The NHLPA gave up a lot last time, but it didn't necessarily screw the players out either. Player salaries are more now than before the lockout and, barring some radical consequence of the lockout, they will continue to grow. Sure taking a paycut sucks, but if your company is losing money, you can shut down, which hurts the PA, fire employees which isn't an option, or cut pay. But by not taking the paycut, they risk losing even more money. After the last lockout players basically unanimously said it wasn't worth it. THey lost money they'd never get back. I fail to see how this one will be any different.
- rmdevil313

HRR is up so high, thus allowing large player salaries, because the fans support it. Fans pay their hard earned money to see their favorite teams and players play; not to fund the owners exorbitant lifestyles. And it doesn't matter if the owners pay the big money for the teams. It's like any business to me; don't outspend your revenues. If the previous CBA forced some clubs to do that then make adjustments to the system or look at how those individual clubs are run. They can't keep coming back to the players asking them to fund low revenue clubs.

That's on both sides... (frank) them for wasting so much time.
- evitageN

I do understand that Fehr needed to meet with the players to find out what issues were important to them and how hard they wanted to fight for certain things. That takes time. Then they needed to develop a negotiating strategy to get what they wanted. I still feel like they could have begun earlier but we all know how negotiations rarely progress without the threat of deadlines.

The NHLPA gave up a lot last time, but it didn't necessarily screw the players out either. Player salaries are more now than before the lockout and, barring some radical consequence of the lockout, they will continue to grow. Sure taking a paycut sucks, but if your company is losing money, you can shut down, which hurts the PA, fire employees which isn't an option, or cut pay. But by not taking the paycut, they risk losing even more money. After the last lockout players basically unanimously said it wasn't worth it. THey lost money they'd never get back. I fail to see how this one will be any different.
- rmdevil313

That's one of the biggest misconceptions. The NHL is not losing money.

Then he should have started negotiating before september.
- rmdevil313

That's a legitimate criticism that the NHLPA delayed starting negotiations. But that doesn't change what Fehr's job is.

Irrelevant as long as the value of the team goes up. That's where the real money is in owning sports teams. If franchise value goes down or remains static and you aren't turning a profit you might want to look at how your organization is run and consider whether you made a wise business investment.
- gkmkiller

Well said.

Irrelevant as long as the value of the team goes up. That's where the real money is in owning sports teams. If franchise value goes down or remains static and you aren't turning a profit you might want to look at how your organization is run and consider whether you made a wise business investment.
- gkmkiller

But if teams are losing more money than their value rises...

That's on both sides... (frank) them for wasting so much time.
- evitageN

Fehr declined, saying he needed to get to know the players. Reasonable response, but for a year?

That's one of the biggest misconceptions. The NHL is not losing money.
- MJL

As a whole no, and I do think increased revenue sharing and/or allowing teams to trade part of contracts needs to be part of this CBA. I do not think that 18 NHL teams are losing money either. That said, I think there are more than a few that are. I haven't looked at the numbers, but its hard for me to imagine some franchises not losing money.

That's a legitimate criticism that the NHLPA delayed starting negotiations. But that doesn't change what Fehr's job is.
- MJL

Agreed. Fehr is one of the best at his job, but I'm not so sure this fight fits him. 04-05 maybe, but I really don't get why the players are want to try to battle this one out.

Agreed. Fehr is one of the best at his job, but I'm not so sure this fight fits him. 04-05 maybe, but I really don't get why the players are want to try to battle this one out.
- rmdevil313

because they don't want to give back a dime of the contracts the owners were signing them to up until midnight the last date the old CBA expired.

That's what it's going to take to get this done, because I don't think Fehr/players are backing off on that.

Ultimately they'll go to court and show the owners are bargaining in bad faith before they agree to that.

The fact that the owners dismissed three player proposals within 10 minutes the other day plays right into Fehr's hands re:court battle. No considering them, nothing. Still surpised Bettman did that without at least pretending to consider them for 24 hours and then outright rejecting them.

because they don't want to give back a dime of the contracts the owners were signing them to up until midnight the last date the old CBA expired.

That's what it's going to take to get this done, because I don't think Fehr/players are backing off on that.

Ultimately they'll go to court and show the owners are bargaining in bad faith before they agree to that.

The fact that the owners dismissed three player proposals within 10 minutes the other day plays right into Fehr's hands re:court battle. No considering them, nothing. Still surpised Bettman did that without at least pretending to consider them for 24 hours and then outright rejecting them.
- jimbro83

The bottom line is the reason for the 3 proposals given by the players was to get feedback from the League. It's saying okay, we need to get to 50/50 somehow while honoring current deals in place. So here's 3 ways or suggestions in doing that. Then the NHL can look at it. Come back with tweeks to it. And then they have a base to work off of, and they can begin to move towards an agreement. That's negotiating. Outright rejecting it after 10 minutes, is not negotiating. And is just going to prolong the lockout.

