CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!
View Single Post
11-17-2012, 12:04 AM
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Originally Posted by
That's just ridiculous. If the union started negotiating earlier they would likely have set the time for friendly negotiations. A whole lot of people blame Bettman for a cheap ass deal that set the tone - the tone was set waaaayyyy before that when the union made it clear it was not interested in negotiating.
Right now we have Bettman standing at one end of the "negotiating road" refusing to move to the middle because he's posses about lack of negotiations ti date so he's being a *****.
At the other end we have Fehr and his NHLPA car. Fehr says he's prepared to drive up to Bettman end to talk - well really he's just driving up there telling Bettman to get in and talk then just driving off when Bettman reaches for the door, telling Gary it was a joke an to get in then driving off again, and again, and again.
Bettman gets pissed and goes back to sitting, he's moved a little
* better RS - equiv of $20m per team for bottom 11 team, which I'm sure Bettman actually wants anyway
* make whole which I believe was always on the table if the players water to talk.
Fehr wants a delinked deal with guaranteed raises because that way he doesn't care if he trashes the NHL. Bettman might be a ***** but he cares about creating a segue with healthy budgets for teams.
Fehr does not give a shi+. If Fehr had started dealing two years ago he could have gotten a great deal for the players using 57% as leverage in conjunction with controls on long contracts. Instead he waited for the cap to get out of control, waited for long contacts to get out of control, and then waiting for for the 57% to cease to be before negotiating.
Okay. So since the union wanted to negotiate over the summer everything is their fault since they set the tone? Get real. It doesn't matter when the first meeting would have happened. If you honestly believe that Bettman would have started closer to reasonable, you are beyond naive.
Revenue sharing is something the league should be pushing, not the players. It just shows you the greed of the owners that they have to be pushed to share among themselves. They talk about sharing the burden with the players and having a partnership. They can't even do that among the 30 team owners. What a joke.
Make whole is a joke as well. How about honor the deals you sign. The union isn't pushing to permanently delink revenues to salaries. They aren't fighting to turn back the clock. They want to find an amicable way to both honor their existing contracts and get to a 50/50 share. Temporarily delinking the revenue until it grows to the point that the salaries equal 50% is a great compromise to get what the owners say they want, a 50/50 split.
Why should they players automatically take on the burden of a salary rollback? Why should the owners not be held accountable for honoring the contracts that they are legally obligated to fulfill? Why did head office allow outrageous cap circumvention deals to be signed up until the day of the lockout?
So the players have given proposals that will get them to the owners 50/50, but it will take time for the revenues to catch up to the 50/50 split number needed to link revenues back to a cap. Now the owners want reduced length and variance on year to year with deals. I want to see this too. Moving ELCs from 3 to 2 years sounds good for the players, but it gives them less leverage on negotiating their next contract with only a rookie and sophomore campaign. Combine that with the league wanting to move arbitration rights from year 4 to 5 means they want far more restrictive bargaining rights for young players. They also want to take a year back on free agency.
So as it stands, the league has only conceded to get to a more reasonable position from their first ludicrous offer. Whereas the players have conceded heavily from the previous CBA. That is the framework for the new deal. To think otherwise is a total crock and if you believe the league has made concessions, good on them for managing to sell you their Koolaid.
And to claim that Bettman is working solely for the good of the league and that Fehr is trying to destroy it is a bit much. The league also included a provision in their offer to sell cap space. Wasn't the whole purpose if the cap to both link revenues and create parity. Selling cap space, even a small amount, is one step closer to having the league trend backwards to the have and have nots.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Nash