The End is Near-Jan 14th Board of Govenors meeting

[chara]

We have a "drop dead date"

The NHLPA will bend just prior to the Jan.14 meeting or get ready for the worse: have no say in the new CBA.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

cant be serious

ps, I hardly see the owners as altruistic 'we care only about the game' people. But their position happens to be what is best for the game so for now, I am wholeheartedly on their side.

The owners destroying the league's integrity and tradition and a lockuot is in the best interest of the game? You really think they give a **** about teh small markets? You really think that small markets are disadvantaged?


The owners want profit certainty. This fight is about nothing but trying to guarantee each and every owner from New York to Edmonton profits no matter how poorly they run their franchise.

Thats what its about, and its not in the best interest of the fan.

Do you people understand basic economics? The desire for profits is what allows a firm to grow, innovate, improve and change. If the NHL teams are all guaranteed profits, what incentive is there for them to drastically improve? To get even more profits? At elast under the 94-04 CBA, teams that were well managed broke even or made money. Teams that were poorly managed broke even or lost money. There are a lot of those teams in the Middle who are neither well managed nor poorly managed. They are average and represent the highest percentage of teams. Unfortunately for me, fans in those averagely run team markets are the ones supporting the owners, because they want the well managed teams to be punished, and for their team to stand a better chance.

THAT, my friends, is a joke.

 

[X0ssbar]

Ahhh, yes. The Jealousy Card.

I've heard several pro-player people say this about fans that are against the players in this fight and it makes no sense. Why would I be resentful of a player who makes millions and not resentful of an owner who makes a hell of a lot more money?

The reason most people are on the side of the owners is simply because the NHL is in serious financial straits. The players make too much money given the current revenue streams for the league. This needs to be brought back into balance so the league can remain healthy and viable and, hopefully down the road, continue to build its audience.

Completely agree - couldn't have said it better.

The owners have taken ownership that the majority of the finacial problems that exist are their fault and/or the fault of the system. They have honored the current CBA and now that it has expired they have every right to fix their business.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Well if they cancel the season on the 14th, I wonder when we will start seeing the rumors about a player formed league. Gretzky and a few others were planning that during the 94 lockout/strike. Once the NHL cancels the season, the players then can start their own plans to put together a league of their own. Locations will be difficult and pay obviously won't be as much as their NHL salary but it could still put pressure on the NHL moreso than the players staying over in Europe. Not that this pressure would help end the lockout but would make the owners at least think twice about the whole hard salary cap as the be-all-end-all solution.

If you check population trends, and if you live in one of those cities you will know, the southern cities have high populations of people who used to live in the northern cities and moved there. That is part of the NHL's approach and when those cities have had good teams they have been able to fill the rinks.

I also live in one of those southern cities with a large surrounding population (south FL). The problem with the NHL's approach is that those people that used to live in northern cities and moved...they never change their allegiance from their old team to the local team. Plenty of Ranger fans down here and I doubt you'll ever convince them to support the Panthers. The population trends don't equate to fan support for local teams. If a team in Winnipeg could sell out every game in a 16,000 seat arena, they could achieve the same fan support as a team in Sunrise, FL in a 19,250 seat arena (for example).

As for destroying the league, fanbases, etc., it's not going to happen. The hardcore fans will be back and, unfortunately, those are the only fans the league has right now. Let's face it, there's pretty much no such thing as a casual hockey fan. Those are the people a prolonged labor dispute would alienate, but since they're such a rarity for pro hockey, it doesn't really matter all that much.

I probably used to be a hardcore hockey fan but I wouldn't say that any longer. As this lockout continues, the more I become a casual hockey fan and less likely to return to support the league. And there are plenty of casual fans in many of the (attendence-wise) struggling markets (otherwise, why else would they be struggling??). If anything the casual hockey fan actually matters more than the diehard/hardcore ones. Because as you said, they'll (hardcore ones) always come back. Losing the casual fan can be very detrimental in the long-run especially in regards to ticket prices and revenues (simple economics, less demand would signal a decrease in price to rebuild the demand...lower ticket prices means less revenue per team). In my opinion, a prolonged labor dispute only ends badly for everyone...the owners, the employees, and even the customers.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Most owners have other "jobs" that allowed them to invest in a sports team. They'll be fine. A few teams may fold but as long as it's not the Habs, it will be good too. The players on the other hand haven't got too many other things to put on their resumes other than -hockey player.

Isnt the WHOLE point of what gary the chimp is doing is to protect the teams from losing money and folding..but on his quest for this he will just be killing teams. Good work Gary!!

 

[Frenzy31]

Ahhh, yes. The Jealousy Card.

I've heard several pro-player people say this about fans that are against the players in this fight and it makes no sense. Why would I be resentful of a player who makes millions and not resentful of an owner who makes a hell of a lot more money?

