2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[L K]

So Gary Bettman gave a September 15th deadline for an agreement, else he locks out the players.  I'm wondering if this is going to be a wonderful sliding deadline like the garbage he has run with Phoenix for the last 4 years or if he's only an arrogant hardass when it comes to screwing over the NHLs overall health.

 

[Peter D.]

The NHLPA intends to counter with a proposal on Tuesday, giving both sides a month plus a day to resolve this before a lockout occurs.  It's almost inevitable at this point.  :-\

 

[maplesyrup]

Maybe I'll play some fantasy football this year. - Always wanted go try that.

 

[Kin]

The NHLPA intends to counter with a proposal on Tuesday, giving both sides a month plus a day to resolve this before a lockout occurs.  It's almost inevitable at this point.  :-\

Damien Cox made a really good point about that though. If there is a lockout the fans really do deserve a degree of the blame. Last time the NHL locked players out for a year, cancelling an entire season, and as soon as it was over fans came back and gave the league record revenues year after year. Knowing that, why would the league be afraid of a lockout again?

 

[L K]

The NHLPA intends to counter with a proposal on Tuesday, giving both sides a month plus a day to resolve this before a lockout occurs.  It's almost inevitable at this point.  :-\

Damien Cox made a really good point about that though. If there is a lockout the fans really do deserve a degree of the blame. Last time the NHL locked players out for a year, cancelling an entire season, and as soon as it was over fans came back and gave the league record revenues year after year. Knowing that, why would the league be afraid of a lockout again?

Not that I believed it, but they won the PR war last time with the "we need a cap to have financial stability" argument.  I don't think they can run that argument again and win. 
I like Damien's 'blame the fans' approach, but the bottom line is that the NHL is pretty stupid if they want to play Russian Roulette a second time with the health of the league.

 

[Kin]

Not that I believed it, but they won the PR war last time with the "we need a cap to have financial stability" argument.  I don't think they can run that argument again and win.

The leagues win the PR battle every single time. There's no logic to it. So long as the majority response is "Hey, I only make 50,000, these players make millions and they're complaining?" then no player's union will ever win the hearts and minds.

I like Damien's 'blame the fans' approach, but the bottom line is that the NHL is pretty stupid if they want to play Russian Roulette a second time with the health of the league.

Blame was my word but I think the point remains. I don't get the sense from many fans that a lockout would preclude them from following the team so the NHL probably figures they have a good amount of latitude.

 

[Hampreacher]

Part of the problem from last time is still there! Gary Bettman. He seems to forget its labor negotiations and not labor dictation. Surely both sides realize especially in tough economic times a lock out could be fatal to the NHL.  Tehey are by no means close to the staure the once had in the sports market. The NBA, NFL and MLB have a gaint share of the market.

 

[#1PilarFan]

Damien Cox made a really good point about that though. If there is a lockout the fans really do deserve a degree of the blame. Last time the NHL locked players out for a year, cancelling an entire season, and as soon as it was over fans came back and gave the league record revenues year after year. Knowing that, why would the league be afraid of a lockout again?

Two things:

1) Damien believes that the fans are to blame for the Leafs lack of success too, which I don't agree with.
2) The NHL would have to be very obtuse to take that perspective: "Hey it worked last time and we did pretty well, why not try it again?" Much like voter turnout declines when there are more elections, the NHL can't expect to repeat the same process and expect the same results. The fanbase will get exhausted and everyone knows how long it took MLB to recover from their strike.

 

[Kin]

Two things:

1) Damien believes that the fans are to blame for the Leafs lack of success too, which I don't agree with.

I think you and I can both agree that's an oversimplification of an argument that is certainly not limited to Damien Cox.

2) The NHL would have to be very obtuse to take that perspective: "Hey it worked last time and we did pretty well, why not try it again?" Much like voter turnout declines when there are more elections, the NHL can't expect to repeat the same process and expect the same results. The fanbase will get exhausted and everyone knows how long it took MLB to recover from their strike.

That strikes me like fairly dicey reasoning. Unless you know why Pro Sports labour disputes are specifically like elections as opposed to the thousands of other things I could name where you can do the same thing over and over again and get the same or better results(We can't just keep letting Michael Bay make terrible movies, people will stop going!) then the NHL would be perfectly reasonable to not fear the consequences of a lockout when they don't think there will be any.

