Just because they did not meet face-to-face does not mean both sides are not working. They all know where eachother stand. Why not work independently trying to maneuver a way to find a common ground. If you think you have something to present, call and set up a face-to-face.
100% of the negotiation does not have to be face-to-face.....
All of the parties were in Toronto last night. Unless Bettman and Daly left last night or are leaving this morning,maybe they will bother to meet. Don Fehr requested the meetings(if any)get moved to Toronto the next time. The PA staff is based in Toronto.
Whenever the NHL returns,no corny slogans please. No Game On(after 1994 lockout). No Thank You Fans(after 2005 lockout). Just play and ****.
Usually in labor negotiated contracts you do give something to get something. That is how it goes and without an arbitrator in the mix making final decision giving something for nothing in return is called capitulation by the side doing all the giving. What is the point of the players having a union at all if it's only going to capitulate? And without a union to negotiate why would the league need a CBA at all? And without a CBA what kind of restraints would there be on the owners at all? And how could anyone then guarantee that they'd all make a profit? By the way if there were an arbitration process in play here this thing would probably be done.
Anyway your post strikes me as having an anti-labor bias. The inconvenience felt by the fan (public) is the overriding factor--about on the level of the customer is always right (which is some of the happiest horse **** that I've ever heard--a fall back defense for the wealthy in their war against the not wealthy) an attempt to wedge gullible public opinion into thinking they're 'on our side' doing all they can do--but also whatever it takes to keep the plutocrats running the show happy no matter how incompetent they are in doing so. They tinkered with the last CBA which was very favorable to them doing end runs around the spirit of the language of the thing and now they want another custom made ******** free version in which they're guaranteed profitability and it's pretty certain that as soon as the ink is dry they're going to have teams of lawyers looking for loopholes.
The fair way to sort this all out quickly and efficiently is for both sides to work out agreements on things they can agree on and leave the rest to an agreed upon arbitrator(s).
Is there another industry where labor has a negotiated split of the actual revenue made by the company thus guaranteeing substantial raises provided they perform?
Is there another industry where labor has a negotiated deal that has absolutely no path of recourse for management to re-coup wages (fire employee) regardless of how poorly they performs?
Is there another industry other than sports where a companies compeitiors are actually their partners and the sucess of one's company is reliant in part upon the relative success of thier "competitors"?
You cannot compare what is happening here to a normal labor disagreement.
Points 1 and 2 above are almost guarantee that whatever deal the players ultimately sign they will continue to be treated exponentially better than any other organized labor force in the world.
Yeah I guess the thing is that it seems like early December is being looked at as a possible start date if talks continue to be productive and a deal is reached soon. Not that early December is a done deal because an insider said so
Also pretty sure the Winter Classic is dead in the water unless they manage to get it pushed back or something
Bettman is going to grind the process for contract/system issues? Show some spine and hang tough NHLPA. I want to see the reaction from some of the moderate and dove owners when Gary shuts down talks over 1 year of free agency and 1 year of arbitration. Like that will make a difference for these teams which re-sign players with 1 year left on entry level and 2 years away from arbitration. Mark Spector wrote a column where he quoted some NHL execs who couldn't believe was mircomanaging the process by insisting on system givebacks. I heard Doug MacLean ripping Gary yesterday for the NHL stance on the contract/system issues. Bettman wants everything he gave back in 2005 and keep the cap and 24% rollback. Shame.
Still looking for the time frame when the NHL will close for the season.
Given, that I'm looking for a Jan 1 start date for the season, dec 15 opening for camps, that leaves me with a early Dec agreement.
Hockey is looking at the nuclear winter so I'm guessing both sides will
be looking into the abyss real soon.
Can a settlement really take place before each side believes the season is in jeopardy? Only then will we see the final best offers. Only then will we find out who really is willing to miss another season.
Time is getting closer but we're not quite there yet.
The deal won't get done until the time is right.
Last edited by ltrangerfan: 11-13-2012 at 10:37 AM.
Bettman is going to grind the process for contract/system issues? Show some spine and hang tough NHLPA. I want to see the reaction from some of the moderate and dove owners when Gary shuts down talks over 1 year of free agency and 1 year of arbitration. Like that will make a difference for these teams which re-sign players with 1 year left on entry level and 2 years away from arbitration. Mark Spector wrote a column where he quoted some NHL execs who couldn't believe was mircomanaging the process by insisting on system givebacks. I heard Doug MacLean ripping Gary yesterday for the NHL stance on the contract/system issues. Bettman wants everything he gave back in 2005 and keep the cap and 24% rollback. Shame.
How's that 24% rollback looking now? Increased salaries from 1.3B - 2.4B
Rough... very rough industry. Hard to earn a decent wage.
As opposed to the players, revenue growth is not inextricably tied to profitability.
Wouldnt you agree that the owners have far, far more risk involved in this set up?
Back to this? Yes, they have more risk. They pick franchise locations, when to expand, dictated the last cba and circumvented their rules. The players, without any real say, were along for the ride. Would profits be higher with better choices? Undoubtedly.
I still maintain that if owners want to pass off some of the consequences of their mismanagement, the players deserve a say in franchise relocation, expansion and a cut of expansion fees. I also push this point because not an owner would accept that. They want all the control and profit but hate the risk.
Further more, its tiring to see the owners' number run through filters but the players' number is seen one way. Its irrelevant at this point. The majority on both sides is comfortable with a compromise on the contract stuff and the agreement on the revenues. Bettman needs to relent.
Back to this? Yes, they have more risk. They pick franchise locations, when to expand, dictated the last cba and circumvented their rules. The players, without any real say, were along for the ride. Would profits be higher with better choices? Undoubtedly.
I still maintain that if owners want to pass off some of the consequences of their mismanagement, the players deserve a say in franchise relocation, expansion and a cut of expansion fees. I also push this point because not an owner would accept that. They want all the control and profit but hate the risk.
Further more, its tiring to see the owners' number run through filters but the players' number is seen one way. Its irrelevant at this point. The majority on both sides is comfortable with a compromise on the contract stuff and the agreement on the revenues. Bettman needs to relent.
The players don't have a say in franchise relocation and don't get a cut of expansion fees because they are not making an investment. No owner would accept your proposal, and no player would agree to splitting hundreds of millions in business costs with the owners.
Similar to how other employees can't choose where their offices are located. If they feel the business is that mismanaged they would be better served leaving for a competitor (aka Europe).
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
Once the emotional attachment to "win" fades, it is obvious that a lost year is way more harmful to the current players that whatever they may "not achieve" at this point in negotiations.
Once the emotional attachment to "win" fades, it is obvious that a lost year is way more harmful to the current players that whatever they may "not achieve" at this point in negotiations.
Sure, and I don't dispute the truth in any of their words. I just don't think they should be made public. Negotiations are ongoing.
Back to this? Yes, they have more risk. They pick franchise locations, when to expand, dictated the last cba and circumvented their rules.
These two points will be the death of me.
The players can distance themselves from the last CBA all they want. Fact is, they agreed to it.
Free agency is a competitive market place. The owners compete against each other to sign top players. This competition causes they owners to give long-term, big-money contracts with NMCs, that, yes, sometimes circumvent the CBA. This competition is also the thing keeps the owners from having a collusion charge filed on them.
Tales from these talks are starting to be told, and they're painting Fehr as a Brad Marchand-level pest in the room.
Ignoring NHL proposals to negotiate off his own. Arriving for meetings late. Taking an exorbitant amount of time to fetch a glass of water during meetings (seriously).
I guess he does have a lot of pests in his union to take tips from.
The NHL wants to distance themselves from the 2005 CBA. The owners got their hard cap. They got a 24% rollback. They still screwed up the deal. The offer didn't get worse in 2004-05. The players accepted the cap in exchange for more freedom. Younger free agency. Earlier salary arbitration. Now the NHL wants to take away those gains. Bettman said in September that the offers will get worse. They haven't gotten worse. Then Gary says the time for give and take is over. Over? Its not over until the deal is done when both sides make a deal.
The NHL wants to distance themselves from the 2005 CBA. The owners got their hard cap. They got a 24% rollback. They still screwed up the deal. The offer didn't get worse in 2004-05. The players accepted the cap in exchange for more freedom. Younger free agency. Earlier salary arbitration. Now the NHL wants to take away those gains. Bettman said in September that the offers will get worse. They haven't gotten worse. Then Gary says the time for give and take is over. Over? Its not over until the deal is done when both sides make a deal.
Wanting to negotiate a new deal (7 years later) isn't the same as distancing themselves from it. A number of players won't acknowledge that the NHLPA had any hand in the last CBA.
