What is stopping the formation of a new PA

Status
Not open for further replies.

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
gary69 said:
I undestood that the situation talked about was that the players didn't sign the new imposed CBA (after impasse) and decided to strike instead. And then owners used replacement players and whoever NHLer decided to cross.

Now the owners are locking out their own replacement players?

And as for stopping certain games and TV broadcasts to proceed smoothly, this certainly can be done with the help of other labor unions, result being that in the future games fewer and fewer fans will bother even to try to get into games and TV stations would begin to lose their interest in replacement hockey.

And with all kinds of lawsuits flying around everywhere, it would surely seem to make more sense to most owners to get rid of their "no hard cap -no CBA" - stance, and find a compromise.

Yeah, I read that wrong. I was thinking about the players signing a new CBA and then striking, which has been mentioned many times in the past.

The current players that would be on strike at that point could try to form picket lines, but I fully believe more than half of the players would be playing in the NHL. The rest of the players I doubt will get much support from other unions. The people in these other unions are already not making money from NHL games. If replacement players are bought in next season, those people will be very happy for the income since they probably didn't have a lot of money saved like the hockey players.

And as I mentioned, the more they decrease attendance and revenues, the smaller the pie will be when they eventually come back to work.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
djhn579 said:
The current players that would be on strike at that point could try to form picket lines, but I fully believe more than half of the players would be playing in the NHL. The rest of the players I doubt will get much support from other unions. The people in these other unions are already not making money from NHL games. If replacement players are bought in next season, those people will be very happy for the income since they probably didn't have a lot of money saved like the hockey players.

And as I mentioned, the more they decrease attendance and revenues, the smaller the pie will be when they eventually come back to work.

As Tom Benjamin has stated a few times on these boards, next summer's training camp and subsequent league's starting date are probably the only time the replacement players would have a chance to work. Mind you, IIHF and NHL's contract is over, and not many European players in their prime years (~24~30) who have a good shot of making the roster of a major European league club, would come to play in replacement NHL if that risks their spot in that European team and an existing or future multi-year contract worth tens or maybe even hundrerds of thousands of dollars. Not for anything other than similar/more guaranteed money.
And even the better North American replacement players would probably have to paid quite decent money as compared to other leagues.

And if a draft is lost, some European younsters might not want to head to AHL and other minor leagues either with uncertain future of the NHL. Not to mention if several drafts are lost.

And how many of the former workers in arenas would be still willing to work there and with what kind of contracts, could they be paid the same money with replacement league and for how long? Surely in a couple of years most of them have found some other job. So other unions' support might not be such a far fetch afterall.

If and when NHL returns, what kind of a league it would be, is open to question. If a few now money-losing teams might have to fold if nothing is changed in the CBA and might have to fold if there's no cap in the new CBA, those teams have really nothing to lose, so they don't mind waiting.

And while the profit-making teams could now estimate that they will easily recover the lost profits of a season or two under a capped system, the longer this goes the more risks for even those teams there are. So that teacher's pension fund might have to sell some of its' share of the Leafs (which they might do anyway), to finance whatever it eventually intends to finance (pensions?) with that money.

If a season is lost and the risks of losing another one seem high a year from now and the two sides negotiation stances are the same as they are now, certainly quite a few owners might do some re-calculating how long it takes to recover the money in a capped system as compared to some sort of compromise. Especially as the date for the start and duration of that capped-system league would still be unknown.

Of course there is pressure for players as well, but it isn't about recovering the lost money, because a vast majority of them could easily figure out that during the remainder of their career they're never gonna get the money back they've lost/will lose during this lockout.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
gary69 said:
If a season is lost and the risks of losing another one seem high a year from now and the two sides negotiation stances are the same as they are now, certainly quite a few owners might do some re-calculating how long it takes to recover the money in a capped system as compared to some sort of compromise. Especially as the date for the start and duration of that capped-system league would still be unknown.

Of course there is pressure for players as well, but it isn't about recovering the lost money, because a vast majority of them could easily figure out that during the remainder of their career they're never gonna get the money back they've lost/will lose during this lockout.

Yes, but if this lockout isn't so much about stemming the loss of financial blood...if it's more to do with the owners regaining control and cowing the union, why should the owners care how much money is lost or how long they wait? Not a single one of them relies on their hockey team to put food on the table, clothe their kids, buy a yacht or keep them awash in $100,000 sports cars.

