New NHLPA headache - most fans would accept replacements

Status
Not open for further replies.

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
They would be playing under the NHL's last offer, one that included a salary floor. That floor can be linked to revenue, but it has to start somewhere, based off last year's revenue-$32 or $34 million(I don't remember). So in the first year, they would *have* to pay players an average of at least $1.3 million. If revenue is reduced 33%, the owners are now paying about 69% of revenue to the players, which is actually more than they paid last year.

wow...

i think many of these young guns or FRINGE players are gonna start training extra hard this summer...

that would be sweet for them!!
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
OTTSENS said:
The NHL has no choice but to declare in impasse. IMO it's the only way to resolve this dispute.

Did you graduate from Hollywood Upstairs Negotiating School with Gary Bettman?
 

Jack Canuck

Registered User
Sep 12, 2003
623
0
Hawaii
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
They would be playing under the NHL's last offer, one that included a salary floor. That floor can be linked to revenue, but it has to start somewhere, based off last year's revenue-$32 or $34 million(I don't remember). So in the first year, they would *have* to pay players an average of at least $1.3 million. If revenue is reduced 33%, the owners are now paying about 69% of revenue to the players, which is actually more than they paid last year.

If that is the case then I don't see why the NHL would even consider
replacements. Unless they feel that it will only be a short term loss for a long term gain. This would obviously not be the complete solution to the problem, so if they have to lose money for a bit until the majority of the players cross it may be worth while.

Anyway I do not think that replacements will be the route the NHL will take.
 

barnburner

Registered User
Apr 23, 2004
567
0
go kim johnsson said:
People may say that now just because they're pissed off, but in reality anyone who is a real fan of the NHL wouldn't.

I've been watching nhl hockey for 45 years, and if next season starts with replacement players - I will have tickets for the opening game.
I used to place nhl players on a higher level than any other professional athlete.
Unfortunately, they are now card carrying members of the same "ME" fraternity that the baseball, basketball and football players belong to.
They don't give a darn about the future of the league or the fans - just about fattening their bank account.
I might as well cheer for replacement players, because I don't think I can ever bring myself to cheer for these spoiled, fat-cat primma-donnas again.
 

speeds

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
6,823
0
St.Albert
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
People may say that now just because they're pissed off, but in reality anyone who is a real fan of the NHL wouldn't.

that's exactly right.

A lot of people will say "Yeah, I'll go!! Screw the players!!"

Then it'll be time to spend the money, and they'll find something else to do with it.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
They would be playing under the NHL's last offer, one that included a salary floor. That floor can be linked to revenue, but it has to start somewhere, based off last year's revenue-$32 or $34 million(I don't remember). So in the first year, they would *have* to pay players an average of at least $1.3 million. If revenue is reduced 33%, the owners are now paying about 69% of revenue to the players, which is actually more than they paid last year.
Why would they be playing under that particular offer? What's to stop them from making future offers and using them in the case of an impasse?
 

Boilers*

Guest
Regardless of the # of fans that may or may not show up what's the TV deal gonna look like without a "star player" or two? I mean Crosby has already said he will opt out of the draft so there you go no stars no (large) tv deal . No large tv deal = higher gate prices. I think the idea is dead in the water.
 

WhalerBoy

Registered User
Jul 22, 2003
213
0
Toronto
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
The union remains the union and players that cross have no further vote. They are out permanently.


Oh, yeah, your right. Imagine that? They would be barred from voting!!!!!

Because now, every member gets to vote and openly discuss their feelings with the public, or even within the union itself. :shakehead

This one, like any other union, is controlled at the top, and those among the "masses" just have no voice, they are merely led. They are either bullied into not talking, or just plain recant any statement they do make. Many Im sure agree with the leadership, but i also think many disagree.
 
Last edited:

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
A poll by FOXSports.com gave us the answer, and NHL players should be a little concerned.

Here's an idea for a NEW POLL!

What is more hilarious?

a) An online sports news service that suggests that the NHLPA actually gives a hoot about its unscientific polls?

b) The fans who partake in these exercises in dimestore democracy, and actually are naive enough to think that they hold any weight whatsoever.

Stop taking yourself so seriously! :)
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
I would watch replacement players. No doubt about it. I'm a fan of hockey, and my TEAM. Sure, I would rather have the real NHL players playing, but it seems that they aren't willing to compromise... something they have been preaching since day one.

