Skip to content

Dan Boyle isn’t buying the owners being fully united

Oct 5, 2012, 12:30 PM EST

Dan Boyle Getty Images

When it comes to labor battles, the big thing everyone talks about for both sides is “solidarity.” For the players’ union in the past that’s been an issue, meanwhile the owners voted unanimously for a lockout.

San Jose’s Dan Boyle isn’t buying the owners’ united front, however.

Boyle tells Kevin Kurz of CSNBayArea.com he believes there are more owners than not that aren’t happy with the lockout and want a settlement sooner rather than later.

“I think when players make comments, sometimes it’s directed towards 30 owners, but I think a lot of us feel that it’s not across the board. It’s a certain group of teams that are controlling 30 others,” Boyle said.

“It doesn’t make any sense to me that eight teams can control the fate of 22 other ones.”

Boyle isn’t alone in feeling this way as Kings’ forward Kevin Westgarth tells Danny Picard from “I’m Just Sayin'” there’s 21 teams that would go for the NHLPA’s offer.

The chances there’s a faction of owners who would rather be playing than fighting the players are pretty good. After all, you’ve got plenty of owners that love making money rather than not. That said, they all voted unanimously to lock out the players. Peer pressure can be bad that way.

  1. tmoore4075 - Oct 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

    Umm how do I say this…duh! The big markets don’t want to give money to the small markets so they just want a cut across the board. I just think the markets that would really like the revenue sharing know it won’t happen.

  2. paledevil - Oct 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM

    Aquilini and Gaglardi have more history than most married couples

  3. jimw81 - Oct 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

    the old policy was 10-12 owners in order to issue a lockout. the reason why we have 8 owners locking out the players is because bettman change the rules on the BOG that gaved him the power to do this.

  4. tampabayirish - Oct 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM

    How does Boyle know all this…speculation? You would think that the high payroll, power teams in the league (Toronto, Montreal, Rangers, Boston, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Washigton) would be able to use their influence and get a deal done. I find it hard to believe that Nashville, Florida, Tampa Bay, Phoenix and the other small markets clubs are holding up a deal. Bottom line. I think this could take awhile to settle. I think the owners are pretty unified. On a more pleasant note…what are you going to do with the money you saved by not buying hockey tickets? I am thinking of a nice family vacation to San Diego next summer.

    • tmoore4075 - Oct 8, 2012 at 10:50 AM

      The clubs you listed as using their influence to get a deal done are the ones not letting a deal get done. You mention Philly and Boston and those are two biggest dogs controlling this as most reports are saying. The small markets want revenue sharing and maybe a modified version of the current deal. Problem is the big markets don’t want to help them so they just want to cut the players share instead of propping up the struggling franchises.

  5. ron05342 - Oct 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

    You know what I am tired of hearing (from both sides)?

    I am tired of hearing how they feel for the workers affected by this lock-out: the ticket sellers, the ushers, the concession workers, etc.

    Both sides are full of sh*t. If they were so concerned about the core workers, then they would be meeting EVERY f*k DAY in order to get a deal done.

    So stop trying to bullsh*t us fans. You guys don’t give a rat’s azz about the core workers. If you did, you would try to resolve this ASAP.

  6. dprouse - Oct 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

    Dan Boyle is engaged in wishful thinking here. Most of the American owners would be quietly relieved at having the first month, even two, cancelled. October and November are deadly for a lot of American clubs as they compete with the NFL and college football. Toss in baseball playoffs, and October is an especially bad month for any team relying on walk up crowds. Even the Canadian clubs and the big market teams who sell well in October and November would be willing to blow away half of this season in order to get an extra 7% of HRR for the next ten years. (The best the players will do here is 50%.)

    • vindicatus - Oct 5, 2012 at 9:03 PM

      So is the solution to push back the start of the season two months and make hockey a summer sport? Then we don’t have to compete with baseball or basketball playoffs and we minimize the overlap with football.

      Fine. Crank up the AC and let’s DO IT, but for God’s sake why can’t they just actually NEGOTIATE instead of posture? Actually, if I had a reliable KHL feed, I’d be perfectly happy watching that and attending my local AHL games. Who needs the NHL?

      • blomfeld - Oct 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM

        “Who needs the NHL?” …

        Um, maybe all of us ? :)

    • blomfeld - Oct 6, 2012 at 3:23 PM

      BINGO !

      You’ve hit the nail on the head my friend as that is “exactly” what’s going down here ! An analogy could be made to perhaps a party that you’re attending. You want to leave because the people are positively boring, so what do you do ? Do you tell the host that he/she is boring you to death ? Of course not ! Rather you pretend that you have another commitment or that you aren’t feeling well, etc. And that same applies here. The only thing I would add however is that they won’t be able to pull this caper off “every” year in going forward. Yes, the expiry of the CBA provided them with the perfect excuse needed for this year. But in going forward, they still want to move the entire schedule forward by at least a month … you’ll notice that they’ve already been doing that by a factor of 1-2 days per season. Nonetheless, the challenge for them remains to “get the hell” out of October as soon as possible !

      ps: you sir, are an Agent of Insight ! :)

      GO KINGS GO eh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :) :)

  7. thedavesiknowiknow - Oct 6, 2012 at 4:40 PM

    Dan Boyle is dead on in saying that 100% of the owners are not on the same page. It’s probably safe to say they’re (as high) at high as a 50/50 split in this. Did he happen to mention that the players are just as divided in this as well?

  8. spicyjimbolaya - Oct 7, 2012 at 1:20 AM

    Uh Dan Boyle, guess what? The players are not showing an united front, considering they are willing to be paid less money just to play hockey. So it begs the question, why are the players not settling with the North American owners when they are perfectly willing to settle for the Europens owners?

Featured video

Holiday wish lists for NHL teams
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. B. Bishop (2530)
  2. C. Perry (2117)
  3. S. Crosby (1986)
  4. B. Elliott (1972)
  5. S. Weiss (1927)
  1. J. Howard (1723)
  2. S. Varlamov (1683)
  3. J. Schwartz (1533)
  4. N. Kronwall (1368)
  5. S. Downie (1329)