How long/how settled?

[officeglen]

Is there a sticky or thread somewhere for posters to predict approximately when a settlement will be reached, and who would get what they want. For the latter, perhaps there could be a five point scale:
1) Owners screw players.
2) Owners get mostly what they want.
3) Nobody gets what they want.
4) Players get mostly what they want.
5) Players screw owners.

The reason I suggest this sticky or thread is that I don’t see any basis for settlement for years (at least 2.3), so I wonder if I’m in a small minority with this pessimistic view.

Click to read more...

 

[H/H]

Since owners are blaming the players for the mistake they themselves made a decade ago, I guess they're determined to get what they want this time.

 

[Slats432]

I think it will be 2....either the owners get mostly what they want or they will decide that it will be an impasse and do 1 all on their own.

Prediction: Agreement signed on Sept 22, 2005.

 

[ej_pens]

#2

March 3, 2005

 

[Puckhead]

The owners will break the union. There are 30 teams, so for the sake of argument, lets just say there are 30 owners. It is a lot easier to remain united when you are dealing with small numbers. The players on the other hand are around 750. I don't care what Bob Goodenow and Ted Saskin are saying, that number is far too large to remain united if this goes on for awhile. Already we hear about John Madden wanting to get the season going, even with a cap. As time goes on the players will start buzzing to their player reps and then to the top guns and I think that if the owners can remain strong they will no doubt win this, and it is for the betterment of the game. I believe that there will be no hockey until January of 2006, unless the players union starts to fail, in which case September of 2005. Unfortunately, I think that both sides are stubborn enough, and have enough money put away to throw this season down the tubes. One thing is certain, if the players don't go for what the owners are suggesting in time to salvage some sort of season with playoffs this year, then the owners will be really pissed, and that is why Jan. 2006 seems more likely.

 

[Puckhead]

#2

March 3, 2005

That would be a pointless date to get something done by. They couldn't salvage any type of season and therefore would have no playoffs. Like in '94, they need to get something done by late December or very early January, have a 10 day training camp, and then a 45-48 game season. If January hits, and there is no deal...there is no season!

 

[Jeffrey]

october 2007 for me !
owner will hold their salary cap ... and after 3 years the NHLPA accept to deal for a salary cap ... but they want something big in return like signing bonus and younger age for free agency...
4 teams will fold during the lockout :
1-Carolina
2-Nashville
3-Pittsburgh
4-Anaheim

3 teams hold on even if they almost have no cash left:
1-Edmonton
2-Calgary
3-NY Islanders

new day for the NHL with 50% less fans the 1st year !
and players lost 3 years of big $!

just my opinion on how it will end !

 

[GKJ]

I think it will be 3, no one will get exactly what they want, and I think this will be resolved sometime during the WJC's aka around the turn of the New Year to 2005.


The NHL will not fold teams, maybe some owners will want out, but the NHL would probably find new owners if possible in the areas (plus arena leases will have to be fixed, they wouldn't be able to just vanish) or move them. There will be 30 NHL teams when this is said and done. I think the first two to be put up in limbo is Florida and Carolina.

 

[SENSfreak_03]

the owners are gonna screw the players. listening the team 1200 today, dean brown seems like its gonna happen and hes bringing up some good points. if you read the comments, you can see the league is definitaly thinking about it. both sides are so opposite, that it seems nearly impossible that there wont be an impass, baring a meltdown from either side.

 

[HF2002]

I recently spoke to a woman (I'd never met her before nor have I seen her since) and she said her nephew plays for the Panthers. I don't know if she was being honest or not, but given the nature of the conversation I thought she was telling the truth as she knew it.

Anyway, she said that her nephew told his mom(this woman's sister) that the Union has told the players to expect a deal to be signed so that players can return around the first week of January, 2005. She said the reason the players are going to wait for this date is so that many of the older, more established players can have a longer break than normal. It might mean that the older guys could get an extra season after having had this extended break. 8-9 months off for world class athletes is much better than 5 months (or less off).

The only reason I can think that this reasoning may be somewhat legitimate is that nearly every player who's going to play in Europe is reportedly to have arranged a Jan 1st escape clause on their contracts (as per a sports radio station in Ottawa).

Also, the players will look as though they made major concessions when in reality they were going to accept them anway. At the same time, they'll probably get the owners to make a concession that they aren't necessarily willling to give at this point. And we are hearing players speak out more against the union this time around than in '94, at least as far as I can recall.

Does anyone else have any ideas to support this argument, even if you don't believe it to be true?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The only reason I can think that this reasoning may be somewhat legitimate is that nearly every player who's going to play in Europe is reportedly to have arranged a Jan 1st escape clause on their contracts (as per a sports radio station in Ottawa).

The players who are playing in Europe are doing so under one of two contracts. Those who have NHL deals signed can have an escape clause that allows them to return at any time. Those who are without an NHL deal can't return this season if the lockout is lifted. In other words, Thornton will be back whether an agreement is reached on October 1st or December 1st. Kovalev will not be back next season if he plays any games in Europe.

I think the players do expect there will be no hockey until January. Before that point, the owner's have most of the leverage. The games in the first half of the season are the hardest ones to sell. The playoffs involve the easiest games to sell and since the players don't get paid are the most profitable games by far.

In other words, the players expect the owners to cave by January if they plan to cave this year. The players don't plan to cave ever.

Tom

 

[Puckhead]

The players who are playing in Europe are doing so under one of two contracts. Those who have NHL deals signed can have an escape clause that allows them to return at any time. Those who are without an NHL deal can't return this season if the lockout is lifted. In other words, Thornton will be back whether an agreement is reached on October 1st or December 1st. Kovalev will not be back next season if he plays any games in Europe.

I think the players do expect there will be no hockey until January. Before that point, the owner's have most of the leverage. The games in the first half of the season are the hardest ones to sell. The playoffs involve the easiest games to sell and since the players don't get paid are the most profitable games by far.

In other words, the players expect the owners to cave by January if they plan to cave this year. The players don't plan to cave ever.

Tom

While I don't completely agree with you Tom, I can't entirely disagree either. My take on it is this...These owners are all very well off away from hockey. It take countless millions to buy into the league and you can bet they didn't sign over the deed to their houses to come up with the funds. If this goes on for an extended period I believe that the owners are in a much better position then the majority of the players. Now each side knew this was coming, and they were told to prepare for no hockey and no paychecks. However it is a lot easier for the more veteran types to do this than for the new kids who are 3 years in or less. The age old adage of don't spend more than you make, has never made more sense then in times like this for the players. They are used to making a certain amount every 2 weeks, and spend it accordingly. When the money starts becoming an issue, I believe you will see many players wanting to get back and play the game.

Some players have already spoken up, only to have the NHLPA quickly detract their statements. Why? Can these grown men not have an opinion of their own? The problem is that they must appear united, and any little word against their plight is proof that they are not all on the same page. And how could they be? There are 700+ players in the league. All of which have different salaries and different situations to deal with.

If the owners stick to their guns, there is little doubt that they will break the union. Yes the owners will have to pay for their leases on empty buildings, but they won't have to pay for the staff and concessions during a stoppage. I think Bettman was serious when he said that the league and its teams will lose far less money if there is no hockey. When a statement like that is true, then I am all for a lockout if it means fixing the game.

The owners are the ones who are taking a huge risk here. While there is no Hockey they piss off the fans they have, losing some in the process, but also they cerainly won't attract any new ones either. So that is why if forced to pick a side, I am with the owners. I know they created all of these problems themselves, and now, finally they understand that the only way to fix them is to wait out the players and get exactly what they feel they need to survive longterm.

 

[Schlep Rock]

Whatever you read in the papers... think around the complete opposite.

For example the $300 million war chest the owners have is b.s. Only a small % of that is cash on hand, the rest is in loans, etc. Once that cash reserve dries out they'd be stupid to start tapping into loans because in the short term (3-5 years) it will greatly effect their bottom line and the new CBA likely would be a 4/5 year deal anyway.

"A couple of years" = "a couple of months"... Nobdoy knows for sure but most people are planning on a '94-like situation with the season starting in January.

Each side has WAY too much to lose extending this lock out past December 31... no all-star game (bo-hoo), no Stanley Cup awarded, no draft, etc.

My guess is: January 2nd... maybe the union can get the drunk owners together at 2 am on January 1st to reach an agreement!

 

[ti-vite]

Owners will declare impass and its gona go to the lawyers and courts...

January 2006...unfortunately.