The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

**KINGS17** · September 17th, 2012, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by AllenA07

For those of you wanting a quick idea of the problems, Westie did a decent inteview with Rich Hammond. Worth a read.

Westgarth discusses lockout, negotiations « LA Kings Insider

As far as the teams that have been added to the NHL since 1990 I think some have them have been nothing short of a disaster. Below is a list of the teams added to the league since 1990 and their attendence rank from last year. I am including in this teams that have relocated during that time.

5. Ottawa
13. Tampa Bay
16. Minnesota
18. San Jose
20. Nashville
22. Carolina
25. Atlanta/Winnipeg
26. Anaheim
27. Columbus
28. Dallas
30. Phoenix

Overall 11 markets (35%) have recieved NHL teams since 1990. 7 of those teams rank in the bottom 10 in attendence. To me that is a sign that the league expanded much too quickly and into markets that were not ready for NHL teams. I'm not sure however how much contraction or relocation would help things. It's more of a deal where half these clubs should have never been added in the first place. I love the Kings but it still to this day confuses me where the idea that Southern California had enough hockey fans to warrant a second team came from.

You have never seen the movie?

**mitchrock** · September 17th, 2012, 03:33 PM

FOLD THE ISLANDERS!!!! There, I said it.

**LOSTcauseZERO** · September 17th, 2012, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by USCKingsFan31

You've established in this thread that you are 100% anti-owners and you won't even entertain the idea that the players are remotely at fault. That's fine, but in turn I will politely decline getting into this discussion further with you.

The players are at fault too, but not even remotely close to how much the owners are at fault. The owners got the salary cap and a 24% rollback on player salaries the last lockout, and still screwed things up. That's in no way, shape, or form the players' faults.

**DG v.2** · September 17th, 2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

The players are at fault too, but not even remotely close to how much the owners are at fault. The owners got the salary cap and a 24% rollback on player salaries the last lockout, and still screwed things up. That's in no way, shape, or form the players' faults.

although the owners got the salary cap, the rollback was the players idea but it was also their idea to link revenues to their salary. So as revenues went up for the NHL, the % the players got also rose to the eventual 57% you see now. Obviously owners are not happy with that % so that's the big fight right now.

**DG v.2** · September 17th, 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by DG v.2

although the owners got the salary cap, the rollback was the players idea but it was also their idea to link revenues to their salary. So as revenues went up for the NHL, the % the players got also rose to the eventual 57% you see now. Obviously owners are not happy with that % so that's the big fight right now.

by the way, the players wanted the rollback because the revenue % they will eventually receive will far exceed it.

**EB924** · September 17th, 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

The players are at fault too, but not even remotely close to how much the owners are at fault. The owners got the salary cap and a 24% rollback on player salaries the last lockout, and still screwed things up. That's in no way, shape, or form the players' faults.

It's not just a matter of who's at fault. The fact is that many teams are struggling. Most of the increase in revenue has been from a handful of teams in hockey mad markets. Can you honestly say that just because the league got the salary cap it wanted means that there aren't things that can be improved upon in the new CBA?

I'm not pro player or pro owners. I'm just trying to point out that this isn't a simply black or white issue, it's a whole lot of grey. These are NEGOTIATIONS. Both sides will have to give to get.

Unsurprisingly, Bob McKenzie has written a great article on the situation. Fear, loathing and 'I can't believe we're doing this again'

**santiclaws** · September 17th, 2012, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by pg1067

Keeping with Allen's point, only 2 of those 9 teams existed in their current markets before SJ came into the league in the 1991/92 season. Columbus? Carolina? Miami? Phoenix? Where's the logic in any of those?

Columbus doesn't really belong in that group. Hockey is played in and around Ohio and Ohio State's hockey team was 14th in attendance among Division I schools last season. The problem in Columbus is the horrible management.

**Bogey** · September 17th, 2012, 04:05 PM

If either side is pointing fingers like some of you are, see you in 2014-15.

**Dana** · September 17th, 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by AllenA07

I love the Kings but it still to this day confuses me where the idea that Southern California had enough hockey fans to warrant a second team came from.

Blame Bruce McNall. He needed money bad and if the NHL located a team in the Kings geographic territory, he would get half of the expansion fee ($50 mil) as damages for having to share that territory. He didn't really care what team played in Anaheim, he just wanted a team there so he could get money. Anaheim was negotiating with the North Stars ownership. McNall convinced Michael Eisner that Disney should buy an expansion franchise. The NHL originally wanted $50 mil for the expansion franchise and an additional $25 mil to McNall for giving up exclusive territory but Disney didn't want to pay that much. McNall also got Wayne Huizenga to start the Florida Panthers so the league was ok with taking less money for expansion fees, the North Stars ended up moving to Dallas, and McNall got his $25 million bucks.

**D0wntime** · September 17th, 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Dana

That is what I really don't understand. Goodenow was fired for not getting the players the deal they wanted, which is understandable since he was the union chief. Fehr's a tough negotiator and willing to play hardball, which if you're a player, I can understand wanting someone with that reputation. But I still don't understand their tactics here. You're not going to get the owners to give up on linkage to revenue. They were willing to sit out a year to get a cap with linkage to revenue, they're not going to give it up this time. I think Fehr has come in, promising players he's going to win back all these large concessions instead of going for items that might be more easily attainable. Perhaps things will be different but I just can't see the owners caving 2, 3, 6 months from now on key issues that they were willing to sit out a full season for in the past. Tweaking those things, yes, completely eliminating them? No. If the PA has been a mess since between the end of the Goodenow era and the hiring of Fehr, I can only imagine the fiasco it will be if they lose another season without getting any major concessions back from the owners in a new CBA.

Do you think the players would accept the nhl's proposal if they did not immediately rollback salaries and instead phased in the percentages? I mean, is it really that large of a step to go from the NHLPA's 1.8 billion number (or whatever it is) and then incrementally decrease the percentage that they get each year until you get to 50. Say 1.8 billion this year, then say 54 % in year two, 52% in year three, and then 50% in year four and five. I would think that this would be an acceptable middle ground between the nhl and nhlpa. What I don't understand is why neither side has proposed this. Perhaps they think if they concede to the concept of, in the case of the nhl, a 1.8billion cap, or in the case of the nhlpa, a cap based on revenues, that they will have conceded too much.

I believed that this is what the NHLPAs proposal was ultimately aimed at. As things go on, I'm not so sure.

View Poll Results: What kind of lock do you prefer?

Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions