'Ere we go again? (NHL Owners dislike new CBA)

[SirFozzie]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jim_kelley/01/10/cba.legalese.notes/index.html

So, they become the only major sport to shut down for a full season, get a 24% rollback of salary from the players.. and they STILL fucked things up. I wouldn't be surprised to see yet another lockout at the first opportunity. What a band of morons.

Fire Bettman. Disband the league.. do something..

[astrosfan64]

I love hockey, what are they doing to my sport. That article and the situation is confusing to me.

[Passacaglia]

They should hook up with Isaiah Thomas. I hear he's great at getting rid of CBAs.

[SirFozzie]

A) Because of the rule in CBA that Group 1 Restricted Free Agents can't be extended, they are getting STUPID money from owners (Mike Richards gets a 12 year deal, Alexander Ovechkin got like a 13 year, $124 million deal (and remember, NHL Deals are pretty much guaranteed, it's not like the NFL).

B) Owners thought that after the NHLPA pretty much disintegrated after the season long lockout, that they had the whip hand, and could lower ticket prices to bring fans back.. but the rising costs has actually forced teams to RAISE prices.

C) The players have a majority on the Competition Committee, and it reports to the Commissioner, not to the GM's, so any rule changes that might have a chance to bring in more fans (widening goals, etcetera), get struck down by the players (the former right hand man of the Commish says it's "Back Asswards" that the players have input into how the game should be played, that should tell you a lot about how fucked up this bunch are)

D) The NHL is not growing. Any growth they have is a mirage due to the strength of the Canadian Dollar.

E) The players are ready to fight with ownership over international competition. (The players want to play in the olympics and world cup events, the ownership of course, say no fucking way)

[astrosfan64]

A) Because of the rule in CBA that Group 1 Restricted Free Agents can't be extended, they are getting STUPID money from owners (Mike Richards gets a 12 year deal, Alexander Ovechkin got like a 13 year, $124 million deal (and remember, NHL Deals are pretty much guaranteed, it's not like the NFL).

B) Owners thought that after the NHLPA pretty much disintegrated after the season long lockout, that they had the whip hand, and could lower ticket prices to bring fans back.. but the rising costs has actually forced teams to RAISE prices.

C) The players have a majority on the Competition Committee, and it reports to the Commissioner, not to the GM's, so any rule changes that might have a chance to bring in more fans (widening goals, etcetera), get struck down by the players (the former right hand man of the Commish says it's "Back Asswards" that the players have input into how the game should be played, that should tell you a lot about how fucked up this bunch are)

D) The NHL is not growing. Any growth they have is a mirage due to the strength of the Canadian Dollar.

E) The players are ready to fight with ownership over international competition. (The players want to play in the olympics and world cup events, the ownership of course, say no fucking way)

Thanks for the breakdown. Though as a Flyers fan, I love Richards and I'm happy he is going to be there for a while, but I do see the problem with that.

[Draft Dodger]

the NHL owners are idiots

[SirFozzie]

Oh.. here's the ticking time bomb. The players think that any expansion fees should be counted as revenue. For the owners, this is their one chance at a windfall (again, with no growth, they want their hands on every dime they can get).. and this is the section from that article.

The players also don't like the fact that should the NHL opt to expand, they get no part of the proceeds from expansion fees. Kelly said the players see that as hockey-related revenue, but it is not part of the swag they have a documented right to and that could be a huge problem down the road.

"Clearly, the NHL would like to consider going to 32 (teams) and there's a strong financial reason for them to do so," Kelly said. "We don't have that financial reason because the current CBA doesn't work in our favor as far as sharing revenue, which I have issues with.

"Even if we don't share in the revenues (from expansion), which I again have a problem with, we should at least be consulted well in advance of whether there should be expansion, and if so to what cities. . . . The way we left [it] with the NHL, it's obviously not going to be happening next year. When they're ready to make a proposal, we'll sit down and hash it out before any of it becomes public. But we haven't reached that point yet."

[Pumpy Tudors]

lol "a strong financial reason" to expand

I love the NHL, and for me, pro football is the only sport that can compete with it as far as pure entertainment. Still, unless I see some pretty compelling evidence, anyone who thinks the NHL should consider expansion is just plain out of their tree.

[Fidatelo]

Doesn't the NHLPA stand to gain about 50+ members if the league adds two more teams? Isn't that incentive?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Doesn't the NHLPA stand to gain about 50+ members if the league adds two more teams? Isn't that incentive?
Oh, that's right. A strong financial reason for the players. Point taken.

[Fidatelo]

Oh, that's right. A strong financial reason for the players. Point taken.

That is a reason for the players. The more jobs there are, the longer you can extend a career, or stay in the league. Wouldn't every journeyman see a benefit? Or every aging star that wants to hang on for a couple more years? More jobs is always good for employees.

[Pumpy Tudors]

That is a reason for the players. The more jobs there are, the longer you can extend a career, or stay in the league. Wouldn't every journeyman see a benefit? Or every aging star that wants to hang on for a couple more years? More jobs is always good for employees.
Right, I see exactly what you're saying. The thing is, the quote came from NHLPA rep Paul Kelly. He's saying that the league has a strong financial reason to consider expansion, but the players don't (at least not under the current agreement). Unless I'm missing something, that's ludicrous. Why in the world would the NHL have a strong financial reason for expanding right now? Does the NHL really need another Florida or Columbus? I'm not really sure what the league gets out of it, particularly if there's already the possibility of another lockout looming.

[bob]

Here's your financial reason (numbers made up). $300 million / team, $600 million total, split 30 ways, each team gets $20 million.

[RomaGoth]

lol "a strong financial reason" to expand

I love the NHL, and for me, pro football is the only sport that can compete with it as far as pure entertainment. Still, unless I see some pretty compelling evidence, anyone who thinks the NHL should consider expansion is just plain out of their tree.

I agree with both of these points. At an earlier point in my life I was all about the NHL. I lived it and breathed it. I even overcame the obvious poor play from a watered-down league; i.e. holding, clutching, grabbing, and neutral zone traps. The lockout turned me off from the sport for nearly 3 years. I have just recently become interested in it again. If there is another strike or lockout in the NHL, I am waving goodbye to it forever. :mad:

[RomaGoth]

Oh.. here's the ticking time bomb. The players think that any expansion fees should be counted as revenue. For the owners, this is their one chance at a windfall (again, with no growth, they want their hands on every dime they can get).. and this is the section from that article.

"Clearly, the NHL would like to consider going to 32 (teams) and there's a strong financial reason for them to do so," Kelly said. "We don't have that financial reason because the current CBA doesn't work in our favor as far as sharing revenue, which I have issues with.

Wow. Yes, this is exactly what we need. Two more teams in an already watered-down league. Instead of expanding, the NHL needs to cut out some teams. I can name at least 6-10 teams that should just go away forever. This has nothing to do with my being a fan of an original six team (Red Wings). Rather, it is about the integrity of a great game that under the stewardship of Bob Good-now-he-is-gone (Goodenow) and Gary Bettman has completely become a money grabbing league with no regard for the fans or the rich history of the sport. This all just makes me sick. If the NHL cannot see past it's own wallets, then it deserves to go down in flames just like the WHL and USFL. :mad:

[spleen1015]

I realized how far the NHL has fallen when Fox Sports radio updated me on the state of Ryan Doumit's injury and ended the sports update with "To see NHL scores, visit FoxSports.com."

[Young Drachma]

I wish that takeover fund that wanted to buy the whole league would've gotten to do that. It would've been a lot better in terms of saving the league from itself. Ugh.

[miami_fan]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the owners bust the union when they locked them out? I mean the union had to basically surrender and take this deal that the owners wrote, right?

[SirFozzie]

yup, which makes their bitching even more ridiculous. They pretty much wrote the deal.. AND THEY STILL CAN'T MAKE IT WORK!

[bhlloy]

As usual Bettman papers over the cracks. The teams needs to contract 2 teams, not expand FFS. But like somebody mentioned above, the extra $$ per team will allow them to be profitable for a couple of years, so the future be damned!

And when we are stuck with another 2 lame duck teams and talent has been washed out even futher, who the hell knows?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'd be happy with expansion if they get rid of the instigator rule. There are some bumbling oafs out there who need work, and if every team can carry a real goon again, I'm all for it.

Also, Passacaglia's comment about Isiah Thomas was great.

[TurnerONU22]

I would be completely fine with expansion, if they pick good markets. As a fan of the Jackets, I would say Bettman did a good job with the LAST 2 choices. Minnesota was a no-brainer, but Columbus was a perfect selection. A town with no other major league sports to compete with, but a town who came out in droves to minor-league hockey and college sports. Winter weather that isn't 60 degrees. When this team actually wins some games and makes it to the playoffs, watch out.

They need to place another team in Canada, and somewhere else in the US that fits (Northwest area? I'm not sold on Vegas, I might be on KC, but I don't know enough about the city to know if it would be a LONG-TERM solution).

[bhlloy]

If one team goes into the Hamilton, ON area and one into Kansas City then I guess I could live with it. The NHL in Vegas would just be a confirmation of the league's joke status.

Nobody has put forward a viable answer to talent dilutation though. There aren't enough stars to go around as is.

[stevew]

They should hook up with Isaiah Thomas. I hear he's great at getting rid of CBAs.

awesome