HFBoards

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

CBA Thread, Daniel Bryan Edition: The lockout is (tentatively) over!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 09:25 PM
  #376
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
They paid Fehr a lot of money to be in that room, not Steve. If they wanted Steve Fehr to close their deal, he would of been made the head of the PA, not Donald.
There was no closing deal being made at that point. It was put forth to them clear as day.

The owners were there for a simple yes or no and then Daly was to report to the office, and then things were to move whichever way the answer was.


Two owners and Daly in the room were not able to close a deal anymore than the players with S. Fehr.

A simple one word answer was all that was needed to move forward or they were still at status quo.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:31 PM
  #377
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
I'm not entirely certain I'm grasping your point entirely, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. Were I in the players' shoes, I wouldn't want to even go as far as to agree to a deal in principle without my leadership present. I realize it's not legally binding, but consider the optics if the players agreed to a deal in principle and then changed their minds the next day.

On the other hand though, I'm not sure that the players didn't more or less agree to the league's proposal on Tuesday. I could be mistaken, and I can't find where it might have been written, but I seem to recall a league source (possibly anonymously via some reporter's twitter) saying they thought they had a deal Tuesday night (I could be making this all up though, so take my jibber jabber for what its worth). Having not been at the meeting, it's hard to say what stage the negotiations were at when the PA brought Fehr back into the mix.
I don't know if they went far enough to say they thought they had a deal on Tuesday night, but it does sound like they were expecting the $300 million + backing off certain contractual rights issues (and 7 year contract term for own players) to close the deal. And given the quote from the player that they were ready to play hockey, then Fehr Came in and told them they could get more and to hold out, I think everything points to that's what happened.

Basically, if you want what I think happened, it's this:

1. Tuesday, the owners and players talked, showed progress and the owners made some concessions. Owners thought a deal was on the horizon.
2. Wednesday, players don't want to meet in the morning as was originally planned. Owners go in the afternoon, and notice the players aren't being as receptive. This fits the "we were ready to play hockey, but Fehr said we could get more and to hold out".
3. Owners decide to up their make whole offer, urged on by the more moderate owners in Tananbaum. Players then say, thanks, but now we need Pensions. This would explain why Tananbaum and a few others got pissed. They went to bat for the make whole issue after being told it was the most important issue to the players, and then pension is the most important.
4. Players continue to stall, act very slowly, but owners keep with it, as the players keep consulting Don Fehr seperately (something that seems to be lost in the whole 'owners were just trying to bully the players withoout Don in there'. Not only was Steve Fehr in the room, but the owners and players kept going into seperate rooms. If you don't think the players consulted Don Fehr the entire time, I don't know what to tell you.
5. Players eventually tell owners "we need Don Fehr" in here. Owners tell players, that will end these discussions. They didn't come here to see Gary and Don argue back and forth, that hasn't been productive in the past, they likely don't see it as being productive to this process now. I know the players keep saying "we just wanted him in there to finish the deal", but I don't really blame the owners for not believing that. They say, this is our final offer, we've already stretched more than many would have liked, take it back, think about it, and tell us yes or no whether you want to accept it. It's a package.
6. Players are told to hold out, they can get more, try their luck and counter the proposal.
7. Players are told by Daly in meeting (meeting that was continually delayed) that the league wasn't expecting a counter (at least one that took all the concessions made by the owners over the past 2 days and then asked for even more concessions on the issues the owners said were required).
8. The press conferences happened.

And yes, I realize Bettman did something similar in 2005, plucking the 24% from an earlier offer. It's a negotiating trick, but just because it worked on the NHLPA in 2005 doesn't mean that Bettman has to accept it now. And the circumstances in 2005 were slightly different. The NHLPA was going to have to accept rollback regardless, whether directly (such as the 24% rollback) or through massive escrow payments, and frankly, the direct rollback was better for upcoming free agents and transparency (players could predict how much money they were going to make). The NHL wasn't going to commit to another season in which they gave players 70% of revenue (probably would have been even more with hurt revenues for the first season back) via: salary + compliance buyouts.

Oh, and that's the other thing that seems to be lost in discussing how 'close' the two sides really are. The NHLPA tried to introduce, on top of the make whole, compliance buyouts and escrow limits, both which would see the NHLPA get money not part of the 50/50 split, into the discussion. You're kidding yourself if you think that would have been a minor issue. It's similar to the NHLPA before saying "yeah, we're close on the economics...btw, we still have to deal with who pays for the damage of the lockout after we determine economics..."

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:33 PM
  #378
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
There was no closing deal being made at that point. It was put forth to them clear as day.

The owners were there for a simple yes or no and then Daly was to report to the office, and then things were to move whichever way the answer was.


Two owners and Daly in the room were not able to close a deal anymore than the players with S. Fehr.

A simple one word answer was all that was needed to move forward or they were still at status quo.
There were only 2-3 issues left, of course it was close to a deal getting done. Of course it made sense to bring in Fehr. Two of these issues were simply bargaining chips to leverage contract terms.

The league wanted a yes or no on a package deal with no room to negotiate. That is total BS. That is why there is no trust. That is why there is still no deal with only three years separating them on term.

Try telling me that is quality leadership and this would happen in the NFL.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:35 PM
  #379
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
It came straight from Daly's mouth that if Fehr came back, the league would end the player-owner format. That was a decision the league made, not the PA. The players felt they were getting close to a deal and they needed Fehr. There was absolutely no reason for Burkle and Tannanbaum to leave then.

They did it, once again to undermine Fehr. This is now the third time the league has pulled this garbage.

It isn't going to work. He has mechanisms in place to prevent what happened to BG. The league keeps wasting time and being childish trying these games.



Once again, the players felt a deal was close, so naturally they wanted Fehr in the room to finish it off.

They had every right to ask for that without the owners pulling a PP and walking away

You do realize there is literally three years difference between what the owners offered (5) vs the players offer (8) on contract terms?

And somehow people want to defend what the league did? Again, piss poor leadership.
Um, isn't Don Fehr coming back in the room itself ending the agreed format of owners-players?

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:37 PM
  #380
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
Um, isn't Don Fehr coming back in the room itself ending the agreed format of owners-players?
Um, does it mean Burkle and Tannanbaum had to leave?

No.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:41 PM
  #381
KaylaJ
Tungsten!
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 14,718
vCash: 500
nvm.

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:43 PM
  #382
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Um, does it mean Burkle and Tannanbaum had to leave?

No.
I don't know if you are seeing on this.

Not only did they not get their answer, D. Fehr came in.

There was nothing to discuss at that point on the Leagues side. Were they to stare at the walls until they decided to give an answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
There were only 2-3 issues left, of course it was close to a deal getting done. Of course it made sense to bring in Fehr. Two of these issues were simply bargaining chips to leverage contract terms.

The league wanted a yes or no on a package deal with no room to negotiate. That is total BS. That is why there is no trust. That is why there is still no deal with only three years separating them on term.

Try telling me that is quality leadership and this would happen in the NFL.
And to answer your post above before this, they could have easily said no.

Edit: Plus this was only an agreement in terms not the final negotiated deal to which is final, only to move forward with the negotiation.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:55 PM
  #383
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
I don't know if you are seeing on this.

Not only did they not get their answer, D. Fehr came in.

There was nothing to discuss at that point on the Leagues side. Were they to stare at the walls until they decided to give an answer?

And to answer your post above before this, they could have easily said no.
As I said ALREADY, Tannenbaum left well before things blew up.

What does that tell you? The league had no intention of continuing the negotiations if their ultimatum wasn't taken and had no intentions of dealing with Fehr.

Bettman tells us a deal was never close, Burkle tells us one was:

Quote:
We understood and appreciated their situation. We came back with an aggressive commitment to pensions which we felt was well received. We needed a response on key items that were important to us, but we were optimistic that we were down to very few issues. I believe a deal was within reach.
The league can't even keep their BS straight.

Crosby, Miller and Burkle all echoed a deal was close, so why leave town Burkle? Why go on the podium and act like a child Bettman?

Three years and a twenty percent difference in variables and the league can't man up and find a middle ground there?

You have to be kidding me.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:02 PM
  #384
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
As I said ALREADY, Tannenbaum left well before things blew up.

What does that tell you? The league had no intention of continuing the negotiations if their ultimatum wasn't taken and had no intentions of dealing with Fehr.

Bettman tells us a deal was never close, Burkle tells us one was:



The league can't even keep their BS straight.

Crosby, Miller and Burkle all echoed a deal was close, so why leave town Burkle? Why go on the podium and act like a child Bettman?

Three years and a twenty percent difference in variables and the league can't man up and find a middle ground there?

You have to be kidding me.
1. The NHLPA is not proposing a 25% variance. They are proposing the lowest year must be at least 25% of the highest year. That's a lot more than 25% variance.

Under the NHLPA Proposal, this is a legal contract: $12 Million, $12 Million, $12 Million, $12 Million, $12 Million, $3 Million, $3 Million, $3 Million. These numbers may look familiar to you. They are similar to Crosby's contract (minus the middle years of about $10 Million). Crosby's contract was used as the reference in Fehr's presser.

And under the NHLPA's justification for long contracts and why they help the middle class players, they need back-diving cap circumventing contracts to be legal.

2. and the key words to your Burkle quote is "Were". They were optimistic. Were.

3. The NHLPA then created all new issues with their whole 'transitional' issues, issues that were already addressed by the NHL.


Last edited by PensFanSince1989: 12-08-2012 at 10:23 PM.
PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:09 PM
  #385
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
As I said ALREADY, Tannenbaum left well before things blew up.

