HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Thread, Daniel Bryan Edition: The lockout is (tentatively) over!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 12:45 PM
  #351
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,092
vCash: 500
The one thing I will agree with Jiggerfly on is that the owners have to tread carefully, especially not knowing Fehr's endgame. I don't know what he expects Bettman and Co. to have done so differently up until now, they are followiing the Proskauer Rose playbook. Right now, I think they are hoping that enough players will want to play and not take the nuclear path. Will players really go over that cliff over the current differences? (I personally don't think the Owners will either). I think Fehr would love to go off that cliff, but I'm hoping enough players won't and will force his hand.

In the end, I do think they are closer to a deal, but I also think some of the more moderate owners that were probably wondering "wtf isn't there a deal already" are probably more behind Bettman and the negotiation tactics than they were before in case they do have to hardline it.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 01:23 PM
  #352
eXile59
Shirts on.
 
eXile59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Fehr is an a bad situation. He has to be smart enough to know the longer this goes on the more players are going to question who he is looking out for, which in the end is himself, but if he wants to make himself look good he can't accept any deal where the players get hurt. Problem there is the league can't accept a deal where the players don't take a hit because too many teams are losing money.

eXile59 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 01:24 PM
  #353
Jonjmc
Registered User
 
Jonjmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,485
vCash: 500
I'm not sure why nobody is considering this option.....

Fehr has acted very predictably and none of this can come as a surprise to the league, in fact I'd imagine they expected it. The next step is for the league to make a lesser offer to the players, probably without the "make whole" or at very least a reduced form of it claiming a shorter season requires less "make whole". The players will reject it and the league moves to declare an impasse. If granted, and they seem to have a good case for it, the league imposes the last offer as the defacto CBA and lifts the lockout.

At that point, the players disclaiming or decertifying makes no difference, the lockout ends with an impasse and its up to the individual players to decide if they want to play under the new CBA. Everyone goes on and on about the players holding the disclaim or decertification card in their pockets but nobody considers that this is the leagues "ace in the hole".

I do believe the league, and presumably the players also, would prefer to just reach an agreement and not use this option. In fact, there may still be an agreement before the league declares an impasse, but I do think we are fast approaching that point.

I do actually agree with Jiggy that the league is following the Proskauer Rose playbook to the Tee. But this is the reason for that. Much of what we have watched unfold was in fact scripted and had an endgame. The owner/player meeting was to illustrate that Fehr is acting in an obstructionist manner. Neither Fehr nor Bettman are the buffoons that people make them out to be, there are reasons why these things have gone down the way they have.

Jonjmc is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 01:59 PM
  #354
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonjmc View Post
I'm not sure why nobody is considering this option.....

Fehr has acted very predictably and none of this can come as a surprise to the league, in fact I'd imagine they expected it. The next step is for the league to make a lesser offer to the players, probably without the "make whole" or at very least a reduced form of it claiming a shorter season requires less "make whole". The players will reject it and the league moves to declare an impasse. If granted, and they seem to have a good case for it, the league imposes the last offer as the defacto CBA and lifts the lockout.
If I'm understanding Google correctly, declaring an impasse would be akin to playing the season without a CBA in place as it would allow the players to strike whenever they wanted. I don't think that's something the league has any intention of risking.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:22 PM
  #355
Jonjmc
Registered User
 
Jonjmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
If I'm understanding Google correctly, declaring an impasse would be akin to playing the season without a CBA in place as it would allow the players to strike whenever they wanted. I don't think that's something the league has any intention of risking.
Let me preface this by saying I an not a lawyer. But, as I understand this as it applies to this situation is....

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/impasse/

Quote:

An impasse occurs when after engaging in good faith negotiation, mediation, factfinding with a mediator and post fact-finding negotiations, the parties are unable to reach an agreement. Various laws and contractual agreements govern impasse procedures to be followed in negotiations, such as labor-management talks. In that situation, some employers have the right to impose their last, best offer. There is no further step in the process requiring mediation or arbitration.
This isn't a simple process, but in the end if the impasse is granted the league imposes its last, best offer as the defacto CBA. At this point the union can act as a collective and choose to strike. The league would be allowed to use replacement players if the players choose this path.

KDB on the business board is a lawyer, I believe, and he has covered this before. I will go dig up his primer on how this works but I believe I have this correct.

