NHL's CBA. Will there be a season?

[Mr. Poopypants]

What do you think? Will they reach an agreement? Training camp is supposed to start in 2 weeks. I sure hope there will be a season.Reports are saying that they are making some progress but the players and owners are at a deadlock in regard to the salary cap issue.

[Mr. Poopypants]

By the way, here is more info on the CBA if you are interested. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/...hlcba

[Mr. Poopypants]

Quote, originally posted by silverawd26 »Nope... Lockout...Unfortunately, I agree.

[Atomb]

i don't think so either.......enjoy the world cup! (ignore the 'golden' retro Winnepeg Hawks jersey in the meantime).

[Stang2Vibe]

I fear that a lockout will occur also. But, I will predict that the two sides hash something out within the next few months and we see an abbreviated NHL season. In the meantime, I may get to see some great hockey action from the other leagues if the sports networks substitute them for the missing NHL action. I'm a hockey junkie, I need my periodic doses, man!

[Stang2Vibe]

The league has evolved and changed so many times over the years that I can't even keep up with all of the specifics. I know that even into the late 70's there was the NHL which consisted of the eastern teams and the WHA that was made up of the west. They played some interleague games as part of their regular schedules and I suppose that the lines between the two got blurred. When they merged, that was the last time that the NHL went through any major restructuring, the rest since then has been league expansion and divisional realignment. I hate how they took the names off of the Conferences and Divisions and just gave them boring geographical names. Thanks Gary Bettman. He's a useless Pee-Wee Herman look-alike to me.

[kostby]

The answer is apparently 'No'!Quote »NHL schedules Wednesday news conference to cancel season Feb. 14, 2005SportsLine.com wire reports NEW YORK -- With its do-or-die deadline come and gone and no deal in sight, the NHL circled Wednesday as the day it would call off what little was left of a decimated season, the Associated Press learned Monday. Despite a last-gasp meeting Monday between the league and the players union, commissioner Gary Bettman still planned to cancel the remaining games, a source close to the negotiations said on condition of anonymity. The sides met well into Monday night, but the NHL said in a statement that no progress was made and that the league would have no further comment. The NHL announced that Bettman would speak at a news conference Wednesday in New York, but declined to give details. It would become the first major professional league in North America to lose an entire season because of a labor dispute. The Stanley Cup has been awarded every year since a flu epidemic canceled the finals in 1919. CBS Sportsline link to full story --> http://cbs.sportsline.com/nhl/story/8194657

[Pablo1669]

the players agree to a 52mil salary cap and Bettman turns it down, what a ******* on a personal mission.way to ruin the NHL

[Mr. Poopypants]

Tonight I will be sitting on my couch blubbering like a little girl with a skinned knee. I need my hockey!!!

[russ257]

this is dumb. the players are complaining they dont want a cap. why because they want more money. but when the nhl folds they wont be getting any money.

[PhillyVibeGT]

It is a shame, but the players will have to give in to the owners if they want to make SOME money instead of sitting home running summer camps. It was nice to watch the AHL all star game last night, at least it's something.

[StampedeVibe]

There's movement!! It looks like the players are willing to live with a salary cap. I'm still hopeful!!BTW, as for the Leafs moving to the east, I believe the story goes back to the 80's when Harold Ballard was the owner. The Leafs were getting massacred by the Canadiens back at that time, so Ballard moved the Leafs to the West so they wouldn't play the Canadiens as many times.

[Mr. Poopypants]

Quote, originally posted by Pablo1669 »the players agree to a 52mil salary cap and Bettman turns it down, what a ******* on a personal mission.way to ruin the NHLI would turn it down too! A 52 million dollar salary cap would only affect 3 teams. If I am not mistaken, Rangers, Maple Leafs.......and I cannot think of the other team off hand. I want to say Philly, but I could be wrong. Are the only teams that would have to dump salary. A 40 million dollar cap is MORE than fair for the players, and Goodenow and the players need to realize that, or they can all sit at home and pick their asses, or go play in Europe.The players are ruining the NHL now. Don't get me wrong though, Bettman is a horrible commissioner.

