"Let's leave," said Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, turning to NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly.
"It's up to you," replied Daly.
But with Jacobs threatening to abandon the talks, other owners spoke up, and then both sides dramatically backed away from the precipice. When talks ended close to 1 a.m. Thursday morning after more than eight hours of talks without NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and union executive director Don Fehr, it certainly seemed from the outside they were getting closer and closer to a deal to end this ugly lockout.
At that point during the talks between the NHL and NHL Players Association on Wednesday, a day that began as a continuation of the momentum generated on Tuesday, both sides were at the precipice, and the 2012-13 season was in jeopardy. Earlier, Buffalo Sabres goalie Ryan Miller had angrily vented when the owners said they were disappointed with the players responses to an earlier offer and threatened to pull everything off the table.
So the deputy commissioner does whatever Jacobs tells him to do. it is RIDICULOUS how much power Jacobs has, hopefully there are enough other owners to get that moron out of the way
This contracting roadblock is interesting. On the one hand, term limits wouldn't affect the majority of players. Nonetheless, it is a major concession to forfeit the ability to sign "retirement" contracts that some guys sign at ages as low as mid-20s. If I'm a player, I really like the security of guaranteed dollars into the twilight of my career. I wouldn't be quick to forfeit that ability. Frankly, I might sooner take a lesser "make whole" # than I would cap term limits at 5-7 years. I think we're all in agreement that this one "last" issue will work itself out, but I'm very curious to see how it happens...
Indeed.
And theres nothing "bizarre" about getting volatile people out of the room at a critical time like this. If they can't handle being in the room, let them listen on a phone outside.
ETA: It paid to stay up late cuz we got most of the juicy details of the things being discussed. Won't have to play catch up in the morning.
As it stands. The PA either flex or compromise with some give and take tomorrow or this goes off the rails.
Even with this pension crap, you think we make a deal today?
No I don't think we'll make it today but tomorrow. Ofcourse they need to talk about the make whole and mqy cut this pension thing out and make a "real" 300 mio $ make whole (hope I got the make whole thing right).
I was just saying that I believe 5 years is not enough, like others said, 7 or 8 sound much better.
If we won't do it today or tomorrow, we can definetly say bye bye.
I'd seriously have trouble remaining a fan of my team if I read reports of it's owner pulling stunts like that.
At the very least I'd really have to evaluate my feelings on the matter and I certainly wouldn't be able to encourage it financially.
That doesn't make sense. Boston Bruins can be disappointed by their idiot of an owner, but I don't think anyone (including you) would reconsider cheering for a team because of it.
Bruins fans cheer for their team based on players, location, history, whatever, but certainly not because of who is owning the team.
If Eugene Melnyk had a swingvote and voted no, I would still continue to be a Sens fan for the rest of my life. Maybe as you said not support the team financially, but still.
__________________
Senators | 67's | Texans | Blue Jays
Twitter: @TyFi10 | Formerly: Mighty Manked, SeanMonahan | BF3 All-Star
"What if something amazing happens today?" - Jack Jablonski Blog (Click Here): Turris, The Goal. Ottawa, The Win.
No I don't think we'll make it today but tomorrow. Ofcourse they need to talk about the make whole and mqy cut this pension thing out and make a "real" 300 mio $ make whole (hope I got the make whole thing right).
I was just saying that I believe 5 years is not enough, like others said, 7 or 8 sound much better.
If we won't do it today or tomorrow, we can definetly say bye bye.
I think if it's not done by the end of Sunday I'll get worried.
Just be thankful for those owners who continued to plow through once it got volatile in the room. Once they break, then this thing goes on another week to 2 week break with 1 more shot at half a season(48ish games) then it's wrap city on the season.
ETA: If this does break down, i don't see the owners being as giving either and things will definitely come off the table. A point that should stressed to the PA.
Where does last night stand in comparison with the NBA Lockout timeline?
They got pretty close before both sides suddenly broke off. Then the NBAPA started to start the decertification process. And then a deal was suddenly made.
__________________
Sig AND X-mas avatar courtesy of The Nemesis
"Pull yourself together!" - Solid Snake to Otacon, multiple times in the series
Me neither, this is back to 'clawing for high ground that doesn't exist' in the PR war that's poisoned this whole process. I really don't get why contract limits haven't dissapeared yet or at least been amended even more than just the addition of seven years for current teams' UFA's, I guess a few million insurance dollars really are that important to the owners.
I cant believe the players would not accept a term limit when it only affects maybe 5% of them.
I keep seeing this posted, that number is a little low to me considering that almost everyone before the CBA was being signed to a 5+ year contract including a couple of the Bruins and Taylor Hall right before it expired, it wasn't just the 'big' stars and it wasn't just because of variance.
I don't get why they don't just say, okay we cap the second contract at five years then stay unlimited with variance on the third one. How long are contracts going to be if you're already at 28 and don't have back-diving contracts/variance anyway? It's not like many of these guys are going to get relatively flat 10-80's to begin with. Hell, cap the third contract at 7 years if you wish so teams don't have to go long-term into a guy's 35+ years.
