View Single Post
Old
10-25-2012, 10:24 AM
  #962
scelaton
Registered User
 
scelaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
I though this post from the Business of hockey thread from Marcel who appears to be a player moderate type supporter kind of got it right.

Think the league’s negotiating stance has been very unreasonable, that it poisoned the well with its ludicrous initial offer and that its tone toward the players has been unusually pedantic and patronizing (even for a guy as pedantic and patronizing as Gary Bettman).

All that said – I fear that Fehr is miscalculating here. The elements for a deal are there: 50/50 split at some point in the term and make whole or make almost whole re. existing contracts. If Daly is right that the difference is $ 650 million over a 5 year term, on an annualized basis that’s $130 million. If revenue stayed flat at $3.3 billion (which no one thinks will happen), that means they’re fighting over only 3% of annual revenues, less if you factor in growth. That’s nuts. The sides are too close right now not to do a deal – it would be a highly irrational outcome.

I’ve supported Fehr’s approach to date. He’s been smart to wait for the NHL to finally table a proposal that’s worth negotiating from – but they did that last week. He then signaled with proposal 3 how important make whole was to the players, and Daly has signaled back that the league is willing to talk on that issue.

Cannot understand why, at this point, Fehr wouldn’t say – we have a proposal that’s consistent with your framework (even if it’s not fully), let’s meet. The league has already “blinked”; they did it last week and they’ve continued doing it by signaling flexibility on make whole. At this point, the league is actually right to say that some vague, talky meeting isn’t worthwhile. The moment has come for Fehr to earn his money by showing some real movement that spurs the successful clubs that want to drop the puck to restrain the hard-liners jerking Bettman’s chain from driving this thing off the cliff and get what's a readily do-able deal done.
Thanks for the transplanted post, ps241. There is so much discussion on the main board that I find it hard to have a real dialogue--sort of like speaking in a crowded auditorium vs a small room. Yet, there are many thoughtful posters there. I would like to maintain a discussion here with a local flavour, but it will help to bring in outside commentary, as you have done.
I found the poster's opening sentence to be the most interesting. Bettman is indeed pedantic and patronizing, but it would be tragic if that were a reason for the PA to do anything different. They should have been told, in no uncertain terms, to IGNORE his persona and focus on his past behaviour, using it as a basis to predict the best outcome for themselves. Who cares if he's a jerk? At least he's a candid and predictable jerk. Similarly, with Fehr, we should all ignore his 'reasonable man' persona and focus on his past and present BEHAVIOUR. On that basis, maybe there is less reason for optimism than many of the 'reasonable' posters had thought.

scelaton is offline