I will bet any amount of money that the reason mediators are involved and when Daly says "we are at a different point then last week" because the owners have PULLED the make whole and are not sure how to meet the demands of the union now.
You people read into everything so that its positive. Daly saying they are at a different place means they are very far apart, and that tomorrows meeting will break everyones heart.
Cannot wait to be proved right.
That is what I believe as well. I really want to be optimistic, but I really think the NHLPA pissed the owners and the league off too much last time. Remember the podium thing? I have a feeling that the podium was put up because they were hopeful of a deal being reached in principle that night. It wasn't and when Fehr got involved everything fell apart. Now we're back at square 1, basically.
Hamilton doesn't need an arena, Albany doesn't need an arena, the Phantoms don't need an arena, the Oil Kings don't need an arena, the Wolves don't need an arena, and XL Centre can host the Whalers. Original 6 ftw!
Then you quoted my original post again and replied..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66
As was pointed out before, they don't need 30 arenas, but you can keep repeating that if it makes you feel better.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. You smear me, yet I only posted once. You're the one who is wrong.
Having it at an undisclosed location makes it difficult for Fehr and the NHLPA to pull the media stunt they attempted last week.
I'm not sure. Someone I think will find out. I don't blame the media though. I do wish they made a better attempt to not have them there though cause it becomes a circus, and they really just embarrass themselves in front of the media.
Hopefully the mediator can come up with a way for both sides to save face. Gary to be saved from his dumb 'everything off the table" stunt and Fehr from his promise to get the players a better deal.
At this point it's more about personalities than economics.
But can AHL arenas generate enough revenue to pay the NHL salaries it was said the players would get? And would NHL players be happy playing in small arenas with cramped, sub-NHL level facilities and perks?
I've pointed out 6 cities that have arenas that aren't "cramped". I've also pointed out that a majority of teams in the league don't own their arena, and hence other teams could use them during the lock-out.
Idk: Are they be happy about being locked-out every 7-10 years because the owners can't figure out how to run the league?
I can't see how you can lose a season because of max contracts now.
- Players accepted 50-50 share with no guaranteed money
- Players will agree to a 8-10 year CBA
- no UFA/arbitration changes have been made
- Players even accepted limit on contracts
If I was the PA I would take the 10 year deal and run with it. In theory they could get a better deal next time without a work stoppage but in practice they won't. TBH, I would have expected both parties to be taking the opposite position on this issue.
Maybe Fehr intends to keep this issue as a chip to trade for better contract rights? That's the only thing I can think of.
Yeah, I think it's pointless. Even if the deal isn't working for the players the concessions they get won't be worth the time lost. Might as well go a full decade. They might think they can win a dispute in 6 years if the new CBA ends up not to their liking...but realistically, they won't.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
I will bet any amount of money that the reason mediators are involved and when Daly says "we are at a different point then last week" because the owners have PULLED the make whole and are not sure how to meet the demands of the union now.
You people read into everything so that its positive. Daly saying they are at a different place means they are very far apart, and that tomorrows meeting will break everyones heart.
Cannot wait to be proved right.
Why would you 'want' to be proven right? You don't know that that's true anymore than someone else knows the different place comment definitively means that they're closer to a deal now. Granted, it's hard to imagine they're closer than last week when they didn't want to meet with mediators but whatever.
And I don't buy the make whole being off the table forever for a SECOND...the NHL's cried wolf so many times on 'final' offers you can't take much of anything they say seriously. What happened to the offers getting worse after October? They haven't yet. It's just posturing.
Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
Just filed. Key line: Sides now so close, if deal isn't done, not because of principle, economics. Because "leadership (bleeped) it up."
Nick Cotsonika @cotsonika
Players aren't fighting cap, aren't asking for guaranteed share, are at 50-50, will accept contract max, etc. This is about details now. https://twitter.com/cotsonika
That would be great if it was true, but I'm really trying not to get my hopes up again.
But it hasn't worked. I know you are going to spout your 'let's wait until the deal is signed to judge' but again, even if the NHL went nuts and signed the last NHLPA offer, there is no mechanism in that offer that allows players to regain the salary they have lost.
