*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

[gizmo2337]

Best thing that can happen in this lockout next? Remove the owners gag order. I can't wait till this happens. If it doesn't happen, then let the disclaimer of interest take care of that (and Bettman).

[DarthMelvin]

You all can twist that post around all you want or portray it anyway you want to read it...Who said it? If I knew I would have posted it. It was a quote from an artical from a sports writer...you all have been posting your own articals and I posted mine lol

I can't wait to see this all go down....lolThe players have been waiting to play for so long waiting for a deal and now to have their NHLPA leaders want to drag this out even farther from a deal...well lets see what happens tmrw.

[Boudrias]

I don't see how that's true being that the NHL's "negotiating" has simply been to backtrack on some of their outlandish requests in their initial proposal. They have not once offered the players anything they actually have, only taken certain demands off their wishlist. Even the "make whole" isn't a concession, it's simply an offer to actually honour the contracts they signed, some of which haven't even come into effect yet. And apparently many of the owners don't want to do even that. I don't see how anyone can call that negotiating, much less in good faith.

Furthermore, even the NHL's own court filing says they have not made a single oral or written proposal since November 8 despite the PA making a proposal on November 21. That means in their court papers they acknowledge that they have failed to move an inch in over a month of negotiations despite the PA moving in their direction. When the Fehr said they were close to a deal, it's because the PA had move towards the NHL yet again and were waiting for and assuming the NHL would move towards them in the interest of getting a deal done. When that failed to happen it's not the PA's willingness to negotiate that should rightfully be called into question.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure even I could make a good case against the owners for bad faith negotiations going INTO the CBA talks. Owners, who filed as a group and will be judged collectively, negotiated contracts with players for long-term, back diving contracts for huge amounts of money despite making an offer to the PA just a short time later that would all but ensure not all those conditions were not met. The owners can not file together but claim to act independently, so it will be assumed in court that each and every owner knew what the NHL's first offer would be. Unless they want to admit their first offer was never intended to be taken seriously and in doing prove that they have not been negotiating in good faith during the CBA talks, owners will be assumed to have known advance that they would be seeking to negotiate starting from such a severe offer that they would be all but guaranteed to avoid honouring contracts as signed.

Worse still, even "make whole" can't be used as proof that owners have been negotiating in good faith when, according to Bettman's own statements to the media, owners have wanted that offer off the table for a while now even after the players agreed to a 50/50 split, and especially after they did publicly take it off the table after the last round of negotiations failed. That means owners are publicly admitting that they are refusing to ever honour their end of the contracts they just signed in full, all but proving they did not negotiate those contracts in good faith.

As such, I believe the PA can argue that not only are the owners guilty of bad faith negotiations in the CBA talks, but are guilty of bad faith negotiating before the CBA talks, if not guilty of acting in collusion, by using their inside knowledge into what the NHL would be demanding (and likely getting) during the CBA negotiations to their private advantage during negotiations with individual players by signing contracts for amounts they knew they would likely never pay in full despite still expecting players to honour their side of the contract which they signed without the owners' knowledge and under the assumption that the contract would be honoured as signed.

Are you suggesting the NHL and NBA owners are guilty of collusion? I'm not a legal expert by any means, but if you are suggesting the owners of sports teams in 2 different leagues might be working together in hopes that what happens to limit players in one league will be used against the players in the other during the next CBA negotiations, that seems like an illegal act of collusion.

[WiDeN]

This is what it reminds me of.

[Boudrias]

This will drag on until fehr is removed... I could see Kelly thrown back in last minute to represent the players. What player will risk guaranteed contracts and Put their MONEY on the line. Gamble that many high end players I don't think will want to do

[Boudrias]

You asked why former players in ownership and managemet haven't spoken out - I gave you reasons including a gag order.

I also gave you a former owner, ironically, who has spoken out against the NHL's 'negotiating' antics.

Where did you get this idea of dwelling on his words?

