He doesn't provide any explanation to that comment. From the information we got from the informal suggestion from the league, it seemed like the league moved forward in areas compared to previous proposals. The optics don't suggest that the 4 owners had no clue about where negotiations were. They had Jacobs there to fill them in during their owners only meetings throughout the two days. Maybe he's referring to the process of the talks and not the end result of the unofficial offer the league gave, but as I said, he doesn't explain himself which takes away from making such a statement.
It sure seems like those 4 owners were characters in a play. They're parachuted in talks and are a bit lost. What they don't have in expertise and information they make up by playing nice... Afterwards, they also get vetted from the league to release statements despite the 1 Million gag order...
The 2 other owners are the ones that seem to do anything strategically significant:
Murray Edwards: Working to split Fehr from the players. Telling Hainsey that bringing back Fehr was a "deal-breaker".
Jeremy "a.k.a The Owners" Jacobs:
1. "Let's leave," said Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, turning to NHL deputy 1commissioner Bill Daly.
"It's up to you," replied Daly.
(...)
But with Jacobs poised to abandon the talks, other owners spoke up, and then both sides dramatically backed away from the precipice.
Our owners, to jump start the process, added more money to the make whole and we got a response that was insulting to our owners. They wanted to leave but the players asked them to stay
Based on the very first offer put forward by the league (which we know was a BS offer)..... the league has moved on pretty much everything from that first offer.
Question :
Is there anything from that first offer that the league has not moved from at all?
IIRC the 5 year limit on contracts was part of that first offer and still remains to this day.
Anything else still included from that offer back in August??
I do not disagree with the overall point of the article, as people are naive if they think the players (due a lot to their agents) aren't taking advantage of such loopholes. That being said, the owners agreed to the CBAs they wrote up, the owners agreed to make those deals with the players they get an equal share of the blame for the situation they're in now.
This entire blame game of the past, however, is pointless in my opinion, which is why I wish people on both sides of the argument would just put it past them. As the article says, this is business, and we must carry on like it's business as usual. In that sense, I would the players have been more culpable than the owners overall.
Is there a worse league/union relationship in pro sports than the NHL and NHLPA? Jesus.
A lot of people fighting for the smallest pie in the major sports. That's going to create conflict. Fehr was just a lit match brought into a barn full of hay.
Fehr has guaranteed there is no season.
Fed the players a bunch of **** and made them more greedy, promised them amazing things.
Now they won't get a single paycheque this year.
After last week I don't think that you can blame one side more than the other. The charade played by the so-called moderate owners and Bettman was an embarrassment to the NHL as was Fehr's press conferernce. The parties made significant progress and for the first time a deal looked in reach. Rather than continuing to bargain to resolve the issues the NHL gave another take it or leave it offer and then decided that they would take one last stab at breaking the union and then we witnessed Bettman's petulant claim that he was pulling everything off the table. Bettman and Fehr are both playing games and have probably all along had an early January start in mind. Both deserve Oscars for their performances late last week and the four 'moderate' owners deserve awards as well.
After last week I don't think that you can blame one side more than the other. The charade played by the so-called moderate owners and Bettman was an embarrassment to the NHL. The parties made significant progress and for the first time a deal looked in reach.
How close were they really to a deal ?
Fehr likes to move the goalposts whenever significant progress is made. Now we are hearing the NHLPA wants a mid-level exception.
What item(s) will Fehr throw out on the table at the 11th hour ?
It sure seems like those 4 owners were characters in a play. They're parachuted in talks and are a bit lost. What they don't have in expertise and information they make up by playing nice... Afterwards, they also get vetted from the league to release statements despite the 1 Million gag order...
The 2 other owners are the ones that seem to do anything strategically significant:
Murray Edwards: Working to split Fehr from the players. Telling Hainsey that bringing back Fehr was a "deal-breaker".
Jeremy "a.k.a The Owners" Jacobs:
1. "Let's leave," said Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, turning to NHL deputy 1commissioner Bill Daly.
"It's up to you," replied Daly.
(...)
But with Jacobs poised to abandon the talks, other owners spoke up, and then both sides dramatically backed away from the precipice.
Our owners, to jump start the process, added more money to the make whole and we got a response that was insulting to our owners. They wanted to leave but the players asked them to stay
I'm not denying the plausibility of his words, just that he provides no substance to back up the comments which is disappointing and takes away from the comment itself.
As for the deal breaker comment, both sides agree that the owners said that they weren't obligated to stay if others were brought into the room. Other than that main point, the two stories clash. Hainsey mentions Fehr specifically, Daly says that the players didn't specify Fehr but said 'anyone they want'. Hainsey says it was a 'deal breaker', Daly says that the owners agreed to a owner/player discussion (with Daly and S. Fehr in the room) and if they were going to bring other people into the discussion they weren't obligated to stay since it wasn't what they agreed to and that no such term 'deal breaker' was ever said.
Fehr likes to move the goalposts whenever significant progress is made. Now we are hearing the NHLPA wants a mid-level exception.
What item(s) will Fehr throw out on the table at the 11th hour ?
After last weeks fiasco, I think the NHL is as guilty as Fehr as moving the goalposts.
The NHL said that the key issue at the beginning was the 50/50 revenue share and this has now been agreed to along with the make whole. Now we are left with a difference of two years in the CBA length and two contract issues that no one in their right mind thinks should cost a season.. If either side was willing to move a little we would have had a deal easily last week.
