I guess the point on the loopholes is that we saw the deal from a very high level. I would assume that these loopholes would be closed in the next CBA. Just as you are assuming they will be left open. So who is right here? I guess without the proposal to read, neither of us. So we really can't assume its a money grab or the loopholes were closed without that key piece of information. That was my point.
Where exactly did I say these loopholes would be left open? I wasn't talking about where things will end up, but how the league chose to start the process.
My point was that the majority of what the owners are demanding have little to do with the adjustments that need to be made to the CBA. I feel like most knowledgable hockey fans could come up with a workable solution for a new CBA in a couple days.
Instead, the NHL wants to redefine what constitutes hockey related revenue while also notching down player salaries to what effectively could mean a 20% rollback like the last lockout. That's in spite of the league making record revenues. Add to that wanting to eliminate any arbitration, making players wait a decade before they're UFA's, and lengthening entry level contracts to 5 years. All of those are moves to delay as long as possible having to pay players fair market value for their services, so it's not exactly a stretch to see it as a money grab.
With an effective cap in place, you shouldn't need such punitive lengths on all the other elements of contracts too.
Agreeing to start the season and continue negotiating was what Fehr said was possible, not what he said he would do. Lets face facts here. The current CBA is not going to work for the long term for the NHL. Yes, the league approved it, but the issues with it need to be hammered out and will be with the new CBA. Of course the players want to keep the gravy train rolling. Thats a no brainer, but as I said before, Fehr didn't say without a doubt he wouldn't lock the league out.
So you're going by what Fehr hasn't said, as opposed to what Bettman has?
And it's not just a gravy train for the players, in spite of what the owners claim, they actually make make money off it as well.
I believe both sides are bargaining in good faith. More specifically, I will believe that the players association is bargaining in the best faith when I hear their proposal on Tuesday. If they lowball the league like the league lowballed them, then I will be convinced that they are both greedy.
The league's initial proposal was hardly bargaining in good faith. Those demands were a ridiculous starting point for negotiations.
I guess the problem I have with the "NHLPA fans" are that they are willing to take everything at face value, you included. Of course you say it takes both sides to make a deal happen, but if it doesn't happen, then its the damn league's fault. That is faulty thinking right there. Concessions have to be given by both sides. Yes, what the league is asking for is crazy. Just as I suspect that is what the players are going to ask for, which we will find out on Tuesday. So, in your mind and the rest of the "NHLPA fans" minds are that the league is being totally unreasonable asking for concessions and threatening a lockout. As a hockey fan just wanting to see a deal get done by both sides, I can firmly look at both sides and confirm that they are both equally at fault if there is a lockout.
I would urge people who take sides to step back and look at the bigger picture. Do you think that if the league and players were bargaining in the good faith that there would even be a possibility of a lockout? I think not. Both sides would concede certain things, and deal would happen.
how about you actually discuss my points instead of labeling me an "NHLPA" fan?
I guess it's easier to just tell me what I think so you can dismiss the argument you invented for me.
This should be a relatively painless CBA negotiation but it looks like it could get ugly. I'm going on face value in that I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen and read so far. Bettman has led in again with his hostile and divisive tone. The owners initial offer was a joke. What are you basing your opinions on?
The point you're missing or choosing to ignore is that the NHL is always in a position of greater strength. They are the ones locking players out. They are the ones with the stronger voice in the media. We go to NHL games, not NHLPA games. The NHL has the bully pulpit.
The NHL tried to change the makeup of the divisions and conferences of the league without bothering to consult with any of the people who would actually be playing the games. Why? Because as Bettman pointed out, they weren't required to. It's this kind of open disdain Bettman has for the players union that sets a divisive tone before negotiations even began. It was the warning shot. The league isn't required contractually to discuss realignment with the players, but it's not hard to see why it would've been a good idea to include the guys whose lives and careers would be most effected by the changes.
As I've said many times before, ultimately Bettman is supposed to be a steward of the NHL, not just a shill for current ownership. He is responsible for the overall health of the game, and a collection of owners do not always have that as a priority. His job also requires diplomacy, which is his biggest public failing.
Unless the NHLPA makes some absolutely insane request they refuse to back off of then yes, if we have another work stoppage, ultimately I do hold Bettman more responsible more than anyone else.That's not to say he's the only one to blame, but he is the one in the best position to prevent it.
Unfortunately, lockout seems to be his go-to move.