I did not buy the whole hawk and dove drama (it looks like classic military propaganda - or perhaps more accurately it mirrors a bad cop/good cop dynamic) nor do I buy the "dove" walkout - in the end the whole thing looked like a contrived, strategic dog and pony show - targetting a goal of isolating Fehr. It looks like they are trying to ram a circle through a square regardless of how unsuccessful each step of their strategy is. It didn't work - didn't buy an ounce of it - and regardless, the NHLPA has pretty obviously stood behind Fehr.

Nor does the theatrical "dove" production convince me that there aren't serious contradictions in the ownership interests and position. They have been obvious - you alluded to the most evident, the reluctance/unwillingness of the haves to share with the have-not franchises (and this issue puts Bettman over a barrel between countering interests and accountable for his expansions into weak markets) - the 'necessity' of short terms while teams sign 13 year deals on the eve of expiration (again, massive contradiction) - the imposition of a gag-order and fines for dissention (absolutely unnecessary if there is unity and unanimity) - the fact that some franchises will lose a great deal of revenue during a lockout, while the have-nots claim they will 'save' the losses (I find the latter claim entirely unbelievable, but regardless, the most powerful franchises have little interest in an extended lockout - they will loss far, far more than they save in salary) - if you want to believe that all spells unity and unanimity, that is your prerogative.

If your point about a gameplan (perhaps even interleague) of breaking the union is true - then that pretty much entirely undermines the legal process the NHL just engaged in, undermines all claims of bad faith negotiation, undermines their defense if they face anti trust lawsuits - a stubborn and premeditated determination not to deal with Fehr no matter what could cost them an unbelievable amount of losses.

[Primal Optimist]

The league did not come this far to allow no cap in the future, so keep dreaming.

If there is no deal with the union the league will create its own player entity and do a deal with it and then offer former players jobs within that entity. There is no win for the players anymore and they should have known there would not be. I think they do since they accepted the 50/50 deal...now its all a big toodoo about a couple years here and there in contracting...stupid players man.

Losing 50% of a seasons pay is worse than 7% rollback over 7 years. Its basic math. The players have lost huge. Fehr should be tossed from a bus and left on the side of the road.

[poetica]

The NHL can tie them up for years. It could mean the end of their playing careers even if they are successful.(Years of litigation could keep them off the ice)

[Heretic]

What I don't understand is this: If the NHL locked out the players when it was a union, which is legal based on the then CBA, how can the players, after disbanding the union, how can they challenge the legality of the lockout? That is, what court in their right mind would favour the players? Also, if they disband, won't that give the owners the right to tear up all the contracts? For they were signed under a CBA with the NHLPA?

[elvis15]

...

Consider the idea of Steve Yzerman as Commisioner of the NHL rather than Gary Bettman. I don't suggest that as a put down of Bettman as he has grown the revenue side of the business. Players should think about who has delivered the bacon that they are fighting over. I put Yzerman's name forward because he is a HHOF who has creditentials as a player and now a GM. The NHL will need a leader who can rebuuild fences and has the confidence of both sides. Perhaps a Lemieux who is an owner and has seen a franchise on the brink of collapse.

...

[elvis15]

What I don't understand is this: If the NHL locked out the players when it was a union, which is legal based on the then CBA, how can the players, after disbanding the union, how can they challenge the legality of the lockout? That is, what court in their right mind would favour the players? Also, if they disband, won't that give the owners the right to tear up all the contracts? For they were signed under a CBA with the NHLPA?

[oldnews]

IMO the PA is playing their last card in this dispute. Taking ownership to the courts individually is an option but not that good of one. It is a move that is only worth doing to a small % of the membership. The NHL can tie them up for years. It could mean the end of their playing careers even if they are successful.(Years of litigation could keep them off the ice) If the union decertifies it leaves an opening for a rival union to sign former NHLPA members. The implications of another union signing + 50% of the old membership is hugh, especially if the new union starts negociating with the NHL.

