Quote:
Originally Posted by Utterly Disgusting
|
Don't think it's been posted yet, but I have a couple point by point things to note:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
But we have this system. It doesn’t work all that well in sports for all kinds of reasons. It particularly doesn’t work well in the salary-cap sports because it almost guarantees a lockout in every negotiation
|
Baseball under Fehr underwent by far the most unrest of any sport in labor history. It was not until this most recent negotiation where there was not an issue with it. In contrast, the NFL has had (off the top of my head) the fewest labor issues, and those issues only occurred after a season without a salary cap. In fact, to my knowledge, there has only ever been two work stoppages in the history of salary cap sports. That's an issue almost exclusively in the domain of the uncapped world.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
Q: Why does the system guarantee a lockout in “salary-cap sports?”
A: Doesn’t in baseball.
|
See previous comment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
Well, first of all, why are we not playing? It wasn’t a decision the players made. We indicated from our first proposal they (the players) were willing to see their percentage fall over time. The owners first proposal went enormously backwards, so the movement they’ve made since then is from a proposal that nobody – not even them – took seriously to begin with. So you go into buy a car and let’s say it has a $35,000 sticker on it and you offer 15. The dealer laughs at you and says, ‘maybe 33.’ And you say, ‘No, I’ll improve my offer to 20. I improved it 33 percent.’ Well it still doesn’t mean it has any reasonable chance of success at any point.
|
Incredibly false dichotomy, and ridiculous revisionist history. Aside from the league's first offer, the distance in dollars between the league and players is incredibly small. As Bozak has mathed for us several times, the difference between the proposals is very small in dollars. The reason we're not playing isn't about dollars, it's about structure. The players have refused to negotiate within a reasonable range of the structure the league currently has and wants to continue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
When we came in (August 14), we came in with a real offer from the beginning
|
The players' proposal was significantly more outlandish the the one offered by the league that he's so dismissive of. That's fine, if the players responded in kind to an extreme proposal, that's fair. However, if that's the case, admit to it. No one with any knowledge of the situation buys that sob story and it just serves to make the union look stupid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
They’re saying the things players got in the last agreement in return for the 24 percent rollback [and salary cap], they have to take it back. They (the players) lose ground in salary arbitration, they lose ground in free agency, lose ground in the entry-level system, contracts are limited in all kinds of ways that make them much less secure.
|
Almost none of these things are true, and those that are are simply bargaining points. The arbitration point has long since been taken off the table. The "lost ground" in free agency is 1 year which can be negotiated. The entry-level system actually benefits fringe players, and only through very difficult stretches of logic can be seen to affect a meaningful number of players outside of the extreme upper end of the spectrum. As has been pointed out time and again here, if the players want those things, submit a proposal that gives them those things. This is something they've refused to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
Q: Same kind of question. You’re fighting for $1.6 billion over six years. You could potentially lose that in player salary this year alone.
A: In theory, sure. Then, so do they.
|
Strong words, but surely Fehr is aware that the league stands to lose $1.6BN
minus those expenses that do not occur if there is no season. Those expenses are likely in the range of some $1BN so it's silly to try claim their losses are in any way equivalent to the salary losses players face.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
A: We asked them if they have any plans for expansion, if it’s even on the calendar or anything like that, and they’ve said no.
|
This is very good to note as it more or less quashes several unsourced rumors about possible expansion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fehr
Q: Do you believe the owners are as resolute as the players?
A: That’s something that will become obvious. I assume they mean what they say.
|
Did you hear that Walsh?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill Daly
“We gave on HRR (hockey-related revenue) definitions, we moved again in their direction on revenue sharing, we gave them appeal rights to a neutral third party for certain on-ice and off-ice discipline, we confirmed no roll-back in salaries, and we offered a ‘make-whole’ that we indicated a willingness to negotiate over.
“Not sure what we do now. It’s clear to us that if the PA always wanted a long lockout, they certainly have been successful in creating an environment to successfully achieve one.”
|
This can't be repeated enough, and is another example of how great a job Daly has been doing through these negotiations.