Bill Daly actually optimistic a deal could get done by mid-June. The NHL really needs it to or they are going to lose a lot of investors not to mention ESPN. In fact, I have heard that if a deal is not done by June 15th, Bettman could go ahead and cancel of all next season. Anwyays, the two sides have agreed to meet every single week until a deal is done so that has to be considered good.
More details here:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=125870
maybe they can give me an early birthday present and get the deal done in time. if they cancel next season that may cause them to be in a situation they may never get out of -> worse of a fan base...
They need to get a deal done so that they can sell season tix........to those like me who can't give it up no matter how bad they treat us. Probably also have a few contracts to sign (at a discount I hear).
[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote:
They need to get a deal done so that they can sell season tix........to those like me who can't give it up no matter how bad they treat us. Probably also have a few contracts to sign (at a discount I here).[/q]
To be more precise, nearly half of the players are some kind of free agent (whether unrestricted or restricted).
Things looking very good. "closest they've ever been"
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/05/26/1056930.html
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:Things looking very good. "closest they've ever been"[/q]Prediction: the fight isn't going to be over the floating 54% benchmark, but the way the league defines revenues. Baseball is littered with sweetheart deals and shell corporations to hide and shift revenue to present a gloomy financial picture. That is probably why Goodenow is skeptical, but a direct appeal to the players/union leaders may sneak it through. I hope the players listen to their counselors.
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
[Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:Things looking very good. "closest they've ever been"[/Q]
Prediction: the fight isn't going to be over the floating 54% benchmark, but the way the league defines revenues. Baseball is littered with sweetheart deals and shell corporations to hide and shift revenue to present a gloomy financial picture. That is probably why Goodenow is skeptical, but a direct appeal to the players/union leaders may sneak it through. I hope the players listen to their counselors.[/q]
Last week's meetings were rumored to mostly be about the definition of revenues. Personally I am surprised that the PA ultimately agreed to the 54% benchmark considering that was the original place set by the league in the beginning. the PA wanted somewhere in the low 60's and I figured they would settle between 56-58.
I do think the threat of losing most corporate sponsors as well as their existing shitty tv deal is starting to sink in for both sides, increasing the urgency level.
I heard something on Tony Kornheiser re: the potential impending football labor dispute that was confusing. It seemed as if the football PA was threatening to decertify the union and thus make all players free agents. Wha--? Does that mean in football a contract is between the owner and the union, not the player? (Of course, I've never understood whether there really are contracts in football -- it seems like nothing is guaranteed to the player.)
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Last week's meetings were rumored to mostly be about the definition of revenues. Personally I am surprised that the PA ultimately agreed to the 54% benchmark considering that was the original place set by the league in the beginning. the PA wanted somewhere in the low 60's and I figured they would settle between 56-58. [/Q]
No one's agreed to anything yet except a general framework. The article said the league was still offering 54% (1 year later, same offer) and that was clearly a point they weren't happy about.
The contract may be between player and owner, but many (most?) of the terms are specified by the collective bargaining agreement. I'll speculate and say that if the union is decertified the CB no longer holds and maybe this invalidates existing contracts? Certainly the NFL has lots of clauses in the CB about how contracts may be terminated (e.g. cutting a player pre-season if he isn't willing to renegotiate). If the CB is no longer in place and those clauses govern much of the operation of the contract I don't see how the contract could be enforceable without the CB (from a logical standpoint, not necessarily legally).
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
I heard something on Tony Kornheiser re: the potential impending football labor dispute that was confusing. It seemed as if the football PA was threatening to decertify the union and thus make all players free agents. Wha--? Does that mean in football a contract is between the owner and the union, not the player? (Of course, I've never understood whether there really are contracts in football -- it seems like nothing is guaranteed to the player.)[/q]Football contracts are all individual and salaries are individually determined, though the CBA sets a lot of parameters. I didn't hear the show, and haven't been reading up on football's latest negotiations, so I'm not sure why decertification would lead to mass free agency. Perhaps a combination of (a) the rules establishing free agency are a part of the CBA and (b) football doesn't have multi-year contracts. Even when a player "signs a four year deal," it is actually a series of four one-year deals. Typically the team can avoid the later years with a minimal buyout and immediate absorption of the salary cap hit. Multiyear deals are mostly a way of deferring and distributing the impact of large signing bonuses.
The more likely reason for decertification is that as a result of some prior (inane) judicial rulings, decertification of the union is a necessary first step if the players want to bring an antitrust suit.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:I don't see how the contract could be enforceable without the CB (from a logical standpoint, not necessarily legally).[/q]Because this is an issue that is likely to have come up before, I would assume that the individual contracts speak to this one way or the other with a survival or non-survival clause. Somthing like "In the even the CBA expires during the term of this contract, the terms at the time of signing remain binding."
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
[Q2]ugarte Wrote:
Last week's meetings were rumored to mostly be about the definition of revenues. Personally I am surprised that the PA ultimately agreed to the 54% benchmark considering that was the original place set by the league in the beginning. the PA wanted somewhere in the low 60's and I figured they would settle between 56-58. [/Q]
No one's agreed to anything yet except a general framework. The article said the league was still offering 54% (1 year later, same offer) and that was clearly a point they weren't happy about.[/q]
The league has had the upper hand from the start. The players association can't afford to prop up the players for another year. The NHL knew that the players would eventually need to play in the NHL again. If you look at the final deal (a cap tied to revenues), it could probably have been reached a year ago had the players agreed. Goodenow won't really get anything besides a reduction of the FA age.
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
[Q2]KeithK Wrote:I don't see how the contract could be enforceable without the CB (from a logical standpoint, not necessarily legally).[/Q]
Because this is an issue that is likely to have come up before, I would assume that the individual contracts speak to this one way or the other with a survival or non-survival clause. Somthing like "In the even the CBA expires during the term of this contract, the terms at the time of signing remain binding."[/q]
Somewhat related is that the players who are in the middle of contracts WILL be charged for this season meaning that it will count as a year even though they will obviously not be paid.
[q]Somewhat related is that the players who are in the middle of contracts WILL be charged for this season meaning that it will count as a year even though they will obviously not be paid.[/q]We were (or at least I was) talking football, but whatever. Is there some specific reason (legal basis?) why the past NHL season counts towards contracts? I would think players could argue that they were willing to work but management prevented them (lockout), therefore that season should *not* count toward contract agreements.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2]Somewhat related is that the players who are in the middle of contracts WILL be charged for this season meaning that it will count as a year even though they will obviously not be paid.[/Q]
We were (or at least I was) talking football, but whatever. Is there some specific reason (legal basis?) why the past NHL season counts towards contracts? I would think players could argue that they were willing to work but management prevented them (lockout), therefore that season should *not* count toward contract agreements.[/q]
Your thinking seems to make sense but for some reason this isn't really a point of issue as both sides mostly agree that this year will be voided and count towards the contract.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050609/2066460.asp
They have reportedly agreed to a cap linked to revenues with an additional luxury tax.
Of course, this is very similar to the initial position of the NHL. I'm sure the players are glad they have lost a year of salary to gain almost nothing. ::rolleyes::
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=128189&hubName=nhl
They are starting to make plans for a draft. Lots of rumours that an official announcement could come as soon as July 1st.
According to the link, "the very tentative date for the entry draft is August 6." Good news, but they better have the new CBA in place pretty soon.
I saw Ed Snider, the Flyers' owner, interviewed on CSN last week. He basically said he's confident there'll be a season next year, simply because they're negotiating daily rather than sporadically. The owners basically told Bettman to "get it done." When pushed as to whether that season would start in October, his answer was "It better."
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
I saw Ed Snider, the Flyers' owner, interviewed on CSN last week. He basically said he's confident there'll be a season next year, simply because they're negotiating daily rather than sporadically. The owners basically told Bettman to "get it done." When pushed as to whether that season would start in October, his answer was "It better."[/q]Wow, so, when you show up and do your job every day, you actually get things done? I guess it's a good thing for the country as a whole that most people don't have the option to just show up to work "sporadically". ::rolleyes::
It's been my experience that when you are forced to sit in your office all day with nothing else to do, work gets done even without your consent. Boredom > sloth.
The internet has of course changed all this.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=128530
[Q]"We started the fight because we didn't agree with the introduction of salary caps," Jagr said.
"Now, we'll be happy to get them. We didn't expect the owners to be so tough and persistent. It was a risk that didn't pay off." [/Q]
Cornell beats Harvard in the NHL negotiation game :-P
A tentative deal is expected in the next two weeks. I am so happy that there will likely be NHL hockey next season to keep me entertained in the college hockey wasteland of Pittsburgh, PA :-)
well, they have one more day to give me a season and a deal as a bday present. although i would not mind a late gift too :)
let us hope they agree to a deal soon!
This is exciting news! Just wish that I could have gone to a few Capitals games this year while I was in DC...
Is there still no cable TV partner for the incoming season? I require more than one hockey game per week (NBC will probably only have one game every weekend...hopefully). I can't bring myself to watch those diseased Rangers to get my hockey fix!
[Q]ajec1 Wrote:
Is there still no cable TV partner for the incoming season? I require more than one hockey game per week (NBC will probably only have one game every weekend...hopefully). I can't bring myself to watch those diseased Rangers to get my hockey fix![/q]
They will probably try to work something out with ESPN. If they don't, I wouldn't be surprised if they go to stations like TBS, TNT, USA, or worse... Spike.
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
[Q2]ajec1 Wrote:
Is there still no cable TV partner for the incoming season? I require more than one hockey game per week (NBC will probably only have one game every weekend...hopefully). I can't bring myself to watch those diseased Rangers to get my hockey fix![/Q]
They will probably try to work something out with ESPN. If they don't, I wouldn't be surprised if they go to stations like TBS, TNT, USA, or worse... Spike.
[/q]
Since USA is owned by NBC, that would be the obvious choice. And come on, Jason, NBC showing one game a weekend? I think I remember ABC showed one every other month in '04...
I'd imagine NBC would look for more poker to show on the weekends, long before NHL hockey.
Or a test pattern.
At least they're generating some good PR while on break.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2095862
I'll take it as a sign they think there will be some action: Chicago is shaking up its organization - GM and coach. Anywhere else?
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=129330
A big list of likely changes to the NHL game.
A couple notable ones are the tag-up offsides rule, elimination of the red line, and (potentially) automatic icing.
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:A couple notable ones are the tag-up offsides rule, elimination of the red line, and (potentially) automatic icing.[/q]And the shootout. Yuck.
[Q]It could be no icing allowed on the penalty kill, or no line change for the team that iced the puck.[/Q]
Aaaah!
::help::
Deal imminent.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=129734&hubName=nhl
My favorite line is "we underestimated how rich the owners were."
LA Times reporting this morning that the league and the players agreed in principle to a new CBA.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nhl7jul07,0,742506.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I'll believe it when the puck drops.
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
My favorite line is "we underestimated how rich the owners were."[/q]
LOL. How about "we underestimated the ambivalence if there was no season."
[Q]cornelldavy Wrote:
LA Times reporting this morning that the league and the players agreed in principle to a new CBA.
I'll believe it when the puck drops.[/q]
More reports.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=afp-ihockeynhllabour&prov=afp&type=lgns
One day away?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=knight-_WWW_12103701&prov=knight&type=lgns
I keep reading that the players got "nothing." Is it not true that the player got a salary floor per team that didn't exist before, and wasn't that one of their principle demands?
No, I don't think that was worth torching a season. But I thought they did get at least that one major structural change that they've sought for a while.
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
I keep reading that the players got "nothing." Is it not true that the player got a salary floor per team that didn't exist before, and wasn't that one of their principle demands?
No, I don't think that was worth torching a season. But I thought they did get at least that one major structural change that they've sought for a while.[/q]
The floor is really low, something like 24 million dollars. There were just a few teams below that last season. The only other significant thing they got was Free Agency at 28.
Of course, these are all rumours.
And they got linkage. 54% of revenue, so if revenue goes up the cap goes up.
Well, linkage was something the owners wanted for the opposite reason, so that's a loss more than a victory.
But, depending on the final details, it seems they did get a luxury tax starting well before the cap, and yes, this *was* something the players wanted and the owners did not. Why? Well it takes the money that the higher revenue teams can no longer spend, and distributes it to the lower teams who can indeed spend it, rather than sitting in the bank account of the NYR, etc.
Moreover, if the reported-dollar-for-dollar luxury tax prevents any, or maybe no more than 1 or 2 teams from nearing the cap anyway, then the players union can stand up and say 'look, the luxury tax that we pushed for is prevent most/all teams from even hitting the cap, so the league threw away a season for no benefit', and give them leverage in the next negotiations. And if a buncha teams hit the cap anyway, well, they still certainly have the first reason.
All that said, monetary reserves or not, the downright stubborness exhibited by Bettman and the owners was truly impressive, although not necessarily in a good way.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
All that said, monetary reserves or not, the downright stubborness exhibited by Bettman and the owners was truly impressive, although not necessarily in a good way.[/q]
They got almost exactly what they wanted, didn't they?