What does that tell you? The league had no intention of continuing the negotiations if their ultimatum wasn't taken and had no intentions of dealing with Fehr.

Bettman tells us a deal was never close, Burkle tells us one was:



The league can't even keep their BS straight.

Crosby, Miller and Burkle all echoed a deal was close, so why leave town Burkle? Why go on the podium and act like a child Bettman?

Three years and a twenty percent difference in variables and the league can't man up and find a middle ground there?

You have to be kidding me.
This is just too simple that it's hard, but I'll try.


League; Do you agree to terms?

NHLPA/players; Yes but only if you add 30m to make whole / or just no.

You see the owners see that big Y word and even though the request for more make whole is there, that's a move forward approach. They report this to the office and they then make arrangements to meet further.

Had they said no, what's the point staying there, the owners want those terms on contract term length at all cost. They're willing to pay for them so you squeeze more make whole out of them, which is what D. Fehr is saying, they can get more, but it's how you go about it. But you also have to account the owners will only go so far on make whole so asking for extreme amounts on top of the 100m they just gave would be putting talks at and end too.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:25 PM
  #386
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
1. The NHLPA is not proposing a 25% variance. They are proposing the lowest year must be at least 25% of the highest year. That's a lot more than 25% variance.

Under the NHLPA Proposal, this is a legal contract: $12 Million, $12 Million, $12 Million, $12 Million, $12 Million, $3 Million, $3 Million, $3 Million.

And under the NHLPA's justification for long contracts and why they help the middle class players, they need back-diving cap circumventing contracts to be legal.
It is a bargaining chip, needed for leverage, nothing more.

[/Quote]2. and the key words to your Burkle quote is "Were". They were optimistic. Were.[/QUOTE]

No, they are actually still close, but the league decided to make a spectacle of themselves, instead of further negotiating and finishing this mess.

Once again, there is a lack of true leadership for this league.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:32 PM
  #387
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
It is a bargaining chip, needed for leverage, nothing more.

Quote:
2. and the key words to your Burkle quote is "Were". They were optimistic. Were.
No, they are actually still close, but the league decided to make a spectacle of themselves, instead of further negotiating and finishing this mess.

Once again, there is a lack of true leadership for this league.

How do you come up with this stuff?

If there's lack of anything it's the NHLPA not being able to fallow parameters.

Now who's got lack of leadership?

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:38 PM
  #388
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
This is just too simple that it's hard, but I'll try.


League; Do you agree to terms?

NHLPA/players; Yes but only if you add 30m to make whole / or just no.

You see the owners see that big Y word and even though the request for more make whole is there, that's a move forward approach. They report this to the office and they then make arrangements to meet further.

Had they said no, what's the point staying there, the owners want those terms on contract term length at all cost. They're willing to pay for them so you squeeze more make whole out of them, which is what D. Fehr is saying, they can get more, but it's how you go about it. But you also have to account the owners will only go so far on make whole so asking for extreme amounts on top of the 100m they just gave would be putting talks at and end too.
Or the league could accept Fehr is going nowhere, get down to negotiating, stop issuing threats, stop trying to get rid of Fehr, reach a deal that is right there and then we can close this ****** thread and argue about why DB hates Tangradi and why a Dupuis Crosby Dupuis line would own the NHL.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:41 PM
  #389
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Or the league could accept Fehr is going nowhere, get down to negotiating, stop issuing threats, stop trying to get rid of Fehr, reach a deal that is right there and then we can close this ****** thread and argue about why DB hates Tangradi.
Or the league is at their end game on those, there is no moving off of those wants.

The players either get more elsewhere or sit on it.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:44 PM
  #390
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
How do you come up with this stuff?

If there's lack of anything it's the NHLPA not being able to fallow parameters.

Now who's got lack of leadership?
Uh ya, parameters set by the league that forces ultimatums.

Did Bettman follow parameters when he put the 24% rollback back on the table seven years ago?

Again, it's hypocritical behavior.

NHL: You can't do that! Only we can!

Fehr: Didn't get the memo, Gary. Sorry.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:46 PM
  #391
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
Or the league is at their end game on those, there is no moving off of those wants.

The players either get more elsewhere or sit on it.
Which again shows poor leadership. Keeping the variance low and adding another year still gives the league what they want.

They are willing to risk this going nuclear over a three year difference.

It's absurd.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:48 PM
  #392
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Uh ya, parameters set by the league that forces ultimatums.

Did Bettman follow parameters when he put the 24% rollback back on the table seven years ago?

Again, it's hypocritical behavior.

NHL: You can't do that! Only we can!

Fehr: Didn't get the memo, Gary. Sorry.
They do own the teams, and are the league. I think they do get the say in how the talks are played out. The Players certainly are not gonna tell them what to do.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 10:52 PM
  #393
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Uh ya, parameters set by the league that forces ultimatums.

