View Single Post
Old
10-15-2012, 11:10 PM
  #8
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,474
vCash: 500
^ That's a fairly simple one. The avg player has little to no say in the negotiations partly because most of them are brainwashed (which I believe is a good thing so that they don't break rank as much like the last time and they actually stick it to the NHL and give us an entertaining labour negotiation) AND because they don't get much more than a vote. It's those on the exec committee, mainly the Fehr's who will decide what happens. Of course they'll take some guidance from the players but they'll be tough negotiatiors and they aren't gonna propose anything which involves a pay cut very soon (they would however be wise to propose a proposal which means a revenue share decrease but not a pay cut assuming revenue stays the same or grows which is now unlikely after the damage which has been done). And it's the same on the owner's side, you know that Bettman and a smaller group of owners who are leading negotiations are more insistent on an immediate pay cut than others.

So the logical/rational sides aren't the ones in charge of negotiations which is why we have this. Of course both sides have to present a united front based on the party line of whomever is leading the negotiations but they don't have an actual united front regardless of 30-0 votes or whatever.

If I was an NHLPA member, I would think moderately and accept a proposal with a decreased % split but I too would not want that presented as of yet until I feel that owners are willing to give something up based on the previous CBA. So the owner's can go on about how they're waiting for the NHLPA to make an offer, I wouldn't care, I'd want the NHL to make a proper offer first.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote