NHL new CBA

[kyuss]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... um=twitter

unfortunately, it's hard to disagree with this.

[KapG]

As soon as I found out that Don Fehr was the NHLPA Executive director I was ready for and expecting a lockout. It's not here yet, but it's looking more and more likely.

[Shep]

3 lockouts in less than 2 decades. What a joke.

[Tony]

As soon as I found out that Don Fehr was the NHLPA Executive director I was ready for and expecting a lockout. It's not here yet, but it's looking more and more likely.

Had the same feeling. Who has the authority to fire Bettman anyhow? 3 lockouts and you're out ...

[KapG]

I don't know Tony, however if I was to make a guess, I would think that it's the owners who have the authority to fire Bettman?


This is not fact at all, just me taking a shot in the dark!

[Shep]

The owners love the amount of money Bettman has brought in. But, he's still a retarded little troll for everything else involved with the league.

[MSP4LYFE]

The NHL does not have a player cost problem. The NHL has a small-market revenue problem, one its initial parody of a collective bargaining proposal to the NHLPA doesn’t begin to address.

On Tuesday, the NHLPA will present a proposal to the league that does address this core economic issue. The document is expected to represent a far-sighted vision for the NHL rather than the myopic approach in favor on Sixth Avenue, where it seems like 2004 all over again.

“Our fundamental proposal, our initial proposal, relates to the fact that we need to pay out less in player costs,” Gary Bettman said on Thursday in reaffirming the league’s intention to shut down the league on Sept. 15 if the players don’t agree to massive givebacks.


Eight years ago, the NHL mounted a massive public relations campaign to justify its reach into the players’ pockets, much of the appeal to the fans resting on a pledge that a hard cap would result in lower ticket prices.

There’s no such attempt this time around. The league isn’t even attempting to justify its position of demanding massive givebacks from the players in order to be allowed to play without interruption.

Everyone — and that includes Bettman, deputy commissioner Bill Daly, chief of staff Bob Batterman and the Board of Governors — knows the disparity of revenue between the powerhouse markets and the ne’er-do-wells is the critical issue confronting the NHL, but the powers that be either don’t have the imagination or foresight or the stomach or political capital to attend to it.

Thus, it is left to the players themselves, left to the union led by Don Fehr to propose meaningful changes to the landscape that truly will benefit franchises like the Islanders, Panthers and Blues, even if at some expense to Jeremy Jacobs’ Bruins and Ed Snider’s Flyers and Rogers’ and Bell Canada’s Maple Leafs.

* Imagine if the NHLPA had come to the NHL a month ago and said the players would go on strike unless all existing contracts immediately were increased by 24 percent. Imagine if Zach Parise had used his union to indirectly tell Wild owner Craig Leipold the $98 million sounded good at the time he signed as a free agent, but the winger would now require the deal be bumped to $121.52 million before he would put on a Minnesota uniform.

Imagine the outrage in all quarters if players were using this round of collective bargaining as a mechanism to engage in a mass breach of promise with the owners. No one would be pretending the responsibility lay on both sides if the NHLPA acted so unethically in the guise of labor negotiations.

Yet when the owners want to unilaterally renege on contracts into which they entered into willingly and without threat or duress, somehow this is regarded as a sound negotiating tactic. This may be a legal tactic under labor law, but it is reflective of bad faith and illustrative of the NHL’s disregard for its own word and for its owners’ own signatures.

The word “rollback” has not been used, that’s true, but that only is because the union never responded to the NHL’s initial offer, never gave it credibility by asking Bettman or the league negotiating committee how it would intend to accommodate existing contracts in a world in which the players’ share and cap immediately would be reduced by 24 percent.

There was pain in 2004-05 when the players agreed to a 24-percent rollback, no doubt, but that wouldn’t compare to the blood-letting that such a rollback would create this time. There were no 10-, 12-, or 15-year deals then. There were no $85 million or $110 million contracts then.

By my inexact calculation, approximately $5.27 billion is owed players under current contracts. Does anyone for a moment believe the union would agree to what would be a giveback of more than $1.26 billion going forward?

Is Bettman prepared to tell Sidney Crosby he can’t play unless he surrenders $25.856 million of the $111.9 million he has coming to him? Shea Weber has $97 million coming to him; Ilya Kovalchuk, Alex Ovechkin, Parise and Ryan Suter all have $88 million coming. Does anyone in his right mind believe they’re going to give back nearly a quarter of what they have been promised?

There is good faith and there is legalized extortion. There are problem-solvers and there are shell-game operators. There is collective bargaining, and there is the NHL on the verge of another owners’ lockout.

[Nick]

Fucking depressing.

Not that I'd side with the players for their huge salaries - but the owners are self-responsible!!!

[tyler]

As per H.Lundqvuist on Twitter:

"The @NHL says they won’t play past Sept 15th under current deal. Apparently they don’t like the deal they designed."

I had a good laugh when i read it.

[Shep]

As per H.Lundqvuist on Twitter:

"The @NHL says they won’t play past Sept 15th under current deal. Apparently they don’t like the deal they designed."

I had a good laugh when i read it.

Amazing.

[bills09]

Atta boy Lundy.
So True.

[Shoalzie]

Not that I'd side with the players for their huge salaries - but the owners are self-responsible!!!

That's really the issue...they cannibalize each other by looking for ways to skirt their own system (ie--the long contracts that circumvent the cap). They're looking to further fix their own system to protect themselves from themselves. They'll put rules in place but they'll look for any loophole they can to screw over the other 29 teams.

I had a problem with the players the last time around because they were too stubborn and stupid to not take a cap that could've prevented a year-long lockout. They didn't need to lose a season and they looked stupid after losing a season and taking a lesser deal. This time around, I can't stand the owners. The players probably want as close to the status quo and the owners want a bigger piece of the HRR pie and more rules to keep each other at bay.

They're making more money than ever before...neither side can't get too greedy and stunt their recent growth. This league will never reach the level of the other leagues. They just need to focus on making this the strongest league possible.

[The BBKL Insider]

MLB:

No cap
No rules
Relocate non-profitable teams

= no problem

NHL is messed up

[Lee]

Yeah because watching the jays get rag dolled every year is awesome.

[KapG]

Yeah because watching the jays get rag dolled every year is awesome.

They choose not to spend the money.

When the Jays won back 2 back world series they had one of, if not the highest pay rolls in the MLB.

[MSP4LYFE]

They're making more money than ever before...neither side can't get too greedy and stunt their recent growth. This league will never reach the level of the other leagues. They just need to focus on making this the strongest league possible.

I don't disagree, but the league revenue figure is distorted by 8 or 9 very wealthy teams. According to Forbes as many as 18 NHL teams lost money last season. It seems to me that alot of the financial turmoil could be improved by relocating the least profitable teams (Florida, Phoenix and Tampa Bay IIRC) into sustainable Canadian markets. Currently these American markets are earning in the neighborhood of 20-25M, it is estimated that the available Canadian markets (Markham, Ontario, Quebec) could earn upwards of 70M. By turning the biggest problems into solutions the NHL would save themselves alot of money, but for whatever reason they are dead set on trying to save franchises in markets that will never work.

Resolving the NYI Light House Project once their lease agreement ends would make a significant difference as well. That franchise has alot of earning potential that isn't being realized, in part because of poor management, and in part because of their old, dilapidated arena.

[MSP4LYFE]

When the Jays won back 2 back world series they had one of, if not the highest pay rolls in the MLB.

That is true, but it is a bit misleading. Between 1990-94 the disparity between the highest spending team and everyone else was a few million dollars. Now you have the New York Yankees spending double every team outside of the top 10 in payroll, and the top 5/6 teams spending 20-30M more than the rest of the league. It's a different playing field; case in point, the most the Blue Jays have ever spent on a team is 97M in 2007 (IIIRC), that is less than half what the Yankees are spending, and ranks outside the top 10 in league wide payroll this season.

[KapG]

Yeah because watching the jays get rag dolled every year is awesome.

They choose not to spend the money.

When the Jays won back 2 back world series they had one of, if not the highest pay rolls in the MLB.

I hear that alot, and while it is true it is a bit misleading. The years when the Jay had the highest payroll in baseball the disparity between the highest spending team and everyone else was a matter of millions. Now you have the New York Yankees spending almost double anyone else, and the top 5/6 teams spending 50M more than the competition. It's a different playing field. Case in point, the most the Blue Jays have ever spent on a team is 97M in 2007 (IIIRC), that is almost half as much as the Yankees are currently spending, and would rank outside the top 10 in league wide payroll.

I understand the Yankees and Bostons of the MLB have taken it a step further with the amount of money they throw around. There are only a few teams that are willing to spend like them.

All I was trying to get at was that the Jays, while spending more money than lots of the very cheap teams, still aren't really close to the top when it comes to shelling out contracts for players. It's not like Rogers is really poor or anything like that. They are quite a profitable company IIRC.

The last time the Jays were actually one of the stronger teams in the league, they had one of the top payrolls. Was the disparity in baseball between the highest spending teams and everyone else a lot closer like you mentioned? Yes, it 100% was. I think that if the jays want to actually start competing with the Yankees and Bostons of the MLB, they are going to have to get into the top 5-7 in MLB payroll (Anyone know where they stand right now? Is it middle of the pack? Off the top of my head thats where I thought they ranked...middle of the pack) or just get plain lucky and have all our top prospects turn out to be world beaters.

[MSP4LYFE]

The Jays spending right now is pathetic, you don't need to convince me of that. I am hopeful that they will spend on pitching this off-season, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't concerned, the Jays have said they can, and are willing to spend, but their actions have said differently.

If you want to know where each team ranks, click the link below, it shows the payroll of every MLB team:

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/ ... ries/team/

[KapG]

Thanks for the link, ill take a peak.

PS. I couldn't care less about how fat Prince Fielder is....I just wish we had signed him this past offseason. Him and Bautista with Encarnacion would be one of the nastiest 3,4,5's in all of baseball .