Bob McKenzie's article...NHL has six options
- Thread starter ladybugblue
- Start date
- Status
It would help if he came up with something more creative than copying the Detroit news article http://www.detnews.com/2005/wings/0503/06/A01-108831.htm
Chelios
Registered User
ScottyBowman said:
I think I lose more respect for you every post of yours I read. They are both reporting on the same thing. How different can the articles be?
ColoradoHockeyFan
Registered User
Forget all the talk about Bob's head. This article merits discussion on its own; thanks for posting. So here we see--again--mention of the infamous "third option" (the one Burke mentioned). And, funny enough, it's even #3 on this list. We also have mention of the "selective lockout" and even the explicit suggestion that it be selective based on salary. It's certainly interesting that they are presenting these options to the teams and asking for input... there's at least an implication here that they have at least some confidence that there's a legal leg to stand on in each of these cases, no?
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
Weary said:
You needn't pay him much mind, he just wants to make trouble. By the way, how do you feel about B.M.'s noggin??
Any idea where that 60 game schedule came from? I understand why he suggests fewer games. Fewer games with replacement players mean that the overall attendance doesn't need to be as high. But 60 seems so random.
I really don't know how well that "selective lockout" option would work. It is one thing to cross a line if an impasse is declared. Yes you are hated by your PA fellows but they all had a chance to do the same. Whereas with a selective lockout only the guys within those specified limits can choose to play or not. That would be the ultimate divide and conquer attempt by the league.
I really don't know how well that "selective lockout" option would work. It is one thing to cross a line if an impasse is declared. Yes you are hated by your PA fellows but they all had a chance to do the same. Whereas with a selective lockout only the guys within those specified limits can choose to play or not. That would be the ultimate divide and conquer attempt by the league.
It could be just a diversionary tactic. Get the union thinking about it, especially the union members that make less than $1 million. The two recent NLRB decisions that allow a selective lockout don't really support the idea of using pay rate as the basis of who is locked out. I don't know why the league would think they could get away with it.ColoradoHockeyFan said:
My guess is the 60 game schedule has to do with season ticket holders. A lot of teams are still holding a 50% deposit from those customers for the 2004-05 season which they are applying to the 2005-06 season. A refund can be had until the 2005-06 season is confirmed. Many ticket holders will be upset if the league announces the season will start with replacement players. Their deposits will be applied to the new season anyway.Flukeshot said:
How do you placate those ticket holders? Lower their prices. You could cut prices in half and their 50% deposit would cover the whole season. It's a good idea, since people are less likely to complain if they aren't forced to spend more money.
But that's a problem if the labor negotations are successful. The teams will bleed money if they have to start paying real NHLers again. So how do you mitigate risk? Shorten the season. You're effectively giving a 33% discount to your customers, not requiring them to pay any more money, and giving yourself some margin for error.
me2
Go ahead foot
Weary said:
Maybe ticket holders could elect one of three schemes
1. double the season tickets length (one of your suggestions)
2. 2 for 1 during replacement games (not sure how the seating would be worked out though)
3. defer some of payment until a future time, so 50% of the money stays in trust somewhere (nhlers come back).
4. Defer 100% until the NHLers come back
#2 has some good features if they get the seating worked out. It would make the rinks look fuller and the teams would not have to deal will season ticket holders clashing over seating. If 5000 fans take the #2 option then rinks 10000 fans plus who ever else comes. You could see 10000-14000 at games which would look better on TV than 5000-9000.
shveik
Registered User
Weary said:
This is one thing that the NHL should be very careful about. The season ticket holders should be allowed to make a choice of whether to keep their ticket in case the league restarts with replacements. It would be very foolish to alienate them by forcing anything down their throat (even if it is half price). This is where a petty greed can prove disastrous.
LordHelmet
Registered User
Ummmm... By no means am I a labor law expert, but how in the world is this at all legal? If this is really an option, why didn't the league go forward with this plan on February 20th?
The teams jerk their season ticket holders around all the time. Look at how many of them told customers they'd lose their seats if they didn't leave their deposit for the 2004-05 season as a deposit for the 2005-06.shveik said:
Does anyone have a list of the players that made under $1,000,000 last season? Or how many NHL players made under $1M last season.
Ryder was a U$1M player last season, all the HABS need to do is build a team around Ryder with other U$1M’ers and replacement players to win yet another Stanley Cup.
Ticket costs should be lowered so we can believe the BS spuing from the NHL that they are thinking of the fans, a sign of good faith or a penance if you will.
Instead of a team wide salary cap, the ‘replacement’ NHL season could have a $1 million individual player salary cap.
If this selective lockout comes by way of impasse could the NHL still hold its draft as scheduled?
850K rookie salary cap could see the disparity of the rookies/veterans being only 150K
Ryder was a U$1M player last season, all the HABS need to do is build a team around Ryder with other U$1M’ers and replacement players to win yet another Stanley Cup.
Ticket costs should be lowered so we can believe the BS spuing from the NHL that they are thinking of the fans, a sign of good faith or a penance if you will.
Instead of a team wide salary cap, the ‘replacement’ NHL season could have a $1 million individual player salary cap.
If this selective lockout comes by way of impasse could the NHL still hold its draft as scheduled?
850K rookie salary cap could see the disparity of the rookies/veterans being only 150K
rekrul
Registered User
selective lockout....
ok if your a owner you want the best product possible, if your Ottawa for instance do you tell Jason Spezza to report? if so does he or does the NHLPA and their cronies tell him " cross that line and you are going to get whacked" so to speak.
I mean what do teams do with the really good youngsters- the Bouwmeesters, Bergerosn, Eric stalls of the AHL?
ok if your a owner you want the best product possible, if your Ottawa for instance do you tell Jason Spezza to report? if so does he or does the NHLPA and their cronies tell him " cross that line and you are going to get whacked" so to speak.
I mean what do teams do with the really good youngsters- the Bouwmeesters, Bergerosn, Eric stalls of the AHL?
LordHelmet
Registered User
EndBoards said:
No draft could mean open season on prospects as well, depending on how the NHL and CHL decide to go ahead with a new agreement. Could get VERY interesting.
I wonder who a guy like Crosby would play with if the money was comparable (rookie caps) and he had an open choice?
I don't think the PA would stop Spezza from crossing. It's more likely that once the NHL allows certain players to cross, Goodenow will tell all players to report. The league will lockout the higher end players. But if the PA succesfully challenges the partial lockout, they should be able to get back pay for the players who were not allowed to report.rekrul said:
It's a pretty big gamble for the league. I don't think they'll actually try it.
Atlas
Registered User
- Sep 7, 2004
- 3,355
- 1
The principled stand for the owners is to create the terms for their own business. If the employees don't want to be a part of the owner's version of the NHL that's their right.
But the owners have tried to appease the NHLPA for years now and the whole damn thing is a mess. Appeasement never works in anything. It's like playing a Prevent Defense in the NFL. You give away your leverage for nothing. The fact that Bettman would accept the last CBA tells me that he isn't the man to make the NHL strong. No appeaser ever could be.
Goodenow, on the other hand, is a $hark plain and simple. All he knows is leverage.
But the owners have tried to appease the NHLPA for years now and the whole damn thing is a mess. Appeasement never works in anything. It's like playing a Prevent Defense in the NFL. You give away your leverage for nothing. The fact that Bettman would accept the last CBA tells me that he isn't the man to make the NHL strong. No appeaser ever could be.
Goodenow, on the other hand, is a $hark plain and simple. All he knows is leverage.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Wagers: 1Staked: $135.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 1Staked: $10.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
