The players feel they are entitled to make millions because they can play a sport. The owners could fold and it wouldn't really make a dent in their capital.
I'm not denying that the owners have more economic clout and that economically the players will never get a better deal. But, it is the players money. They are entitled to try to get what they feel is the best deal they can just like the owners are. Just because the owners have more economic clout doesn't put them in the 'right'. There really is no right or wrong. It's two greedy stubborn groups both unwilling to compromise for the good of the fans. Since the owners actually 'own' the league I put a higher onus on them to compromise for the overall good of the league. Of course, it's probably naive to expect this given their past behaviour.
Again, another way to look at it is that the PA gave the NHL everything they wanted except for variance and contract length and they moved on those from their original position. They even came down on make whole while the NHL came up on make whole. This sounds like a typical negotiation where each side should move a bit more.
Van, I just don't think there is anything such as a "typical negotiation".
I am involved in another one right now where you basically gauge how far the other side is willing to go, then you either sign - or you don't. Seems to me that the thinking on these boards is that "negotiations" are me offering 8, you asking for 2...then me offering 6, you asking for 4...then we both meet in the middle at 5. In my experience, there is absolutely never a negotiation that has gone this way.
When the owners say 300 million make whole - and that comes with a 10 year CBA and 7 year max on contracts...well, they actually just might mean that (PA obviously does not think so). To those that say they are so close - why doesn't each side give a little more - maybe the NHL side has overplayed their mandate from their owners, and they are already out there too far. Maybe I'm wrong...but this line of thinking that says they just need to meet in the middle is not how these things typically work.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
You have yet to acknowledge this post below van, I'm curious as to your response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKsilverstick
How did the NHLPA give the NHL everything they wanted?
Where is the 50/50? Where is the no transition buyouts? Where is the no escrow cap? Where is the zero make whole? Where is the older UFA age? Where is the arbitration changes? Where are the ELC changes? Where is the redefined HRR? Where is the no guaranteed contracts? Where is the no individual rooms? Where is the no Olympics? Where is the no pension? And on, and on, and on.
The NHL has given the NHLPA everything they could want and more, to the point where pro-PA guys can't even come up with anything more the PA could ask for, and all they want in return, is an equal split of revenue to keep the league stable, variance rules to avoid cap circumvention, and a compromise on contract limits for like 8 different reasons, one of the most important being controlling ever-increasing insurance costs.
I'm not denying that the owners have more economic clout and that economically the players will never get a better deal. But, it is the players money. They are entitled to try to get what they feel is the best deal they can just like the owners are. Just because the owners have more economic clout doesn't put them in the 'right'. There really is no right or wrong. It's two greedy stubborn groups both unwilling to compromise for the good of the fans. Since the owners actually 'own' the league I put a higher onus on them to compromise for the overall good of the league. Of course, it's probably naive to expect this given their past behaviour.
So should Apple compromise on their employees demands even if that means they can no longer turn a profit and therefore cant invest as much into new technology and products.
Sorry but the players never should have this much say with how the NHL does business.
Van, I just don't think there is anything such as a "typical negotiation".I am involved in another one right now where you basically gauge how far the other side is willing to go, then you either sign - or you don't. Seems to me that the thinking on these boards is that "negotiations" are me offering 8, you asking for 2...then me offering 6, you asking for 4...then we both meet in the middle at 5. In my experience, there is absolutely never a negotiation that has gone this way.
When the owners say 300 million make whole - and that comes with a 10 year CBA and 7 year max on contracts...well, they actually just might mean that (PA obviously does not think so). To those that say they are so close - why doesn't each side give a little more - maybe the NHL side has overplayed their mandate from their owners, and they are already out there too far. Maybe I'm wrong...but this line of thinking that says they just need to meet in the middle is not how these things typically work.
Fair point. I've been involved in negotiations where my client said take it or leave it. Most of the ones I've been involved in had both sides anxious for a deal so there was give and take. I do agree with you that it's not a foregone conclusion that both sides meet half way. The owners definitely have the economic clout. On the other hand, I don't see how long term either side wins with a missed season. The players loss is much bigger but the owners also lose.
Why don't they all just get out. Its not really all that profitably even for the most well to do teams...
Maybe they all should. Up until very recently it was generally accepted that professional sports was not a money-making venture for owners but rather just a play toy for the obscenely wealthy.
Tom Boswell's latest thoughts on the lockout. Boz is not in the tank for anyone in this battle, but he does know Fehr's modus operandi quite well.
My takeaway: if Bettman and his cohort are confident that they can control the outcome here, they're miscalculating.
Actually I think it maybe the other around. The union is banking on desertification. There was a good article on Sportsnet why this tactic will fail, which was written by a lawyer.
The NHL will win this. This is not MLB, so MLB tactics will not work. If the union broke once, it will again because of the money involved. The owners have less to lose then the players, which was not the case for MLB. The owners had profits to lose in MLB, which is different for a majority of NHL teams.
Unfortunately even when the league wins the battle, the damage will be catastrophic to the game in the U.S.
Fair point. I've been involved in negotiations where my client said take it or leave it. Most of the ones I've been involved in had both sides anxious for a deal so there was give and take. I do agree with you that it's not a foregone conclusion that both sides meet half way. The owners definitely have the economic clout. On the other hand, I don't see how long term either side wins with a missed season. The players loss is much bigger but the owners also lose.
I agree with you on this, and that is why I believe the players have overplayed a poor hand. There was just no "win" once the paychecks started to become lost. Again, I will re-iterate that the players have done a tremendous job of negotiating "world class" working conditions, benefits, travel, medical, etc. There should have been a stark realization that their share of the pie was going to be reduced no matter what (no secret - we know they realized it).
Now, they are in a position of being culpable in the damage of the business and brand - which by the way - their livelihood will be "linked" to. This could prove to be a colossal failure for a group of athletes with a short window to make life changing compensation. I don't have to like the owners or their methods - but I sure as hell understand them very clearly.
Sorry but the players never should have this much say with how the NHL does business.
This is such a flawed statement given the last labor dispute. The players were just fine with an unregulated market for their labor. The owners were free to run their businesses as they wished, and the players had absolutely no say or influence in the owners' costs outside of payroll.
It was the owners who insisted upon implementing a mandate whereby players' salaries were a direct function of league-wide revenue. Of course, the system was ill-conceived in that it did things like (indirectly) tie Nashville's payroll to Toronto's revenue. The NHL asked for this system and they got it. Now, "HRR" and all of this other BS is very much the players' "business." If the NHL doesn't want the union telling it how to run its business, they should return to a model whereby the players are nothing more than hired guns.
The owners wanted a partnership and they got one. Don't fault the players for exercising their right as a "partner" of the league and for voicing their opinions of how the league runs its operation.
The NHL will win this. This is not MLB, so MLB tactics will not work. If the union broke once, it will again because of the money involved. The owners have less to lose then the players, which was not the case for MLB. The owners had profits to lose in MLB, which is different for a majority of NHL teams.
Unfortunately even when the league wins the battle, the damage will be catastrophic to the game in the U.S.
Your first paragraph captures my sense of what the NHL thinks. I think that confidence is misplaced. And I don't know why an owner of a team that's doing break-even or better would sign onto a strategy that involves so many unknowns and which will inflict the type of damage you describe -- all because of bridgeable differences over CBA length and contract length? Bizarre.
I get what the players are doing: they are telling the league that it doesn't get to inflict this kind of one-sided/giveback deal on the PA without feeling a little pain, otherwise the pattern will be wash, rinse, repeat. The NHL's strategy is senseless.
This is such a flawed statement given the last labor dispute. The players were just fine with an unregulated market for their labor. The owners were free to run their businesses as they wished, and the players had absolutely no say or influence in the owners' costs outside of payroll.
It was the owners who insisted upon implementing a mandate whereby players' salaries were a direct function of league-wide revenue. Of course, the system was ill-conceived in that it did things like (indirectly) tie Nashville's payroll to Toronto's revenue. The NHL asked for this system and they got it. Now, "HRR" and all of this other BS is very much the players' "business." If the NHL doesn't want the union telling it how to run its business, they should return to a model whereby the players are nothing more than hired guns.
The owners wanted a partnership and they got one. Don't fault the players for exercising their right as a "partner" of the league and for voicing their opinions of how the league runs its operation.
I agree with you on this, and that is why I believe the players have overplayed a poor hand. There was just no "win" once the paychecks started to become lost. Again, I will re-iterate that the players have done a tremendous job of negotiating "world class" working conditions, benefits, travel, medical, etc. There should have been a stark realization that their share of the pie was going to be reduced no matter what (no secret - we know they realized it).
Now, they are in a position of being culpable in the damage of the business and brand - which by the way - their livelihood will be "linked" to. This could prove to be a colossal failure for a group of athletes with a short window to make life changing compensation. I don't have to like the owners or their methods - but I sure as hell understand them very clearly.
I agree with most of your post. But I'm at a loss as to how the owners benefit by losing a season rather than compromising on the last few issues. I suspect that there are at least a few owners who would like to sit down and resolve these issues so that the owners get most of what they said they wanted at the outset. This looks to me like it has become personal on both sides. I'm not surprised that the players see it as personal but I am surprised that the owenrs wouldn't put the good of the league that they own over their own personal feelings.
This is such a flawed statement given the last labor dispute. The players were just fine with an unregulated market for their labor. The owners were free to run their businesses as they wished, and the players had absolutely no say or influence in the owners' costs outside of payroll.
It was the owners who insisted upon implementing a mandate whereby players' salaries were a direct function of league-wide revenue. Of course, the system was ill-conceived in that it did things like (indirectly) tie Nashville's payroll to Toronto's revenue. The NHL asked for this system and they got it. Now, "HRR" and all of this other BS is very much the players' "business." If the NHL doesn't want the union telling it how to run its business, they should return to a model whereby the players are nothing more than hired guns.
The owners wanted a partnership and they got one. Don't fault the players for exercising their right as a "partner" of the league and for voicing their opinions of how the league runs its operation.
This is absolutely untrue. They had collectively bargained working conditions, travel, per diems and many other things that had to be provided.
I agree with most of your post. But I'm at a loss as to how the owners benefit by losing a season rather than compromising on the last few issues. I suspect that there are at least a few owners who would like to sit down and resolve these issues so that the owners get most of what they said they wanted at the outset.
Of course many of the owners don't benefit from losing a season, but there are many that will feel that too much has already been offered - thus we wait. I really think they are dumbfounded the players have not accepted one of the offers...