Can the players say the same?

Sure, there will always be hockey for them to play, and there may even be a rival league spring up to give them an alternative...but NONE, not even the Russians with their 2 or 3 teams trying to outspend each other, will match the average salary of 1.3-1.4 million/yr.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Digger12 said:
Yes, but if this lockout isn't so much about stemming the loss of financial blood...if it's more to do with the owners regaining control and cowing the union, why should the owners care how much money is lost or how long they wait? Not a single one of them relies on their hockey team to put food on the table, clothe their kids, buy a yacht or keep them awash in $100,000 sports cars.

Can the players say the same?

Sure, there will always be hockey for them to play, and there may even be a rival league spring up to give them an alternative...but NONE, not even the Russians with their 2 or 3 teams trying to outspend each other, will match the average salary of 1.3-1.4 million/yr.

Well, I would think that all of the NHL players could find a job in hockey outside, if they wanted to. They wouldn't be making the kind of money than in the NHL, but clearly over the minimum wage and well over the average salary in most countries, some would still make millions for a number of years.

So it's not a matter of life and death for them, although most of them would have to work beyond 30-40 years after their hockey career was over. Especially now overpaid average 3rd-4th liners and lower level players.

If NHL really wants to shut the NHL for good, sure they can do it.

If not, then after PA has decertified, the remaining NHL teams can try to lure away any players from where ever thay have been playing for the past 2-3 years, in a true free market system. Is this the control you are talking about?

They can also forget that players would form any sort of union anywhere in the near future to be willing to negotiate any new CBA.

Although I personally wouldn't mind that happening, I still wouldn't consider this as one of the most likely scenarios to actually coming true.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
shakes said:
You honestly think anybody would accept a contract like that?!

Depends how its worded. If its worded that is a no-strike bonus it might not get up. If its worded as being linked to revenues/profits then its harder to avoid.

You can be guaranteed that this is exactly what the NHLPA would organize. You can also be assured that the other unions would be fully behind this action. Which begs the question..


When was the last time you saw a bunch of millionaire hockey players march on picket line at some factor in the middle of no where. "Can't come in today to collect my $50,000 check, I've got to go march on some picket line at a fruit cannery.".

The NHLers don't give a flying **** about these people. Do they spend their off seasons fighting for garbage truck drivers or sewerage workers? Why should they return the favour unless they want an autograph.



how would they broadcast and run the season if TV crews, ushers, ticket takers, food service workers and any other union that helps run the operation of the arenas are not allowed to cross the picket lines.

The poor chap/single mother earning $10-15/h working on the concession stands or cleaning the rink that no doubt will want to be there on the picket line with the players, instead of earning enough to pay for the mortage.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
If a season is lost and the risks of losing another one seem high a year from now and the two sides negotiation stances are the same as they are now, certainly quite a few owners might do some re-calculating how long it takes to recover the money in a capped system as compared to some sort of compromise. Especially as the date for the start and duration of that capped-system league would still be unknown.
Bettman only needs the support of 8 owners to continue with whatever tactics he chooses.

Of course there is pressure for players as well, but it isn't about recovering the lost money, because a vast majority of them could easily figure out that during the remainder of their career they're never gonna get the money back they've lost/will lose during this lockout.

The pressure is far greater on the players. That is exactly why the "starve them out and bring them to their knees" stategy will work. When the vast majority of players in the NHLPA, who are NOT set for life, realize that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg over the principle of "no cap" of any kind, they'll either get Goodenow to change his stance or remove him from office. If you think they are going to be happy finding other jobs that pay "more than minimum wage" when they could be set for life just by giving in to a concept that has helped make NFLPA and NBAPA members wealthy, then you are kidding yourself.

The NHL infrastructure won't go anywhere if they have to sit out two years. They'll still have the buildings. They'll still own the brand name. Sure they'll lose advertising, TV and gate revenue over the short term, but the loss of revenue will be reflected in reduced player costs. That's the ulimate beauty of their strategy. The more the players shrink the revenue pool by refusing to accept reality that cost certainty is coming, the less they'll have to pay them when they come back.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Digger12 said:
Yes, but if this lockout isn't so much about stemming the loss of financial blood...if it's more to do with the owners regaining control and cowing the union, why should the owners care how much money is lost or how long they wait? Not a single one of them relies on their hockey team to put food on the table, clothe their kids, buy a yacht or keep them awash in $100,000 sports cars.

