The players can not, in any way shape or form say that they dont know that –because they all choose representation.

This is not a ROLLBACK, because what players have been signing for the last 7 years were not real dollar contracts. Ever since the CBA of 2005, players and owners knew that their contracts were essentially now statements OF SHARES the player is entitled to in regards to REVENUES. These were not free world contracts like they were prior to 2004. These, current contracts, were all agreements knowingly bound to a system that is tied completely to a capped revenue based system which the share split beyond 2012 was not determined and that expired at a known point of time (with the PA extending it -and the owners not bitching). The knowledge is there and always was, that a new system could and likely WOULD change the end value of their share. It was their risk to sign beyond a known expiration of Labour Agreement.

The Players can play stupid but thats what agents and the PA are there for.

————

Some points. I said this before; i never thought the contract changes of; ELC to 5 Years, UFA to 30, RFA rights removed or removal of arbitration; was ever a buffet situation where the NHL wanted ALL the options. What the league wanted was to artificially (the entire market is always artificial) get back the second contract. Before KLOWE even sent his offer sheet to VAnek, and before the ink was dry on the new CBA, i had already pointed out on the OMB that at least 1, if not 2 contract terms were now removed from the system, by dropping the UFA requirements. The focus I believe was correct -youth over 27 approaching their prime getting the prime dollars instead of over 30- however the contractual issues eventually became compressed to the point that teams now have to pay outrageous value- AND PLAYER SHARE- on players who havent even lasted more than 3 years in the league.
The Owners change to this, on tuesday, was a 4th option combining the original 3. It proposed to have a 2year ELC (as long as it was signed before a season began–or else the partial year would not count as one of the two if signed in-sseason), 28/8yrs for UFA, no re-entry waivers, and a more narrowed change on RFA rights and arbitration. Esssentially the league – since the PA was not negotiating – created what it thought was a good 4th option. (the league basically negotiated with itself).

look at the simple math and see that the NHL will not budge off of the 4th idea combo. 2years entry- 5 year max contract-28 years old or 8 years of service to UFA. In most cases teams will be able to make a decision on a UFA year contract after seeing 2 contracts played through.

Do not be surprised if player share on the bargaining table gets decreased as the lockout wears on. The expenses will not get less for owners. in fact combined with less revenues from cold markets – less attractive appeal to corporate sponsor and the continuing rise of services and resources (like jet fuel), that the league is hostage to, the profitability of the business will substantially decrease. canadian clubs can not save this from happening should the league lose significant time. it is also questionable whether there has already been enough time passed to lose customer interest in at least 6 -1/5th of the business- franchise territories.

I dont think Bettmman is lying when he says -he does not need approval to move forward with something, the BOG can take a vote against Bettmans wishes and if motion passes Bettman gives his resignation- that ALOT of teams felt he gave up too much but are behind him and letting him determine what is best for them (the way it should be, either fire the guy or let him represent you and stay out of it).

———————
this is likely way off but in light of the known NHL focus group research here is something i have thought of;
I am assuming that G Bettman has a huge end game if this lockout drags on. He already has the history of knowing his options and had begun the legal work to crush the union, removing them from the bargaining table, and while that process was to be carried out he had the paper work aand legalities dotted and crossed for replacement players. This is when Goodenow was effectively removed by the players and Saskin made a deal…with Goodenow being fired and bought out.
At the time when he was filing the papers for replacement players in all the jurisdictions of the nhl, an offer was made for 300M. The offer was from a group of investors that wanted to buy the NHL -not the franchises- and reorganize the company into a centrally controlled business. This is something Bettman previously had threatened would be the best option for the NHL to do. By centrally controlling all contracts and labor funds, you wouldnt need a cap and there would be control. There are other leagues so there is no “monopoly”. Bettman brought the offer, as is his job, to the BOG who listened to the bidders but followed Bettmans lead that it wasnt a good option. Bettman is already blamed for everything, when the canucks lose it because bettman pulled strings etc.

BUT what if Bettman sees this as the only possible solution. Upon expiration of a labor agreement, all SPCs are basically void until a continuing CBA says they exist and the conditions they exist now in(cap changes etc). The previous CBA specically states that the SPC only exists for the term of the agreement; once its expiired its either agreed to continue or ceases to exist.

It hardly seems worth while to have a focus group that looks at the lock out or peoples perceptions of the league on it. However it is invaluable to know what perception might be in regards to a very large change of business tactics. Would fans look at the league as “fake” if the NHL centrally controlled the contracts? Its a legitimate question. If you take away the freedom of teams to determine their own contract terms or values… does it devalue the product on the ice to the fans? does it undermine any integrity of the game in the eyes of the fans?
End game could be to completely walk away from the union, file motion to re-organize, and come back centrally controlled and thus voiding all previous contracts.

It has been on my mind since hearing the NHL focus group issue. As Bob Mac admitted, no one knows what the focus group was privy to but that the idea it was privy to just questions of “does the nhl look bad locking out the players” is kind of a needless question to ask.

Edit:
Beavis impersonation: “uhhh…. uh heh heh… you said… hard on”

Huge news.