*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

[Shift-4]

All the players have money to burn on lawyers, right?

[The Bookie]

Whitney: NHL behaving like 'bullies'

A veteran of four NHL work stoppages -- three owners’ lockouts and one players’ strike -- the 40-year-old winger has seen this same old movie too many times.

"We have to stop the cycle of work stoppages," Whitney told ESPN.com on Friday. "It kills the game. And I’m not saying this to kiss up to them, but it’s not fair to the fans."

As popular a teammate you’ll find in the game, Whitney has spent most of his career in nontraditional hockey markets, places such as San Jose, Florida, Columbus, Carolina, Phoenix, and now, Dallas.

The damage that the lockout causes in places like that just makes his head spin.

And for what, he wonders.

"To be out this long, for a game that was thriving, to be doing this kind of damage to the league makes no sense to us as players," said Whitney. "To me, it just shows a lack of respect for the game by the people in charge. They’re not really hockey people, they didn’t grow up loving the game of hockey."

Fired up and yet measured in his comments, Whitney is indeed frustrated.

"They’re like schoolyard bullies right now; they want everything. That’s not negotiating," he said. "With us coming down to 50-50 [split of revenues], I don’t see the need for this to go as long as this has."

Like me, however, Whitney sees a deal that can be made.

"I don’t think it’s far apart at all, in fact I think it can be done in one afternoon," said Whitney, before building up to a laugh. "I’d stuff them all in a room and tell them they can’t come out until it’s done. And we’re not sending any food, either."

It’s been a whirlwind week. The NHLPA’s latest offer was for the most part rejected by the league, which caused anger among the players. Then veteran blueliner Roman Hamrlik made headlines by calling out NHLPA executive director Don Fehr.

"Obviously he’s frustrated, but I don’t think it’s fair for him to be making those comments from the other side of the ocean," Whitney said of Hamrlik. "He should be over here in the meetings if he wants to know what’s really happening.

"But I also know you’d hear comments like that from the other side too, from owners, if it wasn’t for the gag order. They’re equally frustrated. It’s frustrating for everybody."

Fact is, Whitney said, there’s no reason for any player not to have a firm grasp of the facts right now.

"Over my three lockouts, this is by far the most informed we’ve been as players and a union."

In the meantime, there’s been increased chatter among players about the merits of union decertification, something NBA players did last year to put pressure on owners.

"It’s going to have to be somewhat of a reality at some point," Whitney said of the possibility of decertification. "We have to look at all our options to increase our leverage. We’ll talk about that and decide what’s best for us. ...

"What has the league given us in this deal so far other than a kick in the shorts? And they want us to keep giving? At some point we’ll have to do something to put a bit more pressure on them."

Whitney understands that going down from 57 percent of the revenue pie to 50 percent was a reality players would have to likely accept after what happened in the NFL and NBA labor deals last season. But like many players, he’s frustrated by the league’s insistence on a number of changes to player contracting rights.

"It’s not fair, to be honest," said Whitney.

Agreeing with Fehr, Whitney said the league’s demands on contracting rights would lead to too restrictive a system, especially with demands such as a five-year limit on contracts and a 5 percent salary variation ceiling.

"There are some incredibly smart GMs out there, guys like Ken Holland and Lou Lamoriello," said Whitney. "They’re not allowed to say anything but what the league is trying to do now is say, 'We don’t trust you GMs, we want to put in a system that tells you how to run your teams now. We’re going to cut your legs out. Kenny, I know you’ve got a genius mind when it comes to contracts and maneuvering things, but we’re not going to allow that anymore. We’re going to make it so the worst GM in the league can compete with you because your hands are tied.'"

To be fair, the league is looking to tighten up the system because costs got out of control in the last CBA, especially on the players’ second contracts, which is why the league wants to push UFA to eight years service or 28 years old and why the league is seeking changes to salary arbitration.

Whitney understands the owners need some fixes, but he just wants a fair deal, not an agreement that will crush his side.

"Otherwise, we’ll just be in another work stoppage in five years, which makes no sense," said Whitney. "All of this makes no sense. We could have been playing a long time ago."

[poetica]

No, Shift, they don't, which is why all of this is a bad idea.

[Shift-4]

No, Shift, they don't, which is why all of this is a bad idea.

[SamJamIam]

All the players have money to burn on lawyers, right?

[SamJamIam]

Also, even if performance was written into the contract like you said (though I took the quote from your first message to mean contracts wouldn't be guaranteed at all, as if teams could fire players for any reason without the protection of the CBA) teams would have to be able to prove that the targets weren't met and that another player would have been able to do so. In the end, like I said, teams would be open to lawsuits.

[oldnews]

It's not only the legal fees that deter owners from facing these suits - it is also the prospect under anti trust laws of having to pay three times the damages if the claims are successful. 67 days at Bettman numbers of 8 to 10 million a day x3 is nearly 2 billion dollars already... not peanuts, not even to billionaires - and Bettman's rationale for locking out is not blowing anyone away with sheer legitimacy.