Can the players say the same?

Its hard to believe you can so clearly lay out the owners extortionist plan that show no concern for the fans, and still attribute them the moral high ground. I can understand it from the poodles, but your support i find more difficult to comprehend.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Thunderstruck said:
Bettman only needs the support of 8 owners to continue with whatever tactics he chooses.



The pressure is far greater on the players. That is exactly why the "starve them out and bring them to their knees" stategy will work. When the vast majority of players in the NHLPA, who are NOT set for life, realize that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg over the principle of "no cap" of any kind, they'll either get Goodenow to change his stance or remove him from office. If you think they are going to be happy finding other jobs that pay "more than minimum wage" when they could be set for life just by giving in to a concept that has helped make NFLPA and NBAPA members wealthy, then you are kidding yourself.

The NHL infrastructure won't go anywhere if they have to sit out two years. They'll still have the buildings. They'll still own the brand name. Sure they'll lose advertising, TV and gate revenue over the short term, but the loss of revenue will be reflected in reduced player costs. That's the ulimate beauty of their strategy. The more the players shrink the revenue pool by refusing to accept reality that cost certainty is coming, the less they'll have to pay them when they come back.

And you believe Bettman would go with those 8 teams against all the other teams for very long? And that especially those profit-making teams would just sit idly by and do nothing?

And you think that those players who are not "set for life" really believe they would be making hundreds of thousands or even millions, if the few hundred best players in
the world are not playing in that league? It's far more likely than the NHLPA simply decertified and those lesser players would be abandoned and everyone would be left on his own, to try to get the best deal for themselves individually.

The lower end players lose financially either way, be it a hard cap or reduced revenue free-market NHL. The best chance for them making money is if quite a similar than the expired CBA is negotiated again.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
gary69 said:
And you believe Bettman would go with those 8 teams against all the other teams for very long? And that especially those profit-making teams would just sit idly by and do nothing?

And you think that those players who are not "set for life" really believe they would be making hundreds of thousands or even millions, if the few hundred best players in
the world are not playing in that league? It's far more likely than the NHLPA simply decertified and those lesser players would be abandoned and everyone would be left on his own, to try to get the best deal for themselves individually.

The lower end players lose financially either way, be it a hard cap or reduced revenue free-market NHL. The best chance for them making money is if quite a similar than the expired CBA is negotiated again.

Decertification is the NHL's wet dream
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
thinkwild said:
Its hard to believe you can so clearly lay out the owners extortionist plan that show no concern for the fans, and still attribute them the moral high ground. I can understand it from the poodles, but your support i find more difficult to comprehend.

When did I attribute moral high ground to anybody? Both sides deserve a punch in the crotch IMO.

If I tend to side with ownership more, it's mostly just cold pragmatism...a lot of good moral high ground will do me if my team ends up in Houston.

Make no mistake though...all I want is a solution whereby all teams have a greater chance of holding onto the players they develop in house if they so choose. Whether it's done by luxury tax, hard/soft cap or some other permutation is rather immaterial to me. But if it's a luxury tax, then it better damn well be one with some teeth.
 

fan mao rong

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
968
0
port royal , pa
Visit site
The NLRA says that a secondary (involving other unions in a job action) is an unfair labor practice by a union. Maybe some think that some Canadian laws could be different and different practices may apply there. Not me. But even if this were to become the case perhaps it would be best if there was at least a permanent Canadian Division, if not separate leagues , or a withdrawal of United States teams from NHL and move to an all Canada NHL, and then they could add Winnipeg or Hamilton or such , and find some agreement with the NHLPA on how much Canadian money they will receive. The U.S. teams would then be able to sink or swim on their own. And the TV ratings, maybe all on Fox Sports Net at least, would not be any worse, as even if all Canada views them , U.S. TV ratings do not add a single viewer. Then U.S. could devise a new cup, and what I believe to be the deflating Canadian influence, would not hamper TV ratings or the live gate. Well, maybe Toronto at times might not factor into that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->