Conway :Pro hockey's ultimate betrayal continues

[Gee Wally]

Well, here we are, May 1, and still nothing in the form of an agreement between representatives of National Hockey League club owners and the players union in their bitter contract dispute.

It's been a week since Bobby Orr had the guts to stand up and say what was on his mind in The Eagle-Tribune about the disastrous effect so-called leaders of the game were having on the sport.

Like so many others who care about what has happened, what the effects are in this ridiculous tug-of-war, and what the result will be, the damage already done had festered to the point where someone of Orr's stature needed to come out and say it




http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050501/SP_004.htm

Click to read more...

 

[vopatsrash]

"Now it's time for others from all sides -- management to players, fans, sponsors, agents and media included -- to stop being puppets."

That's nice and all, but the NHL and NHLPA obviously don't care about what a) the fans think, b) the former players think, and c) the media thinks. And, they don't seem to care what the agents and sponsors think as well. You keep hearing about sponsors threatening to pull their money and tv partners threatening to not air their games, but they don't seem to care.

How many columns have we read denouncing them and calling for action? We've read column after column after column after column and it doesn't make a difference.

How many letters have we written, as fans, to the NHL and NHLPA calling for action? Countless, and they go unanswered and ignored.

How many former players have called out the NHL and NHLPA in the media? Countless, and they are ignored.

The ONLY way this will ever sort itself out is if a group of players grows enough sack to speak their mind and overthrow their leadership AND/OR, a group of owners overthrow their leadership. Until those things happen, "the league" will be us watching Bettman and Goodenow standing their with their pants around their ankles, holding rulers and comparing their respective sizes.

 

[Atlas]

The ONLY way this will ever sort itself out is if a group of players grows enough sack to speak their mind and overthrow their leadership AND/OR, a group of owners overthrow their leadership.

Well put. The players are the key. It is as plain as the nose on your face that Goodenow is the problem.The league has vices of its own in the way it is running the game but that has little or nothing to do with the CBA. They've done their best with the CBA negotiations.

This whole thing is reality's way of smoothing out jagged egos.

 

[slosharksfan*]

why are they locked out? eh "who is john galt"
(Ayn Rand fan anyone?)

 

[Atlas]

why are they locked out? eh "who is john galt"
(Ayn Rand fan anyone?)

Everyone, even the owners have been calling this thing a lockout but that's not the right word for what this is. A lockout would mean that a deal was in place and the owners broke it by locking the doors on the players and keeping them away.

What has happened here is that the old agreement ended. Neither side currently has a contract to work under. The players are not being locked out of anything because there is no agreement for them to be locked out of.


Edit: I don't specifically recall any of the owners using the term "lockout" but they have not spoken out against the term which implies they have accepted it. That was a Goodenow victory.

 

[kenabnrmal]

Everyone, even the owners have been calling this thing a lockout but that's not the right word for what this is. A lockout would mean that a deal was in place and the owners broke it by locking the doors on the players and keeping them away.

What has happened here is that the old agreement ended. Neither side currently has a contract to work under. The players are not being locked out of anything because there is no agreement for them to be locked out of.


Edit: I don't specifically recall any of the owners using the term "lockout" but they have not spoken out against the term which implies they have accepted it. That was a Goodenow victory.

Its something akin to people labelling restricted free agents' contract negotiations dragging into training camp and the season as a "holdout". Its not a holdout because there is no contract, so he's not holding out on anything.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Everyone, even the owners have been calling this thing a lockout but that's not the right word for what this is. A lockout would mean that a deal was in place and the owners broke it by locking the doors on the players and keeping them away.

What has happened here is that the old agreement ended. Neither side currently has a contract to work under. The players are not being locked out of anything because there is no agreement for them to be locked out of.


Edit: I don't specifically recall any of the owners using the term "lockout" but they have not spoken out against the term which implies they have accepted it. That was a Goodenow victory.

It is a lockout. That is the proper term.

The NHL could have continued to play under the prior CBA without extending it but chose to lock out the players.

There are many instances where the employer and union continue on with an expired CBA. Oncer the CBA has expired then the union could strike or the employer could lock out the players at any time with the proper notice.

As long as a CBA is not expired, there can be no lockout or strike.

 

[Weary]

Everyone, even the owners have been calling this thing a lockout but that's not the right word for what this is. A lockout would mean that a deal was in place and the owners broke it by locking the doors on the players and keeping them away.

What has happened here is that the old agreement ended. Neither side currently has a contract to work under. The players are not being locked out of anything because there is no agreement for them to be locked out of.


Edit: I don't specifically recall any of the owners using the term "lockout" but they have not spoken out against the term which implies they have accepted it. That was a Goodenow victory.

It is a lockout. Prior to the contract expiration the owners cannot lock out the players, nor can the players strike. The owners felt it was in their own best interest to halt play. That was their decision.

The players went on strike in 1992 long after their agreement with the league had expired. Was that not a strike? If not, what was it?

 

[Atlas]

The players went on strike in 1992 long after their agreement with the league had expired. Was that not a strike? If not, what was it?

No if that's what happened then that was not a strike. To strike is to refuse to work under your current contract, to break your agreement. If there is no agreement there can be no strike. What would you be striking against?

This is not a lockout. There is no agreement to be locked out of.


The NHL-NHLPA case is a muddled in a sense because there are contracts within contracts. Players signed multi-year deals beyond the CBA (that probably shouldn't be legal) and so one might say those players are locked out but the CBA (or lack thereof) supercedes those player's contracts.

 

[Atlas]

Its something akin to people labelling restricted free agents' contract negotiations dragging into training camp and the season as a "holdout". Its not a holdout because there is no contract, so he's not holding out on anything.

Great point. That's an excellent example of the same twisting of words.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by Weary
The players went on strike in 1992 long after their agreement with the league had expired. Was that not a strike? If not, what was it?

No if that's what happened then that was not a strike. To strike is to refuse to work under your current contract, to break your agreement. If there is no agreement there can be no strike. What would you be striking against?

This is not a lockout. There is no agreement to be locked out of.

Bzzt. Sorry, wrong. Thanks for playing.

The vast majority of strikes (and all of the "legal" ones) happen at the end of a CBA, or during an interim period while a new CBA is being negotiated and businesses continue to operate under the terms of the expired CBA.

There are cases of Wildcat Strikes (not "officially" sanctioned by the union) during the life of a labor contract to influence management or provide leverage going into upcoming negotiations, but that is the exception, not the rule.

To officially strike or lockout during the course of a negotiated CBA would be a breach of contract and lead to significant monetary damages being awarded (and possibly court injunctions).

Yes this is a lockout. And the 1992 players strike was a strike.

 

[Wetcoaster]

No if that's what happened then that was not a strike. To strike is to refuse to work under your current contract, to break your agreement. If there is no agreement there can be no strike. What would you be striking against?

This is not a lockout. There is no agreement to be locked out of.


The NHL-NHLPA case is a muddled in a sense because there are contracts within contracts. Players signed multi-year deals beyond the CBA (that probably shouldn't be legal) and so one might say those players are locked out but the CBA (or lack thereof) supercedes those player's contracts.

You are not correct.

What you describe is a wild cat strike and they are generally illegal under most labour law regimes.

Legal strike position is achieved after the expiration of a CBA or during the period of seeking a first CBA.

 

[codswallop]

It is a lockout. That is the proper term.

The NHL could have continued to play under the prior CBA without extending it but chose to lock out the players.

There are many instances where the employer and union continue on with an expired CBA. Oncer the CBA has expired then the union could strike or the employer could lock out the players at any time with the proper notice.

As long as a CBA is not expired, there can be no lockout or strike.

I think we are all agreed it is a lockout.

If the positions were reversed and the players felt they were being screwed over, then they definitely would have gone on strike (just as the owners decided to lock out the players). Regardless of who was being given the shaft, I wouldn't blame either side one bit for not extending the current agreement.

For those who believe it, I just can't understand the logic behind heaping the blame on the owners simply because it is a "lockout". It's much too narrow-minded, and doesn't take into account everything that led up to this stalemate.

Yes, the owners do bear some of this burden. They've made enough mistakes in the last decade, some of the weight has to fall on them. But the NHLPA is not an innocent by-stander from any point of view, some of the trouble comes from their side as well.

Not that this actually matters now (even though some people just won't give up playing the blame game). It's about getting the league and the players on the road back to health, no more. Egos and personal feelings only serve to get in the way (and annoy at this point). We shouldn't give a damn who, in theory, comes out on top. It's very far beyond that, regarless of what we might feel on a more personal level.

I have the feeling that I'm talking to the wind again, but as always I had to try.

 

[Weary]

For those who believe it, I just can't understand the logic behind heaping the blame on the owners simply because it is a "lockout". It's much too narrow-minded, and doesn't take into account everything that led up to this stalemate.

If the owners had locked the players out after the first time the CBA expired, I would be inclined to agree. But they twice renewed the agreement and now are looking for a radically different one. If they had used the two previous expirations to make incremental changes, they might not have even needed a lockout. Instead they got greedy and extended the agreement so as not to lose out on expansion fees.

I think that's why the owners must be assigned almost 100% of the blame. If the last CBA was terrible, it should've been evident long ago. If it was evident long ago, they should've taken action at that time. If the last CBA wasn't that bad, then what the players have given up so far should be adequate for a new agreement.

 

[AM]

hind sight

If the owners had locked the players out after the first time the CBA expired, I would be inclined to agree. But they twice renewed the agreement and now are looking for a radically different one. If they had used the two previous expirations to make incremental changes, they might not have even needed a lockout. Instead they got greedy and extended the agreement so as not to lose out on expansion fees.

I think that's why the owners must be assigned almost 100% of the blame. If the last CBA was terrible, it should've been evident long ago. If it was evident long ago, they should've taken action at that time. If the last CBA wasn't that bad, then what the players have given up so far should be adequate for a new agreement.

is always 20-20.

Also, you fail to mention when the owners did try to change the deal.

Regardless, assigning blame like that would only be pertinent if the owners were trying to recoup wages paid.

As it is, the point is moot, and by now, pointing this out is strictly pernicious to the players being in the right frame of mind to make the required deal.

 

[NYIsles1*]

I tend to dislike articles like this because on one hand they tell us boycott and on the other they tell us no one cares about hockey. Sounds nice, reads well and changes nothing.

Some owners did put the league where it is today there is no doubt about that but things have to change for this business because it's not profitable.

Goodenow wants no part of that problem. He wants the billionaire corporate owners to spend money regardless if their hockey businesses continue to lose money.

I think he is more than willing to trade jobs (teams) for the highest cap and force owners to ice replacements or sit out a second year. Before the stoppage even started he told the players be ready to hold out two years.

He wants no part of cost-certainty and his only answers are a one-time giveback and a luxury tax with a very high cap that would change nothing.

Bottom line his job is to make every dollar he can for today's player.

If your the owner of an NHL team how do you negotiate against that, what do the owners have to give? It's not like the NHL has twenty teams making ten million or more in profits, several teams are losing ten million or more.

 

[Weary]

is always 20-20.

Also, you fail to mention when the owners did try to change the deal.

The owners tried to change the deal after they raked in all those expansion fees. If the deal they were working under was so bad, why not forego the fees for a few months?

Regardless, assigning blame like that would only be pertinent if the owners were trying to recoup wages paid.

As it is, the point is moot, and by now, pointing this out is strictly pernicious to the players being in the right frame of mind to make the required deal.

The point is question was why do people feel the owners are to blame for the lockout. I simply provided an answer. Since the owners haven't been the best decision makers, perhaps they are the ones needing to find the right frame of mind to make a deal.

 

[slosharksfan*]

Everyone, even the owners have been calling this thing a lockout but that's not the right word for what this is. A lockout would mean that a deal was in place and the owners broke it by locking the doors on the players and keeping them away.

What has happened here is that the old agreement ended. Neither side currently has a contract to work under. The players are not being locked out of anything because there is no agreement for them to be locked out of.


Edit: I don't specifically recall any of the owners using the term "lockout" but they have not spoken out against the term which implies they have accepted it. That was a Goodenow victory.

wow, yuo totally whent a unexpected way with that, i was just refrencing where you might have got your screen name from, oh well,

 

[Atlas]

wow, yuo totally whent a unexpected way with that, i was just refrencing where you might have got your screen name from, oh well,

Not sure what you mean exactly sharksfan. I caught what you said but didn't know what you were lookin' for or asking. Sorry dude.


