|
|
Post by blaise on May 20, 2005 12:26:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure they're talking. They seem like two groups of demonstrators waving placards at each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 22, 2005 9:15:01 GMT -5
They've already kissed a season's pay goodbye relying on Goodenow. I'd be pretty upset with him if were a player. And I certainly would not want want to miss another season. Snippets gleaned from other baords: * The NHLPA has been working with the player agents and their financial advisers for several years to prepare the players for a lengthy lockout.
*
Players prepared for long lockout:; [Final Edition]
Elliott Pap. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Sep 14, 2004. pg. E.3
Cloutier insisted the players are sold on the leadership of NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow and president Trevor Linden. He said they have been told to prepare for "at least" a two-year lockout.
"We've been talking about this for three or four years now and I think we're all prepared," Cloutier continued.
*
They [the NHLPA] have tried to get the information in the past without a good deal of success. The mid-August 2004 meetings were all about reviews of individual team financial documents but Bill Daly said it was a waste of time for the NHLPA to keep asking for the same information thay had been seeking for five years.
Similarly the four team review in 1999 and the Project Blue Fin were also attempts by the NHLPA to get at all the team financial information.
It is tough to negotiate when you cannot find the ice let alone where the nets are positioned. |
|
|
|
Post by arctic on May 23, 2005 17:38:51 GMT -5
Is it time to get interested in hockey again or should I continue to hibernate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 23, 2005 19:38:14 GMT -5
They've already kissed a season's pay goodbye relying on Goodenow. I'd be pretty upset with him if were a player. And I certainly would not want want to miss another season. Snippets gleaned from other baords: * The NHLPA has been working with the player agents and their financial advisers for several years to prepare the players for a lengthy lockout.
*
Players prepared for long lockout:; [Final Edition]
Elliott Pap. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Sep 14, 2004. pg. E.3
Cloutier insisted the players are sold on the leadership of NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow and president Trevor Linden. He said they have been told to prepare for "at least" a two-year lockout.
"We've been talking about this for three or four years now and I think we're all prepared," Cloutier continued.
*
They [the NHLPA] have tried to get the information in the past without a good deal of success. The mid-August 2004 meetings were all about reviews of individual team financial documents but Bill Daly said it was a waste of time for the NHLPA to keep asking for the same information thay had been seeking for five years.
Similarly the four team review in 1999 and the Project Blue Fin were also attempts by the NHLPA to get at all the team financial information.
It is tough to negotiate when you cannot find the ice let alone where the nets are positioned.I wonder how prepared Yzerman, Messier and Hull are for a two year lockout? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 23, 2005 20:17:42 GMT -5
Snippets gleaned from other baords: * The NHLPA has been working with the player agents and their financial advisers for several years to prepare the players for a lengthy lockout.
*
Players prepared for long lockout:; [Final Edition]
Elliott Pap. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Sep 14, 2004. pg. E.3
Cloutier insisted the players are sold on the leadership of NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow and president Trevor Linden. He said they have been told to prepare for "at least" a two-year lockout.
"We've been talking about this for three or four years now and I think we're all prepared," Cloutier continued.
*
They [the NHLPA] have tried to get the information in the past without a good deal of success. The mid-August 2004 meetings were all about reviews of individual team financial documents but Bill Daly said it was a waste of time for the NHLPA to keep asking for the same information thay had been seeking for five years.
Similarly the four team review in 1999 and the Project Blue Fin were also attempts by the NHLPA to get at all the team financial information.
