There will be a strike

[Cornuck]

[Per]

This says it all imho:

Where every other business carries on operations while a new labour agreement is being negotiated, with both labour and management rightly regarding a strike or lockout as the absolute last resort, Bettman and his chief labour strategist, outside counsel Bob Batterman, rush to lock the doors. As Ansar Khan of MichiganLive.com noted, the NHL has now lost 1,698 regular-season games due to labour disputes since 1992. That is more than Major League Baseball (938), the NBA (504) and the NFL (0) combined.

The players suggested to play while negotiating, but Buttman won't of course have any of that.

Love of the game? Does he even know what that means?

[tantalum]

Per,

It's been said over and over again on various boards that owners in North American pro sports leagues will never ever again carry on without a CBA in place. They will always lock out the players. Every league. Every time. Why? Because the guy heading the NHLPA right now led the baseball players on a strike that cancelled the playoffs and world series in 1994. No league will ever trust the union to negotiate in good faith and not use the playoffs or other premiere events as leverage...especially a union led by Fehr.

It would be nice of course but that hope died in 1994 not due to uber-rich owners but a union.

[Potatoe1]

Per,

It's been said over and over again on various boards that owners in North American pro sports leagues will never ever again carry on without a CBA in place. They will always lock out the players. Every league. Every time. Why? Because the guy heading the NHLPA right now led the baseball players on a strike that cancelled the playoffs and world series in 1994. No league will ever trust the union to negotiate in good faith and not use the playoffs or other premiere events as leverage...especially a union led by Fehr.

It would be nice of course but that hope died in 1994 not due to uber-rich owners but a union.

No kidding....

Per give your head a shake....

Given Fehr's history, the owners would be out of their minds to play out the season with no agreement in place.

[Hockey Widow]

We all know if the owners agreed to play under the existing CBA until a new deal is reached there would be no new deal. The players love this CBA, the one they lost a season protesting. The Owners hate it, the one they lost a season ramming down the players throats. Funny how that works.

I hate the lockout but it is the only way to force the issue with the NHLPA. Maybe next time the PA will work harder in trying to get a new deal before the old one expires. There is no excuse, on either side, for the failure to negotiate in good faith commencing a year ago, two years ago.

And I'm sorry the players feel that the owners want to ram something down their throats and that it's a partnership. BS, it is not a partnership and never will be. It is a business run by business men who are in business to make as much money as they can.

I hate that banks make me pay for the privileged of having my money, and then charge me more to get my money out of the bank. I hate that condo prices are controlled and over inflated, I hate paying taxes. I that Trudeau came out with a wage and price freeze and after prices went up wages never did at the same rate. I hate that in all my working years I never once had a chance to "negotiate" and had to settle for whatever my boss gave me, often nothing. I hate that companies can close their doors, steal pensions and send jobs elsewhere all to increase profits.

I don't hate unions. They have value and are still relevant. But I hate how unions feel they deserve more than the average person, well except politicians, who I really hate.

I get what the players are saying but they live in a bubble if they don't see the reality here. Every employee can say the same thing, without our labour the bosses make squat. But we are all replaceable, even pro athletes.

[okcanuck]

What I really dont get is, why, if the owners supposedly raped the players in the last CBA why isn't it still good enough for the owners now. They were the ones who brought it in and if the players are happy with it ,whats the f----ing problem?

[Hockey Widow]

What I really dont get is, why, if the owners supposedly raped the players in the last CBA why isn't it still good enough for the owners now. They were the ones who brought it in and if the players are happy with it ,whats the f----ing problem?

Agreed but I think the deal had too many loop holes and allowed the players too high a percentage. Bettman has said they made mistakes.

I think as others have pointed out the error last time was not in totally destroying the players will. Now they have seen how rich they have become in this system and don't want to let go.

What bugs me and always will is that the owners need saving from themselves. Now they cannot collaborate but they can set internal caps and stick to it. The owners and the GM's do not have the will to make things work so they need a system. That is a problem.

[Lancer]

We all know if the owners agreed to play under the existing CBA until a new deal is reached there would be no new deal. The players love this CBA, the one they lost a season protesting. The Owners hate it, the one they lost a season ramming down the players throats. Funny how that works.

I hate the lockout but it is the only way to force the issue with the NHLPA. Maybe next time the PA will work harder in trying to get a new deal before the old one expires. There is no excuse, on either side, for the failure to negotiate in good faith commencing a year ago, two years ago.

And I'm sorry the players feel that the owners want to ram something down their throats and that it's a partnership. BS, it is not a partnership and never will be. It is a business run by business men who are in business to make as much money as they can.

I hate that banks make me pay for the privileged of having my money, and then charge me more to get my money out of the bank. I hate that condo prices are controlled and over inflated, I hate paying taxes. I that Trudeau came out with a wage and price freeze and after prices went up wages never did at the same rate. I hate that in all my working years I never once had a chance to "negotiate" and had to settle for whatever my boss gave me, often nothing. I hate that companies can close their doors, steal pensions and send jobs elsewhere all to increase profits.

I don't hate unions. They have value and are still relevant. But I hate how unions feel they deserve more than the average person, well except politicians, who I really hate.

I get what the players are saying but they live in a bubble if they don't see the reality here. Every employee can say the same thing, without our labour the bosses make squat. But we are all replaceable, even pro athletes.

Lotta hate there HW, but I sympathise. That said, the owners have been looking at the PA as the easy button and their reasoning is hypocritical.

They got cost certainty. They got a cap, and they still couldn't even fix the economics for the sunbelt teams. Sorry, but this is the owners' mess to clean up and the mop is called true revenue sharing. If the owners really believe Buttman's sunbelt mantra then put your money where your mouth is buckos and sustain those ugly sister teams until they ever get viable. How that's done is up for negotiation, but the ailing franchises are the problem, those same ailing franchises who are still signing players monopoly money deals driven by the FA market being driven up by the same teams whose owners don't want to fork over any cash. But somehow the onus is on the players to take a hit for the league? Gimme a break.

The way I see it, this lockout only benefits the Canucks. Give the guys some rest, let Kes rehab with no pressure, and by the time the season starts again in December, this team could very well be as prepared as it's been in the last couple of years.

I have a lot of time for unions, even though I've never had the chance to be in one. A lot of those in the manufacturing and industrial sector are still living in the 80s with their heads up their ass, but without unions anywhere we may as well bend over with cap in hand and a cockney accent and say 'please sir, can I have some more?'

[ukcanuck]

keep in mind this ideologically bankrupt person has fully supported unions in the past.

OMG  I said:

it's only hockey I know and it's only millionaires versus billionaires and all of that. However, there is greater moral struggle going on here and it's depressing as hell how ideologically bankrupt your point of view is. Its precisely the idea that we are all in it for ourselves and fuck you too that allows for corporate greed, outsourcing, downward pressure on wages to exist at all. "

In response to this:

There comes a point when solidarity goes out the window and you start looking out for #1

It's this ideology that is "Ideologically bankrupt"and maybe even morally bankrupt as well depending on what meeting you are at.  I did not insinuate or imply anything other than exactly what I said.  I'm did  not call anyone either morally or ideologically bankrupt. I said "your" point of view is ideologically bankrupt which is different to calling you ideologically bankrupt unless you literally are your opinion but obviously by your own admission, your point of changes from circumstance to circumstance which is completely expected understandable.

I'm beginning to wonder if we actually read each others posts or just react to words whether they are in context or not...? 
 
(I'm including myself by the way)

Btw thanks for more precise explanation of the escrow,
I take issue though with the, it's  not their money in the first place"
Statement as it comes from their contracts and held in escrow and yes they (players)  agreed to the arrangement but it's more accurate to say that had no real choice given the events if that lockout 

(Topper) same thing with HRR, the definition of it was secured by force of the past lockout and not a willing agreement.

(Pot) I don't think that concert money is HRR, I was merely pointing out that the definition is up to interpretation as a case could be made that the rent from other events is related to existence of the hockey club (in Vancouver's case anyway)

(Topper) I see your lol and raise you roflmao

[FAN]

I always wonder about the solidarity of the owners. It's amazing that say the owners of NYR, Canucks, and Leafs would vote for a lockout when they stand to lose so much in profits. But I guess it's for the greater good.

[ukcanuck]

Per,

It's been said over and over again on various boards that owners in North American pro sports leagues will never ever again carry on without a CBA in place. They will always lock out the players. Every league. Every time. Why? Because the guy heading the NHLPA right now led the baseball players on a strike that cancelled the playoffs and world series in 1994. No league will ever trust the union to negotiate in good faith and not use the playoffs or other premiere events as leverage...especially a union led by Fehr.

It would be nice of course but that hope died in 1994 not due to uber-rich owners but a union.

Is it not true that the baseball strike was a direct result of MLB owners trying to force a salary cap in that sport by withholding pension fund contributions until the union accepted ther proposal?
Kind of sounds like the owners started that mess by forcing the union's hand. Not exactly the same tactic here but close enough, take our deal or starve until you do...
Seriously can't see anyone reacting all warm and fuzzy all over with that treatment.

