NHL's Motive

Status
Not open for further replies.

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
Just prior to cancelling the season the NHL took a huge advantage in negotiations
with the NHLPA dropping their resistance to a salary cap,thus their "matter of
principle" and "philosophical differences".Everyone expected NHL to play hardball
but actually they seem to have become more accomadating and imo a major
breakthrough came when Bettman came out with a statement that they
wouldn't be looking at replacement players and wanted to negotiate with the
NHLPA.Now it looks like they might be the ones giving the most ground to the
NHLPA.

My question is did the NHL not really want to get a deal done for a shortened season and actually preferred to lose a whole season as opposed to play
a 25-30 game season.Does the timing of when the salaries come in factor into
it?(meaning although it would be a shortened season it would still start the
inflation process by one year). What about the Crosby factor? Shortly after
Bettman started talking softer he floated the idea of every team getting
a shot at Crosby.(something he couldn't have done if there was a shortened
season).I never really believed the "Crosby to New York" conspiracy
theory but I'm starting to wonder. Also the Memorial Cup saw more NHL
brass then ever including Bettman at a Rimouski game and soon after that
the NHL is doing some serious testing about rule changes to open up the
game more to show off the more skilled players.Anyway it looks like the NHL
is serious about wanting to play hockey this year and last year it looked like
they weren't in a rush. Are there any other reasons in this sudden shift in
posture?
 

BobMckenzie

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
343
3
pei fan said:
Now it looks like they might be the ones giving the most ground to the
NHLPA.

Until the deal is done and on the table for everyone to see, hard to make firm evaluations, but on your point that the NHL is giving in to the NHLPA, I couldn't see it any differently.

The NHLPA said no cap. There's going to be a cap.
The NHLPA said no linkage. There's going to be linkage.
On top of the cap and linkage, there's going to be a payroll tax.
History will be the true judge of who wins and loses, but at face value...cap, linkage and tax=game, set and match, IMO.
 

ryz

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
3,245
0
Canada
BobMckenzie said:
Until the deal is done and on the table for everyone to see, hard to make firm evaluations, but on your point that the NHL is giving in to the NHLPA, I couldn't see it any differently.

The NHLPA said no cap. There's going to be a cap.
The NHLPA said no linkage. There's going to be linkage.
On top of the cap and linkage, there's going to be a payroll tax.
History will be the true judge of who wins and loses, but at face value...cap, linkage and tax=game, set and match, IMO.
As expected, Bob is bang on. The NHL may throw the PA a bone or two in concerns to free agency and qualifying offers and all but in terms of the real meat of the CBA the NHL is gonna beat the NHLPA down 7 ways to Sunday.
 

sveiglar

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
8,585
4
ryz said:
As expected, Bob is bang on. The NHL may throw the PA a bone or two in concerns to free agency and qualifying offers and all but in terms of the real meat of the CBA the NHL is gonna beat the NHLPA down 7 ways to Sunday.

Agreed. Both the NHL and NHLPA walked into this fight. When the PA agreed to the cap, they were on the mat with the NHL's foot across their throat. Just because the NHL isn't stepping down and is letting them get a breath doesn't change the fact that they are on the mat looking up.
 

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
BobMckenzie said:
Until the deal is done and on the table for everyone to see, hard to make firm evaluations, but on your point that the NHL is giving in to the NHLPA, I couldn't see it any differently.

The NHLPA said no cap. There's going to be a cap.
The NHLPA said no linkage. There's going to be linkage.
On top of the cap and linkage, there's going to be a payroll tax.
History will be the true judge of who wins and loses, but at face value...cap, linkage and tax=game, set and match, IMO.
I should have qualified that statement and I made it based on the globe article
but I've since read some of your comments and so maybe not as many
concessions to NHLPA.But as far as cap and linkage goes I'm going on the
presumption that those were forgone conclusions once the NHLPA caved in on principle(at least the cap) and that the NHL is conceding on some of the smaller issues.

At least do you not think that there is a change in the NHL's tone and towards
more urgency or do you think it's just a matter that the NHLPA is finally willing
to talk?
 
Last edited:

Ludwig Fell Down

Registered User
Feb 19, 2005
3,694
2,409
South Shore, MA
pei fan said:
My question is did the NHL not really want to get a deal done for a shortened season and actually preferred to lose a whole season as opposed to play
a 25-30 game season.

I maintained that the league did not want to get a deal done in February, as most teams would have lost money. Teams would have been scrambling to assemble rosters and hire employees for marketing, ticket sales, consessions, etc. I'm not sure how great attendance would be, and with 13-15 home dates, I suspect teams would lose money unless they went far in the playoffs. At that point, I think the players had a much greater incentive than the owners.