It is tough to negotiate when you cannot find the ice let alone where the nets are positioned.I wonder how prepared Yzerman, Messier and Hull are for a two year lockout? Yzerman = $ 64,762,613 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 6 prior seasons unaccounted for) Messier = $ 62,185,112 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 10 prior seasons unaccounted for) Hull = $ 53,741,000 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 3 prior seasons unaccounted for) Of course, endorsement money isn't included in the above totals. I see Freedom 45 in their futures.  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 24, 2005 20:41:40 GMT -5
Both the NBA and the NFL are currently attempting to re-negotiate their respective CBAs. Both the commissioner of the NBA and the commissioner of the NFL have already said they don't want to take the path the NHL has taken, as they both feel it has been disastrous. Posted on Sun, May. 22, 2005 BUSINESS INSIDER NBA could be facing a jump-ball situationBy Jeff Caplan Star-Telegram Staff WriterNow is the time to ask if the NBA is as thickheaded as the NHL. It hadn't seemed that way until Wednesday, when what appeared to be amicable negotiations between the league and the players' association suddenly broke off and plunged into silly accusations from the leaders of both sides. Owners and players seemed to be on the verge of a new collective bargaining agreement, but now serious doubt grips the proceedings. Inexplicably, a second lockout in seven years, which would begin at midnight July 1 when the current CBA expires, looks increasingly likely. - www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/11711151.htmInteresting side-note: There are 7 NHL owners who also own NBA franchises. A two-front war is never easy. I wonder if Evil Bob knows this?  * Posted 5/24/2005 12:28 AM NFL labor: Upshaw already fears '08 woesBy Jarrett Bell, USA TODAYGene Upshaw, frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players, has a message for team owners in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday for their spring meetings: Let's get busy. "Hockey was first, then basketball. We could be next," the NFL Players Association executive director said Monday, referring to labor woes that forced the cancellation of the NHL's 2004-05 season and to an impasse in NBA talks with its labor deal expiring June 30. "It's not beyond belief that we won't get a deal done. The owners need to understand that. It's not a threat. It's the reality of where we are." The NFL had no comment. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue was unavailable to respond Monday but expressed concern in March that talks were "at a dead end" while owners were divided over a revenue-sharing model.- www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-05-24-upshaw-labor_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA* MLB seems to be a consensus lock for a protracted labour dispute after the 2006 season. * Suddenly, being an NHL fan doesn't seem so bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 25, 2005 0:25:40 GMT -5
Both the NBA and the NFL are currently attempting to re-negotiate their respective CBAs. Both the commissioner of the NBA and the commissioner of the NFL have already said they don't want to take the path the NHL has taken, as they both feel it has been disastrous. Posted on Sun, May. 22, 2005 BUSINESS INSIDER NBA could be facing a jump-ball situationBy Jeff Caplan Star-Telegram Staff WriterNow is the time to ask if the NBA is as thickheaded as the NHL. It hadn't seemed that way until Wednesday, when what appeared to be amicable negotiations between the league and the players' association suddenly broke off and plunged into silly accusations from the leaders of both sides. Owners and players seemed to be on the verge of a new collective bargaining agreement, but now serious doubt grips the proceedings. Inexplicably, a second lockout in seven years, which would begin at midnight July 1 when the current CBA expires, looks increasingly likely. - www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/11711151.htmInteresting side-note: There are 15 NHL owners who also own NBA franchises. A two-front war is never easy. I wonder if Evil Bob knows this? * Posted 5/24/2005 12:28 AM NFL labor: Upshaw already fears '08 woesBy Jarrett Bell, USA TODAYGene Upshaw, frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players, has a message for team owners in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday for their spring meetings: Let's get busy. "Hockey was first, then basketball. We could be next," the NFL Players Association executive director said Monday, referring to labor woes that forced the cancellation of the NHL's 2004-05 season and to an impasse in NBA talks with its labor deal expiring June 30. "It's not beyond belief that we won't get a deal done. The owners need to understand that. It's not a threat. It's the reality of where we are." The NFL had no comment. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue was unavailable to respond Monday but expressed concern in March that talks were "at a dead end" while owners were divided over a revenue-sharing model.- www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-05-24-upshaw-labor_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA* MLB seems to be a consensus lock for a protracted labour dispute after the 2006 season. * Suddenly, being an NHL fan doesn't seem so bad. Could the NBA owners be sacrificing the NHL to get a better NBA deal? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 25, 2005 0:28:41 GMT -5
