View Single Post
10-25-2012, 03:50 PM
joshjull's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,536
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
Paragraph B states that PA had an early termination option, as well as the single extension option. They obviously took the extension.

However, paragraph A shows that unless either side explicitly opted out, the existing CBA would have automatically re-upped for 1 year terms. The owners chose to take this route, and here we are today.

This is part of my core belief that the players wouldn't strike. The opt out cutoff is May, already into the playoffs. I don't believe, no matter how bad it got, that the players would walk in the middle of a playoff series.

Frankly, in my view, an owner lockout should be a last resort negotiating tool, not a primary tactic. If the owners felt their only leverage to get a fair deal was to lock out, they're morons. They both should have TRIED to negotiate well before the point where a lockout was on the table.
Thanks for this info.

I'm baffled you think it would makes sense for the owners to play another season under this current CBA and negotiate. The players would have absolutely zero pressure on them and the owners would have little to no leverage.

From a tactical pov it would have been incredibly stupid for the owners to not lockout the players and force negotiations. The players know they will be losing things in the next CBA so why would they come to the table and make concessions until they are forced to do so? Even with the owners forcing talks with the lockout, the players side is still understandably holding out for better terms. What do you think the NHLPA would be doing if the season was being played? They would have zero incentive to talk because they know ultimately they are going to lose things in the next CBA.

There were never going to be serious negotiations until games and money were lost.

Last edited by joshjull: 10-25-2012 at 04:23 PM.
joshjull is offline