View Single Post
01-04-2013, 11:30 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I believe hes working under the assumption that if the season were to continue while bargaining was under way, it would continue operating under the expired CBA. that's what the players suggested, and I believe that's what happened in the 90's when they played while negotiating.
Cheswick - Please see my prior post. I believe that this lockout is because the owners exercised their right to opt out of the prior CBA. Once they did that, there had to be negotiations. Since there had to be negotiations, no owners would ever play the season without a new CBA. Even if the players said, "Let's just play while we negotiate..." that would just be their best tactic. The old rules were better for them than anything else they might get, and they knew it. Under those rules, they wouldn't strike. Never. They had it good.

So, what I am saying is that Fehr never could have had a "we will strike right before the playoffs" card to play. It would never have fallen that way. His best tactic would be like this:

If the old CBA were not cancelled, then delay, delay, delay and don't even bother with negotiations. As long as we can play under those rules, we win.

Once the old CBA was cancelled, no one will play. The owners will not let that happen. They won't agree to play w/o a CBA, and if the owners would have agreed to 'negotiate while we play' why would they have opted out in the first place. So, once the owners decided to opt out, the players had no strike leverage. The owners had to lock them out first. In this case, Fehr's best tactic is 1) if he wants the most money for the players, then don't lose them too many paychecks. 2) if he wants the most favorable terms in the new CBA, then delay and wait wait wait for the NHL to yield, because his real leverage is that the owners will have a hard time cancelling the season.

MNNumbers is offline