Did Bettman follow parameters when he put the 24% rollback back on the table seven years ago?

Again, it's hypocritical behavior.

NHL: You can't do that! Only we can!

Fehr: Didn't get the memo, Gary. Sorry.
Again, so that means the league has to fall for the trick?? And while yes, the league did that in 2005, the situation was different. The NHLPA was going to have to accept a rollback of some sort either way. Either similar to the 24% rollback or through massive escrow payments. How it was done was the better way for the players. Players rightfully focused more on the issues such as actual salary cap % and having in escalate from 54 - 57 under certain conditions (which were met, obviously in the CBA's lifetime) and contracting right.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:24 PM
  #394
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Which again shows poor leadership. Keeping the variance low and adding another year still gives the league what they want.

They are willing to risk this going nuclear over a three year difference.

It's absurd.
When has sticking to your guns been called poor leadership?

If it means keeping players second contracts under control, I think it's a worthwhile fight.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:37 PM
  #395
bambamcam4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
When has sticking to your guns been called poor leadership?

If it means keeping players second contracts under control, I think it's a worthwhile fight.
Should that really matter that much for owners though? They still have to pay the same % in HRR to players.

bambamcam4ever is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:41 PM
  #396
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
Again, so that means the league has to fall for the trick?? And while yes, the league did that in 2005, the situation was different. The NHLPA was going to have to accept a rollback of some sort either way. Either similar to the 24% rollback or through massive escrow payments. How it was done was the better way for the players. Players rightfully focused more on the issues such as actual salary cap % and having in escalate from 54 - 57 under certain conditions (which were met, obviously in the CBA's lifetime) and contracting right.
It doesn't mean they have to fall for it, it means they don't have to act like children and walk away from the table and get on the podium to spew their hypocrisy.

Also, the players didn't even know the rollback was back on the table hence the resignation of BG. Which is exactly why they want Fehr in there for the final push.

And this can be flipped right back because as I keep saying. The owners don't have to be stuck on five. Six or seven years and a small variance accomplish the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
When has sticking to your guns been called poor leadership?

If it means keeping players second contracts under control, I think it's a worthwhile fight.
There is a huge difference between sticking to your guns and blowing your tops and making a spectacle of things, when you don't get your way.

Good leaders would have kept working through things and accepted Fehr was the man they had to negotiate with.

When you look at the leaders of the NHL, you don't have owners the caliber of the Rooney family, Kraft, Jones, Snyder, the Hunts, the Maras. True leaders who know that the shield means everything.

The NHL leaders continue to **** all over their shield, and for what? Three years?

That isn't leadership. Sorry.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:43 PM
  #397
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamcam4ever View Post
Should that really matter that much for owners though? They still have to pay the same % in HRR to players.
Losing your better players after their second contract sound fine to you?

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:01 AM
  #398
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
Losing your better players after their second contract sound fine to you?
Ugene why do you even bother? There is no give in Jiggy's perspective.

It's like the NHL owners bashing there heads against Don Fehr's negotiation tactics. There's just no winning that game....

Gallatin is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:01 AM
  #399
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
It doesn't mean they have to fall for it, it means they don't have to act like children and walk away from the table and get on the podium to spew their hypocrisy.

Also, the players didn't even know the rollback was back on the table hence the resignation of BG. Which is exactly why they want Fehr in there for the final push.

And this can be flipped right back because as I keep saying. The owners don't have to be stuck on five. Six or seven years and a small variance accomplish the same thing.



There is a huge difference between sticking to your guns and blowing your tops and making a spectacle of things, when you don't get your way.

Good leaders would have kept working through things and accepted Fehr was the man they had to negotiate with.

When you look at the leaders of the NHL, you don't have owners the caliber of the Rooney family, Kraft, Jones, Snyder, the Hunts, the Maras. True leaders who know that the shield means everything.

The NHL leaders continue to **** all over their shield, and for what? Three years?

That isn't leadership. Sorry.
So your telling me you'd just sit there getting nothing done then. You'd sit there waiting for one thing and two totally opposites happen and you try and negotiate something you are completely not prepared for, or don't want to do?

Leadership is knowing when things are so out of whack, and it doesn't matter what you say or do, nothing is gonna get done. You leave.

I find it kind of repulsive you don't see the issue there. It's the biggest waste of time and the owners knew it.

The NHLPA and players pissed off their best help entrenched in the owners group.

NHLPA/players

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:05 AM
  #400
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
Ugene why do you even bother? There is no give in Jiggy's perspective.

It's like the NHL owners bashing there heads against Don Fehr's negotiation tactics. There's just no winning that game....
This is true.

I definitely will have to agree to disagree with, Jiggy.

Ugene Malkin 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 05:54 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.