The NHL's next move will be to

[not quite yoda]

What do you think will be the NHL's next move in this process?

(The League stated several times that 42.5 was a final offer, that it couldn't go higher. Being that this season has been canceled, it is obvious that the NHL will lose some fan support, gate revenue and corporate sponsorship. I feel that it is a given that any future league offer can not get be better than what we have already seen... unless the owners totally capitulated and gave the NHLPA whatever they wanted. For that reason I excluded "offering a higher salary cap" from the list of options.)

Click to read more...

 

[mr gib]

What do you think will be the NHL's next move in this process?

your avatar tells the story - if it can be done - legally -

 

[nyrmessier011]

NHL will not be able to bring in replacements

I do not think they will because the only way it seems it can be done is WITHOUT linkage (in which case the courts will say both sides are on a hard cap, now resolve it!!!). Because of this I believe that if the next NHL proposal is with linkage, the league is basically throwing the idea of replacement players out of the window. This is why...

Linkage, of course, deals with a floor and a ceiling. Simply, the NHL will not be able to pay replacements the floor of the linkage offer because teams will be unable to make a profit paying there players 30 million (or even 27 million if the Labor Board would allow them to, which they probably wouldn't because that is going backwards on your offer too much--the last linkage offer was 32 floor-42 ceiling)

I think the PA caught the owners off guard by offering a hard cap after the league dropped linkage. The reason the league dropped linkage was to probably to prepare for an impasse move. (because dropping linkage takes the floor away). Figuring the PA WOULD NOT come onto the same philosophy as them (hard cap), the NHL had no problem dropping linkage if it meant winning an impasse (the league would win the impasse because they would claim the PA is not negotiating fairly, "we dropped linkage and they didn't come onto the hard cap" etc etc). BUT THE PLAYERS DID...and now with the sides being so close to a middle ground figure AND on the same philosophy, the NHL will never win over the NLRB to get an impasse recognized.

This is why I now believe the players have some leverage. If the owners want replacements, they can not go back to linkage. On the other hand, they must keep with a simple hard cap proposal, which the labor board will recognize as too close of a deal for the NHL to claim that the NHLPA is not bargaining in a faithful way, hence they would not win an impasse.

Basically, the NHL is now stuck because they never thought the PA would go onto the same philosophy as them. And now because they did, I do not think the NHL will be able to use replacements becuase there impasse will not be recognized when there latest offer is a hard cap. (remember, they wouldn't bother declaring when there latest offer is linkage, because they will not make a profit off of having to pay scabs the linkage floor of around 30 mil)

So the NHL will either regress there hard cap offer a little (back to maybe 40) which is reasonable, while PA will come down a little and hopefully a third party can come in and settle the little difference. Or, the NHL will stick back with linkage, but offer a very appealing upside (ceiling) to the players so they take it.

 

[Pavel]

I think they go the impasse route. They (the NHL) want to have a draft in June. I don't see how a CBA gets done before then. Especially if players don't begin missing more paychecks until the fall.

 

[djhn579]

What if the owners continue to negotiate for the next 6 months, possibly longer, into Nov/Dec, then declare impasse? The players at that point are forced to vote to accept the last best deal the NHL offers or go on strike.

If the players go on strike, the NHL still does not have to bring in replacement players, but at least they forced a vote. It would only make sense to do this if the owners are certain that most of the players would accept their offer.

Under this scenario, what penalties would the owners be forced to pay if the NRLB decides to rule that they were not at impasse?

 

[me2]

Owners cry poor due to the damage of losing the season.
In march the come back with a lower cap ($37.5-40m).
Player stand firm on the cap figure and won't come down.
By late May owners have more ammo for an impasse at a lower cap level.

I think we won't see an impasse until late May at the earliest, if at all.

 

[Riddarn]

Bring in the scabs!

Bring in the ex-IHL:ers that play in Switzerland and Germany. Bring in as many CHL:ers as possible.

Heck, I'm sure it will be entertaining enough if you bring in ECHL:ers and UHL:ers. At least they will appreciate your dollars and maybe even feel a little pride to wear NHL sweaters.

Sooner or later, the union will crack. Lets hope the NHL starts unilateral implementation soon so that things can go back to normal (over here too!).

 

[nyrmessier011]

Bring in the scabs!

Bring in the ex-IHL:ers that play in Switzerland and Germany. Bring in as many CHL:ers as possible.

Heck, I'm sure it will be entertaining enough if you bring in ECHL:ers and UHL:ers. At least they will appreciate your dollars and maybe even feel a little pride to wear NHL sweaters.

