Best reason why the NHL won't be coming back this year (season)

[wyvernmcd]

(Quote courtesy of the Montreal Gazette)

This is why we are staring into the face of a winter without NHL hockey. Because Bettman, a pint-sized Grinch with a pea-sized heart, has no passion for the game. He does not like or respect the players, he has no use for the journalists who cover the game, he doesn't care a fig for the thousands or tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs or had their hours reduced because of the Bettman lockout.

Above all, Gary Bettman has nothing but contempt for the millions of fans who provide the financial engine that drives the game. Bettman talks about "our wonderful fans" but what he means is "the suckers who keep buying tickets, no matter how badly they are treated."

That pretty much sums it up. Bettman has to go for the sport to survive, period. 3 lockouts (work stoppages, etc.) under his tenure is ridiculous. Why does he work harder to get the NBC TV contract but not the product that the NBC network is supposed to show? (last year multi-Billion contract with the NHL and NBC Universal)

I like hockey but I hate the NHL.

There has already been discussion of the owners allowing "replacement players" into the NHL so they can get back to their money making (I mean rip-off ticket and concession sales) ways.

(From the Ottawa Sun)

Open the doors to people who will truly appreciate the job, guys who won't mind fixing the problems your mismanagement will inevitably create.

They'll work for less, so you can charge a lot less for tickets.

The truth about fans is most cheer for the logo. I'm sorry, but many of them wouldn't know good hockey from a notch or two below. That's not a terrible thing. They go to games to support the local team and have some fun. That won't change.

Charge less for beer, too. That will make the new on-ice product more enjoyable."

Um.... no it won't. Didn't we already have this problem with the "replacement ref's" of the NFL? 

In short, I don't see the NHL coming back this year and its sad because I like the sport, but I am not going to waste my time and money pining for the time when I can sit back and watch the overpriced NHL games when I can currently pay attention to the AHL (NHL minors), KHL (Russian pro league) and college games and have more enjoyment watching them play even if I have no clue who 90% of the people are. A good game is just that. I don't need to watch a game because of a team logo, rivalries or anything like that.

If it comes back, good for them, I'm not paying attention.

[EDGECRUSHER]

He told NBC to not show the charity game that the players just put on in Atlantic City for Hurricane Sandy victims. It's hard to call him anything other than a douchebag.

[Fins4ever]

Heard some radio show hosts talking to a former player and they both agreed that this is the worst strike in their history and the players are fools for not agreeing to the offer. They said the deal is more than fair and the players are the real losers as they can never get the year back.

They said the tv networks were pissed because they just signed a record deal and the sport was gaining popularity. This could be devastating to the sport and they said the fans may never forgive this one, unlike 1994.

Personally, I lived in Central FL and bought several tickets every year to the spring training games of the Astros in Kissimmee. When the players went on strike, I got a refund on my tickets and have never been to a game since.

F THEM!

[Landshark]

Two work stoppages in eight years.  Dang!!

[Spider-Dan]

Fins4ever,

This is not a strike.  It is a lockout.

A lockout is the OPPOSITE of a strike.

[MaineDolFan]

Spider ~ it is vastly different.  However, recent developments have really had the players "holding more cards" (refusing very good last two offers).  Additionally, I haven't seen any proof the player's union would have agreed to play the year through the old CBA while working on a new one, so "lock out" or no, I don't think ice time would have happened this year.  It's a good 'ol fashioned game of chicken, neither party here are saints.

[Landshark]

Spider ~ it is vastly different.  However, recent developments have really had the players "holding more cards" (refusing very good last two offers).  Additionally, I haven't seen any proof the player's union would have agreed to play the year through the old CBA while working on a new one, so "lock out" or no, I don't think ice time would have happened this year.  It's a good 'ol fashioned game of chicken, neither party here are saints.

If I recall correctly, the new CBA signed in 2005 was very "owner friendly"  The NHLPA conceeded a lot to get the deal done, and as a result, they now have a new NHLPA chief.  So the owners got the deal they wanted back in 2005, and now they're not satisfied with it?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Spider-Dan]

Spider ~ it is vastly different.  However, recent developments have really had the players "holding more cards" (refusing very good last two offers).

I don't follow hockey particularly closely, but my understanding is that the owners got nearly everything they wanted in the last CBA, including straight up salary rollbacks.

However, my more-general objection is to the idea that strike and lockout are somehow interchangeable (and both are the fault of the players).

Additionally, I haven't seen any proof the player's union would have agreed to play the year through the old CBA while working on a new one, so "lock out" or no, I don't think ice time would have happened this year.

Are you saying that the players were prepared to strike?  I have seen nothing to this effect.

[wyvernmcd]

He told NBC to not show the charity game that the players just put on in Atlantic City for Hurricane Sandy victims. It's hard to call him anything other than a douchebag.

I think he also didn't want the game to be aired due to the "Fire Betman" chants from the crowd of 11,000 (probably more) that attended.

Pretty sad that during a charity event people are calling for someone's head but that's how bad he is to the sport.

[wyvernmcd]

However, my more-general objection is to the idea that strike and lockout are somehow interchangeable (and both are the fault of the players).
Are you saying that the players were prepared to strike?  I have seen nothing to this effect.

I would say yes and no. Yes, I think the players would strike if they didn't have any other options and locations to play, but they do which I also say no that they would not go on strike (if given the chance).

I recently read that Sidney Crosby is getting tired of waiting and is fed up with both the league and the NHLPA and has considered jumping ship after telling everyone that he was not planning on jumping ship. Considering that people I know don't know anything about hockey but know about him, this is like (OK, not exactly, but consider) Gretzky considering playing overseas because his players union and the NHL owners don't see eye to eye. I'm waiting to hear if NBC has a "bail out of contract" contingency plan since they only signed on recently.

If the players didn't have any of the Europe leagues I could see them strike but since they seem to be OK with playing overseas, they seem to be OK with the league owners locking them out. What I think would piss the players off is if the owners follow through and bring in minors and juniors into the league just to get some business going. Even with the owners in the position of locking the players out, teams may go into (or close to) bankruptcy for this (mostly the lower revenue generating teams). The NHL has already lost some sponsors over this and if it does come back, it will be the weakest the league has probably ever been.

Now they (not sure who) brought Federal Mediators into this only to have one of them taken off of the "case" due to his Twitter account getting hacked.

Not really seeing any positives coming out of this. Players have considered de-certifying their players union but it may not work for them like the other major sports leagues.

Interesting though, a lot of the players that are mostly just sitting around for this to be resolved are the ones mouthing off (mostly on Twitter) while all of the owners are silent. Sounds to me like (for now) the owners have the upper hand in this negotiation. 

[EDGECRUSHER]

The league pretty much wants to put rules in place to prevent stupid GM's from being stupid. "Contracts are too high and long"? Who gave them out? One of the bigger sticking points is the rolling back of contracts, even ones signed this offseason. Zach Parise and Ryan Sutter both signed matching deals for the Minnesota Wild. I doubt they agree to go there if they knew those salaries would be cut in half.

I don't even want a hockey season. The 48 game season in 1994-1995 was a complete joke and I still don't even recognize the Devils Cup win as legit. Let them lose the whole year and figure it out and fire Gary Bettman. 3 seasons lost due to work stoppages in 18 years is absurd.

[Pappy13]

Fins4ever,

This is not a strike.  It is a lockout.

A lockout is the OPPOSITE of a strike.

If the players want to play for free, I'm sure the league would accomodate them.

[MaineDolFan]

Are you saying that the players were prepared to strike?  I have seen nothing to this effect.

Based on the old CBA, no.  However, they are not playing under the old CBA, are they?  When players refused very good offers, time in and time out, it could be viewed as a paramount to a work refusal.  The owners started insanely low and have had to come up, which they've done.  Some circles are now saying there are fractures within the players union, the "1%" can afford to ride this out while the others can't and there are a lot of players who wanted to take the last deal.

So, yes.  In a way ~ this could be viewed as a mutual strike / lock out at this point.

[Spider-Dan]

Based on the old CBA, no.  However, they are not playing under the old CBA, are they?

The players didn't all sign contracts that had an end date of the 2012 offseason, did they?

The players who were under contract were willing to play under the terms of the contracts they have signed.  That's why it's a lockout.  The players failing to accept the owners' offer does not turn it into a half-strike.

Again, I am somewhat annoyed when people try to spin a lockout as a semi-strike.  Somehow, I doubt that if it were the players that had called for an actual strike, and the owners had refused the players' Totally Reasonable Offer, you would be saying that said refusal means that the owners are really staging a lockout, too.

To be clear: I have no problem with owners locking out (or players striking).  It is a legally valid option.  However, let's call a spade a spade; I'm not on board with this "strikes are the players' fault, but lockouts are also the players' fault" mentality that is commonplace in the media now.

[MaineDolFan]

Coming straight from a guy who isn't a hockey fan and doesn't understand the sport, yet you're trying to understand the "lock out" and reasons behind it?