Devs3cups Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Link Hope the NHL and the NHLPA can agree for a new CBA. "I re-confirmed something that the union has been told multiple times over the last nine to 12 months. Namely, that the time is getting short and the owners are not prepared to operate under this collective bargaining agreement for another season so we need to get to making a deal and doing it soon. And we believe there's ample time for the parties to get together and make a deal and that's what we're going to be working towards." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Not surprising. I am curious if the NHL finally returned the requested financial documents the NHLPA asked for yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 There's really nothing new here. He was probably addressing a specific point in the old CBA that it can continue past expiration at the option of the owners. In other words, the owners could have said, we'll continue under the old CBA until we work out a new one. Bettman made it clear months ago that the owners weren't going to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Over/under on whether an agreement is reached by September 15th? Edited August 9, 2012 by Devilsfan118 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Over/under on whether an agreement is reached by September 15th? Both sides will be stupid to let this run into the regular season, they know how the NHL has been growing since the last lockout and they cannot jeopardize that. I think some preseason games will be cancelled. Edited August 9, 2012 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Unfortunately I think we'll need an NBA-like season this year. As in, the season will resume around the allstar break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Unfortunately I think we'll need an NBA-like season this year. As in, the season will resume around the allstar break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 My bet is that the season starts right around Thanksgiving. They do not want to lose Winter Classic money and you really need 24/7 from HBO as a central marketing piece for the NHL. I would expect a deal to get done late October and a 2-3 week abbreviated camp before the season starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelastonealive Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Unfortunately I think we'll need an NBA-like season this year. As in, the season will resume around the allstar break. Last time that happened, we won a Cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njd3b1ink Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 If there is a lockout this year it will be the third while bettman is commissioner. Why the hell is he still in charge?! Last time that happened, we won a Cup. Thats exactly what i thought of also, but i also think half a season would favor the rangers alot more. Less wear from all the flopping that will be going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 My bet is that the season starts right around Thanksgiving. They do not want to lose Winter Classic money and you really need 24/7 from HBO as a central marketing piece for the NHL. I would expect a deal to get done late October and a 2-3 week abbreviated camp before the season starts. I really don't think 24/7 is that significant to the league, and I'd be surprised if that gets brought up at all. If anything, 24/7 can be a look at training camp leading up to the season opener as the Winter Classic - it would certainly save HBO some cash to be that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I really don't think 24/7 is that significant to the league, and I'd be surprised if that gets brought up at all. If anything, 24/7 can be a look at training camp leading up to the season opener as the Winter Classic - it would certainly save HBO some cash to be that way. i may have given it too much credence, but not the winter classic. that's the cash cow for the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 A 60-66 game seaosn like the NBA just had wouldn't be something I'd complain about. The NHL season is way too long. I'm not one saying the league should shorten it since there is a lot of money to be lost, but I'll enjoy it if it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 After the long playoffs we just had my wallet will be perfectly happy with a shortened season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Well, I never thought that MLB would cancel a World Series. And I sure as hell never thought the NHL would cancel an entire Season & their Stanley Cup Playoffs -- so obviously my instincts are just wrong. While I think the Winter Classic is very important to the NHL, and would again think 'they'd never cancel that', I'm starting to believe that we just don't know how far each side is willing to push their position. I'd like to think the American Thanksgiving date is a reasonable one to get a deal done by, I wouldn't be shocked if it took until Xmas. It looks like I'll be watching more baseball/football this fall ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldon Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Fehr is a cancer to sports. In baseball there was $ to be had. In hockey, there's not. One reason I hate writers like Brooks, he writes articles telling how bad the players had it in the last CBA, that the PA needs strong leadership. I don't see any players crying cashing the checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
third man in Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Both sides are at fault...billionaires arguing with millionaires. It'll be a shame if any part of the season is lost, the NHL is finally gaining some real momentum in the US. If there's a third lockout on Bettman's watch, I'm sorry but he has to go...while he's done some good for the league, this would be the last straw for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Fehr is a cancer to sports. In baseball there was $ to be had. In hockey, there's not. One reason I hate writers like Brooks, he writes articles telling how bad the players had it in the last CBA, that the PA needs strong leadership. I don't see any players crying cashing the checks. The baseball owners were going to unilaterally impose a salary cap. While I think what the union did was disgraceful and I was much less of a baseball fan for the next 11 years, the owners don't get to blame the players. Brooks is obviously a shill for the players' union - he knows where he gets quotes and it's not from owners - but if it comes down to the owner of the Maple Leafs getting more money or the guys who I like watching (which is, ultimately, what it's coming down to), I'll take the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Both sides are at fault...billionaires arguing with millionaires. It'll be a shame if any part of the season is lost, the NHL is finally gaining some real momentum in the US. If there's a third lockout on Bettman's watch, I'm sorry but he has to go...while he's done some good for the league, this would be the last straw for me. There is no "fault" here. It's what you would expect with any kind of labor dispute. Ownership wants to get away with paying as little as possible, and the players want as much as they can get. If you were one or the other, you'd be saying the same thing. Like any kind of negotiations, it comes down to whoever blinks first, or sometimes, getting a court to step in and split the difference. From the fan's point of view, what side you take often is based on who you root for. If you're a Ranger fan, you're siding with the players, since the more the players get out of it, the better position they're in to buy up every player in sight, like the Yankees do. From a Devils standpoint, I'm looking for the most owner friendly deal possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) They need to come up with a REAL revenue sharing plan. One that calls for teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, to contribute a good chunk of their local tv deal into a centralized pool to help the smaller market teams. Without it, the CBA and threat of a lockout will come up every 6-7 years. As a Rangers fan, I could not possibly care less about whether Dolan takes a $50MM profit or a $5MM profit, or if he breaks even or even loses money. I just want to stop hearing about the CBA. In the 60's guys like the Maras and the Redskins owners (Not sure who it was back then) gave up their local tv deals for the good of the league and look at the NFL now. They print money. Obviously, the NHL could never have a full national deal like the NFL due to the schedule, but the bottom line is those guys gave up money for the good of the league, the NHL owners should do the same. At the time, the 94-95 CBA was seen as a HUGE win for the owners. They wanted to control the RFAs. They were not worried about the UFA's thinking they wouldn't warrant such huge salaries. Well, advances in exercise science and sports nutrition in a short period of time, allowed these older players to keep playing at an elite level. Plus, if you look at the drafts from 92-98, for the most part they were pretty weak. You didn't have younger players pushing the older guys out. Well, 3-4 years into the deal, there was already talk that the owners needed more. They lost a whole season over the salary cap. Bettman said they need this so that all 30 teams can be profitable. Well, 2-3 years in, the salary cap was already past (or close to it) the highest payroll pre-cap and there was talk that the owners needed more. The players could accept the current offer today, and in a few years we will be hearing grumblings that the owners are not happy with the deal and need more. Edited August 13, 2012 by Matteau#32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 If there is a lockout this year it will be the third while bettman is commissioner. Why the hell is he still in charge?! Because even though he is technically the mothpiece for the owners, in reality he is more than that. The owners love him as most are making a ton of money, and most of them do exactly as he says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 They need to come up with a REAL revenue sharing plan. One that calls for teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, to contribute a good chunk of their local tv deal into a centralized pool to help the smaller market teams. Without it, the CBA and threat of a lockout will come up every 6-7 years. As a Rangers fan, I could not possibly care less about whether Dolan takes a $50MM profit or a $5MM profit, or if he breaks even or even loses money. I just want to stop hearing about the CBA. In the 60's guys like the Maras and the Redskins owners (Not sure who it was back then) gave up their local tv deals for the good of the league and look at the NFL now. They print money. Obviously, the NHL could never have a full national deal like the NFL due to the schedule, but the bottom line is those guys gave up money for the good of the league, the NHL owners should do the same. At the time, the 94-95 CBA was seen as a HUGE win for the owners. They wanted to control the RFAs. They were not worried about the UFA's thinking they wouldn't warrant such huge salaries. Well, advances in exercise science and sports nutrition in a short period of time, allowed these older players to keep playing at an elite level. Plus, if you look at the drafts from 92-98, for the most part they were pretty weak. You didn't have younger players pushing the older guys out. Well, 3-4 years into the deal, there was already talk that the owners needed more. They lost a whole season over the salary cap. Bettman said they need this so that all 30 teams can be profitable. Well, 2-3 years in, the salary cap was already past (or close to it) the highest payroll pre-cap and there was talk that the