Thread: So what's up with the NHL?
-
Oct 11th, 2004 09:26 PM
#1
Sr. Member
So what's up with the NHL?
I've not paid much attention to the NHL for a few years now and I've been hearing that they might go on strike... has it happened yet?
-
-
Oct 11th, 2004 09:30 PM
#2
Yes, the lockout is on. And it's going to be a very long time before hockey resumes.
At this point we're hoping for a miracle that a deal gets done for January. If nothing is in place by January the season is scrapped and we start hoping for next year.
From the looks of it now it could be upwards of a year and a half before hockey resumes.
-
Oct 11th, 2004 09:40 PM
#3
-
Oct 11th, 2004 09:49 PM
#4
I'm not an expert on labour laws, but I read that if the NHL (like any other employer) is not anywhere close to reaching a deal with the union after say, a year, then they can declare an impasse . Once they declare an impasse, they can get replacement players. I'm not positive on this (maybe someone can confirm or deny), but I think they have to make a few proposals, have them rejected, and then they can declare an impasse. I for one, hope it comes to this. I want to see NHL break the union, and make them pretty much powerless, just like the NFLPA.
-
Oct 11th, 2004 09:50 PM
#5
Pretty much.
A bunch of billionare owners arguing with a bunch of millionare players over who should get more millions.
Don't you love it when people better off then you fight about how they want more money and power?
-
Oct 11th, 2004 10:11 PM
#6
If the owners fold in January and they sign a deal that's similar to what we have now, we know they were lying about their losses.
If the owners stick to their guns and hockey is out for a year or more, then I think we know that the owners were being more honest than not and they're serious about fixing the game economics this time.
I have no problem with players trying for as much money as they can; it annoyed me when my employer would contract me out at $120 / hour and I made only 15% or 20% of that. Now that I have the leverage I can ask for a greater portion of what I make for the company.. the players are the league and they should get a significant portion of the profits. But a fair portion that leaves enough for owners to make a profit as well; they're the one risking their investment.
-
Oct 11th, 2004 10:22 PM
#7
I think the owners do have one point about salaries.
Something like 70% of revenue goes to player salaries. That's much more then any other sport.
But the more important questins is how will the league be affected by an extended work stoppage. Just look at baseball, it was nearly killed by their stoppage.
So how much is the NHL going to lose. There's a few teams already on the ropes, if there's no play for 1.5-2 years the chance of a few teams folding could be a possibility.
Although over-expansion helped get the league to where they are now, so contraction might be part of a solution. Although a drastic solution at that.
-
Oct 11th, 2004 11:00 PM
#8

Originally Posted by
mallik
I'm not an expert on labour laws, but I read that if the NHL (like any other employer) is not anywhere close to reaching a deal with the union after say, a year, then they can declare an impasse . Once they declare an impasse, they can get replacement players. I'm not positive on this (maybe someone can confirm or deny), but I think they have to make a few proposals, have them rejected, and then they can declare an impasse. I for one, hope it comes to this. I want to see NHL break the union, and make them pretty much powerless, just like the NFLPA.
Are you serious? You are in favour of the owners busting the players's union? That is ludicrous.
I blame both sides for this impasse, but the last thing I want in this whole mess is for the owners to bust the union. Both sides have to come to an agreement, and enter into a true partnership where both sides benefit, and get what they deserve, so it is fair for everyone. You want it to go back to the early years of the NHL when owners made all the money, and paid the players peanuts? The owners totally took advantage of the players, and the owners continue to screw each other over since they can't agree to share the revenue amongst themselves to make sure there are strong viable franchaises.
Who wants to see a watered down product with a bunch of scab players, playing second tier hockey anyways? If the owners busted the union, you can forget any of the players ever coming back to play.
-
Oct 11th, 2004 11:05 PM
#9
F- the NHL... they dun't care bout fans.. only $
-
Oct 12th, 2004 01:57 PM
#10
Strictly speaking the players don't have a union, they have an association. In a union they'd negotiate for equal salaries for every player across the board (ie $150,000 x # of years played or something). In the NHLPA's case, they negotiate each salary individually in the best interests of that individual (a pretty non-union thing).
-
Oct 12th, 2004 07:22 PM
#11
Rogers just announced they are going to add NCAA football and basketball broadcasts to their digital cable lineup, SWEET! And probably due to the fact that they won't be showing hockey anytime soon.
-
Oct 12th, 2004 08:19 PM
#12
Heh, I had to steal this from a hockey forum I'm on..
http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nflpa100804.html
A bit ago Bob "Mo money" Goodenow said that NFL players are unhappy with their current salary cap. He said that they haven't spoken to any NFL players that endorse their system.
Well I guess he's telling the truth if he hasn't spoken to ANY players
Lol, I wonder if Bob'll have a job when this is all said and done.
-
Oct 18th, 2004 10:02 AM
#13
The thing that really surprised me about this strike, unlike the recent MLB/NBA work stoppages (or looming work stoppages) was that a lot of players have publicly said that they'd take the owners' proposed changes.
Even if the player's association gets what they want, missing a year of hockey will do so much harm to the league, the players lose both financially and their credibility.
I gave up on hockey after the Penguins last won the Cup, not going back anytime soon...
-
Oct 19th, 2004 12:52 PM
#14
The problem with an NHL work stoppage is that the majority of people in the USA do not really care about hockey. Sad, but true. Sportsnet had some outrageous figure that stated over 50% of Americans polled, didn't even know there was an NHL lockout. To me, that means there is not enough public outcry or fan pressure to resolve this matter. If there is that much fan apathy now, what is that figure going to look like after a prolonged lockout?
There have been no meetings, no talks, no action...nothing. There is no pressure from within the two sides to solve this. Both sides can't talk about their personal feelings as Bettman and Goodenow have placed gag orders on everyone involved. Bettmen fined the owner of the Atlanta Thrashers $250,000 (OUCH!) for voicing his opinions recently on a radio show. John Madden has said the Players Association should consider a salary cap. No doubt the PA got to him as Madden said he was misquoted.
-
Oct 19th, 2004 05:12 PM
#15
I'm usually quite a big hockey fan, and I don't seem to be caring about the lack of NHL this year. Heck, most of the games they play in the regular season are poor in quality anyways, trap trap trap trap, bad calls, you name it.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules