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

[norrisnick]

what strike??

if the nhlers were on strike then you might have a point, but they aren't. they were locked out by the players HUGE difference.

Huge difference indeed.

 

[NYR469]

Huge difference indeed.

oops that should say locked out by the owners obviously

 

[GSC2k2*]

it was rumored for a while that the reason negotiations had been moving along was that Gartner seized power from goodenow some time ago, but we learn last week that Gartner had just joined the discussions. so perhaps it was Goodenows plan.

What we learned earlier was that Gartner had rejoined negotiations. His attendance has been reported in many earlier sessions.

I remember hearing an Eklund interview a few weeks ago, there he discusses the Gretzky/Lemieux/Bettman debacle, and mentions that Goodenow pretended to be fired, the NHL was sure the PA had already collapsed going into NY....

You are quoting Eklund when it is convenient to do so, I see.

perhaps Goodenow is once again pretending to be pushed to the wayside, after all Saskin is still heavily involved, and he is about as hardline as Goodenow.

THe consensus has always been that Daly and Saskin are the "reasonable" ones. I see you are only too happy to slither around to suit however you want to spin things. You are Massager's junior partner. Keep working at it, though.

 

[PecaFan]

This is all just grumbling from some hard liner who's angry 'cause he got his ass handed to him in negotiations.

There's no way the vote will even be close. I'm still predicting 90-95% follow the Union recommendation.

 

[hbk]

This is all just grumbling from some hard liner who's angry 'cause he got his ass handed to him in negotiations.

There's no way the vote will even be close. I'm still predicting 90-95% follow the Union recommendation.

It would be a PR disaster for the Players to Reject the deal at this point. Consider this tough talk over what has been an unenjoyable process for the players. When push comes to shove, the vast majority are going to mark the box to accept despite how they really feel.

I would say that the vast majority of players are not anxious to repeat this process any time soon and this experience over the past year has likely switched the balance of power for future CBA talks going forward over to the side of the owners.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Huge difference indeed.

Nice use of smileys there, fella.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Anyone else think this comment was all about that "Stategery" stuff?


The PA wants the NHL to think that the vote will be close...down to the final minute...If the NHL thinks its going to be close, they might be willing to give a bit more...and the NHLPA wants every little thing that it can get right now....

I think that we will hear more little things like this over the next 2-3 days...in an attempt to get the NHL to move on the final one or two issues...

 

[djhn579]

Anyone else think this comment was all about that "Stategery" stuff?


The PA wants the NHL to think that the vote will be close...down to the final minute...If the NHL thinks its going to be close, they might be willing to give a bit more...and the NHLPA wants every little thing that it can get right now....

I think that we will hear more little things like this over the next 2-3 days...in an attempt to get the NHL to move on the final one or two issues...

That's the view I'm taking on these comments, an attempt to try to pressure the NHL into more concessions. It's about the only leverage the PA has right now.

The problem is, if after going through all this effort to draft a CBA the players vote no, the NHL can sit back and wait for the players to come back and offer the exact same thing again. They may possibly include some vary minor tweeks, but all voting no will do for the players is cost them even more money. The owners would lose money too, of course, but they will make it back in time through lower player salaries and increasing team values. Waiting favors the owners...

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Alan Hahn

http://www.newsday.com/sports/hocke...03,0,4082788.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists

There will be some campaigning against ratification, if for no other reason than to regain some of the juice the union lost after the February fallout. There is always the chance that an initial rejection of the deal might cause the NHL to make some last-minute concessions, but don't count on it. In 1995, the CBA was rejected by the players before it was ratified two days later.

 

[mooseOAK*]

The deal won't be good for the players because the NHLPA pushed the league too far. Turning down this deal merely means a worse one for the players in the future.

I hope that they all realize this by now.

 

[Scoogs]

In 1994, the CBA was rejected by the players before it was ratified two days later

I did not know that.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Andrew Raycroft...

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/articles/2005/07/03/a_cloudy_picture_for_raycroft/

Some players have been openly critical of the union, saying that if they were going to take the financial hit, they should have come to terms back in February, prior to cancellation of the season. However, Raycroft believes a resolution was never a viable option then.

''There was a lot of stuff going on in February," he said. ''I think just the fact that it's taken four weeks of 80-hour weeks to get this done now, it's kind of shortsighted to say we could have gotten something done in February and still had a season. I just don't think it could have gotten done in February, no matter what anyone says.

 

[Large_Farva*]

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/articles/2005/07/03/a_cloudy_picture_for_raycroft/

Some players have been openly critical of the union, saying that if they were going to take the financial hit, they should have come to terms back in February, prior to cancellation of the season. However, Raycroft believes a resolution was never a viable option then.

