Commandant Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The NHLPA has rejected the NHL's proposal for realignment next season. As a result the 4 "conference" plan is scrapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The NHLPA has rejected the NHL's proposal for realignment next season. As a result the 4 "conference" plan is scrapped. They rejected it because they didn't like it or because they weren't consulted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 They rejected it because they didn't like it or because they weren't consulted? Reasons aren't out yet. My take though.... http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/01/06/breaking-news-nhlpa-blocks-nhls-realignment-plan-more-than-meets-the-eye/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Reasons aren't out yet. My take though.... http://lastwordonspo...-meets-the-eye/ Exactly where I was going with it. Actually the NLHPA would try to claim a chip here even if the owners weren't saving money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Correction from the PA itself, and looking at the CBA they are correct. They didn't reject anything. They just refused to consent to the NHL's plan. Rhetoric, but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 NHL was sick of waiting for an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 NHL was sick of waiting for an answer. The PA's Press release Toronto (January 6, 2012) – National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA) Executive Director Don Fehr issued the following statement this evening regarding the League’s realignment proposal: “On the evening of December 5, 2011, the NHL informed the NHLPA that they proposed to put in place a four-conference format beginning with the 2012-13 season. As realignment affects Players’ terms and conditions of employment, the CBA requires the League to obtain the NHLPA’s consent before implementation. Over the last month, we have had several discussions with the League and extensive dialogue with Players, most recently on an Executive Board conference call on January 1. Two substantial Player concerns emerged: (1) whether the new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and (2) the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the smaller and larger divisions. In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the League to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns (e.g., the scheduling of more back-to-back games, more difficult and lengthier road trips, number of border crossings, etc.), but the League did not want to enter into such a dialogue. The travel estimation data we received from the League indicates that many of the current Pacific and Central teams, that have demanding travel schedules under the current format, could see their travel become even more difficult. On the playoff qualification matter, we suggested discussing ways to eliminate the inherent differences in the proposed realignment, but the League was not willing to do so. The League set a deadline of January 6, 2012 for the NHLPA to provide its consent to the NHL’s proposal. Players’ questions about travel and concerns about the playoff format have not been sufficiently addressed; as such, we are not able to provide our consent to the proposal at this time. We continue to be ready and willing to have further discussions should the League be willing to do so.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Hahaha Millionaires vs Billionaires round 2 NHL edition If there is a lock out next year I hope the Habs are a lottery pick this year sooooo bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xXx..CK..xXx Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The PA's Press release Toronto (January 6, 2012) – National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA) Executive Director Don Fehr issued the following statement this evening regarding the League’s realignment proposal: “On the evening of December 5, 2011, the NHL informed the NHLPA that they proposed to put in place a four-conference format beginning with the 2012-13 season. As realignment affects Players’ terms and conditions of employment, the CBA requires the League to obtain the NHLPA’s consent before implementation. Over the last month, we have had several discussions with the League and extensive dialogue with Players, most recently on an Executive Board conference call on January 1. Two substantial Player concerns emerged: (1) whether the new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and (2) the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the smaller and larger divisions. In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the League to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns (e.g., the scheduling of more back-to-back games, more difficult and lengthier road trips, number of border crossings, etc.), but the League did not want to enter into such a dialogue. The travel estimation data we received from the League indicates that many of the current Pacific and Central teams, that have demanding travel schedules under the current format, could see their travel become even more difficult. On the playoff qualification matter, we suggested discussing ways to eliminate the inherent differences in the proposed realignment, but the League was not willing to do so. The League set a deadline of January 6, 2012 for the NHLPA to provide its consent to the NHL’s proposal. Players’ questions about travel and concerns about the playoff format have not been sufficiently addressed; as such, we are not able to provide our consent to the proposal at this time. We continue to be ready and willing to have further discussions should the League be willing to do so.” This was actually a major concern I had with the realignment proposition aswell, but had never heard it mentioned anywhere. I mean, the habs were in a division with 7 teams so it did benefit us in the end, I just did not think it was at all fair in any way, shape or form. It's similar to baseball where there's one division with 6 teams and another with 4. In a sport where winning your division is almost everything, I don't know how they got away with that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I figured the 7/7/8/8 setup wasn't going to work anyway. Only way it can be fair is if we remove 2 teams or expand 2 teams. The bulk of the skilled players would attempt to play in the conferences with 7, with the majoity wanting to play in Conference D (PIT, NYR, NYI, PHI, WAS, NJD, CAR) because of the distance between teams. This set of teams are attractive already because of the fact games VS the other teams still means your going to be at you house that night. As opposed to Detriot where a road game means a hotel stay vs their conference. What we would end up with is the bulk of the contenders being from this particular conference. Only way to compensate would be the league forkling out extra cash to players in the other conferences because the teams can't provide such luxuries. Personally I would love to see an expansion, move Pheonix, put a team in Hamilton/Quebec City, and 3 out west. This way Detroit can be in one of the eastern conferences and it'll be an 8/8/8/8 format. If this can't be done they should remove the conference system and make it a top-16 team qualification. Something has to be done, but it'll probably end up being an east vs west for the next couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The easy solution to help fix the playoff odd issue would require the league to drop the notion of 4 'conferences' and call those divisions, 2 within each 'conference' (East/West as there are now). The division with 8 teams can have the 5th team cross over come playoff time if that team has more points than the 4th place squad in the 7-team one. This has been a common practice in the AHL until this year. It doesn't solve everything, but that's the best solution short of contracting (won't happen) or expansion (better not happen). Of course, doing this opens up a new can of worms with regards to the more balanced schedule which could become more difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 I wonder if the NHLPA is looking at the realignment and saying, hmmm... looks like a good time for a 32 team league maybe not tomorrow but at some point during the next CBA (ie a 6 or 7 year deal). The PA will want two things 1) any "relocation fee" that the NHL charges for the Coyotes or any other team to be included in Hockey Related Revenue (and thus the calculation of the cap) 2) and expansion fees to be included in HRR The league will be adamantly oppose these being HRR That very well could be a holdup issue here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumGhost Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I think it's definitely due to CBA negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.