Will players get a better offer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DuklaNation

Registered User
Aug 26, 2004
5,682
1,544
nyrmessier011 said:
that is correct...BUT the NLRB will never rule for an impasse when both sides are are on a hard cap and only 10 mil or so away

Don't count on it. Thats a big difference when you're losing money (lets ignore accumulated losses).
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
DuklaNation said:
Don't count on it. Thats a big difference when you're losing money (lets ignore accumulated losses).

i agree it's a big difference when your losing money, but not too big of a difference to be gapped...the board should likely say we will not grant you an impasse because the players are negotiating fairly...because after all, that's what an impasse is about...the PA has negotiated fairly enough to show the labor board that the NHL should not get one...i mean they dropped to a hard cap!!!
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Jaded-Fan said:
Your post assumes that there is money to give to get to the middle. It is more and more obvious that is erroneous for all but a couple of markets. Hockey of all the sports has a crap television deal and almost all franchises losing money and yet the players currently take by far of any sport the largest percentage of revenues. And every one of their offers is a band aid at best, none doing much to change the hemoraging of revenues from most clubs. Even at $42.5 million most clubs would lose money for 2 years at least. True, the various owners true recompense is the thrill of owning a team, the cache of buying their way into being a celebrety, a city leader and one of the best known ones at that. That said, they will only lose so much. Obviously, by their unity, hockey is beyond the point that the owners will accept.

You spin a nice yarn, but the money is not there to let that fantasy play out.

First off the money doesn't need to be there to get to the middle. If an owner can't spend $42.5, they can't spend $45 million either but they don't have to. When the cap is not linked it does not mean every team needs to spend to that amount, it is simply an arbitrary number that can be agreed on. If NO owner had an extra $3 million to spend, that is fine. Second, I never said the owners do all have money to spend $45 million each. What I did say is that at this point taking that cap might be their best option anyway.

Even if there might be a problem with a $45 million cap I don't think that the high end of the cap is the most important thing here. The low end is even more important to the NHL. Everyone knows that the revenues are going to be way down when the league starts playing again and everyone knows that it might take over a decade for revenues to get back to where they were. That being said, the NHL can not have a salary floor in the next CBA. Because no matter how that floor comes into the CBA at this point, either negotiation or impasse, if it does exist it is going to be a reasonable one. The owners can't backtrack so much on their linkage offer (and lower the floor so much) and then win an impasse, it won't happen.

So let's say they end up with a floor at $30-$32 million, you are looking at a bunch of teams that are going to continue to lose money even if they are only spending the floor. There are teams that spent less than that last year and lost money and those losses are only going to be exaggerated after losing a season. Problem for the NHL is those losses are going to turn into folding franchises pretty soon and that's the last thing the league wants. The league simply can't have a floor which is why they didn't propose one in the last offer.

So the problem with impasse is that for the league to win one, it will have to be a linkage CBA (because if they don't go for linkage than there is no impasse in the first place). The problem with a linkage CBA is that there is automatically a floor, and in order to avoid bad faith bargaining that floor is at least $30 million. And as I said, the problem with this is that teams will continue to lose money at this point and some franchises are going to go out of business spending $30 million for the next couple of years.

Understanding the risks involved in an impasse and the consequences of the owners losing an impasse (which could definetly happen) combined with the fact that even if the owners won an impasse it probably wouldn't be the best deal for them anyway (teams will still lose money and some teams might fold) makes me believe that there is no way in hell the owners are going to attempt it. I don't think Mario is going to be too supportive of an impasse if winning it means his team goes out of business and losing it means his team goes out of business...and the same would go for all the owners small market or big. Jim Dolan doesn't have much to gain from winning an impasse as opposed to negotiating a cap, but he does have a lot to lose. So being that they aren't going with an impasse the only other option at this point is to negotiate, which means a better deal for the PA than what was on the table last Wednesday.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
gc2005 said:
That's just nutty. If it got this far though, I hope the replacement players would band together and demand more money. That would be kinda funny.

It is not nutty at all, what better way to ensure they don't suffer a backlash when former NHLPA members return than to establish control over their own PA.

If the PA decertifies this is a very likely outcome and one that see Goodenow and the boys out in the cold.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Luc Labelle said:
Upon impasse, the last CBA offered would be implemented. The final offer made by the NHL had no salary floor.

