RDriesen16 said:how is a weak union better than none for the owner of a business.
What other options would the owners have ??djhn579 said:Are you sure the NHL will declare an impasse if the players vote no for this CBA? ...
That is certainly true .. but what options would they have that a NO vote to this CBA would give them .. Owners are no longer obligated to negotiate.djhn579 said:Just because the union does not vote for the CBA, that does not necessarily mean they will agree to decertify....
As do I but this is more in response to Tanabe comment that is close or 50/50 if you prefer .. That is his opinion and how valid or correct he is we don't know .. They hold personal players polls on the NHLPA website all the time for players to get a feel ..djhn579 said: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.....
He could be .. From his speech it hard to tell which side he is on . .djhn579 said: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......
This part I do not agree with because .. The owners caved in the past to the NHLPA and in order to test if that would happen again the NHLPA had to wait to see if they would cancel the season or cave into no Hard Cap mid season .. SO that was inevitable to happen .. The players got their answer and so now they need to decide their new move of which one is to decertify .. To truly have meaning you really need a CBA in place YOU DON'T LIKE to dispute. They loved the old CBA as players and decertifying would have stopped any change it was renewed again or a modified verson used. That timing would have been off when you suggest.djhn579 said: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...
I am not claiming that .. I am asking the question to the board here .. How do we know it isn't?Crazy_Ike said:Good to see Messenger claiming this was Goodenow's master plan, though. Some things never change.
yet the NFL operates with a cap today.The Messenger said: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 . .
The Messenger said:I am not claiming that .. I am asking the question to the board here .. How do we know it isn't?
Goodenow has apparently been pushed to the side and Tanabe claims its 50/50 and with those two things together .. What harm does it do Goodenow and the hardliners to decertify .. Nothing
That is only to guess what options the NHLPA would have or motive to vote no ..
I personally don't think they will vote NO ..
Master Shake said:Why honor the contracts?
RDriesen16 said:yep, thats life. you take risks like this when you go on strike.
SuperNintendoChalmrs said:Agreed. Better sign it....Wasabi Tanabe.
Which it will be. Gary's maxim of "it's only going to get worse" has held true thus far.Newsguyone said:They'll sign it if they believe it's the best deal they can get.
jericholic19 said:the league has me on my knees ready to give up...but not without a fight!
This raises an interesting question for me. Some people had a discussion a while back about concessions coming because financial pressure was soley on the NHLPA's shoulders. If (and I think that's a fairly small possibility) the deal gets voted down by the PA and we miss another season, doesn't the burden start shifting to the owners as financial values of the franchises go into a tailspin? The franchises aren't generating revenue, and the league as a whole (multiplying out from the $300-$400 they say they've lost) loses $600-$800 million again while the players' losses drop (less players had contracts for this season, so the amount of guaranteed money goes away). And if the owners come under financial pressure, wouldn't it stand to reason they would make concessions as well (not in the area of player salary, but perhaps in UFA rules, the so-called "franchise player" exception, contract rollovers minus the rollback, et al)?norrisnick said:Which it will be. Gary's maxim of "it's only going to get worse" has held true thus far.
Crazy_Ike said:Recent history suggests the PA no longer has very good eyesight when it comes to getting the best deal they can get.
8)
The morbid cynic in me almost wishes they do vote it down, just to see so many idiots watch their careers pointlessly go down the drain. I've never seen a group of anyone so collectively stupid as the NHLPA.
The Messenger said:4) If it Decertify passed with a majority then that action would nulify the IMPASSE CBA in place ..
Kritter471 said:This raises an interesting question for me. Some people had a discussion a while back about concessions coming because financial pressure was soley on the NHLPA's shoulders. If (and I think that's a fairly small possibility) the deal gets voted down by the PA and we miss another season, doesn't the burden start shifting to the owners as financial values of the franchises go into a tailspin? The franchises aren't generating revenue, and the league as a whole (multiplying out from the $300-$400 they say they've lost) loses $600-$800 million again while the players' losses drop (less players had contracts for this season, so the amount of guaranteed money goes away). And if the owners come under financial pressure, wouldn't it stand to reason they would make concessions as well (not in the area of player salary, but perhaps in UFA rules, the so-called "franchise player" exception, contract rollovers minus the rollback, et al)?
I think it's been fairly well documented that the vast majority of the concessisions in these talks have come from the union's side. If there's a no vote, I think we may see a quick concession or two (again, the most obvious is the contract rollover) by the league in order to get the players to vote yes. Neither side can really "afford" to lose another season, but if the players as a whole vote no, it's really up to the league to tempt them into voting yes with some sort of concession.
jericholic19 said:well i can see i drew a few nasty responses. to be honest, if i was a player, i'd believe that the deal which is going to be signed now will be better than it would have been in february. this new deal allows the cap to rise
The Messenger said:HOW DO WE KNOW that this wasn't Goodenow END GAME PLAN all along ??
Spungo said:The imprtant part is that it allows the cap to drop significantly. We could be looking at a 29 million hard cap next year if the league loses revenue potential due to the lockout.
norrisnick said:They won't get anything directly tied to more money or quicker salary inflation. They might get younger UFA status but rejecting this deal will make the monetary hit so much worse that it wouldn't matter. What good is being a star UFA at 24 if the best anyone can offer you is $3M?
That is provided all 30 teams stick it out together. At some point the option of lopping off the bottom 5/10 teams and creating an overall smaller, but higher average economic framework. But then that isn't going to fly with 25-33% of the 'PA membership because they'll be out of a job.
I don't see any deal outside of this one currently being drafted being better for all 700+ 'PA members.
Master Shake said:Why honor the contracts? The players have nobody to blame but themselves. They cant cry for a do over.
RDriesen16 said:yep, thats life. you take risks like this when you go on strike. i would love to see an nhl player talk to one of the manufacturing workers or plant workers in my town