The bottom line is the reason for the 3 proposals given by the players was to get feedback from the League. It's saying okay, we need to get to 50/50 somehow while honoring current deals in place. So here's 3 ways or suggestions in doing that. Then the NHL can look at it. Come back with tweeks to it. And then they have a base to work off of, and they can begin to move towards an agreement. That's negotiating. Outright rejecting it after 10 minutes, is not negotiating. And is just going to prolong the lockout.
- MJL

that's exactly right

Fehr is way too smart to even entertain the owners take it or leave it approach.

The owners are going to have to negotiate. This week is obviously going to determine a lot.

that's exactly right

Fehr is way too smart to even entertain the owners take it or leave it approach.

The owners are going to have to negotiate. This week is obviously going to determine a lot.
- jimbro83

Fehr's greatest weapon is to win an unfair labor practice suit, and if Bettman continues to provide the ammo by not negotiating, that's exactly what will happen. Problem is, we'll most certainly need to lose the season for that to happen.
'

Fehr's greatest weapon is to win an unfair labor practice suit, and if Bettman continues to provide the ammo by not negotiating, that's exactly what will happen. Problem is, we'll most certainly need to lose the season for that to happen.
'
- OLDSCHOOL#6

yep, definitely everything I am afraid of

yep, definitely everything I am afraid of
- jimbro83

It's how he beat the baseball owners, and we all know how long that took. Sad part is, I don't think he's even looking to beat the owners, he's just trying to get something his rank and file can live with and still have a some self respect left.

It's how he beat the baseball owners, and we all know how long that took. Sad part is, I don't think he's even looking to beat the owners, he's just trying to get something his rank and file can live with and still have a some self respect left.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

Fehr and the players have known all along that they're going to have to give up future salary. Fehr's job is to limit the damage and insure that current contracts are honored. I don't see him as being anxious to play this out in the courts. As that would be counter productive to getting a deal done. He wants the players back playing in the NHL as much as we do.

Money they agreed to pay under the rules of the last cba. If the players want these contracts guaranteed they should negotiate a grandfathering clause into the CBA's. Yes owners want money. If you spent nearly 200 million dollars to buy a team, only to not turn a profit, what would you do?
- rmdevil313

If I spent 200 million dollars to buy a team, only to not turn a profit, I would write off the tax loss. Then I would fire my financial advisors and approach the league to move the team.

Of course, Bettman would insist I stay in Phoenix, or Florida or Atlanta and
continue to lose money because only he thinks hockey is a viable sport there.

Then I would try to sell the team but Bettman would not allow me to sell the team to the potential owner I could get the most money from. Instead, he would insist on a new owner that offered me less than I paid for the team and continue to insist I keep my team in ...say Phoenix....which has been near the bottom of attendance in the league despite having a fairly decent record the last few years.

In these days of record revenue and revenue sharing I find it hard to believe that there are so many teams losing money. The ratio of supposed teams losing money to teams for sale is quite small....so what does that tell you?

If I spent 200 million dollars to buy a team, only to not turn a profit, I would write off the tax loss. Then I would fire my financial advisors and approach the league to move the team.

Of course, Bettman would insist I stay in Phoenix, or Florida or Atlanta and
continue to lose money because only he thinks hockey is a viable sport there.

Then I would try to sell the team but Bettman would not allow me to sell the team to the potential owner I could get the most money from. Instead, he would insist on a new owner that offered me less than I paid for the team and continue to insist I keep my team in ...say Phoenix....which has been near the bottom of attendance in the league despite having a fairly decent record the last few years.

In these days of record revenue and revenue sharing I find it hard to believe that there are so many teams losing money. The ratio of supposed teams losing money to teams for sale is quite small....so what does that tell you?
- Downeaster

That owning one of those teams is more profitable then we are led to believe?

I don't understand how Bettman wants to change the rules that were gradfathered in by the last CBA.

The minor league salaries, for one example, in excess of 110K counting against the cap should be grandfathered in for existing contracts and only new movements of players should be cap-counted.

Also, any court in the land is going to think twice about contracts signed days prior to the lapse of the previous CBA having to be cut a certain percent because the owners decided the want the additional revenue.

And, if those salaries are allowed to be cut the rumored 12 to 24 percent, why would their full, uncut salary be the one used against the cap? And....how can they attempt to reduce the cap from 70 million to 59 million after sanctioning the increase to 70 million the year before?

Fans love their teams and the players their GM's drafted and went out and traded for or signed as free agents. This reduction in cap space would kill teams that have built, within league rules, solid Stanley Cup contenders only to reward
owners that have done diddly squat for their fans and their teams. Is this all in the name of parity or is it all in the name of the almighty dollar? Look at the parity around the league with the exisiting rules.

