NHL/NHLPA Meeting over for 6/17.Meet on Monday in TO

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spungo*

Guest
BLONG7 said:
If the PA had a different leader, this would have been done last year...Bob tested the resolve of the owners and league, and lost his member...

Ouch.
 

SPARTAKUS*

Guest
19nazzy said:
Exactly.
First you people were crying about how they were never meeting. And now they're meeting 4 times a week and you're complaining more.
Just give them some time. We've been waiting 9+ months. What's another week or so?

Exactly right nazzy.
 

flambers

Registered User
Jun 4, 2005
1,479
0
19nazzy said:
Exactly.
First you people were crying about how they were never meeting. And now they're meeting 4 times a week and you're complaining more.
Just give them some time. We've been waiting 9+ months. What's another week or so?

You are assuming it will be done in a week or so. Thats my problem. Its mid June and the weeks will go by quickly next thing you know its July and still no CBA.

I have no confidence in either the NHL or NHLPA.
 

19nazzy

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
17,217
31
flambers said:
You are assuming it will be done in a week or so. Thats my problem. Its mid June and the weeks will go by quickly next thing you know its July and still no CBA.

I have no confidence in either the NHL or NHLPA.
If we get to July/Mid-July with no deal, the I'd start being worried. But lets wait shall we?
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,676
37,464
RangerBoy said:
NHL Draft scheduled for August 6-tenatively

The NHL is apparently exploring the feasibility of staging a scaled down version of the draft in Ottawa, which was supposed to play host to the event on June 23. But the draft could also end up in the ballroom of a New York City hotel. Wherever it's held, it's expected only the top-end prospects will be in attendance and that NHL clubs will make their selections from their own cities by phone or internet.

Everything is still very much up in the air, though steps are being taken to start planning this event and others


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=128189


My friend said this to me: "dude what way to get the nhl more good publicity then to have sidney crosby being drafted live on tv"



It's great to know that in the new era of the NHL, that the marketing team is already making mistakes
 

Roke

Registered User
Jul 21, 2003
2,607
669
Winnipeg
go kim johnsson said:
My friend said this to me: "dude what way to get the nhl more good publicity then to have sidney crosby being drafted live on tv"



It's great to know that in the new era of the NHL, that the marketing team is already making mistakes

I imagine the announcement would be made by Bettman and the style would likely be similar to the NFL's draft.
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
i'm pretty sure that we'll have some form of "Live" draft coverage on TSN, even if its just James, Bob, Glenn, Pierre, Gord & Chris sitting at their desks in the TSN studios
 

free0717

Registered User
Apr 14, 2004
2,554
87
Old Bridge, NJ
hossa-the-future said:
if at the end of next week and i still hear "2 more weeks" then i'll start getting REALLY angry, as long as they are done by or on canada day then im alright with that.
If they announce it on canada day im gonna get soooooo loaded.

ill bring a 24 of cans and a hockey stick downtown then start a drunken game with my friends using the crushed cans.

(wouldnt wanna be nets)

Sounds like a typical drunken canuck :biglaugh:
 

Eddie Vedder

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
5,539
0
hossa-the-future said:
if at the end of next week and i still hear "2 more weeks" then i'll start getting REALLY angry, as long as they are done by or on canada day then im alright with that.
If they announce it on canada day im gonna get soooooo loaded.

ill bring a 24 of cans and a hockey stick downtown then start a drunken game with my friends using the crushed cans.

(wouldnt wanna be nets)


My favorite HF post, ever. I read that at work and had to go to the bathroom to stop laughing.
 

cgyfireman

Registered User
Feb 25, 2004
70
42
Let's face it,we're pretty close to a deal......nothin' wrong with going out and having a few to celebrate the return of the game we all love :handclap:
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,333
go kim johnsson said:
My friend said this to me: "dude what way to get the nhl more good publicity then to have sidney crosby being drafted live on tv"



It's great to know that in the new era of the NHL, that the marketing team is already making mistakes

I'm guessing Sid is one of the top-end prospects they'd bring in. ;)

If they get really creative they'd have Sid picking the lucky winner on lottery day.
 

neilm

Registered User
Jun 10, 2005
13
0
Goodenow got a horrible result but in reality I can't say he played his hand poorly.

