Lockout

[BlueKross]

I think we get it done as early as this week. Bettman's nose is out of joint because the NHLPA finally has kept his feet to the FEHR. They are close.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I think we get it done as early as this week. Bettman's nose is out of joint because the NHLPA finally has kept his feet to the FEHR. They are close.

I too believe a deal will get done, although this week might be optimistic. Like I say, these jerks didn't get to be billionaires by being utterly irrational when it comes to business.

I also hope you're correct that the NHLPA is in the process of teaching the owners a decisive lesson that there are limits to how much B.S. the players are prepared to eat. Maybe if the owners respected the union instead of harbouring the fantasy that they can smash it with every round of negotiation, we'd actually see some reasonable good-faith bargaining in the future. Imagine that.

[JoeLassister]

I too believe a deal will get done, although this week might be optimistic. Like I say, these jerks didn't get to be billionaires by being utterly irrational when it comes to business.

I also hope you're correct that the NHLPA is in the process of teaching the owners a decisive lesson that there are limits to how much B.S. the players are prepared to eat. Maybe if the owners respected the union instead of harbouring the fantasy that they can smash it with every round of negotiation, we'd actually see some reasonable good-faith bargaining in the future. Imagine that.

I don't see good faith bargaining in the future.

What I see in X years (signed after the current negociations) is something like :

September 10th,

Owners : "End of guaranteed contracts or we cancel the season."

Later on September 10th

Players : "Wtf, no way."

September 11th

Owners : "See ya when this answer will be a yes."

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I don't see good faith bargaining in the future.

What I see in X years (signed after the current negociations) is something like :

September 10th,

Owners : "End of guaranteed contracts or we cancel the season."

Later on September 10th

Players : "Wtf, no way."

September 11th

Owners : "See ya when this answer will be a yes."

Oh, you're probably right. There may be something to the idea, though, that the owners felt empowered by having so decisively gotten their way (at least in principle) in the last round, and over the ensuing years settled into the comfortable notion that this proved players would crack if you pushed them hard enough. So it stands to reason that if the players show that they will NOT crack, the owners may be more tempered next time...especially if there are no genuinely fundamental problems with the league's economic model (as there was in 04, and isn't now).

[JoeLassister]

I wonder what is the % of owners that are pushing in favor of limiting the contracts lenght to 5 years ??

If this is more than 80-90%, then just backoff on that and agree on an unwritten rule to order your GM not to go over 5 years.

I'd like to see the player's face when on UFA day, no offer on the table goes over 5 years. haha

[Commandant]

Mad Max the Angry Russian with his NHL (un) Happy Hour

http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/12/12/nhl-happy-hour-cba-leaked-news-prohibition/

As for all owners having unwritten rules. We saw baseball owners do this in the 80s, and the very same Donald Fehr took them to court and forced them to pay huge damages multiple times for doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_collusion

[JoeLassister]

Mad Max the Angry Russian with his NHL (un) Happy Hour

http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/12/12/nhl-happy-hour-cba-leaked-news-prohibition/

As for all owners having unwritten rules. We saw baseball owners do this in the 80s, and the very same Donald Fehr took them to court and forced them to pay huge damages multiple times for doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_collusion

Damn !!!

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

As has been amply discussed, the 5-year rule is idiocy anyway. All it will do is mean that star players insist on making as much money as possible with every contract, instead of (as often happens) trading annual salary for term; and this in turn will make it nearly impossible to have more than one big star per team. Why is that in the owners' interests, particularly? And why is it in our interest as fans NOT to have Price, Patches or PK or Galy locked up long-term, but rather watch them walk to the highest bidder? How does it serve us to create an even more mercenary player culture by making it impossible for teams to show loyalty to players through long-term contracts? Plus, the notion that there is anything wrong with signing a young stud to a long-term deal makes no sense on its own terms.

If the goal is to stop cap circumvention a la Luongo, it seems obvious to me that the way forward is to have staggered contract term limits. E.g., a player under 24 can sign for no more than 12 years; a player between 25-30 can sign for no more than 8 years; a player between 30-33, for no more than 6 years; over 33, no more than 4. Something like that would solve the problem while still keeping some flexibility.

