View Single Post
10-24-2012, 03:18 PM
joshjull's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 35,700
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
To say I take the players side in this is correct. To say that I'm a knee jerk apologist is a bit much. I'd like to think that I've thought my position on this through quite a bit.

My point on the Fehr thing is simply that the circumstances are completely different between the 1994 MLB strike, and the current NHL situation.

Look at the timeline.

- September 1992. Fay Vincent forced out for criticizing the owners who were caught colluding to keep player salaries down. Selig effectively becomes acting commissioner, even though he was one of the owners punished in the collusion case. (This action greatly angered the player's union.)

- July 1993. Fehr wants negotiations to start. Threatens a September 1993 strike if they don't. 1993 season completes without a strike.

- December 1993. CBA expires. Players don't strike.

- April 1994. Season starts without a CBA in place.

- June 1994. Owners submit new proposal, which includes a salary cap. Owners also start witholding pension and benefit contributions to the players. These benefits were required under the old CBA, but the owners stated that they were no longer required to pay since the CBA expired.

- July 28th. Players vote to strike on August 12th, and do so.

A strike was almost inevitable. The owners had forced their reasonable commissioner out, and replaced him with someone (Selig) who JUST got nailed for actively stealing money from the players in the collusion case. Selig is also reportedly the one who told the owners to stop paying pensions. The players were being actively and aggressively screwed with then.

Nothing remotely close to that is happening now, and that's why I don't think Fehr would have advised a strike should the involved parties played this CBA out.
Couple of points

1. You're still not seeing the bigger picture. You keep arguing abut the justifications for them going on strike. Its irrelevant to the point I'm making. From an NHL owners pov they see a Union head willing to take whatever actions necessary to do what he feels he needs to do for his members. Regardless of whatever pr heat he or the union will take from those actions. Not to mention the fact that the owners are hardly going to share your take on those events.

2. The old CBA is expired. There is no option it to extend it another year. I have no idea why you think there is.

The CBA is six years in duration (through the 2010-11 season) with the NHLPA having the option to re-open the agreement after Year Four (after the 2008-09 season). The NHLPA also has the option of extending the CBA for an additional year at the end of the term.
The NHLPA did extend it an additional year which was last season (11-12).

What the NHLPA proposed this summer was the NHL would agree to play another season under the terms of the expiring CBA and the two sides would negotiate a new CBA while the season was going on. Essentially the NHL and NHLPA would agree to a "new" 1 year CBA with the exact terms of the expiring one. It was a pr move by the union that they new the NHL would never go for because the owners aren't idiots. They weren't going to take away the leverage they had of locking out the players and hitting their pocketbooks while the negotiations dragged on. Thats why I said you were being a tad naive earlier if you think this scenario made any sense from an owners pov.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just looking at these things tactically

joshjull is offline