HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All CBA talk goes here (NHL offers 50/50 deal - 82 game deadline passed)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2012, 12:31 PM
  #76
VaporTrail
Used Tank Salesman
 
VaporTrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Buffalo
Country: Ireland
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Can't believe that offer by the owners

VaporTrail is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:36 PM
  #77
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,498
vCash: 500
So many smart people working on these CBA's, why do they wait until the last minute. There is no advantage to waiting, both sides gain an edge, so it leads to more waiting.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:57 PM
  #78
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,651
vCash: 500
The owners have initiated an emotional element right at the start with this offer. Whether it's simply a tactic in their minds or not, they should know damn well many player reps in the NHLPA will be insulted by this. Whether they SHOULD be insulted or not doesn't matter. What matters is that @#$%ing off the other side is a bad way to start off if you truly want an agreement before possibly ruining the recovery time from 2004-05. The league just can't possibly be willing to blow the momentum they have going, but Bettman doesn't surprise me anymore. Maybe they are that hard-headed/greedy/stupid.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:17 PM
  #79
Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,827
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
So many smart people working on these CBA's, why do they wait until the last minute. There is no advantage to waiting, both sides gain an edge, so it leads to more waiting.
I can't say I know for sure. I mean I know both sides are busy during the season but they could both dedicate a team for preliminary negotiations if they truly desired to.

I get the feeling, and this is purely speculation, that the league would prefer to wait to start negotiating because it takes the process closer to a season and thus closer to a lockout, increasing pressure on players to cave in on the various points of contention.

Paxon is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:28 PM
  #80
Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,827
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
Unions are a joke.I back the owners all the way.screw the players, they don't want to play under the owners terms?Fine, just have the players buy arenas,license tv deals, sell tickets/merchandise and then they can play for themselves Ungrateful players think they are entitled, without the owners they wouldn't have ANY money.

Just like the NFL/NBA lockouts, the players think they are too powerful.
This is ridiculous. Without the players, the owners wouldn't be making any money either.

How are players "ungrateful"? This is a mutual business relationship wherein both sides provide something in order to mutually profit. The owners are as indebted to the players as vice versa.


I wish you actually attempted to make more coherent points here because I find this attitude irritating enough to write a thousand words of rebuttal. It is amusing though that you think ownership sells jerseys rather than... players.

And I'm not someone who is inherently pro-union or anti-management when it comes to labor disputes as both sides are, and should be, inherently selfish and whoever wins out is typically the side that is making demands most in line with economic reality.

It should be noted, however, that professional sports teams have government-backed monopolies. This is different from regular market monopolies which I have no ideological issue with existing, though which are ironically illegal. The government, a singular source of authority and power, is responsible for the maintenance of most monopolies' legitimacy, otherwise competition eventually wins out. So to sit there and **** on within this framework about how the owners are heroes and the players should lick their boots for the opportunity to play for them is more than a bit of a joke.

Paxon is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:33 PM
  #81
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
This is ridiculous. Without the players, the owners wouldn't be making any money either.

How are players "ungrateful"? This is a mutual business relationship wherein both sides provide something in order to mutually profit. The owners are as indebted to the players as vice versa.


I wish you actually attempted to make more coherent points here because I find this attitude irritating enough to write a thousand words of rebuttal. It is amusing though that you think ownership sells jerseys rather than... players.

And I'm not someone who is inherently pro-union or anti-management when it comes to labor disputes as both sides are, and should be, inherently selfish and whoever wins out is typically the side that is making demands most in line with economic reality.

It should be noted, however, that professional sports teams have government-backed monopolies. This is different from regular market monopolies which I have no ideological issue with existing, though which are ironically illegal. The government, a singular source of authority and power, is responsible for the maintenance of most monopolies' legitimacy, otherwise competition eventually wins out. So to sit there and **** on within this framework about how the owners are heroes and the players should lick their boots for the opportunity to play for them is more than a bit of a joke.
Without derailing this thread too much, thats simply not true. Free market and fair competition are wonderful economic theories but don't exist that much in the real world outside of textbooks.


Last edited by joshjull: 07-14-2012 at 01:49 PM.
joshjull is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:36 PM
  #82
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,498
vCash: 500
I wonder what the Pegula affect will be on the owners. Pegula is very pro player, I would think he would be against a lockout. It would be awesome if Pegula steps up here and helps get a deal done and the players know he is the reason why.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:39 PM
  #83
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I wonder what the Pegula affect will be on the owners. Pegula is very pro player, I would think he would be against a lockout.
It would be interesting to get his take on the CBA. He is spending money like a big market owner but doesn't have a big market revenue stream.

joshjull is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:46 PM
  #84
tsujimoto74
Moderator
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 10,989
vCash: 500
Ugh this is so disappointing. I was kind of thinking Bettman might be reasonable this time, figuring he'd want to have a full season to continue raking in record profits and, you know, not **** up his contract/relationship with NBC/NBCSN...since, you know, having a national television network carry the NHL is kind of a huge factor to growing the sport.

Jeez, I mean, there's lowballing and then there's just insulting the PA. This initial offer is definitely the latter.

tsujimoto74 is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:50 PM
  #85
Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,827
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Without derailing this thread too much, thats simply not true. Free market and fair competition are wonderful economic theories but don't exist much in the real world outside of textbooks.
Depends what you mean by "fair". By one definition, yes there is no such thing as fair competition because people and companies are not equal and nothing can be done to make such a thing as fair competition. If you mean fair as in they have opportunity to compete and equal protection under law, then this is not a theoretical myth, however it seldom is allowed to exist.

The idea of monopolies not existing and maintaining themselves without the explicit legal or financial support of government is within text books, history and economic history text books. From railroad monopolies on down. The only way that competition can't eventually chip away at a monopoly is if the monopoly holds a resource so scarce that it's literally impossible for a new party to enter the arena. As far as I know that has never happened in the history of the world to anything of consequence.

Sure, monopolies can exist as a strong market forces and last for a while, but they can't last for all that long all told. I wasn't attempting to create an argument about economic theory much less political theory. The simple fact is the NHL owners have a legally-backed, government-supported monopoly so it is dishonest of Layne Staley to argue that the owners being so wonderful and the players being so worthless and replaceable is the extent of the reasons why the league has so much bargaining power over the union. This point is certainly not dependent on one having a laissez-faire economic viewpoint and is equally valid under Keynesian or leftist viewpoints, and is more importantly a non-political, non-theoretical observation that the owners are no t fully responsible for the virtual monopoly they have in the sport.

Paxon is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:50 PM
  #86
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
Depends what you mean by "fair". By one definition, yes there is no such thing as fair competition because people and companies are not equal and nothing can be done to make such a thing as fair competition. If you mean fair as in they have opportunity to compete and equal protection under law, then this is not a theoretical myth, however it seldom is allowed to exist.

The idea of monopolies not existing and maintaining themselves without the explicit legal or financial support of government is within text books, history and economic history text books. From railroad monopolies on down. The only way that competition can't eventually chip away at a monopoly is if the monopoly holds a resource so scarce that it's literally impossible for a new party to enter the arena. As far as I know that has never happened in the history of the world to anything of consequence.

Sure, monopolies can exist as a strong market forces and last for a while, but they can't last for all that long all told. I wasn't attempting to create an argument about economic theory much less political theory.
I know. Frankly I should have just let it go because its OT and I could debate this forever

Quote:
The simple fact is the NHL owners have a legally-backed, government-supported monopoly so it is dishonest of Layne Staley to argue that the owners being so wonderful and the players being so worthless and replaceable is the extent of the reasons why the league has so much bargaining power over the union. This point is certainly not dependent on one having a laissez-faire economic viewpoint and is equally valid under Keynesian or leftist viewpoints, and is more importantly a non-political, non-theoretical observation that the owners are no t fully responsible for the virtual monopoly they have in the sport

I would also add the fact that unions are not one thing. There are many different kinds that deal with many different situations with different rules for each on how they can deal with the employer. They also involve a wide array of professions and salaries.

But I think we are giving a little too much intellectually backing to a counterpoint of an.... umm.. emotionally charged statement by said poster.

joshjull is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:31 PM
  #87
Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,827
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I know. Frankly I should have just let it go because its OT and I could debate this forever




I would also add the fact that unions are not one thing. There are many different kinds that deal with many different situations with different rules for each on how they can deal with the employer. They also involve a wide array of professions and salaries.

But I think we are giving a little too much intellectually backing to a counterpoint of an.... umm.. emotionally charged statement by said poster.
Definitely. All I really wanted to put across is it's one thing to agree with the owner's stance (though in this case it's a headscratcher frankly) but it's another to kiss their rumps and elevate them to some status above the players in terms of a partnership (or in this case, a competition of sorts). I also never get when people complain about the players because "they make so much money" when the owners are billionaires or groups of mutli-millionaires. I guess it's true that so many people look at the players and think the athletes don't deserve to get paid more than they do, which is silly but whatever.

At any rate, I'm anxious to see what the players' counter-proposal is. Are they going to come up with ridiculous demands themselves (wouldn't blame 'em frankly) or are they going to attack it more of a "No, you aren't getting those things. We like how things are now." The latter might put them in a better position to put "public pressure" on the league, not that it would necessarily amount to anything. Bettman's a cold-blooded cat, learned a thing or two from Stern to be sure.


Last edited by Paxon: 07-14-2012 at 03:34 PM. Reason: Clarified my closing paragraph
Paxon is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:33 PM
  #88
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
Definitely. All I really wanted to put across is it's one thing to agree with the owner's stance (though in this case it's a headscratcher frankly) but it's another to kiss their rumps and elevate them to some status above the players in terms of a partnership (or in this case, a competition of sorts). I also never get when people complain about the players because "they make so much money" when the owners are billionaires or groups of mutli-millionaires. I guess it's true that so many people look at the players and think the athletes don't deserve to get paid more than they do, which is silly but whatever.

At any rate, I'm anxious to see what the players' counter demands are. Are they going to come up with ridiculous demands themselves (wouldn't blame 'em frankly) or are they going to attack it more of a "No, you aren't getting those things. We like how things are now."
Part of me wonders if this is bluster on the part of the owners. An attempt to show who is boss because they are a tad nervous about the strength the union may have under Fehr's leadership. They are challenging him early.

joshjull is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 06:57 PM
  #89
TCRF
RICK. GNASH
 
TCRF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 19,548
vCash: 476
Any news? I haven't heard anything. Wondering if my friends here have the inside scoop :O

TCRF is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 07:42 PM
  #90
Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,827
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatCrazyRangerFan View Post
Any news? I haven't heard anything. Wondering if my friends here have the inside scoop :O
Doubt there will be much news for a while. The NHLPA hasn't submitted a counter-proposal yet, or at least nothing's been leaked about one. It should take at minimum a couple days for them to digest the NHL proposal, debate, and hash out a counter-proposal. I'd expect a week at least. These things take time, unfortunately, which is why I wish things could have began during the season.

Paxon is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 08:10 PM
  #91
Eichel15
A DJ saved my life
 
Eichel15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Downtown Buffalo
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Eichel15
Owners have a LOT more to lose than players do. Even with a working CBA. They deserve to have much more of the pie than the players do. If a player doesn't like it, I'm sure there's another person who would play for that contract. May not be the best in the world but it would still be a product. So go ahead players, hold out for what you think you deserve. Keep holding out and never play again.

I'm all for picket line crossers.

Eichel15 is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 08:22 PM
  #92
Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,827
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrothorne View Post
Owners have a LOT more to lose than players do. Even with a working CBA. They deserve to have much more of the pie than the players do. If a player doesn't like it, I'm sure there's another person who would play for that contract. May not be the best in the world but it would still be a product. So go ahead players, hold out for what you think you deserve. Keep holding out and never play again.

I'm all for picket line crossers.
I somehow don't think they have all that much to lose with the league collecting record revenue. Players also have a lot to lose, like their ability to utilize their brains later in life. If certain franchises have a lot to lose then maybe they should get out of the game, or take it up with the rest of the franchises. That said, there's no doubt the league will end up with a bigger percentage of real revenue than they had under the last CBA, but not to the level their proposal asks for and that issue is only one of many put forth.

Do you seriously think the NHL would be viable with replacement players? Please, this isn't the NFL and that was only a short-term gimmick. If this were true the NHL wouldn't be paying them millions of dollars, I think that would go without saying.

The players wouldn't hold out, by the way. They didn't hold out last time around, either. They specifically said, though it is more or less a tactic, that they were willing to continue playing under the current CBA while the new one is negotiated. There is no such thing as a picket line crosser during a lockout. Further, the laws regarding this require that a collective bargaining agreement be reached between the league and a union representing players in order for it to operate.

Paxon is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 09:21 PM
  #93
Eichel15
A DJ saved my life
 
Eichel15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Downtown Buffalo
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Eichel15
As profitable as it is now? No. But more than closing up shop. And nobody says you cant cross the picket line.
Are you saying you don't think professional athletes aren't overpaid? In this case, hockey players. Brain injuries don't come from one hockey play. They come from repeatedly putting yourself in that predicament and losing. If you are at a higher risk due to previous injuries, then its your own damn fault(Hi Pat LaFontaine). Greed keeps them going. Doubt any player in sports history has said, "Wow, my future health is permanently damaged from the first injury I got. And I wasn't even paid well to play!"

Players know the risks. They like the money more. So saying they can lose more than a guy who has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into a company doesn't really mesh. Players stop playing and lose... their job($3m avg?). Welcome to the real world. Owners stop the league and get shafted out of a truck load of money and tax breaks. I can't even guess as to how much they'd lose but its more than the avg player for sure.

Don't forget the other leagues in the world. Players don't have sign NHL contracts. Go play in Europe. What's the owner to do? Hire replacements and picket line crossers.

Put simply, if you're not willing to lose what you're fighting for, don't puff out your chest.

Eichel15 is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 09:51 PM
  #94
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
Definitely. All I really wanted to put across is it's one thing to agree with the owner's stance (though in this case it's a headscratcher frankly) but it's another to kiss their rumps and elevate them to some status above the players in terms of a partnership (or in this case, a competition of sorts). I also never get when people complain about the players because "they make so much money" when the owners are billionaires or groups of mutli-millionaires. I guess it's true that so many people look at the players and think the athletes don't deserve to get paid more than they do, which is silly but whatever.
Both sides have to bracket the negotiation well away from their minimum acceptable deal. The owners probably will accept far less that what they've asked for, and can accept even less that that. The idea that they should offer up either of those two options is bad business. They offered up a deal that the players can't accept, but that offer becomes one end of the negotiation. It serves the players well, since the owners would lose in the war of PR if they offered an even worse deal for the players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
At any rate, I'm anxious to see what the players' counter-proposal is. Are they going to come up with ridiculous demands themselves (wouldn't blame 'em frankly) or are they going to attack it more of a "No, you aren't getting those things. We like how things are now." The latter might put them in a better position to put "public pressure" on the league, not that it would necessarily amount to anything. Bettman's a cold-blooded cat, learned a thing or two from Stern to be sure.
... and the players should do the same as the owners: determine what their minimum acceptable deal is, and make an offer well away from it. That then becomes the second bracket. Negotiation then occurs somewhere in between the owner's offer and the player's offer.

Der Jaeger is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 10:26 PM
  #95
TCRF
RICK. GNASH
 
TCRF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 19,548
vCash: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
Doubt there will be much news for a while. The NHLPA hasn't submitted a counter-proposal yet, or at least nothing's been leaked about one. It should take at minimum a couple days for them to digest the NHL proposal, debate, and hash out a counter-proposal. I'd expect a week at least. These things take time, unfortunately, which is why I wish things could have began during the season.
I feel the same way about things getting started. I hope hockey isn't cut short or not played at all, but I feel like it'll start late

TCRF is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 10:47 PM
  #96
Endless Ike
Registered User
 
Endless Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 1,071
vCash: 500
If we reduce the players percentage to 47%, and reduce the gross that the percentage comes from, we're talking about serious reduction in salaries, right?

At some point doesn't that bring NHL salaries down a bit too close to KHL salaries for comfort? Are the owners ok with losing legit european talent? That seems to be the obvious effect.

Endless Ike is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 11:30 PM
  #97
jfb392
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,123
vCash: 500
Here's my personal philosophy: ignore the media doom-and-gloom, step back, and take a realistic look at the situation.
They want you to be scared and think that it's likely to happen so you read what they're writing.
If you're not reading, their material is worthless.

Re: the initial proposal from the NHL - why would they take a chance of leaving anything on the table?
They're going to propose their ideal situation, expect not to get it, and work from there.

Also remember that both sides had prior opportunities to re-negotiate this agreement and didn't.
They pushed it to the end of the agreement that technically could have been infinitely extended, but that didn't make sense as some changes are needed.
They did not prematurely terminate the agreement though, so it's likely still temporarily workable going forward.
The owners likely know they can't afford to lockout yet again and did not opt to terminate the agreement, so one would think that they'd be fine continuing to work under it temporarily, even if it means a loss of leverage.
Fehr has said that they are working in good faith and that they are fine with the season starting while negotiations are still going on.

Yes, there are problems (some significant) but it's nothing compared to 2004-05.
These things are workable and both sides are aware of what a third lockout in the last two decades would do.

jfb392 is online now  
Old
07-15-2012, 12:03 AM
  #98
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,284
vCash: 500
I tend to agree with JFB here....

I read NOTHING at all about the CBA (unless you count the comments on HFBoards). I will read factual articles eventually or little blurbs that are posted here. I stay away from widely dispersed opinion junk from the pro union crowd, and the pro owner crowd. No need to cloud my judgements with someone else's bias. I'll carefully choose the most middle of the road factual writeups I can find. Sooooo that leaves out all of TBN.

ZZamboni is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 12:39 AM
  #99
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 40,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfb392 View Post
Here's my personal philosophy: ignore the media doom-and-gloom, step back, and take a realistic look at the situation.
They want you to be scared and think that it's likely to happen so you read what they're writing.
If you're not reading, their material is worthless.

Re: the initial proposal from the NHL - why would they take a chance of leaving anything on the table?
They're going to propose their ideal situation, expect not to get it, and work from there.

Also remember that both sides had prior opportunities to re-negotiate this agreement and didn't.
They pushed it to the end of the agreement that technically could have been infinitely extended, but that didn't make sense as some changes are needed.
They did not prematurely terminate the agreement though, so it's likely still temporarily workable going forward.
The owners likely know they can't afford to lockout yet again and did not opt to terminate the agreement, so one would think that they'd be fine continuing to work under it temporarily, even if it means a loss of leverage.
Fehr has said that they are working in good faith and that they are fine with the season starting while negotiations are still going on.

Yes, there are problems (some significant) but it's nothing compared to 2004-05.
These things are workable and both sides are aware of what a third lockout in the last two decades would do.
And if there's anything the NFL/NBA negotiations have taught us...even when things appear stuck in the rut...they get one major agreement and within a week the whole thing could be hammered out. Those two leagues pushed it to the 11th hour (or longer in the NBA's case), but there's no reason to believe that it will take that long. It still could...but no timetable should be inferred at al from news like this.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 11:34 AM
  #100
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfb392 View Post
Here's my personal philosophy: ignore the media doom-and-gloom, step back, and take a realistic look at the situation.
They want you to be scared and think that it's likely to happen so you read what they're writing.
If you're not reading, their material is worthless.

Re: the initial proposal from the NHL - why would they take a chance of leaving anything on the table?
They're going to propose their ideal situation, expect not to get it, and work from there.

Also remember that both sides had prior opportunities to re-negotiate this agreement and didn't.
They pushed it to the end of the agreement that technically could have been infinitely extended, but that didn't make sense as some changes are needed.
They did not prematurely terminate the agreement though, so it's likely still temporarily workable going forward.
The owners likely know they can't afford to lockout yet again and did not opt to terminate the agreement, so one would think that they'd be fine continuing to work under it temporarily, even if it means a loss of leverage.
Fehr has said that they are working in good faith and that they are fine with the season starting while negotiations are still going on.

Yes, there are problems (some significant) but it's nothing compared to 2004-05.
These things are workable and both sides are aware of what a third lockout in the last two decades would do.
He's also the MLB union head that had the players walk out during the season which led to the concellation of the playoffs and World Series. I can't imagine the owners would be dumb enough to fall for this. It would give the players leverage they don't currently have.

joshjull is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.