No league had ever cancelled a season. Lots of deals had gotten done at deadlines.

He did what anyone rational negotiator would have done. He played chicken and the resulting crash is where we are today.

How would you all have played his hand? Cry uncle last August and concede every point then and there? How would you have negotiated from day one?

The only time I'd question his strategy was after the rollback proposal when the NHL refused to even negotiate off this (sports anyway) unprecedented offer, he had to know the jig was up....

He had a crap hand period. The NHL was never interested in the good of the game or the fans (ironic that the majority here supoort them)....they were only interested in breaking the union and guaranteed profits.

Given this foe, how would you have negotiated?
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
neilm said:
Goodenow got a horrible result but in reality I can't say he played his hand poorly.

No league had ever cancelled a season. Lots of deals had gotten done at deadlines.

He did what anyone rational negotiator would have done. He played chicken and the resulting crash is where we are today.

How would you all have played his hand? Cry uncle last August and concede every point then and there? How would you have negotiated from day one?

The only time I'd question his strategy was after the rollback proposal when the NHL refused to even negotiate off this (sports anyway) unprecedented offer, he had to know the jig was up....

He had a crap hand period. The NHL was never interested in the good of the game or the fans (ironic that the majority here supoort them)....they were only interested in breaking the union and guaranteed profits.

Given this foe, how would you have negotiated?

That's funny. You could say that the NHLPA was never interested in the good of the game or the fans either. (As evidenced by Goodenow making statements to the effect that he didn't care if teams lost money, owners had to sell, or teams had to move).

Many of the fans here support the owners not because the owners care about the good of the game or the fans, the support the owners because if the owners got what they wanted it would be better for the game and the fans than if the players got what they wanted.

You could also say that the NHLPA was only interested in keeping the owners divided and weak so the players could keep getting larger contracts. Why is it wrong for the owners to want to have things their way when the NHLPA was trying to do the exact same thing to the owners?
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
neilm said:
Goodenow got a horrible result but in reality I can't say he played his hand poorly.

No league had ever cancelled a season. Lots of deals had gotten done at deadlines.

He did what anyone rational negotiator would have done. He played chicken and the resulting crash is where we are today.

How would you all have played his hand? Cry uncle last August and concede every point then and there? How would you have negotiated from day one?

The only time I'd question his strategy was after the rollback proposal when the NHL refused to even negotiate off this (sports anyway) unprecedented offer, he had to know the jig was up....

He had a crap hand period. The NHL was never interested in the good of the game or the fans (ironic that the majority here supoort them)....they were only interested in breaking the union and guaranteed profits.

Given this foe, how would you have negotiated?
A healthy game + happy fans = lots of money. So of course the NHL was interested in the good of the game and the fans. They'd be crazy not to try and make the fans happy.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
go kim johnsson said:
My friend said this to me: "dude what way to get the nhl more good publicity then to have sidney crosby being drafted live on tv"



It's great to know that in the new era of the NHL, that the marketing team is already making mistakes


My friend I really hate to tell you this, but outside of our little hockey world, nobody knows nor cares who Sidney Crosby is. What difference does it make if he is drafted on TV or over the telephone.

what will get the NHL good publicity is announcing a new CBA and then the start of the season, but everything in between means nothing to most of the world, because to them hockey doesn't even exist.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Icey said:
My friend I really hate to tell you this, but outside of our little hockey world, nobody knows nor cares who Sidney Crosby is. What difference does it make if he is drafted on TV or over the telephone.

what will get the NHL good publicity is announcing a new CBA and then the start of the season, but everything in between means nothing to most of the world, because to them hockey doesn't even exist.

(Please excuse any typos I may make - I've hurt my wrist and the brace makes it quite interestingto type. I'll try to catch most as I go, but no promises.)

But part of the deal is they're going to have to re-sell the game to people who are really invested in hockey as well, and a having the draft on TV will go a long way to showing people "hey, we want this league to get as much attention as possible, even if 60 percent of the sports world could care less." I'm sure, just like any year, fans of each tem will be very interest in not only who they pick up, but who other teams, their rivals, are looking at.

If they can get it on ESPN2 to fill some of those hours that are being filled by bowling and poker and the fireman's challenge, i'd see that as a great step towards the league acting like it's amajor player in the sports world again, which would, in turn, bring them back, at least a little bit further, into the contentintial consciousness.

Now, it's not a must, but I think it'd be a great stepto get the draft on TV if it's feasible.
 

jratelle19

Registered User
Jul 3, 2004
358
9
New York
Let's face it,we're pretty close to a deal......nothin' wrong with going out and having a few to celebrate the return of the game we all love

After the crap that happened in February, I really wouldn't celebrate until the press conference announcing a deal is done. In the meantime, raise your glass tonight just because you love this game so much like all of us do! :cheers:

(Hope you get lucky, too! ;) )
 

CaptainShark

Registered User
Sep 25, 2004
4,136
2,131
Fulda, Germany
jratelle19 said:
After the crap that happened in February, I really wouldn't celebrate until the press conference announcing a deal is done. In the meantime, raise your glass tonight just because you love this game so much like all of us do! :cheers:

(Hope you get lucky, too! ;) )

The difference between back then and today is, that back then the big guns always denied the reports but out of optimism and backed by the fact that nearly every paper was grabbing the story everybody ignored those denials...
 

Luc Labelle

Lucius 895 Injuries
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2005
762
3,108
Winnipeg
neilm said:
He had a crap hand period. The NHL was never interested in the good of the game or the fans (ironic that the majority here supoort them)....they were only interested in breaking the union and guaranteed profits.

Given this foe, how would you have negotiated?

Each side was firmly standing on opposite sides of the great philosophical divide called cost certainty vs free market.

The owners were on their side of the divide because there is little doubt the losses over the last several years were consistent and significant. Yes, they extended the CBA twice but at the time there was still hope for more revenue growth with the final expansion still fresh. The expansion fees helped to deal with the operational losses for a few years. I am pretty sure there was some sort of guarantee to the newest members of the league that no labor unrest would occur in the first few years of membership. Allowing the new markets to entrench themselves before suffering the potentially catastrophic effects of disruption.

The players were on their side of the divide because Bob Goodenow had the NHLPA membership believing the owners were complete liars and rarely lost any significant money and were actually hiding substantial amounts of revenue. He used his highly popular Blue Fin project numbers where Goodenow found $52 million dollars of unreported revenues. Unfortunately much of this revenue is based on subsidiary businesses owned by the same NHL owner who were getting revenues somehow related to hockey.

Personally, I think the NHLPA was really stretching the idea of "hockey related" revenue. Using the NHLPA logic, they would include revenues that the city as a whole benefitted from when hockey was being played - all increased restaurant and hotel revenues, all parking revenues, all increases in taxes etc. Take for example Winnipeg's baseball team the Goldeyes. They are owned by the city's mayor Sam Katz. I am positive that if the baseball team was actually the old Jets that the Blue Fin project would have used the $20 - $30 million annual city revenue benefit figures that were thrown around during the Save the Jets campaign.

All this being established, if I were Bob Goodenow I would definitely have sat down and started negotiating when the NHL offered linkage and 50/50 profit sharing above a negotiated threshold in the February 2 NHL proposal . This proposal had linkage guaranteed between 53 and 55%. The league salary range was to have a minimum of $29.8 million and a maximum of $40 million.

Deadline Bob could have tweaked every component of that proposal in the NHLPA's favor by giving up the no cost certainty philosophy. The only time the NHLPA finally caved on cost certainty was in late April or early May. The NHLPA February 14-16 cap proposals were sheep in wolves' clothing (see infamous clause 7).
 

WC Handy*

Guest
neilm said:
Goodenow got a horrible result but in reality I can't say he played his hand poorly.

No league had ever cancelled a season. Lots of deals had gotten done at deadlines.

He did what anyone rational negotiator would have done. He played chicken and the resulting crash is where we are today.

How would you all have played his hand? Cry uncle last August and concede every point then and there? How would you have negotiated from day one?

The only time I'd question his strategy was after the rollback proposal when the NHL refused to even negotiate off this (sports anyway) unprecedented offer, he had to know the jig was up....

He had a crap hand period. The NHL was never interested in the good of the game or the fans (ironic that the majority here supoort them)....they were only interested in breaking the union and guaranteed profits.

Given this foe, how would you have negotiated?

Yea... you're right... a financially healthy league isn't good for the fans at all. We should all be supporting the NHLPA's cause and hope that half the teams fold over the next decade. Now THAT would be great for the fans.

I can't believe people are still spouting off this BS. If the owners didn't NEED the CBA that they've been asking for, they would have agreed to something the NHLPA offered a long time ago.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
WC Handy said:
Yea... you're right... a financially healthy league isn't good for the fans at all. We should all be supporting the NHLPA's cause and hope that half the teams fold over the next decade. Now THAT would be great for the fans.

I can't believe people are still spouting off this BS. If the owners didn't NEED the CBA that they've been asking for, they would have agreed to something the NHLPA offered a long time ago.

The ONLY reason that the owners need the CBA they are asking for is because they are like a bunch of children who can't control themselves from going to the cookie jar even though they know they shouldn't be. If the owners had acted like the adults they are and worked off a budget this new CBA would not be necessary, but because they can't police themselves they are forced to put themselves into a fool proof system. What happens when teams still lose money in the new CBA will that also be the players fault? If Edmonton couldn't make any money last season with a $33M payroll what will be different next season that will allow them to make money on a $33M payroll because they won't be getting any money from revenue sharing.

And BTW the rumor is that the new CBA is worked off the December 9th proposal.
 

Luc Labelle

Lucius 895 Injuries
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2005
762
3,108
Winnipeg
Icey said:
And BTW the rumor is that the new CBA is worked off the December 9th proposal.

Arbitration, QO's etc. Some of these components are being negotiated from the basis of the December 9th proposal. Also the NHL has taken the 24% rollback from December 9th. But to say that the new CBA is worked off the December 9th proposal is preposterous. That means there is no linkage and no cap. Try again.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Icey said:
The ONLY reason that the owners need the CBA they are asking for is because they are like a bunch of children who can't control themselves from going to the cookie jar even though they know they shouldn't be.

Apparently you still haven't figured out that this isn't only about teams losing money. It's also about the fact that payroll disparity leaves teams at a significant disadvantage. It's as important for the league to level the playing field as it is to prevent the losses.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Icey said:
The ONLY reason that the owners need the CBA they are asking for is because they are like a bunch of children who can't control themselves from going to the cookie jar even though they know they shouldn't be. If the owners had acted like the adults they are and worked off a budget this new CBA would not be necessary, but because they can't police themselves they are forced to put themselves into a fool proof system. What happens when teams still lose money in the new CBA will that also be the players fault? If Edmonton couldn't make any money last season with a $33M payroll what will be different next season that will allow them to make money on a $33M payroll because they won't be getting any money from revenue sharing.

And BTW the rumor is that the new CBA is worked off the December 9th proposal.

That must be it. And it also explains why all the other major sports leagues (in NA, anyway...) have some form of a salary cap. (all of which happen to be more successful than the NHL...) I guess that those owners couldn't act like adults either...

On the other hand, so what if it is the owners fault. They are doing what they feel they have to do to protect ALL of their investments in the NHL. That's what business men do all over the world - try to make sure their businesses make as much money as possible while limiting the chances of having to take losses. I guess that the biggest difference would be that with any other business, the owners would just close the business down and move the work someplace that would have lower labor costs. That isn't exactly practical with the NHL, is it?

Edit: spelling error
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->