Owners Backing off replacements?

[thinkwild]

The one person who wanted replacements was Bob Goodenow. Once again, he's been outmaneuvored by the league. What does he have left?

So much for Bob's stalling tactics.

you guys are too much.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

you guys are too much.

Yep, I'm sure the NHLPA board is awash with players high fiving each other and figuring they've won a big battle.

Then the realization sets in that they've won nothing at all, and instead of being faced with a decision one way or the other in November, they're stuck sitting until they give what the league has decided it needs to have.

A lot of shortsighted people both here and there (that obviously includes the fellow I quoted). Bob MacKenzie said it himself - the very worst thing for the players was to have this go into another year. It's not good for the owners, either, but its fatal for the players.

Now they have no choice. Accept what the NHL is giving (at least reasonably close anyways), or go down the worst possible scenario. NHLPA loses again. Of course, given their attitudes for the last five years, they deserve everything they've lost.

Reap what you've sown, NHLPA.

 

[Larionov]

I was supportive of the replacement player option, but there's no doubt it was the riskier of the two strategies. As was earlier pointed out, it took control away from the league, and gave it to a third party in the fans. Simply continuing the lockout indefinitely was the safest play, and I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that a room full of wealthy middle aged white guys took the safe bet.

There should be no glee amongst 'PA supporters, however -- far from it. In fact, a failure of replacement hockey was the 'PA's only hope to get a player friendly deal. Now, the NHL is back to "war of attrition" mode, and in a war of attrition pitting billionaires against millionaires, my money is on the billionaires.

Wetcoaster says the players have options for next season. My question is this -- which players? By the time July 1 rolls around, over half of the players who finished the 03-04 season will be without an NHL contract. How many of these guys have played their last game in the NHL, but just don't know it yet? Even if hockey gets rolling again on time in October, the casualty rate amongst the 'PA membership is going to be gruesome. The careers of a lot of players have been thrown under the bus, and all for the 'PA to get a deal they could have had last summer.

 

[mr gib]

I was supportive of the replacement player option, but there's no doubt it was the riskier of the two strategies. As was earlier pointed out, it took control away from the league, and gave it to a third party in the fans. Simply continuing the lockout indefinitely was the safest play, and I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that a room full of wealthy middle aged white guys took the safe bet.

There should be no glee amongst 'PA supporters, however -- far from it. In fact, a failure of replacement hockey was the 'PA's only hope to get a player friendly deal. Now, the NHL is back to "war of attrition" mode, and in a war of attrition pitting billionaires against millionaires, my money is on the billionaires.

Wetcoaster says the players have options for next season. My question is this -- which players? By the time July 1 rolls around, over half of the players who finished the 03-04 season will be without an NHL contract. How many of these guys have played their last game in the NHL, but just don't know it yet? Even if hockey gets rolling again on time in October, the casualty rate amongst the 'PA membership is going to be gruesome. The careers of a lot of players have been thrown under the bus, and all for the 'PA to get a deal they could have had last summer.

there was enuff there for a deal and the owners wouldn't take it - you are right though - another year of this and there may be nothing left - but i guess the espn date of june 15th might be where this is heading

 

[GKJ]

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.

Yes sir.



The NHL knows that replacement players will not work and would just flush money down the toilet. If they don't know that, then enough of them beleive that it isn't worth the risk. They aren't the idiot fans who run around saying they're going to be first in line to watch what would be a soupy drek.

 

[codswallop]

The Canucks have *never* released any profit figures under the current regime. Yet you continue to toss this media speculation out as "fact".

Shame, you used that four letter "f" word. I could swear that was a no-no on this board

Truthfully, too many regulars here wouldn't know a fact if it started chomping on their rear. All of us are guilty of that from time to time, but some don't have much of a clue how to separate fact from fiction/speculation/assumption.

I'd rant more but I've got freaking jury duty again tomorrow. I should be sufficiently ticked off after that to produce a whopper of a rant tomorrow. Unless this thread spirals off on some other tangent, which of course is always a good possibility.

 

[NewGuy]

Also in order to declare an IMPASSE the NHL would have to drop the Lockout .. The NHLPA could then adopt the Strike position .. and players like Yashin and Holik and others could show up on owners doors saying here I am, pay me my guaranteed contract, not playing games that is not my concern.

The NHLPA would probably support that stance .. NO hockey but players getting paid ..

Wow, you can get paid by your employer while being on strike. I bet this is news to anyone who has ever been on strike, because they sure missed out on this goldmine.