[Herb]

Quote, originally posted by Mr. Poopypants »The players are ruining the NHL now. Don't get me wrong though, Bettman is a horrible commissioner.No arguement there.In my opinion, I say the players should buy out the teams and then pay themselves whatever they want. That way if they can't afford a raise they have no one to blame but themselves.In anycase the whole thing is a mess. And in general, I think pro sports salaries are all out to lunch. If salaries can be brought down, then so can ticket prices which means more fans can afford to actually attend a game.

[gpk99]

Id have to disagree...as it stands or has been reported by the media......with even a 42 mil cap as the NHL has offered(no doubt to be turned down by the players)this is a death sentence to smaller market teams such as Edmonton,Calgary and Vancouver and in the states,Florida,Carolina and Pittsburgh(who has enough problems on thier own let alone a lock-out).We just can not compete on a fair basis up here in E-town with other teams if they institute a cap higher than 35-38 mil bux.Now the end is so near and the union and league are all of a sudden giving concessions to one another in hopes that they can meet middle ground.But the one that seems to be what may happen is one that the smaller markets just can not live with.And seeing this is basically what this lockout was all about in the first place.....by the sounds of it.....if this does go thru......kiss hockey goodbye to those 6 teams I mentioned in the beginning.All this time was a waste of time and effort if they come to a deal that reaches those terms(no linkage-42-44 mil cap) And what took the players so long to finally realize that a cap isnt so bad after all because they stated last night that they could live with a cap but no less than %52 mil.Pure utter ridiculousness.

[Stang2Vibe]

As a general rule of thumb, I oppose salary caps of any kind as well as revenue sharing. I think it is communism applied to sports. The problem with the NHL is that, on average, over 80% of team revenue comes from ticket sales. So teams that don't do well for a few years who see their ticket sales slump inevitably teeter on the verge of bankruptcy within a few seasons. That forces the owners to kick in more personal funds just to survive, and many of them are only willing to lose so much. Once the breaking point has been reached, they either look to dump off the team to another owner, relocate it to a new city to temporarily increase ticket sales and get them through the slump, or just fold the team altogether. It's a harsh environment and there aren't many options if your team is having trouble. The NHL reserves some funds to help bail out teams or to get them through a season or two, but it can't afford to institute a full-blown welfare system for team owners.The biggest part of the problem is that the league expanded too much too quickly over the last 10-12 years and now we're paying the price for it. More teams entering the league too quickly has a twofold effect.1. Having more teams added so quickly immediately waters down the average talent of each team in the league. And who is going to continue to buy season tickets to watch a team that remains mediocre at best for over a decade? People pay to see the superstars and teams that do an outstanding job at some facet of the game. Hockey is a smaller market sport and that's just the way it is. Since assuming the NHL throne, Bettman has been trying to run the league like a large market sport. When that wasn't working, he quickly expanded the league thinking that he could force it to work like a large market sport. That failed miserably too.2. More teams in the league inevitably drives up player salaries. Team A can't or won't pay, let's say, $8 million per year for a washed up 42 year old Mark Messier? Well, teams B, C, and D will probably cough up the funds for a year or two so they can fill some more seats for that season or two. They'll probably make back that $8 million and then some so it's usually worth the investment. Now team A loses that big name superstar and has to fill the roster spot. You either have to go hunting for another big name and lure him away from his team with an even more ridiculous salary than he's already making, or try to fill the spot with two or three smaller name but pretty talented players. And you will probably have to pay them more than they're already making to draw them to your team. And you aren't the only team in a tight spot; 6 or 7 other teams may be in the same predicament and going after some of the same players that you're trying to get. This is the breeding ground for instant salary inflation across the whole league.This wasn't so much of a problem before major league expansion because the player market was so much smaller. You were considered a jerk in the league if you left your team just for more money in most cases. Now you're name was trashed and you were seen as disloyal. If you were a younger player, no team would want to invest in developing you because you'd probably leave the team in a few seasons when another team flashed an extra $20 in your face. Back then, 2 or 3 teams at most usually courted a player and if a deal went sour with one of them, word spread fast and the other teams that were interested in you would probably look for someone else because you were seen as unreasonable. Now you will almost always find some team to pay you some ridiculous salary, even if only for a short term, whether you are seen as a jerk or not.And there's the issue of performance bonuses too. If my team owner put a clause in my contract that paid me an extra $2 million or whatever for scoring 30 or more goals that season, why the hell would I ever pass the puck to another player in the offensive zone? That is another thing that is ruining the game.Overall, the owners stand to lose more from cancelling the season than the players do. Many owners can't afford another season of zero revenue. They still have expenses to pay and with no income, the whole league is in the red. Several teams have been operating in the red for some time now and this is a huge strain for them. The players already made their millions, most of them can afford to sit out the season and still drive their luxury cars to the country club this spring and summer. If a new league forms as a result of NHL disbandment, who is the new league going to run to hire to play on their teams? The ex-NHL players. So they will make their money either way, but the NHL team owners will be left holding the bills that they now have no way to pay. Also, look at the who most of the main representatives are for the players. The big name guys who can easily afford to retire tomorrow for the most part. What the hell do they care if the league folds? They've got all the money as it is and most of them would be the first ones chosen for top-dollar salaries if a new league formed. They would probably be at the biggest advantage of anyone involved in this if the NHL folds. So the owners and the league are being forced to negotiate with the people who have the absolute least motivation to see that the NHL survives. I think that is why this has been so ugly and drawn out.I hate to say it, but I hope at this point that the NHL does cancel the season. Let them go back to the table without so much pressure with deadlines and work out the problems. I'd much rather see a revitalized NHL on October 1st than some half-assed attempt at solving the problems just to play 28 games and the playoffs. We'd be right back at the same point we are now in 2-3 years if they just slap some deal together at the last minute.

[PhillyVibeGT]

I agree with alot of what Stang has to say, he makes good points and has a good sense of what is going on within the league. I think he fails to see where the cap and revenue sharing will help the league in it's present form. The NHL average salary is higher than the NFL's, ok, apples and oranges but if 80% of your income is based on ticket sales you can not afford to give multi million dollar salaries to just anyone. $83.50 a seat for a Flyer game is a joke!!! Does it make any sense for Lemieux to wheel his @ss out on the ice to sell a few extra tickets to keep his team afloat? The game is, was and always will be a Canadian sport, you must do whatever is possible to keep those teams in the league i.e the Flames, Oilers etc. Did you ever have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the jelly, it's good but not the sandwich you know and love.Does it make any sense for the Rangers to spend 90 million dollars on every washed up talent in the league to finish 4th every year? NO. You can add Philly to that list too that spends 80 mill + and has not won the cup in 30 years and has not been close since 1987, 96 was a joke. Give 20 million of that to Calgary or the Oilers who can't afford to do so. The teams that don't spend crazy amounts of money seem to win the cup...The Devils and Tampa.The league killed themselves by expansion, too many teams in cities that don't need or deserve a team. Too many teams, 31 I think that have a team, a farm team and a farm team for thier farm team= too much watered down talent. Revenue sharing will help the league at this point. Maybe the CBA should call for non guarentied contracts, it will help eliminate players who should not be in the league but have contracts anyway. Which leads me to MY way of fixing the league...contraction, go back to 20 or 21 teams, no more. When the players contract runs out, you can resign them, give them minor league contracts or release them, they can play at the jr level, and if they are that good they will make it into the league. If you contract and rid yourself of teams in the U.S. that should not be there, a cap and revenue sharing will not be nessary in the future. Here is my list of teams that should not be around, I would rather rid the league of ten teams than rid the world of a professional hockey league. Columbus, both Florida teams, Anaheim, Buffalo, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Nashville, New Jersey and one of the following you pick...Washington, San Jose or Phoenix.

