View Single Post
01-07-2013, 11:04 PM
Disgruntled Observer*
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Nihiliste View Post
To be honest the PA got a better deal than I expected they would, and as much as I was anti-PA through the last couple months of this process, the concessions they got are absolutely important ones. More than anything, the deal they got provides more flexibility for individual players in addition to things like pension and make whole to go out and sign the deals that suit them, even if as a whole they all get a bottom line of 50% collectively.

IDK, it seems like 7 years vs 5 is a small concessions but two 7 year deals are almost the same length of time as three 5 year deals. Job security and security in where you're going to live for the next 7 years IS important.

I do think that the main problem though is that the PA could probably have gotten these concessions earlier if they had been willing to work within the NHL framework rather than constantly demanding guaranteed raises and delinkage.
While I agree with most of what you say...
I think that if the players negotiated off of the leagues Oct 16 proposal, they probably could have won similar contractual concessions from the owners while saving an 82 game season.
Fehr responding with 3 separate de-linked proposals, only to agree to very similar finances 4 months later is what I am questioning.

Wouldn't it have been better to at least try to win those contractual concessions from the owners without losing almost half of the season?
Why the 3 de-linked proposals?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote