Jump to content

Who's to Blame NHLPA or the NHL?


It's a Canadian Game
 Share

  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you feel is the most at blame?

    • NHLPA
      0
    • NHL
      8
    • Both Are at Fault
      2


Recommended Posts

In this lockout I believe the players are a position to hold out longer than the owners. Thus the NHL needs to prepare a deal which has the appearance that the players have won. The NHL's deal did not do that. The players are asking for a fair deal, which begins with the current contracts that the owners have signed the players to are valid and payed out in full. After that a 50-50 split I think will get it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@It's a Canadian Game

did you see this blog? http://www.hockeybuz...t-Blog/89/47135

They(the NHL) threw out an anchor with their first offer, knowing it would seem unreasonable to the fans. It was meant to anchor the negotiations, not to the NHLPA, but to the fans. Then they waited for the outcry to die down, and put out their most recent offer. In contrast, it seems like a good deal. “The NHL is giving in,” cried the fans, when in fact they only offered what they wanted all along. Then, they waited for the NHLPA’s counter, only to immediately reject it and run to the media spouting nonsense about the offer being “a backward step.” Now, they seem like the good guys. The players are being greedy and not giving in. The lockout will continue, and eventually, the players will cave and come back begging for the NHL’s latest offer. Bettman will look merciful and kind, the players will look greedy and weak. The fans will not riot at NHL Headquarters and the sponsors will not jump ship. But in reality, Bettman and the owners will have simply manipulated the players, fans, sponsors, and networks to get everything they wanted.

They are going to have your cake and eat it too.

So no, I don’t think there will be an NHL season this year. And the only real reason for that is this:

The NHL wants to make a money-grab, and they will do it no matter the cost to the fans that support it.

OUCH........ :angry:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hf101 "In this lockout I believe the players are a position to hold out longer than the owners"

Really? I think the opposite, the war chest of a group of billionaries is a lot deeper than the NHLPA has going. Owners are independantly wealthy, players on the other hand will be desperate after a year or so. The owners can certainly starve out the players (or at least a good portion of them). If a few owners are struggling to stay aflot, the other owners will pitch in and help out, making sure the players can't take advantage of the situation in bargaining. I would be willing to bet quite a few millionarie players live beyond their needs...and playing in Europe won't help that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That's great, spot on. It's very funny how when it came to signing off on these big deals the NHL had no problem, but as soon as the CBA expired, all of a sudden they make the players look like they are being greedy. John-Michael Liles made a great point a few weeks back when he said that after the last lockout was finally resolved it seemed like everything was great and there was nothing wrong, but as soon as it expired, the NHL makes it sound like its been awful and everything has gone to ****. Despite seeing the highest revenues the NHL has ever seen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly I don't see that, Billionaries can hold out longer than millionaries, it's simple math. Any problem a particular owner encounters can be propped up with the Billions the NHL has in the war chest. Most pro athletes live beyond their means, I'm sure the NHL is no different. Basically, the more you make, the more you spend. The players can't afford to lose a whole season or more, the NHL owners can, to varying degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. But something seems different to me this time. The NHL might not be as strong as we think. Snider can't simply send money to Nashville or Minnesota if they need it. Teams like that can find financing to pay the bills but it severly hurts them down the road, to the point of "will they survice medium term".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly "Snider can't simply send money to Nashville or Minnesota if they need it. Teams like that can find financing to pay the bills but it severly hurts them down the road, to the point of "will they survice medium term"."

No Snider can't send the money, but Bettman sure can...and will, in order to provide a unified front. If the NHLPA sees teams are hurting financially, they will be like Sharks smelling blood in the water. The NHL through Bettman will put a "financial information block" of sorts, even if the owners are hurting, they will not be able to tell the press...and Bettman will just step in and take care of things. The precedent is already solid with the Phoenix situation and how the league stepped in a few years ago when the Devils could not pay bills...the league stepped in and took care of the payroll etc....all this and there was not even a strike at the time. Bettman will do whatever it takes to prop up the owners and provide a unified front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference this time is Fehr. I'm not sure he would come close to being able to stop Bettman from doing this but it WON'T happen in a vacuum like last time. Fehr will utilize it if need be. I'm just not 100% convinced of the leagues situation financialy (vs owners and players and banks and such). Hell, I'll even say they could be skirting certain laws if they just start moving money around willy-nilly without consent and banks approval, especially with a lockout in place.

If I'm a bank, where the NHL's money is, I'm either charging an incredibly high interest rate or saying "no" to any financing. The Devil's had to refinance what the the league loaned them as I recall... The same as the deal in Phoenix was contigent upon paying the league back. You have to know that's why they have had/are having trouble getting the money and backers to fund a non-viable team in a non-viable market... The Devi's had an easier time but I betcha the re-finacing terms were not good for the Devils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly I agree with that part, it would be very expensive to fiance a large loan to different teams. But I do wonder out loud...why would the NHL be dealing with banks in these types of sitations. The league is independantly rich, they can stash away profits into a league account and doll it out as they see fit....no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The league doesn't per say. My understanding is this: The league loans money to Phoenix but eventually Phoenix has to pay the money back. So Phoenix has to take a loan out to repay them. In the case of Phoenix, it's part of the purchase price of the team. So, if you are the bank, are you real keen on funding a barely marginal team's purchase when you know a big chunk is going just to debt. It's like buying a house you can barely afford and then taking out a 2nd mortgage to pay for credit card debt when you have no equity and won't be able to make the payments down the road. And just for fun, your also out of work (the lockout hence no income).

In the Devils case, they borrowed then had to restructure the whole thing to pay the league back. Again, a "not so good" investment from a banks perspective and I'm sure that's factored into the terms and rates. The first question from the bank (or atleast from me) would have been "you couldn't pay your bills before so why do you think you will be in the future given you would now have this big bill to pay also???"

I guess the league could finance it but thats kinda like what we all complained about with the sub-prime mortgages. The more times the league makes risky investment the more their rating goes down and ability to "help" teams out in the future.

And, again, I could be wrong but the NHL isn't in the business to make money per say. They are kinda like a holding company. The 30 teams make the money. The league just runs it all... Yes, it keeps a war chest of sorts for all sorts of things but it has the money only at the will of the owners... (who evidently bet the farm on Bettman and now the chickens are on the way home to roost...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@idahophilly "And, again, I could be wrong but the NHL isn't in the business to make money per say. They are kinda like a holding company. The 30 teams make the money. The league just runs it all... Yes, it keeps a war chest of sorts for all sorts of things but it has the money only at the will of the owners"

I don't know for sure, but that sounds pretty accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...