I hope that there's a silent majority... but what if the reality is that the majority of the Union just isn't educated on what has been proposed?
If it goes to a vote, will each player get a complete offer from the NHL and will they take the time to read it, learn what each section means and form an opinion on it before they vote?
Or is it more likely that up to this point they only know what the Union leadership has told them and the only details they know of NHL proposals are filtered through that leadership spin machine. So if this goes to a vote, it's more likely that the NHL provides Fehr with their proposal, and then the Player Reps filter a summary down to their teams for a vote.
In that second scenario, I could easily see the leagues proposal being voted down. And IF the players choose to release results they probably tell us that the proposal was defeated in a landslide since it would show their solidarity. It can't be made know if there is a split vote, since that would show a fracture and give more momentum to the league.
ohh they might really be united. I am just saying that because a handful of players are speaking out-loud the same things, it doesn't mean there's solidarity among them.
Malhotra's on the last year of his contract and may not get another. That's about as fringe as you can get. The others are fringe players who may or may not get contracts. Can you point out anyone who has come out publicly against the union other than Hamrlik. If you're saying they are afraid to speak out then I can't prove it or disprove it. Again, I think you guys are just imposing your own personal views of the union and trying to manufacture imaginary dissent.
I am not Fehr's biggest fan but I do think he has done a remarkable job of keeping the membership united.
The question was fringe players who dont have NHL contracts, and Malholtra is pretty close to that. It was the players who make minimum to 2.6M that have publicly spoken out about being behind Fehr in this.
The problem is if it's a no but the vote is fairly close to even, that publicly shows that the union is growing weak and they lose a lot of leverage.
That being said, I still think it should happen.
Question. If they voted on this, would Fehr have to reveal how close the vote was? Or does he just say it was a "yes" or "no"? If it is the latter, then the public will never know how divided the union is. For all we know the vote could have been 100% "no" when it was really 51% to 49%.
The question was fringe players who dont have NHL contracts, and Malholtra is pretty close to that. It was the players who make minimum to 2.6M that have publicly spoken out about being behind Fehr in this.
Can you provide one name for that?
No. The question was could I give names of players who were not the big contract guys who have publicly spoken out ie the fring players. I did that. Malhotra will be impacted by a lost season more than most as will the other guys I mentioned. And that was just off the top of my head. I'm sure that if you did a search you could find at least 20 fringe players who have piblicly supported the union. Again, if you have any real evidence of a strong dissent other than just your perosnal opinion I'd like to hear it.
No. The question was could I give names of players who were not the big contract guys who have publicly spoken out. I did that. Malhotra will be impacted by a lost season more than most as will the other guys I mentioned. And that was just off the top of my head. I'm sure that if you did a search you could find at least 20 fringe players who have piblicly supported the union. Again, if you have any real evidence of a strong dissent other than just your perosnal opinion I'd like to hear it.
You name two guys who will never play in the NHL again, and a guy who is just about on his way out who is BARELY a lower contract guy.
Hardly supporting evidence to your case. Even if we counted all three of them, thats still 3 vs 2 on the outspoken debate.
So again, anyone else you can name that fits the criteria? You wont name anyone because you cant.
Question. If they voted on this, would Fehr have to reveal how close the vote was? Or does he just say it was a "yes" or "no"? If it is the latter, then the public will never know how divided the union is. For all we know the vote could have been 100% "no" when it was really 51% to 49%.
Weigh each vote by the salary of the player casting the vote. A player closest to the 50th percentile in player salaries would have the highest weight. That should make it fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper
You name two guys who will never play in the NHL again, and a guy who is just about on his way out who is BARELY a lower contract guy.
Hardly supporting evidence to your case. Even if we counted all three of them, thats still 3 vs 2 on the outspoken debate.
So again, anyone else you can name that fits the criteria? You wont name anyone because you cant.
Brouwer was pretty outspoken against Hamrlik IIRC. I also recall some Habs on the list. Also everyone on the Canucks has been strongly on the side of the union. Maybe look up some voice clips during the lockout from players on your team?
anyway for all of those that say the union is still strong and all have the same point of view, I highly suggest you take a look at the notion of ''silent majority''.
Until those who are silent speak up you cannot make assumptions about their stance on the issues.
A list of the NHLPA negotiating committee. I'll let posters decide who is a fringe player:
"The NHLPA Negotiating Committee consists 31 NHL players who represent a broad cross-section of union members. There is an unprecedented level of member involvement in the current CBA process, driven by the NHLPA’s new player-written Constitution, and a desire to build upon the sacrifices and lessons learned by past generations.
NHLPA members are encouraged to and are frequently attending bargaining sessions. Regional player meetings are being held on a regular basis and recaps are made available throughout the negotiating process, ensuring that players are aware of developments.
NHLPA Negotiating Committee:
Craig Adams
Adrian Aucoin
Alex Auld
David Backes
Marty Biron
Brad Boyes
Chris Campoli
B.J. Crombeen
Mathieu Darche
Rick DiPietro
Brandon Dubinsky
Ruslan Fedotenko
Alex Goligoski
Ron Hainsey
Scott Hartnell
Jamie Langenbrunner
Manny Malhotra
Steve Montador
Dominic Moore
Brendan Morrison
Douglas Murray
George Parros
Chris Phillips
Cory Schneider
John Tavares
Shea Weber
Kevin Westgarth
Dan Winnik
James Wisniewski
Henrik Zetterberg
You name two guys who will never play in the NHL again, and a guy who is just about on his way out who is BARELY a lower contract guy.
Hardly supporting evidence to your case. Even if we counted all three of them, thats still 3 vs 2 on the outspoken debate.
So again, anyone else you can name that fits the criteria? You wont name anyone because you cant.
See the NHLPA 31 man negotiating committee that I set out above. Fill your boots with deciding which players fit your exacting standards for what a fringe player is. I'd say over half of them.
Weigh each vote by the salary of the player casting the vote. A player closest to the 50th percentile in player salaries would have the highest weight. That should make it fair.
Totally fair. Every player's salary right now is $0.00 lol.
I'm thinking there will be an announcement by this weekend that a deal has been reached. I have no objective reason for that, just a gut feeling that I haven't had at any point up until now.
This might be a dumb question, but why isn't the negotiating committee made up of 1 player from each team? Then you'd know for sure that EVERY team has an equal voice?
This might be a dumb question, but why isn't the negotiating committee made up of 1 player from each team? Then you'd know for sure that EVERY team has an equal voice?
if they went to may, they could start feb 1st. to get 48 games, 17 games a month.
Question. If they voted on this, would Fehr have to reveal how close the vote was? Or does he just say it was a "yes" or "no"? If it is the latter, then the public will never know how divided the union is. For all we know the vote could have been 100% "no" when it was really 51% to 49%.
Fair enough, for some reason, the idea of a private vote never popped into my mind.
The league's plan was to try to split the union like last time but it has failed.
Well, none of us has any real way of knowing whether the union is split, or to what degree it may be split, but a vote would go a long way to proving it isn't. I would think Fehr and the PA would be salivating at just how that would show the NHL they really are united. Seems to me that would be awesome leverage, but Fehr would have to roll the dice. Last time he did that was when he announced they were close to a deal and we all know how that worked out. Is he willing to try it again?
Quote:
I think it would be illegal for the NHL to tell the NHLPA how to run its operations. (Telling them to vote or its off the table forever.)
Ah, maybe, but it would sure be interesting to see if Fehr would agree to that vote. I doubt he would.
Quote:
When they come back the league will throw us a bone by changing a whole lot of team logos so they can sell more and more merchandise with the new logos on them.
I'm selfish in this regard - I hate our new logo, I'd be thrilled if this lockout made them change it!
Quote:
yes i'm sure the players who are making 500k a season, who will never see even remotely half of the money they just lost because of the lost paycheques are just thrilled that they are holding out on cba length, and contract lengths.
Not to mention players whose careers will likely be over if they lose this entire season. How many never played another game after the last lockout, 240 or so? (That's the number the jumps into my head, not saying it's dead accurate.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11
In that second scenario, I could easily see the leagues proposal being voted down. And IF the players choose to release results they probably tell us that the proposal was defeated in a landslide since it would show their solidarity. It can't be made know if there is a split vote, since that would show a fracture and give more momentum to the league.
Eh, that could never happen. Only owners lie or twist the numbers in their favor!!! The PA would be 100% truthful, I'm sure.
Weigh each vote by the salary of the player casting the vote. A player closest to the 50th percentile in player salaries would have the highest weight. That should make it fair.
Brouwer was pretty outspoken against Hamrlik IIRC. I also recall some Habs on the list. Also everyone on the Canucks has been strongly on the side of the union. Maybe look up some voice clips during the lockout from players on your team?
Brouwer makes 3.6M a year.
Habs were Cole (4.5M), Gionta (5M), and Gorges (I think he was the other one; 3.9M).
Define everyone on the Canucks. I highly doubt every player on the Canucks has said something. Let alone something backing the union.
Luckily, many of the Lightning players have stayed quiet. I dont really remember hearing anything specifically one way or another from any of them. A couple of retweets and out of context or irrelevant comments from beat writers but nothing like the other guys we are talking about currently.
See the NHLPA 31 man negotiating committee that I set out above. Fill your boots with deciding which players fit your exacting standards for what a fringe player is. I'd say over half of them.
The problem with that list, is how many of those players have said anything publicly about the situation? Not many at all. I didnt even KNOW half of those players were part of the negotiating committee.
I figure they still have room to cancel a few games in January. I imagine when they cancel the next round of games they'll make a public declaration that the rest of the season is next. So they probably need to have a CBA signed by the middle of January or the season's toast.
The problem with that list, is how many of those players have said anything publicly about the situation? Not many at all. I didnt even KNOW half of those players were part of the negotiating committee.
Sure. The players on the committee don't support Fehr. Now you're really stretching.
I gave you at least 20 names. Now can you give me more than Hamrlik and Neuvirth?
