Posted by chances14
on 12 December 2012 - 08:41 PM
Leadership on the PA side has already been cleaned. Fehr has only been around for two years. He also played a part in resolving exactly this type of owner-player distrust/dislike in MLB.
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
That's rather vague. What could one side do that you would consider concentrating enough on getting a deal done?
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've got a few friends playing this game, it looks pretty amazing. I have an old PC so I really can't run any modern game or anything that exceeds the graphical and memory demands of Angry Birds. One day i'll pick up a gaming PC again and plan on checking this game out. I think the lack of a monthly subscription fee is very appealing for an online MMO, buy the game and play it all you want, that's how it should be.
Not that the PA's offer was the be-all-end-all, but from the reporting it sounds like the League is sitting back waiting for the PA to come up with some kind of offer that will fix all the League's problems for them.
I think the league is sitting back because after their "3 up, 3 rejected" response within the course of an hour to the NHLPA's counteroffers in October, they'll look like absolute clowns if they reject this thing immediately again. Still, as this portion of Pierre LeBrun's article hints, I find it hard to believe this approach will gain a significant foothold for the NHLPA:
BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF HRR For the first time, the NHLPA offered a framework based on the league’s preferred system of a percentage linked to hockey-related revenue, instead of a system based on guaranteed dollars. In this case, the NHLPA agrees to go to 50 percent of HRR right from Year 1. However, a key line in the proposal bears underlying: "There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season."
Essentially, it means the players are guaranteed to make no less in total dollars than the year before. The league won’t like that.
The NHL have to be nuts to guarantee the players that their share of revenue will not go down in subsequent years. What if the fans revolt and attendance is down? What if the world economy takes a massive dump and people just stop spending money on the NHL?
Let's say HRR is $3 billion next year (randomly selected #). In Year 1, you have a 50/50 split, so $1.5 billion each for owners and players. Let's say in Year 2, HRR drops to $2.2 billion for some reason. Under the NHLPA proposal, the players now have over 68 PERCENT of HRR b/c the CBA says that they can't make less than $1.5 billion.
Also, the language makes no sense to me. If Year 2 has to be as high as Year 1, then does Year 3 have to be as high as Year 2? In other words, it could never drop below whatever number it was in Year 1. However, it could go up. The NHLPA is basically proposing a unilaterally fixed MINIMUM for the players. No way in hell the league agrees to that, and I don't blame them in this instance.
oh my...When I say it's both sides I mean nhlpa AND bettmans fault...I don 't like either side...I don't stand closer to either side meaning I'm not going to do like "some" on here and say it's all bettmans and the owners fault . that doesn't mean that I'm all in on saying it's the nhlpa's fault either.
OK, fair enough. Almost everything I have seen you say up to this point though has been pro-league and anti-union/Fehr, so you can't blame me for thinking that.
Everyone, please remember that this thread is for discussion of the lockout, meetings, etc. pointing out each other's posting style and viewpoints in a "gotcha" game isn't exactly staying on topic.
What I think the problem is, is certain people on BOTH sides of the arguement in this thread are completely ignoring the specifics of the actual CBA proposals and have taken either a hardline pro-league or pro-players stance based 100% on their political views regarding unions, and nothing else.