Could the owners just "lift" the lockout in January?

[Egil]

Tom, the ONE thing the owners stand to lose is if the NHLPA goes on strike just before the start of the playoffs. BUT, that I think would help their case for impasse, so that might not even be a total loss. I havn't seen this idea floated ANYWHERE in the media, but it seems like a doable thing for the owners....

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Tom, the ONE thing the owners stand to lose is if the NHLPA goes on strike just before the start of the playoffs.

I agree, but they won't. The best argument the players have right now is that it is the owner's lockout. They want to play. Most have contracts to play. The owners can get use that position to force the players to sign an extension to the end of the year. If the players were trying to get something out of the owners, the threat to strike at playoff time is a real trump card. It doesn't mean as much when they are just trying to protect what they have.

I think that was the huge mistake baseball players made in 1994. They went on strike before the playoffs because that was their best leverage. They knew the owners had more leverage at the beginning of the season. The impact on the game was devastating. I think that's a really important lesson both sides should learn from the baseball disputes. There were several of them that had almost no impact on attendance or the game's popularity. But interrupt a pennant race? No World Series?

No Stanley Cup? That's the sort of thing that does cost fans. To a hockey fan, the Stanley Cup is the defining moment of a season. It is important. If they do not give one out this year, at least some fans will discover it isn't all that important. Hard core fans become casual fans, and casual fans stop watching altogether.

That's what happened to me in baseball. I had watched the World Series every year for 35 years even though I had long become a casual fan, rather than a diehard. Watching it was more habit and tradition. They cancelled it, the tradition was gone, the habit was broken and I haven't missed baseball since.

I haven't seen this as a possibility in the media either. I'm making it up.

Tom

 

[Kickabrat]

Sure. Why not? It often happens once there is an agreement in principle anyway. It can take weeks to get from that agreement to a signed CBA.
Tom

KEY WORDS: "AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE". The owners could lift the lockout unilateraly, but they could not impose the old CBA unilaterally. In usual bargaining situations, this often happens when the parties are in mediation and agree to work through until the process is complete. Lots of employees have worked without a CBA while negotiations are underway, but in many cases it is because there is a clause in the agreement that the old CBA remains in force until a new one is negotiated, or both parties agree to it, or there is an interest in keeping the work going and a strike/lockout is not in the best interst of either party. The NHL's CBA has expired, unless the NHLPA and NHL agree, it is not coming back.

Look at it this way, if they want to put the old CBA back in place, they have to at least change the exiration date of the agreement (and all the other dates that have passed by). If they change the dates they are changing the CBA, if they change the CBA they have to have agreement from both parties or one of them won't sign. So why would the NHLPA agree to the old CBA with an expiration date of six months later? Why would the NHL agree to the old CBA when the NHLPA offered them a better deal?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

So why would the NHLPA agree to the old CBA with an expiration date of six months later? Why would the NHL agree to the old CBA when the NHLPA offered them a better deal?

That's the wrong way to look at it in my opinion. Why wouldn't they? The NHLPA does it to get in half a season and avoid the devastating impact on the game of missing a whole year of hockey. The NHL foregoes the 5% they've rejected while they negotiate. They can eventually make the deal retroactive to last September if they want. They do it for all the reasons I noted and to avoid the devastating impact on the game of missing a whole year of hockey.

They can go back at it next fall.

Tom

 

[Kickabrat]

They can go back at it next fall.
Tom

And what happens when they get locked out or go on strike in September? You don't think the fans would be even more ticked off? If they agree to do it in January, why didn't they agrre to it in Sept (agree to keep the old CBA while they negotiate a new one)? Because the owners want no part of the old CBA for a season, half a season or a quarter of a season.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

And what happens when they get locked out or go on strike in September? You don't think the fans would be even more ticked off?

More than ticked off than now? More ticked off than if there is no hockey at all this year and they are still locked out next September?

If they agree to do it in January, why didn't they agrre to it in Sept (agree to keep the old CBA while they negotiate a new one)? Because the owners want no part of the old CBA for a season, half a season or a quarter of a season.

That's a pretty stupid way to look at it so you could be right. I'd believe anything of Bettman. I think it is obvious why they do it in January when they would not do it in September. They get about 65% of the season's revenues with less than 50% of the salary costs. That's a good deal.

They can probably reduce the player share of "designated" revenue to their desired number by playing a half season indefinitely. Why isn't that a good owner strategy?

Tom

 

[Kickabrat]

More than ticked off than now? More ticked off than if there is no hockey at all this year and they are still locked out next September?



That's a pretty stupid way to look at it so you could be right. I'd believe anything of Bettman. I think it is obvious why they do it in January when they would not do it in September. They get about 65% of the season's revenues with less than 50% of the salary costs. That's a good deal.

They can probably reduce the player share of "designated" revenue to their desired number by playing a half season indefinitely. Why isn't that a good owner strategy?

Tom

And the players get what for agreeing to this? 6 months of salary and then what, back to where they are. Do you think the NHLPA is stupid? Do you not think they would demand some playoff money to agree to this? Do you actually believe they are so altruistic that they would do anything to appease the fans?

This is the most inane thing I have heard yet. So the owners and players agree to play a half season, under the old CBA, and then they go back to being locked out! Yep you have a real winning solution there. You should send it off to Bettman and Goodenow right away. I'm sure they'll jump all over it.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

And the players get what for agreeing to this? 6 months of salary and then what, back to where they are. Do you think the NHLPA is stupid? Do you not think they would demand some playoff money to agree to this? Do you actually believe they are so altruistic that they would do anything to appease the fans?

No, I think the players are boxed by their current "we want to play" position. What is their alternative? The owners lift the lockout and announce they are prepared to abide by the old CBA. What can the players do? They can go on strike. Fine. In that case, there is no season, it is on the player's head and the owners can open next year looking to break a strike, not a lockout.

This is the most inane thing I have heard yet. So the owners and players agree to play a half season, under the old CBA, and then they go back to being locked out! Yep you have a real winning solution there. You should send it off to Bettman and Goodenow right away. I'm sure they'll jump all over it.

This is probably the most inane thing you ever heard since I speculated about Crosby, eh? I'm glad I'm not losing my touch. I don't see what is inane about it. You certainly haven't explained why it is inane. I think it is a good strategy for the NHL. It gains them a lot both in money and public relations. It advances a strategy to eventually break a strike. It solves awkward problems around the draft. It boxes in the union. It costs nothing.

Why is it inane? If I was Bob Goodenow, I'd rather the NHL not do it. To me that makes it a good NHL strategy.

Tom

 

[GabbyDugan]

This is the most inane thing I have heard yet. So the owners and players agree to play a half season, under the old CBA, and then they go back to being locked out! Yep you have a real winning solution there. You should send it off to Bettman and Goodenow right away. I'm sure they'll jump all over it.

I have nagging doubts about this "lifting" of the lockout after three or four months....but not enough to dismiss the possibility of pursuing it further.

Ten weeks into the lockout , we have seen no negotiations, no movement from the initial positions,and a $ 2.1 billion industry going to dust. That seems very inane to me.

Send it off to Bettman and Goodenow? Why not? Goodenow was willing to continue doing business under the CBA, so why not try sending the idea off to Bettman through Bill Daly's mailbag? I don't know if he would respond, but every conventional proposal I've seen has been shot to smithereens...

 

[Captain Lou]

I have nagging doubts about this "lifting" of the lockout after three or four months....but not enough to dismiss the possibility of pursuing it further.

Ten weeks into the lockout , we have seen no negotiations, no movement from the initial positions,and a $ 2.1 billion industry going to dust. That seems very inane to me.

Send it off to Bettman and Goodenow? Why not? Goodenow was willing to continue doing business under the CBA, so why not try sending the idea off to Bettman through Bill Daly's mailbag? I don't know if he would respond, but every conventional proposal I've seen has been shot to smithereens...

When a CBA in any workplace expires, the terms of the previous one are held enforceable until a new one is agreed to. Right now, even though there are no games, the previous CBA is still enforceable and legal (Someone correct me if I am wrong, please).

In any event, this idea to me sounded really off the charts when I first looked at the thread. As I have been reading along, I think that this may have been the owner's plan after all. Of course it does nothing to solve the "problems", but it does put the NHL back on the radar screen in the US, while further strengthening the owner's position for an impasse later on (like next January, and they might never lose a complete season).

Basically, if this makes the owners money, they will do it. And the players would have to play, because they would not even be allowed to strike.

 

[I in the Eye]

When a CBA in any workplace expires, the terms of the previous one are held enforceable until a new one is agreed to. Right now, even though there are no games, the previous CBA is still enforceable and legal (Someone correct me if I am wrong, please).

In any event, this idea to me sounded really off the charts when I first looked at the thread. As I have been reading along, I think that this may have been the owner's plan after all. Of course it does nothing to solve the "problems", but it does put the NHL back on the radar screen in the US, while further strengthening the owner's position for an impasse later on (like next January, and they might never lose a complete season).

Basically, if this makes the owners money, they will do it. And the players would have to play, because they would not even be allowed to strike.

I personally think that it's a good strategy from a league perspective... Another 'positive' for the league other than those already listed is that the NHL players overseas would have to come back - only to be in limbo once again next summer... Do they go back? If so, on the same teams as now, or different ones? If those players playing in Europe are angry at the NHL players now, they'll be completely erate come this time next year! Not to mention the hockey wives who are trying to plan their lives around this... Added pressure on the players can only be a good thing for the owners...

 

[me2]

I can't think of a single thing the owners gain by not playing the second half of the season and they have a lot to lose. Why not?

Tom

a) It fills the players bank accounts. If they are planning on "starving" out the players they won't be doing themselves any favours giving them each an average of $900K for the 1/2 year. The players could go on resisting the NHLs demands for years if they are taking in $900K each per year. $900K blows away the $60K the NHLPA is offering them to hold out.

b) the players will claim the owners can work under the old CBA. See look they are doing it now.

c) the players will claim the suppression of wages is because the old CBA is working (when it more to do work stoppages).

d) rolling lockouts will turn the fans against the teams. Giving back hockey and then taking it away will be bad PR

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

a) It fills the players bank accounts. If they are planning on "starving" out the players they won't be doing themselves any favours giving them each an average of $900K for the 1/2 year. The players could go on resisting the NHLs demands for years if they are taking in $900K each. $900K blows away the $60K the NHLPA is offering them to hold out.

The player's bank account is already full. You can't starve out people who have been making $1.8 million a year. You can't starve out anyone making $60,000 a year. The players are already rich. They are losing the opportunity to get even richer. That is not very much economic pressure.

b) the players will claim the owners can work under the old CBA. See look they are doing it now.

So what? The NHL will respond with a talking point, "One last chance, blah, blah, blah, good faith, blah, blah, blah, benevolent owners, blah, blah, blah" and lock them out again anyway.

c) the players will claim the suppression of wages is because the old CBA is working (when it more to do work stoppages).

See above. The players can claim anything they want. The owners can ignore hem like they are ignoring them now.

d) rolling lockouts will turn the fans against the teams. Giving back hockey and then taking it away will be bad PR

Why? You will have to explain how it is better not to give it back at all. Choose between:

1) Bring back a half season even though you know it will probably start over next September.

2) No hockey and we are in exactly the same spot next September.

Are you saying you choose number two? That any fan would choose number two?

Tom

 

[Benji Frank]

The point is not to soften the player's stand. The point is that it is very hard to put financial pressure on guys who are millionaires many times over. There are several excellent reasons to lift the lockout while agreeing to play under the old CBA for another year:

1) They get to play the profitable half of the year, keeping most of the TV money and sponsorship cash. The crowds are much bigger in the second half of the season and in the playoffs, the players play for free.

2) The plan will be to reinstate the lockout again next September and again plan to do without the least profitable games. By lifting the lockout suddenly in January the European leagues will have to scramble to replace 300 players on short notice. This may make them less willing to hire NHL players next year.

3) A lot of star players now have a "Nolan" clause in their contracts. Unless they play 40 games this year, the player has the option of extending the contract. This is an obvious incentive to play 40 games this year.

4) If they are eventually aiming at impasse, lifting the lockout while tabling a new offer (with cost certainty of course) is evidence of good faith bargaining and will help if it ever gets to the NLRB.

5) A whole bunch of difficult legal questions become moot. They will be able to hold a draft. They will be able to make qualifying offers and retain the rights to players.

6) They will award a Stanley Cup. They will not push hockey completely out of the minds of the new fans in non-traditional markets.

7) For the third consecutive summer, an impending work stoppage, possible salary cap will inhibit free agent signings.

I can't think of a single thing the owners gain by not playing the second half of the season and they have a lot to lose. Why not?

Tom

They're all solid points and make for an interesting delemna, but the one thing that kills all of them is as I mentioned, the players have the option to strike. They'd be foolish not to strike right before the playoffs or at least threaten to right from opening day of training camp if they're still in the same spot as they are now..... they're already getting painted with the bad guy brush. That likely won't change if they're locked out again next fall. Why waste a spring playing hockey for a few grand?? They'll get enough to keep the wife happy playing for 3 months prior to the playoffs!! Knowing they're going to play this card, several thousand fans will stay away ... why spend hundreds of dollars on tickets getting attached all over again??

 

[me2]

The player's bank account is already full. You can't starve out people who have been making $1.8 million a year. You can't starve out anyone making $60,000 a year. The players are already rich. They are losing the opportunity to get even richer. That is not very much economic pressure.

Chris "$50m" Pronger won't feel it. The players that the NHL wants to put the pressure on won't be the exceedingly rich Chris Pronger types. Heck, Pronger never has to play again and he'll die very rich, they can't starve him out very well. Its young guys and the poorer guys that are just starting to make money that might/should crack first. Once they are back greed will bring back the $6+m men.

So what? The NHL will respond with a talking point, "One last chance, blah, blah, blah, good faith, blah, blah, blah, benevolent owners, blah, blah, blah" and lock them out again anyway.

"We are going to fight to the death except every January when we cave": repeat next season. The teams that cried wolf too often don't get taken seriously.

Why? You will have to explain how it is better not to give it back at all. Choose between:

1) Bring back a half season even though you know it will probably start over next September.

2) No hockey and we are in exactly the same spot next September.

Are you saying you choose number two? That any fan would choose number two?

Fans want this solved, running 1/2 a season a year from now to eternity is not a valid solution. It will drive away even more fans.

If they are going to bring them back bring then back for 15-20 games not 40. Maximise the revenue from the playoffs. Make it the players that say no to coming back.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

They're all solid points and make for an interesting delemna, but the one thing that kills all of them is as I mentioned, the players have the option to strike.

But this is a win for the owners. If the players won't go along, the lockout has been successfully converted to a strike. That advances the owner agenda. They can try to break a strike with replacement players, but they can't use them to break their own lockout.

Plus, the players would have to take a strike vote. Against what? Playing under a CBA they like? I think this strategy effectively boxes the union. A strike helps the owners, playing helps the owners.

Even making the offer to play conditional on a player promise not to strike works for the owners. How do the players turn it down?

Why waste a spring playing hockey for a few grand?? They'll get enough to keep the wife happy playing for 3 months prior to the playoffs!! Knowing they're going to play this card, several thousand fans will stay away ... why spend hundreds of dollars on tickets getting attached all over again??

I think you have to understand hockey players. The thing that kills them in a work stoppage is not the loss of the paycheque. It is the not playing. Striking before the playoffs is an awful thought for them. They play for nothing but the Stanley Cup in the playoffs and look at the way they play!

They'll play.

Tom

 

[YellHockey*]

They're all solid points and make for an interesting delemna, but the one thing that kills all of them is as I mentioned, the players have the option to strike. They'd be foolish not to strike right before the playoffs or at least threaten to right from opening day of training camp if they're still in the same spot as they are now..... they're already getting painted with the bad guy brush. That likely won't change if they're locked out again next fall. Why waste a spring playing hockey for a few grand?? They'll get enough to keep the wife happy playing for 3 months prior to the playoffs!! Knowing they're going to play this card, several thousand fans will stay away ... why spend hundreds of dollars on tickets getting attached all over again??

Well, one thing is that close to half the players won't have to worry about a strike since their season will be done. 14 teams don't make the playoffs.

Another thing is that for most players the most important thing in their life is winning the Stanley Cup. And since a lot of teams are going to have a chance at winning the Cup this year, if they play, then a lot of players aren't going to want to miss the opportunity to win a Cup.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Fans want this solved, running 1/2 a season a year from now to eternity is not a valid solution. It will drive away even more fans.

This is so lame. It almost sounds like you hope the season is cancelled. I'll never understand this about the Bettman poodles. What do you have against hockey and hockey players that you would hope for this?