[poetica]

Performance is not written into the contracts as a requirement for salary payment. Production is only relevant to specific performance bonuses outlined in the contract. Since no one has played, no one would get performance bonuses. The vast majority of these are in the contracts of cap-floor teams' players which are just used to artificially reach the cap. Its not money those players would ever see, so it wouldn't matter at all.

[The Bookie]

NHL boss Gary Bettman fighting cold war without obvious exit strategy

VANCOUVER — So dispiriting are the leaders charged with saving hockey that Black Friday was no darker than the last three months.

America hardly needs the busiest shopping day of the year to ignore the National Hockey League, but the self-marginalizing league took the opportunity anyway to cancel more games, including the All-Star Weekend in Columbus. This is the first good thing to come from the lockout because nobody wants to go to Columbus in January so the NHL, a league teetering on a very high ledge, can celebrate itself.

Friday was also notable for NHL Players’ Association boss Donald Fehr, otherwise busy writing the epilogue on his autobiography at hockey’s expense, saying something sensible.

“On Wednesday, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said that the league is losing $18-20 million per day during the lockout,” Fehr said, warming up his calculator. “Therefore, two more weeks of cancelled games far exceeds the current economic gap.”

That gap on core economics, the difference between what the union wants and what owners are willing to pay to compensate players under contract as the sides transition to a 50/50 split on revenue, is $182 million. That sum represents barely five per cent of annual revenue, had the NHL started on time in September and not embarked on a course towards destruction.

Surely, these sides are not going to scuttle a season that would have been worth about $3.5 billion in its entirety because they can’t bridge a gap of $182 million.

It’s enough to make you miss the Levitt Report, in all its skewed and pointy-headed splendour.

You remember that economic treatise from 2004, before Bettman completed his lockout hat trick?

Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, was paid handsomely by the NHL to assess the league’s finances and provide a report that Bettman used to justify the lockout and pursuit of a radically different economic model.

There were press conferences and pie charts and furrowed brows as Bettman gravely described the economic crisis and portrayed the league as on the brink of financial ruin.

The Levitt Report became a kind of navigation beacon during the Black Fridays and Black Wednesdays and Saturdays and Thursdays in the winter of 2004-05 when the NHL became the first “major” professional sports league to cancel an entire season. At least we knew what they were fighting about.

There was no case for war this time, no weapons of mass financial destruction justifying yet another lockout by owners. No key visuals, no thorough explanations by Bettman, no illusion of financial transparency from the NHL.

There is no navigation beacon in this lockout, which looks hopelessly adrift.

Decertification is suddenly hotter than Justin Bieber, and each has about equal substance. The union is fanning media speculation that the NHLPA may abolish itself. Theoretically, this would make the owners’ lockout illegal and turn every player into an independent contractor free to negotiate whatever he can without league-wide encumbrances such as a salary cap.

Decertification could be a very good thing for players, who commanded 75 per cent of revenue before there was a salary-cap, except those playing for weak franchises, which rather than causing a lockout every few years would lose the social safety net provided by the NHL. Major pro sports must be the only domain where billionaire owners, nearly all of them conservative, cry like socialists for protection against free-market forces.

In the short term, decertification would address the chronic and shameful shortage of slick litigation lawyers because NHL owners and players would be in court for a while.

But at least decertification, however remote, gives Fehr and the NHLPA an exit strategy. They have a way out of this lockout.

What is Bettman’s exit strategy?

Please tell me owners have a grand plan beyond merely waiting for players to fully capitulate, which they’re very good at but don’t appear willing to do this time. Because at the moment, Bettman’s game plan looks a little thin.

Perhaps owners thought this would be a quick war, an invasion of Grenada, to get what they want. The boys would all be at their home rinks for Thanksgiving, and owners back in their counting houses when the serious money started to flow near the end of the fall football frenzy in the U.S.

But here we are, hockey cancelled until at least the middle of December, snow on the ground in places and each side dug in for the long haul. This is what we signed up for? In a sense, the dispute is far worse now than when Bettman triggered it in September.

Three months into the lockout, the owners and players have succeeded mostly in destroying what little trust remained in their “partnership” while co-strangling a golden goose and causing far more lasting damage to their business than they did in 2004. They are quickly poisoning the well from which they drink.

It is, as others have noted, the dumbest dispute in pro sports history.

There is a $182-million valley to cross, but the sides aren’t really talking and, as of late Friday, had no plans to negotiate further. Tell me again what they are fighting about.

[PlayStation]

Yup, Keep fighting over the tiny bit of money (compared to total revenue)

Not playing has cost you more than that amount you've been fighting over.

Not to mention a lot of true fans will be refraining from spending money on this league at least for the near future.

[Salmonberries]

Hey fellas!

How's it goin' eh?

[Shift-4]

For someone whose "Been through all this", you seem blissfully ignorant of the existence of class action suits. ......

[Boudrias]

Wow, Brouwer completely throwing his own teammates under the bus for speaking their minds. What a class act...

