There will be a strike

[Jovocop]

I for one would like to see a clause in each players contract linking their salary to their productivity.. NO MORE GOMEZ's.. not on guess work or past production..

Interesting. All the new contracts should be $ per points instead of $ per season.

[rats19]

I for one would like to see a clause in each players contract linking their salary to their productivity.. NO MORE GOMEZ's.. not on guess work or past production..

Interesting. All the new contracts should be $ per points instead of $ per season.

stay at home defensman would luv that...

[ukcanuck]

I for one would like to see a clause in each players contract linking their salary to their productivity.. NO MORE GOMEZ's.. not on guess work or past production..

Interesting. All the new contracts should be $ per points instead of $ per season.

Did I mention devolving into discussing Santa clause contracts? I think I did...

[ukcanuck]

Yeah he has done a great job and that seems to stick in the craw of those who think that union is a four letter word...makes me smile

Fehr is not doing the players any favour. They will lose a season, and get little, if any consessions. Over the 7 year contract, they lose 12.5% (1/8th). Some will lose a lot more, as they may lose one of their only 2 or 3 years in the league

To me, that makes Fehr another 4 letter word.

yeah that would make sense if Bettman was willing to negotiate from any of the players proposals. but he clearly does not. It looks to me like he is expecting the players to come to him eventually.

And, you expect him to be wrong? The Players will break next September. They have to. The 32 yr old guys know they are losing yet another $4mil each, and the 22 yr olds know the 20 yr olds may squeeze them out of the league forever. Fehr will give Bettman his deal, and lose a season on top of it. F*&k-tard, or, Fehrtard. both work. And, somehow, Linden gets thrown under the bus again

Just imagine players who are at/over 35 years old, who recently signed a 2-4 years front-loaded deal.

- Biere, 35 will lose $7m this season with $5m left for the next two seasons.
- Ohlund, 35, will lose $5m this season with only $6.75m left for the next three seasons.
- Salo, 37, will lose $4m this season with only $3.5m left for one more season.
- Doan, 35 will lose $6.05m this season with $15.5m left for the next three seasons.
- Jovonaski, 36 will lose $4.25m this season with $8.25m left for the next two seasons.
- Souray, 35 will lose $4m this season with $7m left for the next two seasons.

Players who are in the twilight of their careers, who are currently on the final year of their contract (e.g. Hamrlik, Nichol, Sullivan, Lilja, Alfredsson, Gonchar, Reasoner, Boulton, Visnovsky, Nabokov, Zidlicky, Bouillon, Khabibulin, Jagr, Prospal, Hejduk, Mayers, Selanne, Aucoin, Corvo, and Koivu). They might never get another contract in the NHL.

I seriously doubt these players would like to lose a season or two.

I guess the term "take one for the team" would come to mind with such players. They have had a good run and they can give back by helping hold the line in this fight. Whatever the final agreement will look like it will be better than whatever home run Bettman is trying for, and going forward it will mean millions of dollars in players pockets rather than owners.
And if you are reading this Blob it's simple, (money = power) and History has proved that the more power is diversified the better it is for everyone.
I sympathize with wanting to get a deal and getting on the ice, but if you are a true fan you will want an equitable solution. So far I've been arguing for the players pretty hard because its sounding pretty lopsided around here.

[Tiger]

I for one would like to see a clause in each players contract linking their salary to their productivity.. NO MORE GOMEZ's.. not on guess work or past production..

Interesting. All the new contracts should be $ per points instead of $ per season.

stay at home defensman would luv that...

Go with their +/- Rats.. it it goes down.. salary goes down.. it up salary up .

[Meds]

I guess the term "take one for the team" would come to mind with such players. They have had a good run and they can give back by helping hold the line in this fight. Whatever the final agreement will look like it will be better than whatever home run Bettman is trying for, and going forward it will mean millions of dollars in players pockets rather than owners.
And if you are reading this Blob it's simple, (money = power) and History has proved that the more power is diversified the better it is for everyone.
I sympathize with wanting to get a deal and getting on the ice, but if you are a true fan you will want an equitable solution. So far I've been arguing for the players pretty hard because its sounding pretty lopsided around here.

I'm a true fan.....of the Canucks. So fire some replacement players out there, just use some minor leaguers who have no union affiliation. Pay them all in the 6 figures range. Sell tickets at half price. I guarantee you that the players would all cross the line or get rid of Fehr and put a real negotiator in there who will actually make an agreement rather than posture and smile around stall tactics for 10 months.

I'm all for honoring existing contracts, that includes the current system of escrow payments because that is what the players signed under. They knew full well what the bottom line might be and signed the contract. Keep it that way for those players. Run the league with what would appear to be two separate agreements if you have to.

And there should be a 50/50 split. It should be linked to HRR and not projected growth. What's the big deal if the players total figure goes up and down with HRR? The owners total dollar amount will be exactly the same and fluctuate the same way. Sounds pretty fair. Either that or have something written into the CBA that allows owners to lay off a few players if they need to if revenue drops. Not buyouts, a layoff, maybe have a two paycheque severance package in there. (Obvioiusly being funny with that last sentence). If the players were all about getting back to playing hockey and doing what is good for the game and the NHL then they would be working WITH the owners to get a deal done that secures both sides interests. If both sides are going to see the same percentage of HRR, and both sides are going to get the same dollar figure in the overall, and that gives the owners the security they are looking for in order to underwrite the league, and the players get their cut with current contracts being honored under the conditions and terms in which they were signed, then I think you have a framework right there. But right now the players are content to reject everything outright and submit proposals that they know full well are not even starting points for the owners. They are holding out and throwing their fellow union members under the bus while putting on a smile and a show of solidarity for the cameras. It's dog eat dog for the union, and the richest union members are the ones who will come out the "winners" on the side of the PA, while the lowest paid players are going to miss out of some key seasons and.....GASP.....maybe have to find real jobs.

I hope nothing in there is too skewed for you UK.

[ukcanuck]

Go with their +/- Rats.. it it goes down.. salary goes down.. it up salary up .

Have you thought that through from a team perspective? Do you really want guys worried about stats and paycheques when it's about sacrifice for your teammates that wins games?

[Potatoe1]

Yeah he has done a great job and that seems to stick in the craw of those who think that union is a four letter word...makes me smile

Fehr is not doing the players any favour. They will lose a season, and get little, if any consessions. Over the 7 year contract, they lose 12.5% (1/8th). Some will lose a lot more, as they may lose one of their only 2 or 3 years in the league

This is total rubbish.

First off the season is far from canceled in fact they haven't really even canceled a game yet.

To roll over and lap up the owners garbage offer at this stage of the game would be an absolutely terrible move by the PA. Not only would that be terrible for the players during the current CBA, but the owners will go back again after this deal and scorch them again.

Fact is Fehr has done an outstanding job so far. Not only has he won over the court of public opinion but he has given the players a cause to rally behind.

He's taken a fractured group that was totally obliterated in the last CBA and turned them into what on the surface appears to be a very strong union.

I actually haven't seen a miss step by Fehr at this point. He appears to be negotiating (he's not) and he's letting Betmans antics further galvanize the players.

Based on what I'm seeing the Owners are going to have to at least make a reasonable offer or they are going to also start hurting. The players will have to take less, but they should be able to keep most of their current contracts as well as the rights they got from the previous CBA.

[ukcanuck]

I'm a true fan.....of the Canucks. So fire some replacement players out there, just use some minor leaguers who have no union affiliation. Pay them all in the 6 figures range. Sell tickets at half price.

Seriously, you would really pay half price to watch replacement players? why when junior hockey is even less than that and the AHL is down the road in Abby? more to the point, the CFL is a bargain at less than half the price but suggest to half the guys on here that its worth watching and get the buckets out to clean up the vomit. Don't you think it's gonna be the same with replacement players? any player not under contract to play somewhere right now is no better than half the guys playing beer league.

I guarantee you that the players would all cross the line or get rid of Fehr and put a real negotiator in there who will actually make an agreement rather than posture and smile around stall tactics for 10 months.

Maybe but I seriously doubt it, plus in case you haven't noticed, but Fehr is the Johnny Cochran of negotiators and is holding his own against the little dick tator just fine.

I'm all for honoring existing contracts, that includes the current system of escrow payments because that is what the players signed under. They knew full well what the bottom line might be and signed the contract. Keep it that way for those players. Run the league with what would appear to be two separate agreements if you have to.

Sounds reasonable to me, I suggested that the other day but I'm sure Bettman won't go for it. They seem to want the savings in salary all up front.

And there should be a 50/50 split. It should be linked to HRR and not projected growth. What's the big deal if the players total figure goes up and down with HRR? The owners total dollar amount will be exactly the same and fluctuate the same way. Sounds pretty fair.

