Is Anybody else Hearing the RUMOR?

[Go Flames Go*]

I think that if the proposal is really .75 on salaries over 40 million and arbitration changes, and rookie max, I think the NHL needs keep the process moving. Look at it, and make adjustments and come back with a guenuine counter proposal which I belive could get a deal done. Bettman said they will work with it, and seriously consider it if it does move forward, and I think this proposal will do that. Hopefully the NHL is not stubbourn and stuck on a Cap issue, you need to bend a little.

 

[DarkHorse]

The argument went that if you're in the top 600 hockey players, you should be making big money, right?

Didn't work for the OSHL.

It's NHL players that make money, not the players. Without the league, these guys are nothing.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

The argument went that if you're in the top 600 hockey players, you should be making big money, right?

Didn't work for the OSHL.

It's NHL players that make money, not the players. Without the league, these guys are nothing.

The OSHL wasn't set up as a competing league. The idea was a barnstorming league with a charitable component. The motivation for the players there was quite different.

 

[xander]

I think that if the proposal is really .75 on salaries over 40 million and arbitration changes, and rookie max, I think the NHL needs keep the process moving. Look at it, and make adjustments and come back with a guenuine counter proposal which I belive could get a deal done. Bettman said they will work with it, and seriously consider it if it does move forward, and I think this proposal will do that. Hopefully the NHL is not stubbourn and stuck on a Cap issue, you need to bend a little.

I just can't see the NHL accepting a tax system, Bettmans made too much of deal about cost certainty and it would be a complete loss of face if he where to accept a tax. The most I could see the league bending is offering a soft cap, which I would hope the union would accept. Both sides have to move off they're positions (hard cap/tax) and move towards the logical compromise of a soft cap. Otherwise I just can't see a deal getting done. I can see the two sides bending, but I don't think one side will bend over.

 

[ArtG]

you guys are fooling yourselves if you think they're going to resolve this thing by next month..

 

[YellHockey*]

If the union decertifies then its been crushed because decertification is the last desperate action it can take.

No. The last desperate action the PA could take is giving in to the owners and accepting a hard cap.

If the PA decertifies then it means that it feels the players are better off in a totally free market system then they would be in the best system the owners are willing to agree to.

And watch Sidney Crosby sign the biggest contract in the history of the NHL.

 

[struckmatch]

If the league owners realize that they can use a luxury tax, revamped arbitration, and a salary roll back to save a lot of money, and act as a cap would, then there can be significant progress made.

I think if the owners countered with a dollar for dollar luxury tax over 40 million, and then after 60 million it increases to $1.50 tax, as well as revamped arbitration in which the owners can take the players to arbitration as well, completed with a 15% salary rollback, we may have a deal somewhere in there. If the owners offered something like that, the PA would still come off better than the NFLPA, which is outstanding for the union.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

you guys are fooling yourselves if you think they're going to resolve this thing by next month..

sadly, i agree .. and the blood is on the owners hands as its clear they dont want to fix a system but rather completly destroy the current player / owner relationship.

and the fans support this. yikes.

dr

 

[xander]

you guys are fooling yourselves if you think they're going to resolve this thing by next month..

I agree as well, but i'm crossing my fingers none the less. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

 

[Epsilon]

And watch Sidney Crosby sign the biggest contract in the history of the NHL.

Only if someone from this board wins some sort of "GM for a day contest" or something.

 

[PecaFan]

If the PA decertifies then it means that it feels the players are better off in a totally free market system then they would be in the best system the owners are willing to agree to.

And watch Sidney Crosby sign the biggest contract in the history of the NHL.

Those statements are totally unrelated. You think the draft would no longer exist and Crosby could sign wherever he wanted because the PA disappeared? Of course not. Would the nets disappear? Would goals be worth five instead of one? Of course not.

The NHL will still set down rules by which it's member clubs commonly operate under, regardless of the status of the union. So, there's still going to be a draft, because it's primary purpose is to help the bottom feeders climb out of the morasse. And no GM is going to give a raw unproven rookie more than anybody in the league.

 

[Epsilon]

Those statements are totally unrelated. You think the draft would no longer exist and Crosby could sign wherever he wanted because the PA disappeared? Of course not. Would the nets disappear? Would goals be worth five instead of one? Of course not.

The NHL will still set down rules by which it's member clubs commonly operate under, regardless of the status of the union. So, there's still going to be a draft, because it's primary purpose is to help the bottom feeders climb out of the morasse. And no GM is going to give a raw unproven rookie more than anybody in the league.

Rules of the game (goals, etc.) can be set by the NHL, but if there is no CBA, then the league must operate under antitrust law with regards to labour. They would not be able to set barriers to entry into the league such as the draft and restricted free agency and so on.

