Owners Fear They've Been Tricked

[txomisc]

Uh huh, I see. So the NHL has been "obvious" in wanting to implement replacements all along, which is not the favored method by the majority of the clubs according to reports in the media. What ever you say!

No doubt. If the NHL was going for replacement players since the beginning they sure as hell would have players signed for the upcoming season by now.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The rollback in salaries placed the NHL back 10 years in terms of salaries. A fact that the Owners admitted. The reason it was crap as you put it was because there were no parameters put in place to protect the dumbarse owners from themselves which is really why we are where we are.

If the rollback in salaries was made up in 2 years as you put it, it would be at the foot of the owner. Instead of Giving Sakic, Fedorov, Kayria, Yashin and Holik and Peca and Pronger and Blake the contracts they got in the last 10 years, the owners could have been a bit more tight with their money and we are not where we are today.

Let's place all of the blame for where we are squarely on the players and totally disregard the contracts handed out to a 3rd year player like Kayria, or a chronic hold out like Yashin or the bone-headed contracts handed out to both Sakic and Fedorov that paid out 17 and 28 million in one season respectively. I mean because let's face it, the owners had no other choice right?

All 100% true and undeniable. And how does playing the blame game do anything to improve the system right now? It doesn't. Only by trying to understand where the teams need to be, and where the league can operate at a viable level, can we find a solution to the problem itself.

 

[Tawnos]

No doubt. If the NHL was going for replacement players since the beginning they sure as hell would have players signed for the upcoming season by now.

Umm.. they can't declare an impasse before there have been substantial negotiations. They can't declare an impasse if they look like they're going to declare an impasse from the start. So they looked like they were negotiating while really, they had no intention of ever accepting any proposal the NHLPA offered. That's why they ALWAYS made proposals they knew the NHLPA would never ever even negotiate on.


Do you see now how ridiculous these conspiracy theories are?

 

[Levitate]

No doubt. If the NHL was going for replacement players since the beginning they sure as hell would have players signed for the upcoming season by now.

actually there have been rumors that some teams have held tryouts and signed some replacement players just in case. second hand information that's not exactly 100% reliable but I heard the Rangers have done just that...just in case the league does go to use replacement players

 

[Sammy*]

Get real.

And Bob McKenzie has really lost all my respect.
He's an out and out schill for the owners.

Get real is right. Try reading & watching Mckenzie. If he's a shill for the owners, I shudder as to what pejorative term you have for clowns like Healy, Brooks , Strachan et al.
Mckenzie is as objective as they come, though he may be wrong on this.

 

[Seachd]

Get real is right. Try reading & watching Mckenzie. If he's a shill for the owners, I shudder as to what pejorative term you have for clowns like Healy, Brooks , Strachan et al.
Mckenzie is as objective as they come, though he may be wrong on this.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

How anyone can say that is beyond me. This is obviously the first thing Newsguyone has read from McKenzie in the last year.

If anyone would care to mention anyone more neutral, I'm all ears. I don't think it can be done.

 

[Cawz]

Nice of the NHL to be blind against the NHLPA and what they're trying to do.

And whats that? If the article is correct, what is the PA trying to do by going this trickster route?

Umm.. they can't declare an impasse before there have been substantial negotiations. They can't declare an impasse if they look like they're going to declare an impasse from the start. So they looked like they were negotiating while really, they had no intention of ever accepting any proposal the NHLPA offered. That's why they ALWAYS made proposals they knew the NHLPA would never ever even negotiate on.


Do you see now how ridiculous these conspiracy theories are?

Is the ridiculous conspiracy theory youre speaking of the one you posted here? Thats about as ridiculous as they come, so good example.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

• At a meeting to 'save the season,' avoiding discussion of CBA items such as 'arbitration, qualifiers and entry level.'

Is this true? I was under the impression that these issues were in fact discussed at that Black Saturday meeting, and that it was during said discussion that the two sides concluded that they were still miles apart. I seem to recall comments from the players to this effect following that meeting. Linden and others commented during the days that followed about how that meeting revealed just how far apart they were on all of these other non-cap issues.

 

[CGG]

So let me get this straight, the common view around here is that every proposal, suggestion, framework, and idea put forth by the devil Bob Goodenow is only surface bargaining, just an attempt to avoid impasse? The rollback, the two-way arbitration, the lowering QO's, luxury tax, agreement to a salary cap, it's all just a trick? No one even knows what the union will present at the next meeting, but have already dismissed it as an evil tactic?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound spewing this?

If the league wants to declare impasse, go ahead. The onus is on the league to prove that it is in fact impasse and they have bargained in good faith the whole way along. The NLRB can reject the impasse if there are not sufficient grounds. They cannot punish the NHLPA for "surface bargaining", or whatever you want to call it, by letting the implementation go through when impasse has not been reached.