It is not a valid solution. It is not supposed to be. It is a tactic for the long term in a war that can't be won in the short run.

Tom

 

[PecaFan]

Striking before the playoffs is an awful thought for them. They play for nothing but the Stanley Cup in the playoffs and look at the way they play! They'll play.

Right. Which is why they went on strike in April 1992, right before the playoffs. All over freakin' hockey cards.

Come on. You can't really believe the stuff you're spewing here.

 

[me2]

This is so lame. It almost sounds like you hope the season is cancelled. I'll never understand this about the Bettman poodles. What do you have against hockey and hockey players that you would hope for this?

It is not a valid solution. It is not supposed to be. It is a tactic for the long term in a war that can't be won in the short run.

Tom

If the players want to come back let them come back to a 14 game season (play each team in their 1/2 once). Put the profits right in the owners hands or make the players strike then.

 

[SENSible1*]

The owners are in the drivers seat right now. No change of tactics is necessary.

The fans want to see the problem fixed long-term, not a bandaid. They support the owners for that reason. If they come back before it is fixed for a few extra bucks they will have lost completely both the public's support and the ability to use the same stick again. At that point all leverage they currently have will be lost.

This isn't about negotiating a slightly better deal, it is about radically changing the way the league is run. The biggest weapon the league has is keeping them on the sidelines until the players realize they mean what they say about changing the landscape.

It is amusing to watch Tom pretend that this move would be welcomed with anything but open arms by the Union.

 

[Benji Frank]

I think you have to understand hockey players. The thing that kills them in a work stoppage is not the loss of the paycheque. It is the not playing. Striking before the playoffs is an awful thought for them. They play for nothing but the Stanley Cup in the playoffs and look at the way they play!

They'll play.

Tom

Yup. Bob's gonna be sitting in his office in April just as the fans are starting to fall back in love with their "heroes" and the owners are standing firm on a salary cap and he'll pick up the phone and say "Hey Trevor, go chase your dream. We'll work this out over summer after the Crosby kid is dished out. Tell the guys we're scrapping the strike vote....."

We'll see what happens, I guess........

 

[Kickabrat]

This is probably the most inane thing you ever heard since I speculated about Crosby, eh? I'm glad I'm not losing my touch.

You're right its even more inane than the Crosby nonsense.

Why is it inane? If I was Bob Goodenow, I'd rather the NHL not do it. To me that makes it a good NHL strategy.

You're right inane is not the right word here. Absurd is a better one. Why not forget this rotating lockout crap and just sign an agreement with the NHLPA to cut salaries in half, cut the season in half and do it all while keeping the old CBA. Yeah that's the ticket!

Owners will be happy to only lose 1/2 as much, players wil be happy to take a 50% cut in salaries as opposed to the previously offered 28% cut ($1.8M avg salary to $1.3M) because they are so stupid they won't even notice. Yeah, that's the ticket all right! Why didn't they think of this sooner those idiot owners and NHLPA!

(just in case its missed on some, this is sarcasm)

 

[Kickabrat]

I think you have to understand hockey players. The thing that kills them in a work stoppage is not the loss of the paycheque. It is the not playing. Striking before the playoffs is an awful thought for them. They play for nothing but the Stanley Cup in the playoffs and look at the way they play! They'll play.
Tom

Ooooh those players, I never realized how philanthropic towards the owners they could be. What a swell bunch of guys. Why strike over card revenue when you can play for the cup? Why refuse a $1.3M average salary when you can play for the cup? Hell, why get paid at all for playing a game you love? Why, I'm sure you can talk them into playing for free, for a chance at the cup!

This dispute is about money! period. It's all about the money! It is not about players desire to play, it is not about owner's unwillingness to making the old CBA work so they can get a chance at winning a cup, it is about who gets what share of revenues. No matter how much heart the players may have, they will not play if it means that in the end they don't get their fair share of revenue (whatever a fair share turns out to be). Otherwise why bother having an NHLPA in the first place.

 

[Egil]

But see, now your forcing the players to STRIKE. It is much easier to argue that you have tried everything when the players are on strike than it is when you are locking them out. This move eitehr a) results in a profitable half season for the owners or b) gets the players to strike, as opposed to being locked out.

The more I think of this, the more I think it is the correct next move for the owners.