Like I say, seems obvious to me. But then again I am not a super-genius all-seeing mastermind like the owners.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Possibly my favourite article on the lockout thus far: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8732678/donald-fehr-nhl-lockout

Charles Pierce is incredibly intelligent.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Possibly my favourite article on the lockout thus far: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8732678/donald-fehr-nhl-lockout

Charles Pierce is incredibly intelligent.

That is a fabulous piece. Bang on about pretty much everything.

[dlbalr]

After meeting with mediators today, no progress was made in CBA talks. This should come as a surprise to no one. It appears no plans for a next meeting have been made yet.

[dlbalr]

The NHLPA reportedly is asking their members to vote on whether they should or shouldn't give the go-ahead to the negotiating committee to have the option of filing a disclaimer of interest (the quicker way to decertification for those who haven't followed the legalese much, Fehr would basically walk away as negotiator for the players; the union in general more or less would walk away from the players. That would allow the players to file an antitrust suit against the NHL). That vote hasn't been held yet. In response, the NHL has filed an unfair labour practice charge (bargaining in bad faith to be specific) with the National Labour Relations Board and a motion in federal court to block the PA from going with the disclaimer route.

This sounds like a big deal but I think it's more about getting ducks in a row in case we do see the 'nuclear option' taken. If memory serves me right, a very similar course of events happened in the NBA last year (with the league filing some motions/claims before the NBPA approached decertification). Shortly thereafter, a deal got done.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Very classy of the NHL to make these announcements on the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre. They really have their priorities straight.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Very classy of the NHL to make these announcements on the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre. They really have their priorities straight.

The timing is all kinds of fail. The NBA filed their motions months prior to the NBAPA beginning the disclaimer of interest. The NHL was actually talking about it last week.

[dlbalr]

I've been reading through some of the different articles on yesterday's events, this one caught my eye with the following tidbit:

Perhaps most interesting is a request made by the NHL that says if the judgment rules that a disclaimer of interest or decertification by the NHLPA is ultimately found to be valid, then all standard player contracts signed under the previous CBA would be void and unenforceable.

I thought that would be something the players ultimately would go after, not the owners. I get that neither side expects this to get to this point (I actually view yesterday as a positive, get the threatening over with already) but this still was a bit surprising. Yes, it will void the long-term deals that they hate but what's stopping the big spending teams from paying exorbitant dollars to the likes of Crosby, Stamkos, Malkin, the Sedins, etc? If the CBA is entirely nullified, there goes the cap too and lots of owners will be crying foul then.

[BlueKross]

I thought the most interesting event was the owners accusing the players of not bargaining in good faith. I guess that is some sort of pre-emptive strike to keep the focus off themselves.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I thought the most interesting event was the owners accusing the players of not bargaining in good faith. I guess that is some sort of pre-emptive strike to keep the focus off themselves.

What a joke. 'Not bargaining in good faith' apparently means 'not accepting offers presented to them as non-negotiable' in owner-speak.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I've been reading through some of the different articles on yesterday's events, this one caught my eye with the following tidbit:

I thought that would be something the players ultimately would go after, not the owners. I get that neither side expects this to get to this point (I actually view yesterday as a positive, get the threatening over with already) but this still was a bit surprising. Yes, it will void the long-term deals that they hate but what's stopping the big spending teams from paying exorbitant dollars to the likes of Crosby, Stamkos, Malkin, the Sedins, etc? If the CBA is entirely nullified, there goes the cap too and lots of owners will be crying foul then.

From what I also understand, if the NHLPA got their way after an anti-trust suit, the NHL would no longer be allowed to "collude" together. In other words, salary caps would be illegal. Teams could also approach a player the same way a company approaches a manager working for another company.

[brobin]

What a joke. 'Not bargaining in good faith' apparently means 'not accepting offers presented to them as non-negotiable' in owner-speak.

Nothing to do with that. The bad faith part is decertifying as a tactic. The NHL is not forcing them back to work. They are welcome to continue to hold out. The issue is that they are using the decertification process as a ploy. It is meant for a union to dump their representatives because they are not representing the players wishes, not to force the other side to capitulate. Hence.. bad faith.

I despise the tactic and I hope it fails. The players are welcome to sit on their asses and not play just as long as the owners are welcome to continue to lose money in a lockout. That is suppose to be the pressure to get a deal. Unfortunately, unions threatening anti-trust is now a standard tactic.

If it happens, it means half the teams fold and half the players lose their jobs. Not a good outcome in my opinion. The players have seen a ten fold increase in average salary since Bettman took over. Hardly a poor, oppressed union. The league actually lost the last round when they gave far too much money to the players ( failing to predict the large swing in the Canadian dollar), resulting in too few teams making a profit.

Keep in mind that no owner got their millions or Billions owning a hockey team. The players however got their millions playing for these owners. Most owners have either lost money, or earned a rate of return worse then just investing it is something else. You think the leafs earn a pile.. sure.. but buying them is very expensive. You have to make a pile of money to make it a worthwhile investment.

As far as I am concerned, 5 year contracts are in the best interest of the league and the majority of the players. It is not in the best interest of a small subset of players who make the most money. Too bad.

I know I sound "pro owner", but this time I am. I saw this coming when the hired Fehr. He has to "win", even if it results in the league getting smaller, players losing jobs, players lose money, etc. I am no fan of Bettman, but I do believe he cares about the leagues long term health. I don't believe Fehr gives a crap.

Sorry for rambling.

[Commandant]

Do we even really miss the NHL? A Satire

http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/12/16/do-we-really-miss-the-nhl/

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Nothing to do with that. The bad faith part is decertifying as a tactic. The NHL is not forcing them back to work. They are welcome to continue to hold out. The issue is that they are using the decertification process as a ploy. It is meant for a union to dump their representatives because they are not representing the players wishes, not to force the other side to capitulate. Hence.. bad faith.

I despise the tactic and I hope it fails. The players are welcome to sit on their asses and not play just as long as the owners are welcome to continue to lose money in a lockout. That is suppose to be the pressure to get a deal. Unfortunately, unions threatening anti-trust is now a standard tactic.

If it happens, it means half the teams fold and half the players lose their jobs. Not a good outcome in my opinion. The players have seen a ten fold increase in average salary since Bettman took over. Hardly a poor, oppressed union. The league actually lost the last round when they gave far too much money to the players ( failing to predict the large swing in the Canadian dollar), resulting in too few teams making a profit.

Keep in mind that no owner got their millions or Billions owning a hockey team. The players however got their millions playing for these owners. Most owners have either lost money, or earned a rate of return worse then just investing it is something else. You think the leafs earn a pile.. sure.. but buying them is very expensive. You have to make a pile of money to make it a worthwhile investment.

As far as I am concerned, 5 year contracts are in the best interest of the league and the majority of the players. It is not in the best interest of a small subset of players who make the most money. Too bad.

I know I sound "pro owner", but this time I am. I saw this coming when the hired Fehr. He has to "win", even if it results in the league getting smaller, players losing jobs, players lose money, etc. I am no fan of Bettman, but I do believe he cares about the leagues long term health. I don't believe Fehr gives a crap.

Sorry for rambling.

Sorry for the duplication, I messed up on the post above.

It seems to me that the problem of teams losing money has already been more or less addressed through the 50-50 revenue split that the NHLPA has agreed to. Right?

Also - and importantly - there is the whole question of why 'profitability' has to be resolved ENTIRELY on the backs of the players. Remember that the successful franchises are making vastly more money than they would otherwise make in a system without a salary cap. Their profits, in other words, are being artificially inflated, on the backs of the players who would be making much more in a free market. A much bigger chunk of that money should be re-allocated to weaker franchises through revenue sharing. Nobody even talks about this anymore, which itself represents a victory for the owners. The players have basically accepted the (unjust) principle that they bear primary responsibility for saving crappy markets by having their compensation further deflated.

So a genuine discussion of helping weak-sister franchises must go beyond 'squeezing the players' and encompass revenue-sharing, if it is to be taken as sincere in its concern for the 'good of the game,' rather than just a move for further bilking players.

But in any case, we have a 50-50 revenue split on the table. So what is the remaining problem, from the owners' point of view?

(And none of this even begins to address the question of financial transparency. As it is, we have only the league's word on the state of its finances. Excuse me if I don't accept that uncritically, given that the NHL has been full of sh*t for time out of mind).

As for the 5-year limit on contracts, this is hardly a self-evident requirement for either viable franchises or 'the good of the game.' It removes the option of trading salary for term and will therefore make all-star players that much more expensive in cap terms. Why is this good? Why is it 'bad for the game' to have Crosby or Doughty locked in for 10 years at less than league maximum? More pointedly: why 5 years, and not 8? Why 5 years, and not a sliding scale whereby players in older age brackets have tighter term-limits on contracts? Why 'die' on that particular, arbitrary hill? What the owners are looking for is an iron-clad guarantee against their own stupidity. That is hardly interchangeable with the 'good of the game.'

Now, you may be right to worry that Fehr doesn't want to make a deal. Time will tell, because neither side will get serious until a few minutes before the stroke of midnight and they really begin to fear losing the season and turning into pumpkins. But so far I see no compelling reason to side with the owners in this particular imbroglio.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I'm at this point exhausted with arguing with pro-owner commenters (outside of this website) but when it comes to teams losing money, some owners don't buy NHL teams to make profit. Yes, this might seem strange to you but it's true. A lot of owners bought the teams for the arena or the property surrounding it and make profit despite the NHL team. Other owners don't count the profits they make on concessions or parking because that revenue is not included in the 50/50 being discussed. There is so much smoke and mirrors involved it's ridiculous. We're not dealing with EA Sports AI owners here. We're dealing with capitalists.

[brobin]

Sorry for the duplication, I messed up on the post above.

It seems to me that the problem of teams losing money has already been more or less addressed through the 50-50 revenue split that the NHLPA has agreed to. Right?

Also - and importantly - there is the whole question of why 'profitability' has to be resolved ENTIRELY on the backs of the players. Remember that the successful franchises are making vastly more money than they would otherwise make in a system without a salary cap. Their profits, in other words, are being artificially inflated, on the backs of the players who would be making much more in a free market. A much bigger chunk of that money should be re-allocated to weaker franchises through revenue sharing. Nobody even talks about this anymore, which itself represents a victory for the owners. The players have basically accepted the (unjust) principle that they bear primary responsibility for saving crappy markets by having their compensation further deflated.

So a genuine discussion of helping weak-sister franchises must go beyond 'squeezing the players' and encompass revenue-sharing, if it is to be taken as sincere in its concern for the 'good of the game,' rather than just a move for further bilking players.

But in any case, we have a 50-50 revenue split on the table. So what is the remaining problem, from the owners' point of view?

(And none of this even begins to address the question of financial transparency. As it is, we have only the league's word on the state of its finances. Excuse me if I don't accept that uncritically, given that the NHL has been full of sh*t for time out of mind).

As for the 5-year limit on contracts, this is hardly a self-evident requirement for either viable franchises or 'the good of the game.' It removes the option of trading salary for term and will therefore make all-star players that much more expensive in cap terms. Why is this good? Why is it 'bad for the game' to have Crosby or Doughty locked in for 10 years at less than league maximum? More pointedly: why 5 years, and not 8? Why 5 years, and not a sliding scale whereby players in older age brackets have tighter term-limits on contracts? Why 'die' on that particular, arbitrary hill? What the owners are looking for is an iron-clad guarantee against their own stupidity. That is hardly interchangeable with the 'good of the game.'

Now, you may be right to worry that Fehr doesn't want to make a deal. Time will tell, because neither side will get serious until a few minutes before the stroke of midnight and they really begin to fear losing the season and turning into pumpkins. But so far I see no compelling reason to side with the owners in this particular imbroglio.

They haven't really agreed to a 50-50 split. As for profitability on the backs of squeezing the players, I repeat that the players are making out like bandits. The employers even have insurance for them, eliminating most of the income risk to the players.

The owners pay for everything else out of their share and assume most of the risk.

I don't understand why people think the owners should run these team at a loss or break even and be happy to own them. It is getting harder to find owners willing to assume the financial risk on these things. We now need to find owner groups just to sell teams.

As for those that think we should just let them fail, remember that the union represents all the players and if a bunch of teams fail, many players lose their livelihood. Expansion and the financial viability of a bigger league has been very good for the players. If there were 6 teams, salaries would drop. There would be a surplus of elite talent.

If the NHL is so bad, players are welcome to go to the KHL. They have options, yet the vast majority prefer the NHL.

Yes owners want protection against stupidity, but don't forget that they are 30 independent businessmen. They want rules in place to prevent a few owners from screwing up the viability of the league with dumb, short term decisions. This is in the interests of the majority of the players too. Rules against the abuse of the cap, screwing the other team with adversarial contract offers of extreme length, etc need to be fixed. You know there are a lot of rules the owners agreed to to protect the low end players. Minimum salaries, insurance, call up rules, etc. It goes both ways.

You ask what the problem is. Well, besides the fact that Fehr hasn't really agreed to a 50-50 split, he is unwilling to agree to any changes I mentioned above. They are minor issue to the vast majority of the players he represents. Most would be happy with a 5 or 7 year deal. I believe that Fehr has not wanted a deal, period. He wants this going to court. He wants to finish the fight avoided by the NBA and NFL to make salaries caps illegal. This explains some of his dumb demands, like full pay for a shortened season, refusal to budge on contract length, continuing to say 50-50 then adding more money on top of that, etc. I also believe the owners who were shocked that after great progress with the players negotiation, Fehr met with them and the next day the players were suddenly taking things off the table.

I personally believe that if not for Fehr, this would have been about a 6 week lockout with a meet in the middle deal. It was very doable, but it is not Fehr's objective. Unless the players push back on Fehr, this is going to court and it will be ugly for players and owners. If the owners give in, this decertification tactic will happen every time.

[Commandant]

The "decertification Tactic" won't happen every time.

It will only happen if the owners start by doing a lockout.

Something that long ago became their "Tactic" in these situations.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Good point, Commandant. The lockout is a strategy for trying to break the players by withholding salary. Decertification is a nuclear bomb, the threat of which can be used to neutralize that strategy. The result should be that both sides come to realize that a total victory is impossible; and that is where good-faith negotiations can begin.

I hope brobin is wrong and Fehr wants a deal. There's a difference, though, between wanting a deal, and pulling your pants down and bending over. The NHLPA is acting exactly as a union should act: standing up for the interests of its members and driving a hard bargain on their behalf. That players already make a lot of money is not a justification for allowing owners to screw them. You can just as easily argue that the owners are billionaires and don't need the money, and therefore can afford to lose a few mil on hockey teams, so they should do whatever the players want. People have a right to protect their interests. That includes labour.

If it turns out that a reasonable deal is on the table and doesn't get done due to Fehr's intransigence, I will obviously rethink that; but we won't know this until the season really is in jeopardy, which is when the pressure will start to get serious.

Incidentally, no one is saying that owners should lose money. What the owners are presently saying, though, is that the rich teams have a right to pocket artificially inflated profits due to a salary cap, then to demand that the entire burden of supporting weak teams come out of the players' pockets. I have yet to hear any sensible rebuttal to my point about revenue sharing.

The players also make a good point when they note that nobody consulted them about franchise locations, and that closing down a small number of teams needn't mean fewer jobs given the possibility of relocations to viable markets. However, North American business culture is so far away from thinking about employees as partners, rather than as cattle to be herded at the owners' will, that this argument is beyond the comprehension of most people - and certainly the business owners themselves.