There will be a strike

[Lancer]

So what ace does Bettman have up his sleave now?
He started the poker game by playing his best card, and it apparently did not have the effect he hoped for.
What next?

What's next depends on when the drop dead date is for the entire season. I think that's the midnight hour, and we shall see then who blinks... If it goes past that, and the season is lost, what's to stop de-certification and the nightmare legal battle that is sure to follow is better question.

If we can't have an agreement that suits both parties now, part of me would like to see what happens with all bets off.
would it be a free-for-all by the rich clubs signing all the best players and the weak sisters going bankrupt.
Does the whole house of cards come down and a new smaller more competitive league rise out of the mess?
would it be a retrenchment similar to the CFL in the 90s?
what would the league look like, if a player took one too many stupid penalties costing his team the win on saturday and was cut on monday look like?

enquiring minds want to know...

I would love to, just for giggles at this point.

Honestly, the way the league has been negotiating, if the season is lost I would love nothing better than to see the PA push that red button and decertify. File in California before the League can act, set fire to that puppy and see what comes out of the ashes. Caving in to the league's offer pretty much guarantees a future of diminishing returns on an unbelievably rich business environment.

Blow it up and - what - get a worse deal? Possibly. No guaranteed contracts, no medical, blah blah blah. Clubs who want the best talent will pay to attract and keep it - medical bills, insurance and all. If Bettman wanted league parity and fiscal balance between the clubs, decertification may destroy it.

Blow it up and - make some mother-of-all anti-trusts? Likely. Would they suceed? Dunno, but at this point with asshole owners like Jacobs, et al who are intent on putting the burden of the league's southern blunders on the backs of the players while they walked away with the expansion fees, why not take the bastards to court?

Folks, you can stick a fork in this season. I, for one, am not nearly as sad as I'd thought I'd be. If that's the way it's gotta be, so be it. But if it's gotta be, let's see the PA blow it up and see how far the owners are willing to go to take the league back to the 50s.

[ukcanuck]

If Donald Fehr actually cared about the game and its future i may stop bringing up the baseball fiasco he was 100 % responsible for in 94. He is a lawyer and a hired gun and nothing more. He is a fucking pariah and the sooner he steps away from this negotiation , the sooner a deal is done. Do your homework before bumping your gums.

I dont get how you work it both ways? you blame Fehr for leading a strike against owners forcing terms on that union and you blame Fehr for trying to get the best deal he can for this union? what do you expect them to do just roll over? would you?

Is fehr responsible for this lockout or is Bettman? The commish is the only one with that hammer and this is the second time he's used it. This lockout is 100 percent Bettman's doing.

And as far as the baseball strike goes it was the owners there who were trying to force a cap and withholding cash from the players so while they didn't lockout the players exactly they tried to play hard ball No pun intended...

[Blob Mckenzie]

Is fehr responsible for this lockout or is Bettman? The commish is the only one with that hammer and this is the second time he's used it. This lockout is 100 percent Bettman's doing.

And as far as the baseball strike goes it was the owners there who were trying to force a cap and withholding cash from the players so while they didn't lockout the players exactly they tried to play hard ball No pun intended...

Obviously Bettman ( which is really the owners) called the lockout. Thanks for the history lesson .

Fehr pulled the players off the field in 94. It was a garbage move and the slimy prick had it planned before the first pitch in spring training was thrown. "Witholding cash from the players". Where do you come up with this shit ? There has to be some cost certainty in pro sports whether its a form of luxury tax or a salary cap. I guess if people don't want ANY sort of cost certainty and want to see a twelve team league and most of the Canadian teams gone then fill your boots. I couldn't see the Canucks surviving long term in a league with no cost certainty and a .75 dollar ( which we will see again).