 

[#1PilarFan]

I think you and I can both agree that's an oversimplification of an argument that is certainly not limited to Damien Cox.

It's like being a "birther". You're right Cox probably isn't the founder of the movement, nor is the issue as simple as I made it out to be, but it's still pretty far out there.

That strikes me like fairly dicey reasoning. Unless you know why Pro Sports labour disputes are specifically like elections as opposed to the thousands of other things I could name where you can do the same thing over and over again and get the same or better results(We can't just keep letting Michael Bay make terrible movies, people will stop going!) then the NHL would be perfectly reasonable to not fear the consequences of a lockout when they don't think there will be any.

I mean, obviously we're both using pretty flimsy analogies. Bay's success is based on his brands, flair for cheap entertainment and international appeal and voter turnout is already so mediocre in so many countries that neither scenario holds true.

With that said, some of the NHL markets are holding on by a thread and are, at best, the third or fourth option in the sports scene. You're right in that the fans of teams like New York, Toronto and Montreal will welcome a post-lockout NHL with open arms. It's the casual (read American) fans that you can't afford to take for granted and to do so would be extremely dangerous.

 

[Kin]

It's like being a "birther". You're right Cox probably isn't the founder of the movement, nor is the issue as simple as I made it out to be, but it's still pretty far out there.

With all due respect, that's about as bad an analogy as I've read. It's nothing like that and I'd actually go the other way. If you don't think that the Leafs fans filling the building every night hasn't at least in part contributed to a degree of complacency among Leafs management over the years I'd question a lot about you.

I mean, obviously we're both using pretty flimsy analogies. Bay's success is based on his brands, flair for cheap entertainment and international appeal and voter turnout is already so mediocre in so many countries that neither scenario holds true.

Well, my analogy was intentionally flimsy(although I could argue for it because I'd link both to the inherent simplicity of the public) but that's kind of beside the point. My point was more that the usual reasoning is that you can do the same thing and get the same result unless you can show a specific reason why not.

If I were going to use a better comparison I'd point to the last lockout. Or the stoppage in 94-95. Or the last two NBA disputes. Or what happened with the NFL last summer.

With that said, some of the NHL markets are holding on by a thread and are, at best, the third or fourth option in the sports scene. You're right in that the fans of teams like New York, Toronto and Montreal will welcome a post-lockout NHL with open arms. It's the casual (read American) fans that you can't afford to take for granted and to do so would be extremely dangerous.

I don't think that reasoning holds either. If I'm a casual fan I'm not worked up about a lockout and my interest doesn't wane because there isn't product for a couple months. Unless a lockout fundamentally changes my way of thinking about the sport my relationship to it as a fan is bound to be unchanged also.

 

[#1PilarFan]

With all due respect, that's about as bad an analogy as I've read. It's nothing like that and I'd actually go the other way. If you don't think that the Leafs fans filling the building every night hasn't at least in part contributed to a degree of complacency among Leafs management over the years I'd question a lot about you.

No, Nik, I don't accept that, for two reasons.

I cannot imagine a scenario where the MLSE owners are happy/content/ambivalent about forgoing years upon years of playoff revenue because they're uninspired.

Assuming that they are making so much money that they feel the need to not max out their revenue, for whatever reason, Toronto is a merciless market with expectations far higher than probably 90% of the league. So, even if there might be less financial pressure - but given that there is a board and not a single owner that seems unlikely - there is certainly more media/fan pressure than most other NHL cities. 

I think there is a much more logical explanation; they're just not very good at producing good sports teams. There are a ton of reasons why this might be case and none of them are that the Leafs are happy with sabotaging themselves through complacency.

I would equate the "Leafs don't win because they make too much money" theory with other conspiracy theories of its kind, which is pretty much what I did.

I don't think that reasoning holds either. If I'm a casual fan I'm not worked up about a lockout and my interest doesn't wane because there isn't product for a couple months. Unless a lockout fundamentally changes my way of thinking about the sport my relationship to it as a fan is bound to be unchanged also.

The thing is Nik, I know you don't see sports franchises as traditional businesses, but there must be consideration for the competition. You're right, that there were little to no negative effects on the NHL's revenue streams (apart from lost ticket revenue during '04-'05, which is pretty substantial for a gate-driven sport) but why as a businessman would you risk losing your customers again? And so soon after the previous lockout?

