There will be a strike

[Topper]

I'd steal Spuds wetbacks, throw some skates on them and yell GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL a couple of times to break the union.

Combine that with a few select kneecappings.

The union will capitulate faster than when Linden was their leader.

[the Dogsalmon]

fuck...fuck...fuck...and the worst part is...i will be back happier than a pig in shit the day the strike/lockout/fan taking huge dink in the ass work stoppage is over...the NHL is my crack and i am hooked...you fuckers...and everyone on this site is in the same goddamn boat even though they might not like to admit it...we is all fucked now...fuck...

[Lancer]

Hey, it takes some serious posture for some posters considering some of their posts (I don't want to get into their posters... I still have my vintage Iron Maidens and Pink Floyds in a sleeve somewhere in my basement).

I'll see that and up you a Sargent Peppers still mint in it's jacket, in fact I have a Gerry Mulligan EP in sleeve from about 1955

Dang...

I fold.

Wouldn't the irony be just sickening if the PA played hardball so the owners said fuck it and hired replacement players.....and the Vanvouver Replacement Canucks win the Cup.....

Or any other team with no silverware yet.....I'd love it.

Problem is, there are so many other leagues to watch - even if the hockey isn't NHL-calibre. The CHL and AHL never had it so good as the last lockout. It's not like football down south where the NFL is IT unless people want to content themselves with college ball - and many do. The NHL could use scabs, but the product would be on a par with CIAU and why would people shell out NHL bucks to park their butts to watch that calibre of hockey when most markets can see that product for a fraction of the cost? The two sides are stuck with each other, though there would be an argument that there are more options for the players than for the league - just not very palatable ones across the board.

That said though, as far as pie-in-the-sky spitballing goes it does make for a giggler.

[Blob Mckenzie]

They won't shitcan another season though the first 2 -3 months of the season are in jeopardy.

NHL hockey is a niche sport. They poked a pretty good hole in the throat of the league in 04 -05. They would be wise not to slit their jugular this time around, so that's why I think they could be playing by the middle of November.

Other than Canada and pockets of the US people don't give a fuck about the NHL and the ticket prices are a kick in the anus for most people . I myself can only get to a few games a year tops and between wifey and i we do ok. People have other shit to spend money on and the economy is in the toilet. Nobody is raking in the ot and bonuses that they were over the previous five years.

When it comes to the US they would rather watch the big 4, Nascar, golf, tennis, bowling, ping pong etc. Hell, even soccer likely has more fans than NHL hockey down south. The NHL is somewhere between tether ball and darts on their radar. I can't imagine NBC would be too thrilled with the NHL if they cancel another year after they finally signed a legit TV deal .

[Tciso]

Wouldn't the irony be just sickening if the PA played hardball so the owners said fuck it and hired replacement players.....and the Vanvouver Replacement Canucks win the Cup.....

Or any other team with no silverware yet.....I'd love it.

You mean scabs. Replacement players are those who play when a player is injured. A scab is a loathesome piece of shit that hopefully dies a slow and painful death. Used exclusively by rich owners of businesses to steal the food out of your children's mouth. In this instance they would be used to break the NHLPA. If scabs are ever introduced, this is one fan who will walk away forever. When Keanu Reeves starred as a scab I quit going to any movies he has been in.

if they play scabs, and yo upay to see it, you are a scab too. Personally, I could care less. In pro sports, both sides are making too much money for me to have sympathy.

[Southern_Canuck]

Every time the NHL CBA issues comes up (1994-95, 2004-05, etc) I think about the many rounds of layoffs that my employers have had - salary reductions, limited restructurings, job eliminations, etc. Although those have been a drag, it has been apparent that the companies have needed to adjust to remain competitive. And I realize that if I don't like it, or think that the board is being too greedy, I can quit and try and find something else.

From where I sit, it seems that the players have gotten a pretty decent chunk of the NHL income over the years, and despite the existing hard cap, their salaries have continued to rise... and they have retained all of their jobs (no franchises have been forced to fold.)

Average NHL player salary
1990-91 $271k
1994-95 $572k
1997-98 $1.17M
2003-04 $1.83M
2005-06 $1.46M
2007-08 $1.88M
2011-12 $2.4M

NHL team payrolls (players) have climbed from $1 Billion in 2000-01 to $1.7 Billion in 2011-12

You can see that average player salaries only took two seasons under the current CBA in order to climb back to their 2003-04 pre-salary cap average... and I suspect that no matter what the NHL accomplishes with reductions under a new CBA, the same thing will happen again --- as long as the game isn't too badly damaged by a lockout.

So, I guess that puts me on the side of the owners in this argument - the league wants to let the rich teams keep making their money, but help the financially weak teams by reducing overall payroll - this could stop the weak teams' losses through revenue redistribution - makes total sense to me.

Does the NHLPA even consider the job losses that would occur if a franchise folded? A max of 50 player contracts per team with a max of 23 on the active roster...

S_C

[Fred]

+1

[Potatoe1]

I'd steal Spuds wetbacks, throw some skates on them and yell GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL a couple of times to break the union.

Couple of em came into the shop an hour or so ago with big ass sloppy grins on their face.

Mexico winning gold in soccer is apparently a pretty big deal.... Some of them even missed a morning of weekend work to celebrate then off to the job-site.

Love those guys.

My whitey workers are all AWOL today because they got their checks last night.

[Lancer]

Every time the NHL CBA issues comes up (1994-95, 2004-05, etc) I think about the many rounds of layoffs that my employers have had - salary reductions, limited restructurings, job eliminations, etc. Although those have been a drag, it has been apparent that the companies have needed to adjust to remain competitive. And I realize that if I don't like it, or think that the board is being too greedy, I can quit and try and find something else.

From where I sit, it seems that the players have gotten a pretty decent chunk of the NHL income over the years, and despite the existing hard cap, their salaries have continued to rise... and they have retained all of their jobs (no franchises have been forced to fold.)

Average NHL player salary
1990-91 $271k
1994-95 $572k
1997-98 $1.17M
2003-04 $1.83M
2005-06 $1.46M
2007-08 $1.88M
2011-12 $2.4M

NHL team payrolls (players) have climbed from $1 Billion in 2000-01 to $1.7 Billion in 2011-12

You can see that average player salaries only took two seasons under the current CBA in order to climb back to their 2003-04 pre-salary cap average... and I suspect that no matter what the NHL accomplishes with reductions under a new CBA, the same thing will happen again --- as long as the game isn't too badly damaged by a lockout.

So, I guess that puts me on the side of the owners in this argument - the league wants to let the rich teams keep making their money, but help the financially weak teams by reducing overall payroll - this could stop the weak teams' losses through revenue redistribution - makes total sense to me.

Does the NHLPA even consider the job losses that would occur if a franchise folded? A max of 50 player contracts per team with a max of 23 on the active roster...

S_C

Thing is, the payrolls rose as a result of overall league-wide revenue. League-wide revenues, while not a wholly accurate picture of league health, gives someone an objective, big-hand-small-map state of how much money the league is making. The league is making more money now than before, so how can they cry poor when the percentage of revenue going to the players hasn't changed over the course of the CBA? If there are other factors hampering the financial viability of the league, how is that the problem of the players and why should they be forced to take a solution out of their ass? To use your metaphor, that's like your company saying, "Yeah, we went way over-budget on infrastructure, a couple of senior VPs embezzled millions and the cost of materials just went through the roof, but it's the union's fault so we're going to lock you out."

If the league was doing so poorly that they have to re-tool a CBA they threw out a season to get because it was the only solution to the league's financial ills, you have to wonder if a) the league's so bloody incompetent that they can't even make their own imposed solutions work, or b) the league itself is getting too rich for some markets and some owners. Frankly, I think it's a bit of both but either way the league is skewed again except now the basement teams have to pony up the change to make the cap floor. Hard to cry for them when they were the ones who rammed the last CBA down the players' throat.

If the league really cared about its poorer brethren and maintaining the health of the league as a whole then it would adopt a revenue-sharing system and give the league office more of a hand in ensuring the more vulnerable franchises are doing what they need to do to stay viable. Bettmen got his job by selling the old guard on southern and western expansion, why doesn't he come up with more than just a pull-it-out-of-your-ass solution as each crisis arises? If the league wants to gut it out and get a foothold in places where it remains a niche sport beside bocci bowling, then the richer owners should show more collective responsibility (I know, an anathema for most of those greedy sub-humanoids) towards the league that provides the basis for their business.

This is not the players' problem to solve. It's not their fault that the league still can't get its house in order. It's not their fault that the NHL is still a niche league in the places where Buttman promised future prosperity would lie. They bent over and took one for the game on this continent when they accepted the last CBA, so I think it's time the league's fat-cats start unbuckling their belts some.

[Fred]

Just out of interest do you think there's a long line of owners waiting and licking their lips to get hold of an NHL franchise and if not why when it's clearly a cash cow ?

[Canuck-One]

Hi Lancer, I'm glad to see someone else on here who shudders as I do everytime I read such drivel like SC's bum kissing. He starts off pointing the finger in the right direction and then ends up eating his own words. Yes SC all companies need to adjust to difficult times, but their first step should be a business practice review. How much fat can management cut from their bloated and top heavy style. Where I currently work we used to have 1700 employees and we are now down to 700. We still have all of the supervisory positions we had at 1700, not one cut. Instead the cuts all came from the labour side. The side that actually produces something tangible. We are now at 1 manager for every 3 employees. I don't know about the rest of you but that's ridiculous. Let's face it the players (employees) are the show, without them there is nothing. If the owners don't think they are making enough then the next move should be profit and revenue sharing with each other, not gutting the entertainment factor. Or start to trim the losing cities.

