LOL, you don't even know what you're talking about. You think this vote had anything to do with not wanting Fehr.
Technically that is exactly right and why it is so amateurish (just like what most of what Fehr has done). It could very well backfire and make the player's precarious situation worse than it already is.
No they didn't. The Owners and players signed a new CBA before any of the cases actually went to court. The only court related issue the Owners "won" was getting the specific injunction that lifted the NFL lockout overturned on appeal. The courts never ruled on the legality of the lockout.
If they go to court and win they get 3x the normal damages they would be owed because it is an anti-trust case. All it will take for the players to bend the Owners over is a single pro union decision to be held up upon appeal. Because that decision will become the basis for every single lawsuit that follows.
For the Owners to win in court they would need a clean sweep, because any pro-union judgement will provide give the players the precedent they need to bankrupt them.
That is what will happen here.
The NHLPA can't take the NHL to court over this issues because they are already in the middle of negotiating it. It's what the NFLPA was told and it's what the NHLPA will be told.
So now the NHLPA won't have a Union because they fired Fehr and his team and they won't be able to take the NHL to court of this so what's the point?
There is none, it's a stupid ploy, that the NHL knows is a stupid ploy and they will let it play out because after it does the PA will have no other moves to make but to settle.
Technically that is exactly right and why it is so amateurish (just like what most of what Fehr has done). It could very well backfire and make the player's precarious situation worse than it already is.
Worse, how is it going to get worse. If they don't agree to something in the next three weeks it's done.
Worse, how is it going to get worse. If they don't agree to something in the next three weeks it's done.
It could get worse in terms of what the players end up accepting. If the owners call the players bluff and say, go to court, and the court, likely very will, rules that they can't get involved as this is an ongoing negotiation, then the players have lost any and all leverage with which to bargain with.
They would have disbanded their union so Fehr could no longer represent them in talks, and they would have played and lost their 1 last big trump card. The NHL could start pulling things off the table and saying the longer you wait the more stuff comes off knowing at that point the players have only 1 option which is too settle.
I hope cooler heads prevail and this doesn't go that route. However it appears the owners are sticking by the, take it or leave it, offer as just that and the players are trying to get a little more out of it.
As I said when this first broke off, that was likely the best offer the players where going to see and they and Fehr would regret not taking it, it appears as that it exactly what has happened. Fehr bit off more then he could chew and is not getting out while he still can and letting this fall on the players heads.
It could get worse in terms of what the players end up accepting. If the owners call the players bluff and say, go to court, and the court, likely very will, rules that they can't get involved as this is an ongoing negotiation, then the players have lost any and all leverage with which to bargain with.
They would have disbanded their union so Fehr could no longer represent them in talks, and they would have played and lost their 1 last big trump card. The NHL could start pulling things off the table and saying the longer you wait the more stuff comes off knowing at that point the players have only 1 option which is too settle.
I hope cooler heads prevail and this doesn't go that route. However it appears the owners are sticking by the, take it or leave it, offer as just that and the players are trying to get a little more out of it.
As I said when this first broke off, that was likely the best offer the players where going to see and they and Fehr would regret not taking it, it appears as that it exactly what has happened. Fehr bit off more then he could chew and is not getting out while he still can and letting this fall on the players heads.
Exactly.
When I say worse it is in reference to the players getting what they want, or should I say not getting what they want. More than ever in the past few months, I see it going backwards for the players as the NHL holds all the cards. This season is in all likelihood lost (hope I'm wrong) - and in hindsight, that was the case the moment Fehr was hired.
Psycho T summed up this scam nicely with his statement:
"There is none, it's a stupid ploy, that the NHL knows is a stupid ploy and they will let it play out because after it does the PA will have no other moves to make but to settle"
The PA will accept whatever they want, even if this "ploy" doesn't work, they aren't going to settle for anything worse than what was already offered. Their won't be hockey until they are satisfied with what the NHL has proposed, if the NHL makes a worse offer after all of this, then we may not see the NHL for quite sometime.
The PA will accept whatever they want, even if this "ploy" doesn't work, they aren't going to settle for anything worse than what was already offered. Their won't be hockey until they are satisfied with what the NHL has proposed, if the NHL makes a worse offer after all of this, then we may not see the NHL for quite sometime.
Unfortunately, with Fehr there, I agree.
That pretty much decribes this mess since October 11.
An interesting quote from Paul Coffey when discussing the present day Oilers to the dynasty Oiler team of the past.
“And you’ve got to remember, in the eighties, we were paid on productivity back then. We weren’t paid on, ‘Here’s your money, I hope you earn it. I hope you get the numbers we think you can get to.’ You had to produce back then to get paid and your increments were 10- or 15-thousand dollar raises. That’s why, I believe, it was so exciting back then. If you wanted to get paid, you had to go.”
I guess the owners feel it would be a lost cause to try and re-implement that type of bonus system as a large part of the players pay cheques, but I'd love to see it. Guaranteed salaries suck, frankly.
An interesting quote from Paul Coffey when discussing the present day Oilers to the dynasty Oiler team of the past.
“And you’ve got to remember, in the eighties, we were paid on productivity back then. We weren’t paid on, ‘Here’s your money, I hope you earn it. I hope you get the numbers we think you can get to.’ You had to produce back then to get paid and your increments were 10- or 15-thousand dollar raises. That’s why, I believe, it was so exciting back then. If you wanted to get paid, you had to go.”
I guess the owners feel it would be a lost cause to try and re-implement that type of bonus system as a large part of the players pay cheques, but I'd love to see it. Guaranteed salaries suck, frankly.
Ya it would be awesome to see guys playing for stats instead of trying to play to win. That sounds awesome.
As Coldice stated .... Wins are stats too. That could/would be a big part of the bonus system in today's game.
If you do that, players are going to only want to play for teams that are already good. Who is going to go sign in Columbus if you get paid for wins? It'll be like the NBA with 4-5 super teams.
If you do that, players are going to only want to play for teams that are already good. Who is going to go sign in Columbus if you get paid for wins? It'll be like the NBA with 4-5 super teams.
Not necessarily. A team like Columbus would likely offer more.
Example: Columbus offers 50K per player per win, Hawks offer 25K. Players would like the idea of turning Columbus around and making a ******** of money in doing so.
Or teams can just start learning how to develop their own players without having to hopefully poach other teams' good free agents with little chance of doing so and if doing so, paying the moon to bring a guy to that team.
Not necessarily. A team like Columbus would likely offer more.
Example: Columbus offers 50K per player per win, Hawks offer 25K. Players would like the idea of turning Columbus around and making a ******** of money in doing so.
So what, you get a higher salary cap if you are a worse team?
The NHL is also very close to attaining parity. There is no reason why an underdog can't surprise these days... and they do. Look what Kings and Yotes did just last season after both squeaked into the playoffs.
It's not perfect but playing for bonuses (team as well as individual) beats a guaranteed contract any day, imo. The modern day players just won't take that risk.
The only thing I think you can do to improve the system to make better odds of good free agents signing with under-performing clubs is lowering the salary cap. However, this is something of great debate.
The only thing I think you can do to improve the system to make better odds of good free agents signing with under-performing clubs is lowering the salary cap. However, this is something of great debate.
They need to institute caps on contracts like the NBA where teams can pay their own guys more in years and money than other teams.
