for; considering the current economics of the game, no major tv deals, many half empty arenas in a gate driven league. Seems like simple common sense. Cost Certainty is coming sooner or later and players have their best chance to make the best possible counter-counter offer right now. If the season is lost, players can expect to come back for far less than they can salvage right now. That's not fabrication on my part - it's reality and common sense.

 

[CarlRacki]

I don't pretend to be an expert on Marxism or the Soviet Union, but my original post referred to the cold war, not Marxism. I know know, however, that Soviet communism is a complete and utter bastardization of what Marx pictured. The players indeed represent freedom and capitalism. They're fighting for their right to earn money in a free market that allows access to pursue capital. The owners are, afterall, trying to limit the amount of money players can make while, at the same time, exploiting the workers (in this case, the players) to make as much capital for themselves as possible.

I'm not exactly sure how you come to your conclusion. it's slightly off, I would say.

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of what is a free market.
As of this moment, the players have a free market. If the NHL imposes a salary cap, the players would still have a free market. There is nothing to prevent players from going to Europe, the AHL or anywhere else they choose to ply their trade if they do not like the terms and conditions of working in the NHL. The players have choice. That those choices are lower-paying and less attractive is simply a condition of the market.

 

[PecaFan]

Am I missing something...im pretty sure he proposed a hard cap of 38 million.

Yup, a significant concession of a 23% raise from the $31 million cap.

Not that anyone noticed.

I've been optimistic all year, but I'm losing hope. The union clearly thinks the owners are bluffing, and will pull out at the last minute. Unfortunately, it's going to take losing the season before they finally go "Damn! I didn't think they'd do that."

Last time, secret meetings were going on behind the scenes, and that led to a deal. Hopefully, that's happening again.

 

[PecaFan]

As of this moment, the players have a free market. If the NHL imposes a salary cap, the players would still have a free market. There is nothing to prevent players from going to Europe, the AHL or anywhere else they choose to ply their trade if they do not like the terms and conditions of working in the NHL. The players have choice. That those choices are lower-paying and less attractive is simply a condition of the market.

Yup. It's like the "no facial hair" rule at Disneyland. Those are the rules for working here, if you don't like it, leave.

 

[Reilly311]

Hockey won't start up until this time next year because the owners won't want to pay players a full year.

 

[Nich]

i disagree. he is a dumb, greedy bastage

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

This might sound stupid but imagine Bettman was selling this hard cap all this time, knowing the players won't agree to it, just so he could still get a very very restrictive CBA? LOL...

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Ummmm the CBA is already extremely restrictive. Its the best CBA in sports. (was?)

 

[SENSible1*]

Ummmm the CBA is already extremely restrictive. Its the best CBA in sports. (was?)

:lol

 

[Jack Canuck]

Ummmm the CBA is already extremely restrictive. Its the best CBA in sports. (was?)

:lol