The league and players have met regularly throughout the summer and are due to sit down together again next week. The discussions are being held with each side facing a decision inside the next month about whether to trigger an early termination to the current CBA.
However, it remains to be seen if either will pursue the reopener option at a time when there appears to be much more labour harmony than strife.
“The general state of things, there seems to be a lot of agreement on,” Daly told Sportsnet during the NHL’s European player media tour. “It’s very kind of amorphous right now but there doesn’t seem to be like a huge sticking point on the issues we’ve talked about. I think there’s general agreement kind of directionally. Where we should be going.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
This is good news as the last thing any one wants is Hockey lost for any significant time. But I’ll believe it when the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted.
There's no huge issues to fight over. The biggest peeve of the players has been escrow, but I'm betting they have gotten over it to a large extent, now that its been in place for so long.
The interesting parts will be around any additional buyout rules, or possibly RFA tinkering.
Also cautiously optimistic. But its Donald Fehr on the other side, so....
That is where my mind immediately went... "Oh, good! There may not be talks of work stoppage! Wait, that's strange, I thought Fehr was still in charge of the NHLPA...."
Things can be going good now, but we've only really heard from one side that things are going good. Things can change, the other side may have differing opinion, etc. etc.
When it comes to CBA I've learned to not believe anything good is happening until we know we won't miss any hockey.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Buff For This Useful Post:
Optimistic . . they were the last 2 times. If there is a lockout with this regime again they should all be fired
The lockout of 2005 resulted in the salary cap, which has made it possible for the Flames to put together a somewhat competitive team without having to compete with sky-high budgets like New York Rangers or Toronto.
Maybe other CPer's won't agree that losing a year of hockey was worth it to get a salary cap. I don't know if the Flames would still be in Calgary without a cap.
The Flames owners seem to willing to spend to nearly the cap every year since, but they seemed more budget-minded when there wasn't a cap.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to shadowlord For This Useful Post:
The lockout of 2005 resulted in the salary cap, which has made it possible for the Flames to put together a somewhat competitive team without having to compete with sky-high budgets like New York Rangers or Toronto.
Maybe other CPer's won't agree that losing a year of hockey was worth it to get a salary cap. I don't know if the Flames would still be in Calgary without a cap.
The Flames owners seem to willing to spend to nearly the cap every year since, but they seemed more budget-minded when there wasn't a cap.
2004 Lockout was worth it. But what did 94 and 2012 really do ?
No way can it happen again
Uh, yeah.. this is what happens when you make the finals in 2004 and established a fanbase.
Pre 2003-2004 Oiler fans outdrew Flames fans at the dome regularly during BofA's and the team had a foot in Portland.
The Flames spending today has more to do with that Finals run than the lockout resolving anything.
Well, the first year after the lockout the Flames payroll was almost identical to before. But it did jump the next year. But maybe it's somewhat more the case that the cap amount met what the Flames budget may well have been. I suppose player agents could also make an argument that "look, we've now leveled the playing field so your part of the deal is to spend to that level, or thereabouts.".
Uh, yeah.. this is what happens when you make the finals in 2004 and established a fanbase.
Pre 2003-2004 Oiler fans outdrew Flames fans at the dome regularly during BofA's and the team had a foot in Portland.
The Flames spending today has more to do with that Finals run than the lockout resolving anything.
The Coyotes' playoff runs have done nothing for attendance. One-off playoff runs do not build fanbases. Fans want to know that management is committed and the team is capable of being competitive on an ongoing basis.
The Canadian teams have all been running at essentially full capacity (except Ottawa because their owner is a dolt) ever since the cap was initiated.
The best result is a 2-3 month delay in the start of the season. A compact 50 game season means the games are more important and the resulting hockey is much much better to watch. As a season ticket holder this is ideal and what I'm hoping for (If there is a delay)
Any CBA negotiation with Donald Fehr on one side will ensure a lockout. After he lied to baseball and the players walked before the playoffs made sure that no ownership group will ever trust him again.
I know the players continually talk about escrow but it is part and parcel of the hard salary cap, which they should all have known before they signed (poor communication by their own union). They are guaranteed 50% of HRR that is based off the forecasted amount before the season. If more teams than less pay to the cap then the players are eating up more than their 50%. The percent amount is agreed upon before the season and it is withheld, and once the audit is done at the end of the season any amount owed to the players is returned, if they don't like that then convince your union brothers to accept less so nobody has to pay escrow, or better yet don't use your 5% bump to create a false cap.
All Fehr has ever done is sell the rookies and middle earners down the river so the high priced guys earn all the money. Just look at the negotiating group for the union, all high price players, no representation from the low earners who may fight for their own interest for a change.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Beatle17 For This Useful Post:
The Coyotes' playoff runs have done nothing for attendance. One-off playoff runs do not build fanbases. Fans want to know that management is committed and the team is capable of being competitive on an ongoing basis.
The Canadian teams have all been running at essentially full capacity (except Ottawa because their owner is a dolt) ever since the cap was initiated.
Yeah, totally comparable. The last time the Coyotes were in the playoffs we still had rumors of moving the next season DURING the playoffs.. Even the Conference finals, don't forget that the last lockout occurred the very next season that the Yotes made it to the Conf Finals.. kind of hard to keep that momentum going.
Well, the first year after the lockout the Flames payroll was almost identical to before. But it did jump the next year. But maybe it's somewhat more the case that the cap amount met what the Flames budget may well have been. I suppose player agents could also make an argument that "look, we've now leveled the playing field so your part of the deal is to spend to that level, or thereabouts.".
I don't think it's particularly relevant that the Flames spending didn't increase.
What's relevant is that the really rich teams needed to pare down their spending.
To some extent, those teams came down to the Flames level.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Cobra For This Useful Post: