I can also blame the union and the players for not being willing to budge off of key financial points. The league has one method in mind, and the players have another method in mind. Who is to blame here? Both sides for not being willing to compromise in the least bit.
I don't really understand the fixation on the union not meeting months ago, other than it's really the only thing to try and blame just them for so far.
The union not wanting to meet last season is bad on them and they should be blamed, but the owners locking the players out and not being willing to negotiate this season is ok and makes sense?
We're 9 days out from the what was supposed to be the start of the regular season and there's no movement on either side. Any day now they'll start to announce the cancellation of games. I don't know what people think would've happened had they started meeting in January. Bettman even said he wasn't worried about the timetable back then.
Right now they still can't even agree on what constitutes HRR. It's not about lack of time.
It's not just about meeting with Daly and Bettman. Fehr was a relatively new president of the union and I'm guessing wanted to meet with a lot of the players, get a feel for where they stand on issues and also inform them of how he saw things.
That's a little harder to do with hundreds of players while the season is going on than it is 30 owners.
In a perfect world, yes they would've started meeting in January and had a deal hashed out this summer. I honestly (and naively) thought this would go relatively painlessly given the massive increase in revenue since the last CBA.
But the two sides are so monumentally far apart right now that it's looking like the only way a deal will be made is to play chicken with this season and see who gives first.
Once again, we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today. Its easy to dismiss this claim as a mere formality, but the simple fact of the matter is that with more time, this lockout could have been avoided. We don't know for sure one way or the other, but I would have loved to have seen an NHL and an NHLPA that were willing to work hard to avoid a lockout. The sooner that they met, the better off they would have been and the happier the fans would have been in the end. They would have seen two sides that genuinely cared about hockey. As it turned out, we all saw two sides that were monumentally greedy. The league gave a crap lowball offer while the union sat until the last minute and played the PR game which didn't result in a deal being made.
At least you finally came out and said that it was a mistake for the union to not start negotiating last season. I know that was a hard step for you to take, and the very first constructive comment I have heard you take against the players association.
Ok, fair enough. I choose to take what both sides say to face value. When I hear the league say, "We are ready," I believe them. Just like I believe the players when Fehr makes a statement. We can agree to disagree.
No. I'm not advocating for either side in this debate, I am merely pointing out that despite your claims, the league was not willing to negotiate in January despite what they said. You keep bringing it up like it's a viable excuse for the owners locking out the players. I didn't claim anything about the PA or mention anything they said...I don't even have an argument, except that what you are claiming about the leagues willingness to negotiate is false.
I don't care who caves or what the CBA looks like or what constitutes HRR or what percentage of 3 billion dollars who gets to get for the next year, or two, or ten. Give me f****** hockey already.
With 6 months to negotiate instead of 6 weeks, a lockout could have been avoided. Just because they are at an impasse now doesn't mean with more time they wouldn't have been able to come up with a solution. We don't know for sure either way, but I will take more time than less that's for sure.
The quote below suggests that it is not lack of negotiating time, which causes the impasse. Sides understand each other, they just do not agree. So more meetings would not achieve much until some change to the circumstances of either side occurs.