NHL's non-Impasse options?

[Egil]

The player's refusal to even consider a cap is beside the point. Why haven't the owners made their best offer? Why haven't the owners made any offer that addresses all the issues.

Tom

Why havn't the players made their best offer? They TOUCHED on the problems in the current CBA, but again, their reforms were entirely cosmetic, and it wasn't their best offer either.

Both sides have been playing games, I don't think you can single out 1 side more than the other for this sort of behaviour.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Bunk. They are not surprised. They are disappointed, but they are not surprised. They are not fools. Anyone watching the NHL pageant unfold over the past five years could see this day coming. You could, couldn't you? What evidence to you have that allows you to make this guarantee?

The player's refusal to even consider a cap is beside the point. Why haven't the owners made their best offer? Why haven't the owners made any offer that addresses all the issues.

The players offered the owners at least $600 million to drop the idea of linkage between salaries and revenues. The owners turned it down. Fine. Their perogative. But they have an obligation to present something to entice the players to accept linkage. Bettman has made no bones about a willingness to negotiate cost (but not certainty) free agency, revenue sharing, the entry level system and even arbitration.

The player's won't negotiate these issues if it includes linkage? Too bad. All that means is that at this point, Bettman should be negotiating with himself. He should put together a package that addresses each of these issues and presents what the owners would reluctantly accept if the NHLPA did accept linkage and negotiated hard on each one of them. The result would be the NHL's best offer. He knows what the NHL is prepared to give. There is no longer a point to having any wriggle room. Put up the best the NHL is going to deliver if the players capitulate.

If they really believe the players are wavering, then slam something on the table that makes them think even harder.

I want an owner apologist to explain why that has not happened. The season is about to go down the drain and the owners still have not made a specific offer. They can't even demand that it go to a player vote because there is no contract proposal to vote on. It's ridiculous.

Tom

What concepts are not good enough for you????? :lol

 

[wazee]

Bunk. They are not surprised. They are disappointed, but they are not surprised. They are not fools. Anyone watching the NHL pageant unfold over the past five years could see this day coming. You could, couldn't you? What evidence to you have that allows you to make this guarantee?

Well, Yzerman sounded if not surprised, at least a little taken back, when he was quoted as saying they 'hoped' the owners would have backed off a cap by now. Roenick sounded a bit the same a couple of days ago. Perhaps 'surprised' is not quite the right word, but I got the distinct impression that neither Roenick nor Yzerman expected the owners to stick it out this long.

Why haven't the owners made their best offer?

Very simply, the owners have not put their best offer on the table because, if they did so, it would become the starting point for negotiations...and it would leave the owners with no bargaining chips when the real negotiations begin.

 

[Wetcoaster]

[/i]Well, Yzerman sounded if not surprised, at least a little taken back, when he was quoted as saying they 'hoped' the owners would have backed off a cap by now. Roenick sounded a bit the same a couple of days ago. Perhaps 'surprised' is not quite the right word, but I got the distinct impression that neither Roenick nor Yzerman expected the owners to stick it out this long.

The NHLPA has warned the players that this could be long lock-out.

During the World Cup in a lengthy interview with CBC Steve Yzerman noted that the season could well be lost if the owners did not move off a cap.

He also said something very revealing near the end of the interview. He noted he was around during the 1994 and was impressed by the leadership shown by the veteran players, many of whom would not benefit from the new CBA, recoup their losses or would see their careers cut short by an extended work stoppage. He said he admired them and then came the kicker - how could he now as veteran do anything else than support the NHLPA.

Stevie Y a class guy all the way.

 

[Kickabrat]

Very simply, the owners have not put their best offer on the table because, if they did so, it would become the starting point for negotiations...and it would leave the owners with no bargaining chips when the real negotiations begin.

I think its even simpler than that. The owners have not put their best offer forward because they are waiting for the players (rightly or wrongly) to come admit that playing in the NHL under a cap is better than playing in Europe, better than playing Senior Men's hockey, better than playing in the AHL, better than playing for a dubious WHA, better than sitting at home waiting.

They have already succedded in getting the players to admit the teams are losing money. When was the last time you heard anyone on the players side say anything bad about the Levitt report? Remember in the early going of this mess how the only thing the NHLPA had to say was how the report was flawed, the teams weren't actually losing money, the report was full of BS, etc. Then they offered a 24% pay cut, phase 1 complete.

Now the owners wait for phase 2, for the players to accept some form of linkage to revenues. Until they do, they can go to Europe and make 10% of their NHL salaries, they can go flip burgers if they want, the owners will string this out until the players agree to some form of linkage. Then its phase 3, throw them a bone on revenue sharing, floor cap,UFA whatever, and away they go, the 2005/06 season is then ready to begin.

 

[AM]

we disagree

Bunk. They are not surprised. They are disappointed, but they are not surprised. They are not fools. Anyone watching the NHL pageant unfold over the past five years could see this day coming. You could, couldn't you? What evidence to you have that allows you to make this guarantee?



The player's refusal to even consider a cap is beside the point. Why haven't the owners made their best offer? Why haven't the owners made any offer that addresses all the issues.

The players offered the owners at least $600 million to drop the idea of linkage between salaries and revenues. The owners turned it down. Fine. Their perogative. But they have an obligation to present something to entice the players to accept linkage. Bettman has made no bones about a willingness to negotiate cost (but not certainty) free agency, revenue sharing, the entry level system and even arbitration.

The player's won't negotiate these issues if it includes linkage? Too bad. All that means is that at this point, Bettman should be negotiating with himself. He should put together a package that addresses each of these issues and presents what the owners would reluctantly accept if the NHLPA did accept linkage and negotiated hard on each one of them. The result would be the NHL's best offer. He knows what the NHL is prepared to give. There is no longer a point to having any wriggle room. Put up the best the NHL is going to deliver if the players capitulate.

If they really believe the players are wavering, then slam something on the table that makes them think even harder.

I want an owner apologist to explain why that has not happened. The season is about to go down the drain and the owners still have not made a specific offer. They can't even demand that it go to a player vote because there is no contract proposal to vote on. It's ridiculous.

Tom

The actuality of something and the advent of that same thing are different things to most people.

....

The players gave up 600M? You know, I'd be more impressed if they covered the NHL losses over the last 5 years, rather then give up future monies based on that inflated system. I think thats enough said about that, unless you want me to laugh at you.

....

Personally, I think the owners offers have been more then fair. You know, when you're thinking of chopping off limbs(to stop their bleedingso you dont die), its hard to commiserate with the guy whos Ferrari just got a dent.

 

[Other Dave]

The players gave up 600M? You know, I'd be more impressed if they covered the NHL losses over the last 5 years

Losses over five years, eh? According to the owners they were losing money way back in '92. Have the owners ever made any money? If so, how much?

 

[wazee]

I think its even simpler than that. The owners have not put their best offer forward because they are waiting for the players (rightly or wrongly) to come admit that playing in the NHL under a cap is better than playing in Europe, better than playing Senior Men's hockey, better than playing in the AHL, better than playing for a dubious WHA, better than sitting at home waiting.

They have already succedded in getting the players to admit the teams are losing money. When was the last time you heard anyone on the players side say anything bad about the Levitt report? Remember in the early going of this mess how the only thing the NHLPA had to say was how the report was flawed, the teams weren't actually losing money, the report was full of BS, etc. Then they offered a 24% pay cut, phase 1 complete.

Now the owners wait for phase 2, for the players to accept some form of linkage to revenues. Until they do, they can go to Europe and make 10% of their NHL salaries, they can go flip burgers if they want, the owners will string this out until the players agree to some form of linkage. Then its phase 3, throw them a bone on revenue sharing, floor cap,UFA whatever, and away they go, the 2005/06 season is then ready to begin.

