2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VIII: "The 11th Hour" Edition
View Single Post
12-04-2012, 01:29 PM
Join Date: Jul 2004
Originally Posted by
1992 NHLPA strike and 1994 MLB strike
The option to play a year without a CBA was never viable because of those 2 events ,, Every team was supportive of lockout because you cant play without a CBA especially when Fehr or NHLPA is involved
If both sides agreed to play another year on the current CBA while negotiating (which is what the NHLPA offered to do), then the NHLPA wouldn't have been able to strike (it's forbidden by the CBA)
It's not an issue of striking, it's more that there really wouldn't be any incentive for the NHLPA to hurry up and get a deal done, they'd just ride out another year making some big money and we'd be in the same spot next summer. Well, maybe there'd be more negotiating during the season, but it really would remove a lot of the owners leverage and they didn't want another year of the same CBA.
e: So while it was good press for the NHLPA to say "hey we offered to play and the NHL refused, they're the ones taking away hockey!" I really don't blame the owners for actually locking the players out. I blame them for lots of things but that particular move isn't one of them.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Levitate