Exactly my point. If the owners don't make another offer and stick with 42.5 hard cap with no floor, there isn't an impasse because the PA has the same philosophy. NLRB would never grant it. You have to remember that an impasse is not about how far apart the two sides are but rather about how close the philosophies of the two sides are and wether or not both sides negotiated fairly. Right now they are on the same philosophy and have both negotiated fairly.

With that in mind if the NHL wants to try an impasse and expects to win it they are going to have to go back to a linkage offer, in which case there WILL be a salary floor.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
nyrmessier011 said:
i agree it's a big difference when your losing money, but not too big of a difference to be gapped...the board should likely say we will not grant you an impasse because the players are negotiating fairly...because after all, that's what an impasse is about...the PA has negotiated fairly enough to show the labor board that the NHL should not get one...i mean they dropped to a hard cap!!!

The difference in salary caps is probably not a big deal when it reaches the NLRB. So what if teams can't afford a $49 million cap (or whatever the numbers may be). They don't have to spend it. Gary has convinced a herd of sheep fans that each and every team would somehow be forced to spend to the limit and the world would end as a result, but to convince the NLRB of the same thing would be a much harder task.

If it gets this far, I bet the NLRB wouldn't grant an impasse, and would tell them to keep bargaining. After all, progress has been made and they're both on the same page now. Or at least they were.
 

Wolfpack

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
1,036
0
nyr7andcounting said:
First off the money doesn't need to be there to get to the middle. If an owner can't spend $42.5, they can't spend $45 million either but they don't have to. When the cap is not linked it does not mean every team needs to spend to that amount, it is simply an arbitrary number that can be agreed on. If NO owner had an extra $3 million to spend, that is fine. Second, I never said the owners do all have money to spend $45 million each. What I did say is that at this point taking that cap might be their best option anyway.

Even if there might be a problem with a $45 million cap I don't think that the high end of the cap is the most important thing here. The low end is even more important to the NHL. Everyone knows that the revenues are going to be way down when the league starts playing again and everyone knows that it might take over a decade for revenues to get back to where they were. That being said, the NHL can not have a salary floor in the next CBA. Because no matter how that floor comes into the CBA at this point, either negotiation or impasse, if it does exist it is going to be a reasonable one. The owners can't backtrack so much on their linkage offer (and lower the floor so much) and then win an impasse, it won't happen.

So let's say they end up with a floor at $30-$32 million, you are looking at a bunch of teams that are going to continue to lose money even if they are only spending the floor. There are teams that spent less than that last year and lost money and those losses are only going to be exaggerated after losing a season. Problem for the NHL is those losses are going to turn into folding franchises pretty soon and that's the last thing the league wants. The league simply can't have a floor which is why they didn't propose one in the last offer.

So the problem with impasse is that for the league to win one, it will have to be a linkage CBA (because if they don't go for linkage than there is no impasse in the first place). The problem with a linkage CBA is that there is automatically a floor, and in order to avoid bad faith bargaining that floor is at least $30 million. And as I said, the problem with this is that teams will continue to lose money at this point and some franchises are going to go out of business spending $30 million for the next couple of years.

Understanding the risks involved in an impasse and the consequences of the owners losing an impasse (which could definetly happen) combined with the fact that even if the owners won an impasse it probably wouldn't be the best deal for them anyway (teams will still lose money and some teams might fold) makes me believe that there is no way in hell the owners are going to attempt it. I don't think Mario is going to be too supportive of an impasse if winning it means his team goes out of business and losing it means his team goes out of business...and the same would go for all the owners small market or big. Jim Dolan doesn't have much to gain from winning an impasse as opposed to negotiating a cap, but he does have a lot to lose. So being that they aren't going with an impasse the only other option at this point is to negotiate, which means a better deal for the PA than what was on the table last Wednesday.


I second the motion... you do indeed spin a good yarn. Unfortunately, your entire prediction is based upon a completely arbitrary $30-32 million payroll floor, when after a collapse in revenue streams the payroll range could just as easily be $20 million to $30 million. $30 million could be the upper end of the cap.

When you look at the ever-shrinking revenue pie there is no scenario where the players will be getting a bigger overall slice of that pie than the last one they were offered.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Wolfpack said:
I second the motion... you do indeed spin a good yarn. Unfortunately, your entire prediction is based upon a completely arbitrary $30-32 million payroll floor, when after a collapse in revenue streams the payroll range could just as easily be $20 million to $30 million. $30 million could be the upper end of the cap.

