Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

-Vintage Canuck-

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

6,228 posts in this topic

All this decertification talk is telling me Ed Snider might get what he once suggested (from 2004)

http://hockeytraderumors.com/ed-snider-speaks-out-on-cba-impasse/

“When Bob Goodenow says he wants the free market, well, I’ll give him the free market,” Snider told reporters. “A free market is no union. That’s a free market. You don’t have guaranteed contracts, you don’t have arbitration, you don’t have anything. When I got into hockey, you signed a player for a year and when he came to training camp, you signed him for the next year. That’s a free market.”

:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHLPA has never put any NHL proposal to a vote. Consulting with the membership has been thru phone calls. There appears to be growing pressure among players for an opportunity to vote.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this decertification thing I keep hearing about?

Is that when a drought happens and the dirt turns in to sand?

Please clarify.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no, it's when a bunch of players dress up like ninjas, sneak into NHL headquarters at night and steal Gary's law degree.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this decertification talk is telling me Ed Snider might get what he once suggested (from 2004)

http://hockeytraderu...on-cba-impasse/

“When Bob Goodenow says he wants the free market, well, I’ll give him the free market,” Snider told reporters. “A free market is no union. That’s a free market. You don’t have guaranteed contracts, you don’t have arbitration, you don’t have anything. When I got into hockey, you signed a player for a year and when he came to training camp, you signed him for the next year. That’s a free market.”

:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good input oldnews. Ed Snider definitely wouldn't mind that scenario

The hardline makes no real sense for either set of parties - which would seem to be why the other professional sports haven't resorted to 'free markets' and haven't really had to get this far, this frequently, into irrational, money-losing hardball.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this decertification talk is telling me Ed Snider might get what he once suggested (from 2004)

http://hockeytraderu...on-cba-impasse/

“When Bob Goodenow says he wants the free market, well, I’ll give him the free market,” Snider told reporters. “A free market is no union. That’s a free market. You don’t have guaranteed contracts, you don’t have arbitration, you don’t have anything. When I got into hockey, you signed a player for a year and when he came to training camp, you signed him for the next year. That’s a free market.”

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was pointed out above, contracts in and of themselves are "guaranteed" as legal documents. Players could simply sue teams that didn't fulfill their contracts (and vice versa).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course an owner swimming in money, in a giant hockey market, who has his hands in Comcast ( and the Spectrum, the 76ers...) might be more amenable to rolling the dice - he might not fear the competitive advantage of a 'free market' - relative to other owners...

I doubt Bettman would feel the same.

In a league where collective national broadcast rights are pivotal revenue, is that position really as buoyant as in 2004?

For all the alleged borderline franchises and owners - whose franchise values remain tangible because of the collective structure of the NHL, there probably wouldn't be anything resembling a similar posture. The prospect of folding or selling their franchises in fire sales - not the stuff that unanimity is made of.

The hardline makes no real sense for either set of parties - which would seem to be why the other professional sports haven't resorted to 'free markets' and haven't really had to get this far, this frequently, into irrational, money-losing hardball.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current contracts - yes, because that is how they were written under the past CBA. Snider, at the time, was referring to an open market where a CBA wouldn't exist in which 'guaranteed contracts' are the rule.

Eg. a player could be signed to a contract that says if the team isn't happy with your performance we will release you - that is the market that Snider was referring to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this rate the NHL wont have much revenue to fight over. They seem to think revenue is a given and just falls from the sky or if you build it they will come. Think again...remember Pheonix? FYI...revenue is generated by fans and their hard earned dollars. Without them you dont have a business...again I refer to the desert teams. Let me just say, I'm of the belief that consumers are king. They can make or break you and once the trust is lost it's tough to get them back, if not highly unlikely. Same can be said of sponsors, your other source of revenue. The NHL isn't king...without the fans, sponsors and players you will cease to exist. They are your biggest generating revenue source.

At this point I would have said gentlemen (players) go play wherever you can, and wait this out for 2-3 seasons until the NHL either gets its priority in order or dissolves entirely. Let the owners pay for Bettman's $8M salary and see how far he gets with his lock out ideas. Ironically he's the only one making millions at the moment...not teams nor players...how convenient. No wonder lockouts are no sweat off his back and willing to let it go on as long as they do. To everyone else, these lockouts are getting old and predictable, and need to stop. The business will lose billions at the cost of trying to gain those millions back to a few parties?? Not a cost efficient way of running things. Hard to believe successful billionaires signed up for this.

And, if I had a choice to spend my money to watch Team A (elite players aka the players team) versus Team B (NHL's proposed replacement players), I think I'd get more entertainment value and worth for my money watching Team A, alternatively I could watch a uni league for $5 (Team B's market competitor) which again I'd opt to watch for $5 versus any NHL Team B league.

At this point, the image of the NHL is going downhill fast, and pissing off their fans, players and sponsors. Nobody likes an ego centric, money driven/greedy bully holding everyone hostage for their sole self serving purpose and I always believed the character of the company is created by and from the top.

Unless you're able to generate your own revenue without the assistance of fans/sponsors/players which is how the NHL seems to be behaving with its lack of regard to all three parties and a lack of regard to its business, a national sport and minimizing it to dollar and cents despite a successful season, only then you should be entitled to do as you please. Until then, I'd tread carefully, act with humility and prioritize what makes this business successful. Again, I'd look at the Canucks model. They invest in their players and not only with dollar and cents, in fact that's almost secondary, the players invest in the team, they become the most winningest team, that keeps the fans happy and the fans continue to invest in the team, which keeps the arena full and fund this ordeal and make it all possible. They act in synergy to maintain the success of the organization. A sports league does not and cannot function alone, and if an owner truly believes they are the be-all and end-all, lets see how far that mentality will get you.

This reminds of a CEO who continues to fire primary employees when the company's stock is rising, in his ignorance and arrogance wanting to believe he is the cause of the rise only to have it fall each and every time when the employees are let go. In comparison to a successful billionaire who takes the time to chat up new employees, provide staff with free lunches prepared by an in-house chef and even nutritious snacks around the office. I think I'd be more inclined to follow the ways of a successful billionaire then a clueless CEO with plummeting stock.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current contracts - yes, because that is how they were written under the past CBA. Snider, at the time, was referring to an open market where a CBA wouldn't exist in which 'guaranteed contracts' are the rule.

Eg. a player could be signed to a contract that says if the team isn't happy with your performance we will release you - that is the market that Snider was referring to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be a standard employee contract. It would be a contract for services. If services are not performed up to expectations - goodbye. Just like in football.

Besides........in my example I am saying the contract is written that way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol at the lawsuits poetica

I have been through the process myself

I doubt it would be a concern for the teams

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.