[Canuck-One]

Yes Fred I do think there is a long list of Billionaires waiting to be owners. Hell in Vancouver alone we had two groups fighting each other to be the Canucks owner. The owner of RIM fought the league for years to get in on the gravy. Tell me do you think there are no more rich people who want in...

[Southern_Canuck]

The league is making more money now than before, so how can they cry poor when the percentage of revenue going to the players hasn't changed over the course of the CBA?

The minimum cap has risen to the point that the small market teams are losing money. So the owners made a mistake of underestimating the success of the league - but now the small market teams are losing money. Since it is extremely unlikely that the big market teams are going to go backwards on their current profit voluntarily, the only way to keep the smaller market teams afloat is to reduce their expenses - the largest being player salaries.

Hard to cry for them when they were the ones who rammed the last CBA down the players' throat.

Maybe they couldn't anticipate the future - growing revenues leading to a too-high minimum cap, offer sheet compensation prompting high second contracts, and free agency for players in their prime driving up average salary. Just because they made mistakes, they aren't allowed to readjust their multi-million dollar business?

If the league really cared about its poorer brethren and maintaining the health of the league as a whole then it would adopt a revenue-sharing system and give the league office more of a hand in ensuring the more vulnerable franchises are doing what they need to do to stay viable.

Well, you and I basically agree here - the large market teams are not the voice of the league, and want to continue to profit. In order to keep the smaller market teams viable, there will have to be a creative solution - rolling back the players' percentage of revenue, and distributing that money to the smaller markets is a decent solution.

Hi Lancer, I'm glad to see someone else on here who shudders as I do everytime I read such drivel like SC's bum kissing. He starts off pointing the finger in the right direction and then ends up eating his own words. Yes SC all companies need to adjust to difficult times, but their first step should be a business practice review. How much fat can management cut from their bloated and top heavy style. Where I currently work we used to have 1700 employees and we are now down to 700. We still have all of the supervisory positions we had at 1700, not one cut. Instead the cuts all came from the labour side. The side that actually produces something tangible. We are now at 1 manager for every 3 employees. I don't know about the rest of you but that's ridiculous. Let's face it the players (employees) are the show, without them there is nothing. If the owners don't think they are making enough then the next move should be profit and revenue sharing with each other, not gutting the entertainment factor. Or start to trim the losing cities.

I don't see how I ate my own words - these teams can choose how they will reduce their expenses - and their largest expense is player salaries.

I work for a non-union company. If they told me that the new wage for my expertise was 30% lower, I could suck it up and accept that reality, or attempt to ply my trade elsewhere. Essentially the owners take all the risk and hold all the cards. Folding teams does not help the NHLPA as they would lose a large number of jobs.

Funny you should mention the manger/employee ratio - my company recently went through a restructuring that eliminated management positions until there was at least 6 employees per manager. Another difference between my company and the NHL is that employee salaries do not average $2.4M per year.

S_C

[Boston Canucker]

Like most pro sports labor conflicts, this is really about owners v. owners, not owners v players. The NHL has the least expansive revenue sharing of the four major sports, and that is what Fehr will be focusing on; saying basically that the NFL - the most profitable sports league in North America - has significant revenue sharing. The small market teams problems will not, repeat will not, be resolved by taking the hide out of the players again. The cap will keep going up, and even if they drop the floor way down, what sort of teams will they be putting on the ice with bottomed out payroll? Good enough to keep fairweather fans in the seats?...the small market teams don't need a lower cap they need resources to compete, and that will have to come from the wealthier owners, it won't come from the players (that's the lesson of 2004, the league got a give back on salaries and a cap...cost control, remember?!?) and since revenues went up, so did the cap and so did the salaries. It will happen again, we all know it, so it'll be about how the owners figure out their deal among themselves and then Fehr, as he should, will seek to balance that out with a more reasonable split of the revenue for the players than the absurd one the NHL just offered.

I see a deal in early December at the latest. I don't see any serious scenarios where we lose a season; the issues are not structural in the way they were in 04.

[Boston Canucker]

Another difference between my company and the NHL is that employee salaries do not average $2.4M per year.
S_C

Did your company make $3.3 Billion in revenue last year (not counting increased value of property/franchise value etc)?

Does your company make money by selling items, like shirts and souvenirs, that have your employees names written on them or their faces attached to them?

Does your company's promotion for its product involve a heavy focus on advertising the employees themselves, setting them out as the reason why people should purchase said product?

In all, I have to say, I don't think there is much use comparing a pro sports business to that of the settings we all work in. The players are the product in a way in which most of us, I imagine, are not. Fact is, we are all more replaceable than they are...that is, at least if the NHL wants to stay a serious, professional sports league. The players should extract everything they can, they're the talent and the ticket.