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:They got almost exactly what they wanted, didn't they?
[/q]
Well, the argument with this, if the owners' intransigence was the chief cause of losing a season, would be: penny wise, pound foolish. The loss of good will and exposure being a major hit to the sport.
But as much as I'd like to say that, it seems like the players' unwillingness to face financial reality was the prime cause, and even though they can be forgiven for not trusting the owners, who cannot be trusted to report their profitability honestly, enough outside people told them that they ought to have listened.
Whether it was worth it to lose an entire season (from a business perspective) depends on how much effect the lockout has on long term revenues for the league. If there is a major drop off in ticket sales and advertising revenue that becomes semi-permanent then it will probably have been a bad long term decision. If revenues return to pre-lockout levels (in constant dollars) within a reasonable amount of time then it will have been worth it. The structural changes that this agreement puts in place certainly improve the league's financial position (on the cost side) and are likely to be permanent.
I tend to think that the owners did the right thing (again, from a business perspective) and won a major battle because of their strategy. But we won't know for sure until a few years have passed.
[Q] According to some sources, the league wants to hold off until Wednesday when the baseball All-Star Game is completed and before MLB play resumes. [/Q]
That is the greatest sentence in the whole bit. Honestly, I don't think that Joe Q. Rube is going to care anymore, or even notice for that matter if the deal is announced tomorrow. The only thing that they are hoping for is the lead off on Sportscenter (It would be hilarious if they were usurped in this spot by The Great Outdoor Games, which also begins tomorrow!). All that being said, I don't really see how anyone can "win" in this situation any longer. They lost a season, and what few quasi-interested fans they had. All that are left are the hardcore fans, which might not be the worst thing that could come out of this (i.e. no more cheering from the crowd simply for crossing into the offensive zone [cough] DALLAS [cough]).
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=130240&hubName=nhl
It's a great feeling to read an article with the headline "Deal to be Done Today"
::banana::
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050713_090348_2992
Sportsnet is reporting a 6 year deal with an NHLPA backout clause after 4 years. It's sad that we will be revisiting this in such a short time :-/
4 to 6 years is pretty typical for a CBA, isn't it? The 2002 MLB deal is due again after next year, I believe (or this year, but I think next) and the NBA just signed a 5(?) year deal.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
4 to 6 years is pretty typical for a CBA, isn't it? The 2002 MLB deal is due again after next year, I believe (or this year, but I think next) and the NBA just signed a 5(?) year deal.[/q]
Yeah, I suppose it is.
I just want the NHL to exist forever without any problems :-P
Settlement announced.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=130274
from that article
"[Q]jkahn Wrote:
Settlement announced.[/q]
"Among the most significant are:
- a hard team-by-team salary cap with a payroll of range of $21 million to $39 million (in the first year), which includes all player costs (benefits, insurance etc).
- the league's total expenditure on player costs (salaries, bonuses, benefits and insurance) is not permitted to exceed 54 per cent of defined hockey-related revenue and the salary cap and payroll range will move up or down as revenues increase or decrease each year of the deal.
- a 24 per-cent salary rollback for any NHL player who has time remaining on an existing contract, keeping in mind that the players will receive none of the monies they were slated to earn in the lost season of 2004-05.
- liberalized free agency (including unrestricted status at 27 by year four of the deal), a more restrictive entry level system, totally revamped salary arbitration, improved pension benefits and a revenue-sharing plan. "
sweet, cant wait to see the devils pound the sabres :)
[Q]jy3 Wrote:
sweet, cant wait to see the devils pound the sabres[/q]
"along with a potential expansion of the NHL playoffs from 16 to 20 teams. "
.... with that maybe even the Sabres can even make the playoffs this year. :-D
But still doubtful for the Rangers :`(
So now the playoffs will end in, what, September? A week before camp?
The Sabres are well positioned in this new landscape. They have a target payroll of 30-35 million, and currently only have 5 or 6 players signed (including Vanek and Ryan Miller).
It will actually be very bizarre to see the Sabres and Penguins competing for high quality free agents while the Rangers and Red Wings scramble to salvage the few old people they can.
The new system will take a little time to settle out as the high end teams reorganize to get under the cap and the low end possibly start grabbing some high end players. Then again, this will probably help the Rangers in the long run, because it will prevent them from throwing so much money at high priced, underperforming veterans.
[Q]Section A Banshee Wrote:
[Q2]jy3 Wrote:
sweet, cant wait to see the devils pound the sabres[/Q]
"along with a potential expansion of the NHL playoffs from 16 to 20 teams. "
.... with that maybe even the Sabres can even make the playoffs this year.[/q]
That can't be good. It will lead to some teams sitting around waiting for 2 weeks while first round series are played. Will these be shorter series?
[Q]Chris 02 Wrote:
[Q2]Section A Banshee Wrote:
[Q2]jy3 Wrote:
sweet, cant wait to see the devils pound the sabres[/Q]
"along with a potential expansion of the NHL playoffs from 16 to 20 teams. "
.... with that maybe even the Sabres can even make the playoffs this year.[/Q]
That can't be good. It will lead to some teams sitting around waiting for 2 weeks while first round series are played. Will these be shorter series? [/q]
Yeah, I read somewhere that they would be 3 game series.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=7314
The Sabres, Rangers, Blue Jackets, and Penguins all have the highest chance at getting Sidney Crosby. ::dribble::
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
The Sabres, Rangers, Blue Jackets, and Penguins all have the highest chance at getting Sidney Crosby. [/q]
Hopefully its the rangers, although paying for him would probably make them have to cut someone else.
[Q]although paying for him would probably make them have to cut someone else[/Q]
That's true, and they'd probably just trade him for Hasek next year anyway.
As for the 20 team playoff thing, the NHL admits it's on their list for consideration, but none of the various people who have to approve it have done so yet (nor have they done so for anything). The AHL just this season dropped the 20 team playoff to go back to 16. If it's too hokey for the AHL (who will generally test anything the NHL asks them to), then I have a hard time believing the NHL will pick it up. Then again, I never thought I'd see a day they'd seriously consider 3-on-3 OT or shootouts, so they just may be that stupid too.
How will these rule changes effect players like Murray and Baby in the long run? It seems to me that defensive players that have a physical presence will no longer be in high demand. Teams will be looking for speedier defensemen with more endurance. Perhaps this could hurt recruiting for Cornell because we play a very physical style of hockey which I enjoy the most, instead of speed skating with a puck and sticks. Does this mean that Schafer will have to change his style of play to draw the speedier players? It seems as though the NHL could have an impact on NCAA hockey. We could see more olympic sized ice surfaces and of course the Minnesotas will get even more of the better players because they play the speed skating version of hockey which may be more beneficial if the goal is to make it to the NHL.
20 teams in the playoffs? Why not just go completely Little League on the bit and let every team in and give them all medals and trophies? It is sad enough that as it is over half of the league makes it to the playoffs. Hopefully I am not the only one disturbed by the fact that all of Bettman's ideas seem NBA-esque (ie expansion, too many teams in the postseason, etc).
[Q]ajec1 Wrote:Hopefully I am not the only one disturbed by the fact that all of Bettman's ideas seem NBA-esque (ie expansion, too many teams in the postseason, etc).[/q]
Although I would prefer that the playoffs not be expanded, I think that adding teams to the playoffs would be a return to the NHL's roots, rather than another example of transforming the NHL into the NBA. In the Original Six days, four teams made the playoffs. A 20-team playoff would have the same ratio of two out of three teams qualifying for the playoffs.
Between 1979-80 and 1990-91, during the Ziegler regime, 16 of 21 NHL teams made the playoffs. That playoff-qualification percentage was roughly equivalent to having 23 teams make the playoffs today.
Have 32 teams make the playoffs and fill out the bracket with the NCAA finalists. ;-)
Ah the days when you made the playoffs as long as you weren't in last place (except for the one 6 team division). Now that was ridiculous. But Craig's right - having a huge number of teams in the playoffs is a traditional NHL thing.
Except that the NCAA already plays with many of the "proposed" rules that the NHL is thinking of adopting, and Cornell's style of play is just as appropriate as Minnesota's. In the short run, I think you may see a shift toward more open play, but in the long run, I don't think you'll see a net change unless they make other more radical changes, such as larger goals, more stick curvature, etc. In fact, Cornell's focus on strong positional defense rather than clutch and grab based solely on size may even help our players in the long run.
Being a defense-oriented team is probably even more valuable in a high scoring league. Holding a team to 2 goals when the average is 3 is more valuable than holding a team to 3 goals when the average is 5.