TSN reports proposal was made today (2.9.05) by the NHL and PA rejected .

Status
Not open for further replies.

StanTheMan

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
68
3
Visit site
Brewleaguer said:
No the next step is counter, which I think will happen.
You either have to except the agreement or reject it, you can't negotiate the offer without rejecting it first and then come back with something that is closer to the last offer.
The PA is not going to have the ball left in its court.


Basically I was responding to semantics. Bettman SAID this was his best offer, which to me means that he's not willing to give anymore. (Remember, this is what Bettman SAID.) IF it truly is his best offer and it is rejected (which it was) what is the point of going on? He will go no farther, thus the reasonable result is that he would cancel the season.

However, although he SAID it was his best proposal, I don't believe him. It's another negotiation tactic to put pressure on the other side. Obviously since he has agreed to continue meeting, this last proposal was NOT his best, ie, somewhere there is going to be some flex room or compromise that hasn't been used yet.

All a part of the process.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
StanTheMan said:
Basically I was responding to semantics. Bettman SAID this was his best offer, which to me means that he's not willing to give anymore. (Remember, this is what Bettman SAID.) IF it truly is his best offer and it is rejected (which it was) what is the point of going on? He will go no farther, thus the reasonable result is that he would cancel the season.

However, although he SAID it was his best proposal, I don't believe him. It's another negotiation tactic to put pressure on the other side. Obviously since he has agreed to continue meeting, this last proposal was NOT his best, ie, somewhere there is going to be some flex room or compromise that hasn't been used yet.

All a part of the process.

Well, that is one interpretation . . . how about this second interpretation, that if he had refused to meet he would have given the NHLPA ammo for the NLRB hearing that seems to be inevitable?

What in the owner's posturing, and for that matter the players, makes you believe that the owners, not the players, are feeling the strain over this or will bend more?
 

StanTheMan

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
68
3
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Well, that is one interpretation . . . how about this second interpretation, that if he had refused to meet he would have given the NHLPA ammo for the NLRB hearing that seems to be inevitable?

What in the owner's posturing, and for that matter the players, makes you believe that the owners, not the players, are feeling the strain over this or will bend more?

I'm actually not convinced they are really into the NLRB thing at all. maybe they are keeping it in mind just in case, but from what I've read it would be a huge mess to go down that road what with having to address the impasse in US courts and in Canadian provincial courts.

Until yesterday I had believed the owners when they said they were firm in the whole cap/long term vision, but yesterday's move makes me think they are more desperate than the players. Just a feeling.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
StanTheMan said:
I'm actually not convinced they are really into the NLRB thing at all. maybe they are keeping it in mind just in case, but from what I've read it would be a huge mess to go down that road what with having to address the impasse in US courts and in Canadian provincial courts.

Until yesterday I had believed the owners when they said they were firm in the whole cap/long term vision, but yesterday's move makes me think they are more desperate than the players. Just a feeling.

Let us weigh the pressures:

Owners:
1. Losing about 25 regular season games, and playoff revenue . . . but if they cave those would be not well attended anyways. And if they do not get a win, they would lose more money having that season than if they kept the lockout going. Also, if they 'win' franchise vlaues through the league currently weighed down by the problems league wide would skyrocket. Plus they have enough in the bank to take this lockout another year. The vast majority of fans are basically supporting them. If the season is cancelled, as long as they negotiate in good faith, they have a very good chance of declaring an impass and getting their last offer implimented. Is this really a pressure?

Players:

1. Average career 4 years. Most players just lost a quarter of what they ever will earn, after spending virtually their entire lives working their tails off to get here. Lose another year and it will be half. Already some will never play a game again as they have been passed, and many who are not in the top feel that pressure from more and more minor league players becoming ready, ready to take their jobs.

2. Even if they would 'win' next year . . .for those players who actually remain with jobs, the pie will be much smaller to divide. They could have gotten more 'losing' now when the pie was larger than if this settles late into next year.

3. The public is so very against them and mostly for the owners.

4. They very likely could lose before the NLRB after all this wasted fight on their part and end up with a worse deal than if they had compromised ont he Cap issue.

So how is that pressure at all on the owners or at least anywhere close to the pressure on the players?
 

StanTheMan

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
68
3
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
So how is that pressure at all on the owners or at least anywhere close to the pressure on the players?

well put.
I guess I'm thinking more of how the other side perceives moves. If I were a player, my first reaction to Bettman's proposal is, "Yes! He blinked first." This may or may not be true, but it is MY perception and, based on many of the comments printed during this lockout, I'm guessing many of the players are thinking the same.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
StanTheMan said:
well put.
I guess I'm thinking more of how the other side perceives moves. If I were a player, my first reaction to Bettman's proposal is, "Yes! He blinked first." This may or may not be true, but it is MY perception and, based on many of the comments printed during this lockout, I'm guessing many of the players are thinking the same.
I would have said the 24% rollback was the 1st blink.
The NHLPA admitted there was a problem with the NHL but then refused to guarentee their own proposed solution to the problem would solve it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->