You are convinced that the NHL has not bargained in good faith but I suspect they have done enough that a court won't rule against them. The PA cannot say they are close to a deal 10 days ago and in the same breath claim the NHL is not negociating in good faith. It might not make any dif the longer the legal battle goes on. Even the threat of 3X contract value as a penalty pales as players realize their NHL careers might be ended. I have felt all along that a 'drop dead' date for the season would be announced before X-Mass as added pressure by the NHL.

I suspect the PA makes another effort for Fehr to make a last pitch which is what he should do. He will have to move closer to the NHL's position in that process. If a 48 game season is the minimum there can be no confusion to the time line.

[panelguy]

Fehris just acting on the players wishes , please give the players more credit than that.

It seems to me the anti union droolers who's mind are completly closed like Johnny Wad use this to vent their hatred for unions.

Hail to Bettman Johnny says !

[oldnews]

I am one who thinks the Kelly option was the route the PA should have stuck with. It is too late for him now. The collegial approach he was utilizing could have built bridges between players and owners that PA and NHL admin staffs might not have been able to circumvent.

The gamble in such an approach was the about of time required to build trust between the two groups. It is natural for ownership to view the players as an expense from operating perspective. Fans on here

view ownership as nothing less than Attila the Hun. If that is true then this approach would fail. A collegial approach has to demonstrate joint benefits. A bigger pie to share and a future for players within the business after their playing days. Owners do not run the NHL. Club management is populated by a large number of retired players.

Consider the idea of Steve Yzerman as Commisioner of the NHL rather than Gary Bettman. I don't suggest that as a put down of Bettman as he has grown the revenue side of the business. Players should think about who has delivered the bacon that they are fighting over. I put Yzerman's name forward because he is a HHOF who has creditentials as a player and now a GM. The NHL will need a leader who can rebuuild fences and has the confidence of both sides. Perhaps a Lemieux who is an owner and has seen a franchise on the brink of collapse.

I am not sure if this is what Kelly's approach would have been but suspect some version of it. The PA through Lindros and Chelious went in another direction and hired Fehr. I do not think it has legs simply because of the length of a typical NHL career. In a confrontational approach ownership can outlast and out money players.

[vancouverdepression]

Gonna have to side with the owners this time around, Players get paid extremellllly well for playing a damn game while the rest of us make chump change at real jobs. Then these millionairs decide to go over to ther countries and take spots away from other players just to keep making a buck? Excuse me players but you are a bunch of A-holes in my opinion. Bottom line is you said no to millions of dollars you would get paid... MILLIONS.. you said NO too. Thats the bottom line, all the other crap is just noise but it blows my mind in the world of today that you greedy butt monkeys said NO to making millions. Shame on you.

[Boudrias]

.

Fans on here aren't stuck in ideology or resorting to out-of-context characterizations and name calling of ownership .

Fans on here are looking at the issues and trying to make sense of them.

I personally couldn't care less about class or union politics - in the end there are essentially two unions negotiating with each other - a union of (multiple) ownership and a union of players.

If you want to call it "natural" to reduce your partners (that would be the "collegial" perspective) - which is what contracting players are imo - to mere "expenses", that is your perspective, but imo it is counterproductive. Ownership has taken it a step further with the "cattle" analogy. Of all the things to say in breaking a gag-order, referring to the players as "cattle" probably wasn't the most "collegial" thing that could have been 'uttered'.

I'm not going to bother arguing with your claim that Bettman is responsible for the growth of revenues - that would be the rose coloured glasses view of his tenure.

What makes no sense is a business that forgets that it depends on its customers, regardless of animosity over negotiations between the revenue sharing stakeholders.

[Heretic]

Me neither, especially being that those contracts were signed between a team and an individual player where both sides had representatives in on the process. But, honestly, we'll have to see what happens. The growing anti-union sentiment in both the US and Canada could very well come into play in any ruling.

I have to think the objective isn't an actual ruling here. Rather, I think this is very much a strong-arm tactic by the NHL to force the PA to abandon their "disclaimer of interest" option and just give in to the NHL's demands (which even their suit admits hasn't changed in over a month, despite their claims that they are "negotiating.") Otherwise, I just don't see what's to reasonably gain for the NHL. I mean, it would be spectacular for fans if the ruling went against the NHL and they were spanked and told no for the first time. It would not only end this lockout, but possibly prevent future ones.

However, if the ruling did rule the lockout was legal and all contracts are null and void, where would that leave the NHL? Where would that leave teams without the capital to spend in a free market where there is no salary cap, no individual salary limit, no protections for teams' rights to players, and no revenue sharing at all? Without a CBA the NHL will not be able to have a draft, free agency rules, salary cap, or anything else that in any way limits what teams can spend or where players can play without being guilty of violating anti-trust laws. Even if some of the players did come back under new contracts, how many would be lost? And how many do you think wouldn't be so pissed off they were demanding as much as they could possibly get? In a post-union NHL I would be shocked beyond belief to not see teams spending well over last season's salary cap just to ice a crap team because if it's the entire NHL against every player, you better believe it will be every player for himself. How many teams could survive in that climate for even a season or two?

[Boudrias]

How so? If players sue they would still be able to work because people have to live, so they could work somewhere else. If they were banned from doing so, then the NHL team would also have to be barred from replacing them, meaning they couldn't operate. It would go both ways.

* No doubt players could play in other leagues. The issue is their level of pay would be much less and their NHL careers would be slipping away.

Aren't you missing a HUGE new step? If a new union is made they have to start by negotiating the CBA before the players could play. And the merry-go-round starts up yet again. Remember, the NHL can't just start their own players' union and force them to sign it. That's illegal. So, they either have to deal with individual players (which I don't think is even feasible) or they have to deal with an independent union made up with the same pissed off members they're trying to deal with now.

* You are assuming the new union has the same negociating positions as the old one. The NHL wouldn't start a union but could express a willingness to talk to a new one. It would undercut the diehards in the old PA, especially if + 50% of the old union joined the new one. My guess is that would be the case.

As pointed out above, that cuts both ways. The NHL can't claim that they weren't close to a deal, even though Fehr said they were publicly, and then claim 1) that they were negotiating with the union in good faith despite not moving from their last position in over a month of "negotiations" AND despite trying to force players to sign a deal without legal representation or 2) that the disclaimer of interest is merely a ploy to get a better deal because the players are actually being adequately represented by the very man the NHL has repeatedly accused of lying to the media and to the players. Either he's a liar, or he's not. Either he is adequately representing the players' interest or he's not. The NHL can't have it both ways.

*I m not arguing that Don Fehr is not doing a good job for the PA. In fact, considering the cards dealt to him he has been doing pretty well. I do not think that a negociation required that both parties 'give' something up each time there is a back and forth. At some point either party could reach a point where they won't move any further. The fact that they will not move further does not demonstrate bad faith.

Plus, as I said above, Fehr said they were close to a deal because the PA had yet again moved towards the NHL and was reasonably expecting the NHL to finally move towards them in order to get the deal done. That's a reasonable expectation that the NHL failed to meet. If anything, it shows lack of good faith negotiating that they made players think they were close to a deal to get them to move and then refused to move themselves.

* No matter what is being said a deal is never a deal until signed. Both parties were speaking favourably and then Fehr came back with another request. "reasonable expectation" might be your characterisation but not shared by ownership.

You realize players can play elsewhere, right? But owners can't run their teams until this is resolved. If they care about the sport, the league or their business, that should matter a great deal. The question is, why doesn't it seem to?

[oldnews]

What can I say but wow. I have no idea how you made those assumptions from my comment.

[oldnews]

This is what it reminds me of.