Solipsist
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2005
- 4
- 0
Wetcoaster said:According to Bettman and Saskin that offer was characterized as the NHL's final best offer.
In that case the NHL cannot go backwards - that would be bargaining in bad faith and an unfair labour practise.
Initially I was surprised that the NHLPA rejected it out of hand without further negotiation on the triggers but now I am considering that this was a tactic to stick the NHL with this offer. If so it was quite brilliant. Goodenow is acknowledged as a master tactician in negotiations. Bettman has stated that he cannot give more and he cannot go back because that would pretty much deep-six any chance of getting past the NLRB. If they do try to go back you may see an unfair laour practises complaint from the NHLPA.
According to Ted Saskin at his press conference the NHLPA did attempt further negotiations but on the issue of revenue sharing which is what the NHL chopped from the December 9, 2004 NHLPA proposal and completely side-stepped the triggers.
I am wondering if by holding off to the deadline yet again Goodenow has not gained an advantage and some leverage in future negotiations. He basically put the NHL in the same position the NHLPA was in after their December 9 offer and now has the whip hand.
It is will be interesting to seethis play out.
I had a similar assessment of the situation. However, the NHL is not stupid. They know full well that there last, best offer on the table is going to be used for an impasse. That is likely why they put the triggers as low as they did. If they immediately trigger, then the NHL could then institute a cap during the impasse. This way, they get their cake and can eat it too. They get the PR move of offering the other sides deal (with some alterations), without worring about the side effect of making the other side's proposal as their last, best deal.