Of course, this view doesn't consider the long term and how much damage has been done to the game in terms of fan interest, tv revenue, etc.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,910
21,233
New York
www.youtube.com
NHL sides close in on deal

Negotiators for the NHL and the NHL Players' Association have made so much progress on defining revenues and salary-cap issues that they've moved on to other important aspects of the bargaining agreement.

Sources also contend that the deal is actually being written and lawyered as the process goes on, so that when the two sides eventually do come to an agreement — likely this month — they will be able to bring the completed document to their constituents for ratification votes as soon as possible.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...64&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Thanks for the link RangerBoy... nice to see a Toronto writer who actually realizes the Leafs are in a world of hurt when the game returns.

On a side note... that article mentions that they're discussion Olympic participation in the meetings. I'm glad that' something that they're discussing because they need to make up their damn minds on that subject.
 

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
Ludwig Fell Down said:
I maintained that the league did not want to get a deal done in February, as most teams would have lost money. Teams would have been scrambling to assemble rosters and hire employees for marketing, ticket sales, consessions, etc. I'm not sure how great attendance would be, and with 13-15 home dates, I suspect teams would lose money unless they went far in the playoffs. At that point, I think the players had a much greater incentive than the owners.
Well I think both sides have finally seen the incentive to negotiate rather
than continue their posturing.One of the things that made me positive about these latest talks when they began a number of weeks ago is that they were low
key and weren't followed by a press conference every single day as was the
case before.All this doesn't mean a deal is done yet but it sure as heck looks
like things are moving in the right direction.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
pei fan said:
My question is did the NHL not really want to get a deal done for a shortened season and actually preferred to lose a whole season as opposed to play
a 25-30 game season.

The answer is absolutely, positively no. The NHL breaks even on the season and makes its money on the playoffs. A shortened season, with means little salary layout, followed by a playoff, wher players don't get paid, is the ideal situation for the NHL. That's why they were willing to go as high as $42 million for a cap then, when they won't go near that high now.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
BobMckenzie said:
Until the deal is done and on the table for everyone to see, hard to make firm evaluations, but on your point that the NHL is giving in to the NHLPA, I couldn't see it any differently.

The NHLPA said no cap. There's going to be a cap.
The NHLPA said no linkage. There's going to be linkage.
On top of the cap and linkage, there's going to be a payroll tax.
History will be the true judge of who wins and loses, but at face value...cap, linkage and tax=game, set and match, IMO.
Interesting

1) Until the deal is done and on the table for everyone to see, hard to make firm evaluations

2) There's going to be a cap, There's going to be linkage, There's going to be a payroll tax.


:dunno: :D
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
The Messenger said:
Interesting

1) Until the deal is done and on the table for everyone to see, hard to make firm evaluations

2) There's going to be a cap, There's going to be linkage, There's going to be a payroll tax.


:dunno: :D

He said at face value.
 

Ludwig Fell Down

Registered User
Feb 19, 2005
3,694
2,409
South Shore, MA
arnie said:
The answer is absolutely, positively no. The NHL breaks even on the season and makes its money on the playoffs. A shortened season, with means little salary layout, followed by a playoff, wher players don't get paid, is the ideal situation for the NHL. That's why they were willing to go as high as $42 million for a cap then, when they won't go near that high now.

I agree that's the case in general, but would question whether they would have broken even last year in the regular season, with the limited number of home dates and (likely) poor attendance in a number of cities. The salary layout is obviously less because of the short season, but the percentage of revenues would have been even poorer, IMO.

Out of 30 teams, 14 would have missed the playoffs, and another 8 eliminated after 1 round, with 2-3 extra home dates. The rest would have clearly profited, but I suspect that a majority would not.
 

BobMckenzie

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
343
3
The Messenger said:
Interesting

1) Until the deal is done and on the table for everyone to see, hard to make firm evaluations

2) There's going to be a cap, There's going to be linkage, There's going to be a payroll tax.


:dunno: :D

Oh, I get it...you're making a funny. :biglaugh:

At the risk of overstating the obvious, my point was we have to be careful about not evaluating too many of the details because we don't know the details, but if you're suggesting I've contradicted that by saying there is going to be a cap, there is going to be linkage and there is going to be a tax...well, that's a risk I'm prepared to take. You may have missed the distinction between "evaluating" the deal and talking about the broad concepts that we know to be a part of it. Big difference, IMO, perhaps you missed it.

:D
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
BobMckenzie said:
Oh, I get it...you're making a funny. :biglaugh:

At the risk of overstating the obvious, my point was we have to be careful about not evaluating too many of the details because we don't know the details, but if you're suggesting I've contradicted that by saying there is going to be a cap, there is going to be linkage and there is going to be a tax...well, that's a risk I'm prepared to take. You may have missed the distinction between "evaluating" the deal and talking about the broad concepts that we know to be a part of it. Big difference, IMO, perhaps you missed it.

