Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-18-2012, 05:20 PM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Originally Posted by
The NHL was supposed to take the step "forward", since any future agreement will be in the benefit for the owners, comparative to the last agreement.
The 2nd part of your post is a bit confusing, since tweaking and negotiations is kind of the same, given the ambiguity of what consists tweaking.
NHL always comes out with the "best deal", even though they keep caving in and coming up with a new one.
There must be other clauses other then the 50/50, that seem to make the gap between the NHL and NHLPA. My guess is to what constitutes the revenue share.
The NHL must make it work, and must make the NHLPA understand the urgency. Right now, given Bettmans reaction today, it still seems to be a battle of egos, and most likely refusal of Bettman to admit failure in his speculative work.
IMO, somewhere along the lines, if Bettman goes out and says "well, bunch of speculative markets have not been successful YET, and i need the whole league to work to make these markets work/minimize the exposure these teams have/will have on the NHL economy, if not, 2-6 teams might disappear, meaning less teams, less players available to have NHL jobs"
He might get some sympathy and a ground to work on, and make the NHLPA understand it's relation to the health of the NHL.
Right now it's, "You make to much, gimme, or i wont let you play"
What failure does Bettman have to admit? When he took the position NHL made 400 million, it makes 3.3 billion now. That's failure?
Does Bettman HAVE to say that? It's throwing franchises under the bus. He represents them and as such he would never do it but if NHLPA doesn't get it....
I wasn't clear, my bad. By tweaking I meant "okay, there's a few details we could change" and by negotiating it's more along the lines of "Nice start but how about this?"
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by LyricalLyricist