norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,070
- 13,527
NYR469 said: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 said: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.
norrisnick said:Huge difference indeed.
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.What we learned earlier was that Gartner had rejoined negotiations. His attendance has been reported in many earlier sessions.blamebettman said: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.
You are quoting Eklund when it is convenient to do so, I see.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....
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.
PecaFan said: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.
Drury_Sakic said: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...
jericholic19 said:In 1994, the CBA was rejected by the players before it was ratified two days later
jericholic19 said: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.
'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 the wonderful Mr. Bettman should have thought of that before offering his "last, best" deal about 3 days before the deadline.Crazy_Ike said:Maybe Deadline Bob should have thought of that *before* february?
Nah...
futurcorerock said: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.
Exactly.habs_24x said: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.
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.
Crazy_Ike said:Maybe Deadline Bob should have thought of that *before* february?
Nah...
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.Stronso said:..."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."
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.FlyersFan10 said: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.
How do you know? Are you prvvy to those discussions?futurcorerock said: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.
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?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.
Weary said:Secondly, the negotiators do not have the power to tell the players to do anything.