View Single Post
Old
12-10-2012, 08:34 PM
  #48
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,538
vCash: 1345
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I look at it this way: If it's just a case of "not wanting" to make more concessions, then who knows what the owners might still come up with. If they do in fact come up with more concessions, then they've been their own worst enemy, by continually making out as though every offer is a 'take it or leave it' and then coming back with yet another series of concessions. Using that stupid tactic, when is the PA ever to know that if they don't hold out longer they won't get something better?

However, if it comes to the point where the owners really believe that they can't concede anything more without risking a CBA that could put many owners in dire straits between now and the next CBA, then they damn well shouldn't be coming back with even more concessions. There eventually has to be a line that they draw and say that they can't concede anything more; but how is the PA ever to know when and where that line is.
First of all I am decidedly on the owners side, primarily because the more owner friendly the deal the better it is for the well being of the league, especially for the middle and lower tier teams. Hockey players make way too much $ for a gate driven league with 4th sport (at best) status in the USA.

That being said, if you look at the last CBA as the starting point (as you do in negotiations) then the players have been consession bargaining. Keeping the status quo is seen as a NHL consession. Agreeing not to demand as much as they originally offered is seen as an NHL consession. Anything agreed on now will be a better CBA than the last one for the owners. However, the players do have take what they can at this point, soon the owners will start taking back what they have put on the table and it will only get worse for the players.

KingBogo is online now   Reply With Quote