Truth be told i don't like how the owners are negotiating and I think they are fucking bullies. I believe they should be making whole or damn close to it considering they imposed this lockout. That said i am a realist and I know who the boss is and who has the hammer. The players are playing in a league that is on shaky ground in 1/3 of its markets. There are ten other teams that are lsoing money. Three teams make up 83 % of the profits. Something has to give here.... the whole league is a paper tiger and the fact that the players want to squeeze every single drop of blood out of a wounded animal does not reflect well on them regardless of what you say. The league is broken but it can be fixed. Sit out a year or two and the league reverts back to the mid 90's and 500 K is the average salary.

I just shake my head at the people who think that a new league or a league without a cap or luxury tax is viable. It isn't going to happen. The owners own the buildings . Are the players suddenly going to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars to fire up new stadiums throughout North America ? The reality is that the owners will win this fight and anyone with an iq above 75 could figure that out. Right or wrong they will prevail..... I wonder if the people who keep drooling over the players will get over it when it's all said and done. I had a few hockey posters on my wall when I was a kid.....looks like some people still have them up.

[ukcanuck]

Obviously Bettman ( which is really the owners) called the lockout. Thanks for the history lesson .

sorry didn't mean to be condescending, just trying to understand..

Fehr pulled the players off the field in 94. It was a garbage move and the slimy prick had it planned before the first pitch in spring training was thrown. "Witholding cash from the players". Where do you come up with this shit ?

I was under the impression that the MLB owners started "negotiating" a salary cap by imposing one and by punitively withholding almost 10 million dollars in pension funds... great way to start a fight don't you think?

There has to be some cost certainty in pro sports whether its a form of luxury tax or a salary cap. I guess if people don't want ANY sort of cost certainty and want to see a twelve team league and most of the Canadian teams gone then fill your boots. I couldn't see the Canucks surviving long term in a league with no cost certainty and a .75 dollar ( which we will see again).

fair enough...

Truth be told i don't like how the owners are negotiating and I think they are fucking bullies. I believe they should be making whole or damn close to it considering they imposed this lockout. That said i am a realist and I know who the boss is and who has the hammer. The players are playing in a league that is on shaky ground in 1/3 of its markets. There are ten other teams that are losing money. Three teams make up 83 % of the profits. Something has to give here.... the whole league is a paper tiger and the fact that the players want to squeeze every single drop of blood out of a wounded animal does not reflect well on them regardless of what you say. The league is broken but it can be fixed. Sit out a year or two and the league reverts back to the mid 90's and 500 K is the average salary.

You think the players are trying to squeeze every drop, I think Jeremy Jacobs and co are trying to do that...

I just shake my head at the people who think that a new league or a league without a cap or luxury tax is viable. It isn't going to happen. The owners own the buildings . Are the players suddenly going to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars to fire up new stadiums throughout North America ? The reality is that the owners will win this fight and anyone with an iq above 75 could figure that out. Right or wrong they will prevail..... I wonder if the people who keep drooling over the players will get over it when it's all said and done. I had a few hockey posters on my wall when I was a kid.....looks like some people still have them up.

When you "some people" you mean me? cause for me its got little to do with loving the players like they are heroes. I look at it this way: 3 billion dollars split 60/ 40 for the players is better in principle for the economy than 60/40 for the owners.
right off the top half of the money going to players is clawed back in income taxes and all the boats, summer homes, cars and alimony will make sure all the rest goes back into the economy pretty quick.
The owners share of the cash on the other hand... well who knows where that money will go? it might all end up back in the pot too but I don't know and I am not sure and truth be told I suspect as much of it as possible will end up in numbered offshore accounts...

[Fred]

When you "some people" you mean me? cause for me its got little to do with loving the players like they are heroes. I look at it this way: 3 billion dollars split 60/ 40 for the players is better in principle for the economy than 60/40 for the owners.
right off the top half of the money going to players is clawed back in income taxes and all the boats, summer homes, cars and alimony will make sure all the rest goes back into the economy pretty quick.
The owners share of the cash on the other hand... well who knows where that money will go? it might all end up back in the pot too but I don't know and I am not sure and truth be told I suspect as much of it as possible will end up in numbered offshore accounts...

