whlie there is likely greed with the players, lets not act like its just one sided here. there are some hardline stance owners who have major influence in the negotiations.
Fehr is a dick, but there are those group of owners who would like nothing better then to break the union into a million pieces. That stance isnt about Fehr either its been that way for decades.
The PA will be broken again once this CBA is done.. Then they will hire a guy who will actually work with the owners. Then they will push him out for another hard liner. They took the loss of the last CBA personally and dug theirselves in for a long battle
The PA will be broken again once this CBA is done.. Then they will hire a guy who will actually work with the owners. Then they will push him out for another hard liner. They took the loss of the last CBA personally and dug theirselves in for a long battle
the owners would love to have a guy in charge of the NHLPA who they can take advantage of.
The PA will be broken again once this CBA is done.. Then they will hire a guy who will actually work with the owners. Then they will push him out for another hard liner. They took the loss of the last CBA personally and dug theirselves in for a long battle
And yet the owners have stuck with their own hardliner, who did win last time but who may not look quite so good once all is said and done this time around.
The owners were either naive enough to believe the players would lay down again, or they too expected a long drawn out battle.
Neither side is right. Neither side is wrong. Both could do a lot to meet in the middle, but neither side wants to do that just yet.
They will get there, but who knows when? Right now, the owners whose teams lost money are probably enjoying the fact that they have no expenses. The owners whose teams made a lot of money are probably not quite as happy. And the owners whose teams have deadweight that is about to expire on the roster probably have less incentive to get this settled.
And yet the owners have stuck with their own hardliner, who did win last time but who may not look quite so good once all is said and done this time around.
The owners were either naive enough to believe the players would lay down again, or they too expected a long drawn out battle.
Neither side is right. Neither side is wrong. Both could do a lot to meet in the middle, but neither side wants to do that just yet.
They will get there, but who knows when? Right now, the owners whose teams lost money are probably enjoying the fact that they have no expenses. The owners whose teams made a lot of money are probably not quite as happy. And the owners whose teams have deadweight that is about to expire on the roster probably have less incentive to get this settled.
While the players are losing more and more money every single second they don't accept a deal.
The owners have the players right where they want them. They have the fans on their side and all owners are united. With multiple teams losing money last year, they are sitting rosy while the players share evaporates.
Hell even Snider is happy, his defensemen are healing up while this is going on.
While the players are losing more and more money every single second they don't accept a deal.
The owners have the players right where they want them. They have the fans on their side and all owners are united. With multiple teams losing money last year, they are sitting rosy while the players share evaporates.
Hell even Snider is happy, his defensemen are healing up while this is going on.
I don't think either of those things is completely true.
The owners might be publicly united, but the large market teams can't like some of the provisions in the last NHL offer, and the small market clubs are far more insistent on an immediate 50/50 split than some of the medium- and big-market teams.
Andy Strickland @andystrickland
According to sources Don Fehr has convinced the players the longer they remain firm, the better the deal will be down the road #NHLPA
They tried that once. It went badly.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
While the players are losing more and more money every single second they don't accept a deal.
The owners have the players right where they want them. They have the fans on their side and all owners are united. With multiple teams losing money last year, they are sitting rosy while the players share evaporates.
Hell even Snider is happy, his defensemen are healing up while this is going on.
while the players are losing money, i think thet are united as well. As Lebron said right now its a game of chicken
I think there is a group of fans who are on the owners side alltho some of that can be attributed to some being 100 percent anti-union.
the longer this goes the better chance the group that is ticked at both sides getting bigger. There is greed, stubborness on both sides. both sides are at fault with being where they are
Ed Snider will be making his money with the Sixers. He is happy in that regard
Snider is in that group of hardline owners who wont conciede anything, not even a penny to the NHLPA.
Last edited by GoneFullHolmgren: 10-24-2012 at 03:24 PM.
I have a feeling Mr. Snider may not see it that way. What he is seeing is thousands and thousands of dollars not going into his bank account.
The teams like the Flyers, Leafs, etc. who make huge coin are probably the most unhappy with this whole lockout.
This was my assumption coming into the lockout, but the press reports from out-of-town have regularly identified Snider as one of the hard-line owners.
Snider fits into a traditional paternalistic mode, right? Loves his players, and has no problem paying them well, but hates the union.
It's amazing how dumb some smart people can be. If they miss 1/3 of a season that's likely to be 500M for the players, which is pretty much what they're arguing about now. At least in terms of HRR, we don't know how the players feel about the other provisions because they were absent from the players 3 "proposals".
Snider fits into a traditional paternalistic mode, right? Loves his players, and has no problem paying them well, but hates the union.
He may or may not hate the NHLPA union, but from what I know of his economic beliefs, he doesn't hate unions in principle, but believe corporations supply already what a lot of unions demand / were created for (benefits, fair pay, health care, labor laws, etc). They are useful sometimes, but largely unnecessary / obsolete anymore given the labor laws.
He may or may not hate the NHLPA union, but from what I know of his economic beliefs, he doesn't hate unions in principle, but believe corporations supply already what a lot of unions demand / were created for (benefits, fair pay, health care, labor laws, etc). They are useful sometimes, but largely unnecessary / obsolete anymore given the labor laws.
I see one side saying "We proposed immediate salary cuts and unless you want to discuss our offer, we're not prepared to discuss anything" and the other side saying "we're willing to work with you but we're not prepared to take an immediate pay cut".
Until one side blinks, nothing is going to change. Granted, they are still working on the basis of a salary cap existence (which is a huge change from last time) but that's about the only thing they're agreeing on at the moment.
I don't really know how far "Miles Apart" is, I suppose that definition varies from person to person?
However; I would argue that they're a hell of alot closer than when they started the negotiations.
Essentially, they both agree that 50/50 split of HRR is fair. What they're arguing about right now is how they get there:
- The union wants to get there gradually over 5 years with a pay RAISE on the first year, which isn't realistic at all.
- The NHL wants to do right now, which isn't really fair, unless they can prove how they could do it without rolling back salaries (which I don't really buy.)
I think there is middle ground. Probably something close to what we have been discussing in this thread already: A gradual step down over 2 years to 50/50.
I don't really know how far "Miles Apart" is, I suppose that definition varies from person to person?
However; I would argue that they're a hell of alot closer than when they started the negotiations.
Essentially, they both agree that 50/50 split of HRR is fair. What they're arguing about right now is how they get there:
- The union wants to get there gradually over 5 years with a pay RAISE on the first year, which isn't realistic at all.
- The NHL wants to do right now, which isn't really fair, unless they can prove how they could do it without rolling back salaries (which I don't really buy.)
I think there is middle ground. Probably something close to what we have been discussing in this thread already: A gradual step down over 2 years to 50/50.
53/47
51/49
50/50
50/50
50/50
50/50
Both sides walk away unhappy... as it should be.
The problem is whichever one proposes this the other one will take it and try to work with it.
He would be right up until the 82 game schedule went out the window which is about to happen
edit : and if the season is lost, losing 1.8b is a lot more than about a billion they'd be losing on the current proposal
The recent signs are that the owners don't want to lose a full season and are concerned of the PR hit they are taking. If you are the players why not push it further to see if they continue to bend?
The recent signs are that the owners don't want to lose a full season and are concerned of the PR hit they are taking. If you are the players why not push it further to see if they continue to bend?
Push what further? They aren't giving a new proposal or working off earlier previous ones
As far as I know, the owners have yet to present a proposal that grants a single concession from the existing system on any matter of significance. Is that correct?
All they have done to date is reduce their own demands--retreat from some of the elements of their own earlier proposals.
Whether too slow, or too contingent, or whatever else, at least the players made a significant concession from the existing system.
It is a simple distinction, but one that gets lost in the poll-tested NHL pitch.
Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 10-24-2012 at 08:26 PM.
As far as I know, the owners have yet to present a proposal that grants a single concession from the existing system on any matter of significance. Is that correct?
All they have done to date is reduce their own demands, retreat from some of the elements of their own earlier proposals.
Whether too slow, or too contingent, or whatever else, at least the players made a significant concession from the existing system.
It is a simple distinction, but one that gets lost in the poll-tested NHL pitch.
As far as I know, the owners have yet to present a proposal that grants a single concession from the existing system on any matter of significance. Is that correct?
All they have done to date is reduce their own demands--retreat from some of the elements of their own earlier proposals.
Whether too slow, or too contingent, or whatever else, at least the players made a significant concession from the existing system.
It is a simple distinction, but one that gets lost in the poll-tested NHL pitch.
but I thought they didnt have to concede anything to those greedy, good for nothing players?
