I am not all up on impasse impositions and what not, but I find it even harder to believe than before that the owners coudl ever get an impasse declared. From what I understand (and I admit its only surface understanding on this situation): The owners could only go before the NLRB arguing for an impasse ONLY if they are able to prove to them that they have bargained long and hard, and that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY BUT THEIRS to "fix" the system. With the players clearly showing enough leeway to cover the over-exagerrated "losses" from the owners in their latest proposal, as well as clearly moving a lot in concessions to a middle ground area... How could the owners even stand a chance in hell at getting an impasse? There'll be a deal this season, but I wonder what the pro-owner people are thinking when they believe an impasse is likely or some magic and strong trump card the owners can use? I just can't see the Labour Board (if it ever got to this) give the NHL one second of thought. "oh, you want an idiot proof system without using fiscal responsibility? fiscal responsibility is impossible? Ok! "