Continuing with that logic it would be better to give the players 100% So what entices the owners to buy the franchise $200 million + and then half of them loose more after that. The NHL 's big problem as some one already stated "the NHL is unable to attract more owners...they're running out of prospective owners". ( such as Phx ) unable to find a mug ...ooops I mean new owners, or St L or...well I guess you get the idea

And by the way most players are registered companies. The reason so many do work for charities is they need 3 charities ( or businesses to enter into a working relationship ) to qualify as a business, weather the company is off shore I don't know. But the same accountants that advise the owners are advising players...now there's a shock

[ukcanuck]

When you "some people" you mean me? cause for me its got little to do with loving the players like they are heroes. I look at it this way: 3 billion dollars split 60/ 40 for the players is better in principle for the economy than 60/40 for the owners.
right off the top half of the money going to players is clawed back in income taxes and all the boats, summer homes, cars and alimony will make sure all the rest goes back into the economy pretty quick.
The owners share of the cash on the other hand... well who knows where that money will go? it might all end up back in the pot too but I don't know and I am not sure and truth be told I suspect as much of it as possible will end up in numbered offshore accounts...

Continuing with that logic it would be better to give the players 100% So what entices the owners to buy the franchise $200 million + and then half of them loose more after that. The NHL 's big problem as some one already stated "the NHL is unable to attract more owners...they're running out of prospective owners". ( such as Phx ) unable to find a mug ...ooops I mean new owners, or St L or...well I guess you get the idea

And by the way most players are registered companies. The reason so many do work for charities is they need 3 charities ( or businesses to enter into a working relationship ) to qualify as a business, weather the company is off shore I don't know. But the same accountants that advise the owners are advising players...now there's a shock

yes everybody tries to keep as much out of the tax mans claws as they can and of course the owners deserve their share and eventually it will work out somewhere close to a 50/50 split but the logic holds and since the players are the closest thing to the little guy in this debate that's where my loyalties lie not because I used to collect Esso Canuck stickers as a kid as Blob insinuates.

As for the weak sister teams, I haven't decided if i wouldn't be sorry to see them die on the vine. If the dollar sank to 50 cents again and all the canadian teams but the Leafs and Habs fucked off south again I would not watch anymore anyway...so

and i call bullshit on running out of suckers to buy franchises, the ridiculous franchise values that Forbes reports makes sure there is another PT Barnum acolyte coming along in another 60 seconds or so...

[BurningBeard]

But if it's gotta be, let's see the PA blow it up and see how far the owners are willing to go to take the league back to the 50s.

Yes, let's see if the PA has the balls to reduce the league back to 6 teams. I'd really like to see the players all band together on that one.

This is why decertifying is likely a bargaining tactic and not a real move they want to pursue. You think a third of the teams have any chance of surviving once the cap comes off? Don't get me wrong, it'd be entertaining to see them decertify, but it's schadenfreude talking.

[BurningBeard]

since the players are the closest thing to the little guy in this debate that's where my loyalties lie

The little guy in this debate doesn't have a seat at the bargaining table.

[Hockey Widow]

Speaking as a fan, really, I love, for the most part, what the league looks like now. I love that any team making the playoffs can win the cup. I love the competition and the parity. I do not want a league like in baseball where the rich are always the favourites to win. I want a cap of some sort. I loved that LA won the cup, really, once I got over it.

I like the mini rivalries within the divisions. I would like to see more teams though more often. But then again I love the mini tournaments that have the best players in the world playing the best hockey in the world. Something about contraction that makes me think hockey would be better with 10 less teams. Better teams, better players, better hockey.

The owners have the right to make a profit. They foot the risks. I get all of that. The players deserve to be paid well. I get that. What I don't get is why they didn't sit down two years ago and start negotiating.

[Per]

The owners have the right to make a profit. They foot the risks. I get all of that. The players deserve to be paid well. I get that. What I don't get is why they didn't sit down two years ago and start negotiating.

This!

