Owners Fear They've Been Tricked

Status
Not open for further replies.

chiavsfan

Registered User
No i don't think the PA is just doing all of this to avoid an impasse...but at the same time, I don't see how they HONESTLY think they are going to get a better deal than the one b4 the season was cancelled. It's just not common sense to think that after a year off of a job that relies on fan support for profits...that you can get a deal that;s going to pay when fans dont come back. It's not logical
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
irrelevant.

maybe they could have gotten a better deal (i think you also gotta look at things other than just money too...stuff like arbitration and qualifying offers were big factors that killed the deals before the season was canceled) but that's in the past and can't be changed now...maybe they screwed up but you gotta deal with what you have now.

hybrid linkage is an attempt to give the owners some of what they want without just taking their linkage offers...it's not just trying to get a better deal than they could have gotten before.

if they truly aren't serious and this is a impasse ploy, it's pretty stupid at this point, i will say that. i just don't think it is...i think they're still negotiating and trying to find something that works for both sides, something that the league will accept without the PA having to give up everything
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
no13matssundin said:
It should be obvious to all people that all Goodenow and the PA are doing is attempting to weaken the NHL's impasse argument before the NLRB by saying that "progress" was made. The PA have absolutely no intention of going through with any of the "progress" that was reported. The ONLY reason why there was a meeting in which "progress" was made was so that when the NHL does come before the NLRB in response to the PA's charge of impasse not being reached, they can pull out this nugget and attempt to strengthen their argument.

Kinda sad, really. :shakehead

Well Duh.
It should be obvious that all the NHL is doing is trying to strengthen its impasse argument.
The NHL has absolutely no intention of bargaining. The only time progress will be made is if and when the PA capitulates.

Get real.

And Bob McKenzie has really lost all my respect.
He's an out and out schill for the owners.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
I like McKenzie, but I think he's missed the boat here. If the NHLPA is using this as a strategy it will be very transparent to the NLRB as well to any judge that rules on the case. It took a cancelled season and two complaints with the NLRB for the NHLPA to come to the table and "begin" negotiating in ONE meeting. Since then there has been no contact or discussion? Common sense says that it was a CYA move and that will become even more evident when the NLRB or a judge asks them a simple question, "why the delay in continuing on in negotiations after this 'break through' meeting?" There is no answer to that question that will satisfy anyone IMO and the NHLPA will hang themselves. They've been backed into a corner and their only option is to continue working within the framework they discussed last meeting. I'm shocked McKenzie did not consider how this would playout given the history and the moves already made by the NHL in regards to the NLRB and the NHLPA's actions.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
And Bob McKenzie has really lost all my respect.
He's an out and out schill for the owners.

And I'm sure he's really broken up about that. I'm sure he's going to be losing sleep over that lost respect from you (a PA schill) and is probably almost as concerned about that as he is about being struck from Larry Brook's Christmas card list.

:biglaugh:
 

HAWKSWINHAWKSWIN

Registered User
Apr 5, 2002
459
0
The 49th parallel
Visit site
Levitate said:
I find it hard to believe that everything the PA does is just to avoid an impasse...you're basically saying the NHLPA has no interest in signing a CBA and just wants to keep the league from declaring an impasse.

I really don't believe it...to what end does the NHLPA play these games, ultimately? so they "avoid" an impasse...but they're still out of a job! they can only sit around and stall so long, if that's their gameplan like you people seem to be making it out to be.

They have to get a CBA in place if they want to go back to work (for most of the NHLPA at any rate) and negotiating without that in mind makes no sense


and personally i just "love" how the pro-owner crowd jumps all over wild speculation like this as fact and crows "this is EXACTLY what's going on!"

:shakehead

I agree completely. The owners have cancelled one season and I see no reason why they would not be willing to cancel another, if need be. And Bob Goodenow will be long gone down the road before that happens. How many players do you think would be willing to sit out another season? I am sure that the players realize that any deal they are going to get isn't going to be as good as the previous one offered and that a deal had better be in the works, and we are past the point of posturing and drawing lines in the sand. Everyone is pissed off (both sides), so why start pulling tricks now. Get the deal done, get back on the ice, try and resurrect the game without losing 5 or 6 franchaises (thats a lot of lost jobs.....) and make some money.

I think Goodenow would be signing his own walking papers if he tried something like what is being suggested. An angry owner will definitely not be a cooperative owner... :rant:
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Flyguy_1ca said:
I don't understand why there are people that think the owners aren't trying to bargain?

The PA says it just wants a "fair deal"...well, that sounds fair to me.