:D
"my point was we have to be careful about not evaluating too many of the details because we don't know the details"

Exactly why I posted that original post because when I read " There's going to be" it sounded like you're no longer fairly certain but rather completely convinced..

Perhaps "I believe there's going to be" or "Odds are that we will have " may have been a safer position .. not that I am saying based on the reports you're necessarily wrong as to the outcome ..

Remember yesterdays report also was very confusing in the fact that it reapeatedly said Team by team revenues and not league Revenues and even your name sake commented on the same thing ..

McKenzie: Latest cap story is confusing : http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

Balancing out reports released from a member of the Negotiating team on the NHLPA side on USA today yesterday said ;

"The NHLPA and NHL discussions this week continue to cover a range of issues such as controls on team salaries, revenue sharing, Olympic participation, the amateur player draft and player retention rights. While the parties continue to have discussions to reach a common ground, no agreements have been reached," NHLPA spokesman Jonathan Weatherdon said"

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2005-06-08-salary-cap_x.htm
So we are all walking on egg shells was just of my post and I wouldn't be certain of anything yet .. I have seen many Union negotiations get close and then completely blow up ..
 
Last edited:

BobMckenzie

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
343
3
The Messenger; So we are all walking on egg shells was just of my post and I wouldn't be certain of anything yet .. I have seen many Union negotiations get close and then completely blow up ..[/QUOTE said:
We are in full agreement on that point. I should have prefaced my remarks with assuming there's going to be deal, there will be a cap, there will be linkage and there will be a tax, but when you talk about this stuff day in and day out, the disclaimer sometimes gets lost in the shuffle.

You are absolutely right, though. No deal until both sides sign off on EVERYTHING. Now, my opinion is there's finally too much at stake for this thing to go off the rails and not get back on track in time to play hockey in the fall, but you never know. I've been wrong before...once (just kidding).

But in terms of the elements we were talking about, I will guarantee you this. The new CBA, whenever it's reached, will have a cap and will have linkage and I think reasonable people on both sides of the labour fence would tell you exactly that.
 

King_Brown

Guest
Can you please explain to me what was meant by the April 4th NHLPA linkage and the NHL's linkage? It been confusing reading about it, because the media is making the NHLPA linkage to be different then the NHL's linkage. Is linkage not linkage? And did the NHL not offer a floating cap also with linkage?

Thanks
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
I suspect the NHLPA linkage was simply linking the cap figures to revenue, but having no guarantee that player costs would be 54% (or whatever). So say you agree that the top cap should be 64% of player costs, and the floor 44%. But if everyone spends 64%, the PA's linkage would do nothing to prevent that, whereas the NHL linkage probably will ensure that situation wont occur.
 

blitzkriegs

Registered User
May 26, 2003
13,150
1
Beach & Mtn & Island
Visit site
The Messenger said:
"my point was we have to be careful about not evaluating too many of the details because we don't know the details"

Exactly why I posted that original post because when I read " There's going to be" it sounded like you're no longer fairly certain but rather completely convinced..

Perhaps "I believe there's going to be" or "Odds are that we will have " may have been a safer position .. not that I am saying based on the reports you're necessarily wrong as to the outcome ..

Remember yesterdays report also was very confusing in the fact that it reapeatedly said Team by team revenues and not league Revenues and even your name sake commented on the same thing ..

McKenzie: Latest cap story is confusing : http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

Balancing out reports released from a member of the Negotiating team on the NHLPA side on USA today yesterday said ;

So we are all walking on egg shells was just of my post and I wouldn't be certain of anything yet .. I have seen many Union negotiations get close and then completely blow up ..

If your gonna nit-pick people to death over how one presents the info, then maybe you might want to defer on the side of caution of a well respected journalist rather than a run-of-the mill poster arounf here. Is Bob immune from criticism? No. But mindless nit-picking may DISUADE him from offering his insight around here. For that, please have the undo respect of the HF community to give a little extra thought when nit-picking certain people. It's called respect and he deserves it. Remember, Bob DOES NOT have to be here, rather he CHOOSES to be here VOLUNTARILY.

Further, he provided 3 main topics of what the new CBA will entail, but also said that they will part of the new CBA., which is never final until done. I think there is enough info around the press (contradictory or not) that those 3 elements are part of the new CBA. What lies beneath them (the sub issues) may alter the weight and veracity of each element - something he DID not comment on b/c no one seems to know it yet.

Unfortunately, as Bob pointed out, when the PA took certain stances against certain things and eventually caved into them that's what is going on right now. Just b/c the PA has now accepted a cap. linkage, tax (all in general) does not mean that they are working the sub elements of each to the best of their ability. It's just that those are THE main topics to be. If BG had a Plan B besides nothing, then maybe we would know what is going on under those main topics. But since he never did, well then apparently his Plan B has turned into the owners Plan A just with the PA trying to claw away underneath it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->