View Single Post
11-27-2012, 01:26 PM
Crease's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,540
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Fehr has been in negotiations for over 30 years. He knows very well that NHLs opening proposal was meant as a starting point for negotiations. He chose to make it into an inflammatory thing. He choose to suggest it was an insult to get the players motivated for conflict.

Fehr wanted to 'negotiate' during the season to a) have the players make 57% of revenue and b) have the option to strike. Neither of which is acceptable to the league. It's all rhetoric. "We wanted to play". "It's the owners lockout".

Conflict was inevitable here. Fehr wanted it. He steered this ship towards lockout as much as Bettman did.
Freudian, I don't dispute a single thing you say here. Fehr wanted conflict and he got it. My beef is this: It's Bettman's league, not Fehr's. And Bettman seems keen on using lockouts for conflict resolution. Shoddy conflict resolution skills in my humble opinion. Why can other league's wade through turbulant waters without losing 10% of it's games in the past 20 years? Bad luck for Bettman? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. I think we can agree to disagree and move on. Everyone else is probably sick of reading our argument anyway.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote