Thread: We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

This boycott stuff is getting serious. It will happen. Hell, there's already been a boycott going on in Phoenix (Glendale) for the past couple of seasons. haha But in all seriousness, this lockout bulll---- is downright embarrassing. I've said it before, but a lockout should never be an option or the very absolute last option, yet it's bettman's very first option.

First of all, if lockout IS an option, then the owners will use it when they see fit. You can't legally define "absolute last option".

So, let's assume the lockout is NOT an option. There's no way hockey is played under the expired CBA deal. It's nonsense, and it's been explained why. So, what else is there? Getting the deal done before the new season starts? If you take away the ability to lock out the season from the League, and you don't take anything away from the players, it ends up in the League settling for less (obviously). Now, that might be fun for some people, because it would mean no lockouts. But it would also mean the players could easily "rob" the owners and the League would find a hard time existing.

Seriously, imagine what would happen without the League's ability to lock out the season and without the ability to play under the old CBA. The deadline would be, let's say, September 1st or somewhere around that. Could you explain how would the sides negotiate?
- The players would want this and that. The lockout can't happen, therefore
- The League either bends and accepts the players' demands or disbands the NHL.

Seriously, I can't see it working. Players CAN'T, I repeat, PLAYERS CAN NOT have this kind of advantage in this kind of business. It's ridiculous. The owners would just give up, and no new owners would come, because who would be so insane to invest THEIR MONEY into a team in the league, where you are in a greatly inferior negotiating position when it's time to form a new CBA (that decides how much of YOUR money is going to be spent.

And again, you can't define "last resort" when it comes to lockout. The League has its demands, because the owners are the investors, NOT the players. They are the ones having the LAST word in negotiations. And therefore they WILL use the lockout to force the union to come closer to their demands. Because it's THEIR money.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

First of all, if lockout IS an option, then the owners will use it when they see fit. You can't legally define "absolute last option".

So, let's assume the lockout is NOT an option. There's no way hockey is played under the expired CBA deal. It's nonsense, and it's been explained why. So, what else is there? Getting the deal done before the new season starts? If you take away the ability to lock out the season from the League, and you don't take anything away from the players, it ends up in the League settling for less (obviously). Now, that might be fun for some people, because it would mean no lockouts. But it would also mean the players could easily "rob" the owners and the League would find a hard time existing.

Seriously, imagine what would happen without the League's ability to lock out the season and without the ability to play under the old CBA. The deadline would be, let's say, September 1st or somewhere around that. Could you explain how would the sides negotiate?
- The players would want this and that. The lockout can't happen, therefore
- The League either bends and accepts the players' demands or disbands the NHL.

Seriously, I can't see it working. Players CAN'T, I repeat, PLAYERS CAN NOT have this kind of advantage in this kind of business. It's ridiculous. The owners would just give up, and no new owners would come, because who would be so insane to invest THEIR MONEY into a team in the league, where you are in a greatly inferior negotiating position when it's time to form a new CBA (that decides how much of YOUR money is going to be spent.

And again, you can't define "last resort" when it comes to lockout. The League has its demands, because the owners are the investors, NOT the players. They are the ones having the LAST word in negotiations. And therefore they WILL use the lockout to force the union to come closer to their demands. Because it's THEIR money.

So ---- the fans then? ---- them, right?

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm on the players' side now. Why? Because it's clear to me that this whole "players/owners" meeting was nothing more than a ploy to turn them against Fehr.

I hated Fehr from the beginning. I knew he was going to make this about business, rather than the game - which is EXACTLY what he's there for and should do. But, I'm a fan. I'd rather have a pushover that's going to allow me to see a full 82 game season.

When I heard that one of the owners said, "If Fehr comes back, that could be a deal breaker," it couldn't have been more obvious. It's saying, "Look Union, you don't need your rep, deal with us directly and it'll all be fine." I suspect this was the plan the entire time, so that when Fehr returned and the negotiations ALL OF A SUDDEN fell apart, the Union members would blame him. So far, this seems to have back fired. Instead, the Union seems more united. And even worse for the owners, a foundation has been laid that makes it obvious a deal could be reached TODAY, with Fehr in charge.

The NHL now refuses to negotiate. They're just sitting and waiting for players to revolt against Fehr. I hope they don't. Frankly, the puck is in the NHL's zone now. They players have made concessions and have indicated they AGREE on the money. I no longer have any sympathy for the league.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

3 lockouts! Embarrassing!

Yeap. The game keeps on getting better. The product is better. Players keep on making more money

Yeap really embarrasing

Originally Posted by Bollocks

First of all, if lockout IS an option, then the owners will use it when they see fit. You can't legally define "absolute last option".

So, let's assume the lockout is NOT an option. There's no way hockey is played under the expired CBA deal. It's nonsense, and it's been explained why. So, what else is there? Getting the deal done before the new season starts? If you take away the ability to lock out the season from the League, and you don't take anything away from the players, it ends up in the League settling for less (obviously). Now, that might be fun for some people, because it would mean no lockouts. But it would also mean the players could easily "rob" the owners and the League would find a hard time existing.

Seriously, imagine what would happen without the League's ability to lock out the season and without the ability to play under the old CBA. The deadline would be, let's say, September 1st or somewhere around that. Could you explain how would the sides negotiate?
- The players would want this and that. The lockout can't happen, therefore
- The League either bends and accepts the players' demands or disbands the NHL.

Seriously, I can't see it working. Players CAN'T, I repeat, PLAYERS CAN NOT have this kind of advantage in this kind of business. It's ridiculous. The owners would just give up, and no new owners would come, because who would be so insane to invest THEIR MONEY into a team in the league, where you are in a greatly inferior negotiating position when it's time to form a new CBA (that decides how much of YOUR money is going to be spent.

And again, you can't define "last resort" when it comes to lockout. The League has its demands, because the owners are the investors, NOT the players. They are the ones having the LAST word in negotiations. And therefore they WILL use the lockout to force the union to come closer to their demands. Because it's THEIR money.

This is true. The only way I see a no lockout rule would be to allow the owners of an expired CBA to create their own CBA before a season begins. If the players don't like it they can play under it while both sides negotiate or the players can strike. You can't play without any CBA at all.

Originally Posted by wupmasta2000

Frankly, the puck is in the NHL's zone now. They players have made concessions and have indicated they AGREE on the money. I no longer have any sympathy for the league.

That money agreement is a fabrication. The only reason the owners upped that number was IF the other items were agreed to. Since the other items were not agreed to, that money number isn't in existence. It could be the owners proposal for saying no to 5 year contracts would be to also say no to the entire make whole concept. So they could be 300 million apart. It's a package deal to the owners, not piecemeal.

Originally Posted by bigfan3

Yeap. The game keeps on getting better. The product is better. Players keep on making more money

Yeap really embarrasing

I don't see any NHL games being played.

Originally Posted by wupmasta2000

When I heard that one of the owners said, "If Fehr comes back, that could be a deal breaker," it couldn't have been more obvious. It's saying, "Look Union, you don't need your rep, deal with us directly and it'll all be fine." I suspect this was the plan the entire time, so that when Fehr returned and the negotiations ALL OF A SUDDEN fell apart, the Union members would blame him. So far, this seems to have back fired. Instead, the Union seems more united. And even worse for the owners, a foundation has been laid that makes it obvious a deal could be reached TODAY, with Fehr in charge.

Some day, we might all finally be privy to the behind-the-scenes details, when sources that are currently speaking anonymously might finally speak on the record.

But until then, your interpretation of what transpired is significantly at odds with what I've gleaned from many neutral writers and analysts. By most accounts, it is Fehr who miscalculated and there's less unity among the players now, despite all the predictable public protestations to the contrary. If there's one constant truth throughout these negotiations, it's that every public statement by either side about the substance of the negotiations is always little more than a PR ploy. Yes, that includes Fehr's bizarre statement that the two sides had reached an agreement on dollars. Throughout last week, while substantial progress was reportedly made between the owners and the players directly, we basically saw a media blackout. And with optimism building, the conventional wisdom was that we ought not expect to hear anything substantive from either side until (a) an agreement in principle had been reached or (b) negotiations had broken down once again. So why on earth does Fehr decide to stand in front of all those cameras and before the entire hockey world to declare that an agreement was ALMOST reached, essentially implying that an agreement was imminent? Plain and simple, it was yet another in a long line of PR posturing by both sides. Given the circumstances, how anyone can credibly take those words of his at face value, I'll never know. As much as he may have wanted to believe there was an agreement on dollars, he knew there wasn't.

How do we know this? Because the league tells us so; because the league directly contradicts him on that point. The league explained to us that on Thursday, they made a comprehensive offer that included core economic issues (50/50 revenue split, ~$300M "make whole" sum, etc.) AND the so-called contracting issues (10-year CBA, 5-year maximum contract term, 5% maximum salary variance, etc.) and they asked simply for an answer of either "yes" or "no." It was a package deal. In response, the PA came back with another counter-proposal. And that's when the latest round of talks broke down again. As far as I can tell, this very basic version of the facts remains completely uncontroverted by the players, quite a number of whom have since taken the liberty of speaking to the press to blast the league. For if they had cause to question these facts, they surely would have done so, and eagerly so, just as Bettman and Daly squarely contradicted Fehr's "agreement on dollars" statement.

While I might be proven wrong in the future, here's what I suspect. I suspect both sides (or at least the negotiating teams) knew from the outset that there would be a lockout and that it would probably continue until whatever the drop-dead date is for cancelling the season. By hiring Fehr of all people, the players were gearing up for labor war, and the owners knew it. I suspect the prospect of another cancelled season isn't as scary to the owners as it was in 2005, given how quickly the game, its popularity and its financial picture have bounced back since then. What was once an unthinkable option is now merely an unattractive option. I suspect that we've more or less seen the best offer from the owners, but I also suspect Fehr has no intention of agreeing to a deal until some time in January because he wants to give the league every opportunity to cave into his demands, and as a result he's now needlessly costing his membership paychecks. After last week, I suspect the owners' resolve to be hardened, the players' resolve to be weakened. Finally, I do suspect an agreement will be reached after New Year's but that there's also a nontrivial risk that the season is cancelled altogether due to failed brinksmanship.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

So ---- the fans then? ---- them, right?

The fans? Well...let me put it this way:

You really like a certain brand of chocolate. You're almost an addict. You buy it a lot. You and thousands of other people. And if the company stops producing the chocolate, you can't buy it. But the company didn't "screw you over" - you didn't really invest in it - you BOUGHT a product. Fans are buying a product - hockey. They can buy it or not. If it's bad (PHX), less people will buy it, but some will still do, because it's a rare product to find (NHL hockey) and they want it. But even if a fan is buying the product for 50 years, this fan was still only buying it, not investing in it. He has no shares.

So no, the NHL is not screwing anyone. They just need to sort out some issues before they continue to offer the product. Fans are not the problem - fans will come back. The NHL may see a drop of the income, but it will come back to normal eventually. It's a risk they are willing to take in order to make the environment good enough for the owners. If it's not, and the owners start leaving the league, then you'll start to feel really depressed. You should hope it doesn't come to that.