NHLPA rejects realignment plan

[brelic]

http://b.bm324.com/public/?q=ulink&fn=Link&ssid=10573&id=70qxgwbmshmxlrxw9pxh4qjetqxnq&id2=62pxd5p7vev2dj7wuhivbhi1g6icl&subscriber_id=aztfbtxjvesfddrzbaamyeukklslbpg&delivery_id=bmyabhpwaudvccaeqglhcrembleqbbo&tid=3.KU0.BMnk_A.Bx99.MbV1..UUo1.b..l.Apr6.a.TwfarA.TwfarA.rOxDwg

[OzFlyer]

I wonder what they didn't like??

[brelic]

Same here.. not sure why they would reject it. I'm kinda happy, because I didn't like it at all, especially the playoff format.

If this is any indication as to how the labour talks are going to go, I think we'\re in for a stoppage anyway!

[brelic]

Here's a statement by Fehr on why they rejected the plan:

STATEMENT FROM NHLPA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DON FEHR REGARDING PROPOSED NHL REALIGNMENT

Toronto (January 6, 2012) – National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) Executive Director Don Fehr issued the following statement this evening regarding the League’s realignment proposal:

“On the evening of December 5, 2011, the NHL informed the NHLPA that they proposed to put in place a four-conference format beginning with the 2012-13 season. As realignment affects Players’ terms and conditions of employment, the CBA requires the League to obtain the NHLPA’s consent before implementation. Over the last month, we have had several discussions with the League and extensive dialogue with Players, most recently on an Executive Board conference call on January 1. Two substantial Player concerns emerged: (1) whether the new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and (2) the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the smaller and larger divisions.

In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the League to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns (e.g., the scheduling of more back-to-back games, more difficult and lengthier road trips, number of border crossings, etc.), but the League did not want to enter into such a dialogue. The travel estimation data we received from the League indicates that many of the current Pacific and Central teams, that have demanding travel schedules under the current format, could see their travel become even more difficult. On the playoff qualification matter, we suggested discussing ways to eliminate the inherent differences in the proposed realignment, but the League was not willing to do so.

The League set a deadline of January 6, 2012 for the NHLPA to provide its consent to the NHL’s proposal. Players’ questions about travel and concerns about the playoff format have not been sufficiently addressed; as such, we are not able to provide our consent to the proposal at this time. We continue to be ready and willing to have further discussions should the League be willing to do so.”

[OzFlyer]

@brelic

RandyJMiller Randy Miller

#Flyers player rep Coburn says union rejected NHL reallignment partly because 7-team conferences have unfair advantage to get into playoffs

[doom88]

I agree with the NHLPA's side of the argument, and like that they were acting in good faith before Bettman acted like his usual moronic self. I think the NHLPA had a right to ask for what they wanted like a sample schedule, since it helps them make an informed decision.

Mods, is there any way to sticky this thread as an announcement on all forums? It is a pretty big deal to everyone IMO, and while at it, maybe do this for all of the CBA-related major threads?

[hf101]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/puck-daddy/why-nhlpa-rejected-nhl-2012-13-realignment-plan-014526165.html

UPDATE 2: Bill Daly speaks with Sportsnet about the NHLPA's decision, including why the NHL just doesn't go ahead with the plan since they don't need formal NHLPA approval. (The reason? The don't want to start a labor way before the CBA negotiations.)

[B21]

<< I wonder what they didn't like?? >>

Bargaining chip when negotiations come up? Just a thought. "OK, NHL, we'll give you your realignment but add another 1% to our cut...."

[doom88]

I don't know, I wasn't super thrilled with the realignment plan overall anyway. I hope this forces them to think of something better. A straight swap of Nsh and Wpg makes sense to me geographically...and it doesn't ruin any major rivalries, and decreases travel out west overall (perceived, didn't actually count). Save the major changes for if/when Phx/TB/Fla fail.

[xganarchy]

maybe the NHLPA is hoping the NHL will expand enough to make all the divisions equal in size? What is it, 8 teams per?

[Digityman]

Dreger

Blocking realignment for next season dramatically impacts the owners and the teams most affected by the existing divisional and conference structure and therefore these teams and owners will be in no mood to play nice in the CBA sandbox when negotiations begin early next month. Undoubtedly, the NHLPA will use realignment as a bargaining chip or concession when talks heat up, which is understandable. In the meantime, the National Hockey League is contemplating filing a grievance against the Players Association and may also seek damages for those teams most impacted by player another full season status quo. Optimism of next season starting on time is beginning to fade.

[hf101]

An anonymous player talks about why the NHLPA rejected the proposed realignment:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/player-why-nhl-players-rejected-realignment-why-backlash-174427964.html

Puck Daddy

(The Player is an active member of a National Hockey League team. Anonymous by choice, he will provide insights about life in hockey on occasion throughout the season.)

"It is unfortunate that the NHLPA has unreasonably refused to support a Plan that an overwhelming majority of our Clubs voted to support, and that has received such widespread support from our fans and other members of the hockey community, including players."

That was Bill Daly, Gary Bettman's right hand man at the NHL and the "Plan" to which the Deputy Commissioner referred was, of course, realignment. The League had given the Players Association a deadline of Jan. 3 to either consent to the Plan or to reject it.

As everyone now knows, the PA shot it down.

In December, the League's Board of Governors approved a realignment proposal that would create four new "conferences." The two eastern-based conferences would each consist of 7 teams while the western and central-based conferences would be home to 8 teams.

Along with the re-shuffling of the teams, there were to be two major changes taking place next season. The first concerned qualification for the playoffs. The proposal called for the top four teams in each of the new conferences to make the playoffs.

The second had to do with scheduling. In a departure from the current format, each team would play home and home with every other team in the league outside of their own conference. The balance of their schedule would be made up of intra-conference games.

The initial reaction from around the hockey world seemed to be positive. With the exception of the two Florida teams joining the current Northeast Division, the conferences made sense geographically. In simple terms, there were to be two Eastern conferences, one Central time-zone conference (plus Detroit and Columbus,) and one conference of Mountain and Pacific time-zone teams.

The fans, and probably some players, liked the idea that each team would visit every road city at least once.

The playoff format promised to intensify some rivalries by setting up intra-conference match-ups in the first two rounds. Bettman was all smiles at the press conference when he announced the proposal and word leaked out that it had been approved by the Board of Governors by a vote of 26-4.

One could only assume, as I did, that a majority of the clubs liked the idea and that at least some of the teams with the biggest concerns going into the meeting (Detroit, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota and Winnipeg) were satisfied.

But there was no mention of, and relatively little media focus on how much more difficult it would be to make the playoffs for a team in an eight-team conference versus a team in a seven-team conference. And with regard to any potential increase in travel, League officials made some vague statements about how they were confident the schedule could be made to be more efficient.

At this point the proposal was put to the NHLPA. We could either say "yes" or "no" but we could not, according to the CBA, "unreasonably" withhold our consent. As a group the players had two main concerns — the competitive disadvantage of the teams in the eight-team conferences, and the effect that the new schedule would have on travel.

With that in mind we set out to have some questions answered by the League office.

Would they be willing to discuss any changes to the playoff format? It's pretty obvious that the "Plan" wouldn't be fair for the Eastern and Central teams. It wouldn't be fair to those players. Nor would it be fair, for that matter, to the fans of those teams, nor to the owners of those teams (who would have a 7-percent less chance of cashing in on playoff revenue each season).

Would Bettman and the owners be willing to consider some sort of wild card scenario to make the chances of playoff qualification more equitable for all the teams?

Gary's answer was clear. He was not willing to discuss different recommendations because he was not interested in our opinions. This was not a negotiation. All he wanted from the union was a yes or a no.

How would the new schedule effect player travel? Logic suggests that the travel would get a little tougher with every Western Conference team visiting every Eastern Conference city and vice versa.

Personally, I was optimistic that the NHL had thought this through, and could make good on its promise to make the schedule more efficient. Gone would be the days of an East Coast team flying out to California for two games against the Ducks and Kings, only to return later in the season to play the Sharks and the Stars. Not to mention a third trip out west to swing through Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. Not to mention those Western teams coming East.

Players around the league shake their heads at this type of thing every year.

Maybe, we thought, the new travel schedule wouldn't be that bad if we could have fewer, longer, better organized road trips. I assumed, also, that the travel burden would be eased on teams such as the Wild, the Red Wings, the Jets and the Stars.

After all, wasn't that what prompted the realignment discussion to begin with?

We asked the NHL for their projections so we could make an informed decision. How about a mock schedule; would that be too much to ask?

The information did not flow freely and, in the end, was judged by the PA to be woefully inadequate. In our collective opinion, the League either doesn't actually know for certain how travel would be affected, or they do know and they just don't want to tell us.

I really believe that a lot of players were initially excited about the prospect of realignment. Bill Daly was right when we said that the idea received "widespread support" from fans and players alike.

From the player's perspective, however, support for this plan waned as the process played out.

Let me be clear — the players are not fundamentally opposed to realignment. But we have to do our due diligence. If realignment is a good idea, then tell us why it's a good idea (and show us facts). At the very least we have to know what we're agreeing to. If travel is going to be worse, we should know that heading in.

And if it's going to be worse, why are we doing it? Maybe the NHL has research that shows that Hockey Related Revenues would grow under the new format. That could be a tradeoff the players might be willing to make in exchange for a more grueling schedule.

If the NHL has such projections, we haven't seen them.

Personally I think that the inequity in the opportunity to make the playoffs is an issue that might not be solved so easily. I'm surprised that this seems to concern the players so much more than the owners, GMs, and fans of those teams that would be put at a disadvantage. In the end, the players felt they had no choice but to withhold their consent.

Immediately following the NHLPA's decision the media began their hand-wringing. They interpreted our response as a shot across the bow in the upcoming CBA negotiations. A lot of people won't believe this but I don't see it that way. This is an issue unto itself.

As I said, I think a lot of players wanted to be excited about realignment, but did the league really expect us to agree to something like that without providing us with the basic information to make a decision?

Maybe they did. Or maybe Gary Bettman never liked the plan to begin with and was intentionally un-cooperative.

Bill Daly sounded pretty miffed when we gave the League our answer:

"We believe the Union acted unreasonably in violation of the League's rights. We intend to evaluate all of our legal options, and to pursue adequate remedies, as appropriate."

To my knowledge, so far we've heard nothing on this front. Maybe it's just me, but I find it strange that despite the rhetoric the NHL seems to have simply shelved their realignment proposal. No lawsuit, no further discussions, nothing.

No fight, Gary? That's not like you. Unless, as I said, it's not that important to him either way, and the worst case scenario is that the PA would take a PR hit. Maybe.

Initially there was some backlash when our decision became public, but not as much as I anticipated. I think a lot of media and fans understood where we were coming from on this issue. I also think that the players, especially the ones who lived through the 2004 lockout, have learned to worry less about the PR battle because it's a war we probably cannot win.

Chances are everyone involved will need to have some thick skin before the puck is dropped on the 2012-13 season.