View Single Post
Old
11-28-2004, 06:55 PM
  #7
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
The league is not a single entity. It is the owners of 30 clubs acting. Regardless of what Bettman says, some owners are losing money because of the lockout. And if there's a workable proposal on the table, these owners are not likely to happily piss away money for the benefit of the weaker sisters of the league. Even if there are not enough owners that feel this way to end the lockout, there might be enough to make Bettman feel some heat.

Or this could be brought up to the NLRB when Bettman declares an impasse. The PA points to its proposals and says, "We've been trying to meet them halfway. They haven't budged an inch. That's not negotiating in good faith."
The owners are losing money, but they feel they need a salary cap. Without getting into a debate on whether they do or not, they are doing because their argument is "We cant survive without it". Now tell me what sense it makes for them to sign a deal without one? It doesn't under their belief. The owners of the big market teams are of the same belief and the league {much like the players} has reserve cash to meet the blow a little less for the owners. Cmon Kodiak you're a fellow law student, you know this stuff.

And I'll gurantee it will be brought up to the NLRB, but the owners will reply simply "We need this, it wasn't in there so we couldn't accept". When someone makes a demand and you go the other way that isn't meeting them halfway. Now again I am not debating whether the league is right or wrong for wanting a cap, but rather that the owners have said what they want {they need at least a cap} and if that isn't part of the deal the bottom line is that there is nothing to negotitate.

Edge is offline