 

[codswallop]

sadly, i agree .. and the blood is on the owners hands as its clear they dont want to fix a system but rather completly destroy the current player / owner relationship.

and the fans support this. yikes.

dr

Fan support of one side or the other should be ignored as a general rule (at least concerning such financial matters). We're far too ignorant of all the facts and factors that make up the whole of this issue. And yes, I do include everyone here.

The owners could be completely at fault, the players could be completely at fault, or it could fall anywhere in the middle (the most likely scenario). I know that's terribly vague, but that's pretty much the point. The simple fact is that we don't know.

We discuss and debate and argue, which is fine. Quite a few of us have been doing this for many months, and there have always been others joining in and contributing regularly. I like that, a fairly constant stream of different points of view. To the open mind, that's food (even if you don't particulary like it). It at least partially occupies our displaced passion for the lack of an NHL season.

But in reality, it doesn't do much more than that. In the end, we still know very little about these issues we're discussing. We don't know most of the actual financial data relevant to these issues and we don't know the actual intentions of either side regarding their positions (the media is used as a tool by both sides, not the first time that has happened).

My choice is to believe that a good bit of relevant info isn't available to us to make assumptions on, and I'll state that a lot. What everyone else believes is (obviously) their own personal choice. More power to them, everyone's entitled.

 

[ArtG]

Yea, we can all hope for the best. Trust me if this thing is resolved I'll be the first one back watching hockey.

 

[HF2002]

Ahh, so the 600 best shovel swinging ditch diggers in the world should be getting $1.3m/y each? Tough, physically demanding job digging ditches. What about the 600 best axe wielding lumberjacks? Being in the top 600 anything gives you no right to earn any particular amount of money.

Its almost a ludicrous as the argument that says because their choosen careers are short they should have the right to make their lifes wages in 10 years. Bollocks. They are entitled to work after retiring from hockey like everyone else is entitled to change jobs when their first one becomes too demanding. Their hockey careers might be over but their working lives still have time to run. What next, paying ditch diggers $300,000 a year so they can retire aged 32 when their back is getting sore?

I agree with you in principle, but what special skills are required to dig a ditch? Good balance and long arms? Have you ever paid to watch a guy dig a ditch, or have you ever taped a broadcast of the best lumberjacks at work and then watched it later? Or how many million dollar endorsement deals have been signed by the last guy that won a hose carrying, weighted mannequin dragging contest?

It's a little naive to say that they don't have a right to earn, on average, 1.3 million dollars. Obviously there's no right to it. But where does it say that they can't ask for it?

You would never pay $100 to go watch the best hamburger flipper in the world, let alone the top 600. So no hamburger genius will ever have the power to ask for that much money.

I do think they're overpaid, but where does it say they can't try to earn as much as they possibly can? Wouldn't you? If you're in high demand, and someone's willing to pay you more than handsomely for it, would you turn it down and say "naaaahh.. that's way too much."

 

[PecaFan]

Rules of the game (goals, etc.) can be set by the NHL, but if there is no CBA, then the league must operate under antitrust law with regards to labour. They would not be able to set barriers to entry into the league such as the draft and restricted free agency and so on.

So therefore, all the players have to do to attain a real "free market" system they keep insisting they want, is to blow up the union, and have everyone be a free agent. It's entirely within their control, yet, they won't do that.

And we all know why. Because an actual free market system would reflect the true value of players, as opposed to the inflated system they have now with the CBA.

Yet, they continue the hypocrisy of saying all they want is a free market.

 

[thinkwild]

Imagine the hypocrisy of the owners, who need a system to protect them from themselves, threatening a free market system.

I dont know if the players Want a free market system, but the majority of them will likely be better off with one than a hard capped system

The CBA is a set of restrictions to their ability to get market value. The league doesnt have a right to insist on a salary cap. They should try asking nicer or giving a good incentive. But they know this partnership can only be achieved by ramming it down their partners throat.

 

[djhn579]

Imagine the hypocrisy of the owners, who need a system to protect them from themselves, threatening a free market system.

I dont know if the players Want a free market system, but the majority of them will likely be better off with one than a hard capped system

The CBA is a set of restrictions to their ability to get market value. The league doesnt have a right to insist on a salary cap. They should try asking nicer or giving a good incentive. But they know this partnership can only be achieved by ramming it down their partners throat.

The CBA helps maintain inflated salaries. The superstars will still get their money of course, but without a CBA, there is no minimum salary, there are no guaranteed contracts, and there is nothing preventing players from being sent down to the minors whenever the team wants. There is also a much larger number of players in the below average to slightly above average range that any team can sign. What about per diem? That is from the CBA as well. Without a CBA, the NHL can decide what the equipment sizes should be without the NHLPA input, they can change the number of games and roster size. I think the players would lose a lot if they decided to decertify...

I think the players should appreciate what they have been able to get over the last 10 years and be willing to make significant concessions for the good of the game.

 

[SENSible1*]

The CBA helps maintain inflated salaries. The superstars will still get their money of course, but without a CBA, there is no minimum salary, there are no guaranteed contracts, and there is nothing preventing players from being sent down to the minors whenever the team wants. There is also a much larger number of players in the below average to slightly above average range that any team can sign. What about per diem? That is from the CBA as well. Without a CBA, the NHL can decide what the equipment sizes should be without the NHLPA input, they can change the number of games and roster size. I think the players would lose a lot if they decided to decertify...

I think the players should appreciate what they have been able to get over the last 10 years and be willing to make significant concessions for the good of the game.

Decertification is the NHL's wet dream. Let's hope the NHLPA is stupid enough to go that route. Considering the way they've handled themselves so far, I think that might be a pretty safe bet.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The CBA helps maintain inflated salaries. The superstars will still get their money of course, but without a CBA, there is no minimum salary, there are no guaranteed contracts, and there is nothing preventing players from being sent down to the minors whenever the team wants. There is also a much larger number of players in the below average to slightly above average range that any team can sign. What about per diem? That is from the CBA as well. Without a CBA, the NHL can decide what the equipment sizes should be without the NHLPA input, they can change the number of games and roster size. I think the players would lose a lot if they decided to decertify...

I think the players should appreciate what they have been able to get over the last 10 years and be willing to make significant concessions for the good of the game.

i see what you are saying but consider this. if the players were to be in an enviroment like you and i are in, why couldnt they negotiate for whatever they want ?

so, if a player is good enough to make a demand of a $200 per diem and 3 blond hookers, they would not be restricted from asking. just like you and i wouldnt be.

not only that, but Jarome Iginla or any other player for that matter could just up and quit to join another team, just like you could leave UPS and join FedEx anytime you damn well felt like it (supposing FedEx offers you a job of course).

is this what we want ? anyhow, i dont know if the players are better off or not decertifing, but as fans we should pressure the owners to not let the NHL to disintegrate like that. its just not neccesary.
dr

 

[SENSible1*]

anyhow, i dont know if the players are better off or not decertifing,
dr

The PA would have already decertified if they believed they'd be better off.

but as fans we should pressure the owners to not let the NHL to disintegrate like that. its just not neccesary.
dr

The players are the ones who will decide what is necessary. Fans should pressure the players to accept cost certainty and get back to the business of making millions of dollars for playing a game. Failure to do so means they will only be getting what they deserve when the owners take the necessary steps to return control of the NHL to their hands.

 

[vanlady]

Decertification is the NHL's wet dream. Let's hope the NHLPA is stupid enough to go that route. Considering the way they've handled themselves so far, I think that might be a pretty safe bet.

You do realize without a CBA and the union, things like the draft and restricited free agency are illegal in the US and Canada, right??

Look up the Competition Act of Canada scroll to section 48, and here I will even post the NLRA for the US

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.asp

Pay particular attention good faith negotiations. The NHL has yet to to table a complete proposal, is this surface bargaining? Cause that is highly illegal.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The PA would have already decertified if they believed they'd be better off.



The players are the ones who will decide what is necessary. Fans should pressure the players to accept cost certainty and get back to the business of making millions of dollars for playing a game. Failure to do so means they will only be getting what they deserve when the owners take the necessary steps to return control of the NHL to their hands.

well, you are pretty set in your ideology, i just happen to feel the players have given up much and will table a proposal that can worked with. at this stage the owners need to suck it up and make it work, because its extremely generous.

dr

 

[vanlady]

The PA would have already decertified if they believed they'd be better off.



The players are the ones who will decide what is necessary. Fans should pressure the players to accept cost certainty and get back to the business of making millions of dollars for playing a game. Failure to do so means they will only be getting what they deserve when the owners take the necessary steps to return control of the NHL to their hands.

"Take it or leave it bargaining" is illegal. The US Supreme Court has already clarified that both parties must come to the table open to getting a deal done. One side cannot say it is my way or the highway, there are a number of precedents I can cite to back this up. The NHL is so far from impasse that the NLRB would laugh them out the door. Remember there is a limited set of circumstances that the NLRB will grant impasse and if the league is planning to use financial extigency they better think again, this is a lockout, not a strike, the NLRB would tell them to unlock the doors and cough up the real books not the Levitt report.

 

[ArtG]

yes but what if both sides say "it's my way or the highway?"

the problem here is they make a very thin facade of bargaining in good faith when we both know neither of them wants to make a deal if a certain issue isn't in their favour.