NHL + PA Still Talking

calgARI '07 · February 17, 2005, 06:06:40 PM

We may not be done yet. Multiple outlets reporting that the two sides are in deep talks. Unbelievable.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/en/headlines/detail.asp?id=27321&cat=954945254360

Jordan 04 · February 17, 2005, 06:08:50 PM

::rolleyes::

atb9 · February 17, 2005, 06:10:24 PM

I had heard that both sides didn't want to table an offer; The owners felt in control and are waiting for the players to act and the players are afraid of putting $45 mil on the table and having it rejected.

At this point, I only want a mini-season so Bettman is forced to institute those "fun, exciting rules" he talked about during his press conference!

atb9 · February 17, 2005, 06:16:14 PM

I can make fun emoticons too!

::banana::

Ari, I'm interested. I'm not a huge fan of the NHL but I love sports and it's killing me that I have to watch Sportscenter without hockey highlights, quite possibly the best highlights in all of sports.

calgARI '07 · February 17, 2005, 06:18:32 PM

I wasn't aware that ESPN showed hockey highlights even when there was hockey going on, that is unless someone gets punched from behind or hit with a stick from behind.

KeithK · February 17, 2005, 06:25:42 PM

Of course we're not done yet. The NHL announced that this season has been cancelled but they didn't announce the disolution of the league as a whole. At some point they have to come to an agreement (unless the owners declare an impasse). So hopefully they are continuing to negotiate so that this will be settled long before training camps open in the fall.

Tub(a) · February 17, 2005, 06:26:34 PM

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=115301

Sounds like crazy rumours and exaggerations.

atb9 · February 17, 2005, 06:37:15 PM

Speaking of Sportscenter, a few minutes ago they played a clip of David Stern, the NBA commish, talking on ESPN Radio about the NHL lockout. He called waiting until the 11th hour to negotiate to take advantage of the weakness of the other side "one of the biggest blunders in sports history"

Didn't Bettman work for Stern? Man, tough love.

RichH · February 17, 2005, 07:03:27 PM

Here's what I don't get...it's so easy to say "oh...you should've been negotiating a long time ago. Not at the 11th hour." If sports labor "crises" have taught me anything, the only thing that will make sides come to the table, or back off demands is desperation. Just about every labor deal isn't settled until the "11th hour." The NBA dispute was resolved in 1998 one day prior to the "drop dead" date where the season would have been cancelled. MLB owners suffered a great deal of criticism for 1994, and caved to the players the eve before a work stoppage in 2002. It took replacement players in both 1995 (MLB) and 1987 (NFL) to settle things.

The CBC has a great historical archive of labor disputes stories:
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-41-1430/sports/sports_disputes/

DeltaOne81 · February 17, 2005, 07:20:07 PM

[Q]RichH Wrote:
MLB owners suffered a great deal of criticism for 1994, and caved to the players the eve before a work stoppage in 2002. [/q]
You make a good overall point, but I don't think its quite what Stern was saying.

First off, I don't think the above is a fair characterization. The owners got a lot of what they wanted out of the 2002 negotiations. The number were higher than they initially wanted (and lower than the players wanted), but the luxury tax structure was what they were going for, and it was the first time that the MLB union had ever agreed to pretty much anything limiting overall salaries. So it wasn't a cave.

However, there was a big difference. The owners and players had been legitimately negotiating, each giving a little, changing numbers, new proposals that were closer to each other, each couple days for a several weeks before the date, finally meeting in the middle near the date.

Stern didn't say not to wait for the end to make an agreement, but he did say not to wait to the last minute to *start* negotiating. In the 8 months before Monday, the only thing either side offered that could be considered a substantial concession, was the player's 24% rollback. Other than that, there was no negotiation, no sacrafice, no concessions from either side until Monday.

Stern didn't say not to wait to the last minute to make a final deal, to get every last little bit you could, he said not to wait to the last minute to even *start* negotiating. Which is what the NHL (and NHLPA) did, and I don' think any of those others did (I could be wrong, I was too young to know negotiating details for most of those, but I'm sure the MLB in 2002 didn't).

billhoward · February 17, 2005, 08:02:21 PM

The players should be worried about a complete replacement league next season (although big problems for the NHL in Canada where it's harder to drop existing workers). The NHL owners should be worried about the players forming their own league next year (although big problems if the hockey team has some controlling interest in the arena). Maybe they should keep talking.

CUlater 89 · February 17, 2005, 08:51:53 PM

I haven't heard that Bettman told the teams to release their arena dates for the remainder of the season, although that may have happened and I just didn't hear it. If that's the case, then they might still play, maybe a "playoffs-only" season? (I know, probably false hope).

CUlater 89 · February 17, 2005, 08:53:48 PM

[Q]atb9 Wrote:

Speaking of Sportscenter, a few minutes ago they played a clip of David Stern, the NBA commish, talking on ESPN Radio about the NHL lockout. He called waiting until the 11th hour to negotiate to take advantage of the weakness of the other side "one of the biggest blunders in sports history"

Didn't Bettman work for Stern? Man, tough love.[/q]

Stern was quoted similarly in the NYT, but said it about Goodenow, not Bettman (meaning Goodenow should've put the offer of a cap with no linkage on the table six months ago).

atb9 · February 17, 2005, 08:59:00 PM

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:

Stern was quoted similarly in the NYT, but said it about Goodenow, not Bettman (meaning Goodenow should've put the offer of a cap with no linkage on the table six months ago).[/q]

Yeah, it definitely could have been; I may have incorrectly assumed it was directed at Bettman.

DeltaOne81 · February 17, 2005, 09:10:12 PM

If he did aim it at Goodenow, I don't think he knows what happened - and I can't blame him cause I kinda doubt he has the time or the interest to following the happenings of the NHL labor negotiations.

The thing is that the players put out the cap offer in response to the NHL agreeing to drop linkage, not in response to the deadline getting late (although it would certainly make sense to think that it was a bit of both). The NHL, on the other hand, did make the first move, so they were the ones who reacted solely to the date. Stern's criticism is valid, towards both sides, but if he was aiming it only at Goodenow, then that doesn't match the facts and he'd probably just be sticking up for his old pal.