View Single Post
12-06-2012, 01:12 AM
Seahawks 43
me2's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,124
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
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.
Not sure I agree. If you fail to reach an agreement you can always pull your concessions off the table when the CBA ends and you make sure your opposite knows they are conditional. The idea though is to negotiate a change that will carry forward into the next CBA unchanged.

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.
Then decertify and have a free for all.

Last edited by me2: 12-06-2012 at 01:51 AM.
me2 is offline