View Single Post
11-04-2012, 07:51 AM
Registered User
Falconone's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Suburb of Boston MA
Country: United States
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
Tar hell,

read a couple of your posts. Particularly ones that make refrence to negotiations being drawn out and the maximizing $ for both sides.

As I've posted about previously, I doubt the issues that are at the core of there being no agreement have as much to do with who gets what money. Especially once the NHL signaled it's willingness to try on finding a way to make existing contracts "whole".

It was easy for the NHLPA to point to the language in CBA that allowed the NHL to reduce to value of recently negotiated contracts as a method to reduce the actual value of those contracts in any future season.

The PA members could see that as an indication on the NHL clubs not negotiating in 'good faith'. This is a concept deeply ingrained in all contract law. Furthermore, it made the PA believe/understand that after the last CBA negotiation in which the NHL got virtually everything thay wanted with the lockout 'club' that this technigue would continue to e used to bludgeon the PA at every turn.

Add to that, the issues of ELC length, Arbitration, RFA and UFA contracts ane eligibility, and you really have the core issues that are or should be paramount in the PA position.

these players rights issues are the things that unions fight for in every case. For example, giving the NHL the right to make free agency availble to players after 10 years of service in the NHL is tantamount to indentured servitude. The avg. length on an NHL career isn't 10 years. So effectively, virtually no one would get to free agency following that statistic. While the actually of how many players careers are longer that 10 years, the stat shows where the NHL owners hearts and minds are/were.

They wanted absolute control over players that were drafted/signed by teams for what would ostensibly be their entire careers. And excelt for the few top players, they could then dictate salary costs to everyone else. It's nefarious. And whatever you may think of Fehr, he got that, got it right and I believe got the PA members to understand it too.

So if you look at everything that transpired in the negotiations and lockout since from that perspective things make a lot more sense. And the owners, by offering the draconian initial contract allowed Fehr to say, "I told you they didn't want a real agreement and negotiate a fair deal" . PA members who were there during the last lockout would buttress the position statements that the NHL would continue to lock players out as a bargaining tool to further control the players ability to earn a market value. It wouldn't be a free market value.

Just my opinion, everyone has one.


Falconone is offline