Really? Their share is being reduced, and it's going to be linked. The UFA terms are the same, but everyone could see that coming. They're going from infinite contract length to 8 (from 5-7). The 25% max has no chance of being accepted. They won't even agree to a longer CBA for some nebulous concept of 'letting future players have a say' when the real reason (and rightly so) is that a CBA should be fairly frequently negotiated so that both sides can react to changing economic conditions.
Of course the owners are getting a clawback from the players here - they're dictating the terms of their business, for good or ill. It was the job of the union to make sure that happened with the MINIMUM of financial hardship to the players. The only thing that the PA has gotten that actually benefits the future is the pension (at the cost of the Make Whole) and the maintenance of FA ages.
So, the NHL has tried to erode their rights - and the union last tabled a deal that agreed to that erosion of rights. What exactly did they accomplish here besides half a season of lost wages? As a whole this negotiation has been a fail by the union leadership.
If you think about it, if you knew beforehand that the league would try to stall, then you don't let them do that. Why would you fight fire with fire when it puts you in such a vulnerable position? If your opponent's main strategy is indeed to stall (which I don't think it was since the owners did try to save a whole season) - you don't oblige them by stalling.
The fact that people keep bringing up this lowball offer is at odds with the assessment of Fehr as a good negotiator. If he is actually still bothered in any way by that offer which was months ago, or if it led him to delay to the point where his membership is hurt financially, he is definitely the wrong guy for the job.
Even if you think the players are mindless sheep (I don't) there is no doubt that Donald Fehr is one of the premier labour negotiators in North America. The players are also given advice individually by high end lawyers with intimate knowledge of these negotiations, who are paid a % of what their clients earn. For you to think that you know more about what is good for these players than the experts is beyond arrogant.
The players may never recoup that money (that is debatable) but they also never had to play the games.
Yeah, I think it's pointless. Even if the deal isn't working for the players the concessions they get won't be worth the time lost. Might as well go a full decade. They might think they can win a dispute in 6 years if the new CBA ends up not to their liking...but realistically, they won't.
I'd want a longer deal just cause it makes it that much more likely you're not negotiating with Bettman and the hard-line owners that have led the last two lockouts. Especially since they're convinced the owners are going to use lockouts every time now to draw out more blood (not without reason)...why would you want to rush the next deal/extortion if that's the case?
I'd want a longer deal just cause it makes it that much more likely you're not negotiating with Bettman and the hard-line owners that have led the last two lockouts. Especially since they're convinced the owners are going to use lockouts every time now (not without reason)...why would you want to rush the next deal/extortion if that's the case?
TBH, I would have expected the roles to be reversed with the owners pushing for 6 or 8 years and the players for 10 years.
They probably started work on the writing of the CBA, this is why lawyers on both sides are there. You don't just write the CBA when all points are agreed upon.
Yup, the old CBA is a template. Lots of little things remain unchanged, lawyers must be present to make sure the new additions are added properly with miles of lawyer lingo
I can't see how you can lose a season because of max contracts now.
- Players accepted 50-50 share with no guaranteed money
- Players will agree to a 8-10 year CBA
- no UFA/arbitration changes have been made
- Players even accepted limit on contracts
NHL is offering 5 year max or 7 years if its own free agent with 5% variance. PA is offering 8 year max with 75% variance.
Even if you think the players are mindless sheep (I don't) there is no doubt that Donald Fehr is one of the premier labour negotiators in North America. The players are also given advice individually by high end lawyers with intimate knowledge of these negotiations, who are paid a % of what their clients earn. For you to think that you know more about what is good for these players than the experts is beyond arrogant.
The players may never recoup that money (that is debatable) but they also never had to play the games.
Yup, it is arrogant. Unfortunately for the players, I'm also right.
Goodenow has already done more for the NHLPA and player rights/salary than Fehr has or ever will. And even he was caught without a plan in the last lockout. He miscalculated. Just because Fehr has a good reputation means that he is doing the right thing? History is rife with leaders who rose to the top and then fell all the way down.
