New CBA?

[Gary]

"So while NBC and the NHL are salivating over a
Kings-Rangers Stanley Cup Final, Canadian broadcasters are
hoping for better luck next year – if there is a next year
following collective bargaining talks between the NHL and
NHL Players Association."

This came at the end of an article referenced by Spiral:

http://tinyurl.com/6n5p2g9

What is happening with the negotiations? Why haven't we
heard much about them? Are they currently underway? What
are the main issues? Is there a serious possibility that
next season may be lost?

Inquiring minds want to know!

- Gary

[Professor]

This might answer some of your questions.

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/null/6650792/story.html

Professor

[Keith Keller]

On 2012-05-20, Professor <jay...@telus.net> wrote:
> This might answer some of your questions.
>
> http://www.theprovince.com/sports/null/6650792/story.html

"Basically he's saying the players have no more patience for teams
in poor markets and poorly run franchises, and are sick of handing the
league money to bail out poor ownership decisions."

If that's the case, prepare for contraction. Is that really what the
NHLPA wants, Steve Fehr, brother of management-buster Donald Fehr?

Many of us would love to see contraction, of course!

--keith


--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Spiral]

Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2012-05-20, Professor <jay...@telus.net> wrote:
>> This might answer some of your questions.
>>
>> http://www.theprovince.com/sports/null/6650792/story.html
>
> "Basically he's saying the players have no more patience for teams
> in poor markets and poorly run franchises, and are sick of handing the
> league money to bail out poor ownership decisions."
>
> If that's the case, prepare for contraction. Is that really what the
> NHLPA wants, Steve Fehr, brother of management-buster Donald Fehr?
>
> Many of us would love to see contraction, of course!
>
> --keith
>
>

Just curious, how far apart are the contractions?

[foamy]

Gary wrote:

> What is happening with the negotiations? Why haven't we
>heard much about them? Are they currently underway?

The current cba doesn't expire until mid Sept, so no negotiations.
Both sides had the option to put a sock in it, and the current cba
would be extended for a year. But they both also had the option to
give notice that they wanted to negotiate a new deal, which the NHL
did. I think I heard about it early this past week.

What
>are the main issues? Is there a serious possibility that
>next season may be lost?

I'd say bet the exactor Yes, to You Betcha, to For Sure.

Bettman got taken to the cleaners in this current cba, and the
owners will be screaming not to let it happen again. The players
share of revenue is out of whack. The floor is killing many teams
and they're losing bundles each year. There's no way to split the
contracts of traded players making hefty $$$, and restricts player
movement. Hockey trades have become a thing of memories. And
much more.

My biggest wishes, which won't happen of course, are a reduction
of the maximum active player rosters from 20 to 18, the elimination
of guaranteed contracts and shove the cap back up Bettman's bum.

>- Gary

Jim

[Keith Keller]

On 2012-05-21, foamy <bomb...@wahs.ac> wrote:
>
> The current cba doesn't expire until mid Sept, so no negotiations.

The official NHLPA line is that Fehr needed to consult with his members
before negotiations start, which can't happen till after the Cup is
awarded. So look for negotiations to start in late June or July. I
think it'll become obvious fairly quickly whether there's any hope for a
12-13 season or not.

> My biggest wishes, which won't happen of course, are a reduction
> of the maximum active player rosters from 20 to 18, the elimination
> of guaranteed contracts and shove the cap back up Bettman's bum.

Why would you reduce roster sizes? Why not reduce the number of players
in the NHL by contraction instead? Neither of these will happen as you
say, but I feel like many teams roll four lines enough that cutting even
two bench spots would not be so great. And with 16 skaters, how do you
set up your lines? Do you dress only two pair of D? Three forward
lines and an extra forward? Three forward lines, two defensive pairs,
and an extra of each? Or, in Philadelphia's case, three forward lines,
two D pairs, and four goalies?

When I play in my league, I am eternally grateful when we can play three
lines. NHL players take *way* more abuse than we do. I don't think
making them skate more helps their health (or the game). Contraction
simultaneously reduces the number of players in the NHL and gets rid of
some franchises which are a drag on the league's finances.

