cusimano_brothers

From Edmonton Journal: This sounds familiar.

You've forgotten the single example of one side caring about getting a deal done and negotiating in good faith: Mr. Fehr offered to go past the contract deadline, staringt the season on time, while maintaining negotiations and working out a new deal, which I image would have been retroactive to the end of the last agreement. This can be done and can work when both sides are close and feel that an agreement in a timely manner. Sadly, this offer was summarily rejected by Uncle Gary because it wasn't his idea and it wasn't part of the "script" he had already created and was about to implement...regardless. As the head of an organization, Uncle Gary has a real tough time admitting that he has made mistakes that should be corrected sooner rather than later.

Uncle Gary hasn't been a total failure. However, he has failed miserably in the most important area of being the head of any business: the way he treats his employees is deplorable.

Nobody noted that yesterday was the twentieth anniversary of the announcement of Uncle Gary being named as leader? Interesting.

From New York Times: My ribs are still aching after reading the first one.

"High Head Blues" - The Black Crowes.

Lockout: the exclusion of employees by their employer from their place of work until certain terms are agreed to. There's no mention of "bargaining in good faith" in the definition.

I have no problem in supporting Mr. Fehr and the NHLPA. If you want something bad enough, you go out and put up a good fight to get it. The numbers I look at are straightforward: 3 lockouts, 30-0. And, before anyone dare ask the question, here's the answer: I have absolutely no problem sleeping at night.

Yes, Uncle Gary took away their ability to rightfully strike. He should be very proud. John Ziegler: lost his job Gil Stein: lost his way Gary Bettman: pending. That job interview must have been a doozy. The League even changed the "job title".

There are rotating teachers' strikes going on now in Ontario, so...

"Go and Say Goodbye" - Buffalo Springfield.

No, the difference is the current leader of the NHL. Ever since he didn't get his way with his ill-conceived division realignment scheme (one that the NHLPA was totally in their right to refuse, as it should have been part of the overall negotiations in this round of talks) he's demonstrated an "I'll show them" type of mentality. He has to face the reality that he has met his negotiating match, bite the bullet, do his job properly and stop acting like the petulant man-child persona he showed the last time he was at the podium.

Lawyer-ese, from TSN's Legal Look: NHLPA vs. Disclaimer of Interest.

All part of Uncle Gary's "plan".

Cliff Fletcher was wrong; the Leafs are "living" proof.

There is another strike option for employees which can't be applied in this situation (unfortunately): a rotating strike. It can be very effective getting management's attention. If any labour organization goes into contract negotiations without expecting a fight, there's no sense in doing it. You have to want to fight "tooth and nail" for everything you want and not just some of the things. If this isn't the mindset going in, there is no reason the have a union. Then who do you think would keep all that extra money? For all his ability to size up the opposition, Uncle Gary has come up short in assessing the abilities of Mr. Fehr. Luckily, it's going just the way he had hoped. After the last lockout, what did the fans receive to "buy back" their support: the shootout. That was Uncle Gary's idea. What's in store this time?

"Say It Isn't So" - Hall & Oates.

TSN. Maybe he should start selling his own line of flip-flops on QVC.

It's fun to see Roman Hamrlik back-pedalling now. After today's announcement regarding non-games and in case anyone is wondering:

"So Cruel" - U2.

Another "games cancellation" announcement is right around the corner.

"Goodbye Cruel World" - James Darren.

I've never heard of any lockout being called for by a labour organization.

Let's look at a not-too hypothetical situation: Pretend that the NHLPA caves in and agrees to a new CBA now, based solely on the last offer "taken off the table" (Uncle Gary = bully) with nothing else negotiated. The figure that I have seen bandied about that is in contention is one hundred million dollars. If an agreement was reached, where would that untouched money go? Do you think the League would lower the price of tickets? Do you think the League would lower the cost of signing up to NHL Network? Do you think the League would lower the price of the "Reebok Detroit Red Wings Infant Faux Layer Jersey & Pant Set" ($31.99...yikes!)? Do you think the League would hand every fan a ten-dollar voucher the next time they visit a game this decade? Just like Uncle Gary would say, the answers to the above: No, no, no, no. I smell quite bonus from the owners coming from this untouched money.

"A New England" - Billy Bragg.