Yep. That is pretty much the way I think it will play out as well. I go back and forth about settling in time for a short season this year. It will kill me to go without hockey all year. OTOH, cancelling this whole season would certainly change the way both sides would regard time-frames in the next negotiations...

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Yep. That is pretty much the way I think it will play out as well. I go back and forth about settling in time for a short season this year. It will kill me to go without hockey all year. OTOH, cancelling this whole season would certainly change the way both sides would regard time-frames in the next negotiations...

If the owners caved, they could never lock out the players again. The players would know for a FACT that the owners would cave every time. I believe Garry has said so himself. If the owners can hold it together and an entire season is lost, both sides wont wait untill January in the next NHL lockout to start negotiating.

 

[wazee]

The NHLPA has warned the players that this could be long lock-out.

During the World Cup in a lengthy interview with CBC Steve Yzerman noted that the season could well be lost if the owners did not move off a cap.

He also said something very revealing near the end of the interview. He noted he was around during the 1994 and was impressed by the leadership shown by the veteran players, many of whom would not benefit from the new CBA, recoup their losses or would see their careers cut short by an extended work stoppage. He said he admired them and then came the kicker - how could he now as veteran do anything else than support the NHLPA.

Stevie Y a class guy all the way.

No argument about Yzerman being a class act.

I have no doubt that he and the other players were told that this could go on all season. But there is a difference between knowing on an intellectual basis that something could happen, and the emotions that are experienced when that very thing does happen. Intellectually, the players were prepared to lose the season. However, in the back of their minds, they had keep the thought that the owners had caved before and hold the hope that they would again. With that hope fading and reality setting in, their seems to be a different tone to the comments from the more thoughtful players. If not surprise, disappointment, or perhaps just a bit of wistfullness...

 

[Greschner4]

Losses over five years, eh? According to the owners they were losing money way back in '92. Have the owners ever made any money? If so, how much?

U.S. airlines combined have lost money over the last 20 years, so it's certainly not inconceivable that owners of NHL teams have as well.

 

[djhn579]

I think its even simpler than that. The owners have not put their best offer forward because they are waiting for the players (rightly or wrongly) to come admit that playing in the NHL under a cap is better than playing in Europe, better than playing Senior Men's hockey, better than playing in the AHL, better than playing for a dubious WHA, better than sitting at home waiting.

They have already succedded in getting the players to admit the teams are losing money. When was the last time you heard anyone on the players side say anything bad about the Levitt report? Remember in the early going of this mess how the only thing the NHLPA had to say was how the report was flawed, the teams weren't actually losing money, the report was full of BS, etc. Then they offered a 24% pay cut, phase 1 complete.

Now the owners wait for phase 2, for the players to accept some form of linkage to revenues. Until they do, they can go to Europe and make 10% of their NHL salaries, they can go flip burgers if they want, the owners will string this out until the players agree to some form of linkage. Then its phase 3, throw them a bone on revenue sharing, floor cap,UFA whatever, and away they go, the 2005/06 season is then ready to begin.

To go a little bit further, I'll need a professional negotiator on this, but what happens if the NHL puts forth a full CBA and the players agree to everything except the cap part of it? Can the entire deal be pulled off the table, or would that be considered bargaining in bad faith?

The owners have consistently stated that if they get the players to agree to cost certainty, the would be willing to bend on everything else. In this light, until the players agree to some form of cost certainty, offering anything other concrete details is pointless.

 

[me2]

No argument about Yzerman being a class act.

I have no doubt that he and the other players were told that this could go on all season. But there is a difference between knowing on an intellectual basis that something could happen, and the emotions that are experienced when that very thing does happen. Intellectually, the players were prepared to lose the season. However, in the back of their minds, they had keep the thought that the owners had caved before and hold the hope that they would again. With that hope fading and reality setting in, their seems to be a different tone to the comments from the more thoughtful players. If not surprise, disappointment, or perhaps just a bit of wistfullness...

