Jobu
Registered User
quat said:The PA hasn't offered any concessions so that the season could be played... they offered some concessions in a bargaining agreement for a new CBA, which signed by both sides would allow hockey to begin again. There is no "interm" CBA so there could be hockey, and the Owners have no interest in once again getting hosed for another year by the last CBA
Why not rest that big brain of yours, and just focus on the discussion instead of telling everyone how dumb they are.
Of course the players have offered concessions, and provided a basis for serious negotiations off of those concessions, so that the season could be played. However, the owners have refused to recognize that - as is their prerogative. You're quite right, the league could go on without a CBA, but again, the owners have decided against that - as is their prerogative.
What, IMO, is unfair and arguably NOT the owners' prerogative (whether morally or legally in the context of bad faith) is to fail to recognize that players either formally or anecdotally have offered up a framework markedly different from that which governs the game today. In particular, an unprecedented wage rollback, changes to salary arbitration, luxury taxes, profit sharing, bonus deflators, etc. Is it that unreasonable to try a system based on these ideas, if only temporarily?
Instead, the owners are focused on one position, and are expecting the players to make sweeping changes that are almost entirely in favour of them.