New NHLPA headache - most fans would accept replacements

Status
Not open for further replies.

Solipsist

Registered User
Feb 10, 2005
4
0
Wetcoaster said:
According to Bettman and Saskin that offer was characterized as the NHL's final best offer.

In that case the NHL cannot go backwards - that would be bargaining in bad faith and an unfair labour practise.

Initially I was surprised that the NHLPA rejected it out of hand without further negotiation on the triggers but now I am considering that this was a tactic to stick the NHL with this offer. If so it was quite brilliant. Goodenow is acknowledged as a master tactician in negotiations. Bettman has stated that he cannot give more and he cannot go back because that would pretty much deep-six any chance of getting past the NLRB. If they do try to go back you may see an unfair laour practises complaint from the NHLPA.

According to Ted Saskin at his press conference the NHLPA did attempt further negotiations but on the issue of revenue sharing which is what the NHL chopped from the December 9, 2004 NHLPA proposal and completely side-stepped the triggers.

I am wondering if by holding off to the deadline yet again Goodenow has not gained an advantage and some leverage in future negotiations. He basically put the NHL in the same position the NHLPA was in after their December 9 offer and now has the whip hand.

It is will be interesting to seethis play out.


I had a similar assessment of the situation. However, the NHL is not stupid. They know full well that there last, best offer on the table is going to be used for an impasse. That is likely why they put the triggers as low as they did. If they immediately trigger, then the NHL could then institute a cap during the impasse. This way, they get their cake and can eat it too. They get the PR move of offering the other sides deal (with some alterations), without worring about the side effect of making the other side's proposal as their last, best deal.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
OlTimeHockey said:
Assuming replacement players aren't as good at trapping and clogging as their millionaire brethren, I guess I'd have to live with wide open, fast paced hockey with fighting and no egos.

If the ticket's cheap enough, it's still the game I care about. The players 20 years ago didn't shoot as hard, skate as fast, pass as well as the players do today, and the game was more enjoyable back then.

Not to mention that the Canadiens and Canucks have nearby cities they can play in temporarily if it comes to that (Seattle Canucks? Albany/Hamilton Canadiens?).

But what keeps me from being positive about this is just the fact that anything Gary Bettman touches turns to **it.
Not according to TSN : http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=113552

The four provinces with NHL franchises - Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and B.C. - all have different labour laws.

Quebec and B.C. do not allow for replacement workers, which some experts believe could prevent the Montreal Canadiens and Vancouver Canucks from using replacement players. The teams could not play in, say, Hamilton and Seattle for a year, because they could easily be slapped with an unfair labour charge, says Craig.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
go kim johnsson said:
People may say that now just because they're pissed off, but in reality anyone who is a real fan of the NHL wouldn't.

Don't kid yourself, true hockey fans will always watch hockey no matter who's playing, that's why WJC, WC and AHL are popular.

Only people who are not real hockey fans would not go to see NHL with replacement players.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Pepper said:
Don't kid yourself, true hockey fans will always watch hockey no matter who's playing, that's why WJC, WC and AHL are popular.

Only people who are not real hockey fans would not go to see NHL with replacement players.
Well over 1/2 the teams lost money last year going with the actual NHL players , now you want to believe that Fans will go see and pay much less for tickets to boot replacement players.. I highly doubt that ..

Did you happen to watch the level of play when the NFL used replacement players like Mailmen and UPS drivers, former US college players that where out of the sport by then .. It was worse then the USFL that failed miserably .. The NFL replacement attempt failed after only 3 months as well and the NFL went crawling back to the NFLPA then ..

Either way this is HIGH RISK for the NHL and certainly not something the NHL will want to go with long term ..

If it fails and the NHL comes crawling back to the NHLPA then they are in a very bad negotiating place ..
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
Jaded-Fan said:
The good news just keeps coming if you are a player who thinks that the owners are going to break, doesn't it?

'First, consider what the current NHL players would do. Some might cross the line and compete as replacements, but most replacements likely would be young or fringe players — not the league's biggest stars. So it seems logical that most people wouldn't want to watch a lower-level game played by unknowns.

But keep in mind that remaining loyal to specific players has been difficult for years, as players follow dollar signs to new cities and trades make the term franchise player comically antiquated. In this climate, is the idea of fans handing over hard-earned cash to see skating temps that far-fetched?

A poll by FOXSports.com gave us the answer, and NHL players should be a little concerned.