I wonder how prepared Yzerman, Messier and Hull are for a two year lockout? Yzerman = $ 64,762,613 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 6 prior seasons unaccounted for) Messier = $ 62,185,112 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 10 prior seasons unaccounted for) Hull = $ 53,741,000 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 3 prior seasons unaccounted for) Of course, endorsement money isn't included in the above totals. I see Freedom 45 in their futures. No possible deal can get them back the money they lost or their youth. Na-na-na-na kiss them goodbye. The lockout deprived them of their last seasons and a chance for us to see them off. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 25, 2005 4:47:19 GMT -5
Career NHL Salary Earnings (USD)Yzerman = $ 64,762,613 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 6 prior seasons unaccounted for) Messier = $ 62,185,112 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 10 prior seasons unaccounted for) Hull = $ 53,741,000 (Total from 1989 to 2004; 3 prior seasons unaccounted for) Of course, endorsement money isn't included in the above totals. I see Freedom 45 in their futures. No possible deal can get them back the money they lost or their youth. Na-na-na-na kiss them goodbye. The lockout deprived them of their last seasons and a chance for us to see them off. Tears all around.  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 25, 2005 11:59:08 GMT -5
Interesting side-note: There are 7 NHL owners who also own NBA franchises. A two-front war is never easy. I wonder if Evil Bob knows this? ROBERT MacLEOD - BASKETBALL REPORTER Friday, May 20, 2005 When the Detroit Pistons shocked the basketball world by dismantling the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA Finals last June, William Davidson became the first owner in major professional sports history to win two championships in different sports in the same year. About a week before the Pistons' win, Davidson's Tampa Bay Lightning won the Stanley Cup, symbol of supremacy in the National Hockey League, beating the Calgary Flames in seven games. Now, Davidson, along with a group of other nervous team owners, are facing the possibility of another sporting first -- having teams in two separate sports sidelined by labour disputes at the same time. "It would be a perfect storm," was the way one sports executive termed it when asked to speculate what the business ramifications would be to an organization with teams in both the National Basketball Association and NHL having to endure a work stoppage at the same time. The unsavoury prospect that the NBA could soon be joining the NHL in a lockout situation gained momentum on Wednesday, when it abruptly announced it was breaking off contract negotiations with the NBA Players Association. The NBA's current collective agreement expires at midnight on June 30. If no agreement is reached, a basketball lockout could begin as early as July 1. - aolnetscape.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20050520/LOCKOUTS20* Dance, Nabob, dance! |
|
|
|
Post by arctic on May 25, 2005 15:08:10 GMT -5
The impact of an NBA lockout would be muffled in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 25, 2005 16:37:05 GMT -5
"Get err done!"  |
|
|
|
Post by Habit on May 29, 2005 4:24:16 GMT -5
Tired… I’m just too tired to take it anymore. I cannot believe it has come to this. I mean, where did it go wrong? One did something? The other said something? I do not know how it all started but what a mess it has become. Tiring actually. So very tired…
Did they like each other at first? Where they friend’s then let something get between them? Did they want the same thing but won’t let each other have it? Would one destroy the other to keep it from them? That is a lot of questions that we at this moment are asking. How did it come to this?
To get to this point, one has to gang up on the other. The other has to go get friends and try to match or out due them. But what comes next? Slander and lies. One says something. The other has to match or out due them again. Next? Mud slinging and rock throwing. One tosses something in anger without thinking of the hurt he will inflict. The other is now hurt and has to do something. He does the same. Now both sides are hurt and want retribution. What comes next makes me tired…
A fight breaks out. In a fight, it is often the spectators that take the real punches. Do they want these former friends to do this? It might be a good show for a few and they might make some money on it betting on the outcome, but most see the former friendship dissolve. How can these guys makeup? Will they want to when it is over?
One is on the ground overshadowed by the other. The other has won. Has he? All the spectators are left with a bad taste in their mouths. Some mutter things like ‘I can’t believe it came to this…’ or ‘They could have prevented this…’. Now he has the prize. He has what he was fighting for. But he is alone. His best friend was just beaten, and all he has now are the few people around him that have benefited from this fight. What friends are those? They will just turn on him if they think he will loose the next fight. His best friend is gone. What does he do?
