David Tanabe said rumor is that players passing deal is........

[Crazy_Ike]

if i was a player, i wouldn't necessarily ratify this deal either. what would sway me, however, is that proverbial bone that has yet to be thrown...the 04-05 contracts. the NHL is getting too greedy at this point for my liking.

The players bet those contracts on the owners folding in front of their unreasonable demands. Their bluff got called, and now they want to go back on it. Well too bad, PA, if you wanted those contracts to count you should have thought of that before you played chicken based on a flawed and stupid negotiation basepoint.

The NHLPA doesn't deserve those contracts to be honored. Suck it up, losers. It's your own fault.

 

[EroCaps]

It would be hilarious if the players rejected the offer. Could you imagine the PR nightmare that would be?

_ _ _ _

 

[Spungo*]

if i was a player, i wouldn't necessarily ratify this deal either. what would sway me, however, is that proverbial bone that has yet to be thrown...the 04-05 contracts. the NHL is getting too greedy at this point for my liking.

So you would sit out another year? For what? For a 21 million hard cap with 45% linkage deal next year? How about you sit out two more years and wait for that sweet 14 million hard cap with 30% linkage. That's the way to go!

 

[Crazy_Ike]

It would be hilarious if the players rejected the offer. Could you imagine the PR nightmare that would be?

It would almost be worth it just to see the NHLPA self destruct minutes afterwards. Player after player would come out and publically say the PA can go to hell, and they'd play under the negotiated settlement.

How about those who vote "no" go play in their own league? Jim McKenzie might actually be a star!

 

[Spungo*]

Why honor the contracts? The players have nobody to blame but themselves. They cant cry for a do over.

Yeah, the league will honor the players '04-'05 contracts when the NHLPA honors the NHL's lost revenues for '04-'05.

 

[R0CKET]

Any player that says he will vote to reject this CBA is just a shi-tzu barking at a pitt bull. They either have no intention to actually follow thru on their mindless chatter or else they don't have the brains needed to remain part of this living world.

Go ahead Tanabe, get it rejected so when you lose another 1-1.5 million you can't blame anyone but yourself.

Then even if it does get ratified I'd like to see how fast this loser laps up the cash-ola to playing in the NHL again. If he feels that strongly about it nobody would MAKE him accept over 1 million dollars to play a game...he could simply just decide not to do it.

Fat chance.

 

[flambers]

I don't think for a second that the players will vote down the new cba.
That would be yet another wrong decission. The NHL would declaire an impass and impose the new cba and any player not reporting is NHL DEAD.

The NHLPA back itself into a corner and their is simply NO WAY OUT.

I agree, it will pass with ease this player is ticked off and blowing smoke nothing more.

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

50/50


Coyotes defenseman David Tanabe said there is no guarantee that the majority of the rank-and-file members of the union will sign off on the new agreement, which will include a salary cap.

"I get a sense that everyone wants to play," Tanabe said. "Whether or not that means a CBA gets done is still up for question.

"I still think that a deal needs to get by the players' vote and some are rumoring that it is 50/50 among the players as to whether or not it gets by the player vote." - Arizona Republic 7/3/05




If they dont pass this CBA I will give up on the NHL - flame away if you 'd like but I have reached my limit with this BS

Agreed. Better sign it....Wasabi Tanabe.

 

[Mighty Duck]

I don't think for a second that the players will vote down the new cba.
That would be yet another wrong decission. The NHL would declaire an impass and impose the new cba and any player not reporting is NHL DEAD.

The NHLPA back itself into a corner and their is simply NO WAY OUT.

There is no point of me arguing who's fault this is, or how far the players have backed into or been pushed into a corner, but as you know, most NHL players play their best game in the corner. But my opinion is still the same:
1) The NHL Locked out the player.
2) The NHL owners are responsible for over spending. (ask Brian Burke)
3) The NHL tries to sell a product they are always fighting with.
4) The NHL will never make any CBA work until they agree amongst themselves. (they are already fighting over the competition committee)

Now we should have a poll on who will be the first team to beat the system (new CBA). Yes, I know, then we can blame the NHLPA. It will be great to get back watching hockey, so I can buy a beer and yell at the players, call them all sorts of names, and if by chance a player come close enough to me, I can throw my beer at him. This is what we call hockey!

 

[WC Handy*]

If the players reject the CBA that their exec committee agrees to, then I'll be cancelling my season tickets and doing my part to get their piece of the pie as small as possible.. and I just sent that same message to the NHLPA through their website.

 

[blamebettman*]

I don't think the players care about the PR nightmare, they've been abused by the pro bettman lynch mob from the very beginning, so what's another few months.

it's 50/50, tanabe said it.........and everybody here goes into denial. he is not a moron, neither are the players.

so they vote it down, let the NHL go with replacements. as if that's a threat. replacements would last a few weeks, then we'd be back to the table to negotiate.

 

[Mess]

If it is 50/50 the union will be broken. At this point I would hope the owners acheives impasse legally, this way they WILL use replacement players because they know the players who really want to play will report to camp in September, and they would never have to agree to a deal with the union, in fact the union would probably be dissolved.

IF the union voted it down ..

Then ..

1) NHL would declare Impasse and drop the Lockout and insert this CBA as its new IMPASSE CBA ..

2) The NHLPA would go on strike .

3) The NHLPA would then hold a decertification vote .. knowing they hold the majority with an NO vote to accept the CBA.

4) If it Decertify passed with a majority then that action would nulify the IMPASSE CBA in place ..

You would have no Hard Cap, no CBA, no Rules and 700+ UFA with every man for himself with lots of hungry GM's fighting over themselves to get them signed and TOTAL CHAOS ..

Basically if the NHL wants a whole new world then we are going to start from scratch.


HOW DO WE KNOW that this wasn't Goodenow END GAME PLAN all along ??

He said no Hard Cap and Free Society for his players and that is exactly what he could give them by this move in the end ..

We would be following the exact same game plan of the NFL in 1989 during their labour dispute . .

 

[JeffW]

If they reject the offer and there's no hockey in October I'm done with the NHL.

 

[djhn579]

IF the union voted it down ..

Then ..

1) NHL would declare Impasse and drop the Lockout and insert this CBA as its new IMPASSE CBA ..

2) The NHLPA would go on strike .

3) The NHLPA would then hold a decertification vote .. knowing they hold the majority with an NO vote to accept the CBA.

4) If it Decertify passed with a majority then that action would nulify the IMPASSE CBA in place ..

You would have no Hard Cap, no CBA, no Rules and 700+ UFA with every man for himself with lots of hungry GM's fighting over themselves to get them signed and TOTAL CHAOS ..

Basically if the NHL wants a whole new world then we are going to start from scratch.


HOW DO WE KNOW that this wasn't Goodenow END GAME PLAN all along ??

He said no Hard Cap and Free Society for his players and that is exactly what he could give them by this move in the end ..

Are you sure the NHL will declare an impasse if the players vote no for this CBA?

Just because the union does not vote for the CBA, that does not necessarily mean they will agree to decertify.

Personally, I think it would be highly unlikely for the players to reject this CBA. They have missed their paychecks for one year, I doubt they want to lose their money for a second year.

For all we know, Tanabe could be one of those hardcore Goodenow supporters (who now seem to be a distinct minority...) just trying to stir up trouble.

And once again, if decertification was Goodenows plan from the start, he would have held a vote before the last CBA expired and would have told the NHL that the NHLPA will decertify if the NHL insists on bargaining for a hardcap and/or linkage...

 

[futurcorerock]

50/50?! I think Tanabe's math is bad, he must be thinking that 50 out of 50 players will accept this deal.... no way anyone dissents. This isnt getting voted down. Goodenow is going to tell his players to take the deal.

 

[FlyersHomer DM03]

If they reject the offer and there's no hockey in October I'm done with the NHL.

yeah

i'm getting fired up for a possible season right now, and if the upcoming season is put in jeopardy i'm going to be twice as angry as last season and...no more hockey for me

 

[DaveMatthew]

Ha. If the PA rejects this deal, I will laugh my head off. The majority of them would never play hockey again.

The owners would then go ahead with replacements, and set a 15 million dollar cap. The average salary would be below $500 000. It would be hilarious.

 

[Bruwinz37]

IF the union voted it down ..

Then ..

