This is not "negotiating"
- Thread starter chiavsfan
- Start date
- Status
FLYLine27*
BUCH
The players made the first step by giving up 24% of there contract..which the NHL saw and did put in there proposal.
The owners have moved less...there idea has been a hard cap from day 1 and it still is. Make it a soft cap and you have started something.
Players did give a bogus luxary tax offer as well though...so im not saying they moved from that spot.
The owners have moved less...there idea has been a hard cap from day 1 and it still is. Make it a soft cap and you have started something.
Players did give a bogus luxary tax offer as well though...so im not saying they moved from that spot.
chiavsfan said:
Negotiations take many forms.
When the leverage is as one-sided as it is in this case, only one side needs to bend.
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
Thunderstruck said:
It shouldnt be that way. Both sides should be making concessions to try to get a deal done, yet all were getting now is nothing except two figureheads trying to win their "war" instead of making a compromise. I dont think either side has a clue on how much they are alienating some fans in these "negotiations" and keeping lockout going.
No, both sides make concessions when things are going fine and the only thing to negotiate is how the profits are going to be split up. When one side is getting hosed, it's the other side that needs to be making the serious concessions. It doesn't matter if the side getting hosed brought the situation on itself - the other side still needs to make the most concessions in order for things to move forward.Hockeyfan02 said:
That's the crux of the matter here: The players don't want to change; the owners can't afford not to.
The owners have the right to determine the system in which they want to remunerate their employees. The negotiation will take place within the framework of a Salary Cap system if and when the players and their dictator boss comes to grip with that fact.
Buffaloed
webmaster
chiavsfan said:
Concessions may be an outcome of negotiations but its not a requirement. The pace of the talks and attitudes of the parties may not suit you, but the events that have transpired are indeed negotiations.
Negotiation ( legal dictionary definition):
The process of submission and consideration of offers until an acceptable offer is made and accepted.
Misconception
This is exactly what the NHL has tried to demonstrate to the fans at large, and most people seem to have taken the bait. However, I think there has to be some recognition of facts.
Wait a minute, if this economic situation is so horrible, how come, over the course of this terrible and unworkable CBA, a whole bunch of new franchises joined the NHL? Could someone please tell me exactly how many franchises left the NHL during the course of the CBA? If "cost certainty" is so imperative to maintaining the competitiveness of the league, how come teams like Carolina, Florida, Calgary, Tampa, etc etc etc are making it to the Stanley Cup Finals? How come 12 different teams have played in the Conference Finals in the past 3 years? Why were the New York Rangers failing to make the playoffs?
The owners have built a negotiating facade, just as the players have. The more woeful an economic picture they can paint, the more apparent power they have. It's all smoke and mirrors, on both sides. I guarantee the PA's rollback proposal appealed to many of the member franchises of the NHL, gaining some ground in negotiating. Also, the adjustment of the rollback by the NHL appealed to many low-end players. These guys are definitely chipping away at each other, and eroding some of the solidarity.
I get a kick out of the NHL and media's criticism of the entry-level structure proposed by the PA. This entry level structure in no way impacts the current PA membership, it will only impact future players. This is pretty much standard practice in collective bargaining, undercutting entry level wages in favour of more senior employees. The PA is much more concerned about the benefits of its current membership than future members. Only the current members can vote.
Kaiped Krusader said:
This is exactly what the NHL has tried to demonstrate to the fans at large, and most people seem to have taken the bait. However, I think there has to be some recognition of facts.
Wait a minute, if this economic situation is so horrible, how come, over the course of this terrible and unworkable CBA, a whole bunch of new franchises joined the NHL? Could someone please tell me exactly how many franchises left the NHL during the course of the CBA? If "cost certainty" is so imperative to maintaining the competitiveness of the league, how come teams like Carolina, Florida, Calgary, Tampa, etc etc etc are making it to the Stanley Cup Finals? How come 12 different teams have played in the Conference Finals in the past 3 years? Why were the New York Rangers failing to make the playoffs?
The owners have built a negotiating facade, just as the players have. The more woeful an economic picture they can paint, the more apparent power they have. It's all smoke and mirrors, on both sides. I guarantee the PA's rollback proposal appealed to many of the member franchises of the NHL, gaining some ground in negotiating. Also, the adjustment of the rollback by the NHL appealed to many low-end players. These guys are definitely chipping away at each other, and eroding some of the solidarity.
I get a kick out of the NHL and media's criticism of the entry-level structure proposed by the PA. This entry level structure in no way impacts the current PA membership, it will only impact future players. This is pretty much standard practice in collective bargaining, undercutting entry level wages in favour of more senior employees. The PA is much more concerned about the benefits of its current membership than future members. Only the current members can vote.
TonySCV
Golden
kurt said:
Since you asked, the primary reason was because Bettman and the owners were under pressure by Fox to expand the market in order to secure a national TV contract (which at the time was worth some significant coin and was critical to the NHL gaining visibility in the US).
Also remember that the players WELCOMED expansion, and why not? It's jobs right?
Remember, 10 years ago, this CBA wasn't terrible and unworkable, however time has shown that it's not sustainable. The NHL has been telling this to the PA for the last few years to no avail.
So... here's another question - why is it when the NHL approached the NHLPA several years ago warning them that the league was in trouble the NHLPA responded by doing nothing about it?
Seems to me the players told the owners - tough **** - it's your deal, you live with it. They milked it for all it's worth, and now the cow is dry. And you know what? Good for the players. They maximized their return, but now, it seems, the party is over. Time to face the reality that the league is in dire straits and needs a new system to survive.
- T
MojoJojo
Registered User
eye said:
Actually no, thats called collusion. No employer is allowed to artificially set wages across an industry. If they want a salary cap, it has to be with the written consent of the PA because otherwise it wouldnt last a day in court.
Yeah, this is not negotiating. Its basically two sides who say that the other has NO IDEA what they are talking about, and their proposal is clearly the way to go. In all reality, each side has some very good points so they need to mesh those together into one.
I just do not understand how both the PA and owners don't realize that its impossible to get everything to go your way every time. Its rediculous, I learned that when I was TWO.
I just do not understand how both the PA and owners don't realize that its impossible to get everything to go your way every time. Its rediculous, I learned that when I was TWO.
- Status