Whoops, wrong board. This was about a schoolyard playgound.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 29, 2005 13:10:07 GMT -5
Tired… I’m just too tired to take it anymore. I cannot believe it has come to this. I mean, where did it go wrong? One did something? The other said something? I do not know how it all started but what a mess it has become. Tiring actually. So very tired… Did they like each other at first? Where they friend’s then let something get between them? Did they want the same thing but won’t let each other have it? Would one destroy the other to keep it from them? That is a lot of questions that we at this moment are asking. How did it come to this? To get to this point, one has to gang up on the other. The other has to go get friends and try to match or out due them. But what comes next? Slander and lies. One says something. The other has to match or out due them again. Next? Mud slinging and rock throwing. One tosses something in anger without thinking of the hurt he will inflict. The other is now hurt and has to do something. He does the same. Now both sides are hurt and want retribution. What comes next makes me tired… A fight breaks out. In a fight, it is often the spectators that take the real punches. Do they want these former friends to do this? It might be a good show for a few and they might make some money on it betting on the outcome, but most see the former friendship dissolve. How can these guys makeup? Will they want to when it is over? One is on the ground overshadowed by the other. The other has won. Has he? All the spectators are left with a bad taste in their mouths. Some mutter things like ‘I can’t believe it came to this…’ or ‘They could have prevented this…’. Now he has the prize. He has what he was fighting for. But he is alone. His best friend was just beaten, and all he has now are the few people around him that have benefited from this fight. What friends are those? They will just turn on him if they think he will loose the next fight. His best friend is gone. What does he do? Whoops, wrong board. This was about a schoolyard playgound.  Good read. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 29, 2005 15:08:37 GMT -5
Tired… I’m just too tired to take it anymore. I cannot believe it has come to this. I mean, where did it go wrong? One did something? The other said something? I do not know how it all started but what a mess it has become. Tiring actually. So very tired… Did they like each other at first? Where they friend’s then let something get between them? Did they want the same thing but won’t let each other have it? Would one destroy the other to keep it from them? That is a lot of questions that we at this moment are asking. How did it come to this? To get to this point, one has to gang up on the other. The other has to go get friends and try to match or out due them. But what comes next? Slander and lies. One says something. The other has to match or out due them again. Next? Mud slinging and rock throwing. One tosses something in anger without thinking of the hurt he will inflict. The other is now hurt and has to do something. He does the same. Now both sides are hurt and want retribution. What comes next makes me tired… A fight breaks out. In a fight, it is often the spectators that take the real punches. Do they want these former friends to do this? It might be a good show for a few and they might make some money on it betting on the outcome, but most see the former friendship dissolve. How can these guys makeup? Will they want to when it is over? One is on the ground overshadowed by the other. The other has won. Has he? All the spectators are left with a bad taste in their mouths. Some mutter things like ‘I can’t believe it came to this…’ or ‘They could have prevented this…’. Now he has the prize. He has what he was fighting for. But he is alone. His best friend was just beaten, and all he has now are the few people around him that have benefited from this fight. What friends are those? They will just turn on him if they think he will loose the next fight. His best friend is gone. What does he do? Whoops, wrong board. This was about a schoolyard playgound. Good read. Ya . . . I'd give a karma if I could |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 29, 2005 15:19:38 GMT -5
Easy karma, easy go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 31, 2005 12:18:46 GMT -5
McKenzie feels that the players are now effectively seperated in 2 groups: the pro-deal and the anti-deal. From reading the article you get the feeling that the war has moved from an owners/players to a players/players one. Or the Linden gang vs the Goodenow gang. While I do believe the Linden gang to represent a vast majority of the players, the Goodenow gang, because of Bob, is immensely more skilled in the art of behind the scenes hocky pocky and manipulations... One can certainly speculate that the Goodenow gang can claim the reponsability for the failiure of the last negotiation sprint prior the Gary cancelling the season. The sprint initiated by Linden that ended in the total confusion of the Gretzky/Lemieux meeting with guys like Brian Burke and John Davidson being used as unaware, unsuspecting baits... As a deal will become iminent, look for Goodenow to pull some stunt from behind the curtain... www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 31, 2005 12:54:11 GMT -5
McKenzie feels that the players are now effectively seperated in 2 groups: the pro-deal and the anti-deal. From reading the article you get the feeling that the war has moved from an owners/players to a players/players one. Or the Linden gang vs the Goodenow gang. While I do believe the Linden gang to represent a vast majority of the players, the Goodenow gang, because of Bob, is immensely more skilled in the art of behind the scenes hocky pocky and manipulations... One can certainly speculate that the Goodenow gang can claim the reponsability for the failiure of the last negotiation sprint prior the Gary cancelling the season. The sprint initiated by Linden that ended in the total confusion of the Gretzky/Lemieux meeting with guys like Brian Burke and John Davidson being used as unaware, unsuspecting baits... As a deal will become iminent, look for Goodenow to pull some stunt from behind the curtain... www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.aspSounds to me like Bob had a column to write. No shame in that—work's work—it's pretty slim pickings right now.. Exactly who belongs to this anti-deal group is open to speculation. There is no concrete evidence to suggest NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow is actively leading the anti-deal forces...
...The difficult thing is trying to figure out the levels of support from rank and file NHLPA membership for each faction....
...If these two factions within the NHLPA are going to clash, it's likely to happen in the very near future.Evil Bob will hold the reins. They were passed to Linden as a test, but they slipped through his fingers. Only Evil Bob can keep The Nabob down to size. And what about Mr Deadline...? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 31, 2005 14:36:02 GMT -5
But members of the anti-deal group believe they represent a silent majority of NHLPA members, who if they knew the exact details of what was being agreed to would rise up and say no way. We should find out soon enough whether the anti-dealers have the numbers they think they have.
Seems to me that part of the problem is that no one has been told the exact details of any deal since the beginning of . . . of . . . of what they have called "negotiations".
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jun 1, 2005 0:29:57 GMT -5
NHL, PLAYERS FIGHT OVER QUEBEC LABOUR LAW MONTREAL (CP) - A new skirmish between the National Hockey League and striking players is taking place at Quebec's labour relations board over attempts by players to secure union certification. During a meeting that lasted more than four hours on Tuesday, the NHL disputed the commission's jurisdiction to decide the case because it claims labour relations between the NHL and the players' association is regulated by American labour laws. Recognizing a union only in Quebec for Montreal Canadiens players would effectively create unique conditions for some players and destroy the proper functioning of the league, officials argued. The NHL said players with the Habs are salaried workers according to Quebec labour code. It also claimed the league is the players' employer, not the Montreal hockey club. League lawyer Roy Heenan said the players' association has implicitly accepted this fact for 40 years. But Gaston Nadeau, lawyer for the players' association, said the Canadiens pay the salaries and sign the contracts with players. Players Saku Koivu and Craig Rivet made that point with reporters. ''Our employer is the Montreal Canadiens, we are paid by the Montreal Canadiens'' and not by the National Hockey League, they said. The labour board hearings will resume over several days in June and July. Players with the Vancouver Canucks are also seeking union accreditation in British Columbia. Quebec and B.C. are reputed to have the most favourable labour laws for workers. In Quebec, for example, laws prevent the use of replacement workers during a labour conflict. www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=126608&hubName=nhl
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 1, 2005 5:17:00 GMT -5
NHL, PLAYERS FIGHT OVER QUEBEC LABOUR LAW During a meeting that lasted more than four hours on Tuesday, the NHL disputed the commission's jurisdiction to decide the case because it claims labour relations between the NHL and the players' association is regulated by American labour laws. They are the World. That attitude should go over as well in Québec as it did in BC. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 1, 2005 13:32:11 GMT -5
NHL, PLAYERS FIGHT OVER QUEBEC LABOUR LAW ''Our employer is the Montreal Canadiens, we are paid by the Montreal Canadiens'' and not by the National Hockey League, they said. ...but the NHLPA, and the CBA they negotiate, is done with the NHL and not with the HABS. We're not in a case of 30 mini unions dealing 30 mini CBA with their respective teams here... This is one collective (the NHLPA) dealing with another collective (NHL). There is one document, one CBA, and I'm no expert but I would think the labor laws that applies to this CBA can't be different whether you're playing in Montreal or Columbus. When you sign a contract, the location is usually specified on the contract in order to tell which laws will apply. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 1, 2005 14:21:16 GMT -5
When you sign a contract, the location is usually specified on the contract in order to tell which laws will apply. Precisely. * A post I made a while back: NHLPA certification bid to proceed in B.C.Canadian Press 5/6/2005 3:30:10 PM VANCOUVER (CP) - The B.C. Labour Relations Board has ruled the National Hockey League Players' Association can proceed with its application to have the union certified in the province. In a decision handed down Friday, the board rejected arguments by a lawyer representing the National Hockey League that allowing the hearing to proceed would signal a disregard for U.S. labour law.Najeeb Hassan, the board's vice-chairman, also dismissed the idea that allowing the application hearing would hinder the ability of the NHLPA and the NHL to reach an agreement that would end the current hockey labour dispute. No date has been set for the certification hearing. The NHLPA has applied for union certification in Quebec and British Columbia, a move intended to block the potential use of replacement players in those provinces. During a hearing Tuesday in Vancouver, Peter Gall, the lawyer representing the NHL and the owners of the Vancouver Canucks, argued the NHLPA's application for union certification should be adjourned until an unfair labour practice complaint is heard by the National Labour Relations Board in the United States.
