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.
Players Starting to Ask Uncomfortable Questions of NHLPA Leadership
My point was that ONE of the points above should have forced the NHLPA to go back to it's membership and ask them if they really wanted to keep going on the path. Your point is that they can't keep running back and forth. My point is that a good union leadership understands the pressure points for their membership and doesn't commit them to actions without consulting them AT MAJOR JUNCTURES.
And my union just settled after striking, and four of my good friends were on the bargaining committee so I think I'm ok with how the collective bargaining process works.
I love the Internet game of I-know-more-about-stuff-than-you, but if having four friends who sat on a bargaining committee makes you smarter than me, then I am perfectly fine with that. The question was asked about the process. I've been in the process several times, augmented by lots of good training, so I responded about what I know. Feel free to doubt my bona fides.
My experience tells me that good union leadership outlines likely contingencies before the process starts. Consultations happen when unexpected events happen or when the process has broken down. It's not just about it being too onerous; it engenders doubt among the membership. It throws a wrench into bargaining. There are tremendous risks, and the likelihood of a positive payoff is slim.
I love the Internet game of I-know-more-about-stuff-than-you, but if having four friends who sat on a bargaining committee makes you smarter than me, then I am perfectly fine with that. The question was asked about the process. I've been in the process several times, augmented by lots of good training, so I responded about what I know. Feel free to doubt my bona fides.
My experience tells me that good union leadership outlines likely contingencies before the process starts. Consultations happen when unexpected events happen or when the process has broken down. It's not just about it being too onerous; it engenders doubt among the membership. It throws a wrench into bargaining. There are tremendous risks, and the likelihood of a positive payoff is slim.
I didn't say I was smarter than you, just that I understand how collective bargaining works. You're the one who is casting doubt on how much the rest of us 'understand' the collective bargaining process.
I didn't doubt your bona fides either, but as you've just said there are unexpected circumstances which call for consultation with the membership. Surely a major development like risking an entire season might call for a gauging of the temperature of the union members?
Further, I'm assuming that you were a part of a strong union leadership that was properly engaged with it's members - what I doubt is whether the NHLPA is an example of such leadership. In my opinion and experience they are not acting like one. There is a moral obligation to lead and maintain solidarity but there is an equal obligation to look out for the interests of the membership.
Bettman also said that he got *****ed and moaned at by owners for putting make-whole on the table. How about the owners vote too and see where they're at.
I would strongly suspect that if a vote was taken (even an anonymous one that was leaked after the fact), that there might be 1-3 teams that would accept the PA's last offer (at the most). If they changed the variance on their offer (from 75% to 50%), and increased the length of the CBA they might stand a chance at more than a couple of owners accepting it (that's assuming that they dropped their compliance requests, or whatever else they decided to toss in recently). I think if they did the above, and reduced the contract limits to 7 years, then you'd probably get a bunch of GMs who'd strongly consider it. However I still think it would be less than 50%.
I don't think it's the term, contract limits, or whatnot that's the issue (for a couple teams). The PA gets close to what a few of the teams might be willing to accept, then tosses something in there that would negate the whole thing. In the only full offer presented, it was how the cap could never go lower (has been removed), changed how buyouts worked (no word on that now), and I believe there was something else that I believe the NHL wouldn't touch (but am too lazy to go find and read that offer).
__________________ "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."
IMO , all of the owners are completely united. They all are interested in seeing the game progress even further with every franchise being stable. Do you really think owners want to see franchises struggle? Its like a neighborhood with half the houses falling into disrepair while surrounded by fancy homes. Eventually even the fancy homes are unwanted and lose value
Riptide, the NHLPA also added Escrow limits in their latest proposal. No word on the what the limits were since the NHLPA only releases limited information.
Riptide, the NHLPA also added Escrow limits in their latest proposal. No word on the what the limits were since the NHLPA only releases limited information.
There was also buyouts that were outside the system. Not a chance that either happen.
Weren't buyouts an amnesty item (outside the system) after the last lockout?
Yup. I think you got three. But you were going from such a high % there that it was understandable. This time around, you're not looking to remove 20% or more. These kinds of things outside the system undermine the effort to get to 50% more in this case than it did in 2005.
Some people have principles and some people don't.
The biggest thing they're fighting for is full value on present contracts, while being willing to knock future generations' cap down to 50%. That's the opposite of fighting for future generations: it's selling future generations out so that you can take no loss today.
Well, certainly, the vast majority of current players will lose more than they gain from the lockout.
So why else? The players acknowledge that it was because players refused to roll over in the past that they have the benefits they currently do.
So fight the owners so the next generation of players has to get locked out also?
So far that's all that's been accomplished.
What about forming a deal that placates the owners for once so that future generation of players don't have to miss half seasons to seasons worth of work stoppages. Which prove to be more detrimental to the players than any CBA gains they make by holding out in the first place.
IMO , all of the owners are completely united. They all are interested in seeing the game progress even further with every franchise being stable. Do you really think owners want to see franchises struggle? Its like a neighborhood with half the houses falling into disrepair while surrounded by fancy homes. Eventually even the fancy homes are unwanted and lose value
They keep pumping money into Phoenix, so they're not completely opposed to it.