 

[Brian Glennie]

I'll probably follow the Marlies and watch some NBA.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8252042/sources-dwight-howard-los-angeles-lakers-four-team-deal-complete

 

[Kin]

No, Nik, I don't accept that, for two reasons.

I cannot imagine a scenario where the MLSE owners are happy/content/ambivalent about forgoing years upon years of playoff revenue because they're uninspired.

Assuming that they are making so much money that they feel the need to not max out their revenue, for whatever reason, Toronto is a merciless market with expectations far higher than probably 90% of the league. So, even if there might be less financial pressure - but given that there is a board and not a single owner that seems unlikely - there is certainly more media/fan pressre than most other NHL cities. 

I think there is a much more logical explanation; they're just not very good at producing good sports teams. There are a ton of reasons why this might be case and none of them are that the Leafs are happy with sabotaging themselves through complacency.

I would equate the "Leafs don't win because they make too much money" theory with other conspiracy theories of its kind, which is pretty much what I did.

Well, again, in saying that it's a "the Leafs don't win because they make too much money" you're again vastly oversimplifying a fairly complicated point of view. I'd be happy to have that discussion with you sometime where it's slightly more relevant but for now I think you'd agree that it's largely beside the point here. Even if it's a viewpoint you disagree with there are lots of people who have viewpoints on certain things I disagree with who then make points I do agree with so that you disagree with that is a fairly separate and unrelated topic.

The thing is Nik, I know you don't see sports franchises as traditional businesses, but there must be consideration for the competition. You're right, that there were little to no negative effects on the NHL's revenue streams (apart from lost ticket revenue during '04-'05, which is pretty substantial for a gate-driven sport) but why as a businessman would you risk losing your customers again? And so soon after the previous lockout

I'm not 100% on what you mean by me not seeing sports leagues/franchises as traditional businesses, or really what a traditional business is, because increasingly I do. I think the notion of a sports franchise as any sort of public trust is a fairly quaint notion that's dying a pretty speedy death.

Anyways, you're sort of dancing around the issue. You ask me why I'd risk losing my customers when the point being made is that the risk you're talking about doesn't exist. It sounds good to say that fans will be so turned off by a labour dispute that they'd abandon the sport but there's really nothing by way of actual evidence to suggest that would happen. I certainly haven't seen or heard anything here suggesting that they would stop following hockey if the league locks out players for a few months to open the season.

And I think you're kind of misrepresenting the relationship that the NHL has with it's competition. If the NHL is locked out then, yes, your typical fan might have a bit of money in his pocket that he'd then spend on other entertainment options but, again, unless that lockout fundamentally changes their relationship to the sport the fan has as soon as the NHL returns that fan will look at the NHL in largely the same way. The questions that fan will face are "How much do I like watching hockey?" and "Is it worth it to me to buy these tickets/jerseys/TV packages". The reality, though, is that no fan will be permanently turned off of hockey by a lockout and what it says about the NHL because there's no real difference between the NHL and any other sports he or she may choose to follow in its absence. Labour disputes are a fact of life for a modern sports fan.

The only real threat would be if someone came along and, because of the labour dispute, offered a real alternative to hockey fans. That would present a risk to me. If I were an NHL owner and I thought that my locking out the players would jeopardize my place in terms of offering fans the best hockey available then I'd be concerned about locking out the players. As is, though, being as they can pretty legitimately rely on public support regardless of what they're asking for and they'll always be able to sell the best quality hockey upon return...no, I just don't see the risk you're talking about.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I like Damien's 'blame the fans' approach

I'm sure Damien was there offering to The Star to cover any sports but hockey in order to show his distaste and not draw attention to the NHL in the paper.

 

[hockeyfan1]

In the event of a labour lockout, the true hockey fan will always come back and support the sport he/she loves to watch.

Those on the precipice meaning those hockey fans that are either new to the sport or haven't been fans for long enough, it will depend on the length of the lockout to determine whether they will once again turn to watching hockey.

Even though the last lockout my have turned away a small percentage of fans -- small because the NHL's revenue streams have risen -- there is the possibility that an even greater percentage of fans will have been perceived to have had their interest in hockey dulled.  Yet, if the NHL continues to gain in revenues, it will refute the above claim.