Nassan dismissed that argument.- www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=124054&hubName=nhl* Also: 29-04-2005 Lockout in the NHL MP Carole Lavallée launches an appeal to the playersCanadian Press Ottawa Locked out and having made a request to obtain trade-union accreditation in Quebec and in British Columbia, Canadiens and other NHL players were invited Friday to promote anti-strike-breaker legislation. The invitation was put forward by Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert MP, Carole Lavallée, the day before International Workers' Day (May 1). Labour critic for the Bloc Québécois, Mrs. Lavallée addressed a letter to Craig Rivet, the Canadiens player representative, and Trevor Linden, the president of the NHLPA. "On the day before May 1", she writes, "You offer a beautiful opportunity for me to extoll the virtues of the anti-strike-breaker legislation. Ridiculous? Incongruous? Indecent? It does not matter how your request will be treated. I decided to take it with the utmost seriousness.
"The conflict", she continues, "Which pits you against the NHL owners is out of the ordinary, and it is difficult to consider the players that you represent as simple workers.
"But the principle remains", she explains. "No employer should have the right to use strike-breakers during a conflict. Even though 90 percent of workers can be covered under the Québec Labour Code, which forbids employers to engage replacement workers, it is not the case for eight percent of the Québec labour force that works for organizations under federal jurisdiction. "There are unfortunately two categories of workers in Quebec: those who are protected in the event of conflict and those who are not. As your friends in the Canadian provinces (who do not benefit from such protection) will be able to note, replacement workers are an immense source of frustration, which too often generates aggression and sometimes violence on the picket line." - tinyurl.com/aachv |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 2, 2005 8:21:46 GMT -5
Jun. 2, 2005. 01:00 AM
NHL deal within reach
Progress reported on revenue issue
Top brass rejoins hockey talks today
MARK ZWOLINSKI
SPORTS REPORTER
The NHL and its players' union made more progress on key accounting issues yesterday — fuelling further optimism that a new collective bargaining agreement is within reach.
The second of two bargaining sessions in Toronto gets underway today with the two sides waiting for smaller bargaining groups to hammer out a formula for revenue reporting among the league's 30 teams.
A binding revenue formula is the key to moving the talks toward final negotiations, but after nearly 48 hours of meetings spread over five days — including nearly 12 hours yesterday — has failed to produce that vital agreement.
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and union chief Bob Goodenow rejoin the talks today for full-blown negotiations. The NHLPA executive committee, chief legal counsels from the NHL and financial lawyers from both sides met yesterday in smaller groups.
The groups are apparently close to reaching settlement on the revenue issue and there was speculation in some quarters yesterday that they had in fact reached a settlement.
"Honestly, I haven't heard anything from our people (union) ... I don't know if people are playing it up, or if something is going on. ... If it is, great," said Leafs defenceman and player representative Bryan McCabe.
He confirmed the revenue issue is dominating the talks at the moment and that the key to a new deal will almost certainly feature a floating salary cap with player salaries tied to league revenues.
"If that's the plan, to have our salaries linked to revenue, then that's what we are trying to do, get on the same page (with the accounting of revenues), so no one will be in the dark about that when it comes time to make the deal," added McCabe.
"It's been talked about (linkage and caps) so we'll see, it's being worked out."
McCabe also said he was not aware of dissatisfied and desperate factions among the union membership that are pushing for an immediate end to the lockout.
Rumours of unrest in the membership, coupled with the loss of the $60 million (U.S.) ESPN broadcasting deal and approaching deadlines to re-sign key sponsors, spurred feelings that a deal was imminent.
