bettman and fehr being present in mediation has literally no bearing on anything. mediation is a total waste of time, and many of the sports analysts share that sentiment.
Do you know why mediation is a "waste of time"? Because the owners don't care to find the middle ground, or have someone tell them that they aren't bargaining in good faith.
bettman and fehr being present in mediation has literally no bearing on anything. mediation is a total waste of time, and many of the sports analysts share that sentiment.
If the sides are close enough then mediation can work, last week they weren't close enough. There has been a lot of movement on both sides since then.
Do you know why mediation is a "waste of time"? Because the owners don't care to find the middle ground, or have someone tell them that they aren't bargaining in good faith.
i find it funny you're accusing the owners of not bargaining in good faith when the PA essentially proposed the same offer 4 times in a row over the course of a couple months. beauty.
i find it funny you're accusing the owners of not bargaining in good faith when the PA essentially proposed the same offer 4 times in a row over the course of a couple months. beauty.
If you can show me one area of negotiations where the PA has gained ground, but you can't because they haven't. What does CBA stand for? Do you know?
previous CBA is irrelevant in the context of comparison
-make whole upped, even with no obligation
- arb rights/ contract limit
- hrr split increased
hmm why was my previous post deleted in response to this..... it broke no rules
If the previous CBA is irrelevant so is the salary cap and everything else in it. You can't have it both ways.
-"make whole" is giving back (a portion) what they've been trying to take...thats not getting ahead.
-arbitration rights are staying the same. same is not = to getting ahead.
-The players are going from 57% to 50%. 57% is higher than 50% = loss.
If you think the previous CBA has no bearing on this negotiations we are never going to agree and you will remain wrong IMO.
If the previous CBA is irrelevant so is the salary cap and everything else in it. You can't have it both ways.
-"make whole" is giving back (a portion) what they've been trying to take...thats not getting ahead.
-arbitration rights are staying the same. same is not = to getting ahead.
-The players are going from 57% to 50%. 57% is higher than 50% = loss.
If you think the previous CBA has no bearing on this negotiations we are never going to agree and you will remain wrong IMO.
the previous CBA doesn't exist any more, of course it is irrelevant. there is a reason why contracts have built in clauses stating that it is subject to only the current CBA, you wanna know why? because once it is expired it is - you guessed it- IRRELEVANT.
the previous CBA doesn't exist any more, of course it is irrelevant. there is a reason why contracts have built in clauses stating that it is subject to only the current CBA, you wanna know why? because once it is expired it is - you guessed it- IRRELEVANT.
Show me where this is the case.
If the previous CBA were "irrelevant" they'd be negotiating from scratch, which they obviously aren't.
the previous CBA doesn't exist any more, of course it is irrelevant. there is a reason why contracts have built in clauses stating that it is subject to only the current CBA, you wanna know why? because once it is expired it is - you guessed it- IRRELEVANT.
Canucker is right. The previous CBA does not exist, but there are some over-arching terms that both sides have chosen to honour as a framework. Namely, both have yet to contest the pre-existing salary cap. Why do they do this? Because pulling it off the table, even if it is completely within their rights to do so, will essentially put everything back to square one. Which is a starting point that is too onerous to begin contemplating.
Facets of the prior CBA are being honoured, whether there is no existing CBA are not.
Canucker is right. The previous CBA does not exist, but there are some over-arching terms that both sides have chosen to honour as a framework. Namely, both have yet to contest the pre-existing salary cap. Why do they do this? Because pulling it off the table, even if it is completely within their rights to do so, will essentially put everything back to square one. Which is a starting point that is too onerous to begin contemplating.
Facets of the prior CBA are being honoured, whether there is no existing CBA are not.
i am not disagreeing with the fact that there is framework. i am disagreeing with the fact that details within the previous CBA are irrelevant. mainly the HRR split, and contracting rights.
i am not disagreeing with the fact that there is framework. i am disagreeing with the fact that details within the previous CBA are irrelevant. mainly the HRR split, and contracting rights.
So pretty much everything important to the players is irrelevant. Thats brilliant! lol
i am not disagreeing with the fact that there is framework. i am disagreeing with the fact that details within the previous CBA are irrelevant. mainly the HRR split, and contracting rights.
The fact that there is an unspoken framework means that details in the prior CBA are being honoured.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the clause is.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I've only head rumors about it, if it exists, prove it.
translation: "i don't have an answer"
yeah i'll bring up an NHL out of thin air even though it is reported throughout that these clauses exist. but if you want to put your head in the sand than that's fine i guess.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the clause is.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I've only head rumors about it, if it exists, prove it.
It exists. From a standard players contract:
Quote:
18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the League Rules and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by the Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This SPC is entered into subject to the CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this SPC inconsistent with such CBA are superseded by the provisions of the CBA.
I'm not sure how that makes previous CBAs irrelevant to negotiations though. I don't really follow the logic there.
of course they don't have an "obligation" to make whole, but the players aren't "obligated" to accept a rollback of HRR/wages in the first place.
i never said they had to. but it would make sense if they did so they don't forego millions of dollars. than again the players haven't proven to be the smartest bunch in these negotiations.
i never said they had to. but it would make sense if they did so they don't forego millions of dollars. than again the players haven't proven to be the smartest bunch in these negotiations.
Ok, I'm not sure I understand you here...
What millions of dollars would they "forego" by keeping 57% of HRR?
i never said they had to. but it would make sense if they did so they don't forego millions of dollars. than again the players haven't proven to be the smartest bunch in these negotiations.
The NHLPA's biggest mistake, IMO, was not decertifying in the early summer. That's where I think they went wrong. They tried to "compromise" when some negotiations follow that route, and others don't... this one didn't.
They should have decertified because it was their only leverage vs. the owners waiting them out. It should be standard practice from now on. If they repeat this mistake in the next CBA negotiation, they will regret it. Decertify early, or be prepared to succumb to the owners every time out.