Sooner or later, the union will crack. Lets hope the NHL starts unilateral implementation soon so that things can go back to normal (over here too!).

hello? i just explained why that wont happen...refute it before u say this stuff

 

[Lanny'sDaMan]

I think the owners will simply dig in and wait it out. The ball is completely in the NHLPA's court now. The owners have stated <firmly> that 42.5 was the ultimate best they would offer and have stuck to that. Nothings going to happen until the union capitulates.

 

[SENSible1*]

I think the owners will simply dig in and wait it out. The ball is completely in the NHLPA's court now. The owners have stated <firmly> that 42.5 was the ultimate best they would offer and have stuck to that. Nothings going to happen until the union capitulates.

I think the owners will make an offer to reinforce the lesson that the longer this goes on the worse it gets for the players.

I'm thinking a 20-35 M cap range with linkage at 53% ought to do it.

 

[HockeyCritter]

NHL will not be able to bring in replacements

I do not think they will because the only way it seems it can be done is WITHOUT linkage (in which case the courts will say both sides are on a hard cap, now resolve it!!!). Because of this I believe that if the next NHL proposal is with linkage, the league is basically throwing the idea of replacement players out of the window. This is why...

Linkage, of course, deals with a floor and a ceiling. Simply, the NHL will not be able to pay replacements the floor of the linkage offer because teams will be unable to make a profit paying there players 30 million (or even 27 million if the Labor Board would allow them to, which they probably wouldn't because that is going backwards on your offer too much--the last linkage offer was 32 floor-42 ceiling)

I think the PA caught the owners off guard by offering a hard cap after the league dropped linkage. The reason the league dropped linkage was to probably to prepare for an impasse move. (because dropping linkage takes the floor away). Figuring the PA WOULD NOT come onto the same philosophy as them (hard cap), the NHL had no problem dropping linkage if it meant winning an impasse (the league would win the impasse because they would claim the PA is not negotiating fairly, "we dropped linkage and they didn't come onto the hard cap" etc etc). BUT THE PLAYERS DID...and now with the sides being so close to a middle ground figure AND on the same philosophy, the NHL will never win over the NLRB to get an impasse recognized.

This is why I now believe the players have some leverage. If the owners want replacements, they can not go back to linkage. On the other hand, they must keep with a simple hard cap proposal, which the labor board will recognize as too close of a deal for the NHL to claim that the NHLPA is not bargaining in a faithful way, hence they would not win an impasse.

Basically, the NHL is now stuck because they never thought the PA would go onto the same philosophy as them. And now because they did, I do not think the NHL will be able to use replacements becuase there impasse will not be recognized when there latest offer is a hard cap. (remember, they wouldn't bother declaring when there latest offer is linkage, because they will not make a profit off of having to pay scabs the linkage floor of around 30 mil)

So the NHL will either regress there hard cap offer a little (back to maybe 40) which is reasonable, while PA will come down a little and hopefully a third party can come in and settle the little difference. Or, the NHL will stick back with linkage, but offer a very appealing upside (ceiling) to the players so they take it.

But the players but linkage (though they called it "indexing") in their proposal,

 

[Lanny'sDaMan]

I think the owners will make an offer to reinforce the lesson that the longer this goes on the worse it gets for the players.

I'm thinking a 20-35 M range with linkage at 53% ought to do it.

I may be wrong but I dont think so for the simple reason is if they are looking for an Impass ruling going backwards will hurt thier cause in "Bargaining in good faith"

 

[krandor]

It isn't really going backwards if you know your revenue is going to go down as a result of the lockout.

 

[SENSible1*]

I may be wrong but I dont think so for the simple reason is if they are looking for an Impass ruling going backwards will hurt thier cause in "Bargaining in good faith"

They can readily justify the lower offer based on the damage done to the league's economics.

 

[Lanny'sDaMan]

They can readily justify the lower offer based on the damage done to the league's economics.

After having read the thread about lost advertising revenue I would now have to recant. Makes perfect sence to drop thier offers now.

 

[SENSible1*]

After having read the thread about lost advertising revenue I would now have to recant. Makes perfect sence to drop thier offers now.

Further to this:

Arthur Rosenfeld, a lawyer with a penchant for playing squash and golf and reading fiction, is poised to become the most important man in hockey.

