Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by nyrmessier011, Apr 20, 2005.
Looks to me that way
will be the smartest thing they ever decided NOT to do.
its too bad.
Now all we have tolook forward to is the NHLPA boys sitting on their butts for another winter.
Stupid move, they just gave Goodenow more reason to hold out.
ODC, I couldn't disagree more.
Replacements is a easily achieved target with a clear exit strategy for the PA. Not going to replacements iliminates this target and ensures that the only way an agreement will be reached is if the players negotiate a setlement. Not agreeing to anything is no longer an option for the players.
wow this is a big surprise. if the owners dont want replacements, i dont know why bettman said it publicly. this is a sign of weakness and i believe the talks favour the NHLPA now. bettman has guarunteed hockey for next season now someone has to back down.
The NHL was not looking good till this move.
NHL: We have to meet twice a week. We will not use replacement players. We will start the season in October with the regular players. Like the fans, we know we must have cost certainty.
NHLPA: We won't work unless (insert usual ranting by NHLPA about the NHL)
Bottom line the NHL is setting itself up to make Goodenow and the PA look like selfish greedy know-it-all's that have no clue what it means to be a negotiating partner.
Disclaimer: Not saying that it is true or vice versa, but in the average fans eyes.
I see this strictly as a PR move to force the PA to accept a reasonable offer from the owners.
And no, a cap at 50 or even 45 million isn't reasonable.
Makes me wonder if they are going to use Europe against the players this time around since many of the Euro-teams want the players to sign up without escape clauses for next season. So now these players are stuck. If they don't opt for europe they could be left holding nothing, and that would pressure Goodenow into getting a deal done.
Apparently the NHL has abandoned the idea of using replacement players according to reports following the BOG meeting. No CBA - No 2005-06 season.
Looks like the NHL has accepted what many labour law pundits have said all along - replacement players really were never really an option.
Call me naive but I think this is a gesture of good faith from the NHL. It's showing that they won't try to enforce a bargaining agreement by declaring a deadlock and are ready to negotiate accordingly.
Sure it's also a PR move but one that sits them down at the negotiating table. That's at least mildly good news.
Welcome back. I've missed your insights.
What a difference a day makes.
Yesterday here was Bettman's position following the negotiating session as quoted in numerous media:
"My stance on starting the season hasn't changed," he said. "What I have said is that we are going to start the season on time and that is a plan that will continue to be in place."
And after meeting with his bosses his tune now is:
â€œWe will continue to plan for the start of next season with an on-time opening in October, that is where our efforts will be,â€ Bettman said after a four-hour meeting with the leagueâ€™s board of governors. â€œIf we do not have a new collective bargaining agreement, we will not open the season on time."
Sounds like Bettman has received new marching orders.
And like you've said all along, replacements were never really an option anyway. Today was probably just the NHL pulling the plug on even considering them.
I have seen nothing in the way of "good faith" from the NHL thus far.
IMHO the NHL has simply recognized that replacement players are a "no go" in this situation - labour law precedents and immigration law scuttled that strategy. The NHLPA knew this long ago so the NHL threats were empty. If you are going to bluff you need to be sure the other side does not know what cards you are holding.
I thought this whole mess was just his fault, due to his hate-on for Goodenow?
I believe the owners realized the numbers for replacement hockey doesn't work. IMO they are still trying to bring in season ticket money because right now is a time of fan optimism thinking it's going to come back in the fall. Because the NHL sees replacements as a bad fit, they still would drag this on until the winter because now they will have the finances to do so. I am sure as hell not going to re-new mine and fund the NHL until i see a CBA.
I wouldn't put that past them. Create optimism to sell season tickets.
And figuring out their hand wouldn't have been real hard as that information and research is available to both sides equally .
Bettman is ultimately answerable to his employers. While he has his "super-majority" to control what offer goes to the BOG for a vote, it only takes a simple majority to fire him.
In that case you simply do not fill the Commissioner's chair for a short while (therefore no super majority any longer because it depends upon the Commissioner's recommendation - no Commissioner, so no 8 owner veto bloc). Some designated BOG member or members take over the negotiations - then it is a simple majority vote to get a deal done.
Many NHL owners cannot afford to let this go on for a second season given leases, sponsorship contracts, advertising, los of draft picks, etc. Bettman may have shot his bolt as the NHLPA has shown no sign of folding. The players do have options, the owners much less so.
It would not be the first time pro sports owners have badly miscalculated - see the failed MLB experiment with replacement players for example.
In the NFL case the NFLPA simply did an end around, decertified and won what they sought using anti-trust law.
In the case of the NBA, the NBAPA simply threatened decertification and the NBA backed down.
History is on the side of the players.
Next stop, Impasseville!
So you figure the NHLPA is going to come out of this one the "winner"?
No drags on salaries, no cap, fully guaranteed contracts, etc?
If that is the case, do you think the league will be able to survive the same salary escalation for the next ten years that it had in the last ten years?
What range of appealing options do the players have?? Given the number of outright failures in the "NHLPA invades the Euro leagues" fiasco, and that they face another year of lower earnings, I'm not sure things look much rosier from the players' perspective than they did a year ago. If an owner loses less by not playing, how do you assume the players have any greater bargaining position than before last season?? I would say the general consensus is that the large portion of players who are in their peak or last few earnings years are going to be getting pretty damned antsy to return to what's left of their goldmine contracts of yesteryear.
Declaring an impasse only is an issue if you are intending to use replacement players and the NHL has apparently conluded that is not a viable option.
I was responding to the point that the NHL owners know what they are doing.
Separate names with a comma.