Jonjmc is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:32 PM
  #356
Jonjmc
Registered User
 
Jonjmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,485
vCash: 500
Originally posted by Kdb209

Quote:
In order to get scabs replacement players, the League would first have to declare an impasse, have it upheld by the NLRB, and then impose their final CBA offer as an interim CBA - plus whatever regulatory requirements there are in Canada. They could then lift the lockout and play under the impasse CBA. The NHLPA would then have the option to strike, players could honor the strike or not, and replacement players could be hired. Even in that case, replacement players might not be legal in Quebec, AIUI.

Jonjmc is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:02 PM
  #357
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
No, there aren't just CBA term and term limit as points of contention.

When 1 person says "I'll give you A, B, and C, in exchange of D, E, and F" but you don't give them D,E, and F, you arent in agreement on A,B, or C.

The owners already moved quite a bit in the players direction. They added nearly $300 million to make whole, they dropped their demands on UFA, Arbitration and ELC. They allowed players to sign 7 year contracts with their own team. They worked with them on Pensions. All of that was contingent on the NHL getting the terms it really wanted in other areas.

There will be a time where a line in the sand will be drawn or else the other side can just keep on marginally moving all the issues. Not to mention, the NHLPA creating new issues of Compliance buyouts and escrow limits, both designed to siphon even more revenue (on top of make whole) outside the 50/50 split.
The players have also moved a lot in the owners direction, or are you calling Miller and Crosby liars?

Again, for the fifth time, Fehr simply did what Bettman had done seven years ago. There is no justification for why the owners keep running from the table when they don't get their way, taking offers off the table, etc.

And again for the fourth time, there is wiggle room on contract terms. Adding seven years for home teams is great for owners and fans, but it hurts the free market and the players see that.

All of the owners demands make logical sense. Five years with a tight variance to stop back diving deals, ten year CBA so they can have ample term left when the scale slides to 50/50, it also brings sponsor confidence, etc.

However, it is plain as day the PA is using the CBA term as a bargaining chip for contract terms. Once the owners give a little on contract terms (as long as variance is low, this doesn't matter as much as people think), the PA will give the owners their ten years.

But acting like fools and blowing up in the media has just prolonged this and even opened the possibility for it to go nuclear (and Fehr is itching for that, so don't give him that chance by "dying" over contract terms. The set variable is the key and they have that already).

This is beyond asinine.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:26 PM
  #358
AZPenguins
Registered User
 
AZPenguins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Country: Zimbabwe
Posts: 1,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
This is beyond asinine.
Just curious, did you think Fehr saying they were "close" in his presser was "asinine" too?

AZPenguins is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:55 PM
  #359
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonjmc View Post
Originally posted by Kdb209

Quote:
In order to get scabs replacement players, the League would first have to declare an impasse, have it upheld by the NLRB, and then impose their final CBA offer as an interim CBA - plus whatever regulatory requirements there are in Canada. They could then lift the lockout and play under the impasse CBA. The NHLPA would then have the option to strike, players could honor the strike or not, and replacement players could be hired. Even in that case, replacement players might not be legal in Quebec, AIUI.
Yeah, I don't think that's something the league wants to do. The threat of a strike at any time for any reason would give all the leverage to the players. And you just know they'd wait until just before the playoffs before choosing to strike. In essence, the playoffs would be played with AHL teams if the NHL went the replacement players route, and that would be a public relations nightmare.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:47 PM
  #360
Omnomnomnom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
Yeah, I don't think that's something the league wants to do. The threat of a strike at any time for any reason would give all the leverage to the players. And you just know they'd wait until just before the playoffs before choosing to strike. In essence, the playoffs would be played with AHL teams if the NHL went the replacement players route, and that would be a public relations nightmare.
Agreed. The whole reason why we are in a lockout as opposed to playing under an expired CBA is because of the player's ability to strike at any time.

Omnomnomnom is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:48 PM
  #361
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZPenguins View Post
Just curious, did you think Fehr saying they were "close" in his presser was "asinine" too?
I... Don't... Care... What... Fehr... Says.

I've said that over and over. What he says, doesn't control what Bettman and the owners do. He was going to play games and try to get in their heads from the get go, and it's worked.

I hold Bettman and the owners to a much higher standard and expect them to act with integrity and protect the league shield. Fehr I expect to not give two left balls about what he does to the league, as long as he gets a good deal for his side.

Smith pulled some ridiculous, shady tatics to get the nod over Vincent as the NFLPA leader and he became a total nightmare for Goodell and the NFL owners. I'm tired of hearing how if Kelly was in, this would be over, etc. He isn't leading the PA, Fehr is. Just like if Vincent got in for the NFLPA the negotiations would of gone much, much better. He didn't get in, Smith did and Goodell and the owners worked through it without missing games and embarrassing the league.

The NFL had their nightmare PA leader and got a deal done. If you don't believe me, go read about some of the stunts Smith pulled dragging things through court, decertifying the PA, etc.

It makes Fehr look like a *****cat.

It's time for the NHL to step up and finish this. The excuses for Bettman and the league are tiresome. They have embarrassed the league beyond what I ever imagined.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:53 PM
  #362
Crafton
Liver-Eating Johnson
 
Crafton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 50
hahahah *****cat is blocked. what a travesty.

Crafton is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:02 PM
  #363
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
Bitter Buffalo
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Iceland
Posts: 57,457
vCash: 50

__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick

Last edited by Big McLargehuge: 12-08-2012 at 05:08 PM. Reason: lol...the first attempt was censored
Big McLargehuge is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:39 PM
  #364
Crafton
Liver-Eating Johnson
 
Crafton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 50
well played, Big.


Crafton is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:53 PM
  #365
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I hold Bettman and the owners to a much higher standard and expect them to act with integrity and protect the league shield. Fehr I expect to not give two left balls about what he does to the league, as long as he gets a good deal for his side.
That ship sailed back in October.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:08 PM
  #366
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 35,518
vCash: 500
I'd kill to watch this season again right now



or even this team


i miss hockey. these guys better get this fixed soon.

Ogrezilla is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:08 PM
  #367
KaylaJ
I like stories
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 15,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I don't understand how Burkle and Tannenbaum can tell us they are staying until a deal gets done, then they run out after three damn days. Both sides made all of this progress and they literally run away when Fehr comes back. These are great business minds and they didn't anticipate the players would ask for Fehr to come back to close things off? The players aren't deal closers, the fans and media know that, but the owners didn't see it coming? Right.
The owners that were there this week were there to meet with the players, not D Fehr (Daly & S Fehr were in the room). Also from the PA side:

“There was clearly a communication issue with what was being transpired across the table,” Hainsey told TSN.ca. “They hadn’t understood it properly I guess, or it just hadn’t been communicated right and there was an issue there and so that was when I thought it was troublesome. We needed to think about getting the lead guys back in there; both sides not just our side because being clear and getting this done we felt was there to do.”



If the players felt the time had come to get the big lead guys back, why should the owners have stuck around, many of the players aren't either. And who exactly says the owners didn't see it coming?


Last edited by KaylaJ: 12-08-2012 at 07:15 PM.
KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:09 PM
  #368
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Dark Matter
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,949
vCash: 500
IanMoran: the thing that doesn't wash about Hainsey's comments is, they're out of context and he knows it.

Of course the 18 players cannot sign the deal / do the legal stuff but that's not what was being asked for. What was being asked for was a "deal in principle". Do you guys agree to these points, and will you concede on these points now that we've addressed x, y and z? Yes or no?

If they had said yes, THEN you go get the Fehr brothers and you explain everything and it starts to go down the legal process before a deal is actually signed and finalized. There was never going to be a deal on Thursday, only an agreement to one in principle or not.

Hainsey makes it sound like "oh we were ready to get to a point of signing one so we had to call Fehr in." That's a load of crap. Agreeing to a deal in principle is not binding; it's just the next stage in the process and the players asked Fehr and he said "walk away". The owners KNEW he would say that because of who he is, and that's why they got pissed when the players said "jeez we have to get him back in here", when in fact, they didn't. There was nothing binding the players could've done. All they were asked is to agree to a set of terms in principle and if so to take that back for further discussion with the players and Fehr. That's it. And they ****ed it up.

It could've worked like this:

NHL: OK we added years here, added make whole here, leave UFA/RFA unchanged... given those things, this is what WE need (no back-diving, etc). If you agree, we have a deal in principle that we can generate a final proposal from, and then move on to legal stuff later. Do you agree?

Players: Yes.

NHL: OK, let's go get Gary and Don and tell them, and we can each go back to our camps to discuss / get final buy-in, then we'll come back with our final proposal based on THESE points.

Players: OK

Shake hands, walk away smiling.


Last edited by Darth Vitale: 12-08-2012 at 07:16 PM.
Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:23 PM
  #369
KaylaJ
I like stories
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 15,523
vCash: 500
^ I think you mean me, but I agree. I don't think the owners were ready for Fehr to come back into the room personally. That's not to say they were trying to push one past the PA (again S Fehr was in the room and just like the PA, I'm gonna guess a signed, sealed, delivered CBA would take more than 4-6 owners), but I don't think they were done speaking & negotiating.

According to Burkle:

We made substantial movement on our end quickly, but unfortunately that was not met with the same level of movement from the other side. The players asked us to be patient and keep working with them. It's not what they do and they wanted us to know they were committed. We understood and appreciated their situation. We came back with an aggressive commitment to pensions which we felt was well received. We needed a response on key items that were important to us, but we were optimistic that we were down to very few issues. I believe a deal was within reach.

We were therefore surprised when the Fehrs made a unilateral and "non-negotiable" decision — which is their right, to end the player/owner process that has moved us farther in two days than we moved at any time in the past months.



Fehr is obviously going to push a little for the PA side, but was it the right thing to do to the owners and not Bettman?


Last edited by KaylaJ: 12-08-2012 at 07:28 PM.
KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:36 PM
  #370
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
The owners that were there this week were there to meet with the players, not D Fehr (Daly & S Fehr were in the room). Also from the PA side:

“There was clearly a communication issue with what was being transpired across the table,” Hainsey told TSN.ca. “They hadn’t understood it properly I guess, or it just hadn’t been communicated right and there was an issue there and so that was when I thought it was troublesome. We needed to think about getting the lead guys back in there; both sides not just our side because being clear and getting this done we felt was there to do.”

If the players felt the time had come to get the big lead guys back, why should the owners have stuck around, many of the players aren't either. And who exactly says the owners didn't see it coming?
The players didn't swear to stay until a deal was hammered out, unless I missed a quote. Burkle and Tannanbaum came right out and said that. The owners left specifically because Fehr was being brought back in. And are you trying to tell me billionaire business owners thought the players (who have little CBA negotiation experience) were going to close the deal themselves? Please.

Crosby and Miller stayed there until things blew up. Tannanbaum was out of there before their proposal ever came back.

This was simply a ploy to get Fehr out of the picture and it did work to move things along, but there was no way in hell the league didn't know Fehr would be the one to close this deal.

He isn't going anywhere. They need to accept that and finish this deal.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:43 PM
  #371
KaylaJ
I like stories
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 15,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The players didn't swear to stay until a deal was hammered out, unless I missed a quote. Burkle and Tannanbaum came right out and said that. The owners left specifically because Fehr was being brought back in. And are you trying to tell me billionaire business owners thought the players (who have little CBA negotiation experience) were going to close the deal themselves? Please.

Crosby and Miller stayed there until things blew up. Tannanbaum was out of there before their proposal ever came back.

This was simply a ploy to get Fehr out of the picture and it did work to move things along, but there was no way in hell the league didn't know Fehr would be the one to close this deal.

He isn't going anywhere. They need to accept that and finish this deal.
Again, the PA asked for Fehr to come back and end the players~owners negotiations. The owners probably thought they could stay until there was a deal and were probably naive to think one was close. However when the rug got pulled before they were ready, what were they supposed to do?

Also, I don't recall saying the players would close negotiations. In fact I said:

"That's not to say they were trying to push one past the PA (again S Fehr was in the room and just like the PA, I'm gonna guess a signed, sealed, delivered CBA would take more than 4-6 owners)"

I.e. both sides probably need their big guys back in to close negotiations. Plus considering how many players felt it was a PR stunt anyway, I'm guessing the ones in the meeting def weren't getting a raving thumbs up from the outside so quickly. Though the same thing might be said for the PA to understand that Bettman & Jacobs are going to be there and that's that.


Last edited by KaylaJ: 12-08-2012 at 07:54 PM.
KaylaJ is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:47 PM
  #372
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
IanMoran: the thing that doesn't wash about Hainsey's comments is, they're out of context and he knows it.

Of course the 18 players cannot sign the deal / do the legal stuff but that's not what was being asked for. What was being asked for was a "deal in principle". Do you guys agree to these points, and will you concede on these points now that we've addressed x, y and z? Yes or no?

If they had said yes, THEN you go get the Fehr brothers and you explain everything and it starts to go down the legal process before a deal is actually signed and finalized. There was never going to be a deal on Thursday, only an agreement to one in principle or not.

Hainsey makes it sound like "oh we were ready to get to a point of signing one so we had to call Fehr in." That's a load of crap. Agreeing to a deal in principle is not binding; it's just the next stage in the process and the players asked Fehr and he said "walk away". The owners KNEW he would say that because of who he is, and that's why they got pissed when the players said "jeez we have to get him back in here", when in fact, they didn't. There was nothing binding the players could've done. All they were asked is to agree to a set of terms in principle and if so to take that back for further discussion with the players and Fehr. That's it. And they ****ed it up.

It could've worked like this:

NHL: OK we added years here, added make whole here, leave UFA/RFA unchanged... given those things, this is what WE need (no back-diving, etc). If you agree, we have a deal in principle that we can generate a final proposal from, and then move on to legal stuff later. Do you agree?

Players: Yes.

NHL: OK, let's go get Gary and Don and tell them, and we can each go back to our camps to discuss / get final buy-in, then we'll come back with our final proposal based on THESE points.

Players: OK

Shake hands, walk away smiling.
I'm not entirely certain I'm grasping your point entirely, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. Were I in the players' shoes, I wouldn't want to even go as far as to agree to a deal in principle without my leadership present. I realize it's not legally binding, but consider the optics if the players agreed to a deal in principle and then changed their minds the next day.

On the other hand though, I'm not sure that the players didn't more or less agree to the league's proposal on Tuesday. I could be mistaken, and I can't find where it might have been written, but I seem to recall a league source (possibly anonymously via some reporter's twitter) saying they thought they had a deal Tuesday night (I could be making this all up though, so take my jibber jabber for what its worth). Having not been at the meeting, it's hard to say what stage the negotiations were at when the PA brought Fehr back into the mix.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:55 PM
  #373
Ugene Malkin
GOING FOR DRUNK
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 23,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The players didn't swear to stay until a deal was hammered out, unless I missed a quote. Burkle and Tannanbaum came right out and said that. The owners left specifically because Fehr was being brought back in. And are you trying to tell me billionaire business owners thought the players (who have little CBA negotiation experience) were going to close the deal themselves? Please.

Crosby and Miller stayed there until things blew up. Tannanbaum was out of there before their proposal ever came back.

This was simply a ploy to get Fehr out of the picture and it did work to move things along, but there was no way in hell the league didn't know Fehr would be the one to close this deal.

He isn't going anywhere. They need to accept that and finish this deal.
They had representation in the room, (Steve Fehr) I'm sure he can keep his brother up to speed and control the room for the players benefit.

So again, how do they not understand the lingo with a Fehr in the room. Seriously, they couldn't pow wow in the corner with Steve, or simply ask the owners to explain once more?

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 08:12 PM
  #374
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
Again, the PA asked for Fehr to come back and end the players~owners negotiations. The owners probably thought they could stay until there was a deal and were probably naive to think one was close. However when the rug got pulled before they were ready, what were they supposed to do?
It came straight from Daly's mouth that if Fehr came back, the league would end the player-owner format. That was a decision the league made, not the PA. The players felt they were getting close to a deal and they needed Fehr. There was absolutely no reason for Burkle and Tannanbaum to leave then.

They did it, once again to undermine Fehr. This is now the third time the league has pulled this garbage.

It isn't going to work. He has mechanisms in place to prevent what happened to BG. The league keeps wasting time and being childish trying these games.

Quote:
Also, I don't recall saying the players would close negotiations. In fact I said:

"That's not to say they were trying to push one past the PA (again S Fehr was in the room and just like the PA, I'm gonna guess a signed, sealed, delivered CBA would take more than 4-6 owners)".

I.e. both sides probably need their big guys back in to close negotiations. Plus considering how many players felt it was a PR stunt anyway, I'm guessing the ones in the meeting def weren't getting a raving thumbs up from the outside so quickly. Though the same thing might be said for the PA to understand that Bettman & Jacobs are going to be there and that's that.
Once again, the players felt a deal was close, so naturally they wanted Fehr in the room to finish it off.

They had every right to ask for that without the owners pulling a PP and walking away

You do realize there is literally three years difference between what the owners offered (5) vs the players offer (8) on contract terms?

And somehow people want to defend what the league did? Again, piss poor leadership.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 08:18 PM
  #375
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
They had representation in the room, (Steve Fehr) I'm sure he can keep his brother up to speed and control the room for the players benefit.

So again, how do they not understand the lingo with a Fehr in the room. Seriously, they couldn't pow wow in the corner with Steve, or simply ask the owners to explain once more?
They paid Fehr a lot of money to be in that room, not Steve. If they wanted Steve Fehr to close their deal, he would of been made the head of the PA, not Donald.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.