"I don't feel that kind of pressure now," McCabe said. "Obviously it will get done at some point and we all feel the game belongs back on the ice."
McCabe said he doesn't feel the players will emerge the big losers in the new deal.
"I don't think anyone's going to win at this stage, since we've seen the damage to the game all over the world," McCabe said. ESPN announced that it would not pick up its $60 million option under the previous contract, but tried to retain the rights for less money.
The New York Times reported that Mark Shapiro, ESPN's executive president for programming and production, said Bettman "was uncomfortable cutting the rights fees to anything below $60 million.''
The Times reported that NHL spokesman Frank Brown confirmed that the league wasn't satisfied with the negotiations.
"When the now-expired contract was negotiated, the $60 million option price tag took a work stoppage — potentially a long-term work stoppage — into consideration," Brown said. "We have no interest in further devaluing the product.''
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 2, 2005 14:54:58 GMT -5
CBA to be signed soon. Stay tuned for all the updates.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 2, 2005 16:14:17 GMT -5
CBA to be signed soon. Stay tuned for all the updates. I hope you're right - it certainly sounds like they are getting close. It also sounds like the concept of linking salaries to revenue has been accepted by the players and now it's about setting the range (which is pretty much where we left off in February when the season was called off). If that's where we end up, there will certainly be lots of Monday morning QBs arguing that the players underestimated the owners and the whole sport suffered as a result. It's a shame there was so much distrust at the outset with Bettman and Goodenow angling for the upper hand. Interesting that the Leavitt Report has taken on a central role in the process. IMO this was Bettman's biggest mistake when he comissioned Leavitt to conduct an audit of the league's finances without including the NHLPA in the process. They were never included so they didn't trust the numbers when the report came out. If it had been a collaborative process from the beginning the players would have been able to see that the red ink is real and not just self-serving analysis to support the owners' claims of poverty. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 2, 2005 18:11:14 GMT -5
I hope you're right - it certainly sounds like they are getting close. It also sounds like the concept of linking salaries to revenue has been accepted by the players and now it's about setting the range (which is pretty much where we left off in February when the season was called off). If that's where we end up, there will certainly be lots of Monday morning QBs arguing that the players underestimated the owners and the whole sport suffered as a result. It's a shame there was so much distrust at the outset with Bettman and Goodenow angling for the upper hand. Interesting that the Leavitt Report has taken on a central role in the process. IMO this was Bettman's biggest mistake when he comissioned Leavitt to conduct an audit of the league's finances without including the NHLPA in the process. They were never included so they didn't trust the numbers when the report came out. If it had been a collaborative process from the beginning the players would have been able to see that the red ink is real and not just self-serving analysis to support the owners' claims of poverty. ...All too true. When all is said and done the players will look like they lost everyone's time and a huge deal of their own money for something they could have negotiated around from the get go. That being said, it's tough to lay all the blame on them. Players have a history a being used and abused by owners... and who did the owners chose to establish a relation of trust with the players? A pompous, arrogant New York city lawyer that knows sweet nothing about hockey... With a little luck, this CBA will spell the end of both Goodenow and Bettman who exemplify for everyone all the mistrust, bad faith and carelessness of this process. If a true partnership will eventually settle, I can't be done with these guys in charge. Speculations are that Goodenow has been almost shelfed by the NHLPA executive, while I can't believe Bettman will survive the collapse of the TV deals (something he was hired to do...). |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 3, 2005 7:21:20 GMT -5
I hope you're right - it certainly sounds like they are getting close. It also sounds like the concept of linking salaries to revenue has been accepted by the players and now it's about setting the range (which is pretty much where we left off in February when the season was called off). If that's where we end up, there will certainly be lots of Monday morning QBs arguing that the players underestimated the owners and the whole sport suffered as a result. It's a shame there was so much distrust at the outset with Bettman and Goodenow angling for the upper hand. Interesting that the Leavitt Report has taken on a central role in the process. IMO this was Bettman's biggest mistake when he comissioned Leavitt to conduct an audit of the league's finances without including the NHLPA in the process. They were never included so they didn't trust the numbers when the report came out. If it had been a collaborative