[Atomb]

alright..i'll pipe in...by now we should know if the season is over (11am deadline...1pm press conference)I agree with Philly on a 10 team contraction...although i'd keep Buffalo and Pittsburgh and replace them with Phoenix and Atlanta (I have a friend in San Jose and 'hockey fever' there is actually pretty strong!)as for Stang's comment about the owners standing to lose the most, i disagree. The vast majority of owners in the NHL are multi-billionaires and their NHL teams are not major sources of revenue for them (the few which do rely heavily on their NHL team for revenue deserve to fail!). In the end, this is from many reports i've read, the majority of owners can go at least 2 years without operating their NHL team before it becomes too large a burden on their core operations/corporations.As a result, the players have most to lose as time is not on a player's side. I heard a comment this week where they are speculating that up to 20% of the players may end up retiring when all of this is said and done. To lose 2 years of playing time is huge in the career of any sports athelete! Both physcially and financially.What i find funny...there were 2 concessions made: Owners agreed not to base salary levels on team financial status (i.e: players don't get paid less if team is not doing so well financially) and the players agreed to some form of cap (which i like...so now you know which side of the fence i sit on!)....so in essence, the owners are agreeing to not impose a restriction (status quo) while the players are agreeing to a restriction......hmmmm...i've negotiated a few contracts in my time and this is a pretty old 'tool' to get what you want...as for a cap introducing 'communism' to the sports world...i disagree. and the fact that you then go on to say that the league expanded too quickly is contradicting yourself. if you don't want 'communism' then you have to agree with free enterprise and the 'survival of the fittest' ...which results in over expansion...and eventual contraction. so you can't necessarily argue against caps AND against expansion. they are somewhat contrary...all in all, as a life long hockey player/fan/etc. i could care less. i've had the opportunity to see some GREAT OHL games in my home town for a fraction of the cost and MUCH more spirit in the stands....i don't think i've lost/will lose anything if they stay off the ice one more year!

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by PhillyVibeGT »I think he fails to see where the cap and revenue sharing will help the league in it's present form.I openly admit that generally, yes I do.Quote, originally posted by PhillyVibeGT »The NHL average salary is higher than the NFL'sI didn't know that, but it would make sense. I think that the reason why that would be true would be due more to the fact that there are many more NFL players than there are NHL players. Less players to average out over the entire salary figure=a much higher average salary. Also, the NHL really doesn't have things like "third string" players that make league minimum. Those type of players are in the minor leagues. If you added in the minor league hockey players and averaged in their salaries, it would be a much more fair comparison to the NFL.Quote, originally posted by PhillyVibeGT »Does it make any sense for Lemieux to wheel his @ss out on the ice to sell a few extra tickets to keep his team afloat? Lemieux has long ago attained idol status here in Pittsburgh. It's a long proven fact that when Mario plays here in Pittsburgh (and even in most other cities as a matter of fact) more tickets are sold. Since buying the Penguins and coming out of retirement, Mario has only paid himself something like $1.2 million per year. To put that into perspective, he once held the world record for the highest paid athelete ever (for any sport). I think that Alex Rodriguez is the only one to surpass that figure, so Mario has taken quite the pay cut actually.I also disagree with some of the picks of teams to kill off. Buffalo and Pittsburgh both entered the league for the 1967 season, so both teams do have a cult following that has endured for years. I don't know about San Jose, but they've made the playoffs a few times recently and seem to have gained a pretty strong following too.

[gpk99]

It's always been an old ploy by the NHLPA or any agent negotiating an agreement to not do anything of substance until the 11th hour.But that ploy fails to hit the mark this time because the owners in this instance will not cave in. What makes Goodenow look so ridiculous in this case is that his association has stated all along that they will never ever accept a salary cap....yet we have just seen ....in the very very final minutes of his 11th hour....that never ever doesnt mean a thing.He has shown his cards in the big poker game of big time collective bargaining and in essence has blown any credibility he has had with his own association. He doesnt even have the guts to call a vote of his membership on any proposal that the owners have given his side.He knows that he would lose that vote in a cheap New York minute.Would you want this moron leading your side in a tough bargaining marathon???? Plus......he has never appeared to have any solid strategy in long term tactics and has never ever negotiated with the goodwill of the game in mind as a whole. If this deal ever gets settled it wont be because the players had any leverage in the matter because they do not.They have never had any. The owners have the players by the balls in this matter....and always have had.

[Atomb]

"The owners have the players by the balls in this matter..."don't you mean "...by the pucks..."!