I frankly don't care much about how they split the money. What bothers me is that they cannot negotiate in good faith and sort out their differences in a civilised manner rather than imposing this bullshit lockout on us fans.

I want my hockey fix, goddamnit!

[Cookie La Rue]

The most disturbing thing on this is that i'm originally thinking they can kiss my ass never watching again but i know i'm watching again when it returns.
Slave of myself...

Speaking about percentages, there are more people on earth starving and fighting for their lives than these fuckin' bastards fighting for a minimum of percentages of millions of bucks...what a sick world, system whatever.

[Lancer]

But if it's gotta be, let's see the PA blow it up and see how far the owners are willing to go to take the league back to the 50s.

Yes, let's see if the PA has the balls to reduce the league back to 6 teams. I'd really like to see the players all band together on that one.

This is why decertifying is likely a bargaining tactic and not a real move they want to pursue. You think a third of the teams have any chance of surviving once the cap comes off? Don't get me wrong, it'd be entertaining to see them decertify, but it's schadenfreude talking.

Not quite what I had in mind when I made the reference. I was more referring to the draconian, Dickens-style player-management dynamic that existed back then. This is ultimately what the hockey barons have yearned for since the PA was born, and is behind their stance thus far in negotiation. They want a lap-dog of a PA which will roll over when they negotiate a-la Darth Vader, which is why they hiss at the mention of Fehr's name.

I think contraction would happen and I don't think that's what the players want. That's why they proposed better revenue-sharing between the teams. Blob's comment about a paper tiger league with the top teams making the vast majority of league revenues is the most forceful argument for better revenue sharing vice cutting player costs. Why are some teams making profits and others aren't? Is it a matter of cutting back player salaries and imposing virtual indentured servitude on players through a more restrictive contractual system? Or is it a matter of the league cleaning up its own house before demanding the players clean it for them? Maybe it's time for Bettman to own up for the abject stupidity of his scheister scheme to implant hockey franchises in markets that have proven cannot support them, for the sake of what? A second-rate TV deal with NBC?

The league is ailing, but it's not the players' fault so why must they be expected to clean up the owners' mess again?

That's why I say if the league is determined to cancel the season to get what they want, let's see the union decertify and see what happens. Without a CBA crutch to lean on, it'd be interesting to see what the league does then in terms of how it operates. To be sure, there'll be casualties on both sides but this may be the moment of clarity the league needs before it reforms itself. If the players cave now, the owners will be back for more the next time around with the same threats because of the same problems that their offer does nothing to address.

[Fred]

yes everybody tries to keep as much out of the tax mans claws as they can and of course the owners deserve their share and eventually it will work out somewhere close to a 50/50 split but the logic holds and since the players are the closest thing to the little guy in this debate that's where my loyalties lie not because I used to collect Esso Canuck stickers as a kid as Blob insinuates.

As for the weak sister teams, I haven't decided if i wouldn't be sorry to see them die on the vine. If the dollar sank to 50 cents again and all the canadian teams but the Leafs and Habs fucked off south again I would not watch anymore anyway...so

and i call bullshit on running out of suckers to buy franchises, the ridiculous franchise values that Forbes reports makes sure there is another PT Barnum acolyte coming along in another 60 seconds or so...

Regarding the lack of owners, there has been a regular stream of owners trying to divest themselves of clubs over the last two decades. St L is in a terrible mess with no one willing to buy the franchise and St L is a good hockey town with out doubt. The fact is there is a difficulty in trying to find new owners who have sufficient money to waste. Atlanta has twice fundamentally gone under, not so long ago you could certainly include Edmonton and Ottawa on that list. They couldn't draw at the turnstile...and that's Canada !! When you sell a franchise at below bought value it does not encourage more to join in. Or when you have to keep relocating franchises, that speaks poorly of the league. The Canadian teams survived because the emergence of Canada as a petro dollar nation ( you know the tar sand I bet you love ) ....nothing to do with the league or the product. How you can describe hockey players as little men when they make more than the average card carrying Cdn is a real laugh. They might be smaller than than the owners but little men to be patted and hugged like a homeless stray is a joke. It's like saying Warren Buffet is rich and every one else is poor

[ukcanuck]

Regarding the lack of owners, there has been a regular stream of owners trying to divest themselves of clubs over the last two decades.

Well that may or may not have had anything to do with the viability of the clubs in question. Look at current franchise values, they don't reflect losing propositions, even teams like Phoenix who are supposed to be insolvent are worth hundreds of millions and their is another owner lined up there too! Methinks there is an operating shortfall that is about mismanagement but not fundamental flaws in the industry.

St Louis is a mystery but I wonder if the potential buyers are waiting until the city panics and hands them a new arena or sweetheart lease in order to buy the supposed dog that's managed to somehow survive since 1967...

Atlanta has twice fundamentally gone under, not so long ago you could certainly include Edmonton and Ottawa on that list.

can't include these cities now all four are owned by happy owners all bellied up to the public bar, one fat Katz excepted ....

When you sell a franchise at below bought value it does not encourage more to join in.

When Prices are low is exactly when to buy in says mike Illitch

Or when you have to keep relocating franchises, that speaks poorly of the league. [ /quote] continual unnecessary labour disputes make the league look far more bush league I am afraid..

The Canadian teams survived because the emergence of Canada as a petro dollar nation ( you know the tar sand I bet you love ) ....nothing to do with the league or the product.

Canadians buy hockey tickets always have always will. It's just up to the owners of Canadian franchises to not run them into the ground or to sell out for quick term profits hello Jets and Nordiques..

How you can describe hockey players as little men when they make more than the average card carrying Cdn is a real laugh. They might be smaller than than the owners but little men to be patted and hugged like a homeless stray is a joke. It's like saying Warren Buffet is rich and every one else is poor

You are so right I don't know how anyone could describe the players as the little guys... Including me who has never said they were the little guy, what I said was that I cannot identify with the owners who have screwed up the game, have robbed cities of their teams and cry out for corporate welfare. But since the players are the CLOSEST THING TO THE LITTLE GUY, and I can understand them trying to keep what they got, that's who I support....

That's different than to what you accuse me of...

[Fred]

Well "little guy " or "closest thing to a little guy" is splitting hairs IMO both give the same impression ...David and Goliath. The deal that they all bitched about in unison with when they signed the last CBA was the best thing that happened to them. I don't think this is a time to moan about poor us. You made more than you should and now that's going to be addressed. Man up and understand you made out like bandits to the detriment to many teams ...hence the current philosophy, "they ain't do that to us again" by the owners/ Who can blame them. Personally I'd like to see a few less teams...hows that sit with the workers of the world unite brigade ...poor us

When prices are low, sure take a gamble. This may come as a surprise to you but the World is in a recession. Now is not the time enter for business as a whole to expand .....hence the recession. Now is the time for survival tactics. If it was such a great time to buy why doesn't the PA invest some of their billions they're holding in their pension plan ....according to you it's a slam dunk to make profits. Buy the Blues they're on Sale right now. Yeah right they might want to appear as country "little guys" but the reality they understand and you are willing to totally overlook is entertainment will be the first to suffer if the recession continues or more likely worsen/ It's run on some thing called disposable income and many homes and companies do have any of that pixie dust. I liked in when the PA actually asked for a fixed lump sum rather than a percentage ...this falls into the category of stupid and they understand that disposable income is shrinking. So hey give us the cash and no we don't want any of the risk ...thank you very much. It does show however their infantile strategy.

Now after refusing to agree on a new CBA they want their lost income replaced, where do they gets this from. They seem to come from the same school as the socilaists in Greece, having sucked on the big t!t and driven the country ( some franchises ) into the dirt complain when the day of reckoning inevitable rolls around. All they can think of is we want more.

I guess you can gather I'm not over enamoured with the PA stance. I hope the season is written off...it seems inevitable, and it saves me around $5000 plus I have a holiday booked for the month of February call me when they come to their senses and reality creeps in