 

[Mess]

Wow, you can get paid by your employer while being on strike. I bet this is news to anyone who has ever been on strike, because they sure missed out on this goldmine.

I implied that the players would cross a NHLPA strike picket line to return to work .. Thus becoming scabs and getting paid ..

 

[RLC]

With the replacement players off the table the NHLPA has lots it's last chip. The only chip they had left was if the Replacement players would fall flat the NHLPA would have a better position to demand that 50 mill cap, recooping some of the lost money from this year.

Without the possibility of the replacement players falling flat their is no hope for things to change. The owners have now left the players only one option. Negotiate off the owners proposal or suffer another year off.
Goodenow I am sure was thinking. If we settle now for the 37mil cap it's the same as waiting for the replacement players to fall= 50mil cap or replacement don't fall and finally accept the 37 mill cap. So lets wait to see what the replacement guys do. We can only win or tie this thing.

Now it's 37mil now or 37mil later or perhaps less. No chance at a 50 mil cap anymore.

 

[Mess]

With the replacement players off the table the NHLPA has lots it's last chip. The only chip they had left was if the Replacement players would fall flat the NHLPA would have a better position to demand that 50 mill cap, recooping some of the lost money from this year.

Without the possibility of the replacement players falling flat their is no hope for things to change. The owners have now left the players only one option. Negotiate off the owners proposal or suffer another year off.
Goodenow I am sure was thinking. If we settle now for the 37mil cap it's the same as waiting for the replacement players to fall= 50mil cap or replacement don't fall and finally accept the 37 mill cap. So lets wait to see what the replacement guys do. We can only win or tie this thing.

Now it's 37mil now or 37mil later or perhaps less. No chance at a 50 mil cap anymore.

Are all 30 owners firmly united behind Bettman of the benfits of not playing Hockey next season from their business point of views?

 

[Larionov]

Are all 30 owners firmly united behind Bettman of the benfits of not playing Hockey next season from their business point of views?

They've been remarkably united so far, so I think it is wishful thinking on the part of the 'PA to think that the owners might crack now. Would the owners rather be playing? Sure -- they would have rather not missed this season if they could have had the right deal. By blowing away the season, however, the owners showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are determined to get a deal that works for them long term. If there were any serious cracks in owner solidarity, you would have seen them in February when the possibility of salvaging a season (and playoff revenue) was dangling in front of them.

No one should interpret the end (for now) of the replacement player option as being any kind of a win for the 'PA. There were two ways of proceeding for the owners -- either replacements or a continued Cold War, and they simply chose the safer, simpler Cold War option.

 

[AM]

the owners have always blinked

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.

Thats a part of history too.

 

[SuperUnknown]

They've been remarkably united so far, so I think it is wishful thinking on the part of the 'PA to think that the owners might crack now. Would the owners rather be playing? Sure -- they would have rather not missed this season if they could have had the right deal. By blowing away the season, however, the owners showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are determined to get a deal that works for them long term. If there were any serious cracks in owner solidarity, you would have seen them in February when the possibility of salvaging a season (and playoff revenue) was dangling in front of them.

No one should interpret the end (for now) of the replacement player option as being any kind of a win for the 'PA. There were two ways of proceeding for the owners -- either replacements or a continued Cold War, and they simply chose the safer, simpler Cold War option.

Maybe the owners should set a deadline for next season and if it's not met with an agreement book another sport in their rinks (instead of hockey) to cover part of their loss.

 

[NewGuy]

I implied that the players would cross a NHLPA strike picket line to return to work .. Thus becoming scabs and getting paid ..

Wouldn't this play into the owner's hands and create a division in the PA? Why should some 4th liner strike when Yashin and Holik are pulling in 9 mill a year?

If this happened the union would not last long and the league would be up and running fairly quick.

 

[HockeyCritter]

This move (even if temporary) has to place a tiny seed of doubt in the minds of some players – one possible venue (as replacement players) of employment has been closed. Perhaps this annoucement was designed to get the players wondering if they could survive another year of missed paychecks.

Or perhaps the owners softened their stance to offer an olive branch to the PA.

Or perhaps I totally missed the boat . . . .

 

[Mess]

This move (even if temporary) has to place a tiny seed of doubt in the minds of some players – one possible venue (as replacement players) of employment has been closed. Perhaps this annoucement was designed to get the players wondering if they could survive another year of missed paychecks.

Or perhaps the owners softened their stance to offer an olive branch to the PA.

Or perhaps I totally missed the boat . . . .

Of course you're missing the most obvious answer ..

That the Owners went away, researched the use of replacements players and discovered the possible complications that they may present, as well as set up Focus groups that also return the same conclusion that replacement players would not be successful long term ..

Then after finishing all their Due Diligence decided to abandoned the idea ..


.

 

[mr gib]

Of course you are missing the most obvious answer ..

That the Owners went away, researched the use of replacements players and discovered the possible complications that they may present, as well as set up Focus groups that also return the same conclusion that replacement players would not be successful long term ..

Then after finishing all their Due Diligence decided to abandoned the idea ..

agreed - some pundit said today that the nhl did some focus group research - of course they won't make it public - that fans won't pay full ride for replacement's - if the league went a head and did so with adjustments to ticket prices they'd never get the prices back up once a deal was reached -

 

[Jarqui]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/wings/0504/21/D01-157668.htmThe NHL ruled out one possibility Wednesday as its stalemate with the NHL Players Association grinds on.

Only if there is agreement on a new contract will the 2005-06 NHL season begin on time, in early October, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said.

After that ... no one has ruled out any possibilities, including the use of replacement players. At least that's the view of Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch.

"If we had to go to replacement players, I'm not that concerned," Ilitch said Wednesday. "If we don't make a deal and an impasse is declared, I feel we've got to play hockey."
…
"We will continue to plan for the start of next season with an on-time opening in October," said Bettman, adding that anything short of an agreement and a punctual start to the 2005-06 season might change strategies.
"If that is an eventuality at that juncture," he said, "we will have to start again on what options we will pursue."

That was said Wednesday. That's about the 15th NHL team that I've heard say that.

Bettman has carefully worded his comments. They won't start on time without a deal but that doesn't say that they won't ever start without a deal - they may be just a little late getting going with their planned alternatives. They have to wait a full year before declaring impasse and implementing their plans to move forward so there's no big rush.

I still haven't heard why they can't say "The AHL is playing for the Stanley Cup with a bunch of the games in our buildings". Why give Goodenow a legal opening to stir things up by hiring replacement players, when they can cut over to a "replacement league" that they own about 2/3rds of already with no legal hassle and the best non NHLers already under contract cheap ? Maybe the owners have a better scheme than that planned.

I think it's naive to believe with any certainty that the owners are merely going to roll over and twiddle their thumbs if there is no deal come September 15th, 2005 and most certainly before January 2006.

September 15th, 2005 is the first potential Armageddon Day for the NHL/NHLPA CBA dispute beyond the day that they canceled the season in my opinion.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

They have to wait a full year before declaring impasse and implementing their plans to move forward so there's no big rush.

Can you tell us where you've confirmed this one-year requirement?

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc
They have to wait a full year before declaring impasse and implementing their plans to move forward so there's no big rush.

Can you tell us where you've confirmed this one-year requirement?

His overactive imagination.

There is no such requirement.

 

[Jarqui]

His overactive imagination.

There is no such requirement.

Sept 15th is the anniversary date of the expiry of their CBA. Sept 15th arguably establishes a date that the two parties agreed previously that they could "live with" in terms of a deadline for their CBA deal. The NHL is a seasonal business. They will have completed an entire business year/season without a CBA on Sept 15th.

An impasse technically existed when they couldn't strike a deal last year. But if they move before Sept 15th to actually implement alternative plans because of impasse, a more legitimate argument can be made to the NLRB by the NHLPA that the NHL has rushed to judgment in going forward with their plans. Waiting until September 15th allows the NHL to say in their legal defence : "We gave the situation an entire second chance."

That may not be important to us fans but it will carry some significance with it if they have to say that to the NLRB rather than trying to defend the alternative.

Any unilateral action taken by the NHL will ultimately be met with some form legal/NLRB challenges from the NHLPA if possible in any way, shape or form. Knowing that, the NHL has to keep their legal position as clean and as solid as possible.

The statements made by Gary Bettman on Wednesday also fit within this need and muddy the issue of what the NHL's precise intentions are if they can't get a deal with the NHLPA for next season.

 

[kdb209]

Sept 15th is the anniversary date of the expiry of their CBA. Sept 15th arguably establishes a date that the two parties agreed previously that they could "live with" in terms of a deadline for their CBA deal. The NHL is a seasonal business. They will have completed an entire business year/season without a CBA on Sept 15th.

An impasse technically existed when they couldn't strike a deal last year. But if they move before Sept 15th to actually implement alternative plans because of impasse, a more legitimate argument can be made to the NLRB by the NHLPA that the NHL has rushed to judgment in going forward with their plans. Waiting until September 15th allows the NHL to say in their legal defence : "We gave the situation an entire second chance."

That may not be important to us fans but it will carry some significance with it if they have to say that to the NLRB rather than trying to defend the alternative.

Any unilateral action taken by the NHL will ultimately be met with some form legal/NLRB challenges from the NHLPA if possible in any way, shape or form. Knowing that, the NHL has to keep their legal position as clean and as solid as possible.

The statements made by Gary Bettman on Wednesday also fit within this need and muddy the issue of what the NHL's precise intentions are if they can't get a deal with the NHLPA for next season.

Calling it an anniversary is all well and good, but that bears no legal weight whatsoever. Any legal challenges will be decided on the actions of the two parties and not a calendar. The dockets of the NLRB are full of cases that did not wait this mythical year.

The NHL could just as well argue (if they decided to go down the impasse route now) that because the league is seasonal they have to declare an impasse in April (or May or whetever timetable they decide) in order to enable them to plan for next season.

I never thought that an impasse or replacement players were ever a likely endgame anyway - too many risks when you already hold a winning hand in a waiting game.

 

[CGG]

I never thought that an impasse or replacement players were ever a likely endgame anyway - too many risks when you already hold a winning hand in a waiting game.

There has to be a point where waiting is no longer good for anyone. Players, owners, fans (obviously). The owners don't hold a winning hand in a waiting game. They hold a winning hand now. Give a little and get a deal done that is overwhelmingly in their favor, working off the current $30-$50 million payroll range. There is no way even the owners can screw that up.

If they continue the hardline waiting game, they might end up with a deal that looks better on paper, but will be far worse after ESPN bails and we go through a whole off season of no draft, no ticket sales, no sponsorships, no tv and radio contracts, nothing. I'd rather take the $30-$50 million of what could be $2.1 billion again now then wait and get the famous 54% linkage crap (with no guarantees they'll ever get this) after another wasted season in an industry that would then be worth half that.

 

[Jarqui]

Calling it an anniversary is all well and good, but that bears no legal weight whatsoever. Any legal challenges will be decided on the actions of the two parties and not a calendar. The dockets of the NLRB are full of cases that did not wait this mythical year.

The NHL could just as well argue (if they decided to go down the impasse route now) that because the league is seasonal they have to declare an impasse in April (or May or whetever timetable they decide) in order to enable them to plan for next season.

I never thought that an impasse or replacement players were ever a likely endgame anyway - too many risks when you already hold a winning hand in a waiting game.

And the NHLPA can argue "We've started the season before in January, why not now ?"

The NHL could have hired replacements the day after the lockout. That doesn't mean that they would get away with it. Just because there have been legal cases before a year has passed doesn't mean that they were successful because they did that.

Bettman has already given some indication of this timing in his remarks. What motive does he have to start the season late with replacements ? Why not start it on time ? The circular negotiations that they are having don't last forever. There is a point when impasse is reached and the legal path to replacements is much clearer.

That path gets clearer when they have demonstrated that they have a philosophical divide that has created the impasse and when they have given the situation every possible chance and a maximum amount of time to correct itself. Anything done sooner than that has higher legal risks.

There may be a lot of rhetoric before Sept 15th but there won't be a lot of definite action taken on the alternatives. After the beginning of the season has lapsed, the way for the NHL to exercise their favorite alternative is a lot less risky because time will have established their patience with the disagreement on cost certainty.

 

[Jarqui]

There has to be a point where waiting is no longer good for anyone. Players, owners, fans (obviously). The owners don't hold a winning hand in a waiting game. They hold a winning hand now. Give a little and get a deal done that is overwhelmingly in their favor, working off the current $30-$50 million payroll range. There is no way even the owners can screw that up.

If they continue the hardline waiting game, they might end up with a deal that looks better on paper, but will be far worse after ESPN bails and we go through a whole off season of no draft, no ticket sales, no sponsorships, no tv and radio contracts, nothing. I'd rather take the $30-$50 million of what could be $2.1 billion again now then wait and get the famous 54% linkage crap (with no guarantees they'll ever get this) after another wasted season in an industry that would then be worth half that.

In 2003-4, the average payroll was around $44 mil.

The drop in NHL revenues due to the lockout / lost season in the best case has to be 10%. The $30-50 mil cap range you refernce roughly averages out to $40 mil - a 10% drop in payroll. The owners would have a similar financial problem with those new numbers as they had with the old deal.

They'd be insane to sign such a deal. With those numbers, they lose less money if they let the players sit another year. You have to chop $10 mil off those numbers to get warm in the best revenue case after lockout according to Levitt's numbers (which I have much more faith in than Forbes guesses).