"Fair deals" involve compromise

The only compromise the owners made was moving off linkage in a last ditch effort to save the season. This after the players made concession (luxury tax is a concession) after concession (rollback is a concession) after concession (rookie salary cap is a concession) etc etc. Now suddenly the PA is conspiring. Yeah, ok.
 

chiavsfan

Registered User
Stop with the rollback crap...and that's exactly what it is and was...CRAP

The rollback was simply the biggest piece of garbage in this whole CBA deal, and even the PA shills should know it. It only affected a certain portion of the NHL, and was a one time only thing that could be made up in a year or two. It meant nothing then, and it means nothing now.

A luxury tax is also crap, they have a luxury tax in baseball...where has that gotten anyone? Hmmm, lets see, nowhere, the Braves, Yankees, and Red Sox are still there every year.

As for last ditch? How about the PA in a last ditch attempt to save the season they finally accept a salary cap. Then what do they do? Piss it away by setting it high, and adding their idiotic Clause 7, which means the owners take the money hit if profits drop, but the players dont take any risk, and still get more money if profits go up.

Both sides are idiots, but to say the PA has conceded anything is moronic. They concede, but only when their back-up plan is in place. The owners have smelled every bluff this time around...and stood pat. It's time for another strategy FROM BOTH SIDES
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Tawnos said:
"Fair deals" involve compromise

The only compromise the owners made was moving off linkage in a last ditch effort to save the season. This after the players made concession (luxury tax is a concession) after concession (rollback is a concession) after concession (rookie salary cap is a concession) etc etc. Now suddenly the PA is conspiring. Yeah, ok.
Luxury tax is a concession by the players? How much does that cost them?

I have never heard the NHLPA say nor read anywhere that they were looking for a fair deal.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
So Goodenow et al set a “trap†to prevent the NHL from declaring an impasse . . . . how in the world can that be perceived as “bargaining in good faith†on the PA end? Isn’t it just as likely that this will blow up in Uncle Bobby’s face as it will thwart the NHL court case?
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Thunderstruck said:
I hope the scenario painted by McKenzie isn't accurate, but it certainly is plausible.



Let them rot until the come crawling back. Sure they can eventually kill the league, but they'd be killing their own bank accounts too.
The owners or the players? I'm not sure which 'they' you are referring to.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
mooseOAK said:
Luxury tax is a concession by the players? How much does that cost them?

I have never heard the NHLPA say nor read anywhere that they were looking for a fair deal.

A concession is something that is offered that the side doesn't actually want. You really think the players want a luxury tax? No, they want what they had before. Anything closer to the owners side than that is a concession.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
HockeyCritter said:
The owners or the players? I'm not sure which 'they' you are referring to.

Should have been clearer. I was suggesting the owners let the players rot.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
I agree completely. The owners have cancelled one season and I see no reason why they would not be willing to cancel another, if need be.

umm...it'd be even more foolish to cancel another season. teams are losing money, and perhaps more importantly, they're losing value. i guarantee none of the owners want to see another locked out season.

the other factor to consider when thinking of this as a "NHLPA ploy" is that, first off, the NHLPA can't unilaterally impliment a new CBA. if they want a CBA, on their terms or whatever, it has to go through the league. I make this point because it means no matter what the NHLPA is going to have to negotiate with the league if they want to ever see NHL hockey again (short of the NHL implimenting a CBA on its own and winning a NLRB case).

So...does it make sense for them to make these kind of "concessions" if they don't really mean it? how does that benefit them in the end? It gets them no closer to playing hockey and it means in any future negotiations, the NHL is gonna beat them over the head with the fact that they already gave up this concession. If it wasn't meant to bargin with in the first place, it definatly puts the NHLPA at a disadvantage in future negotiations. and since the NHLPA must negotiate with the NHL if it wants a CBA that has its input, it ultimately makes no sense to make concessions it has no intention of keeping. just hurts their case further down the road
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
Levitate said:
umm...it'd be even more foolish to cancel another season. teams are losing money, and perhaps more importantly, they're losing value. i guarantee none of the owners want to see another locked out season.

the other factor to consider when thinking of this as a "NHLPA ploy" is that, first off, the NHLPA can't unilaterally impliment a new CBA. if they want a CBA, on their terms or whatever, it has to go through the league. I make this point because it means no matter what the NHLPA is going to have to negotiate with the league if they want to ever see NHL hockey again (short of the NHL implimenting a CBA on its own and winning a NLRB case).

So...does it make sense for them to make these kind of "concessions" if they don't really mean it? how does that benefit them in the end? It gets them no closer to playing hockey and it means in any future negotiations, the NHL is gonna beat them over the head with the fact that they already gave up this concession. If it wasn't meant to bargin with in the first place, it definatly puts the NHLPA at a disadvantage in future negotiations. and since the NHLPA must negotiate with the NHL if it wants a CBA that has its input, it ultimately makes no sense to make concessions it has no intention of keeping. just hurts their case further down the road
The NHLPA can not implement a new CBA. However, it is possible that, if impasse is declared and NLRB sides with the players, the old CBA could be reinstated...which is most certainly what the NHLPA wants.