[Big Bobby Clobber]

On 20/05/2012 7:00 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>
> When I play in my league, I am eternally grateful when we can play three
> lines. NHL players take *way* more abuse than we do. I don't think
> making them skate more helps their health (or the game).

Well, in the old days, there 1.) Fewer teams 2.) Fewer players/team and
3.) the game moved at a much more leisurely pace. But for all that, some
would argue that the old game provided much more opportunity to showcase
the pure skill of stickhandling, passing, and shooting.

For myself, I honestly don't enjoy it, and I can't really watch very
much of today's kind of game before becoming completely bored. Yes, it
moves at a break-neck pace (literally), but it is basically about a 10:1
or maybe even 20:1 mix, with the "10" or "20" being essentially
incoherent, dump-and-chase, chip-the-puck-out-to-center-ice, bang people
into the boards, shit-hockey that provides no aesthetic pleasure
whatsoever, compared with the "1" of coherent skating, passing and/or
stickhandling, leading to some kind of scoring opportunity.

It really is much more like pro wrestling than it is like skillful
athleticism. And that's why I've basically quit watching NHL hockey.

Joe

[Gary]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:14:42 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2012-05-20, Professor <jay...@telus.net> wrote:
>> This might answer some of your questions.
>>
>> http://www.theprovince.com/sports/null/6650792/story.html
>
> "Basically he's saying the players have no more patience for teams
> in poor markets and poorly run franchises, and are sick of handing the
> league money to bail out poor ownership decisions."
>
> If that's the case, prepare for contraction. Is that really what the
> NHLPA wants, Steve Fehr, brother of management-buster Donald Fehr?

I suspect some of the NHLPA - the top 80 percent or so,
wouldn't mind it. They could expect to keep their jobs and
get a salary increase, too. The bottom 20 percent, though,
faced with losing their jobs, wouldn't be too crazy about
the idea.

> Many of us would love to see contraction, of course!

Starting with the Rangers! Why the hell do you need three
teams in one state anyways!

- Gary

[Gary]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 01:47:45 GMT, foamy wrote:

> Gary wrote:
>
>> What is happening with the negotiations? Why haven't we
>>heard much about them? Are they currently underway?
>
> The current cba doesn't expire until mid Sept, so no negotiations.
> Both sides had the option to put a sock in it, and the current cba
> would be extended for a year. But they both also had the option to
> give notice that they wanted to negotiate a new deal, which the NHL
> did. I think I heard about it early this past week.
>
> What
>>are the main issues? Is there a serious possibility that
>>next season may be lost?
>
> I'd say bet the exactor Yes, to You Betcha, to For Sure.

<g>

> Bettman got taken to the cleaners in this current cba, and the
> owners will be screaming not to let it happen again.

Did you read Gallagher's column referenced by Professor?:

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/null/6650792/story.html

Gallagher seems to be saying that the players got
short-changed in the last agreement.

> The players
> share of revenue is out of whack.

57%? I don't know. After all, nobody is paying a hundred
bucks to watch the Aquilinis.

> The floor is killing many teams
> and they're losing bundles each year.

The players seem to be saying to the owners: increase your
revenue sharing.

> There's no way to split the
> contracts of traded players making hefty $$$, and restricts player
> movement. Hockey trades have become a thing of memories. And
> much more.
>
> My biggest wishes, which won't happen of course, are a reduction
> of the maximum active player rosters from 20 to 18, the elimination
> of guaranteed contracts and shove the cap back up Bettman's bum.

Back before the cap was introduced, weren't we all
complaining that the big money teams - Colorado, Detroit
etc. - were scooping up all the players making it difficult
for even teams like Vancouver to compete, much less
Edmonton?

Granted, with the rise of the Canadian dollar, Canadian
teams are in a much better position than they were. But, in
general, I don't have a problem with a salary cap that gives
every team a more-or-less equal chance to compete.

