View Single Post
11-13-2012, 11:21 PM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,811
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The NHLPA had decided they didn't mind the terms and conditions of the old CBA, for the most part, although one might say they could be convinced that some things (like the cap massaging) hurts the players equally as it does the teams.

Thus only one party wanted to change the CBA, and usually the guys who want to change the status quo are the ones who either strike or proceed with a lockout.
Too bad it means diddly squat in this situation.

Yes, the ones who want to change the status quo initiate the work stoppage form of choice, but the ones who don't want to change the status quo only hold that stance because the status quo favours them greatly.

That means that primary "fault" is not automatically on the side that initiated the work stoppage, since it is merely a formality based on the previous CBA.

It is up to each individual to come up with their own judgements on whether the CBA was "fair" previously, and whether a work stoppage of any kind was thus necessary. If the last CBA should have stayed the same and represented "fair" in this industry, then blame the owners. If any part of that should have been changed, then you simply cannot put the blame on the owners.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote