The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
“We have gone a lot further than a great percentage of the membership has wanted us to go,” Westgarth said. “I don’t know how you look at our offer and say that we’ve been unreasonable.”
And since owners say the same thing - it appears that this 'small gap' is ********.
Just because the players are informed doesn't mean they're skilled negotiators
I don't think I said otherwise. I just don't believe Westgarth that these owners that were brought in weren't informed. Especially due to the fact that everyone was all smiles until the owners weren't allowed to continue negotiating without Fehr in the room.
And since owners say the same thing - it appears that this 'small gap' is ********.
Posturing. The NHL attempted to do an end-around Fehr, to try to drive a wedge between them and their exec leader. Unfortunately, it seems some agents may be willing participants-- just like last time.
“There are a half-dozen or more players who knew exactly where we were and could detail every aspect of where we were at,” Westgarth said
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
“We have gone a lot further than a great percentage of the membership has wanted us to go,” Westgarth said. “I don’t know how you look at our offer and say that we’ve been unreasonable.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton
And since owners say the same thing - it appears that this 'small gap' is ********.
Posturing. The NHL attempted to do an end-around Fehr, to try to drive a wedge between them and their exec leader. Unfortunately, it seems some agents may be willing participants-- just like last time.
So the PA saying they've moved farther than "a great percentage" wanted us to go, shows that the league is being unreasonable. But the owners offering something that (and I'm paraphrasing here as I don't feel like watching GB's 32m PC to get an exact quote) "a large number were upset with that that was offered" is posturing.
[mod]
Last edited by mouser: 12-10-2012 at 03:47 PM.
Reason: Let's stick to discussing the topic, not the posters
So the PA saying they've moved farther than "a great percentage" wanted us to go, shows that the league is being unreasonable. But the owners offering something that (and I'm paraphrasing here as I don't feel like watching GB's 32m PC to get an exact quote) "a large number were upset with that that was offered" is posturing.
[mod]
I think both sides had gone farther than their original position, or certainly farther than the hawkish sides within would agree to.
I made the point elsewhere that this may be a case where there are more than just two factions, especially on the owners side where that had been reported (no one side has a clear majority). It's like trying to build a coalition government.
Edit: To expand, the things each side needs from the other to close that deal lead away from the compromises or trade-offs needed to get support from the other faction.
Last edited by mouser: 12-10-2012 at 03:48 PM.
Reason: qep
“There are a half-dozen or more players who knew exactly where we were and could detail every aspect of where we were at,” Westgarth said
You guys are reading way too much into that imo. Only people directly involved from either side are going to know "exactly" where they were at in negotiations. Westgarth was surprised that none of these owners knew "exactly" where they were at... probably a light jab about these moderates not being involved directly in negotiations.
I made the point elsewhere that this may be a case where there are more than just two factions, especially on the owners side where that had been reported (no one side has a clear majority). It's like trying to build a coalition government.
Really good point. What both sides need to do is convince the moderates on the other... unfortunately both sides keep doing the opposites and pissing off the moderates on the other side.
Hardliners, moderates and hamrliks... at least 3 factions.
As a Princeton grad, he somewhat feels the need to excel at all aspects of his life.
Interesting that the owners were not as "briefed"/knowledgeable about the status as the players in last week's meetings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley
“There are a half-dozen or more players who knew exactly where we were and could detail every aspect of where we were at,” Westgarth said, referring to last week’s talks. The league brought in four owners to join Jeremy Jacobs of Boston and Murray Edwards of Calgary in the negotiations.
“It became obvious that the guys they brought in had nowhere near a complete understanding of what the proposals were and where we were in the negotiations,” Westgarth said. “I thought it was great that Ron Burkle, Larry Tanenbaum, Mark Chipman and Jeff Vinik got involved — clearly they’re passionate and care about the game — but it shows how tightly controlled the league is.”
...
“Part of their tactics is to demonize Don — we’ve seen it before,” Westgarth said. The settlement ending the 2004-5 lockout was not signed by the union’s executive director at the time, Bob Goodenow. He had been excluded from the process.
Westgarth was asked if the players would agree to another set of talks without Donald Fehr present at all times.
“I think it would be unreasonable to restrict who is in the room, but that’s a decision for a great number of players to make,” he said.
Indeed. The owners should question their own "leadership" who seem to depend on half truths, deliberate misleading information and outright lies.
I think both sides had gone farther than their original position, or certainly farther than the hawkish sides within would agree to.
I made the point elsewhere that this may be a case where there are more than just two factions, especially on the owners side where that had been reported (no one side has a clear majority). It's like trying to build a coalition government.
To expand, the things each side needs from the other to close that deal lead away from the compromises or trade-offs needed to get support from the other faction.
I would actually think the opposite. I think on the owners side you have 2 groups. Those that want/need something very specific out of the CBA and will only play once that's achieved aka hardliners. And those that want/need something better, but also want to play and do not want to lose any games (or the least amount possible) - aka moderates. There might be a couple in the group that will play under almost any circumstance (such as the last CBA), but I don't think there's many there (less than 2-3 - if that).
On the players side you're likely going to have multiple fractions.
-The hardliners who don't want to give up anything.
-The guys who want to play and will accept almost any deal.