When you look at the ever-shrinking revenue pie there is no scenario where the players will be getting a bigger overall slice of that pie than the last one they were offered.

I agree the floor SHOULD be $20 million when the NHL comes back, but the problem is how does it get there? If you are talking about impasse, you are talking about a salary floor. If you are talking about winning an impasse, you are talking about a CBA that can't be too much worse than the offers previously made, otherwise it's bad faith bargaining.

Considering that the last offer the NHL made with linkage to the PA said linkage no lower than $32 million they are not going to be allowed to go much lower than if they want to win an impasse, it's that simple. Even if the NHL manages to convince the board that offering linkage once again is not bad faith bargaining, even if the NLRB buys the "our revenues are dead we need to lower our offer" argument from the NHL... they will never be able to lower their offer so much that the floor would be so low that it would actually work for the league.

Like you said, if the league comes back and offers linkage and says linkage between $20 million and $30 million, don't you think that's bad faith bargaining? Considering they've offered linkage between $32-$42 as well as offered no linkage at all I don't see how they could ever manage to win an impasse that would put the salary range that low.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
There aren't many things that 95% of any group can agree on except at gunpoint like Saddam Hussein's elections. This is quite amazing.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
gc2005 said:
The difference in salary caps is probably not a big deal when it reaches the NLRB. So what if teams can't afford a $49 million cap (or whatever the numbers may be). They don't have to spend it. Gary has convinced a herd of sheep fans that each and every team would somehow be forced to spend to the limit and the world would end as a result, but to convince the NLRB of the same thing would be a much harder task.

If it gets this far, I bet the NLRB wouldn't grant an impasse, and would tell them to keep bargaining. After all, progress has been made and they're both on the same page now. Or at least they were.

yes, i agree with you...i dont even think the nhl will bother
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
Wolfpack said:
I second the motion... you do indeed spin a good yarn. Unfortunately, your entire prediction is based upon a completely arbitrary $30-32 million payroll floor, when after a collapse in revenue streams the payroll range could just as easily be $20 million to $30 million. $30 million could be the upper end of the cap.

When you look at the ever-shrinking revenue pie there is no scenario where the players will be getting a bigger overall slice of that pie than the last one they were offered.

They would not be able to do that...they could drop the floor as much as they want, but dropping the ceiling 12.5 million will give them unfaithful bergaining...even with 20 million, owners still wont make a profit if they went for replacements
 

TheBudsForever

Registered User
May 5, 2002
1,158
0
Visit site
Welcome to a guaranteed LOSE-LOSE end result.

Yes, thanks to the 2 egomaniacs that were chosen to be their leaders, the owners and players are now locked into a war of mutually assured death and destruction. Can you imagine a President Bettman and Premier Goodenow heading up the U.S.A. and Russia during the Cold War ? ... The Earth would be a smoking cinder with both of them proclaiming victory in their bunkers.

Does anybody really believe that the small market U.S. clubs like Anaheim, Florida, Tampa, Nashville, Carolina, Atlanta, San Jose, Columbus, Phoenix and others aren't going to be severely damaged by a season without hockey ? Common sense tells you that when the game resumes, alot of soft interest fans in those markets will have lost interest which means they won't be coming back anytime soon. For a ticket revenue dominated league, that's death. Less revenues also means less money for salaries.

To emphasize the above, I had the good fortune in the playoffs a few years ago to drive down to Raleigh and see the Leafs play the Hurricanes in Game 2. I and a friend had the second best seats in the house. 1/3 of the sold out arena (new seating record) consisted of Leaf fans who had driven/flown down to Raleigh. I was sitting beside a guy who was attending his first hockey game. He didn't know what an icing was. He didn't know that there were 3 twenty minute periods in a hockey game ... well you get the picture. I might add that while down there, I was also told that as a promotional stunt years ago, the Hurriacanes paid some big name NASCAR driver to spend 3 days driving a Zamboni 60 miles to their hockey arena.

Now just imagine the possibility of part or all of another season of hockey going down the tubes. Even without that possibility, given the lost season, do you honestly believe that the Hurricanes aren't going to lose a big part of their ticket sales for years going forward ?

Hockey will come back strong for all of the Canadian teams because it is the number 1 sport in the country. Not so in the USA.

If ESPN terminates their involvement in April, there goes the only national t.v. coverage that the NHL has in the U.S.A. Sure, it's not alot of money but you know what, it still worked out to more than U.S. $2 million per team in revenue.

... In my books, the owners and players richly deserve the punishment they're both going to endure now. Looks good on them!

To quote Forrest Gump "STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES".
 

Munchausen

Guest
nyrmessier011 said:
i agree it's a big difference when your losing money, but not too big of a difference to be gapped...the board should likely say we will not grant you an impasse because the players are negotiating fairly...because after all, that's what an impasse is about...the PA has negotiated fairly enough to show the labor board that the NHL should not get one...i mean they dropped to a hard cap!!!

First, who's to say the gap will remain as narrow? Linkage is back on. The 24% rollback and hard cap are back off from the PA stand point. Maybe the owners claim they can no longer afford a deal without linkage since the economics have changed due to the lost season and nobody knows what the future holds. This would be a valid argument. Therefore, they might argue a deal without linkage at this point is now too risky. Also, they might lower the cap even more due to the same reasons, a thing the PA doesn't seem prepared to consider.

Second, I don't think you grasp the concept of impasse completely. Both sides can be bargaining in good faith, yet be at impasse. Impasse means both sides cannot get closer anymore and all subsequent negotiations would be futile. That doesn't mean one has negotiated in bad faith.
 

Luc Labelle

Lucius 895 Injuries
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2005
762
3,108
Winnipeg
nyr7andcounting said:
Exactly my point. If the owners don't make another offer and stick with 42.5 hard cap with no floor, there isn't an impasse because the PA has the same philosophy. NLRB would never grant it.
Whether an impasse is declared or not has nothing to do with the philosophy of the two sides. It has everything to do with how close the two sides happen to be. If they are miles apart, which they happen to currently be, then they will be at an impasse. While there is no doubt they were at a greater impasse when they were playing the Cap - No Cap philosophy game, they still now find themselves at an impasse.

The NHL has been bargaining in good faith, even with the cancellation of the season (twice :) ) they still had the dignity to talk about being open to meeting with the NHLPA and eventually coming to an agreement on a new CBA sooner than later. On the other hand, the NHLPA continued to spew childish rhetoric instead of recognizing the dire economic circumstances of the NHL. Goodenow had a one on one interview on TSN the day of the cancellation and at one point bragged about one year lost is nothing compared to how long he could wait.

That has been the most frustrating thing about this lockout, I have been hearing the exact same thing from every NHLPA mouthpiece for the last 3 years: "We're willing to wait at least 2 years into a lockout for a fair deal, we will not take a cap." The NHLPA has been invited by the NHL since that time on numerous occasions to discuss a fair deal under a cost certain framework. On every such occasion the NHLPA refused to have discussions because they wanted nothing to do with caps, cost certainty or linkage until 36 hours before the deadline for cancelling the season.

Goodenow's only negotiating strategy he has ever used is deadline hunting which gives him the most concessions when push comes to shove (if the other side has anything to give). Except the owner's were being honest about their limits yet Goodenow is still playing the same card. I don't want to see an impasse, the NHL has stated they don't want to see an impasse, yet we are at an impasse because the NHLPA refuses to accept the economic realities of NHL hockey.
 

Munchausen

Guest
nyrmessier011 said:
They would not be able to do that...they could drop the floor as much as they want, but dropping the ceiling 12.5 million will give them unfaithful bergaining...

As far as I know, there is nothing illegal about downward negotiating if the economic conditions surrounding a deal have changed, which they have since the season is gone, and with it sponsorship, maybe the TV deal and a certain but unquantifiable portion of the fanbase.

As such, they have a case for droping the cap to whatever number they want, as long as this number sits on hard facts. If the pie shrinks by 50%, well, so does the cap. The NLRB might want to look at the books to verify the owners' numbers, a thing the NHLPA has not done and will ultimately play against them if they make an unfair practice claim, but if the owners have been telling the truth and their numbers justify the cap number they come up with, the battle is over.

That's why the players have been foolish to reject the last offer, since the next one will likely be much lower (one will have to argue hard to convince me the deal will get better or even as good as the last one by bringing this late into the summer).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
As far as I know, there is nothing illegal about downward negotiating if the economic conditions surrounding a deal have changed, which they have since the season is gone, and with it sponsorship, maybe the TV deal and a certain but unquantifiable portion of the fanbase.
Do you believe that ?? I could see that being the case if this was a Players Strike and thus Revenue going done as a result ..

But since its a owners lockout .. They are the ones controlling NO HOCKEY and thus the revenue going down .. That changes things ..

You are rewarding .. Better CBA to the NHL by purposely and controllably doing it themselves ..
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
The Messenger said:
Do you believe that ?? I could see that being the case if this was a Players Strike and thus Revenue going done as a result ..

But since its a owners lockout .. They are the ones controlling NO HOCKEY and thus the revenue going down .. That changes things ..

You are rewarding .. Better CBA to the NHL by purposely and controllably doing it themselves ..
That sure seems like a stretch. Because the owners initiated a lockout because the status quo caused sizeable losses is a reason to suggest that the NRLB will look favourably on the players?
 

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
Do you believe that ?? I could see that being the case if this was a Players Strike and thus Revenue going done as a result ..

But since its a owners lockout .. They are the ones controlling NO HOCKEY and thus the revenue going down .. That changes things ..

You are rewarding .. Better CBA to the NHL by purposely and controllably doing it themselves ..

That's not true at all. If it was, the owners would have no leverage whatsoever, which would be odd considering they are the ones running the businesses. Players weren't locked-out while a valid CBA was still in place, therefore, it was the owners' right to lock-out the players with no CBA in place and their claim they were losing money and needed a new system to operate again.

The fact it's the owners who shut down the league is irrelevant to the conditions on which a deal must be negotiated. And BTW, it's not about a better CBA, it's about a worse financial state. There's a difference. The cap won't drop because the owners will decide on March 1st they suddenly want more, it will drop because the pie has shrunk. If they were asking for more and the economics didn't justify their new POV, then the NHLPA would have a claim for unfair practice before the NLRB.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
slats432 said:
That sure seems like a stretch. Because the owners initiated a lockout because the status quo caused sizeable losses is a reason to suggest that the NRLB will look favourably on the players?
No that wasn't the point ... The lockout was the action ..

I was disputing that the NHL could use it to force Revenue loss and increase its chances for a better CBA ..

All reports I have read state that the CBA implemented in an Impasse would be the last one they offered to the NHLPA with the 42.5 Cap ..

If they modify it and lower the Cap and add linkage the Labour board will not look on that favourably ..

That would mean any business could lockout its employees offer and proposal it wanted and as bad as it wanted and when the other refuse simply put in place a really juicy one in their favour as being suggested here ..

Also until you actually see what gates receipts are like and fan response etc. How can you say I guarantee that Revenue is done .. You might predict it might happen as a result but would have no results or actual figures to prove that ..

That was my point ..
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Luc Labelle said:
Whether an impasse is declared or not has nothing to do with the philosophy of the two sides. It has everything to do with how close the two sides happen to be. If they are miles apart, which they happen to currently be, then they will be at an impasse. While there is no doubt they were at a greater impasse when they were playing the Cap - No Cap philosophy game, they still now find themselves at an impasse.

The NHL has been bargaining in good faith, even with the cancellation of the season (twice :) ) they still had the dignity to talk about being open to meeting with the NHLPA and eventually coming to an agreement on a new CBA sooner than later. On the other hand, the NHLPA continued to spew childish rhetoric instead of recognizing the dire economic circumstances of the NHL. Goodenow had a one on one interview on TSN the day of the cancellation and at one point bragged about one year lost is nothing compared to how long he could wait.

First of all the philosophy of the two sides have everything to do with it. If each side has a different philosophy an impasse will happen a lot sooner than normal. Since they are on the same philosophy and only 7 million apart on the biggest issue they are close enough to where an impasse isn't going to be granted. If your saying the NHL is going to change it's philosophy in the future, I'm not sure how you know that, but I guess we will just have to wait and see.

But it's very obvious an impasse does not exist and what you say about the season cancellation proves that. The NHL wanted to meet very soon after they cancelled the season and even Bettman even basically said while cancelling the season that the NHL would consider going higher. And even after all that, you are saying that the NHL still wants to meet sooner rather than later. That doesn't sound like they've reach impasse to me.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
That's not true at all. If it was, the owners would have no leverage whatsoever, which would be odd considering they are the ones running the businesses. Players weren't locked-out while a valid CBA was still in place, therefore, it was the owners' right to lock-out the players with no CBA in place and their claim they were losing money and needed a new system to operate again.

The fact it's the owners who shut down the league is irrelevant to the conditions on which a deal must be negotiated. And BTW, it's not about a better CBA, it's about a worse financial state. There's a difference. The cap won't drop because the owners will decide on March 1st they suddenly want more, it will drop because the pie has shrunk. If they were asking for more and the economics didn't justify their new POV, then the NHLPA would have a claim for unfair practice before the NLRB.
How do you prove the pie has shrunk is my point ???