You're somehow all waiting for the day when the NLRB says "we don't like Bob Goodenow and he was being tricky, so Gary gets whatever he wants!" It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Tawnos]

Is the ridiculous conspiracy theory youre speaking of the one you posted here? Thats about as ridiculous as they come, so good example.

I'm talking about both, my example sounds to you exactly what this whole issue sounds like to me.

 

[Weary]

Is this true? I was under the impression that these issues were in fact discussed at that Black Saturday meeting, and that it was during said discussion that the two sides concluded that they were still miles apart. I seem to recall comments from the players to this effect following that meeting. Linden and others commented during the days that followed about how that meeting revealed just how far apart they were on all of these other non-cap issues.

You are correct. I should have used the 'negotiate' instead of 'discuss.' But, by asking for even more concessions on those issues that they were before, the league still looks like they were avoiding legitimate bargaining.

 

[Shawnski]

.... The onus is on the league to prove that it is in fact impasse and they have bargained in good faith the whole way along...

That is the exact OPPOSITE of the truth in the matter....

What happens once the NHLPA goes to the NLRB?
The players' union would carry the burden of proving to the NLRB that the NHL did not bargain in good faith during the collective bargaining process. If the NLRB rules in the union's favour and finds that the league did not bargain in good faith (thus demonstrating the two sides are not at an impasse), the league would be prevented from implementing its new economic system.

Impasse myths

 

[CGG]

That is the exact OPPOSITE of the truth in the matter....

What happens once the NHLPA goes to the NLRB?
The players' union would carry the burden of proving to the NLRB that the NHL did not bargain in good faith during the collective bargaining process. If the NLRB rules in the union's favour and finds that the league did not bargain in good faith (thus demonstrating the two sides are not at an impasse), the league would be prevented from implementing its new economic system.

Impasse myths

Yes, it's the union that files the complaint and says either:
(1) the owners did not bargain in good faith
(2) they are not at impasse

My point is, it's the actions of the owners that will be scrutinized, not the actions of the union. The owners have to make sure they are entirely in good faith every step along the way, not the union. Somebody's dislike of Goodenow or his methods plays absolutely no part in it.

 

[AM]

yup

Exactly.
Nice of the NHL to be blind against the NHLPA and what they're trying to do. Its so ridiculous. And yet you PRO-NHL people think they're all right of course. This shows just how ridiculous the NHL is.
Who is trying to endthe lockout here?

The NHL is rediculous... they just want to avoid their businesses going bankrupt... you bet, they are majorly rediculous!

 

[AM]

Owners

The rollback in salaries placed the NHL back 10 years in terms of salaries. A fact that the Owners admitted. The reason it was crap as you put it was because there were no parameters put in place to protect the dumbarse owners from themselves which is really why we are where we are.

If the rollback in salaries was made up in 2 years as you put it, it would be at the foot of the owner. Instead of Giving Sakic, Fedorov, Kayria, Yashin and Holik and Peca and Pronger and Blake the contracts they got in the last 10 years, the owners could have been a bit more tight with their money and we are not where we are today.

Let's place all of the blame for where we are squarely on the players and totally disregard the contracts handed out to a 3rd year player like Kayria, or a chronic hold out like Yashin or the bone-headed contracts handed out to both Sakic and Fedorov that paid out 17 and 28 million in one season respectively. I mean because let's face it, the owners had no other choice right?

YOu see, you have to concentrate on the s at the end.

Then you would understand the reason why the lockout dosnt make sense to you.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Yes, it's the union that files the complaint and says either:
(1) the owners did not bargain in good faith
(2) they are not at impasse

My point is, it's the actions of the owners that will be scrutinized, not the actions of the union. The owners have to make sure they are entirely in good faith every step along the way, not the union. Somebody's dislike of Goodenow or his methods plays absolutely no part in it.

Dude, he sunk your battleship! Retreat!

 

[Shawnski]

My point is, it's the actions of the owners that will be scrutinized, not the actions of the union. The owners have to make sure they are entirely in good faith every step along the way, not the union.

Again, this is not exactly true.

How does the union go about proving to the NLRB that the league did not bargain in good faith?
There are two options the union would take in trying to prove its case:

OPTION #1) The union could try to show there were various deceptive tactics that the league employed during the bargaining process which were indicative of bad faith. If the union can convince the NLRB that the owners engaged in deception of some kind, (e.g.: that the union was "set up" to look bad in the Feb. 19 labour talks in New York City that involved Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux), that in and of itself could be indicative of bad faith.

OPTION #2) Another tactic the union could take would be to introduce evidence (such as transcripts of past negotiating meetings between the two sides) that describes the bargaining process as it unfolded and outlines the proposals, counter-proposals, and negotiating tactics that the parties have taken. By doing this, the union would try to convince the NLRB that there was a prospect for further negotiation and that they were not deadlocked on the critical issues (salary cap, free agency, salary arbitration, etc.), as a means of showing that the league did not bargain in good faith.