-The guys who will allow some acceptable change, but want to play.
-Then there are the guys who in their heart are in one group, yet financially are somewhat forced into another group.
Last edited by mouser: 12-10-2012 at 03:48 PM.
Reason: qep
Put the sticks down, boys! (sorry, it's in my very fabric ).
Both sides have been issuing half-truths to sway opinions. That's nothing new and no one should be surprised. Just ignore all the quotes and tweets and look a the proposals to make an informed opinion. That's my worthless advise, for whatever it's worth from a noob.
Posturing. The NHL attempted to do an end-around Fehr, to try to drive a wedge between them and their exec leader. Unfortunately, it seems some agents may be willing participants-- just like last time.
How else do members of the union get things done? It's pretty obvious given the treatment of others who express a dissenting opinion get treated and what is insinuated of there treatment once hockey is back on the ice. The only way to insulate themselves is to get their representatives involved in the process. That's the agents. now of course an agent doesn't have to do it but I suspect many would.
Remember the whole dissolving of the union thing impacts the agent profession as without the NHLPA there is no policing/sanctioning of the agencies and agents.
I think it's interesting to note that he is using the same arguments that the owners expressed in respect to the dissemination of info by Don Fair to what the owners were offering only weeks ago? Turnabout is fair play even though it's disingenuos and unimaginative. I suppose then the players that were doing their best to demonize Bettman are now asking why it is that the NHL is suddenly demonizing Don.
Westgarth was on HC at Noon today with Millard/Kypreos/MacLean
Maclean asked him point blank if the 300m was tied to the 3 specific items, I'll give Westgarth this, he gave the longest answer possible and didn't answer the question. Obsfucation at it's finest, not even Nick was sure how to defend his obvious avoidance.
I believe Westgarth. Doug Maclean was alternate Governor of Columbus during the last lockout and he said himself on Sportsnet recently that they didn't know what was negotiated until just about the same time as the public found out. He and his owner were not informed about what was going on during the process, it was Bettman and a small group of other owners. This is not news.
“We have gone a lot further than a great percentage of the membership has wanted us to go,” Westgarth said. “I don’t know how you look at our offer and say that we’ve been unreasonable.”
um westy, how about this: the average NHLPA salary will be around 2.35 - $2.4m...? How is that not a "reasonable" amount for you guys?
They keep getting accused of just being about the money but they are clearly fighting for more than that.
Except that's not what their argument is. They're saying that a 5 yr term will pay the stars, and suppress the rest of the salaries (mid/bottom level guys).
Which is the same thing they said last time around. Reality is that it will suppress everyone.
Westgarth's claim that “the guys they brought in had nowhere near a complete understanding of what the proposals were and where we were in the negotiations” and that the players in the meeting were more informed than the owners is frankly downright laughable. Mark Chipman is a lawyer. Lawyers pride themselves upon being fully aware and apprised of all rules and current details when entering into negotiations. He is also an incredibly astute businessman. You can be sure that he fully understood each and every detail of what the NHL were offering and as well the details of what the players were requesting... as it impacts the bottom line of his business, and I'm quite sure he has a better grasp of this than do the players.
Frankly, a nuanced view is that the players surely saw these meetings as a chance to have moderate owners cave into their requests. When the moderates instead stood firm, the players then claimed the owners didn't understand their offer. The premise behind Wesgarth's comments is laughable, naive, near childlike in fact - when one considers the level of underestimation of the opponent.
Last edited by Gump Hasek: 12-11-2012 at 09:44 AM.
Westgarth's claim that “the guys they brought in had nowhere near a complete understanding of what the proposals were and where we were in the negotiations” and that the players in the meeting were more informed than the owners is frankly downright laughable. Mark Chipman is a lawyer. Lawyers pride themselves upon being fully aware and apprised of all rules and current details when entering into negotiations. He is also an incredibly astute businessman. You can be sure that he fully understood each and every detail of what the NHL were offering and as well the details of what the players were requesting... as it impacts the bottom line of his business, and I'm quite sure he has a better grasp of this than do the players.
Frankly, a nuanced view is that the players surely saw these meetings as a chance to have moderate owners cave into their requests. When the moderates instead stood firm, the players then claimed the owners didn't understand their offer. The premise behind Wesgarth's comments is laughable, naive, near childlike in fact - when one considers the level of underestimation of the opponent.
I'll be honest with you, as both a lawyer and somebody who has previously been involved in several rounds of collective bargaining for a 700-850 member strong union, I can tell you two things with a completely straight face:
1) All lawyers are not always prepared. Many of us do the best we can to prepare but count on our smarts and acumen to pick up quickly as we play along.
2) Collective bargaining is incredibly complex and nuanced. When I was involved in bargaining, if I missed one day of meetings, I would be in a severely compromised position for a good while afterwards and I would depend on my bargaining team to fill in for my deficiencies. I can not imagine parachuting in to a round of bargaining and even pretending that I'm up to speed. The only time we ever did something like that as a bargaining team, parachute somebody in that is, was when we had somebody with specific and in-depth knowledge of a discrete issue.
So, with respect, you're operating on assumptions that are not necessarily true and spin or no spin, what Mr. Westgarth is saying is certainly within the realm of possibility.
). 