I don't see how anyone can lay all of the blame on Fehr anymore. The NHL is every bit as bad. A bush league approach to the whole negotiations.
It sure seems like those 4 owners were characters in a play. They're parachuted in talks and are a bit lost. What they don't have in expertise and information they make up by playing nice... Afterwards, they also get vetted from the league to release statements despite the 1 Million gag order...
I can just see it now...the league calling in Larry Tannenbaum and Mark Chipman to be in a play..."guys, I know you have nothing to do - why don't you fly down here to New York, we are putting on a little play and need some actors to pretend they know about some things..."
For Westgarth to suggest that these guys didn't know the score is laughable. Also, it serves to diminish the efforts of Crosby, Brisson and Burkle that have been quoted in many reports as being honorable.
I am just not buying the "big act" stuff, I really think they were trying to make a deal...maybe I am way too naive
I can just see it now...the league calling in Larry Tannenbaum and Mark Chipman to be in a play..."guys, I know you have nothing to do - why don't you fly down here to New York, we are putting on a little play and need some actors to pretend they know about some things..."
For Westgarth to suggest that these guys didn't know the score is laughable. Also, it serves to diminish the efforts of Crosby, Brisson and Burkle that have been quoted in many reports as being honorable.
I am just not buying the "big act" stuff, I really think they were trying to make a deal...maybe I am way too naive
Good cop/bad cop. The oldest charade in the books.
Bettman and Jacobs playing the bad cops hijacking the whole process from the moderate owners. Once a deal was close these guys thought they could get more from the NHLPA and exclude Fehr from the process. To think that Tannenbaum hasn't been a key player in supporting Bettman/Jacobs all along is a bit naive, IMO.
Either that or one side trades off and takes something somewhere else. I don't think either side wants to be reasonable on the last three issues yet. They both want to squeeze the other side a bit more.
I don't need to read an(other) article to blame the players.
(and actually, link did not link for me)
The article is basically saying that despite how people want to characterize it, no one is being bullied and that these negotiations aren't about morals but about business and money. It basically outlines that each side have the right to do what they feel is necessary to get the best deal moving forward and that if people are going to place blame for this lockout, the blame must be shared equally.
Well it's obvious Westgarth, who's a Princeton Psychology graduate, does.
He thinks he does. Just because he went to Princeton doesn't mean he's skilled in labour negotiations. I went to graduate school too but that doesn't mean I can do stuff beyond what I studied.
Based on the very first offer put forward by the league (which we know was a BS offer)..... the league has moved on pretty much everything from that first offer.
Question :
Is there anything from that first offer that the league has not moved from at all?
IIRC the 5 year limit on contracts was part of that first offer and still remains to this day.
Anything else still included from that offer back in August??
Well as you said, it was a BS offer. It's like me telling you I'll sell you my 1995 Toyota Camry for $40,000, then agreeing to sell it for $15,000. Well I moved a pretty significant amount on my first offer there, so it must be a good deal. (The NHL is the 1995 Camry of the sports world, right?)
We can all keep dreaming that tomorrow is going to be "that day".
But let's be realistic.
The owners will die on a hill before Fehr admits defeat to his cult.
Either that or one side trades off and takes something somewhere else. I don't think either side wants to be reasonable on the last three issues yet. They both want to squeeze the other side a bit more.
The league will not trade off the 10 year CBA with anything less than an opt out at 8 years UNLESS the make whole is off the table or the make whole amount is reduced. The owners aren't going to spend 4 years taking less than a 50% share (due to make whole) only to have 1-3 years of a 50/50 split. They want at least equal years between the phase in and the actual 50/50 split. The PA is being stubborn about 10 years because of Fehr's belief. Frankly, I could care less what Fehr believes about long term CBAs. It shouldn't be an issue of contention based on what HE believes. It should be an issue of contention if it's the players that truly doesn't want a long CBA. I don't really understand Fehr's reasoning either. You don't want to take away the opportunity for a guy to negotiate his own CBA 8 years from now but it's okay to take away that opportunity from a guy who's coming into the league within the next 7?
Mark Spector Sports @SportsnetSpec
As we await further game cancellations today, thru end of Dec., an exec tells me: "We're not close. We do not trust this group."
The league will not trade off the 10 year CBA with anything less than an opt out at 8 years UNLESS the make whole is off the table or the make whole amount is reduced. The owners aren't going to spend 4 years taking less than a 50% share (due to make whole) only to have 1-3 years of a 50/50 split. They want at least equal years between the phase in and the actual 50/50 split. The PA is being stubborn about 10 years because of Fehr's belief. Frankly, I could care less what Fehr believes about long term CBAs. It shouldn't be an issue of contention based on what HE believes. It should be an issue of contention if it's the players that truly doesn't want a long CBA. I don't really understand Fehr's reasoning either. You don't want to take away the opportunity for a guy to negotiate his own CBA 8 years from now but it's okay to take away that opportunity from a guy who's coming into the league within the next 7?
I don't see a huge chasm on the 10 vs 8 and think both sides are just using it for negotiation purposes. The NHL will end up negotiating on these final issues regardless of what it says about hills and being prepared to die on them. (Just like they negotiated every time they handed the PA a supposedly final offer) If they want to stick with a 10 year CBA then they'll give something somewhere else. 99% of negotiated deals end up going that route. This may be the 1% where the NHL gets exactly what they want on these three issues but I seriously doubt it.
