owners looking at a "third option"

Status
Not open for further replies.

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
This idea doesn't make any sense. This whole lockout came about because the owners are incompetent and can't control themselves, did it not? Now all of a sudden the old CBA (or a new player-friendly CBA) would be installed and the owners are supposed to trust each other that they won't go out and sign anyone good?

I give it 10 minutes before the Leafs or Flyers or Stars or Rangers start gobbling up all of the high-priced talent that is supposed to remain untouched. If all other teams are signing Dmitir Kvartalnov and Yuri Khmylev, why not take a few bucks and sign up Kovalev, Murray, Pronger, Joseph and everyone else? Instant Stanley Cup favourite.

If you do this, is Bettman going to fine you? Complain to the papers that a team is breaking their secret collusion pledge to screw over the players? I don't think so.

If the owners can and are willing to actually control themsevles, why is there still a lockout going on?
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
gc2005 said:
This idea doesn't make any sense. This whole lockout came about because the owners are incompetent and can't control themselves, did it not? Now all of a sudden the old CBA (or a new player-friendly CBA) would be installed and the owners are supposed to trust each other that they won't go out and sign anyone good?

I give it 10 minutes before the Leafs or Flyers or Stars or Rangers start gobbling up all of the high-priced talent that is supposed to remain untouched. If all other teams are signing Dmitir Kvartalnov and Yuri Khmylev, why not take a few bucks and sign up Kovalev, Murray, Pronger, Joseph and everyone else? Instant Stanley Cup favourite.

If you do this, is Bettman going to fine you? Complain to the papers that a team is breaking their secret collusion pledge to screw over the players? I don't think so.

If the owners can and are willing to actually control themsevles, why is there still a lockout going on?

there are only 288 players under contract for this season.... the number goes down next season as well (112 players for the 2006-07).. they just buy out all those contracts maybe... as a group... That means that more than half (462) their 750 membership do not have contracts...
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
dakota said:
there are only 288 players under contract for this season.... the number goes down next season as well (112 players for the 2006-07).. they just buy out all those contracts maybe... as a group... That means that more than half (462) their 750 membership do not have contracts...

Uh huh, and then what? More free agents only makes the problem worse. You need 23 players on your team, so you'd have to sign a whole bunch, and you have Bettman tellling you to fill out your rosters with crap players and mediocrity, don't offer the good guys anything close to what they're worth.

Aside from the obvious collusion aspects of this, I'm saying that owners have proven time and time again that they will do anything to screw over their other owners and to make their own team better, regardless of how that might hinder their own finances. Sign Jarome Iginla for $6 million, too tempting for 30 teams to pass that up.

Why would it be any different this time around? If they couldn't control themselves before, how could they control themselves now? And if they could control themselves, why do we need a lockout or a salary cap?
 

Mr Sakich

Registered User
Mar 8, 2002
9,641
1,279
Motel 35
vimeo.com
IMO, this could be what the nhl has in mind

end the lock-out and make public promises to the lower paid players that they are in line for the same or more money. They can even start offering contracts. The nhlpa will be forced to have a strike vote based on the owner's last offer. If enough of the lower priced players are convinced this is the best deal, then the owner's last offer may easily get accepted by 51% of the players.

If the nhlpa refuses to vote on the offer, it may legitimize the impasse declaration. From what I understand, and impasse is not between the nhl and its players, the impasse is a fialure between the nhl and the negotiating body (nhlpa)

Maybe bettman and the owners think the union has allready lost and that a majority of players will accept their last offer. All they have to do is to force the union to have a vote. For every marchant / mcabe , there are two plumbers like commodore who will be voting in favour of the owners' offer.

Note - this post was not based on anything that mahr said, just my opinion as to what mahr's third option could be. More details will be comming this afternoon on his 5:00 pm show. I hope some other calgary listeners will tune into to verify what he is saying.
 

chara

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
894
0
And in the end, the owners will get what they want.

Players will cross. Losing one year was one thing but to hold out for another when your union already caved on a huge paycut and a cap. What's the point.

The NHLPA should have taken the NHL's last offer.
 

AlexGodynyuk

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
170
0
dakota said:
there are only 288 players under contract for this season.... the number goes down next season as well (112 players for the 2006-07).. they just buy out all those contracts maybe... as a group... That means that more than half (462) their 750 membership do not have contracts...
Umm, if this was the plan, why not accept the 24% rollback back in December and go from there...
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
gc2005 said:
Uh huh, and then what? More free agents only makes the problem worse. You need 23 players on your team, so you'd have to sign a whole bunch, and you have Bettman tellling you to fill out your rosters with crap players and mediocrity, don't offer the good guys anything close to what they're worth.

Aside from the obvious collusion aspects of this, I'm saying that owners have proven time and time again that they will do anything to screw over their other owners and to make their own team better, regardless of how that might hinder their own finances. Sign Jarome Iginla for $6 million, too tempting for 30 teams to pass that up.

Why would it be any different this time around? If they couldn't control themselves before, how could they control themselves now? And if they could control themselves, why do we need a lockout or a salary cap?

Because there would systemic changes that would not allow what happened to happen again... this is the whole reason to do it... to basically buy out the players and start a new system... those players that want to go play in Europe can and are free to go... those that want to stay can and will be paid under the new system...
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
alexmorrison said:
Umm, if this was the plan, why not accept the 24% rollback back in December and go from there...

systemic changes were not being offerred... with this new plan... they dont need to negotiate with the union they can buy them all out... and put a new plan in place...without the NHLPA having any say in it.

That would be beautiful!
 

MissTeeks

Registered User
Feb 1, 2005
76
0
Calgary, AB
Mr Sakich said:
Note - this post was not based on anything that mahr said, just my opinion as to what mahr's third option could be. More details will be comming this afternoon on his 5:00 pm show. I hope some other calgary listeners will tune into to verify what he is saying.

I listen to Mr. Maher almost everyday so I will confirm what I here.
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
Mr Sakich said:
Note - this post was not based on anything that mahr said, just my opinion as to what mahr's third option could be. More details will be comming this afternoon on his 5:00 pm show. I hope some other calgary listeners will tune into to verify what he is saying.

Is that 5pm MST on the Fan 960? For those who might be able to listen on fan960.com.
 

MissTeeks

Registered User
Feb 1, 2005
76
0
Calgary, AB
ColoradoHockeyFan said:
Is that 5pm MST on the Fan 960? For those who might be able to listen on fan960.com.

He actually starts at 4:00 MST on Sportsline with Rob Kerr, but his actual NHL Insider segment is at 5:00 MST.
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
me2 said:
The Flames organisation leaves the NHL collective. The Flames players could then tell Goodenow and the NHLPA to accept the Flames offer on behalf of the Flames players (now seperate from the other NHLPA members). Goodenow might be compelled to accept. If he chooses not, despite being ordered to, the players would then vote to cut the NHLPA as their union elect a new union. Both sides negotiate a CBA they are happy with and get on with it. If a few more teams do the same and we start getting a season.

So rather than needing 50.1% of the entire union teams would only need 50.1% of a that team's players.
This is a fascinating idea. :bow:

It deserves some commentary from those with a background in the technicalities involved.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
dakota said:
systemic changes were not being offerred... with this new plan... they dont need to negotiate with the union they can buy them all out... and put a new plan in place...without the NHLPA having any say in it.

That would be beautiful!

Not quite. And horribly wrong. Any guesses how much it would cost to buy out all remaining contracts? At a 2/3 buyout option, roughly $782 million. Good plan. So then after you give players all this money for doing nothing, guess what, they're still part of the NHLPA. You can't just get rid of a union by buying out all of their contracts. UFA's and RFA's are still part of the union and still have a vote, even though they aren't under contract. The PA is still the officially recognized bargaining agent for the players.

The owners still have to negotiate a CBA and get approval from the PA, or at the very least, try their hair-brained impasse / implementation scheme, followed by their "don't offer anyone a decent pay cheque" collusion plan. Good luck.
 

ladybugblue

Registered User
May 5, 2004
2,427
0
Edmonton, AB
Actually Burke alluded to another alternative on one of the TSN audio/video files. I wasn't really following it but he did mention a third option.
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
gc2005 said:
The owners still have to negotiate a CBA and get approval from the PA, or at the very least, try their hair-brained impasse / implementation scheme
Oh no. At the very least all they need do is wait. The Association has already shown its weakness by surrendering the one issue they vowed never to surrender.

I'll write what I've already written before. It's funny how the PA and its supporters are now those most rabidly in favor of a declaration of impasse. They've lost the war of wills and now can do nothing but pray that lawyers and judges can save them from their own weakness.
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
dedalus said:
Oh no. At the very least all they need do is wait. The Association has already shown its weakness by surrendering the one issue they vowed never to surrender.

I'll write what I've already written before. It's funny how the PA and its supporters are now those most rabidly in favor of a declaration of impasse. They've lost the war of wills and now can do nothing but pray that lawyers and judges can save them from their own weakness.


so what was he talking about... was it the group that wanted to buy the league?
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
dedalus said:
Oh no. At the very least all they need do is wait. The Association has already shown its weakness by surrendering the one issue they vowed never to surrender.

In case you missed it, so did the owners. You know we must tie salaries to revenues and yet their last proposal had no linkage. Bunch of weaklings.

:shakehead
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Icey said:
In case you missed it, so did the owners. You know we must tie salaries to revenues and yet their last proposal had no linkage. Bunch of weaklings.

:shakehead

Actually, the NHL's catch phrase has always been "Cost Certainty". Are hard cap, even if not linked directly to salaries gives just that. And how do you think they came up with $42.5M? Did they just pull it out of thin air, or did they look at the teams overall revenues and say "This is the highest we could possibly go based on overall revenues..."






:dunno:
 

Mr Sakich

Registered User
Mar 8, 2002
9,641
1,279
Motel 35
vimeo.com
from bruins owner jacobs:

[Employing replacement players] was alluded to but not very specifically that I can talk about. Our objective is to make a deal. This isn't about ridding ourselves of the union. No matter what happens, the players have to be represented by an organized group, but we have to get the sport back out in front of the public.

"It isn't whether I come back with this mix of players or that mix of players, because sooner or later, we're going to be paying more money than anyone else is for hockey. Hockey players will migrate to us because it's the highest-paid group and we will eventually, if not instantly, have the best players in the world. It may not be next year but it will be eventually. Preferably, it will take the form of the existing Players Association. Preferably, we'll come to an agreement that would make sense


what does this mean? They will be playing hockey next year but the best players will migrate to the NHL? If they are playing hockey next year, is jacobs saying the best players will have a choice to be in the nhl or somewhere else. Is this the clearest indication of replacement players?

Does he expect another group to be representing the players? A new nhlpa or a new group of people within the existing nhlpa?
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
dakota said:
so what was he talking about... was it the group that wanted to buy the league?


Something to do with opening the league doors for business with temp players but no impasse. Might not work in all areas. NHLPAers are prohibited from crossing, all scab league [my thoughts are NHLPAers could probably leave the union and join but that'll get them beaten up].

It was in an article floating around a week ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->