Do you have a link to Fehr saying he wouldn't negotiate?
Same way how I say you have no idea how if the NHLPA and the NHL started bargaining in January, that they may have come to a deal with the extra time they had. You say there is no way it would have happened. I say its possible given the extra time. In this case, you choose to believe a new NHL commissioner would be more accomodating. I say not so fast, and that a new commissioner would probably lock out the players being as that the owners are only making 43%. So who is right in this case? Without anything to base it on except our gut, neither of us are right.
The ownership obviously believes that they can get a better deal. Its not like Bettman is doing his own thing here.
Thats funny, when the NHL put forward the proposal before the big 50/50 proposal, they were waiting for the NHLPA to come to the table and put forward a proposal, yet the NHLPA wouldn't do it. With Fehr saying this wasn't a game of "ping-pong" and he wasn't going to negotiate. No words for Fehr when he pulls that kind of buffoonery, but you have plenty for Bettman when he pulls the same stunt? I certainly don't excuse either side for their part in this charade, and neither should you. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Because I remember Fehr saying the taking turns thing but that's not the same as refusing to negotiate.
Fehr ultimately paid the price for not putting forth the proposal because it allowed Bettman to pull the big PR stunt with the 50/50 offer that would save the season, even though that ultimately turned out not to be what it actually was.
And we've played this game before, remember? It's not my fault you apparently can't comprehend or remember any of the posts where I've been critical of the union.
EDIT: Nevermind, I found the actual context of Fehr's statement.
Although the two sides are scheduled to reconvene Saturday and Sunday, those financial issues are not expected to be addressed.
According to NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, the league is waiting for the union to make a move before that discussion resumes.
NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr pointed out, however, that bargaining does not have to follow any strict format and that the union is open to discussing such issues at any time.
"Bargaining is not ping-pong. There are no rules," Fehr said. "Whenever the parties are ready to discuss that, we can do it."
"I understand Steve's comment about it not being a ping-pong match and I don't disagree with that necessarily," Daly later said, "but at some point we've got to see a willingness from the Players' Association to compromise because they haven't shown any willingness to compromise at this point."
Steve Fehr said the Union is constantly working on ideas that could turn into proposals, but his hope is that the NHL is doing the same thing.
"It's clear that they say they would like a new proposal from us. For that matter we would like a new proposal from them," Fehr said. "Neither side should stand on ceremony. If either side has an idea that will help they should bring it forward."
Fehr also suggested that the major economic issues can be discussed without proposals being made.
"You don't have to have an offer to have a meeting," Fehr said. "Most of the last few weeks, unless it was on their terms -- that is, unless we have a proposal -- they don't seem very interested in discussing the core economics."
So it's pretty much what's going on right now between the sides. The NHL refused to meet with the players unless they had a proposal that was based closely off the NHL's last proposal because they feel the players need to concede more.
In other words, Fehr's ping pong comment was pretty much the opposite of how you characterized it.