View Single Post
Old
11-14-2012, 08:31 AM
  #452
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,617
vCash: 500
the 3 big issues that Burnside reported on being the divide is Core economic issues, contracting rights, and Who pays for the damage of the lockout.

to me the last one seems like the PA is going to want the owners to foot the bill for the damage since they locked out the players.

you can bet Fehr will use the "we were willing to play" rhetoric to drive his point, imho they should split it 50/50 since both sides are equally responsible. But non the less that could be a landmine of an issue if Fehr insists and sells the PA that they are the victims and it's not right they pay for something they didn't do.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/86...akthrough-made

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...-where-were-we

Quote:
is just how the NHL and NHLPA will agree to share in the pain of the damage caused by the lockout when it comes to adjusting the core economic language to a shortened season. No question the league will see this as a 50-50 proposition, since both sides in the league’s view are equally guilty of being unable to negotiate a new deal. But I suspect the NHLPA will make this an interesting issue by pointing out that it was the NHL that locked out the players and triggered this lockout. Fehr has set up the league for this moment by repeatedly suggesting since last June that the players would have been willing to play this season while CBA negotiations were ongoing. So yes, another hot potato in the offing, another hurdle to a deal.

forthewild is offline