If There's No NHL Season.....

Does this ensure there will be a season next year? or is next season still up in the air too if they dont make an agreement?

 

Unfortunately nothing is going to be started until there is an agreement on a new cba. Could be this year(highly unlikely), next year, or the year after. Who knows

Hopefully the players realize that their sport is in trouble.The current state of the NHL is disgusting. The owners want a cap. The players want NFL sized contracts. The real problem that hasn't been addressed to either side is the fact that outside of Canada, the Northeastern USA, and few cities scattered around the USA, no one cares about the NHL.

The TV contract is a joke for the salaries the players want AND the owners pay. Each team as of right now gets 4-5 million dollars a year from the tv contract, yet somehow guys like Jagr and Pronger make more than that a year on their own(Jagr contract made by a dumb owner). Each NFL team gets 77 million just from their tv contract. Baseball, NASCAR and the NBA each get over 1 billion dollars over the years from their current tv contracts. ESPN CUT hockey games shown on their network by 30 percent to show the NBA. Who was the comissioner and helped get the NBA to what it currently is? Who got the players to wake up and say "yea the NBA is in trouble, maybe this cap idea really isn't that bad." The NHL says they are the 4th major sport in America? Are you sure? Did anyone tell NASCAR? The marketing is a joke. No one except for the die hard fans are angry that there is a lockout. Most of America doesn't even notice hockey is gone.

 

The only way there will be a season next year (that is without a CBA being agreed on) will be if the NHL is awarded an impasse by the US and Canadian provincial labor boards. The players will then most likely take them to court and most likely end up on strike.

Only then can the league open -- and then they will be using replacement players, which will cause even more problems because you can't use replacements in Quebec and British Columbia (ergo, no Vancouver or Montreal franchises).

 

I'd say everything's up in the air at this point. The owners will have to decide if they want to escalate the war further by declaring an impasse, the courts would have to agree with them, the players would have to remain united in the face of all that without settling, and then the league would have to find the replacements. And the courts would then have to agree with that. I don't think any prospective season will start in October next year, anyway. Too many ifs to even know if it will start at all.

 

Considering the comments made by the Atlanta and Boston owners, I would say that there's no doubt they'll be going the impasse route. Remember -- Bettman only needs 8 of 30 votes to accomplish this.

However, considering some of the things that's happened, he may have a hard time convincing any labor board that the "bargained" fairly. From what I understand, his demand for cap acceptance before even talking can be construed as an unfair labor practice.

 

Thanks for all the replies guys.


I was under the impression that after this year, the owners could take things into their own hands and do whatever they want sorta and set new limits and new regulations? This is only if some GM's vote for it ?

 

Personally, I don't understand the "Bettman only needs 8 of 30 votes to accomplish this" bit... so what? Bettman has a lot more than 8 of 30 votes, and even if 22 out of 30 opposed him, he would be following the direction of the 22, not the 8.

I guess it would depend on the details of the applicable labour laws and on past precedents. I don't see that the league's "we must have a cap" rhetoric is any more or less fair than the union's "we will not accept a cap" rhetoric. I think it's fair for both sides to bargain however they see fit; however, I'm just annoyed that they choose to do it in such a confrontational manner, and that they choose to do so much of their talking through the media, instead of in lengthy head-to-head bargaining sessions.

 

No. Basically Bettman is the one calling the shots. The 8-votes thing refers to how many votes he needs to reject any Union offer. (I believe it used to be at least a majority). Let's see if I can make this clearer.

If there is no agreement on a new CBA (which seems obvious there won't be), the league can then file papers for an impasse with the labor boards stating that continued bargaining and negotiations will not get them any closer to a deal. If the NHL actually manages to convince the 5 labor boards of this, they will then be able to use the last offer the made the players as the new CBA.

At that point, the players will have a choice either accept it or not. If they reject it (as will be the case), they will then be on strike. They can then file for a restraining order to keep the league from implementing that offer.

It really gets complicated and a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and maneuvering will take place. However, after all is said and done, I believe either the courts or an arbitrator/mediator will end up settling this thing.

 

I realise that this is the technical setup, but I don't believe that it is operative in reality. That is, sure, Bettman technically could call the shots with the backing of just 8 owners. But the fact is he has the backing of 30 owners now, and if he was ever in a situation where a majority of the owners didn't back his plan, he would, practically speaking, be forced to alter his plan. He's a league spokesman, not some criminal mastermind manipulating the owners for his own nefarious purposes!

 

BG, unfortunately, this 8-vote rejection count is a reality. Even if 22 owners had wanted to accept the players' most recent proposals, they would have been outvoted. This came about because of the 1994 lockout and the subsequent renewal of the most recent CBA a few years later. At those times, the league needed a majority....much to Bettman's credit, this was changed.

 

? Read above. It is a technical reality in writing, but do you actually believe that Bettman and 8 owners would veto the other 22?

(Not could, but would!). They could. We know. But if 22 owners supported the players' latest proposal, training camps would be open right now. No question about it.

 

Yes they would. One of the main contentions between the "hawks" and the "doves" is the fact that they had enough votes to reject the 1994 offer and at the last minute one or two owners got skittish and switched sides at the last minute. Same thing happened a few years later when they had to renew the contract.

This is 8-vote deal was compensation to the ones who didn't want to renew the cba. It is not a technical-reality; it is reality.

 

This was an interesting article from the local paper down here in FL. Really gives a good explanation of what is probably going to happen and the reprocussions.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...19,0,4009598.column?coll=sfla-sports-panthers

 

Interesting -- Larry Brooks has been saying the same things for months -- but everyone says he's a lunatic. Go figure.

 

I wonder how many other people out there believe in this?

I'm not an owner myself (yet! ), but, while acknowledging all that you say of the 1994 historical setting, I have to say it is impractical to imagine that one spokesman, along with 8 small market owners would be able to wield the ultimate power. If I hired him as my negotiator, I'd trust him if he said he could wring a few more concessions out of the deal. If I didn't trust him to do that, I wouldn't have hired him as my negotiator and spokesman. Simple as that. I cannot conceive of any outcome of the current CBA situation in which a vast majority of owners didn't support Bettman (and vice versa) anyway.

The 8-vote thing is just a technicality, for now. Perhaps it will gain more meaning next year, if the league is more precariously balanced on the threshold of axing a second season or proceeding with replacement players, or if there is some other driver to split the owners from their current unanimous solidarity.

 

The key part of this 8 vote thing as I understand it, is if Betman is in favour & 8 owners behind him are in favour, then he'll continue in that pursuance. I could be wrong, but if he's in favour & say 23 are not in favour, he'd likely step down ... IE -> since less then 8 see his agenda as the correct agenda.

IE -> if Betman recommended rejecting the last player offer and 24 of the 30 owners thought they should accept it, then Betman's out.....

I could be in misunderstanding on this though.......

 

You are absolutely correct -- as long as he's got 8 votes, he can reject any offer HE feels is unfitting -- namely, anything that does not have a cap.

 

It's not a question of believing -- it's been reported by the media many times. Besides, he was not hired as a "negotiator" -- he was hired as Commissioner.

Bettman's whole agenda since being made Commissioner is to make the NHL as big as the other three major sports. Look at how he followed the NBA formula -- over-expansion, for one; trying to sign a huge contract with some network to bring in even more money. Unfortunately for him, the NHL has nowhere near the drawing power that MLB, NFL and NBA does. Secondly, as far as the cap is concerned, this is not a new idea. Bettman all but assured the owners he could get them a cap -- and if he doesn't, he is definitely out the door.