You need a Impasse , with a CBA in place to begin with replacements to see the effect on revenue ..

Both sides need to negotiate in GOOD FAITH to try to come to an agreement ..

When the two sides are no longer moving towards the middle or are not prepared to give on any sub-issue with in a CBA and Impasse is declared at that point and the final offer by the NHL that was discussed or bargained on is put in place is the one used for the New CBA .. If the NHL suddenly implements a 32 M hard Cap .. There will certainly lose in courts with that action..

The NHL does not know what the actual economic position is until they try something .. This would be crystal ball projecting .. You don't know what you financial positon is until you do the books at the end of the year .. NO.??

You can't just say Revenue going done .. Costs could also go done .. Some Players could stay in Europe and never return and if they where being paid millions then the company just got a lot more profitable by not paying his contract ..

Chicken and Egg argument here ..
 
Last edited:

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
No that wasn't the point ... The lockout was the action ..

I was disputing that the NHL could use it to force Revenue loss and increase its chances for a better CBA ..

again, like stated above, not a better CBA, worse economics.

The Messenger said:
All reports I have read state that the CBA implemented in an Impasse would be the last one they offered to the NHLPA with the 42.5 Cap ..

If they modify it and lower the Cap and add linkage the Labour board will not look on that favourably ..

Maybe if they declared Impasse right away, then yes. But that won't happen. There will be negotiations and if Impasse is declared, it will be at the very last minute. Therefore, you figure a new final offer based on new economics might be put in place and that final offer would stand for Impasse. There's one thing both sides were right about. We're back to square one in those negotiations. The previous numbers are history.

The Messenger said:
That would mean any business could lockout its employees offer and proposal it wanted and as bad as it wanted and when the other refuse simply put in place a really juicy one in their favour as being suggested here ..

The owners know they will have to prove their offers are based on necessity and not greed if they go before the NLRB. Therefore, you can be sure they won't try to have their cake and eat it too, it would be blatant bad faith negotiations.

The Messenger said:
Also until you actually see what gates receipts are like and fan response etc. How can you say I guarantee that Revenue is done .. You might predict it might happen as a result but would have no results or actual figures to prove that ..

You're right. However, the uncertainty of it makes a valid argument for bringing back linkage. Plus, I think it is safe to assume revenues will go down as a result of this lock-out, not up, so if they can prove the pie has shrunk significantly and came up with a new lowered offer based on those facts, there is nothing illegal nor illogical about that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Munchausen said:
As far as I know, there is nothing illegal about downward negotiating if the economic conditions surrounding a deal have changed, which they have since the season is gone, and with it sponsorship, maybe the TV deal and a certain but unquantifiable portion of the fanbase.

As such, they have a case for droping the cap to whatever number they want, as long as this number sits on hard facts. If the pie shrinks by 50%, well, so does the cap. The NLRB might want to look at the books to verify the owners' numbers, a thing the NHLPA has not done and will ultimately play against them if they make an unfair practice claim, but if the owners have been telling the truth and their numbers justify the cap number they come up with, the battle is over.

That's why the players have been foolish to reject the last offer, since the next one will likely be much lower (one will have to argue hard to convince me the deal will get better or even as good as the last one by bringing this late into the summer).

There is nothing illegal about it but it's almost certain the NLRB isn't going to uphold an impasse if they do it. The NHL can offer whatever they want, but if it's too far backwards they better hope the PA folds and takes it... because impasse will be out the window. So like I've said, they can go backwards but if impasse is an option they could only go so far, like changing the $32-$42 linkage offer to $30-$40. That would be great and all but even if the NLRB upholds the impasse, the NHL is still going to lose a bunch of teams who are going to be stuck paying $30 million...and even worse be paying replacement players that much for any amount of time.

Plus it's a huge risk. Like you said they have a case with the NLRB for dropping the cap if it sits on hard facts. Problem is they don't have any hard facts on how much attendance will fall. It would be very hard for the NHL to win an impasse at this point especially when they are the ones who caused the lockout in the first place. Considering the consequences, even if the NHL thinks it has a 60% chance of winning impasse, I doubt they do it. If they lose you are looking at a lot of teams who owe a lot of money and most likely you are going to have a few teams fold right away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->