chances14

this legal analyst from sportsnet doesn't believe for a second that the players will win this in courts http://www.sportsnet..._antitrust_law/

also from the article so while both sides didn't feel the urgency, fact is the nhl was ready to negotiate and the pa wasn't i also found the last part interesting i think this "we were wronged" attitude is partly to blame in all of this

I've had it done to me on a few occasions in this thread. Just returning the favor. Sorry if that offends you

fixed it for you

Here's a link to read the full class action complaint by the league http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/12/14/nhlvsnhlpa.pdf I find it hilarious that the league is using public comments by players as evidence that the players are doing this only for a negotiating tactic. The Ryan miller quotes are the most damning Now I understand why the league has had such a draconian attitude about owners speaking out in public. All it can do is provide evidence for the other side down the road. The players could have very well fallen on their own swords

let the court fight begin

this is another thing that i don't get. people are complaining that owners are spending more than they can afford, yet when owners don't spend money to improve their team, they get blasted by fans for putting the bottom line first. a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation with fans.

agreed agreed. i don't think i have seen one person in this thread say that bettman should get a free pass. i am just sick of seeing all these "it's 100% bettman's fault" posts

One nhl governor submitted a version of his own CBA to Espn. No surprise it's essentially the compromise that we all expect should happen. The part of the article that pertains to the subject of this thread http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/20739/rest-easy-weve-got-your-new-cba-right-here Notice that he said Jacobs, not Bettman.

If the pa had done all of those things we wouldn't be in this situation right now in my opinion. But hypothetically, if they did and their offer was still the same and we ended up in the same situation as we are right now, then I would be satisfied with the pa and I would put all the blame on the owners.

No doubt Bettman has been a failure. But i think it just shows that these owners are just as much fault considering that they haven't gotten rid of him yet

Not really. They fired Paul Kelly because they felt he wasn't confrontational enough and they wanted somebody that could get under the owners skin. Fehr has no doubt accomplished that goal. I think some of the owners have developed a personal hate against fehr and I don't see that every going away so long as fehr is head of the pa. Both sides need a reset at the same time examples of both sides not caring about getting a deal done and negotiating in bad faith: -The owners insulting lowball first offer -The union dragging its feet on getting negations going and then dragging its feet on putting forth proposals, especially in September and October -The union not even running the numbers on their own proposals -The owners take it or leave it approach to negotiating and setting pre conditions on meetings -Fehr showing up hours late to meetings -The owners trying to break up the union through pr stunts such as claiming that fehr is misinforming the players about their proposals And the pr spin and bs by both sides throughout this process has been ridiculous. I can go on and on with more instances of both sides negotiating in bad faith or simply not caring about getting a deal done.

i would probably agree with that. though admittedly i don't know much about the details of the cba's in the 80's. i just know that the pa's own leader was exploiting his members. but it gets back to the point i've been making in this thread. this dysfunction between the pa and nhl that has caused 3 lockouts goes back to before bettman was even commissioner and is why i believe that firing bettman alone is not going to prevent another lockout in the future.

i'm not sure what that has to do with the part of my post that you quoted the owners are fighting tooth and nail for what they really want, just like the players are fighting for what they really want. both sides have displayed acts of negotiating in bad faith throughout this process.

until bob goodenow took over in 1992, there was never a labor stoppage of any kind in the nhl. so who actually fired the first shot in this war?

it's been the culture for the last 20 years or so for the pa and league to hate each other. new members on both sides it seems have been brought up to despise the other side. we need a reset and it starts with cleaning house in the leadership roles on both sides. it means both sides hate each other and don't trust each other one iota and are constantly engaging in bad faith negotiating. we need 2 sides that concentrate more on getting a deal done than seeing who can negotiate in bad faith more. and the owners are doing exactly that as well, yet you criticize them for it. seems to me like a double standard.

this "i'll show them mentality" has gone all the way back to 1992 when goodenow directed the players to go on strike on the eve of the stanley cup finals. believe it or not, the players actually went on strike before the owners locked them out. i suggest everyone go back and look at the relationship between the pa and the league starting in the 80's and you will see why we are at this point today. no other sports league in history has as dysfunctional a relationship than the nhl and nhlpa.

i agree that the owners first offer was insulting. i am just pointing out to the people who say the given the players haven't been given a "single" thing in these negotiations are not correct

did you also miss the part about how talks fell apart once fehr entered the room?

a lockout is essentially the same thing as a strike. the only difference is the owners initiate a lockout and the players initiate a strike. but the point is, the players were looking for a fight because they felt they were wronged in the last lockout.

the dysfunction between the pa and the league can go all the way back to alan eagleson in the 80's, whom was found to be essentially in the owners back pocket. once he was removed, the union brings in bob goodenow, who has the players go on strike in 1992 on the eve of the stanley cup finals. then a year later the league brings in bettman to push back and we have been in the era of ugly labor stoppages ever since. i don't normally agree with cherry, but he is dead on in this article

good article on the breakdown of the core economic issues and while those are the most important issues, there are some things that the owners have given the players. and while they aren't nearly as important as the big issues, i'm sure the players will be glad to have them. also, that article didn't mention the pension issues, which would be considered an owner's concession http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/177160641.html legally, the owners are the ones being generous with the make whole because all contracts signed are subject to changes to a new cba. the players and agents are fully aware that contracts could and most likely will be changed when a new cba comes along, which is why i believe suter and parise got so much signing bonus money, which is not subject to cba changes. now you could argue morally and ethically the owners are in the wrong if they don't offer to honor contracts in full which i agree they should, but legally they don't have to.

i think phoenix would actually have to have some fans in order to run out of them

so because bettman was evil first, it's okay for fehr to be evil too? sorry but 2 wrongs don't make a right. when the players union swooped in and ousted paul kelly because they felt he wasn't confrontational enough, you knew the players were looking for a fight in the next cba. scott burnside predicted it 3 years ago http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=4435098 i agree with you that bettman needs to go, but again, it won't do any good to get rid of bettman if fehr is still around. as we have seen throughout this lockout and especially in the last round of talks, the owners seem to have a personal hatred against don fehr. So you can be sure that if bettman is ousted, they will bring somebody in that will be tasked with taking down fehr. and what about the players? don't you think they realize that the fans will come back no matter what?

i think a luxury tax could be good in the long run, but i'm not sure the nhl could ever recover from the short term damage it would cause. if fehr tried to push for luxury tax, i could see this thing being dragged on for another whole season. i think the owners have too much personal hate for fehr for them to cave in and accept a luxury tax. they haven't even been willing to budge an inch on contract term length. i doubt they budge on a complete overhaul of the system