The reason most people are on the side of the owners is simply because the NHL is in serious financial straits. The players make too much money given the current revenue streams for the league. This needs to be brought back into balance so the league can remain healthy and viable and, hopefully down the road, continue to build its audience.

Because most people identify more w/ players then they do w/ owners. Look at each of the major sports that have had CBA expired in the past 5 years. In the end it is his decision.

MLB, owners had the support of the fans - the owners cried poor me , and now that they have a new CBA (which didn't change anything) noone is saying a word about revenue losses. Because they are making MONEY and were making money when they cried about their "huges losses".

NBA, who has a good system, IMO. I like the cap and how it is set up. But again, fans took the side of the owners. Saying that the players a millionare babies.

Samething in hockey. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RESENTMENT FROM THE HAVE NOTS. Now this may not be you, but... the majority....

When there is smoke, there is fire.

Along these lines, to say that players don't care about the health of the league is stupid. What good is 10 million contract if the league goes belly up? Do you really think the players going to collect? And the younger guys want a healthy league so it will be there when they are the aged and wisen vets.



Bottom line on this is who is signing the checks. Would the company you work for keep you around if they were not generating revenue off you? If you were costing them big dollars would they continue to bring in expensive personnel? For most of the owners it is a hobby, not a business.

Further, the books can be cooked in many different ways, SEE ENRON......... If you were taking such big losses, would you not fold the franchise? Most companies would fold. Yes, they will take a hit (bought the franchise - fees, etc). But why continue to toss good money after bad?

I am by no means saying that I think hockey should be left alone. I like the concept of cost certanty. There does need to be some form of balance and I personally don't give 2 shooots if there is a tax or cap.

I am more ticked off a the owners right now, because I think the players stepped up w/ a good proposal that could have been tinkered w/ that would have insured the health of the league. I don't think the owners tried on this last one (token gifts, lower UFA age by 1, and minimum salary increase - that doesn't affect anyone). Come on....

And yes, I was really pizzed at the Union in Sept. for not stepping up w/ anything meaningful. 6 offers and they could find nothing to provide anykind of framework for a new agreement. Right now, I think the players have set a mini-frame work for a CBA. (Keep in mind that a luxurary tax would work the same as a cap if it is steep enough - why not $1 for $1 spent over 40Million - increasing to $1.5 for every $1 over 50). This would allow owners who want to spend the ability to spent and would act as a cap for 99% of the organization out there anyways. If some owner wants to spend $20 million per year on one player, let him.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I also live in one of those southern cities with a large surrounding population (south FL). The problem with the NHL's approach is that those people that used to live in northern cities and moved...they never change their allegiance from their old team to the local team. Plenty of Ranger fans down here and I doubt you'll ever convince them to support the Panthers. The population trends don't equate to fan support for local teams. If a team in Winnipeg could sell out every game in a 16,000 seat arena, they could achieve the same fan support as a team in Sunrise, FL in a 19,250 seat arena (for example).

Those hockey fans from north will, for the most part, continue to support their old team but they will bring their friends and kids to games. More people will get interested in hockey, maybe play it themselves or enroll their kids. It happens in the so called "non-traditional" markets all the time and is the only way to grow the popularity of the game but it is a long term project.

Winnipeg has other things working against it such as a small TV market and a lack of corporate sponsors. And, as with Florida, hockey fans with allegiances to other teams.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Those hockey fans from north will, for the most part, continue to support their old team but they will bring their friends and kids to games. More people will get interested in hockey, maybe play it themselves or enroll their kids. It happens in the so called "non-traditional" markets all the time and is the only way to grow the popularity of the game but it is a long term project.

Winnipeg has other things working against it such as a small TV market and a lack of corporate sponsors. And, as with Florida, hockey fans with allegiances to other teams.

I was just using Winnipeg as an example since it was previously mentioned...it could be anywhere really but how about using Kansas City then instead (they've expressed interest in a team and are geographic close to St. Louis and Dallas). The point is that if another potential location can get the same attendance results as Florida then it doesn't matter what their level of population in the surrounding area is.

And in general, I only see hockey fans from the north bring their friends to the games when their team is playing (thus perpetuating the continuing trend in those areas...non-support of the local team). Getting people more interested in the sport as a whole is one thing but getting people in a market to be interested in the local team when they have other allegiances is totally different (hockey fans don't buy season tickets...local fans buy season tickets). And I don't know about any of you but when I first started watching hockey it was cause of my father. I naturally followed the same team as he did when I was younger and as I got older, I followed the teams that my friends did (all northerners who moved down when they were young). Understandably that growing the popularity of the sport in the southern markets is a long term project. But if you take a team like the Panthers, they've been in the league 10 yrs now...at this point, you really have to question the longevity of the team in the market, especially trying to survive after a prolonged lockout.

 

[DeleteThisAccount]

As simple as that, I think we'll all be surprised who wants to PLAY and crosses picket lines next year when training camps start. The players are losing the fight(this years salaries) and the war(next CBA).....they need new leadership and representation. The players aren't the game, they're employees just like the rest of us.....REALITY CHECK time fellas. :lol

Umm...there are no picket lines, this is a lockout. The entire NHLPA is locked out, nobody can "cross".

 

[two out of three*]

I have a question.. In this meeting on Jan. 14th can an agreement be reached?

I know there will probably not be a season, but is this meeting just like the ones they had a couple of weeks ago, or is it just a vote to see if they want to wipe the entire season out.

 

[DeleteThisAccount]

I have a question.. In this meeting on Jan. 14th can an agreement be reached?

I know there will probably not be a season, but is this meeting just like the ones they had a couple of weeks ago, or is it just a vote to see if they want to wipe the entire season out.

It's a board meeting for the owners. The way it looks right now, it's probably gonna be a vote to cancel the remainder of the season.

 

[two out of three*]

It's a board meeting for the owners. The way it looks right now, it's probably gonna be a vote to cancel the remainder of the season.

Ahhh.. Thank you.

 

[PecaFan]

Think so too, Can't see many US or Canadian Players.. playing long time in Russia..or even Austria.. or whatever..

Remember when it was the dregs of the NHL playing over there? Those guys too lousy to make it? And how the NHL'ers looked on those guys with scorn and disdain? Yet, there they are, lining up in the Euro "soup kitchen", wanting some of the action. It's hilarious.

Cancel the season. I'm actually looking forward to it. I'd love to be behind the scenes and see Goodenow try and tell his members that 1.2 billion (and counting) in salary down the toilet was worth fighting a meaningless cap.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Cancel the season. I'm actually looking forward to it. I'd love to be behind the scenes and see Goodenow try and tell his members that 1.2 billion (and counting) in salary down the toilet was worth fighting a meaningless cap.

If the cap is so meaningless, then why are the owners so willing to cancell the season in order to get it ???

 

[Jaded-Fan]

If the cap is so meaningless, then why are the owners so willing to cancell the season in order to get it ???

Far be it for me to speak for Peca, but I believe that he meant 'meaningless for the Players.' An exaggeration, but still, with some basis. Leagues with Caps have very very well paid players. Basketball for one, but even in the most stringent of Cap systems, the NFL, the players get their due, Michael Vick is about to sign for $130 million. The point is, if the players can make theirs under a Cap it becaomes to a degree less meaningful of a bone to have lost a year of their prime earning time of their careers over. Especially if they are going to cave next year anyways.

 

[struckmatch]

If the cap is so meaningless, then why are the owners so willing to cancell the season in order to get it ???

I think he meant the fight is meaningless, considering its one they have little or no chance of winning. I'm sorry, but if the players, and the PA leadership can't see that they've lost this battle, then god help fans of hockey everywhere, because we may not see NHL hockey for a while.

Sometimes, you have to know when you're beat, and that time for the Players Association is now.

 

[PecaFan]

I meant it both ways. Players will still be handsomely paid under the cap. The star players will still get paid huge bucks. In addition, PA supporters have routinely posted links to articles pointing out caps aren't really working in the other leagues.

Why are the owners pushing for it? Because it represents *hope*. Continuing the old way is guaranteed to fail. Getting a cap *might* work. Given a choice, you'll take "slim hope" over "no hope" every time.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

I don't get this notion that the players are definitely going to cave next year or at all. I think everyone is under the impression (including myself) that the league is aiming for an impasse. At which point, they'll implement their own CBA and use replacement players, right? Besides the fact that Bettman said that replacement players wouldn't be used, there is still going to be a fight by the player's union to block it in court. In the US, there's still question marks if the NLRB would side with the league or not but let's say they favor the league and uphold the use of replacement players. From my research, it wouldn't make a difference because up in B.C. they have a very pro-union labor board...meaning they won't allow replacement players to be used for the Canucks. With Linden being the president of the union, I doubt you'll see anyone from Vancouver cross the picket lines either. So does the NHL just continue play with only 29 teams? How pissed off would Canucks' fans be at that scenario? (rhetorical questions) Sounds like the league is also in a no-win situation as well and could cave just as easily as the players.

And I find it hard to comprehend how some people are making a case for the teams to make any profit. The league charter says the teams should be operated as "not-for-profit" organizations...they're goal is to break even, not make money. Sure teams shouldn't be losing $10 million or more a season but they also shouldn't be profitting $10 million or more a season either. When the teams are sold, that's probably the only time that an owner should be allowed to make any profit.

