Kasparov*
Guest
Does this ensure there will be a season next year? or is next season still up in the air too if they dont make an agreement?
Kasparov said:Does this ensure there will be a season next year? or is next season still up in the air too if they dont make an agreement?
Kasparov said:Does this ensure there will be a season next year? or is next season still up in the air too if they dont make an agreement?
I'd say everything's up in the air at this point. The owners will have to decide if they want to escalate the war further by declaring an impasse, the courts would have to agree with them, the players would have to remain united in the face of all that without settling, and then the league would have to find the replacements. And the courts would then have to agree with that. I don't think any prospective season will start in October next year, anyway. Too many ifs to even know if it will start at all.Kasparov said:Does this ensure there will be a season next year? or is next season still up in the air too if they dont make an agreement?
Personally, I don't understand the "Bettman only needs 8 of 30 votes to accomplish this" bit... so what? Bettman has a lot more than 8 of 30 votes, and even if 22 out of 30 opposed him, he would be following the direction of the 22, not the 8.mjolnir13 said:Considering the comments made by the Atlanta and Boston owners, I would say that there's no doubt they'll be going the impasse route. Remember -- Bettman only needs 8 of 30 votes to accomplish this.
I guess it would depend on the details of the applicable labour laws and on past precedents. I don't see that the league's "we must have a cap" rhetoric is any more or less fair than the union's "we will not accept a cap" rhetoric. I think it's fair for both sides to bargain however they see fit; however, I'm just annoyed that they choose to do it in such a confrontational manner, and that they choose to do so much of their talking through the media, instead of in lengthy head-to-head bargaining sessions.However, considering some of the things that's happened, he may have a hard time convincing any labor board that the "bargained" fairly. From what I understand, his demand for cap acceptance before even talking can be construed as an unfair labor practice.
I realise that this is the technical setup, but I don't believe that it is operative in reality. That is, sure, Bettman technically could call the shots with the backing of just 8 owners. But the fact is he has the backing of 30 owners now, and if he was ever in a situation where a majority of the owners didn't back his plan, he would, practically speaking, be forced to alter his plan. He's a league spokesman, not some criminal mastermind manipulating the owners for his own nefarious purposes!mjolnir13 said:No. Basically Bettman is the one calling the shots. The 8-votes thing refers to how many votes he needs to reject any Union offer. (I believe it used to be at least a majority).
Blind Gardien said:I realise that this is the technical setup, but I don't believe that it is operative in reality. That is, sure, Bettman technically could call the shots with the backing of just 8 owners. But the fact is he has the backing of 30 owners now, and if he was ever in a situation where a majority of the owners didn't back his plan, he would, practically speaking, be forced to alter his plan. He's a league spokesman, not some criminal mastermind manipulating the owners for his own nefarious purposes!
? Read above. It is a technical reality in writing, but do you actually believe that Bettman and 8 owners would veto the other 22?mjolnir13 said:BG, unfortunately, this 8-vote rejection count is a reality. Even if 22 owners had wanted to accept the players' most recent proposals, they would have been outvoted. This came about because of the 1994 lockout and the subsequent renewal of the most recent CBA a few years later. At those times, the league needed a majority....much to Bettman's credit, this was changed.
Blind Gardien said:? Read above. It is a technical reality in writing, but do you actually believe that Bettman and 8 owners would veto the other 22?
(Not could, but would!). They could. We know. But if 22 owners supported the players' latest proposal, training camps would be open right now. No question about it.
I wonder how many other people out there believe in this?mjolnir13 said:Yes they would. One of the main contentions between the "hawks" and the "doves" is the fact that they had enough votes to reject the 1994 offer and at the last minute one or two owners got skittish and switched sides at the last minute. Same thing happened a few years later when they had to renew the contract.
This is 8-vote deal was compensation to the ones who didn't want to renew the cba. It is not a technical-reality; it is reality.
Benji Frank said:The key part of this 8 vote thing as I understand it, is if Betman is in favour & 8 owners behind him are in favour, then he'll continue in that pursuance. I could be wrong, but if he's in favour & say 23 are not in favour, he'd likely step down ... IE -> since less then 8 see his agenda as the correct agenda.
IE -> if Betman recommended rejecting the last player offer and 24 of the 30 owners thought they should accept it, then Betman's out.....
I could be in misunderstanding on this though.......