The term "lockout" is being used because it makes the owners look bad. It has negative connotations that plays well in the media. It implies that the owners are breaking an agreement with the NHLPA. Notice that Goodenow uses that word instead of words like "disagreement" or "differences" to shift the attention onto the league.

Feel free to call it what ever you like but the owners are not breaking any agreements, they simply do not have an agreement in place. You can not be locked out of something that doesn't exist.

 

[kdb209]

The term "lockout" is being used because it makes the owners look bad. It has negative connotations that plays well in the media. It implies that the owners are breaking an agreement with the NHLPA. Notice that Goodenow uses that word instead of words like "disagreement" or "differences" to shift the attention onto the league.

Feel free to call it what ever you like but the owners are not breaking any agreements, they simply do not have an agreement in place. You can not be locked out of something that doesn't exist.

No. The term "Lockout" is being used because that is the proper labor term used to describe a work stoppage triggered by an employer.

No one has ever said that the owners are breaking any agreements. Some pro-PA posters and uninformed media types try to differentiate between a lockout and a strike and try to make a lockout sound more sinister, but the truth is they are pretty much morally and legally equivalent. Neither side is obligated to work after a CBA has expired - an employer may decide to lockout his employees and a union may decide to strike. Both are nothing more than perfectly legal options that may be used to pressure the other side to come to a favorable CBA agreement.

 

[Hasbro]

No. The term "Lockout" is being used because that is the proper labor term used to describe a work stoppage triggered by an employer.

No one has ever said that the owners are breaking any agreements. Some pro-PA posters and uninformed media types try to differentiate between a lockout and a strike and try to make a lockout sound more sinister, but the truth is they are pretty much morally and legally equivalent. Neither side is obligated to work after a CBA has expired - an employer may decide to lockout his employees and a union may decide to strike. Both are nothing more than perfectly legal options that may be used to pressure the other side to come to a favorable CBA agreement.

Got to agree with that. It's a labor stoppage either way.

I'll take a lockout over a strike in sports anyday though. Since the NHL strike in 92 PAs are going to walk as late as possible to get leverage (i.e. the Baseball strike). Lockout there is still hope of a season.

 

[Atlas]

No. The term "Lockout" is being used because that is the proper labor term used to describe a work stoppage triggered by an employer.

NHL teams are not currently employers of NHLPA members. Name one NHLPA member that is currently working for an NHL team. This work "stoppage" (<----another imprecise word) was triggered equally by the league and the players.

 

[CGG]

NHL teams are not currently employers of NHLPA members. Name one NHLPA member that is currently working for an NHL team. This work "stoppage" (<----another imprecise word) was triggered equally by the league and the players.

Dude, give up. It wasn't triggered equally by the players and owners, the players would have been more than happy to continue playing under the expired CBA. It was triggered by the owners, who did so completely within their rights. It is a lockout. End of story.

 

[Weary]

NHL teams are not currently employers of NHLPA members. Name one NHLPA member that is currently working for an NHL team. This work "stoppage" (<----another imprecise word) was triggered equally by the league and the players.

The teams do employ NHLPA members. In fact, teams have contracts with many of those members. I'm sure most of the players would return to work immediately to start collecting their paychecks. It's the league that doesn't want to pay those paychecks.

How can the league avoid paying players with contracts who would readily play? Lock them out.

 

[AM]

really?

The owners tried to change the deal after they raked in all those expansion fees. If the deal they were working under was so bad, why not forego the fees for a few months?

The point is question was why do people feel the owners are to blame for the lockout. I simply provided an answer. Since the owners haven't been the best decision makers, perhaps they are the ones needing to find the right frame of mind to make a deal.

Basically, you have to do something when its available. Sometimes thats at the same time you should be whacking down millionaire players.... oh well. The owners decided to give the players a huge gift. That dosnt mean that they should continue to do that.

Well, you should read the boards closer. Most peeps arnt blaming the owners for the lockout.