Crazy_Ike said: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 said: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.
thinkwild said:you guys are too much.
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 headingLarionov said: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.
Wetcoaster said: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.
PecaFan said:The Canucks have *never* released any profit figures under the current regime. Yet you continue to toss this media speculation out as "fact".
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.The Messenger said: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 ..
I implied that the players would cross a NHLPA strike picket line to return to work .. Thus becoming scabs and getting paid ..NewGuy said: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.
Are all 30 owners firmly united behind Bettman of the benfits of not playing Hockey next season from their business point of views?RLC said: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.
The Messenger said:Are all 30 owners firmly united behind Bettman of the benfits of not playing Hockey next season from their business point of views?
Wetcoaster said: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.
Larionov said: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.
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?The Messenger said:I implied that the players would cross a NHLPA strike picket line to return to work .. Thus becoming scabs and getting paid ..
Of course you're missing the most obvious answer ..HockeyCritter said: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 . . . .
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 -The Messenger said: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 ..
Can you tell us where you've confirmed this one-year requirement?cleduc said:They have to wait a full year before declaring impasse and implementing their plans to move forward so there's no big rush.
ColoradoHockeyFan said:Can you tell us where you've confirmed this one-year requirement?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.
kdb209 said:His overactive imagination.
There is no such requirement.
cleduc said: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 said: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.
kdb209 said: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.
gc2005 said: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.