One of the biggest stingers for some of these guys is missing out on a Stanley Cup chance. It could be the last serious shot many of the older Wings ever get. It could be TOs and Philly's best chance for years to come. For young guys on teams like SJ or Calgary who are reaching their prime, this might have been their year.....

 

[me2]

The players offered the owners at least $600 million to drop the idea of linkage between salaries and revenues. The owners turned it down. Fine. Their perogative. But they have an obligation to present something to entice the players to accept linkage. Bettman has made no bones about a willingness to negotiate cost (but not certainty) free agency, revenue sharing, the entry level system and even arbitration.

The players are prepared to implement a salary rollback to Bettman-likable levels of salary.

The players are prepared to implement a system they believe will maintain Bettman-likable levels of salary long term.

The players claim they are prepared to work under a cap if their system fails.

But they won't sign off on a cap or cost certainty? They say they will never accept a cap yet offered one?

It if looks like a duck, and it quacks like a ducks, its probably a duck.

So why won't they just sign on Bettman's dotted line if all of their fiddling around is genuinely designed to achieve an identical result? What are they arguing over, the word "cap"?

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

The players are prepared to implement a salary rollback to Bettman-likable levels of salary.

The players are prepared to implement a system they believe will maintain Bettman-likable levels of salary long term.

The players claim they are prepared to work under a cap if their system fails.

But they won't sign off on a cap or cost certainty? They say they will never accept a cap yet offered one?

It if looks like a duck, and it quacks like a ducks, its probably a duck.

So why won't they just sign on Bettman's dotted line if all of their fiddling around is genuinely designed to achieve an identical result? What are they arguing over, the word "cap"?

If you listen to Tom, the players are doing all of this out of principle. :lol

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

I'd bet $1,000 the WHA has already called Bob Goodenow and told him they will cut basically any agreement he thinks is fair. The WHA won't be able to generate enough revenues to pay the players very much, but they won't need a cap to tell them that.

That's not a bad next move for Goodenow. Tell the WHA the union will deliver the players

Would not this be a violation of union organization and certification protocol, though? Many labor codes stipulate that it is solely up to the employees to determine whether they want representation. A pre-cut deal between the NHLPA and the WHA would certainly be viewed as suspicious.

A better scenario might be to have players invite the PHPA to represent them, as the PHPA has more experience in this sort of league.

Of course, this scenario is predicated on the WHA getting off the ground in the first place, of which I am skeptical.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Would not this be a violation of union organization and certification protocol, though? Many labor codes stipulate that it is solely up to the employees to determine whether they want representation. A pre-cut deal between the NHLPA and the WHA would certainly be viewed as suspicious.

A better scenario might be to have players invite the PHPA to represent them, as the PHPA has more experience in this sort of league.

Of course, this scenario is predicated on the WHA getting off the ground in the first place, of which I am skeptical.

The WHA is going to have a hard cap, just like every other sane sports league in North America.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

The WHA is going to have a hard cap, just like every other sane sports league in North America.

Why?

It would depend upon what is negotiated with their respective players union, if indeed there was to be one. Without a CBA, there is no salary cap.

Players would have the leverage, as an upstart league would be crying for credibility.

At any rate, everything I've read about the WHA is that they are not positioning themselves as direct competition with the NHL outside of a few marquee players. A prominent player could concievably name his own price. Bobby Hull did in the original WHA. In fact, the entire league chipped in to sign him.

All a well-funded WHA would have to do is outbid the NHL's rookie salary cap for unsigned kids and young players finished with their first contracts. Targetting the 17-24 year old player is certainly do-able. In fact, that would be a very appealing demographic to sell. Change a few rules (4 on 4, no red line, and let the young hot shots strut their stuff).

Beat the NHL rookie cap and NHL/AHL salaries for young players on two-way contracts and they'd stock up six franchises pretty quick.