Optimism (NHL)

[calgARI '07]

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

[jy3]

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...

[RatushnyFan]

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).

[calgARI '07]

[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).

[calgARI '07]

Things looking very good.  "closest they've ever been"

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/05/26/1056930.html

[ugarte]

[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.

[calgARI '07]

[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.

[Trotsky]

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.)

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[KeithK]

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).

[ugarte]

[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.

[ugarte]

[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."

[Tub(a)]

[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.

[calgARI '07]

[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.

[KeithK]

[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.