Except the players went into this lockout with hostile intentions. They announced it when they hired Fehr, and confirmed it was game on when they nixed the realignment of the league. Make what you will of the NHL's intentions, but lets not play fantasy and pretend the players haven't been preparing for this for years now, they want their pound of flesh after perceived insults during the last lockout when they couldn't feed their dogs on 73% of the revenue.
The opening contract offer by the NHL wasn't the opening move of the lockout anymore than Pearl Harbor was the first battle of WW2.
Oh, and you are right, there will be a lockout in 8 - 10 years because one half of the two parties hasn't been able to move on from the 80s. There will never be labour peace as long as the PA think's the NHL is run by untrustworthy criminals - which in itself is amusing considering the PA is the one with all the embezzlers.
And by hostile intentions you mean proposing to play the season while they negotiated a new CBA??
I don't think that anybody is saying that the owners aren't at fault as well.
It's the Pro-PA crowd that can't wrap their heads around the fact that some of the blame lies with the players as well. Read up on that NESN article about the reasons for the Kelly firing and you'll see where people are coming from with the anti-PA stance.
It has been pretty obvious since they hired a hardliner like Fehr that they were in for a war. Their egos took a hit after supposedly getting worked by the owners in the last deal even that deal did wonders for the players so they hired a guy with the full intent of going to war with the owners. They knew full well that it would come to this.
The owners are at fault as well. There is a precedent for them having labor issues with previous regimes and their original offer in the summer was not what i would call, negotiating in good faith but what this boils down to is Fehr. I fully believe that if Kelly was still in charge, that a full season would have been played.
I think that Fehr refused to negotiate with the owners purposely until after the previous CBA expired so he can squeeze every last bit from the owners that he could.
My worry is that Fehr fully intends to go for the cap and that is his endgame. I sure hope that's not the case and that the moderate players get in his ear to get a deal done to save this season because we really don't want to see what it will come to if Fehr attacks the cap. It will be a worse case scenario that NHL fans don't want to imagine.
I don't know why but i think that common sense will prevail, enough players will speak up and that a deal will get done to save this season. I don't think that they want to take it down the dark road that Fehr is capable of taking it down.
They hired the most knowledable person on the planet to negotiate a CBA on behalf of a pro sports union and the person who has negotiated the best CBA from a player perspective in NA team sports.
You really think any league would actually play games with no CBA on the word of a Donald Fehr led union?
Seriously?
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.
But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.
But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.
The players were clearly pining for a dispute and ready for a war the minute they hired Don Fehr.
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.
But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.
Bettman and ownership made it well known that they destroyed the union and got their way with the union last time.
this isn't 100% accurate but it isn't 100% wrong either.
The NHL never claimed victory but the media declared it an NHL victory. Hockey writers have as much business acumen as hockey players do. The media looked at the salary cap and said the NHL got everything they wanted.
What they missed is that the NHL does not act like a monopoly and that most teams were going to try to circumvent the cap. The media could not predict the rise in the Canadian dollar which increased total NHL revenues because that revenue was measured in US dollars. In the end, the owners' victory looks a little tarnished.
It would not surprise me if this current battle was phase two of Bettmans' long term plan. IN the first battle, get linkage between a hazily defined revenue stream and expenses. IN the 2nd battle, avoid clarification of revenues and reduce the % the players get.
Well i was going to respond to HotToddy, but Hoogaar23. Tarus and Stoneman89 beat me to it...nicely done there.
If the players were so keen on getting a deal done amicably, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, and they wouldn't have waited until they did to start negotiating. If they had kept playing without a CBA, i guarantee that Fehr would have held out until the playoffs and then had the NHLPA go on strike. Simply looking at his history tells us this, and it baffles me when people think that this wouldn't have been his modus operendi.
Posted this earlier, but I think it illustrates ACTUAL history
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42
Well i was going to respond to HotToddy, but Hoogaar23. Tarus and Stoneman89 beat me to it...nicely done there.
If the players were so keen on getting a deal done amicably, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, and they wouldn't have waited until they did to start negotiating. If they had kept playing without a CBA, i guarantee that Fehr would have held out until the playoffs and then had the NHLPA go on strike. Simply looking at his history tells us this, and it baffles me when people think that this wouldn't have been his modus operendi.
this isn't 100% accurate but it isn't 100% wrong either.
The NHL never claimed victory but the media declared it an NHL victory. Hockey writers have as much business acumen as hockey players do. The media looked at the salary cap and said the NHL got everything they wanted.
What they missed is that the NHL does not act like a monopoly and that most teams were going to try to circumvent the cap. The media could not predict the rise in the Canadian dollar which increased total NHL revenues because that revenue was measured in US dollars. In the end, the owners' victory looks a little tarnished.
It would not surprise me if this current battle was phase two of Bettmans' long term plan. IN the first battle, get linkage between a hazily defined revenue stream and expenses. IN the 2nd battle, avoid clarification of revenues and reduce the % the players get.
Actually it is 100% wrong. You just finished saying the media were the ones that were expousing a victory for the league and not Bettman. That is NOT what the poster in question stated. This isn't between the league and the media or the players and media.
And by hostile intentions you mean proposing to play the season while they negotiated a new CBA??
You're not bringing any facts to this argument
Why would the owners play the season with a 43:57 revenue split in favor with the players when that is exactly what they are trying to reverse? The owners would have absolutely 0 leverage in this case, and the players 0 incentive to negotiate an equitable agreement. In fact, as it got closer to the playoffs, the players leverage would increase because of the Fehr of them striking!
The players refusing to negotiate until the start of the season, despite overatures from Bettman to get the process rolling early in the summer, could be viewed as having a hostile intent.
I am sick of the players arguement that they are giving too much back, and the owners are giving up nothing. Sorry boys, just because the owners overpaid you for the last 20 years doesn't mean you have the God given right to a slow, painless reduction in wages. I would love to see Bettman get his 57:43 split in favor of the owners; perhaps then profitable franchises would mean the fans pay less (i seriously doubt it, but we can dream).
If the players wanted some peaceful, respectful negotiations, they never would have dumped Paul Kelly. The minute they did that, and turned to hired shyte-disturber and noted hard-ass Don Fehr was a shot across the bow. And the fact that the union under Fehr turned down league overtures to talk in January and waited till close to the expiration date of the contract confirms they were gearing up for a battle.
Ya because the owners don't want to give up leverage, they enjoy using their significant leverage to their utmost advantage.
But please don't use the argument the players were pining for a dispute and purposely delayed negotiations, they clearly offered terms to continue the process without a stopage.
Pleaase enlighten the masses as to why Fehr would not even entertain negotiations until very , very late in the 11th hour. That, on its ownn, clearly manifested the bad faith he would come to the negotiations with. He had zero, nada, intention of the CBA been succesfully negotiated before the season commenced. Thats obvious.
And the terms they offered were ridiculous. You know that, I know that. Play on the same terms as there was. Yeah, that makes sense.
If the players wanted some peaceful, respectful negotiations, they never would have dumped Paul Kelly. The minute they did that, and turned to hired shyte-disturber and noted hard-ass Don Fehr was a shot across the bow. And the fact that the union under Fehr turned down league overtures to talk in January and waited till close to the expiration date of the contract confirms they were gearing up for a battle.
Between that and the missing/expropriated union funds one has to wonder just what the **** is going on over there.
If the players wanted some peaceful, respectful negotiations, they never would have dumped Paul Kelly. The minute they did that, and turned to hired shyte-disturber and noted hard-ass Don Fehr was a shot across the bow. And the fact that the union under Fehr turned down league overtures to talk in January and waited till close to the expiration date of the contract confirms they were gearing up for a battle.
They were clearly pretty pissed off about their "loss" and wanted to reestablish some kind of PA strength.
If they were half as intelligent as they think they are, they'd notice that "loss" turned into a player windfall in less than 4 years.
Instead of crying about it, why didn't the PA just counter the initial NHL offer fairly quickly instead of making counters that were not based off of the expired CBA? Counter at 54% or something. Then both sides move to the middle. Yes it was an extreme initial offer, but who said it was a final offer?
All we heard was this crying poor by the PA, etc. I'm sure the NHL just looked at the NBA for example and started low. They got a deal done and their initial offer was in the mid 30's percentage wise or so.
Instead of crying about it, why didn't the PA just counter the initial NHL offer fairly quickly instead of making counters that were not based off of the expired CBA? Counter at 54% or something. Then both sides move to the middle. Yes it was an extreme initial offer, but who said it was a final offer?
All we heard was this crying poor by the PA, etc. I'm sure the NHL just looked at the NBA for example and started low. They got a deal done and their initial offer was in the mid 30's percentage wise or so.
Exactly. Some people are all upset by the NHL's initial lowball offer at the outset. What did they think they were going to do - give their best shot immediately and work from there? It's where you finish at the end of dealing, not the start. And if some players were upset by the initial offer, they need to shed the sensitivity and realize that this is how negotiations begin.
Mediators failed big time the first time around, the sides are closer together this time around. Gary said they were not interested in mediators yet here they are