- Gary

[Gary]

Thanks for that, Prof. Not what I wanted to hear, but I
found it strange that so little has been said about these
upcoming negotiations.

- Gary

[Keith Keller]

Shut up, jerk!

[reno]

I thought owners got the cap they were looking for.

[Gary]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 21:37:44 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2012-05-21, Gary <Gary.The....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:14:42 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
>>
>>> Many of us would love to see contraction, of course!
>>
>> Starting with the Rangers! Why the hell do you need three
>> teams in one state anyways!
>
> Shut up, jerk!
>
> --keith

And somewhere there is a Columbus Blue Jacket fan who is
saying the same to you about your idea of contracting his
team out of existence. ; )

- Gary

[Keith Keller]

On 2012-05-21, Gary <Gary.The....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And somewhere there is a Columbus Blue Jacket fan who is
> saying the same to you about your idea of contracting his
> team out of existence. ; )

I bet there are at least nine Blue Jacket fans worldwide. You
underestimate their numbers at your peril.

Seriously, folks, I think the team(s) that should be contracted first
are the Coyotes and Islanders. The former simply because their drama
has gone on long enough, and the latter beause they're the most poorly
run franchise in the league, with no hope of recovery any time soon. I
know that Columbus isn't exactly having Detroit-like success, but I also
feel like they have a marginally better chance of getting their act
together. If they can't in a few seasons, then fold their sorry asses
too.

I think that even with two fewer teams the NHL would be significantly
better off, so that the next team in trouble could consider relocating
instead of folding. But I wouldn't object to folding a few more teams
either; 24 teams seems about the right number at this time.

[Spiral]

Can I get a rimshot?
<tap> <tap> Is this thing on?

[foamy]

reno wrote:

>I thought owners got the cap they were looking for.

The first thing to remember is Bettman and his inner circle, the likes
of Jeremy Jacobs, control almost every meaningful decision, and the
new owners relatively new to the league, have only the illusion of
participating in a significant manner.

The most powerful Bettman ally is Phillip Anschutz of the Anschutz
Group. What Phillip wants, Phillip gets, in exchange for supporting
the Count.

One of Bettman's selling points for the CBA, which he repeated like
a parrot with Tourette, was COST CERTAINTY *squawk*, *cost certainty
*squawk*........ How did that work out Bettman ?

The biggest bonehead move Bettman made, was when the nhlpa offered
to fix the cap at 39 mill for the length of the agreement, he opted to go with
the floating cap. How did that work out Bettman ?

Jim

[Marsh]

On May 22, 12:35 pm, bombel...@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:
> reno wrote:
> >I thought owners got the cap they were looking for.
>

> The biggest bonehead move Bettman made, was when the nhlpa offered
> to fix the cap at 39 mill for the length of the agreement, he opted to go with
> the floating cap. How did that work out Bettman ?
>
> Jim

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/feature/featureStory?page=nhlcba

AFAIK the NHLPA's lowest offer was 49 million. Also it's not the cap
that's the problem, it's the floor. What was the NHLPA's position on
a floor?

But whatever...how many cities actually want hockey and whose fans can
actually anticipate where the puck is going to go? The original
mistake was expanding to crap markets.

m

[foamy]

Marsh wrote:


>http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/feature/featureStory?page=3Dnhlcba

Thanks a lot for this link Marsh. I haven't had time to read it yet, but it
will provide some inneresting nuggets I'm sure.

>AFAIK the NHLPA's lowest offer was 49 million. Also it's not the cap
>that's the problem, it's the floor. What was the NHLPA's position on
>a floor?

I'm sure it was reported at 39 mill. I just heard Shannon and McCown
refer to it a week or so ago when the topic of another possible lockout
was discussed.

With respect to the floor, I can't say with any degree of certainty, but
memory tells me the nhlpa wanted X% [ mid 50's ? ] of the league revenue,
a hard cap, but a soft floor. I'm not exactly sure how that would work, I
imagine through the escrow system where the players would receive
much more in return that they contributed.

Jim