For the past four-plus years, Rosenfeld, an Allentown, Pa., native who once cheered Bobby Clarke's Philadelphia Flyers, has helped to steer disputes between companies and their employees through the halls of the National Labor Relations Board in Washington

Assuming the National Hockey League and its union don't mend their differences this summer, the 60-year-old Rosenfeld, who describes his job as that of a prosecutor, promises to play a pivotal role in coming months in the clash between the NHL and its players union.

As the labour board's general counsel, Rosenfeld "will have a great deal of sway over the board and will oversee how quickly the case moves along," said William Gould, professor emeritus of law at Stanford University, chairman of the labour relations board from 1994 to 1998.

"He's going to be a very important character in this dispute," Gould said.

According to several sports lawyers who have worked on cases before the labour relations board, the NHL essentially has two options this fall — and both would likely make their way to Rosenfeld, who declined to discuss specifics of the battle.

The league could either open training camps with temporary replacement players, moving the home games of teams who play in provinces with anti-replacement worker laws, or it could put into effect a new labour contract without any input from the players association.

The contract could include a salary cap that's less enticing to players than the league's last offer of $42.5 million (all figures U.S.) per team, Gould said.

"There's nothing illegal about regressive bargaining," he said. "They could come back with a $35 million cap."

From this article.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Wells its the NHL so....Wait until September training camp "deadline" approaches before making another move

 

[justapantherfan]

Lower the cap.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I may be wrong but I dont think so for the simple reason is if they are looking for an Impass ruling going backwards will hurt thier cause in "Bargaining in good faith"

you're absolutly right...but even if that offer is deemed bargaining in the good faith..how could they make a profit paying players 20M per team...they wont

 

[not quite yoda]

you're absolutly right...but even if that offer is deemed bargaining in the good faith..how could they make a profit paying players 20M per team...they wont

Dude, after having red your popsts in this thread, I can not make any sense of what you are saying.

If each team had a payroll of 20M$, at current ticket price levels, nearly EVERY team NHL would make substantial profits. Or at least should be able to.

Care to explain why they wouldn't?

 

[mr gib]

Further to this:



From this article.

there it is then -

 

[nyrmessier011]

Dude, after having red your popsts in this thread, I can not make any sense of what you are saying.

If each team had a payroll of 20M$, at current ticket price levels, nearly EVERY team NHL would make substantial profits. Or at least should be able to.

Care to explain why they wouldn't?

with replacement players im talking about...they wouldn't make a profit off of paying there players 20M

 

[snakepliskin]

here is my latest solution for the owners-accept the nhlpa deal w/ the rollback and luxury tax and start the season on time-right now there are over 300 free agents and a lot of them were making substantial money--if a guy was making 3 mill before his contract expired offer him 1 mill take it or leave it and i am sure some teams like the rangers leafs avs and wings will continue to pay thru the nose but with roster limits they cannot sign them all to rediculous contracts-if the union will not bargain on a cap then each owner should impose his own cap on his team and if one of his guys don't like his offer kick his arse out the door-i would really like to see some of these prima donnas sit out because no team would offer them what "they think" they are worth. if i owned a team there is no union on earth that could tell me how much or how little i can pay my employees--i would really like to see a team offer bobby holik what he is really worth (500k) and see his reaction

 

[futurcorerock]

here is my latest solution for the owners-accept the nhlpa deal w/ the rollback and luxury tax and start the season on time-right now there are over 300 free agents and a lot of them were making substantial money--if a guy was making 3 mill before his contract expired offer him 1 mill take it or leave it and i am sure some teams like the rangers leafs avs and wings will continue to pay thru the nose but with roster limits they cannot sign them all to rediculous contracts-if the union will not bargain on a cap then each owner should impose his own cap on his team and if one of his guys don't like his offer kick his arse out the door-i would really like to see some of these prima donnas sit out because no team would offer them what "they think" they are worth. if i owned a team there is no union on earth that could tell me how much or how little i can pay my employees--i would really like to see a team offer bobby holik what he is really worth (500k) and see his reaction

He'd go to russia.

Bye Bye Bobby

 

[Scoogs]

What do you think will be the NHL's next move in this process?

(The League stated several times that 42.5 was a final offer, that it couldn't go higher. Being that this season has been canceled, it is obvious that the NHL will lose some fan support, gate revenue and corporate sponsorship. I feel that it is a given that any future league offer can not get be better than what we have already seen... unless the owners totally capitulated and gave the NHLPA whatever they wanted. For that reason I excluded "offering a higher salary cap" from the list of options.)

I personally, don't have one clue. I would hope the PA comes back with something before the NHL makes a move. And logic would suggest that. But as we know, logic has gone missing in the NHL since September 15th 2004.