Posted by chances14
on 17 December 2012 - 03:03 PM
What Uncle Gary said is equally well documented, just more overlooked and forgotten by most who choose to take that path. From Sportsnet:
If he didn't mean it, Uncle Gary shouldn't have said it. Then again, he knew he was going to "turn the key" on 15/09/2012.
also from the article
Fehr, the NHLPA's executive director, hinted Saturday that he might be in favour of putting off serious negotiations until the summer.
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
Fehr wasn't around for the last set of negotiations and he didn't sugarcoat what happened to the union the last time it sat across the table with the league.
"I don't think it's a matter of conjecture whether the players made significant concessions in the last agreement," he said. "It was an enormous amount of money in terms of the wealth transfer over the period of the agreement. The players understand what that was. "They understand what happened."
i think this "we were wronged" attitude is partly to blame in all of this
Posted by chances14
on 13 December 2012 - 11:03 PM
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
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.
Posted by chances14
on 12 December 2012 - 04:50 PM
The owners were exploiting the players in 92
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.
Posted by chances14
on 12 December 2012 - 02:47 PM
The present can often give one a new perspective on the past. Many people may have been on the owners' side during the last lockout, but that doesn't mean the owners' were right or that the hard cap and 24% rollback were the right solution. Furthermore, even if the owners were right it doesn't mean Bettman is the right man to be leading negotiations.
At this point, it's safe to say a pattern has emerged. Three negotiations and three of the five longest work stoppages in pro sports. Almost no one from the players, owners, or PA leadership was around for the first lockout. Many have even changed since the second. But Gary has been a constant. Before Gary, Goodenow led a strike, but it lasted only 10 days and no games were missed. Fehr led one major strike, but also led two negotiations afterward that were resolved without a work stoppage.
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.
You say it's "two sides unwilling to work together", but what does that even mean? Seems to me your definition of "working together" is just "reaching an agreement".
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.
I have no problem in supporting Mr. Fehr and the NHLPA. If you want something bad enough, you go out and put up a good fight to get it.
and the owners are doing exactly that as well, yet you criticize them for it. seems to me like a double standard.
Posted by chances14
on 11 December 2012 - 12:19 AM
Negotiations are give and take. The starting point for who determining who is conceding something is the last CBA, not the first ridiculous proposal the NHL made. Bettman keeps trying this slight of hand and it seems to be working on people.
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
Posted by chances14
on 10 December 2012 - 04:13 PM
Based on the rhetoric, the players want the fans to blame the owners as much as the owners want the fans to blame the players. I don't listen to the rhetoric.
I will say this much, hockey has lost more games due to labor disputes because of both the NHL and NHLPA. Remember, during the last lockout when the players were making over 70% of the total revenues, the league was justified in locking them out. Many were on the owners side then. Were the players at fault for not giving up enough back then? I feel that a deal could have been reached if both sides actually cared about the sport and the fans. Instead, greed ruled above everything else.
This year is no different from any other lockout year in the NHL. There is great distrust between the sides. Both sides want everything and then some. This isn't the fault of one side or the other in specific, but both sides. I have given up trying to tell people here this because of the bias here on these forums toward the players union. When I look back on all the strikes/lockouts of the last 20 years in the NHL though, its hard to not see that both sides are just not able to handle treating the other side with respect and negotiate in good faith. It was going on back during the players strike and all the way up until today.
This next deal will not be the end of these lockouts. You can count on one at the expiration of the next CBA, probably a players strike this time, and you will see lost games. Unlike other leagues, the NFL knows to keep the money train going. The NBA has its share of issues but they worked out a deal with minimal lost games. The NHL still hasn't learned the basics of labor harmony.
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
in all his years of knowing Gary Bettman, Don Cherry had never seen the NHL commissioner as emotional as he was addressing the media following last week’s collective bargaining meetings between the players and owners, which seemingly gained traction and then broke off sharply.
“I’m not saying he was crying or anything, but he actually had water on the sides of his eyes, he was so mad,” Cherry told Brady and Lang on Sportsnet 590 The Fan Monday morning. “I’ve never seen him like that, and I know him personally. I think it’s going to get personal right now. I think they have to hold him back and he’s going to have to bite his lip a little bit because it’s getting personal right now.”
As for the idea of holding a secret ballot within the NHLPA to gauge whether the group is in favour holding out longer for what they want, Cherry believes it can’t hurt. There is no way a player making the league average or lower would voice his opinion otherwise, Cherry said.
“You would be nailed to the cross if you ever stood up and said, ‘Let’s accept the owners’ suggestion and contract,’ ” Cherry explained. “What’s the harm in a secret ballot? If it comes out 100 per cent reject, then at least you know where you stand.
“Guys like (Boston Bruins owner) Jeremy Jacobs -- you think he’s not licking his lips right now?” Cherry asked. “(Players) have got to realize, these teams for these billionaire owners are toys. This is not their main (source of income). If you keep pushing them up the wall, you’re going to be very sorry. They’re calling these billionaires ‘idiots’? That really kills me. You’re not going to snow these guys. These guys have been in negotiations.”
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
among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).
Some other things that the players should like:
1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; 2) Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); 3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city; 4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; 5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; 5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; 6) Ice condition improvements and standards; 7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; 8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; 9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; 10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders.
The players are being generous helping the owners pay for contracts they offered but couldn't afford to
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.
Posted by chances14
on 08 December 2012 - 03:34 PM
Fun fact, for those who say that Mr. Fehr is the reason for this most recent lockout: he wasn't head of the NHLPA for the first two lockouts. Put the blame at the feat of the little of person who turns the lockout key.
fehr is one of the reasons for this most recent lockout and you can be sure he will be a huge reason there will be another lockout in the future even if bettman isn't around. i think it's pretty clear now that the owners seem to have a personal hate of fehr and i don't see that changing anytime soon.
if both sides truly cared about the state of the game, they would clean house after this lockout is over and try to start anew, a working relationship that isn't so dysfunctional that the only way progress is made, is when the leaders of both sides aren't in the negotiating room.