That was pretty stupid. Just like Dr Recchi spouting off a few weeks back.
Yeah, I had it out with Ray Ferraro on twitter too...he was implying that the PA should just give in. You'd figure people in unions understand why they are there. They should give some of these people lessons on the union and what they stand for before they sign on to play in the NHL.
The league have had a long time to prepare after seeing examples in other sports and a tougher negotiator in Bettman. I will be interested to see how it goes if it goes down that road. Hopefully will force an agreement but I'm skeptical.
The league have had a long time to prepare after seeing examples in other sports and a tougher negotiator in Bettman. I will be interested to see how it goes if it goes down that road. Hopefully will force an agreement but I'm skeptical.
I think the NHL has an acceptable deal now, and that they're going to try and use the next two weeks to apply pressure and get more before whatever deadline they have comes and goes.
That's the significance of the two week break they wanted. They're going to take the break anyways.
I think the NHL has an acceptable deal now, and that they're going to try and use the next two weeks to apply pressure and get more before whatever deadline they have comes and goes.
That's the significance of the two week break they wanted. They're going to take the break anyways.
Both sides have been playing a game of chicken 'til the last minute. It's too bad, they'll end up making a deal that gets them to 50% eventually like everyone knew would happen, something that could have been hammered out a long time ago if the NHL was willing to negotiate in good faith.
Both sides are in a game of chicken and neither side is less guilty than the other. If the PA was serious about negotiating in good faith and ending this they would gave pressuring to get a mediator involve to deal with the issue now that they are so close. Neither side wants mediator involved because one would likely suggest each side give up something they don't want. It would also show the public how easy it would be to do a deal at this point which neither side wants.
Instead, we are looking at the PA threatening to use what they think is their nuclear bomb. They might be right, but it is all about strong arming here. There are no good guys.
Both sides are in a game of chicken and neither side is less guilty than the other. If the PA was serious about negotiating in good faith and ending this they would gave pressuring to get a mediator involve to deal with the issue now that they are so close. Neither side wants mediator involved because one would likely suggest each side give up something they don't want. It would also show the public how easy it would be to do a deal at this point which neither side wants.
Instead, we are looking at the PA threatening to use what they think is their nuclear bomb. They might be right, but it is all about strong arming here. There are no good guys.
Isn't the PA, the ones who suggested the mediator?
Suggesting the Owners operated in good faith is ludicrous, one only need to look at their opening offer to realize this.
Both sides are in a game of chicken and neither side is less guilty than the other. If the PA was serious about negotiating in good faith and ending this they would gave pressuring to get a mediator involve to deal with the issue now that they are so close. Neither side wants mediator involved because one would likely suggest each side give up something they don't want. It would also show the public how easy it would be to do a deal at this point which neither side wants.
Instead, we are looking at the PA threatening to use what they think is their nuclear bomb. They might be right, but it is all about strong arming here. There are no good guys.
The NHLPA learned what negotiating in good faith would get them against this regime last time... a beating. They smartened up and did what they had to do to fight back.
To suggest the NHLPA doesn't want to make a deal asap is ludicrous, it just hasn't been possible.
The NHLPA learned what negotiating in good faith would get them against this regime last time... a beating. They smartened up and did what they had to do to fight back.
To suggest the NHLPA doesn't want to make a deal asap is ludicrous, it just hasn't been possible.
Well you will excuse me in not agreeing with your assessment. Saying something is "ludicrous" doesn't make it true. People need to learn that lesson on Internet message boards.
You seem to simply be parroting the NHLPA official line to me. Nothing new.
Well you will excuse me in not agreeing with your assessment. Saying something is "ludicrous" doesn't make it true. People need to learn that lesson on Internet message boards.
You seem to simply be parroting the NHLPA official line to me. Nothing new.
What possible reason could the NHLPA have for not wanting to get a deal done? It doesn't make sense, that's why it's ludicrous. When the other side comes with an offer and says "That's our last, best offer. Take it or leave it." What are you suppose to do?
When you table an offer and the other side looks at it for 10 minutes before storming out, what are you suppose to do?
Well you will excuse me in not agreeing with your assessment. Saying something is "ludicrous" doesn't make it true. People need to learn that lesson on Internet message boards.
You seem to simply be parroting the NHLPA official line to me. Nothing new.
Both sides want a deal, but only one side seems to not want to give in order to get.
What possible reason could the NHLPA have for not wanting to get a deal done?
None - as they'll *never* be able to recoup any lost paycheques during a prolonged lockout. The players that are speaking out like Hamrlik could give a rats *** about future players.
One thing I found curious about Bettman's interview yesterday:
He said it was unreasonable to expect further concessions as the players/owners continue to lose money. That the current economic climate would prevent it. (Present NHL offer is their best offer). However, I have to then wonder why the NHL's optimum offer is still on the table?
Should not the optimum offer now be rendered ineffective, based on the money lost? The fact that Bettman is still keeping it on the table despite the now changed economic factors tells me that it isn't in fact the optimal offer. How can it be?
Both sides want a deal, but only one side seems to not want to give in order to get.
Like it or not the PA was going to be the side giving up concessions. It was set in stone the moment the NFL, and mainly the NBA signed their new CBA's late last year. NBA players get at most 51% of the BRR. No way the NHLPA was going to get more than the NBA.
NHL wasn't going to accept anything other than a deal similar to the NBA in terms of revenue split. They also want to include clauses, like the NBA on contract terms.
Some of the contract rights issue, I believe the NHL will let up on. I think they will eventually give the players 6 or 7 year term limits, but will hold firm on wanting to keep salary paid to the cap hit.
I want to see an end to a situation that could occur should a player retire with 3 years left on his contract, but $11 million of salary paid to the player already has never been applied to the salary cap. That should not simply disappear. It should be applied to some team's salary cap.
Like it or not the PA was going to be the side giving up concessions. It was set in stone the moment the NFL, and mainly the NBA signed their new CBA's late last year. NBA players get at most 51% of the BRR. No way the NHLPA was going to get more than the NBA.
NHL wasn't going to accept anything other than a deal similar to the NBA in terms of revenue split. They also want to include clauses, like the NBA on contract terms.
Some of the contract rights issue, I believe the NHL will let up on. I think they will eventually give the players 6 or 7 year term limits, but will hold firm on wanting to keep salary paid to the cap hit.
I want to see an end to a situation that could occur should a player retire with 3 years left on his contract, but $11 million of salary paid to the player already has never been applied to the salary cap. That should not simply disappear. It should be applied to some team's salary cap.
Why?
The NHL wants no part of honouring existing contracts....There is no reason for the PA to agree to limit themselves to 6 or 7 years....I could see 10, a nice round number.
Like it or not the PA was going to be the side giving up concessions. It was set in stone the moment the NFL, and mainly the NBA signed their new CBA's late last year. NBA players get at most 51% of the BRR. No way the NHLPA was going to get more than the NBA.
NHL wasn't going to accept anything other than a deal similar to the NBA in terms of revenue split. They also want to include clauses, like the NBA on contract terms.
Some of the contract rights issue, I believe the NHL will let up on. I think they will eventually give the players 6 or 7 year term limits, but will hold firm on wanting to keep salary paid to the cap hit.
I want to see an end to a situation that could occur should a player retire with 3 years left on his contract, but $11 million of salary paid to the player already has never been applied to the salary cap. That should not simply disappear. It should be applied to some team's salary cap.
I knew that the PA was going to have to concede some share of the revenue split, it was inevitable. And it was obvious that they were going to want to close some of the holes from the previous CBA. But they have given nothing, if they want the PA to relinquish 7% of revenues and various other contractual rights then they should be willing to offer up something themselves. It's supposed to be collective bargaining not strong arming.
Can the league afford to wait out the players? Do they have the stomach to go that far? They have bills too, they have sponsors they need to keep happy and some markets have a very fragile hold on its fanbase. As much as the top teams control the direction of the negotiations for the NHL they have to realize they are playing a game where there will be consequences to the league as a whole if they continue down this road...just as there will be consequences to the players.
The first part I think so. The NHL isn't the cash cow that Griffiths Sr.. original six owners, etc. had in their day. Its much more of a vanity project for rich companies whose main revenue is elsewhere and I don't think the fanbase is that fragile. MLB showed that fans can easily be won back and that they are quite willing to ignore cheating if it gives them something to cheer about after being frustrated. But I agree that owners are not as determined as Bettman is in this fight (as is already showing with Ed Snyders off the record comments). Its very likely to be his last.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr
If they were that easily discouraged and lacked fortitude like that they never would have made it to the league in the first place. That's so weak.
If every time the bully comes for your lunch money you hand it over without a fight, he's coming back often and is probably going to be wearing your shoes and jacket soon too. You gotta make them earn it.
Bad analogy. This isn't a schoolyard bully (which is what in my youth what many hockey players seemed to be ) these are people that are paying you millions of dollars. In today's economy these guys will never go back to $50k paychecks with the $1b in revenue that NBC alone shelled out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker
Yeah, I had it out with Ray Ferraro on twitter too...he was implying that the PA should just give in. You'd figure people in unions understand why they are there. They should give some of these people lessons on the union and what they stand for before they sign on to play in the NHL.
some people join unions only because they have to. some guys that say stuff like that are angling for management jobs. why is the Pearson award now called the Ted Lindsay and not the Gordie Howe award like the fans pushed for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble
None - as they'll *never* be able to recoup any lost paycheques during a prolonged lockout. The players that are speaking out like Hamrlik could give a rats *** about future players.
this
keep in mind at least one of the owners is leaking to reporters their frustration with the situation as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker
Both sides want a deal, but only one side seems to not want to give in order to get.
You are talking about the side that offered a 50-50 split and a "make whole" offer I'm assuming.
You are talking about the side that offered a 50-50 split and a "make whole" offer I'm assuming.
Yeah, they initially offered 43% but since they are such charitable folks, they bumped it up to 50-50 and only offered to give them a portion of their own money back from contracts they willingly handed out. How could the PA say no?
Yeah, they initially offered 43% but since they are such charitable folks, they bumped it up to 50-50 and only offered to give them a portion of their own money back from contracts they willingly handed out. How could the PA say no?
I didn't say they were being nice in these negotiations just reminding it was the league that somehow restarted these talks and not "only one side seems to not want to give" as you say.
) these are people that are paying you millions of dollars. In today's economy these guys will never go back to $50k paychecks with the $1b in revenue that NBC alone shelled out.