With nearly 10,000 votes cast, 64 percent said they would pay to see replacement players. So a majority of these NHL fans would be willing to rip the Roenick off their authentic jerseys and root for whoever is on the home team. Of course, there was a caveat. In the hundreds of e-mails that arrived with the votes, most people wanted assurance of much lower ticket prices to see minor leaguers.'


http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3365130

I really wonder what you people thinka replacement player would be?

Geez half tHe NHL players under contract would cross if not more. You would see young CHL star players under heir 1st contract cross and tehy would fill up the rosters with AHL players.

You wouldn't see players like sakic pronger thorton or Kovalchuk, but i bet you see players like Torres, Crosby, Carter, Ryder, Bergeron and other young up and coming players play and they would make the owners look good.

Take a look down the roster of your NHL team and guess who will cross and i bet it is over 50%.

Replacement players are not some mystery players playing in teh USHL or even the ECHL they will be an NHL/AHL mix and I bet you won't even miss the "stars"
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,738
38,191
colorado
Visit site
i love hockey period. i root for my team not a specific guy. i dont agree with the players in this, regardles of how much i distrust the owners. yes, ill watch replacement players. the hockey will probably be more exciting with the drop in defensive ability. im a canes fan anyways, so half the team will be from lowell anyway. they would only be replacing the half of the roster i expect to be traded in the next year or two anyhow. i think the nhl as we knew is over, and there isnt a thing we can do about it. those who simply love the game will watch anyway. its just the diehards like us posters who will really freak out about it....ditto shootout. i think they will make the format more exciting, and what we think of the nhl as is over forever. accept it or move on.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Chayos1 said:
I really wonder what you people thinka replacement player would be?

but i bet you see players like Torres, Crosby, Carter, Ryder, Bergeron and other young up and coming players play and they would make the owners look good.
Most of these kind of players can be seen in the AHL already and right now .. Why need to watch them in NHL jerseys .

Just catch and Edmonton Roadrunners game to see Torres or the Providence Bruins to see Bergeron ..

Crosby has already stated he would not be a replacement player and a player like Jeff Carter would have to be a scab player for a Canadian team as Labour laws currently in the US and Canada prohibit players from other countries to be replacement players ..

In fact Canadian born players could only play on Canadian teams, and US on US teams .. So if Joe Sakic or Joe Thornton crossed which they wouldn't they would only be permitted to be scab players on Canadian teams unless they are now US citizens and I am not sure what they are .. but junior players or AHLers are not for sure ..

Crossing picket lines will not go un noticed by the NHLPA or players that consider them scabs ..

So not sure what you are envisioning .. It is very complicated ..

As scabs players could cross picket lines and play for any team they want ..
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
The Messenger said:
Most of these kind of players can be seen in the AHL already and right now .. Why need to watch them in NHL jerseys .

Just catch and Edmonton Roadrunners game to see Torres or the Providence Bruins to see Bergeron ..

Crosby has already stated he would not be a replacement player and a player like Jeff Carter would have to be a scab player for a Canadian team as Labour laws currently in the US and Canada prohibit players from other countries to be replacement players ..

In fact Canadian born players could only play on Canadian teams, and US on US teams .. So if Joe Sakic or Joe Thornton crossed which they wouldn't they would only be permitted to be scab players on Canadian teams unless they are now US citizens and I am not sure what they are .. but junior players or AHLers are not for sure ..

Crossing picket lines will not go un noticed by the NHLPA or players that consider them scabs ..

So not sure what you are envisioning .. It is very complicated ..

As scabs players could cross picket lines and play for any team they want ..

I am not 100% sure on this but don't you actually have to be a union for this to apply? They are not a union but a players association, and I bet if this issue came up the owners would be in court protecting the right of their employees who do want to work.

Sakic would not be a scab crossing a union picket line but a lawfully contracted employee going to work at his job.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Chayos1 said:
I am not 100% sure on this but don't you actually have to be a union for this to apply? They are not a union but a players association, and I bet if this issue came up the owners would be in court protecting the right of their employees who do want to work.

Sakic would not be a scab crossing a union picket line but a lawfully contracted employee going to work at his job.
That is where you are mistaken .. Sakic during an IMPASSE and labour dispute is a considered a scab player because of the Impasse ..

The team could pay him anything they want and teams would not be honouring NHL contracts IMO .. they would not be getting the gate receipts to pay players millions usually the whole idea behind scab workers is cheaper workers that is why the lockout is in place in the first place ..
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Chayos1 said:
I am not 100% sure on this but don't you actually have to be a union for this to apply? They are not a union but a players association, and I bet if this issue came up the owners would be in court protecting the right of their employees who do want to work.

Sakic would not be a scab crossing a union picket line but a lawfully contracted employee going to work at his job.

The NHLPA calls itself a union when it serves their purposes, but fall back on the association label when the less savory aspects of what unions represent (set wages, protection of all jobs vs. culling the herd to protect the nobility) are brought to their attention.

This is why replacement players in Quebec isn't something to be tossed out of hand, because the NHLPA isn't recognized as a union there last I heard...
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
The Messenger said:
Well over 1/2 the teams lost money last year going with the actual NHL players , now you want to believe that Fans will go see and pay much less for tickets to boot replacement players.. I highly doubt that ..

Did you happen to watch the level of play when the NFL used replacement players like Mailmen and UPS drivers, former US college players that where out of the sport by then .. It was worse then the USFL that failed miserably .. The NFL replacement attempt failed after only 3 months as well and the NFL went crawling back to the NFLPA then ..

Either way this is HIGH RISK for the NHL and certainly not something the NHL will want to go with long term ..

If it fails and the NHL comes crawling back to the NHLPA then they are in a very bad negotiating place ..

You just don't get it!

Majority of the teams lost money because of the insane player salaries!

They can get replacement players for an average of $300K (my estimate), that would mean a payroll of $7M. 40 home games with average of 10K people would mean 400K people in total, if the average ticket price is $20, that would mean 8M in revenues from tickets only. Then sponsorship, tv-revenues, parking, concession etc. and you have covered the expenses pretty quickly.

The fans are so clearly on owners side that they would probably get that many people to watch the games.
 

dunwoody_joe

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
1,581
0
atlanta
Visit site
Hell, for three years of expansion in Atlanta I suffered through plenty of replacement players.

Could a replacement team be any worse. At $20 per seat, it would be 70% cheaper too!
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
Steve L said:
They should threaten to move the Canadian teams permanently to the US, Im pretty sure wed then see assurances that no such charges would be applied.

Yeh, the NHLPA would really buy that. You really think the NHL would piss off a whole country who's fans actually care about hockey with that threat? Not only that, but you would be taking one of the most profitable franchises, if not THE most profitable one out of the league. I can't see the NHL dumb enough to do something like that..... then again....
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
Chayos1 said:
I am not 100% sure on this but don't you actually have to be a union for this to apply? They are not a union but a players association, and I bet if this issue came up the owners would be in court protecting the right of their employees who do want to work.

Sakic would not be a scab crossing a union picket line but a lawfully contracted employee going to work at his job.

I was just reading The Code Guide on the LRB-BC site the other day, and it seems to suggest that since the NHLPA and the NHL have entered into a CBA, the PA has been voluntarily recognized by the NHL as the bargaining agent for the players, and so would be so recognized in BC.


Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this information.
 

NHLFanSince2020

What'd He Say?
Feb 22, 2003
3,092
4
Visit site
barnburner said:
I've been watching nhl hockey for 45 years, and if next season starts with replacement players - I will have tickets for the opening game.
I used to place nhl players on a higher level than any other professional athlete.
Unfortunately, they are now card carrying members of the same "ME" fraternity that the baseball, basketball and football players belong to.
They don't give a darn about the future of the league or the fans - just about fattening their bank account.
I might as well cheer for replacement players, because I don't think I can ever bring myself to cheer for these spoiled, fat-cat primma-donnas again.
Reflection of my thoughts exactly.

Good post barnburner.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Digger12 said:
The NHLPA calls itself a union when it serves their purposes, but fall back on the association label when the less savory aspects of what unions represent (set wages, protection of all jobs vs. culling the herd to protect the nobility) are brought to their attention.

This is why replacement players in Quebec isn't something to be tossed out of hand, because the NHLPA isn't recognized as a union there last I heard...

The MLBPA wasn't recognized as a union in Quebec either. Just a technicality, the Expos got together over a beer and voted on something to get recognized as such. Therefore the Expos weren't allowed to use replacements in Montreal during the baseball strike. I assume the same would happen for the Canadiens (and Canucks, if need be).
 

Marconius

Registered User
Jan 27, 2003
1,520
0
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
People may say that now just because they're pissed off, but in reality anyone who is a real fan of the NHL wouldn't.

I consider myself a real fan and I'd have no problem watching replacements. At this point I ams so disillusioned with some of the players that I don't really want to cheer for them anyways, I'd rather cheer for guys who thought they'd never make the NHL and suddenly find themselves in the show.

After you factor in current NHLer's crossing the line and as someone else mentioned, the gap is not huge between the bottom 60% of the NHL and the top 60% of the minors. Sure we'd miss the quality of hockey guys like Hossa, Pronger et al bring, but I would have no problem never seeing those guys again and just concentrate on watching guys like Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby & Phaneuf develop into superstars. Give it a couple years and the quality of play would balance out again.
 