''There was a lot of stuff going on in February," he said. ''I think just the fact that it's taken four weeks of 80-hour weeks to get this done now, it's kind of shortsighted to say we could have gotten something done in February and still had a season. I just don't think it could have gotten done in February, no matter what anyone says.

yeah, that's what Im thinkin too.

 

[Scoogs]

I think despite what the NHL says, they would have drafted the documents while the season started up. But made sure this time that it was done correctly. If they had a choice of playoff revenue or no playoff revenue, they would choose the first option for sure.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

'I think just the fact that it's taken four weeks of 80-hour weeks to get this done now, it's kind of shortsighted to say we could have gotten something done in February and still had a season. I just don't think it could have gotten done in February, no matter what anyone says.

Maybe Deadline Bob should have thought of that *before* february?

Nah...

 

[Kritter471]

Maybe Deadline Bob should have thought of that *before* february?

Nah...

Maybe the wonderful Mr. Bettman should have thought of that before offering his "last, best" deal about 3 days before the deadline.

Or maybe all of the shills on both sides should have thought of that before spouting off how "the season should have been saved in February if the PA/BOG/God would have just taken the offer."

 

[habs_24x]

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.

seems obvious to me as well... What the hell were all those meetings for ?
The players have a leadership that has been working out a new deal with the NHL for the past 2 months. The players trust these guys to get the best deal for them.
So i say its 99% sure the players pass the final draft. those are some good odds.

 

[futurcorerock]

seems obvious to me as well... What the hell were all those meetings for ?
The players have a leadership that has been working out a new deal with the NHL for the past 2 months. The players trust these guys to get the best deal for them.
So i say its 99% sure the players pass the final draft. those are some good odds.

Exactly.

Alot of people are going with the premise that this is the NHL proposing a deal to the PA and that they might be very split on it. No, that's not how it is at all. It's obvious that the NHL and PA have been working together to write up the new CBA. With this in mind, the PA bargaining unit is going to tell it's players to take the deal.

Why wouldn't they? Common sense

 

[FlyersFan10*]

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.

Actually, that isn't true. What happens is that a portion of the player's salary is going into an Escrow fund. If the league loses money, then the league gets the money in the escrow. If the league make money, then the money from the escrow fund is given to the players.

The only problem I see is that if you have a couple of franchises wallowing in red ink, that could be just enough to ensure that the league isn't making money and that the escrow fund goes to the owners.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Maybe Deadline Bob should have thought of that *before* february?

Nah...

The league could have done the same. Both sides are to blame for no negotiations between September and December. How the hell can you go three months with no negotiations is a farce. I liked what Bettman referred to it as "a cooling down period." Both sides played their hands real bad. While the owners are going to come out ahead, I'm just waiting to see who will be the first one to circumvent the CBA and I'm just waiting to see the first large market club expecting to get a piece of the revenue sharing. I'm sure that's going to go over real well.

 

[misterjaggers]

..."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."

They don't have any choice. If the season is delayed, the next deal offered (if another deal is offered) will be worth even less.

 

[Hoss]

The players will ratify this CBA. It is too bad we will not know by what margin. It wont be 100% or 50% +1, my guess high seventies, maybe low eighties.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Actually, that isn't true. What happens is that a portion of the player's salary is going into an Escrow fund. If the league loses money, then the league gets the money in the escrow. If the league make money, then the money from the escrow fund is given to the players.

The only problem I see is that if you have a couple of franchises wallowing in red ink, that could be just enough to ensure that the league isn't making money and that the escrow fund goes to the owners.

Your "correction" is pretty far from correct in its own right. The escrow fund is not predicated on whether the league makes or loses money. It is predicated on the amount of REVENUE - not profit. It has never been based on profit. Sorry.

The disposition of the escrow account is dependent on whether player compensation is more or less than 54% of league revenues. Furthermore, it is not to be an either/or thing. THe escrow fund will be distributed as necessary to ensure a 54/46% sharing of league revenues. Accordingly, the escrow account may be divided between the players and owners as necessary in order to give effect to the prescribed revenue percentages.

 

[Weary]

Alot of people are going with the premise that this is the NHL proposing a deal to the PA and that they might be very split on it. No, that's not how it is at all.

How do you know? Are you prvvy to those discussions?

It's obvious that the NHL and PA have been working together to write up the new CBA. With this in mind, the PA bargaining unit is going to tell it's players to take the deal.

First of all, the players are the bargaining unit. Goodenow and Saskin are not part of the bargaining unit. Secondly, the negotiators do not have the power to tell the players to do anything. The players are not in any way bound to accept a deal they don't like. If they could be forced to accept what was negotiated, why have a vote?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Secondly, the negotiators do not have the power to tell the players to do anything.

Does the committee not recommend to the constituents that they accept/reject proposed CBAs? I think perhaps that was what the "telling" them to accept it was referring to.