owners needed more. The players could accept the current offer today, and in a few years we will be hearing grumblings that the owners are not happy with the deal and need more. I agree with everything you said here. The owners clearly can't control themselves and their spending, so they keep looking to the players to do it for them in the form of negotiated give-backs. That is never going to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 At the time, the 94-95 CBA was seen as a HUGE win for the owners. They wanted to control the RFAs. They were not worried about the UFA's thinking they wouldn't warrant such huge salaries. Well, advances in exercise science and sports nutrition in a short period of time, allowed these older players to keep playing at an elite level. Plus, if you look at the drafts from 92-98, for the most part they were pretty weak. You didn't have younger players pushing the older guys out. Well, 3-4 years into the deal, there was already talk that the owners needed more. It wasn't that advances in exercise science and sports nutrition resulted in this - and those guys wouldn't be pushed out anyway - it was that there was a natural scarcity of freely available talent, so the price for it went through the roof. The Rangers had a terrible farm system as well as some brutal luck with young player injuries - if they didn't buy up players, where were they going to get them? I mean, really when you look back, teams undervalued prospects to an absurd extent back in those days - the salary cap has forced them to look at these players in terms of money instead of as only hockey players. They lost a whole season over the salary cap. Bettman said they need this so that all 30 teams can be profitable. Well, 2-3 years in, the salary cap was already past (or close to it) the highest payroll pre-cap and there was talk that the owners needed more. The players could accept the current offer today, and in a few years we will be hearing grumblings that the owners are not happy with the deal and need more. It seems the mid-market teams are going along with what the big-market teams are selling, and I think that's a mistake. Then again, the owners can always claim the players are greedy and they will always win that battle. I don't know how this has happened, and granted I believed it too for years, but I don't know how owners managed to sell people on the idea that players don't deserve a great deal of compensation for their talents. If the money doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners, and what talent did the owner have besides making enough money in another discipline to afford a sports franchise, or being born into a family that owns one? I recognize that if their franchise is well-run, owners should make a profit, but there are too many shoddily run franchises that get to print money by virtue of where they're located and the fact that under NHL bylaws another franchise can't invade 'their territory' without paying exorbitant fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 At the time, the 94-95 CBA was seen as a HUGE win for the owners. They wanted to control the RFAs. They were not worried about the UFA's thinking they wouldn't warrant such huge salaries. Well, "advances in exercise science and sports nutrition in a short period of time," allowed these older players to keep playing at an elite level. Plus, if you look at the drafts from 92-98, for the most part they were pretty weak. You didn't have younger players pushing the older guys out. Well, 3-4 years into the deal, there was already talk that the owners needed more. I'm by no means a big PED's cop, but when I read this part, I immediately thought this. Back on thread topic. . . Then again, the owners can always claim the players are greedy and they will always win that battle. I don't know how this has happened, and granted I believed it too for years, but I don't know how owners managed to sell people on the idea that players don't deserve a great deal of compensation for their talents. If the money doesn't go to the players, it goes to the owners, and what talent did the owner have besides making enough money in another discipline to afford a sports franchise, or being born into a family that owns one? I recognize that if their franchise is well-run, owners should make a profit, but there are too many shoddily run franchises that get to print money by virtue of where they're located and the fact that under NHL bylaws another franchise can't invade 'their territory' without paying exorbitant fees. And somehow this is true in every sport. People get mildly pissed at the greed of the owners, but the rage for the players is almost untempered. You hear people say things like, "I have to do 60 loads of laundry every day from 8am to 3pm, earn $2 over minimum wage, and these guys who get paid millions to play a game want more?!" It's absurd of course. These players have to work so hard to stay ahead of the dozens of guys trying to take their spots. They only get to have time off when their bosses let them (game on your wife's birthday? Too bad), and they only get to earn money this way for 3-12 years. But most importantly of all, simple supply and demand. Only so few guys can supply us with the kind of entertaining hockey (or baseball, or football, etc.) that we demand, and we've proven that we demand it by spending the money or the time watching the shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 The players are way on the right side of the PR war in this one. They're not asking for anything different - simply to keep the CBA the owners lost a season for. They're going to come back with a revenue sharing plan to make smaller market teams profitable. Look, in the end, the owners have all the leverage but from a PR standpoint, as long as the players don't all collectively go on a #danellisproblems rant, they'll be fine in the public eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.