Your point is valid for Option 1 perhaps, but NOT for Option 2, whereby the actions of both parties will be "scrutinized". If the NHLPA takes the Option 2 path, you can rest assured that the NHL will have every right to produce evidence to counter the NHLPA actions.

 

[Mess]

You are correct. I should have used the 'negotiate' instead of 'discuss.' But, by asking for even more concessions on those issues that they were before, the league still looks like they were avoiding legitimate bargaining.

I just don't understand how any of all of the Black Saturday meeting could be used as the NHLPA did not negotiate or at least try to on lots of the systemic issues . .and how can as you say discussing difference be considered BAD FAITH negotiating on behalf of the NHLPA ??

 

[Flyguy_1ca]

What I don't understand is people that say "Look at how many concessions the players have given!" "Compared to the old CBA, look at all the movement the players have made compared to the owners"...etc

Well no kidding! This is a league that lost how many millions? The PA eventually even agreed that they're losing tons of money. Yet people expect the owners to give just as much as the players....I don't get it. Yes the players have given more...and yes the players need to give a lot more still. You can't compare things to that old dead CBA. Thankfully it no longer exists..it's dead..and buried!

I've said it before...and I'll say it again...linkage is the fairest way to resolve this. Anything less is not fair and too favorable to the players.

 

[kdb209]

Trying to avoid an impasse is not bad-faith bargaining.

Yes it is, it that's all you're trying to do - it's called Surface Bargaining.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by wazee
The NHLPA can not implement a new CBA. However, it is possible that, if impasse is declared and NLRB sides with the players, the old CBA could be reinstated...

No it couldn't. It would just mean negotiations must resume without playing with replacements.

Don't spread misinformation.

No, that's not mis-information. That's exactly what happened to MLB. They declared an impasse, the NLRB ruled against them, and they were forced to play 2 more years under the old expired CBA while negotiating a new one.

Now the NLRB can't force the league to actually open up and play under the old CBA. If the NHL went the impasse route and lost, they may find themselves in a situation where there only options were operate under the old CBA or sustain the lockout indefinitely - all replacement player options would be shot down. In addition they could be liable for economic damages to the players for any lost income while the impossed CBA was in place.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by gc2005
My point is, it's the actions of the owners that will be scrutinized, not the actions of the union. The owners have to make sure they are entirely in good faith every step along the way, not the union.

Again, this is not exactly true.

How does the union go about proving to the NLRB that the league did not bargain in good faith?
There are two options the union would take in trying to prove its case:

OPTION #1) The union could try to show there were various deceptive tactics that the league employed during the bargaining process which were indicative of bad faith. If the union can convince the NLRB that the owners engaged in deception of some kind, (e.g.: that the union was "set up" to look bad in the Feb. 19 labour talks in New York City that involved Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux), that in and of itself could be indicative of bad faith.

OPTION #2) Another tactic the union could take would be to introduce evidence (such as transcripts of past negotiating meetings between the two sides) that describes the bargaining process as it unfolded and outlines the proposals, counter-proposals, and negotiating tactics that the parties have taken. By doing this, the union would try to convince the NLRB that there was a prospect for further negotiation and that they were not deadlocked on the critical issues (salary cap, free agency, salary arbitration, etc.), as a means of showing that the league did not bargain in good faith.

Your point is valid for Option 1 perhaps, but NOT for Option 2, whereby the actions of both parties will be "scrutinized". If the NHLPA takes the Option 2 path, you can rest assured that the NHL will have every right to produce evidence to counter the NHLPA actions.

The is especially germaine to the original point of this thread - that the owners were tricked by last weeks negotiations and the conspiracy theories that the PA was just out to establish negotiating movement to avoid an impasse. The actions of BG definitely will be scrutinized as to whether there was any real intent or just surface negotiating.

 

[PecaFan]

The rollback in salaries placed the NHL back 10 years in terms of salaries. A fact that the Owners admitted.

What!? 10 years? 1995 salaries were around $400 million *TOTAL*. Geezus, I'm tired of people just spewing out garbage, pretending it's fact.

The NHLPA offer of 24% applied to 592 players for 04/05, and reduced their salaries by $269 million. With lots of players unsigned for the year, we don't have an exact number, but salaries would have been around a billon dollars per year, somewhere close to what it was in late 2001, early 2002.

If the rollback in salaries was made up in 2 years as you put it, it would be at the foot of the owner.

Salaries would have been made up in 2 years, because that's as far as they were rolled back.

 

[Mess]

Yes it is, it that's all you're trying to do - it's called Surface Bargaining.

How can that be proven ??

NLRB can't read what is going on in Goodenow's head ..

 

[Weary]

Yes it is, it that's all you're trying to do - it's called Surface Bargaining.

No. That's backwards. Surface bargaining cannot be used to avoid an impasse. The NRLB will uphold an impasse declaration if they feel the NHLPA was surface bargaining.