"For me, I think those guys selling us out, being selfish like that and making those comments..." Brouwer continued. "Me being on their team, how am I going to trust them as a teammate from now on? Because you know they're not going to support players in the big scheme of things when you go and you play on the team with them; it's going to be tough to want to back those guys from now on." -Brouwer

He's saying they're selfish? First of all, Hamrlik is probably in his last year as a player, and just wants to play one more season. And Neuvirth doesn't even know how long he'll be in the NHL for. To say that these guys are selfish is ridiculous.

Brouwer isn't in their position, so he has no right to call them out. They're members of a group together, and if this is how these guys feel, I'm sure they're not the only ones feeling this way. They were just the only ones brave enough to say something. Maybe it's time to start listening to your own members, and not being selfish by fighting a fight based on principle.

[John.Tallhouse]

These F%(#&^$ are playing with millions of dollars.... can I have some if your just throwing it around like that?

[gizmo2337]

Fans seem to think that decertification is the ultimate hammer for players. The downside risk has major impacts. Less teams and a possible shutdown for protracted time. NHL teams cannot be forced to operate. In such an event the resolve of the owners would certainly be tested. Fans should also consider the impact on the product they view. The concept of building CUP worthy teams through drafting and player development might be gone. Survival of the fittest NHL teams might finish borderline teams. Canadian fans have short memories. When the CAN $ was at $0.65 most Canadian franchises would have died. Another issue might be competitiveness. The chance for smaller market teams to be serious contenders could be done.

[Boudrias]

The upside is the fwybwed and drybone argument is gone (which isn't really an argument without anything to back it up). About ~10 of 30 teams make money, and those bottom 20 teams would be facing even greater financial uncertainty, and no revenue share. If they are supporting the lockout now, then you better believe they will relax on contracting issues leading this pointless lockout to continue.

The players should do this, and decommission the chancellor of the board, who in fact is just the cancellor of the game. They would almost certainly end up with a new deal and a union in the end anyway. They have to push the nuke button to make those dicktaters think harder.

[gizmo2337]

I have no doubt that Bettman and ownership have already considered the possibility of decertification. It has already happened in football and basketball. Using the 'nuke button' as you suggest has far greater ramifications than you seem to comprehend.

[pdc]

From what I understand surrounding decertification it sounds like a horrible idea, and purely a bluff tatic by the NHLPA in attempts to gain an edge. For decertification to go through more than 50% of players would have to vote yes to this. The result would be the union dissolved, and anti-trust lawsuits.

If the players lost the lawsuits, which is entirely possible specially consindering the NFLPA lost the 1st part of their lawsuit to the NFL. Which I beleive with the amount of players playing across seas weakens the NHLPA's case compared to the NFL or NBA PA's. So if they lost wouldn't the players basically put themselves in a much worse situation?

If they won it would lead to a free market and increased negotiation rights for players. However it could be expected that several teams such as Phoenix, Florida, etc would go belly up due to loss of revenues and not being able to compete. Which intern would put several players out of a job. With a sudden influx of players still trying to make a living from playing, could that not inturn result in the blue collar players contracts bottoming out? For instance could it not be seen 4th liners and bottom pairing defencemen on 100k a year salaries, seeing how a cheaper replacement could be found.

Sure the star player would likely benefit but wouldn't you see the average player suffer. Which makes me wonder if the NHLPA majority would even vote for this? Just makes me wonder if the NHL even feels threatened by this, everyone seems to comparing the NBA and NFL decertification threats to this but I beleive their econmic situations are quite different. Maybe I'm wrong and making a few wrong assumptions here and some of you seem to have better understanding of this but can someone tell me where I am because this sounds like a horrible move, and one that could jepordize us seeing any NHL soon.

Thanks

[Boudrias]

Oh, I get the ramifications. A few law suits against Leipold, Jacobs, Snider would do a world of good to the tone of NHL negotiating board room. In some cases it could be owners suing owners. The worst part is, it means two lost seasons for nothing. Surely the commish would be fired. Players give up all their hard fought for rights. Teams in dis-array with RFA's on the open market. Rangers spending like crazy while Phoenix folds. Owners suddenly allowed to speak without gag order. A lot would happen quickly to get this over with.

This won't happen. It would all have to be waived as part of a new CBA with union representation. You have to pull the trigger to set things in motion though. Fehr has set this up as a possible win for the players. The players wanted to play hockey all along. The players want to negotiate. They want to make a fair deal. I'd think they'd have a pretty good case in court if that's the game they want to play.

[poetica]

Pdc, you made multiple excellent points, some of which I referenced earlier (lower players' salaries tanking, poor teams folding, etc.) Certainly, if decertification were carried through it would be a world of bad for both teams and players.

If the players lost the lawsuits, which is entirely possible specially consindering the NFLPA lost the 1st part of their lawsuit to the NFL. Which I beleive with the amount of players playing across seas weakens the NHLPA's case compared to the NFL or NBA PA's. So if they lost wouldn't the players basically put themselves in a much worse situation?