Owners should include this clause:

[Rakiet*]

Here I go again:

I think the owners who've got the biggest stake in the next deal should step in and demand the following: The bargaining committees for both side must begin negociations no later than 2.5 years before teh current is set to expire, should a deal not be reached by the mid-way point of the last season in the offer, all who are involved in negociations will be banned from playing, banned from being involved in hockey operations period, cutting off their pay to put financial pressure on the negociaters. They would be obliged to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, until an agreement has been reached.

Personal financial pressure, nobody wants to lose their own money. Hit them where it really hurts.

Click to read more...

 

[Scoogs]

I honestly think somethink like this was already in the previous CBA. I remember reading it..

Correct me if I'm wrong though..

 

[Jacob]

What constitutes "negotiating"? They can be in the same room together, but I don't know how you police, or define, negotiating.

 

[DeleteThisAccount]

Mutually forced negotiations would be fruitless, anyway, in my opinion.

 

[bcrt2000]

what they should have is maybe a CBA conference between the 2 sides after every year or every 2 years so that players/owners can voice their concerns

 

[Mess]

Sportsnet Hockey Central Panel suggest the CBA should include something in it that negotiations need to begin by a certain date and if no new CBA is reached with in 1 month of the new season then it is sent to an arbitrator for his ruling .. Binding Arbitration is their suggestion ..

 

[Tawnos]

I sincerely doubt this is going to be necessary. When the next CBA negotiation begins, there isn't going to be nearly as large of a philosophical divide as there was this time and they'll probably have a deal within a few weeks like the NBA once negotiations start.

 

[NYR469]

forcing them to start negotiations won't make 1 ounce of difference because no one budges in these type of talks until the 11th hour (or the 1100th hour in this case)...

if the 2 sides had been forced to start talks 2 1/2 years before the cba had expire the result would have been 3 years worth of cap/no cap rhetoric instead of 6 months of it before real talks started.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Here I go again:

I think the owners who've got the biggest stake in the next deal should step in and demand the following: The bargaining committees for both side must begin negociations no later than 2.5 years before teh current is set to expire, should a deal not be reached by the mid-way point of the last season in the offer, all who are involved in negociations will be banned from playing, banned from being involved in hockey operations period, cutting off their pay to put financial pressure on the negociaters. They would be obliged to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, until an agreement has been reached.

Personal financial pressure, nobody wants to lose their own money. Hit them where it really hurts.

In pro sports people need to miss games to be hurt financially. It's always a waiting game, who can afford to lose money and games played etc. That's why I think pro-sports disputes last so long. It's because players only get paid during the 6 months of a season. It's kind of like teachers unions. They wait it out until one side loses a class day. Negotiating early does nothing in pro sports. One side needs to be hurt financially for the other side to give in more. That's why I don't think ending the CBA on June 30 is any different then September 15. Maybe from now on it could be a good idea to end the CBA a little early though, because hopefully there won't be much to change in the next CBA. But my point is when you have huge differences in opinion, you need to miss games and have the other side fold. Negotiating this CBA in 2003 wouldn't have done the NHL any more good then negotiating on Dec 9 of this year.

 

[GSC2k2*]

With the greatest respect, this is a silly idea.

Binding arbitration is even worse.

 

[HckyFght*]

Here I go again:

I think the owners who've got the biggest stake in the next deal should step in and demand the following: The bargaining committees for both side must begin negociations no later than 2.5 years before teh current is set to expire, should a deal not be reached by the mid-way point of the last season in the offer, all who are involved in negociations will be banned from playing, banned from being involved in hockey operations period, cutting off their pay to put financial pressure on the negociaters. They would be obliged to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, until an agreement has been reached.

Personal financial pressure, nobody wants to lose their own money. Hit them where it really hurts.

I love this idea! Make it so numbah one!
-HckyFght!

 

[HckyFght*]

I sincerely doubt this is going to be necessary. When the next CBA negotiation begins, there isn't going to be nearly as large of a philosophical divide as there was this time and they'll probably have a deal within a few weeks like the NBA once negotiations start.

Don't you think that the NBA got down to business BECAUSE they were terrified by what happened to the NHL?
-H

 

[Haj]

What constitutes "negotiating"? They can be in the same room together, but I don't know how you police, or define, negotiating.

The fans hire extremely aggressive ex-mossad agents to provide "incentive" for both parties to negotiate.

 

[Tawnos]

Don't you think that the NBA got down to business BECAUSE they were terrified by what happened to the NHL?
-H

Don't you think that the NHL will be terrified of it happening again?

 

[Scoogs]

Don't you think that the NBA got down to business BECAUSE they were terrified by what happened to the NHL?
-H

That definately was a factor, but the main reason was that their system was already built, agreed upon and working. While the NHL had to tear it down, and remake theirs starting from nothing.

 

[Rakiet*]

Well something should be done to prevent this from happening again.
Personally, if I'm Trevor Linden, and if this was in place in the last CBA, I would work my ass off to get something done and so would the people I'd be negociating with. If they can't do the job then they should get punished for it. I don't know of a better insurance policy to avoid this from ever happening again

 

[SJeasy]

A good suggestion that they probably would never accept would be to hold all revenues in escrow until a new deal is reached. No strike/no lockout/no income until they figure it out. (They could have a clause to release funds for concessions, maintenance people etc.) But the games get played.

 

[Rakiet*]

That seems a little complicated, but it would probably work wonders in negociations. The approach I would take would be to punish the actual negociators, their supposed to be the ones who have talent at it so they should meet standards.