process from the beginning the players would have been able to see that the red ink is real and not just self-serving analysis to support the owners' claims of poverty. ...All too true. When all is said and done the players will look like they lost everyone's time and a huge deal of their own money for something they could have negotiated around from the get go. That being said, it's tough to lay all the blame on them. Players have a history a being used and abused by owners... and who did the owners chose to establish a relation of trust with the players? A pompous, arrogant New York city lawyer that knows sweet nothing about hockey... With a little luck, this CBA will spell the end of both Goodenow and Bettman who exemplify for everyone all the mistrust, bad faith and carelessness of this process. If a true partnership will eventually settle, I can't be done with these guys in charge. Speculations are that Goodenow has been almost shelfed by the NHLPA executive, while I can't believe Bettman will survive the collapse of the TV deals (something he was hired to do...). Well said. Although I pretty much supported the owners' stance in the negotiations, they are equally responsible for the mistrust and bitterness that hung over the entire process. It's this basic mistrust between the parties (not necessarily the controversy over things like a salary cap and linkage) that has been the biggest obstacle to a fair settlement. For this Bettman and Goodenow need to look at themselves in the mirror and walk away when this is all over. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 3, 2005 12:39:53 GMT -5
Bob Mckenzie, posting on another board, gives sensible advice re not jumping to any contusions, even if agreement on linkage/cap is announced soon:
Someone asked on yesterday's MDT whether I would be concerned about a guy like Crosby not playing in the NHL for a rookie cap of 500K. Here's my answer:
I would be concerned about Crosby not playing in the NHL...if the rookie cap were 500K, but I have reason to believe this figure isn't accurate.
Lots of figures being passed around right now as to what's in the deal. Some of them may even be correct but I'll wager much of the stuff being floated right now is perhaps only partially true. No sense getting all worked up about a 500K rookie cap if it doesn't exist.
Remember something else about collective bargaining. When we say it's not done until it's all done, take that literally. Hypothetical example, let's say the NHL and the PA agree today on precise numbers on linkage, floor, ceiling, range etc. They both agree today on what that is going to be. Word leaks out and everybody starts reporting it. Whatever. Then tomorrow they start in on all the other issues. After they finish arb, ELS, QO's, FA etc. etc., the PA looks at it and says, you know, we didn't get as much as we thought we would on those systemic issues, so let's go back to that linkage figure, let's change the percentage number, let's move around the range.
Collective bargaining is not a checklist thing, where you tick off one item and move to another. They're all related. And it's a good thing, too, because the leverage both sides have is that they can re-open or re-visit covered ground at any time. Both sides know that so it drives them closer together on the small issues, realizing if they're not fair with each other, one side will go back and blow up the big issue.
So while the tidbits being floated around as to what's in the deal are interesting, forgive me if I just wait to see what's actually in there when it's really done.
---
The PA isn't going to sign off on the key linkage, floor, cap, range issues until it sees where everything else is at. In "normal" CBA, there are a myriad of issues and many of them are not directly related to each other, so, sure, you can do the checklist thing. In the NHL situation, though, you can't separate system issues like QOs, ELS etc., from the cap/linkage etc. They're all inter-related and as you point out, the PA would be foolish to sign off on the major issue of linkage and cap range without knowing what they're going to get or not get on the other end with system issues.
And let's also remember that collective bargaining in pro sports is not anything like collective bargaining in the real world. They're not in there talking about hourly wages, job security or workplace safety. They're talking about devising a whole new economic system, a whole new partnership. So, with all due respect, applying collective bargaining principles from the real world against what's going on with the NHL and NHLPA, IMO, is an exercise in futility. Apples and oranges.
*
And, finally, the 700+ membership of the NHLPA must ratify any agreement between their negotiating team and the NHL.
It's still a long way to tickle Mary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 3, 2005 13:44:30 GMT -5
...with all due respect to BobbyMac, negotiating a work convention doesn't work like that. At all. You don't go back and forth between what was agreed upon and what isn't to continually change it... That's a receipe for...well...taking a year to get a CBA done !
Typical scenario has you grouping some things in negotiation in order to break the convention, get things agreed upon and than move on to the next group. Going back to agreed upon clauses is a big no-no.
That being said, he's absolutely right that it's not all done until it's ALL done.
|
|
Good read.
