Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[NEW.ERA]

From CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2012/08/23/sp-canada-sports-expansion.html

And this:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/08/23/sp-nhl-labour-talks.html

I understand the call for a return of the NBA to Vancouver, and the MLB to Montreal. But I know this in an NHL thread, but 7 more Canadian cities supporting the CFL? That's just stupid. 2 Sure, but 7. Also MLS to three more cities, quite a stretch.

So the Canadian cities with NHL admiration are quite simple. Saskatoon, Quebec, and Hamilton/Markham/Toronto dealie.

[The_Admiral]

FIFA doesn't like it when leagues go over twenty, so I'm not sure how we're adding all these Canadian MLS teams, and where we'd add them, anyway. Edmonton? Haha.

Also, Saskatoon has a third of the population of Winnipeg/Quebec City, with nobody living anywhere remotely nearby. It won't work. Hamilton won't work either.

The four executives also met Wednesday to discuss a way to move forward in the talks.

After that meeting, an afternoon bargaining session was cancelled.

The NHL.

[NEW.ERA]

FIFA doesn't like it when leagues go over twenty, so I'm not sure how we're adding all these Canadian MLS teams, and where we'd add them, anyway. Edmonton? Haha.

Also, Saskatoon has a third of the population of Winnipeg/Quebec City, with nobody living anywhere remotely nearby. It won't work. Hamilton won't work either.

The four executives also met Wednesday to discuss a way to move forward in the talks.

After that meeting, an afternoon bargaining session was cancelled.

The NHL.

I know Saskatoon quite well. I know it probably wouldn't work right now, but it's the only one I could think outside of the obvious Quebec/Southern Ontario. Maritimes, not even close, Victoria hell no, leaving a tremendous up and coming Saskatchewan economy as the only meaningful third destination.

[The_Admiral]

Halifax has a better chance than Saskatoon, but we're talking 5% over 0%. First, they'll need a new arena that seats more than the 10,000 the Metro Centre fits now. It would also mean heavily massaging the schedule to be weekend-heavy to accommodate day-trippers from New Brunswick, PEI, and Cape Breton Island, but the Coyotes already have a specially designed weekend-heavy schedule to accommodate people who live down the street, so it's not unfeasible. Saskatoon is just too small. Not only would they have to charge top dollar for tickets, but they would need a lucrative broadcasting contract. Where does that come in? The Flames, Oilers, and Jets already use Saskatchewan to supplement their RSNs, and they're not going to let a Saskatoon team use other major prairie cities. I don't see it working. There is no "third destination." I'm not convinced there's a second. We got Winnipeg taken care of, and Quebec City is next. That's all I see on the horizon.

[Lycan38]

Halifax has a better chance than Saskatoon, but we're talking 5% over 0%. First, they'll need a new arena that seats more than the 10,000 the Metro Centre fits now. It would also mean heavily massaging the schedule to be weekend-heavy to accommodate day-trippers from New Brunswick, PEI, and Cape Breton Island, but the Coyotes already have a specially designed weekend-heavy schedule to accommodate people who live down the street, so it's not unfeasible. Saskatoon is just too small. Not only would they have to charge top dollar for tickets, but they would need a lucrative broadcasting contract. Where does that come in? The Flames, Oilers, and Jets already use Saskatchewan to supplement their RSNs, and they're not going to let a Saskatoon team use other major prairie cities. I don't see it working. There is no "third destination." I'm not convinced there's a second. We got Winnipeg taken care of, and Quebec City is next. That's all I see on the horizon.

I agree, though the only other Canadian city I could see working for another franchise is Toronto. Though its certainly possible that franchise would struggle early on.

[Sodboy13]

Plenty of good news out of today's 90-minute meeting.

And, no, the owners aren't particularly concerned about giving up another full season to get what they want, because

"We recovered last time because we have the world's greatest fans."

In case you aren't certain what he means by that, allow me to translate:

[CS85]

Bettman's ignorance is astounding. This isn't going to end well for the players.

[HedleyLamarr]

Told you guys a year ago that Fehr being the head of the NHLPA was gonna be bad news for the fans in these labor negotiations.

Thankfully, I don't have a hockey team to miss.

[The_Admiral]

What does Fehr have to do with it? The owners were going to demand that 14% irrespective of the union head. It's not like they got together and said "ooh, this guy's good; let's really be a bunch of avaricious penises now." The only way this wasn't going to be bad news for the fans was if the union hired some double-agent to give the owners everything they wanted, and seeing as how my team is a water-carrier and as such benefits from the principle that elite players are worth employing, it still wouldn't have been good news for my fellow fans.

[HedleyLamarr]

What does Fehr have to do with it?

Dude was behind baseball missing a World Series.

He's not gonna have the NHLPA fold like a tent just because a season might not get played in a league far less popular worldwide than MLB. This thing could last a long time.

[The_Admiral]

I agree that he won't let the union fold like a tent, but I fail to see how the union folding like a tent would be good for anyone, or, given the exorbitant demands of ownership, even possible under any circumstances. You could have the NHLPA literally run by a blue nylon tent, and it would look at this proposal and say "not this time, guys!"

[Magnus]

How about the outlines of a proposal to further stimulate this topic?

Let's start with the premise that the owners and players need to work together in order to attract their client base (the fans). In the spirit of togetherness and equal partnership, (something a lot of collective bargaining agreements in industries around the world are sorely lacking) agree to split the HRR down the middle, 50-50.

Limit contract lengths to 5 years for free agents in an effort to curtail ridiculous front-loaded contracts. Provide an allowance for teams that develop their stars to keep them at least until they reach the UFA stage, rather than letting them leave for ?greener? pastures after only a couple of seasons.

Drop the requirement for a hard salary floor, BUT say that any teams that drop below it will not be eligible for revenue sharing. My hope is that for certain teams, this will have the effect of lowering their team salary to a minimum level (aka. budgeting.) If they still can't turn a profit after that, it should be fairly clear to the owners of said teams that the team(s) need(s) to either relocate or disband, as they are in a financial quagmire that they are unlikely to get out of by staying the course. (I hate that phrase.)

At the salary ceiling threshold, impose a (minimum) dollar-for-dollar tax. Put that money into a fund for player development in the AHL, ECHL, CHL, NCAA - and minor and junior leagues. I know it's hard for middle-class families to pay for all the costs of hockey, so why can't the NHL give back to its fans in this way?

[Sport]

Taking a break from lockout talk, the Blue Jackets upgraded their scoreboard. Cool.

http://bluejackets.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=82669

photo gallery

Also means this picture of me is now a relic

[The_Admiral]

Have you ever punched a cabbie?

[Sport]

Yes. My name is Patrick Kane.

[rvrdgsfn]

NHL's new proposal

According to TSN Hockey Insider Darren Dreger, the basis of NHL's latest proposal is to reduce the league's financial demands - believed to be approximately $460 million in the league's first proposal - overall, including a $120 million reduction in its Year One demands.

The latest proposal is for a six-year term on the new CBA.

The first three years would come in at fixed, pre-negotiated players' share dollar thresholds: 11 per cent, 8.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent less than the 2011-12 totals in the first three years respectively.

The players would also get a share in "upside hockey-related revenue growth" of over 10 per cent in each of the first three years.

For the final three years of the deal the league and players split revenues 50-50.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404044

Thoughts?

[Magnus]

I'm happy to see the proposal edge toward a 50-50 split. I'd like to know exactly what "upside hockey-related revenue growth" is, but I think this proposal looks reasonable.

On a pseudo-related note, OPSEU appears to have reached a tentative agreement. Only 2 years, but I would hope that in that amount of time, a longer term length of agreement can be negotiated, just as with the NHL.

[Kevin W.]

Please God don't take my hockey away. Let them come to an agreement already.

[rvrdgsfn]

Please God don't take my hockey away. Let them come to an agreement already.

Preachin to the choir brother, I'm hoping the same as well.

[The_Admiral]

Please God don't take my hockey away.

Oh okay I was going to but I guess if you insist and all

but anyway, the proposal

The salary cap would see an immediate reduction followed by a gradual rise over the course of the deal.

The cap for 2012-13 - projected to be $70.2 million under the existing CBA - would be cut to a fixed $58 million under the latest proposal.

That number would rise to a fixed $60 million in 2013-14 and then to a fixed $62 million the following year.

Projected cap numbers for the final three years of the deal include: $64.2 million in 2015-16, $67.6 million in 2016-17 and $71.1 million in 2017-18.

The league's proposal did not include an across-the-board reduction (or "rollback") to existing contract values.

THEN YOU CAN'T DROP THE CAP LIKE THAT, NUMBNUTS. How can you screw over the teams that spent to the cap that they thought they would be operating under? Moreover, why would you screw the teams that pay the freight for this league? If you're operating under the premise that there's too much money across the books around the whole league, but you're not taking any of it away, thus necessitating that teams over the new cap trade players to teams well beneath it, then all you're doing is re-allocating that money from the teams that can afford to pay it (Canada, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Pittsburgh) to those that cannot (essentially, everyone else). HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANYTHING BETTER?