View Single Post
09-17-2004, 11:09 AM
Registered User
pld459666's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,173
vCash: 873
I disagree

Originally Posted by patnyrnyg
agreed, if the league continues to make offers that include a hard cap, a plan the players are strongly against, it will not be viewed as bargaining in good faith. However, if the players continue to make offers where a luxury tax is the core of their offer, then THEY could be viewed as not bargaining in good faith. Each side is going to have to begin to make concessions.
While I do agree that proposing 6 different variations of the same proposal in one meeting is not a good faith bargining tactic, they don't have to make that concession (dropping the demand for a Cap) to be considered good faith.

All they have to do is show up at schedule meetings and negotiate the terms of a new CBA inclusive of a cap.

For example, they can agree to a higher number of the cap, say 38 million, they can offer to reduce the age for UFA, they can offer to ease the restrictions of RFA's. These are major concessions that the league can negotiate that would be considered good faith and if they are to propose any one over the next 12 months it would be considered good faith.

Regardless of wether or not the NHLPA believe's the Arthur Levitt Report, there's no disputing his reputation in the world of accounting and if that's brought in to any court to defence the claims of losses which has brought about the need for a cap then the NHLPA is going to be in trouble.

I don't believe in Salary Caps myself, but the league has positioned themselves pretty well in this "fight"

pld459666 is offline