Except then it wouldn't be fifty fifty would it ? What is so hard in understanding that HRR is a moving goal post. First define what exactly it is and don't hide behind it is whatever was agreed too in the last CBA crap, before you can divide something you have to know what it is.

Either that or have something written into the CBA that allows owners to lay off a few players if they need to if revenue drops. Not buyouts, a layoff, maybe have a two paycheque severance package in there. (Obvioiusly being funny with that last sentence).

This is just emotional overreaction, if contracts were just burnable like that would you accept the total free agency that would be the legal result of ramming that through? where do you want to play next year Crosby? " The non hockey markets will never get anybody decent to stay.

If the players were all about getting back to playing hockey and doing what is good for the game and the NHL then they would be working WITH the owners to get a deal done that secures both sides interests.

oh yeah it's obvious that Bettman has an equitable agreement as his goal...that's rich, he wants the best deal he can get for the owners ...that's not going to be the best deal for the players purely by definition is it?

If both sides are going to see the same percentage of HRR, and both sides are going to get the same dollar figure in the overall, and that gives the owners the security they are looking for in order to underwrite the league, and the players get their cut with current contracts being honored under the conditions and terms in which they were signed, then I think you have a framework right there.

The owners can have security without putting it all on the player's backs. there are other options like revenue sharing and accepting the players as partners. But that would mean that the original six team owners who are raking it in would have to share more than they are willing.

But right now the players are content to reject everything outright and submit proposals that they know full well are not even starting points for the owners.

The same can be said for the owners too

They are holding out and throwing their fellow union members under the bus while putting on a smile and a show of solidarity for the cameras. It's dog eat dog for the union, and the richest union members are the ones who will come out the "winners" on the side of the PA, while the lowest paid players are going to miss out of some key seasons and.....GASP.....maybe have to find real jobs.

It's called a lockout, that means the players are being kept from working, they have said repeatedly that they would play and negotiate but the league won't have it. The threat that the players would strike when it's most inconvenient is crap, what difference will it make this spring if its a lockout or strike?

I hope nothing in there is too skewed for you UK.

Lol no nothing that I am not used to by now

good post though...enjoyed it

[Canuck-One]

[quote="ukcanuck.

I'm a true fan.....of the Canucks. So fire some replacement players out there, just use some minor leaguers who have no union affiliation. Pay them all in the 6 figures range. Sell tickets at half price. I guarantee you that the players would all cross the line or get rid of Fehr and put a real negotiator in there who will actually make an agreement rather than posture and smile around stall tactics for 10 months.

and a show of solidarity for the cameras. It's dog eat dog for the union, and the richest union members are the ones who will come out the "winners" on the side of the PA, while the lowest paid players are going to miss out of some key seasons and.....GASP.....maybe have to find real jobs.
[/quote]

You would seriously advocate the use of scabs? Man that is disgusting. If that ever happened I predict the leagues demise, because most people have a conscience. I'm going for a shower. Sick Bastard.

[Topper]

You would seriously advocate the use of scabs? Man that is disgusting. If that ever happened I predict the leagues demise, because most people have a conscience. I'm going for a shower. Sick Bastard.

Second Captain 1st pick.

[Meds]

Seriously, you would really pay half price to watch replacement players? why when junior hockey is even less than that and the AHL is down the road in Abby? more to the point, the CFL is a bargain at less than half the price but suggest to half the guys on here that its worth watching and get the buckets out to clean up the vomit. Don't you think it's gonna be the same with replacement players? any player not under contract to play somewhere right now is no better than half the guys playing beer league.

The CFL isn't worth watching because it's an 8 team league. There is no variety. Plus the mickey mouse rules that allow for teams to score points on MISSED opportunities. Terrible comparisson. The point of ticket price is that the owners will be making somthing and the players won't. Although I'm not sure replacements are an option when it is an "employer" imposed lockout. My main point is that players come and go, true fans cheer for the team.....which the owners bankroll.

Sounds reasonable to me, I suggested that the other day but I'm sure Bettman won't go for it. They seem to want the savings in salary all up front.

I didn't see all the details, I just saw that there would be no roll-back on salaries and that the players currently under contract would get all the money promised in said contracts. To me that is a no-brainer.

And there should be a 50/50 split. It should be linked to HRR and not projected growth. What's the big deal if the players total figure goes up and down with HRR? The owners total dollar amount will be exactly the same and fluctuate the same way. Sounds pretty fair.

Except then it wouldn't be fifty fifty would it ? What is so hard in understanding that HRR is a moving goal post. First define what exactly it is and don't hide behind it is whatever was agreed too in the last CBA crap, before you can divide something you have to know what it is.

If it is 50/50 and it is linked to revenue and said revenue is $3 billion then $1.5B goes to owners and $1.5B goes to player salaries etc. If the revenue dips the next year to $2.6 billion then $1.3 goes to each. If it climbs to $3.4B then $1.7 goes to each. Sure it's a moving post, but a 50/50 split is still a 50/50 split.

Maybe the answer here is instead of hard salaries in contracts players can opt to sign deals that pay them a certain percentage of the salary cap. Owners/GM's just have to adjust accordingly and make sure that they leave a few percentage points as wiggle room for FA, re-signings, etc. So if the cap is set at $60M and the league determines that no one player can make more than 13% of the overall salary cap, then say Crosby signs for the max, $7.8M per year. HRR goes up that year so the next year the cap jumps to $65M, now Crosby makes $8.45M. In this season HRR drops a bit and the cap falls to $63M, Crosby now makes $8.19M To me that would be a fair system for both parties. Players are continually guaranteed their share, they don't have to try and get the best deal they can and worry about leaving futures on the table, owners still control their payroll and have the salary cap that is linked to HRR from the previous year, which is what they apparently want. This motivates the players and the owners to ice the best game they can in order to draw the most fans. As it stands now the players can coast once they've signed and the owner has to foot that bill.

This is just emotional overreaction, if contracts were just burnable like that would you accept the total free agency that would be the legal result of ramming that through? where do you want to play next year Crosby? " The non hockey markets will never get anybody decent to stay.

Not sure how this is an emotional overreaction.....do you know what that actually is? It's not as if there wouldn't be measures in place to protect players from owners just pissing on a contract because the player had a bad attitude. But the flip side every employer is entitled to some kind of protection from an employee who just wants to mail it in. Nothing emotional about that at all. As for non-hockey markets? I actually don't care. If hockey is setup somewhere that it isn't popular and can't draw a fan base large enough to support the team then that team should move or fold. Phoenix should have been moved long ago. Bettman is a moron for not letting Balsillie purchase and move the Coyotes to Hamilton.

oh yeah it's obvious that Bettman has an equitable agreement as his goal...that's rich, he wants the best deal he can get for the owners ...that's not going to be the best deal for the players purely by definition is it?

Obviously both sides are going to want the best deal for themselves. It's Bettman's job to get the owners the best deal and it's Fehr's job to get the players the best deal. The last offer from the league was a good STARTING point. The PA is well aware that the owners are not moving away from a system with linkage to HRR. None of their offers have included that linkage. It's pretty clear that Fehr would prefer no salary cap at all, and we have seen what that has done for MLB.....hey owners, come buy your championship.

The owners can have security without putting it all on the player's backs. there are other options like revenue sharing and accepting the players as partners. But that would mean that the original six team owners who are raking it in would have to share more than they are willing.

From an owners perspective it makes sense to want security. Even as an employee I can see it. Why should the owners have to foot the bill for teams that can't make it? The revenue sharing thing is a good idea, but when you have franchises that are losing money and never contributing to the over profit pot, then I think it's fair to fold up those teams or move them. I work for a company that has a provincial union, there are people working for this company in towns where the billables do not come close to paying the overhead, the demand for the job is ridiculously low. I'm in a town where that is not the case, but my income is effected because the company feels that it needs to maintain these other locations and that the system needs to be equitable for all employees. Sucks to be me, and probably 65% of our work force. If there is no demand for a hockey team in Phoenix or Dallas, than why should the owners from Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, New York, and San Jose (examples) have to pay for those two franchises? Shouldn't the owners who are footing the bill have more say? Shouldn't they be able to say enough is enough, fold the team or move it.....

But right now the players are content to reject everything outright and submit proposals that they know full well are not even starting points for the owners.

The same can be said for the owners too

Except for the fact that the owners have made several concessions from their original offer at the start of all of this.


[quote="ukcanuck"It's called a lockout, that means the players are being kept from working, they have said repeatedly that they would play and negotiate but the league won't have it. The threat that the players would strike when it's most inconvenient is crap, what difference will it make this spring if its a lockout or strike?
[/quote]

Yeah, that would have been a good idea. I wonder if that would have been something the owners would have considered if someone other than Donald "no MLB playoffs" Fehr was the guy putting that idea on the table.....

When the owners come to the PA at the all-star break and say, "Let's start hashing this out." And the PA responds by saying, "No." And then the PA won't even sit down with them for over half a year, well that tells me that the union has its head up its ass and is not looking to get a deal done. The lockout may be owner imposed, but it could have been avoided if the last 9+ months had not been squandered doing nothing (because the NHLPA didn't want to). If the players were willing to play with no deal in place and negotiate one with an ongoing season, why were they not willing to negotiate during an ongoing season back at the all-star break? Could it be because there was a CBA in place until after the playoffs were over that they had to honor. With no agreement in place they could just walk off and strike.....say at the end of March or beginning of April after they had all made their entire salary for the year and just the playoffs were left. Then what? There has been nothing done "in good faith" from the players side of things this time around.

[Hockey Widow]

It's a lock out not a strike. The NHL could not use "scabs". They would have to end the lockout and then contractually honour players under contract.

Have heard that Bettman told the ownership group over the summer that the players would not have the resolve for a protracted lock out and they would cave by the end of Oct, enough time to get in a full season and the Winter Classic. Apparently there had been some heated debate by the ownership group over the summer on this issue. They were unanimous in wanting to get to 50-50 but not unanimous in how to get there. Bettman has very tight control, as we all know , on what comes from this group and violators are severely punished as well as ostracized somewhat.

Anyway, there are rumblings within the group that this is not the way to proceed. There are those that feel existing contracts must be honoured and those that feel there needs to be a major salary roll back. There are those that want to eliminate transfer payments and those that want them increased. There are those that want the floor lowered and those that want it to stay the same. Those that want the floor raised are the ones clamouring to have minor league contracts count towards the cap, it helps them get to the floor.

Point is I have heard that the ownership group is not happy with where this is headed, at least not all of them. There is a group of about 7 that are trying to get an audience with Bettman but he does not want any distractions. His words apparently. So he has his mandate, in his mind, and is not prepared to have a sit down with the owners until he feels there is anything to report. I know Dallas, Pittsburg, Winnipeg and San Jose are 4 of the teams. Don't know who the other 3 are.

From the players perspective, they are prepared to sit until Jan and miss half a season if it comes to that. But if it goes that far they want to see the NHL lose the Winter Classic.

The only real stumbling block is how to existing contract get honoured. If that can be worked out within the 50-50 framework then we will get a deal but the NHL had previously told teams that they would get a significant roll back this time around and these long term deals with huge salaries would get levelled out. It may account for why we saw so many of them this summer. The NHL assured owners that they would get levelled off. Some owners took this as gospel, others did not.

Keep in mind this is all gossip and hearsay!

[Meds]

You would seriously advocate the use of scabs? Man that is disgusting. If that ever happened I predict the leagues demise, because most people have a conscience. I'm going for a shower. Sick Bastard.

If this was for a "job" that didn't involve coddled superstar babies already making multi millions of dollars then I would not advocate the use of "scabs". But when every deal that the "employees" have rejected has still ensured that they would be, by far, the highest paid individuals in their field of work.....hell yes I say replace them.

Is the work environment unsafe and the employer unwilling to make it safer? Not in this case.

Do they lack benefits or insurance packages? Ummm no.

Are the working conditions intolerable and bordering on slave labor? Not even close.

Are they required to cover travel expenses and not be reimbursed? No.

Are they forced to work over-time or face disciplinary action if they fail to? Not at all.

Is there a lack of "light-duty" work or no "return to work support" from the employer? Nope.

Are they not making enough money to actually secure a reasonable and comfortable living? No.

You'll excuse me for not having an sympathy for the players right now. I work for BC Ambulance and when the last time our union voted to strike for better working conditions etc, and the government legislated us back to work as an essential service but somehow worked it so that we were not an emergency service so as to avoid paying us on par with Fire and Police, and then proceeded to schedule paramedics in the major centers for over-time shifts that were mandatory.....as in you don't do it you receive disciplinary action is handed down.....well forgive me for being a bit callous towards mulit-millionaires, who have the most ideal working environment there can be (outside of Google of course ), but just want an even bigger piece of the pie.

[Tiger]

Go with their +/- Rats.. it it goes down.. salary goes down.. it up salary up .

Have you thought that through from a team perspective? Do you really want guys worried about stats and paycheques when it's about sacrifice for your teammates that wins games?

haven't thought it all the way through UK canuck.. but a plus on the plus/minus would be another way of measuring as well as hits.. blocked shots etc.. Produtivity is measureable. and of course we would get less "floating" players.