For example... When the Baby Sens came to the ACC to play the Baby Leafs... You could tell the players were not all exactly NHL calibre, but the game was exciting and fun to watch. And I watched the Baby Leafs as I would have the Toronto Maple Leafs...

So as a Canadian, I would watch my team.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
First off the NHL has to get a declaration of bargaining impasse past the NLRB and then they are constrained by immigration laws in Canada and the US who they can use in the new SHL. Only US players may be hired for US based teams - no Canadians and no Europeans - the talent pool gets shallow if an awful hurry.

And who crosses the picket lines? AHL'ers and ECHL'ers are already union members and crossing the line gets them bounced from their union not to mention that NHLPA members who cross will be banned from the NHLPA. When the labour dispute is over and the regular players are back (remember an impasse with replacement workers is only a temporary stopgap solution) what do they do about their pensions, disability insurance etc.???

I thought they are all planing on decertifying and sending all the owners to the gray bar hotel? Wouldn't decertifying the union cause them to lose their pensions and disability insurance? As for the all Canadian and all American teams... bring it on! If anything, that makes this all much more exciting for the fans. Every night its Canada vs. the U.S.A. People aren't going to see scab hockey for the talent level anyway, so its probably better there are no Europeans.
 

richardn

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
8,513
80
Sault Ste. Marie
I would not watch a single game with replacement players. I think the game would bet that it would be about as good as the ECHL tallent wise. I am against replacement players 100%.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Bloodsport said:
Regardless of the # of fans that may or may not show up what's the TV deal gonna look like without a "star player" or two? I mean Crosby has already said he will opt out of the draft so there you go no stars no (large) tv deal . No large tv deal = higher gate prices. I think the idea is dead in the water.

They already have a tv deal that brings in no money and you couldn't get your typical American to name a single star NHL player for a million bucks. Americans wouldn't know the difference between Mike Modano and Mike Keanan. Sadly, star power isn't an issue for the NHL because they haven't had a star since 1999.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Wetcoaster said:
In the 1994 baseball strike the teams were losing money even with the reduced payroll because scab ball did not play well at the gate and baseball did not have the lucrative national TV deal.

I would put the NHL closer to MLB.

I could be way off base (no pun intended) here, but I suspect that the main reason the MLB replacement games did not play well at the gate is because there were not games in the first place. Major league baseball held not one official replacement game. The strike ended while the replacements were in Spring Training. It's hard for something that doesn't exist to play well.

As for TV, major league teams had television revenues worth $716 million in 1994 (see Table 1 in the link below). I'm not sure how that compares to the NFL's 1987 deal, but I'd be stunned if they were all that disparate.

http://www.eh.net/graphics/encyclopedia/haupert.mlb.final.htm

That said, I doubt NHL replacement games would draw well. However, I also doubt that producing revenues for the owners would be the primary purpose.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Crazy Lunatic said:
They already have a tv deal that brings in no money and you couldn't get your typical American to name a single star NHL player for a million bucks. Americans wouldn't know the difference between Mike Modano and Mike Keanan. Sadly, star power isn't an issue for the NHL because they haven't had a star since 1999.


Why all the assinine anti-American crap around here?
Consider the fact St. Louis, Dallas, LA and Colorado sold out a better percentage of their buildings last year than Montreal, Calgary and Ottawa.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
dakota said:
i asked this in another forum but ill ask here ... could a player who is european cross the line and play? or do these immigration laws apply until after impasse is over? Can Jagr cross and play for the Rangers or is this illegal?
The impasse is immaterial to the immigration issue - there is already a labour dispute so no visa can be issued until it is finally settled. An impasse, imposed CBA and replacement teams are simply a continuation of the labour dispute.

Jagr unless he has obtained legal status as US legal immigrant or has become a US citizen (and I do not think either has occurred) could not play for the Rangers and cannot be issued a work permit to play as foreign national.

No European of Canadian players can play for US based teams. It is prohibited under immigration law.

The same applies in Canada if the NHL was able to get replacement teams in place and running. No US citizens or European players allowed.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
OTTSENS said:
The NHL has no choice but to declare in impasse. IMO it's the only way to resolve this dispute.
A declaration of impasse does not resolve the dispute - it is only temporary. The dispute continues and the NHL is still required to bargain towards an agreement with the union even if they can get a replacement league up and running.
 

Donnie D

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
796
62
Visit site
I've attended a replacement football game in Cincinnati - (I think they were better than the real Bengals that year) and I attended all of the White Sox replacement spring training baseball games down here in Sarasota.

So I guess I would also attend a replacement hockey game. Given that the basketball league is looking at a long strike, I may get a grand slam in Orlando.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
I could be way off base (no pun intended) here, but I suspect that the main reason the MLB replacement games did not play well at the gate is because there were not games in the first place. Major league baseball held not one official replacement game. The strike ended while the replacements were in Spring Training. It's hard for something that doesn't exist to play well.

As for TV, major league teams had television revenues worth $716 million in 1994 (see Table 1 in the link below). I'm not sure how that compares to the NFL's 1987 deal, but I'd be stunned if they were all that disparate.

http://www.eh.net/graphics/encyclopedia/haupert.mlb.final.htm

That said, I doubt NHL replacement games would draw well. However, I also doubt that producing revenues for the owners would be the primary purpose.
I am just scratching my head wondering why there hasn't been a reply to this message :dunno:
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
txomisc said:
Why would they be playing under that particular offer? What's to stop them from making future offers and using them in the case of an impasse?
According to Bettman and Saskin that offer was characterized as the NHL's final best offer.

In that case the NHL cannot go backwards - that would be bargaining in bad faith and an unfair labour practise.

Initially I was surprised that the NHLPA rejected it out of hand without further negotiation on the triggers but now I am considering that this was a tactic to stick the NHL with this offer. If so it was quite brilliant. Goodenow is acknowledged as a master tactician in negotiations. Bettman has stated that he cannot give more and he cannot go back because that would pretty much deep-six any chance of getting past the NLRB. If they do try to go back you may see an unfair laour practises complaint from the NHLPA.

According to Ted Saskin at his press conference the NHLPA did attempt further negotiations but on the issue of revenue sharing which is what the NHL chopped from the December 9, 2004 NHLPA proposal and completely side-stepped the triggers.

I am wondering if by holding off to the deadline yet again Goodenow has not gained an advantage and some leverage in future negotiations. He basically put the NHL in the same position the NHLPA was in after their December 9 offer and now has the whip hand.

It is will be interesting to seethis play out.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Crazy Lunatic said:
I thought they are all planing on decertifying and sending all the owners to the gray bar hotel? Wouldn't decertifying the union cause them to lose their pensions and disability insurance? As for the all Canadian and all American teams... bring it on! If anything, that makes this all much more exciting for the fans. Every night its Canada vs. the U.S.A. People aren't going to see scab hockey for the talent level anyway, so its probably better there are no Europeans.
What are you prattling on about... gray bar hotel???? Are you daft? This is civil law.

As I have said in the past decertification is nuclear strike weapon - usedonly when all other tactics appear to be unsuccessful. The NHLPA is nowhere near that point now.

The NFL decided to decertify because they determined they could not win under labour laws and as long as they had a union they were constrained from using antitrust law. The NBAPA and MLBPA simply threatened decertification and that was enough to bring the owners around. The owners do not want to play under antitrust law - they learned that from the 1987 NFL dispute.

The NHL pension fund is under a separate trusteeship which was made clear during the Carl Brewer pension litigation and as a result it has been completely divorced from ownership control. In the event that there was a decertification I would imagine the former NHLPA members vote to vest the plan under a different trust deed. It may need court approval but I do not see that as a major problem since it would be the trust beneficiaries seeking relief and given the NHL's past delicts, I doubt a court would give much of a concern about what the owners might say.

As far as disability insurance, the NHL has already indicated that they want the players to pay for placing that insurance as part of the new deal so they are not giving up very much at this point.
 

OlTimeHockey

Registered User
Dec 5, 2003
16,483
0
home
Assuming replacement players aren't as good at trapping and clogging as their millionaire brethren, I guess I'd have to live with wide open, fast paced hockey with fighting and no egos.

If the ticket's cheap enough, it's still the game I care about. The players 20 years ago didn't shoot as hard, skate as fast, pass as well as the players do today, and the game was more enjoyable back then.

Not to mention that the Canadiens and Canucks have nearby cities they can play in temporarily if it comes to that (Seattle Canucks? Albany/Hamilton Canadiens?).

But what keeps me from being positive about this is just the fact that anything Gary Bettman touches turns to **it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->