View Single Post
12-11-2012, 02:30 AM
Bopping along
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,123
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
NHL spent over a year trying to begin talks ,, It was Fehr that refused

NHL only had one option and that was lockout as keeping the past CBA wasn't viable for owners and they had legal right to terminate it

And Fehr's 94 strike is one of the reasons leagues lockout now as soon as CBA expires because it is not viable playing without a CBA in modern sports as Fehr helped usher in the strike to screw owners right before playoffs tactic

Of course the NHLPA used that tactic before as well in 1992

So given NHLPA/Fehr history a lockout was no doubt as there refusal to discuss CBA was sign that players were gearing up for a lockout
Yeah, you're right there. There's nothing that's ever happened ever that might point to a history of labour strife coming out of the owners camp with Bettman at the helm. Nothing at all. Certainly not two other lockouts...oh, wait. Are you one of those Blackhawks fans whose knowledge of anything NHL-related before 2006 comes via Google?

Originally Posted by alternate View Post
Lord vs serf? Really?

I'm not pro owner, the players deserve every dollar they can negotiate. It's a huge pie and I don't really take either side seriously when they use the labour rhetoric. I mean yeah, it's a lock out, but this isn't a blue collar warehouse with padlocks on the door.
I meant Lords vs serfs in the owners' minds. These are the same guys who casually skimmed through the players' proposals for about 30 seconds before rejecting them, but freak out, stomp and scream when the players don't genuflect about proposals sent their way.

IMO the CBA should be about making the game better, how ever the HRR gets split up everyone makes a buncha cash. 50-50 linked makes it a partnership. I'd like to hear the owners spell out why they've picked certain mountains to die on, but most of their contract stuff I feel would benefit the competitiveness of the league.
Oh, this "hills we'll die on" thing is just a bunch of melodramatic crap. It's a negotiation. Eventually they'll pick it back up more or less where they were.

Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
The NHL are fighting for the betterment of the league. Whichever way you look at it.

Hence, why I'm a huge proponent of the players "losing". As a fan, I have no reason, and honestly, could care less what the players get.

50-50 is more than fair. The players are acting like they gave the world by coming down those number. Such a farce.

The NHL is fighting to have the players give back enough money and bargaining rights to bail the owners out of the mess they've made.

ProstheticConscience is offline