View Single Post
01-04-2013, 12:18 PM
Jacobs Must Go
Number8's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,933
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Black Eye View Post
That's what I have never fully understood - the net $ the players walk away with from all this will be less than it could have been just by virtue of the lost games and revenue/salaries. Somewhere there exists an explanation, a rationale, that makes sense of this but I haven't come across it yet.

If you are looking for cues as to what to expect, I guess Fehr's non-filing of the disclaimer of interest Wednesday is as good as any and it should yield a little optimism. By all accounts, Fehr was empowered to unilaterally file the motion if he wished to. And he did not. There is good and bad news in that:

Good news: It is made plain once again that D Fehr's goal here, the end game, is to wring as much as possible out of the negotiating process without actually losing the whole season. And he must believe they are close to the end and within striking distance of the deal the players will accept. Otherwise he would have take the step that could have destabilized the situation. Fehr more or less tipped his hand here. Some say he doesn't care about hockey or the damage the lockout is causing. I see it differently. All parties have more or less agreed that a "48 game season" would be "acceptable" and that has become both the outcome and the deadline they are working against. Fehr is just wringing every drop he can out of the time available. The non-filing indicates that he is working within that "let's have a short season" construct and sees it coming to pass and is not really interested in blowing it up. Unless things go off the rails somehow - which may or may not have been set in motion unfortunately.

Bad news: Because things got rocky again on Thursday, and the union decided to resurrect the disclaimer tool to serve as their stick in negotiations, this once again pops up as an element or risk. The timing is just unfortunate and has been bungled IMO. They put themselves in the position where they had to put the disclaimer tool a bit too early, got burned a little by that, and now have to go back to it again. This creates a distraction and angst at a time when they should be forging ahead. And because Fehr did not file last time, that indicates that the disclaimer move would be disruptive, yet here it is again. Essentially we want that to go away and not fluxor things up at the end. There is little margin for error when it comes to inflaming the hard liners and hopefully nobody blunders when it comes to keeping those types in check.

Point is, you should probably view what's going on as just the death throes of an ugly, extremely trying and tedious process that we all hate but which has an endpoint and an outcome that most involved seem to have tacitly accepted for some time. The daily drama and flare-ups indicate some real risk and puts us through the ringer, but hopefully they keep it together enough to button this up in the next week. Fehr seems to be acting as if this is the path he believes they are on...
It will be interesting to see what deadline the new disclaimer vote (I assume it will pass again) will carry. Whatever it is, dollars to donuts that that will be a deadline that will not pass without a finalized CBA in hand. Having decided not to file once, unless they are actually in the physical process of signing the actual agreement, PA cannot afford to appear to be crying wolf a second time.

Number8 is offline