[ukcanuck]

Per,

It's been said over and over again on various boards that owners in North American pro sports leagues will never ever again carry on without a CBA in place. They will always lock out the players. Every league. Every time. Why? Because the guy heading the NHLPA right now led the baseball players on a strike that cancelled the playoffs and world series in 1994. No league will ever trust the union to negotiate in good faith and not use the playoffs or other premiere events as leverage...especially a union led by Fehr.

It would be nice of course but that hope died in 1994 not due to uber-rich owners but a union.

No kidding....

Per give your head a shake....

Given Fehr's history, the owners would be out of their minds to play out the season with no agreement in place.

the PA would go on strike over what exactly? they don't like the CBA they've played under since 04? I admit it's unlikely the league is ever going to negotiate any concessions without a lockout unless they agree to the rich clubs matching any rollback or revenue sharing. That's more likely why they won't have a season, because lockouts work.

[tantalum]

Well given the PA is running away from full linkage except at levels that are too high and giving themselves guaranteed raises no matter what revenue growth is like in their proposals I'd say the likelihood of them using a snap strike at a crucial time to gain a concession of no linkage is pretty darn good. Even if they go and sign some sort of document that says they won't strike it wouldn't be good enough. On the eve of the Stanley Cup final the players go on strike, even if illegally based on the paper they signed, and hold things up in the courts while emabarassing the league at a crucial time. That isn't to say they would do it but the the possibility exists and the league would be stupid to go forward without a lockout because of it. Had Fehr not played the game he did in 1994 they would likely be playing.... On a similar note the league would also be stupid for not having full linkage so that if revenues do flatline or drop the mechanism to adjust things is absent. Just because revenues seem like they should grow over the course of the CBA doesn't mean you ignore the other possibility no matter how slim. The linkage mechanism needs to be present.

Note that Fehr was a major confidant and advisor of Goodenow when Goodenow made his move of "we'll sit out for 2 years and won't accept a cap". Fehr looks to be beginning to play the same game. It didn't work out last time and I don't think it'll work out this time. The players have done exceedingly well under the current CBA framework and would continue to do so after some tweaking. They are not interested in discussing what tweaking needs to be done. They are not interested in acknowledging another side of the balance sheet exists. A fair deal framework exists from the last two offers from the league and the PA is not interested in negotiating. It's turning into Goodenow part 2. The real question is if the players let it go as far this time as they did last time.


And speaking of ideologically bankrupt... the players have a huge problem making millions under even the worst offer the league has brought forward but have no issues going overseas, playing for a fraction of the salary and taking another players job in that other league. All they do in the end IS look out for #1. As I said, good for the SEL to stand up and say if you want to play that's fine but then you are here for the year (i.e. you are here because you want to be and not just because you want to pocket some money for staying in shape and practicing).

[ukcanuck]

Well given the PA is running away from full linkage except at levels that are too high and giving themselves guaranteed raises no matter what revenue growth is like in their proposals I'd say the likelihood of them using a snap strike at a crucial time to gain a concession of no linkage is pretty darn good. Even if they go and sign some sort of document that says they won't strike it wouldn't be good enough. On the eve of the Stanley Cup final the players go on strike, even if illegally based on the paper they signed, and hold things up in the courts while emabarassing the league at a crucial time. That isn't to say they would do it but the the possibility exists and the league would be stupid to go forward without a lockout because of it. Had Fehr not played the game he did in 1994 they would likely be playing....


On a similar note the league would also be stupid for not having full linkage so that if revenues do flatline or drop the mechanism to adjust things is absent. Just because revenues seem like they should grow over the course of the CBA doesn't mean you ignore the other possibility no matter how slim. The linkage mechanism needs to be present.

You're refereeing to the link between the cap and revenue? If so the raises are totally up to management and anyone under contract will only receive what's on the contract? I would point to fehr's and the players public willingness to work with the owners to solve this....
However I don't disagree with the need for a workstoppage to get it done. I mean look at us around here and how upset we're all getting. imagine If it were our money. (im aware of the irony of that statement:) ) it's the reason why it's the eleventh hour, the only time polar extremes come together.

[tantalum]

I would point to fehr's and the players public willingness to work with the owners to solve this....

There has been no willingness. They refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that expenses have outpaced revenue growth and need to be controlled (salary is the biggest of these expenses and some of the only ones they have some control over). Given the same thing has happened in just about every other business over the course of time of this past CBA I see no reason to doubt that it has indeed happened in the NHL as well. The players have yet to acknowledge anything other than they'd really just like some more money regardless of the economics of the league.