Why are the owners pushing for it? Because it represents *hope*. Continuing the old way is guaranteed to fail. Getting a cap *might* work. Given a choice, you'll take "slim hope" over "no hope" every time.

Actually I thought the point of the whole thing is cost CERTAINTY. Its not about representing hope but representing a guarateed amount of money spent versus money taken in. If its based on slim hope, then why is the league constantly harping on the point that a luxury tax has uncertainty that they don't want. Anything that "might" work means there's not certainty involved. A stiff luxury tax "might" work as well.

 

[CarlRacki]

And I find it hard to comprehend how some people are making a case for the teams to make any profit. The league charter says the teams should be operated as "not-for-profit" organizations...they're goal is to break even, not make money. Sure teams shouldn't be losing $10 million or more a season but they also shouldn't be profitting $10 million or more a season either.

Are you sure about that? I'd like to see a link. I find it hard to believe the people started the NHL did so for philanthropic reasons.
The charter more likely speaks to the "league", not the individual teams. In other words, the NHL organization itself is a not-for-profit established to run league operations for the mutual benefits of its members. The league organization collects enough "dues" from its members to run at a break-even under a budget established by the Board of Governors.
Think of it like OPEC. OPEC itself does not make billions in oil profits. It's simply an organization of oil-producing countries who do make billions in oil profits.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Are you sure about that? I'd like to see a link. I find it hard to believe the people started the NHL did so for philanthropic reasons.
The charter more likely speaks to the "league", not the individual teams. In other words, the NHL organization itself is a not-for-profit established to run league operations for the mutual benefits of its members. The league organization collects enough "dues" from its members to run at a break-even under a budget established by the Board of Governors.
Think of it like OPEC. OPEC itself does not make billions in oil profits. It's simply an organization of oil-producing countries who do make billions in oil profits.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

I know I saw a link on this board before stating that about the charter but I don't have the time to find it today or maybe the link was bogus. I do agree with you that the league as a whole is not-for-profit. In fact the last CBA stated it clearly,

This Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA" or "Agreement"), which is the product of bona fide, arm's length collective bargaining, entered into effective the 13th day of January, 1995, and amended effective the 26th day of June, 1997, by and between the National Hockey League, a joint venture organized as a not-for-profit unincorporated association ("NHL" or "League"), which is recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the present and future Clubs of the NHL, and the National Hockey League Players' Association ("NHLPA" or "Association"), which is recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of present and future players in the NHL

But for the league to be not-for-profit...some teams can make money but other teams would have to lose money so that on the whole, its a break even proposition.

Source: http://www.nhlpa.com/CBA/index.asp

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Completely backed into a corner are you? Answer the question. Where are these guys going to play where they can make this kind of scratch. They talk a tough game, but the reality of the situation is that they are grossly overpaid based on the world market and they have very few options (and those options are shrinking each day) where they can play other than the NHL.

I think the players are going to give up a lot in the agreement.
They have little choice,

Are you saying you can't say same thing without such an attidude?

 

[Steve L*]

Umm...there are no picket lines, this is a lockout. The entire NHLPA is locked out, nobody can "cross".

I think hes talking about next year when replacement players are bought in.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I think he meant the fight is meaningless, considering its one they have little or no chance of winning. I'm sorry, but if the players, and the PA leadership can't see that they've lost this battle, then god help fans of hockey everywhere, because we may not see NHL hockey for a while.

Sometimes, you have to know when you're beat, and that time for the Players Association is now.

Why should the NHLPA concede ??? Why shouldn't the owner concede ???

The best thing would be for neither side to "concede" but to find a solution, that works for the players, owners and fans.

 

[PecaFan]

Actually I thought the point of the whole thing is cost CERTAINTY. Its not about representing hope but representing a guarateed amount of money spent versus money taken in. If its based on slim hope, then why is the league constantly harping on the point that a luxury tax has uncertainty that they don't want. Anything that "might" work means there's not certainty involved. A stiff luxury tax "might" work as well.

And for the millionth time: Cost certainty != profit certainty.

Having player costs as a fixed percentage of league revenues doesn't mean that individual clubs will be guaranteed to make money. They'll still need solid revenues to do that. It doesn't mean there won't still be some huge contracts. It doesn't mean that some teams won't go over the cap.

Just because one item is "certain", doesn't mean that everything else suddenly becomes certain.

 

[Donnie D]

Well if they cancel the season on the 14th, I wonder when we will start seeing the rumors about a player formed league. Gretzky and a few others were planning that during the 94 lockout/strike. Once the NHL cancels the season, the players then can start their own plans to put together a league of their own. Locations will be difficult

Make that impossible. Where, for example is the Detroit team going to play? The Palace a Auburn Hills, The Joe? Those are controlled by the NHL. Maybe they could play in the Silverdome if they haven't blown that thing up yet.