Marconius

Registered User
Jan 27, 2003
1,520
0
Visit site
Bloodsport said:
Regardless of the # of fans that may or may not show up what's the TV deal gonna look like without a "star player" or two? I mean Crosby has already said he will opt out of the draft so there you go no stars no (large) tv deal . No large tv deal = higher gate prices. I think the idea is dead in the water.

I think Crosby was 'steered' into saying aaht he said, don't forget that he initially said he WOULD play. Think about it, you're a 17 year old kid, the next 'Gretzky', you've been waiting for the NHL since you were 6 years old. You're telling me you think he's going to sit out in order to prove some dead point? Meanwhile you have the NHL owners telling you how they'll build an entire league around you as the cornerstone, Gretzky was the face of the NHL v1 and Crosby will be remembered as the face of NHL v2 (Not saying this will happen exactly, but you can bet the owners will be pushing this, trying to get Crosby in)
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
eye said:
If this season is lost I will only support replacements.

I see, so season cancelled and they reach an agreement next week, you'll stop being an NHL fan forever? I don't think so.
 

OlTimeHockey

Registered User
Dec 5, 2003
16,483
0
home
bleedgreen said:
i love hockey period. i root for my team not a specific guy. i dont agree with the players in this, regardles of how much i distrust the owners. yes, ill watch replacement players. the hockey will probably be more exciting with the drop in defensive ability. im a canes fan anyways, so half the team will be from lowell anyway. they would only be replacing the half of the roster i expect to be traded in the next year or two anyhow. i think the nhl as we knew is over, and there isnt a thing we can do about it. those who simply love the game will watch anyway. its just the diehards like us posters who will really freak out about it....ditto shootout. i think they will make the format more exciting, and what we think of the nhl as is over forever. accept it or move on.

And this is what gets me....

The arguments are over player salaries and player this being the reason we spend the money and such and such...

The game is better than ANY player that has ever laced up. Better than Orr, better than Wendy Gretzky, better than Howe, better than Lemieux.

Tell Holik the game's more important than his $9M arse. Tell Linden we'd rather see hockey played better by the worst players who love the game most than the best players refusing to play it because they want to keep their outrageous sums of money. And *F* the League and owners for allowing the merchandizing and advertising gurus to let the game get pushed in the background like it's been since Bettman started and possibly a few years before it (the start of the Gretzky show......non-stop posturing B.S.).

They all got what they deserve....tickets are astronomical in price, salaries are astronomical in number, the game is diluted from astronomical revenue from expansion/overexpansion, the owners all got their money from valuation and expansion....now they lose money from advertising, Television and hopefully the fans. They put themselves, as did the players and agents, ABOVE the game. I won't spend money on them at the expense of the game they ruin.



But if tickets are cheap, I'd LOVE to watch replacement scab ECHL guys who aren't very good but LOVE playing play an all out great game of hockey and not whine about it or sucker punch or demand a trade or demand this or that.
 

OlTimeHockey

Registered User
Dec 5, 2003
16,483
0
home
dunwoody_joe said:
Hell, for three years of expansion in Atlanta I suffered through plenty of replacement players.

Could a replacement team be any worse. At $20 per seat, it would be 70% cheaper too!


I did it on the Island, too....and I guarantee I liked watching Ken Baumgartner and Mick Vukota better than watching Michael Peca and Alexei Yashin a thousand times more.

Nobody on those old teams had a head bigger than his helmet. They were fun to watch and I think those games meant more to us AND them. Replacements would be like watching old time hockey. Lose a ref, allow fighting, hard hitting, too. Strip the ads off the boards and lose the mascots and the League will have finally fixed everything Bettman ruined about the game!
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
They would be playing under the NHL's last offer, one that included a salary floor. That floor can be linked to revenue, but it has to start somewhere, based off last year's revenue-$32 or $34 million(I don't remember). So in the first year, they would *have* to pay players an average of at least $1.3 million. If revenue is reduced 33%, the owners are now paying about 69% of revenue to the players, which is actually more than they paid last year.



Great point hockeytown9321.

After thinking about it for a while. I now know why the NHL changed their proposal to try the Players Dec 9th proposal at first. In the players proposal there is no salary floor if i remember. So the NHL last proposal of trying the players tax system would be thier final proposal. And the CBA would be based off that.

Gotta hand it to Bettman, the players made a fatal error of not having a salary floor and Gary jumped on it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->