View Single Post
11-26-2012, 09:31 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,340
vCash: 500
Interesting thread. People seem to think both: 1. The NHL can get along without the union, and 2. The union would destroy the NHL by decertifying. Both can't be true, because decertifying is exactly the same as being 'without the union'. Also, if you're silly enough to want replacement players, you should want the union to decertify. If the owners don't have an exclusive representative with whom negotiate, they could legitimately sign players without a CBA. If, on the other hand, the league seeks replacement players before the union decertifies (and then the union subsequently decertifies and sues the league), the league looks pretty bad.

Some here really believe that the job of the representatives of the union is to act as liasons between the owners and the players, and that is all. I can only assume that people understand the model of union leadership to be based on Gene Upshaw, also known as the NFL's gimp. Do you think the NHL players don't understand what lies down that road?

Now, in the NFL the owners hold even more power because careers are even shorter, and there is even less competition for professional players. But it has become clear that the NHL owners are trying to follow football's model (if not seeking non-guaranteed contracts, then a union weak enough to accept them in the future). If it were the NBA's model they were looking to follow, they'd be able to use the player's offer as a negotiating point.

There's a reason media members are beginning to mock the NHL for the status of the negotiations. It's because the player's have changed their position *in a real way*, as opposed to the owners who have changed their position form a completely fabricated starting point nobody took seriously.



Dan-o16 is offline