Predict the start of the next NHL season

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

I'll say January 2005. The egos on both sides will have strutted and saved face and the business of fleecing the public can resume.

[blny]

M. said:

I'll say January 2005. The egos on both sides will have strutted and saved face and the business of fleecing the public can resume.

I agree about the start date, but not necessarily the motives behind it.

[Goldthorpe]

The season will start on time. A new CBA will be signed at the last minute.

[TheHabsfan]

I really, really, really, really want them to start on schedule, mostly because I have tickets to the MTL - BOS game here in Moncton ;D and it would be my first live experience...

But, I have this bad feeling that it won't happen...which is why I voted for Jan 2005.

I hope my gutt is wrong!
THF

[insomnius]

M. said:

I'll say January 2005. The egos on both sides will have strutted and saved face and the business of fleecing the public can resume.

Yep.

[cigarviper]

It'll go down to the wire, the eleventh hour, however you want to put it. There's way too much money at stake for both sides. The loss of a third of the season for some franchises will be disastrous to the point of collapse. Surviving franchises will not be willing to pay out to help others less fortunate. Let's face it, they're as greedy as or more than anyone. I suspect the league will give more concessions in the end than the players will. That's my guess.

[franko]

franko said:

I think a better thread would be: when will the season start? (January 15, if there is one)

More optimistic people predict 2005. If not by January next year, then the following year (we've gone this far, may as well fight it out to the bitter end!").

And while contraction is not the answer it may be the result of cause/effect of the strike/lock-out/whatever it is.

Which will make Buttman happy: two years following he can announce expansion to Portland and Honolulu

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

And while contraction is not the answer it may be the result of cause/effect of the strike/lock-out/whatever it is.

Which will make Buttman happy: two years following he can announce expansion to Portland and Honolulu

Do you really think moving beyond the Original 30 is advisable?

[franko]

M. said:

Do you really think moving beyond the Original 30 is advisable?

I'm thinking that the original 30 will be the original 28 is all is said and done, but that there will soon be 2 Conferences: Eastern and Western. I can see it now: Stanley Cup finals, 2012, Montreal vrs Minsk in a best of 9 (after all, there's money to be found in them thar playoffs!)

[Skilly]

It will be a matter of who blinks first. Both sides put their line in the sand way to deep for this to be settled by January. It will get settled in the summer of 2005 when governments, players, and management hold a hockey summit (Gretzky and Lemieux propose it) and a contract is ironed out.

[HabeasCorpus]

An interesting poll which leads me to ask a few questions myself. By everything I’ve heard and read, if the NHL season starts on time, it’ll be nothing short of miraculous. It’s fairly obvious that both the owners and the union really do believe in their respective positions. The war chest, overseas contracts and media rhetoric aren’t all for nothing. This has the potential to be a real battle, a real test of strength and solidarity. In the end, I really do believe this will come down to someone winning and someone losing, not a win-win situation/compromise. Who will last longer is anyone’s guess, there are many wild cards that could sway, spoil or otherwise hugely affect the ultimate outcome.

If the NHL season doesn’t start on time, and the players who’ve signed to play in other leagues depart for a season’s worth of contractual obligations abroad, I have to wonder if those same players negotiated escape clauses in the event that the NHL labor dispute is resolved at some point during their seasons. If a professional team has signed a player for a full season, I would assume that they have reasonable expectations that the player in question will be their property for an entire season. Beyond not having to pay such players for the remaining time on their contracts, I don’t think it would be unreasonable for those teams to seek some sort of damages, beyond the above referenced financial relief, from players who break their contracts early. After all, it’s entirely possible that Russian hockey fans are looking forward to watching Jose and his fellow band of NHL Ex-Pats (and possibly paying higher ticket prices to support the extra salaries taken on by their favorite teams) play hockey on their home ice next season. My big question is simply, would the NHLPA, with so many high profile players ostensibly playing in other leagues next year, be willing to resume a season in January when it could cause such unprecedented legal ramifications for their personnel? I have to wonder, and I’d also have to guess that even if the owners decided that their own responsible management is the key to a lower salary structure in the NHL by January, the NHLPA would be in a precarious situation at best. If the union ratified an agreement, how would that impact so many players, marquee players, playing in other leagues, and how would the NHL deal with that? I do not foresee an NHL season in ‘04-‘05. I wonder which side Mario is on?

[habmeister]

I say december 2004, but there wasn't that option. I don't think october, but don't think january 2005 either.

[oldhabsfan]

So much depends on what the average player thinks
about

(1) how many teams will fold if there's a long lockout, and what effect that will have on player salaries.

(1) what the effect of a long lockout will be on the fans.

I have a nasty feeling that the average player thinks that it's the weak teams that can't pay high salaries
that will go under, that most teams are lying about their finances, that fans are suckers and will always be there shelling out, that some other guy will get the chop and he'll be fine.

[PTH]

I think it'll be either january 2005 or january 2006. Essentially, january is the latest in a year when you can start a "decent" season, and it's only the pressure of saving a season that'll make either side comprise. To show that they're serious both sides won't back down for january 2005 so I have to guess it'll be Jan 2006.

So, let's enjoy this world Cup. It's all were gonna have for quite a while IMO.

[Montrealer]

I voted October 2004, by the by. I think it'll be over before January, at the very least.

I think the idea of a lockout lasting a full season is insane, but I suppose anything is possible. I guess if the NHL and NHLPA were committed to setting some sort of impossible-to-duplicate record in sports labour relations breakdowns, they'll go for a full year.

Edit: The current record is 7.5 months, August 11, 1994 to April 25, 1995, between the MLB and the MLBPA.

Of course, once they lost the '94 season there wasn't much pressure to do anything before the next spring - and remember, the owners were ready to go with replacement players if necessary.

I know the owners cannot use replacement players if the NHL imposes a lockout - right? So that's additional pressure for them; the pressure on the NHLPA will come from the lower ranks once they realize they need their salary to pay off their mortgages/sports cars/bookies (gratuitous JR reference).

[Skilly]

I wonder how long the owners can go, before they are legally within their rights to

1) use replacement players (juniors, overseas, etc.)
2) close up shop and start a new league or join the WHA

Or just buy-out all contracts on the books, and start from scratch ..... sure it would be a big hit now, but think of what it could save you in the long run.

[Skilly]

I just read on the ticker on theScore thatthe NHL owners are considering forming a new league. I hope there is a story out there on the net about this ..... I guess that answers my question.

If this happens they can always revery back to the National Hockey Association.

[franko]

Skilly said:

I just read on the ticker on theScore thatthe NHL owners are considering forming a new league.

I have a piece of -- a great piece of land to sell you. Call me: 1-800-YARIGHT

[Skilly]

franko said:

I have a piece of -- a great piece of land to sell you. Call me: 1-800-YARIGHT

Only telling you what I read.

Never said it was going to happen.

[moosehead2]

My guess is January 2005. Past that, we can all kiss the season and the playoffs good bye.

The only year the Stanley Cup wasn't won by any team was 1918-19. The series were halted after 5 games by the Spanish influenza epidemic. Several players on both teams (Montreal Canadians and Seattle Metropolitans) were ill and Joe Hall of the Montreal Canadiens died of the flu.

Besides that year, the Stanley Cup playoffs have always been played in full even through two world wars. Let's hope the 2004-05 playoffs won't be added to this sad statistic just because of a stupid work stoppage with the players' average salary being well over $1.5M per season.

[seventeen]

A full year. It will take that long for the players to run out of money after failing to adjust their life style. Some owners will crash and burn, but the others, being rich beyond our wildest dreams, will notice it as much as a flea bite. The loss of a few owners will solve the contraction problem as well as cutting jobs, putting yet more pressure on the players. I give it one year for these effects to take place. Once players realize that they're living like the rest of us and it used to be so nice they'll capitulate, the union will disband and Goodenow will be tarred and feathered. That should be interesting.....I haven't seen a good tar and feather job since HA had his driveway asphalted and chased those chickens onto it. Some kind of voodoo rite.

[Cranky]

seventeen said:

.....I haven't seen a good tar and feather job since HA had his driveway asphalted and chased those chickens onto it. Some kind of voodoo rite.

What? What voodoo thing? You never heard of Chicken aux Tar-tar?

As for people who think that we are just easy meat to be fought over, which we let ourselves be, they will get their muddy claws into us again after Christmas.

[MC Habber]

Scott Taylor on The Score just said that at least 12 owners are prepared to wait "forever" for the players to capitulate - Bettman only needs 8 owners for the lockout to continue. He said that, optimistically, the next season might start in February 2006. This is a guy who always seems to know what he's talking about, so I'm questioning my earlier opinion that they'd get a deal done by the summer if not by January.

[Skilly]

MC said:

Scott Taylor on The Score just said that at least 12 owners are prepared to wait "forever" for the players to capitulate - Bettman only needs 8 owners for the lockout to continue. He said that, optimistically, the next season might start in February 2006. This is a guy who always seems to know what he's talking about, so I'm questioning my earlier opinion that they'd get a deal done by the summer if not by January.

On "The National" the other night Bettman explained that the above statement is wrong. He doesn't need 8 owners for the lockout to continue because if the majority vote in favour of a deal then the deal will be accepted.

He explained where the 8 votes came from, I believe he said that any attempts by the NHL board of governors to settle the CBA, without Bettmen's approval, would require 75% consensus. (which is 22.5 out of 20, or 8 votes Bettman's way to reject)

But if Bettman approves of the deal, then only a majority is need to ratify.

Hmmmm Do you see a difference? I don't see a difference! Buy CBA!

[MC Habber]

So then "Bettman only needs 8 owners for the lockout to continue" is correct assuming that Bettman himself supports the lockout (which is implied)?

[Skilly]

MC said:

So then "Bettman only needs 8 owners for the lockout to continue" is correct assuming that Bettman himself supports the lockout (which is implied)?

Which is why I said "Do you see the difference, I don't see the difference". Bettman said it was wrong and then proceeded to explain it and basically said the same thing.

[MC Habber]

Skilly said:

Which is why I said "Do you see the difference, I don't see the difference". Bettman said it was wrong and then proceeded to explain it and basically said the same thing.

Now I understand, I think.

[PTH]

Skilly said:

Which is why I said "Do you see the difference, I don't see the difference". Bettman said it was wrong and then proceeded to explain it and basically said the same thing.

Well, the difference is just that it's 8 owners to be able to refuse a deal, what happens if there's another proposal out, such as still operating under the old CBA for a little while, while talks are ongoing ?

[jkr]

MC said:

Scott Taylor on The Score just said that at least 12 owners are prepared to wait "forever" for the players to capitulate - Bettman only needs 8 owners for the lockout to continue. He said that, optimistically, the next season might start in February 2006. This is a guy who always seems to know what he's talking about, so I'm questioning my earlier opinion that they'd get a deal done by the summer if not by January.

I can't share your opinion about Scott Taylor. I have heard him make factual errors during broadcasts. He comes across to me as an opinionated know it all.


I am hoping for January 2005 but voted for October 2006. This battle of egos will drag on for a while and neither side wants to look "weak" and agree to something by January 2004.

[Toronthab]

I have the dismal sense that you are right about that. Hamilton is looking closer to Toronto than ever before. I'm such a hockey slut...