Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PeteyNice

NHL SEASON OFFICIALLY CANCELLED

294 posts in this topic

If Bettman had any guts he would tell the union where to shove their offer and let them sit out another year or two.

This has got me completely f'n scared. The owners are caving. Bit by bit, they are caving and we're going to be in a worse mess than we started. Even at 42M, I think we are going to see the Penguins and Flames and Oilers all fall by the wayside.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what does that tell you, looks like the they weren't as bad off as you once thought. I think Bettmans cabal has deteriorated somewhat, and pressure has been put on Goodenow as well.

did you really expect the owners to win this in a sweep?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be so naive, 7. Don't you think that Bettman and his crew have known it would end up right where it is now? You have to come in low if you want to hit your target -- Negotiating 101. There will be a cap. And there will be cost certainty. And there will be a reduction in salaries. Owners 4, NHLPA 0, Goodenow gracefully retired within 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, both proposals contain luxury tax and revenue sharing elements. The small markets are not being left out to dry and the fact is, any team that cannot afford between 25-28 million in player salaries cannot be a part of the NHL. That is simply a fact.

The small markets aren't supposed to be as competitive as the big markets. That's only possible in the NFL. This deal gives the small markets a better chance of being able to retain a stable of players. It's much better than the current CBA in that respect.

smelly, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the process. The owners clearly aren't going to break the union if they're going to win here tonight. A $45 million dollar cap is well above the $31 million where it started, and no linkage of revenue to the cap is a win for the players as well - true, it is only a win within the owners' initial framework, but a win nonetheless.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about future seasons Don? Do you think if Bettman cancels it, that the two sides will still get back together and hammer out a deal right away? Of course not.

7', in Don's world, Bettman gets everything. There are no negotiations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The small markets aren't supposed to be as competitive as the big markets. 

Which is a big problem in my books. I was an Expos fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am the NHLPA I would be calling Bettman up later tonight with an offer around 47 million.

If Bettman says no and still says were done giving offers I can't see the NHLPA giving another offer.

If thw NHLPA offers one more offer Bettman has to start talking and not just reject and walk away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be so naive, 7.  Don't you think that Bettman and his crew have known it would end up right where it is now?  You have to come in low if you want to hit your target -- Negotiating 101.  There will be a cap.  And there will be cost certainty.  And there will be a reduction in salaries.  Owners 4, NHLPA 0, Goodenow gracefully retired within 12 months.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In NHL parlance "cost certainty" was the link between salaries and revenue. That is off the table. Also, cap, cost certainty and reduction in salaries only adds up to 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Don it's easy for you to say shut down the season, Canadiens get ten billion hockey leagues to watch, hockey die-hards don't need the pros. For hockey fans here in the US, this is it as far as a hockey fix...what do we get hockey-wise without the NHL? An occasional college game on FSNY and a 'classic' game on FSNY or MSG...that's it.

And let's face it BOTH sides know now if they didn't before (which they should have) that a canceled season would mean irreperable harm that the NHL can't afford. What good is having their own system if there are no fans around to support it?

Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don, both proposals contain luxury tax and revenue sharing elements.  The small markets are not being left out to dry and the fact is, any team that cannot afford between 25-28 million in player salaries cannot be a part of the NHL.  That is simply a fact.

The small markets aren't supposed to be as competitive as the big markets.  That's only possible in the NFL.  This deal gives the small markets a better chance of being able to retain a stable of players.  It's much better than the current CBA in that respect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the fact of the matter is that that's not even possible in today's NFL, the most egalitarian league of all, given the much greater revenue-generating capabilities of the larger market franchises than their smaller brethren. The Redskins, Eagles, PAtriots and (after their new stadia are built) the Jets and Giants have much greate revenues from off-field sources (suites, marketing, advertising, etc.) than the Green Bays, Minnesotas, Tampas etc. of the world. Life isn't fair -- and Calgary is just a small cowtown (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know Don it's easy for you to say shut down the season, Canadiens get ten billion hockey leagues to watch, hockey die-hards don't need the pros.  For hockey fans  here in the US, this is it as far as a hockey fix...what do we get hockey-wise without the NHL?  An occasional college game on FSNY and a 'classic' game on FSNY or MSG...that's it.

You could have come to Albany with us! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, you can't compare baseball to hockey. Not if hockey gets this deal done. Payrolls aren't over $100 million apart like in baseball. And if the deal with this cap and luxury tax happens, the big market teams payrolls will pare down and not spin out of control. They'll have to watch what they spend. The playing field will be better.

I am sorry that the Expos weren't able to stay together. A lot of that though was what happened with the ownership change back in '94. Maybe things could have turned out differently. I also liked those Expos teams. It was ashame what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that 42M is close to what Bettman had in mind all along. It's just simple negotiating tactics, start your asking really high and move down once you see a fair negotiation in site.

I would already consider if a deal gets done that the owners already have won, they got their salary cap even if it is above what they wanted unless the news we are getting is incorrect. Or if the CBA was planning to cave into a salary cup but just wanted to hold out as long as they could to see how high Bettmen was willing to raise the cap.

As much as I wish they could have gotten this done in Summer, none of the players and owners realized how serious the otherside was and only drag everyone through the mud like they did was enough to see a deal must get done now one way or another.

Both sides owe it to the fans to just get a deal done and give us some hockey this year.

Edited by E-Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smelly, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the process.
Edited by smelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Bettman had any guts he would tell the union where to shove their offer and let them sit out another year or two.

This has got me completely f'n scared. The owners are caving. Bit by bit, they are caving and we're going to be in a worse mess than we started. Even at 42M, I think we are going to see the Penguins and Flames and Oilers all fall by the wayside.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what does that tell you, looks like the they weren't as bad off as you once thought. I think Bettmans cabal has deteriorated somewhat, and pressure has been put on Goodenow as well.

did you really expect the owners to win this in a sweep?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be so naive, 7. Don't you think that Bettman and his crew have known it would end up right where it is now? You have to come in low if you want to hit your target -- Negotiating 101. There will be a cap. And there will be cost certainty. And there will be a reduction in salaries. Owners 4, NHLPA 0, Goodenow gracefully retired within 12 months.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the fact they moved the cap from 32 million to let's say 45(should get it done) they gave up linkage, and the CBA itself is only 6 years.

45 is a loose cap, barely a cap at all. You don't think Bettman was pressured as well. They made concessions. And it was the right thing to do. That's why Don is pissed, but that's negotiations.

we'll see how it works, the war chests will be built up in 4 years, and we may yet end up with a smaller league with no cap by 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we'll see how it works, the war chests will be built up in 4 years, and we may yet end up with a smaller league with no cap by 2011.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited by smelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know Don it's easy for you to say shut down the season, Canadiens get ten billion hockey leagues to watch, hockey die-hards don't need the pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could have come to Albany with us! :P

That wasn't hockey, that was a combination of the Bad News Bears on skates and Slapshot in the flesh :lol:

Touch

Edited by Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Bettman had any guts he would tell the union where to shove their offer and let them sit out another year or two.

This has got me completely f'n scared. The owners are caving. Bit by bit, they are caving and we're going to be in a worse mess than we started. Even at 42M, I

we'll see how it works, the war chests will be built up in 4 years, and we may yet end up with a smaller league with no cap by 2011.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That will never happen. The union will take a lower cap before it voluntarily accepts a reduction in the number of jobs. There are a lot more Turner Stevensons in the NHLPA that Vincent Lecavliers . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bettman moving off 32 million to 42 million means that he's finally budged off the "save all 30" argument. Because some won't survive in the next 6 years, and they shouldn't survive if they can't make it under these economic conditions. I guess the medium to big market owners finally said screw nashville, let's get this done.

the reduction won't be immediate though, those 700+ jobs won't dissapear overnight.

the 24% rollback is a victory for bettman

no linkage is a victory for the players

6 year cba is a victory for the players

a potential 45 mil "cap" is a victory for the players, if it happens, considering they started at 28 or 32 mil. bettman can call it a cap and declare victory, fine let him. Let it exist as an illusion of a cap. maybe you can call it a draw

payroll taxe with some teeth is a victory for bettman

seems reasonable, let's play

Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had juniors nearby, I'd go watch. Don is lucky in that aspect. There's also no great college hockey programs in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the key to a cap around $45 million is that it keeps the 5 big spenders (Avs, Rangers, Stars, Blues, Flyers) from inflating salaries by prying away free agents and offering ridiculously high salary busting contracts. you'll see max salaries of about $5-$6 million for the elite players (right where it should be) in a sport with hockey's revenues, becuase teams can't afford to blow 20% of their payroll on one player unless they plan to be Iginla and 19 jay pandolfo's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are dreaming, 7. No teams will be 'going under' as a result of either proposal: there IS REVENUE SHARING INVOLVED. I don't think you understand negotiation either.

smelly, 45 million isn't ideal. I think the league would've liked the number to be around 39 million and who knows, they may not budge off 42.5 (which is really 40.5). It's not a complete win for the owners, especially in light of the fact that the players will still get paid and the owners are going to take it in the face for years to come as a result of this lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, revenue sharing of what, less than 3 mil. Revenues will be so miniscule that it won't save anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny. I'm against the new proposals because teams are going to go under.

7 on the other hand is for the new proposals because teams are going to go under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

teams will still lose money under this new proposal. yes, but that doesn't mean every single one should go under. Did these owners know what they were getting into or did Bettman sell them on some imaginary gravy train. He couldn't guarantee them profits every year, and he shouldn't!

if I thought 18 would go under then I would be dead set against it as well.

I'm calling Edmontons bluff, they won't go under.

we'll lose 4, but no more than 6.

Bettman finally saw that losing a whole season and having this drag on for another year would've been the death blow for hockey, and would only lead to some of the middle market teams falling into economic ruin.

he held out as long as he could, but he couldn't save every team. He got a "cap", he gets a victory speech. he should be happy.

Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Calgary, Edmonton, or Pittsburgh goes under, it will be because they don't have a new facility, not because of any CBA. Pittsburgh especially needs a new building. However, Calgary and Edmonton have rabid fan bases and under a new CBA, they will not face serious salary problems.

If teams did not go under during the old CBA, they will not be folding now. As smelly has so often said: the value of a franchise is its value, not its profits; as long as losses run consistently under 10 million, these teams will stay afloat. The consortium that owns Calgary, for example, has plenty of money.

These teams needed a salary cap not for themselves, but so the other teams won't spend.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0