CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!
View Single Post
12-05-2012, 09:39 PM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Originally Posted by
I'll quote Proto, he's agreeing with me even though he'd rather not
If they NHLPA had negotiated it could have locked the cap at 64.3m until it was overtaken by 50% HRR. That provides the same stepdown proto just offered. Of course that would involve negotiating to avoid a fight - let's be honest this was never about negotiating and always about the fight for the sake of it.
IMHO that's the kind of misguided nonsense being feed to the NHLPA. Us or them. They are coming to kill you families, fight to death. blah blah blah. The whole point of advanced negotiations is to feel each other out and to find mutual solutions before it turns to into a back alley us or them brawl.
1. because it's easier to carry on with no disruption between seasons? without losing games or sponsors? It's easier for the league and the players.
2. because it's easier to carry on negotiations while both sides are relatively friendly and cooperative
3. because the players have more to offer under a current CBA than under no CBA. The NHL can gain from the last year which means they are more likely to be generous going forward. If the players had reached a mutually acceptable nerf to backdiving contracts we might have avoided Weber/Suter/Parise/etc this year and the NHL might not have countered with 5 year deals.
4. because it's easier to sell a salary pause than a rollback, even if they amount to the same thing. A pause at a 64m cap was $180m difference in total verses $70m cap being. You avoid the whole "not honouring our contracts" line being trotted out by the NHLPA completely.
5. Long term I can't see the NHLPA being better off under any of the proposed CBAs, especially factoring in lost games and lost fan revenue.
It's still better than not negotiating.
1. The chance of success while refusing to negotiate is 0.
2. You also put yourself into a position where the opening offer from the other side is going to be very low so they have room to move. Maybe that's the point if you are trying to get mob riled up.
3. if you succeed you can set the stage for future peaceful negotiations. Right now, I'm expecting more of this crap at the next CBA because it's hard to see the calmer heads in the NHLPA being allowed anywhere near leadership.
Maybe I live in a utopian dreamland where I believe employers and employees should work together for their mutual benefit. The NHLPA should have the best interests of its players in mind, which includes looking at the bigger picture and the long term health of their work environment, rather than just fighting because the other side "must be evil".
Yeah, I just don't think you're being realistic. If either side tried to negotiate the way you're suggesting the other party would've just used that against them. The idea that the NHL BOG was going to fundamentally alter their position months before the CBA expired just because the NHLPA was a little nicer is a naive way to look at things. They would've taken anything the NHLPA offered and then demanded more (see the 24% rollback in the 04-05 lockout for an example). Just as the NHLPA would've done if the situation was reversed.
As for suggesting that the players taking less to help "the health of the league", that's a pretty untenable argument IMO. The NHL is more profitable than ever. Through pretty much its entire existence the league has brought in less money so why is it in danger all of the sudden? Even with money pits like Phoenix and Columbus, they're still the 2nd most profitable of the big 4 NA sports. Move Phoenix to a real hockey market and the league will be even more profitable.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by opendoor