1) NHL would declare Impasse and drop the Lockout and insert this CBA as its new IMPASSE CBA ..

2) The NHLPA would go on strike .

3) The NHLPA would then hold a decertification vote .. knowing they hold the majority with an NO vote to accept the CBA.

4) If it Decertify passed with a majority then that action would nulify the IMPASSE CBA in place ..

You would have no Hard Cap, no CBA, no Rules and 700+ UFA with every man for himself with lots of hungry GM's fighting over themselves to get them signed and TOTAL CHAOS ..

Basically if the NHL wants a whole new world then we are going to start from scratch.


HOW DO WE KNOW that this wasn't Goodenow END GAME PLAN all along ??

He said no Hard Cap and Free Society for his players and that is exactly what he could give them by this move in the end ..

We would be following the exact same game plan of the NFL in 1989 during their labour dispute . .

That is very creative, but highly, highly unlikely scenario. .0000000000000000001% unlikely.

 

[blamebettman*]

Ha. If the PA rejects this deal, I will laugh my head off. The majority of them would never play hockey again.

The owners would then go ahead with replacements, and set a 15 million dollar cap. The average salary would be below $500 000. It would be hilarious.

it would be hilarious

but would it be good for hockey to have ECHL scrubs masquerading as NHL players in front of 18,000 empty seats?

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

I don't think the players care about the PR nightmare, they've been abused by the pro bettman lynch mob from the very beginning, so what's another few months.

it's 50/50, tanabe said it.........and everybody here goes into denial. he is not a moron, neither are the players.

so they vote it down, let the NHL go with replacements. as if that's a threat. replacements would last a few weeks, then we'd be back to the table to negotiate.

Negotiate what????????

 

[Trottier]

If it is 50/50 the union will be broken. At this point I would hope the owners acheives impasse legally, this way they WILL use replacement players because they know the players who really want to play will report to camp in September, and they would never have to agree to a deal with the union, in fact the union would probably be dissolved.

It could be suggested however, that the NHL is in it's ideal position dealing with a "weak" union, rather than no union whatsoever.

And, by all accounts, this union is now significantly weakened, relative to where they were 12 months ago, based on the reported terms of the next CBA.

Not certain that 700+ mercenaries negotiating their individual terms for employment on an ongoing basis (i.e., no union) would serve the league's (owners') best interest from a continuity/stability standpoint.

 

[Jackets16]

It could be suggested however, that the NHL is in it's ideal position dealing with a "weak" union, rather than no union whatsoever.

And, by all accounts, this union is now significantly weakened, relative to where they were 12 months ago, based on the reported terms of the next CBA.

Not certain that 700+ mercenaries negotiating their individual terms for employment on an ongoing basis (i.e., no union) would serve the league's (owners') best interest from a continuity/stability standpoint.

how is a weak union better than none for the owner of a business. no union means they can do whatever they one. even in a weak one they must do some things they dont want to. there is a huge diff, ive worked hard labor for a non union company before, believe me, thats the best way for the owner(and the worst for a worker )

 

[danaluvsthekings]

Question- say only 48% of the players voted to accept the deal, so it didn't pass. Would the NHL be able to claim there really was an impasse? If you only need 50%+1 to pass the deal, the players association could argue to the NLRB saying that through negotiation they had almost reached a deal that was acceptable to their members and that there was not an impasse, they just need a little more time at the negotiating table to complete a deal that would be acceptable to both sides.

Also for all you people who appear so eager to see replacement players, remember that foreign born players cannot be used as replacement workers during a labor dispute so there's no guarantee the NHL could even go the replacement player route.

 

[salty justice]

The only guy I can see voting it down is Bryan McCabe

 

[Crazy_Ike]

If it was voted down and impasse declared, almost half the union would immediately cross the line - those that voted 'yes'. The rest would have a choice of sitting out their careers or following them over. There would be none of this "replacement ECHL players" baloney - it would be NHLers playing, not all of them, but easily enough, and probably including many of the high salary ones as well. The union would destroy themselves. It would be the shortest "strike" in history. The selfish twats who have dragged this out this long have already lost enough faith from the rank and file, that would be just another notch in the club.

Good to see Messenger claiming this was Goodenow's master plan, though. Some things never change.