I do not believe that either side is negotiating only so they have a better case should this end up in front of the NLRB. However, I do believe that is the only way the NHLPA can win. And if they lose in front of the NLRB, the NHLPA will probably end up with a deal not much worse than they will get now. Impasse is much more risky for the owners. If they lose (and I think their chances are no better than 50-50), they could end up under the old CBA, which has been a disaster for the league. IMO, impasse is much more risky for the owners than the NHLPA...which is why I have always favored them just waiting the players out.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
HockeyCritter said:
So Goodenow et al set a “trap†to prevent the NHL from declaring an impasse . . . . how in the world can that be perceived as “bargaining in good faith†on the PA end? Isn’t it just as likely that this will blow up in Uncle Bobby’s face as it will thwart the NHL court case?
Trying to avoid an impasse is not bad-faith bargaining. Trying to force an impasse is.

The fact that the owners feel they may be tricked out of declaring an impasse is quite telling. It sounds as if they are counting on reaching one. That's not bargaining in good faith.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
I think this move (if true) will blow up in the PA's face . . . . . and I do think laying a trap is certainly different than attempting to avoid an impasse . . . . . if Goodenow only put out false feelers to win a court case then I think one could successfully argue that he had no intention of negotiating from the outset (especially when you factor in his “it’s the December 9th proposal or nothing†rhetoric he spouted for so long). The fact that Goodenow would even say they would agree to linkage in principal (if the only reason he did so was to get the NHL to admit progress was being made thereby weakening an impasse claim) is going to hurt him in the long run. All the NLRB has to do is point to the fact the he agreed to linkage and force him to make a deal that includes linkage.

Again, courts don’t like it very much when participants try to show them up . . . . Goodenow is playing with gasoline and an open flame . . . . . he better be damned sure he has his ducks in a row (which I don’t think he has) because he’s going to get burned big time.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
wazee said:
The NHLPA can not implement a new CBA. However, it is possible that, if impasse is declared and NLRB sides with the players, the old CBA could be reinstated...

No it couldn't. It would just mean negotiations must resume without playing with replacements.

Don't spread misinformation.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
HockeyCritter said:
I think this move (if true) will blow up in the PA's face . . . . . and I do think laying a trap is certainly different than attempting to avoid an impasse . . . . . if Goodenow only put out false feelers to win a court case then I think one could successfully argue that he had no intention of negotiating from the outset (especially when you factor in his “it’s the December 9th proposal or nothing†rhetoric he spouted for so long). The fact that Goodenow would even say they would agree to linkage in principal (if the only reason he did so was to get the NHL to admit progress was being made thereby weakening an impasse claim) is going to hurt him in the long run. All the NLRB has to do is point to the fact the he agreed to linkage and force him to make a deal that includes linkage.

Again, courts don’t like it very much when participants try to show them up . . . . Goodenow is playing with gasoline and an open flame . . . . . he better be damned sure he has his ducks in a row (which I don’t think he has) because he’s going to get burned big time.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

Shawnski

Registered User
Jan 8, 2004
94
0
Crazy_Ike said:
No it couldn't. It would just mean negotiations must resume without playing with replacements.

Don't spread misinformation.

Don't be too sure about yourself here Ike.

Check out Scenario 2:

A lengthy hearing could be avoided if the NLRB decides to seek an immediate injunction in federal court.....If the NLRB seeks an injunction, it also means that the NHL's recently expired collective bargaining agreement would immediately go into effect until it's determined that the union and league have legitimately bargained to the point of impasse. This is because, under U.S. labour law, there's an obligation always to preserve the existing terms and conditions of employment which flow from the CBA that's expired, whether it's in existence or not, until the parties bargain to the point of impasse. And so, if in fact, they haven't bargained to the point of impasse, then both sides must abide by the terms and conditions contained in the old CBA.


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/features/impasse_scenarios.html
 

19nazzy

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
17,217
31
Tawnos said:
How is this any worse than the NHL's "obvious" plan to use replacements from the beginning? They were never truly interested in negotiations either.
Exactly.
Nice of the NHL to be blind against the NHLPA and what they're trying to do. Its so ridiculous. And yet you PRO-NHL people think they're all right of course. This shows just how ridiculous the NHL is.
Who is trying to endthe lockout here?
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
HockeyCritter said:
I think this move (if true) will blow up in the PA's face . . . . . and I do think laying a trap is certainly different than attempting to avoid an impasse . . . . . if Goodenow only put out false feelers to win a court case then I think one could successfully argue that he had no intention of negotiating from the outset (especially when you factor in his “it’s the December 9th proposal or nothing†rhetoric he spouted for so long). The fact that Goodenow would even say they would agree to linkage in principal (if the only reason he did so was to get the NHL to admit progress was being made thereby weakening an impasse claim) is going to hurt him in the long run. All the NLRB has to do is point to the fact the he agreed to linkage and force him to make a deal that includes linkage.

Again, courts don’t like it very much when participants try to show them up . . . . Goodenow is playing with gasoline and an open flame . . . . . he better be damned sure he has his ducks in a row (which I don’t think he has) because he’s going to get burned big time.
So, if you represented the NHL, how would you explain away the following?:
  • An Atlanta owner saying in October: 'If we reach an impasse and it goes on for a year, we will attempt to bring in other players.'
  • Failing to make a counter-offer the the NHLPA's October proposal until the union made another proposal in December.
  • At a meeting to 'save the season,' avoiding discussion of CBA items such as 'arbitration, qualifiers and entry level.'
  • Filing a complaint with the NLRB regarding replacment players that would only be material if an impasse is reached.
  • Filing a complaint with the NLRB regarding agents that would only be material if an impasse is reached.
  • Owners telling a reporter that the league was being tricked out of an impasse.

The league is free to declare an impasse whenever they want. If they feel that the latest NHLPA was surface bargaining they can make that argument. But all of the above are things the NHLPA can point to in an attempt to showthat the NHL intended all along to declare an impasse.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Tawnos said:
How is this any worse than the NHL's "obvious" plan to use replacements from the beginning? They were never truly interested in negotiations either.

Uh huh, I see. So the NHL has been "obvious" in wanting to implement replacements all along, which is not the favored method by the majority of the clubs according to reports in the media. What ever you say!

:loony:
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,776
7,800
Danbury, CT
a bit blond, no?

chiavsfan said:
Stop with the rollback crap...and that's exactly what it is and was...CRAP

The rollback was simply the biggest piece of garbage in this whole CBA deal, and even the PA shills should know it. It only affected a certain portion of the NHL, and was a one time only thing that could be made up in a year or two. It meant nothing then, and it means nothing now.

A luxury tax is also crap, they have a luxury tax in baseball...where has that gotten anyone? Hmmm, lets see, nowhere, the Braves, Yankees, and Red Sox are still there every year.

As for last ditch? How about the PA in a last ditch attempt to save the season they finally accept a salary cap. Then what do they do? Piss it away by setting it high, and adding their idiotic Clause 7, which means the owners take the money hit if profits drop, but the players dont take any risk, and still get more money if profits go up.

Both sides are idiots, but to say the PA has conceded anything is moronic. They concede, but only when their back-up plan is in place. The owners have smelled every bluff this time around...and stood pat. It's time for another strategy FROM BOTH SIDES


The rollback in salaries placed the NHL back 10 years in terms of salaries. A fact that the Owners admitted. The reason it was crap as you put it was because there were no parameters put in place to protect the dumbarse owners from themselves which is really why we are where we are.

If the rollback in salaries was made up in 2 years as you put it, it would be at the foot of the owner. Instead of Giving Sakic, Fedorov, Kayria, Yashin and Holik and Peca and Pronger and Blake the contracts they got in the last 10 years, the owners could have been a bit more tight with their money and we are not where we are today.

Let's place all of the blame for where we are squarely on the players and totally disregard the contracts handed out to a 3rd year player like Kayria, or a chronic hold out like Yashin or the bone-headed contracts handed out to both Sakic and Fedorov that paid out 17 and 28 million in one season respectively. I mean because let's face it, the owners had no other choice right?
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
Weary said:
So, if you represented the NHL, how would you explain away the following?:
  • An Atlanta owner saying in October: 'If we reach an impasse and it goes on for a year, we will attempt to bring in other players.'
  • Failing to make a counter-offer the the NHLPA's October proposal until the union made another proposal in December.
  • At a meeting to 'save the season,' avoiding discussion of CBA items such as 'arbitration, qualifiers and entry level.'
  • Filing a complaint with the NLRB regarding replacment players that would only be material if an impasse is reached.
  • Filing a complaint with the NLRB regarding agents that would only be material if an impasse is reached.
  • Owners telling a reporter that the league was being tricked out of an impasse.

The league is free to declare an impasse whenever they want. If they feel that the latest NHLPA was surface bargaining they can make that argument. But all of the above are things the NHLPA can point to in an attempt to showthat the NHL intended all along to declare an impasse.

i dont think any of those items you mentioned suggest that the NHL intended impasse. What they suggest is the NHL knew these negotiations were going to be very difficult and that it was possible there would come a time when impasse was the only way the NHL could survive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->