Let's hope there is no lockout. It would be better for all interests if there wasn't one at all.

 

[Hampreacher]

This time with the economy in bad shape if the NHL has a lock-out people will have invested their entertainment dollars in other areas and may not come back because their entertaiment dollars are spent. It would be disaster to NHL. Bettman better not under estimate a stronger NHLPA this time.

 

[moon111]

For MLSE to make money, they could spend allot more then anyone to ensure they have a team in the playoffs every year.  They did that successfully, winning more playoff rounds then any other Canadian team since `93.  Then came in the Cap.
Now it makes no sense for MLSE to want a high cap.  It's no advantage.  The NHLPA wants more transfer payments.  Poor teams want a lower cap to make money.  The rich teams want a lower cap to reduce/eliminate transfers.  I think the NHL is going to dig it's heels in allot deeper then many people realize.  Although Burke might realize this.  He's got an additional $20 million in Cap Space after this season, while other GM's might end up looking like JFJ did. 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

In the event of a labour lockout, the true hockey fan will always come back and support the sport he/she loves to watch.

Those on the precipice meaning those hockey fans that are either new to the sport or haven't been fans for long enough, it will depend on the length of the lockout to determine whether they will once again turn to watching hockey.

Even though the last lockout my have turned away a small percentage of fans -- small because the NHL's revenue streams have risen -- there is the possibility that an even greater percentage of fans will have been perceived to have had their interest in hockey dulled.  Yet, if the NHL continues to gain in revenues, it will refute the above claim.

Let's hope there is no lockout. It would be better for all interests if there wasn't one at all.

Supporting the game we love doesn't have to involve the NHL. Junior hockey in Canada is top notch. High School hockey is gaining fuel and improving yearly. Minor hockey is always a blast to watch from the 4 year olds following the puck all over the ice to the Midget AAA teams showing glimpses of talent good enough to move on to the next level.

I for one will not be without hockey. If the NHL thinks they have me as a dedicated and true fan regardless of their silly squables, they're wrong. We don't need them as much as they need us.

 

[cw]

With all due respect, that's about as bad an analogy as I've read. It's nothing like that and I'd actually go the other way. If you don't think that the Leafs fans filling the building every night hasn't at least in part contributed to a degree of complacency among Leafs management over the years I'd question a lot about you.

No, Nik, I don't accept that, for two reasons.

I cannot imagine a scenario where the MLSE owners are happy/content/ambivalent about forgoing years upon years of playoff revenue because they're uninspired.

Assuming that they are making so much money that they feel the need to not max out their revenue, for whatever reason, Toronto is a merciless market with expectations far higher than probably 90% of the league. So, even if there might be less financial pressure - but given that there is a board and not a single owner that seems unlikely - there is certainly more media/fan pressure than most other NHL cities. 

I think there is a much more logical explanation; they're just not very good at producing good sports teams. There are a ton of reasons why this might be case and none of them are that the Leafs are happy with sabotaging themselves through complacency.

I would equate the "Leafs don't win because they make too much money" theory with other conspiracy theories of its kind, which is pretty much what I did.

I basically agree.

Since we're talking about "MLSE", I'm confining those thoughts to the last 12-20 years or so.

MLSE has thrown money at nearly anything that might help: facilities, farm teams, scouts, staff, coaches, etc, etc. The Leafs GMs have had nearly every wish granted and no shortage of anything aside from the talent they collected.

During the Quinn years up to '04, they won a heck of a lot of playoff rounds and played a lot of playoff games (near the top of the league during Quinn's years before the lockout). That was not the result of complacency. The Fletcher-Burns-Gilmour years were credible efforts to contend and not the result of complacency.

In terms of wanting to make the playoffs, JFJs decisions and Burkes have both been touted as compromised in trying to rush them back into the playoffs - short cuts to competitiveness. That is not a sign of complacency by MLSE who have been concerned about their "brand" after years of missing the playoffs. If Peddie meddled with JFJ, it wasn't because Peddie was trying to lose. However misguided his meddling was to whatever degree it existed, it wasn't motivated by "let's be more complacent!!"

I think the complacency notion is pure nonsense because their GMs have had every asset they've asked for at their disposal. And I'd say something similar applies to the Raptors and the soccer/Marlies teams. Poor management/talent judgment, bad luck - stuff like that has had much, much more to do with their record.