It is time for the big market, big money teams to tell Bettman what THEY want and refuse to be driven by the small market and sucky owner teams.

That owning one of those teams is more profitable then we are led to believe?
- MJL

Ding, ding ding ding ding!

We have a winner!!!

I don't understand how Bettman wants to change the rules that were gradfathered in by the last CBA.

The minor league salaries, for one example, in excess of 110K counting against the cap should be grandfathered in for existing contracts and only new movements of players should be cap-counted.

Also, any court in the land is going to think twice about contracts signed days prior to the lapse of the previous CBA having to be cut a certain percent because the owners decided the want the additional revenue.

And, if those salaries are allowed to be cut the rumored 12 to 24 percent, why would their full, uncut salary be the one used against the cap? And....how can they attempt to reduce the cap from 70 million to 59 million after sanctioning the increase to 70 million the year before?

Fans love their teams and the players their GM's drafted and went out and traded for or signed as free agents. This reduction in cap space would kill teams that have built, within league rules, solid Stanley Cup contenders only to reward
owners that have done diddly squat for their fans and their teams. Is this all in the name of parity or is it all in the name of the almighty dollar? Look at the parity around the league with the exisiting rules.

It is time for the big market, big money teams to tell Bettman what THEY want and refuse to be driven by the small market and sucky owner teams.
- Downeaster

There's no such thing as rules being grandfathered in the last CBA. If the paycuts are taken, the full current Cap hit won't be used. They've already stated that teams will be able to be over the Cap for this year due to deals already signed, if the Upper Limit is lowered.

There's no such thing as rules being grandfathered in the last CBA. If the paycuts are taken, the full current Cap hit won't be used. They've already stated that teams will be able to be over the Cap for this year due to deals already signed, if the Upper Limit is lowered.
- MJL

Understood this is what the owners want.

However, loopholes in the prior CBA allowed teams to hide contracts signed and in effect in the PRIOR CBA to be hidden in the minors, exempt from the cap.

Now, in the new CBA, they want to count these contracts against the CBA. What I am saying is that stuff that was LEGAL under the old CBA with contracts that are still binding and in effect, should not be subject to changes under the new CBA. You have a contract signed under this CBA the "new" rules apply. You have a contract signed under the "old" CBA, those rules are still in effect against it,
ie, it's gradfathered in.

And that for one year is total BS. Many players are under long term contracts structured within the "old" CBA. What do you do with them? Buy them out? Will they offer a one year amnesty buyout so there is no cap hit?

What Bettman wants is the cake AND the crumbs. If you were to believe what Larry Brooks wrote in the Post last week, The league is about 3 million bucks per team away from having an 82 game NHL season.

Would they throw it all away for that?

Understood this is what the owners want.

However, loopholes in the prior CBA allowed teams to hide contracts signed and in effect in the PRIOR CBA to be hidden in the minors, exempt from the cap.

Now, in the new CBA, they want to count these contracts against the CBA. What I am saying is that stuff that was LEGAL under the old CBA with contracts that are still binding and in effect, should not be subject to changes under the new CBA. You have a contract signed under this CBA the "new" rules apply. You have a contract signed under the "old" CBA, those rules are still in effect against it,
ie, it's gradfathered in.

And that for one year is total BS. Many players are under long term contracts structured within the "old" CBA. What do you do with them? Buy them out? Will they offer a one year amnesty buyout so there is no cap hit?

What Bettman wants is the cake AND the crumbs. If you were to believe what Larry Brooks wrote in the Post last week, The league is about 3 million bucks per team away from having an 82 game NHL season.

Would they throw it all away for that?
- Downeaster

Rules such as being able to send a player to the AHL and not have the Cap hit count, is not included in an SPC. That is a CBA issue and not an issue contained in a players contract. The only thing in a players contract that would pertain to that is if the player has a NMC. In which case he can't be sent down without his approval. Teams the following year would have to be compliant with whatever the new UPper Limit is. I agree that it's BS, but this is Bettman's vision. And teams were well aware of that liklihood.

I find this so funny and ironic via CapGeek:

The top five #NHL lockout spenders via signing bonuses? 1. BUF $20.75M, 2 MIN $20.1M, 3. NAS $13.3375M, 4. TBL $10.59M, 5. CHI $10.2575M.

I find this so funny and ironic via CapGeek:

The top five #NHL lockout spenders via signing bonuses? 1. BUF $20.75M, 2 MIN $20.1M, 3. NAS $13.3375M, 4. TBL $10.59M, 5. CHI $10.2575M.
- mrhattrick27

Yep, becasue Bettman told them they wouldn't have to pay full value. DISGRACEFUL!