there's two sides to most every coin. This is funny: 'I don't see how anything gets done when somebody says they're not going to accept something before they negotiate'. Let's analysze that further: the league basically says that there has to be a cap and won't accept anything else. So, the league too is not willing to negotiate, otherwise it would've taken seriously the proposals made by the NHLPA.
It would be nice if we could see the semantics of all of the 6 offers to determine if they are really caps. The NHLPA is talking out of both sides by stating they will never accept a cap and then put a limit on rookie earnings.
We attribute "cost certainty" as being a cap based upon NHLPA rhetoric. If they both sit at the table perhaps alternative methods may be achieved.
I don't think they're talking out of both sides...
a cap and limits on rookie compensation are two different things. There is a limit (or at least I thought there was) on rookie compensation as it is. Of course there's ways around it, the owners have found.
And cost-certainty is a cap. No ifs ands or buts about it. It's the spin word the league has chosen to stay away from the word, 'cap'.
I do still get a chuckle that the owners back this 'cap' to stop themselves from spending money. Poor poor MSG. Couldn't help themselves but to spend money.
And that can't happen, 007. This is all about posturing and positioning. Each is just waiting for the other to cave-in. Sitting in a room would just waste their time. Hey, wait, might as well. They're the only ones still getting paid, I assum. Bettman, Goodenow, and co. Let 'em sit in a room with each other for weeks and rot.
"The players have drawn a line in the sand, they've said they're not going to accept a salary cap and I don't see how anything gets done when somebody says they're not going to accept something before they negotiate," Snider said.
Didn't the owners also draw a line in the sand(insisting on a cap) and aren't they also not willing to negotiate up until now ?