Verbal Shots

[Cawz]

players have been locked, yet they have made multiple proposals. The PA doesn't have a problem with the current CBA, they would remain status quo, and they are being locked out, they aren't on strike, yet they have sat at the table with the NHL and they have made proposals. That alone proves they are bargaining in good faith. To say they aren't is simply an example of someone who doesn't follow the situation much, sides with Bettman and the NHL and makes stupid remarks like that about the PA.

Its quotes like this that make me wonder how people can belong to this discussion board and still miss the point.

Quotes like "the players are locked out, not on strike" and "its the owners that caused this mess, they should find a solution" and "the players should be happy to be paid millions to play a game" make me shake my head. They are all true, but pointless comments. And still we see them here.

The CBA doesnt work, everyone including the PA agrees to that, and both sides are trying to find solutions that they think will solve the dilemma. If the author of the original article is true in saying that the NHL tried for 4 years to get the PA to the table, then thats bad negotiating.

If thats simply NHL propaganda, then the author from the Canadian Press should be called out. But I've seen from sources other than the NHL or the PA that the NHL tried in 99, and both sides finally met in early 2003. Now if it was an accepted fact that a work stoppage was looming, and the PA doesnt try to resolve it until close to the end, then I dont think they are doing a good job protecting the players way of life.

It can be argued that it wouldnt have made a differnece anyway, since it took 3 months of no hockey for the PA to acknowledge the problem with a legitamite proposal, so whatever, its history.

But the way I look at the PAs proposals, is that the NHL said they want a tie between revenues and salaries. The PA has not even come close to that, and even offered a bribe to avoid the issue, so is that bargaining in good faith? Its arguable. The league has said what it wants, the PA has offered anything but.

I dont see whats wrong with tying salaries to revenue.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The NHL sat at a table and made proposals so I guess that also means that they to are negotiating in good-faith. My point anything said about one side can easily be said the same about the other. The PA says the NHL isn't bargaining in good faith because they will not come off the cap. It could also be the same about the PA because they will not discuss a cost certainty proposal.

You are right the PA didn't have to bargain previously because they had a signed agreement. The owners now have the right not to sign a agreement they don't want or don't like just to have a season.

Your right, the NHL is also bargaining in good faith. Both sides are they simply represent philosophies that are very far apart, so why anyone would say one side isn't bargaining in good faith is something I don't understand.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Its quotes like this that make me wonder how people can belong to this discussion board and still miss the point.

Quotes like "the players are locked out, not on strike" and "its the owners that caused this mess, they should find a solution" and "the players should be happy to be paid millions to play a game" make me shake my head. They are all true, but pointless comments. And still we see them here.

The CBA doesnt work, everyone including the PA agrees to that, and both sides are trying to find solutions that they think will solve the dilemma. If the author of the original article is true in saying that the NHL tried for 4 years to get the PA to the table, then thats bad negotiating.

If thats simply NHL propaganda, then the author from the Canadian Press should be called out. But I've seen from sources other than the NHL or the PA that the NHL tried in 99, and both sides finally met in early 2003. Now if it was an accepted fact that a work stoppage was looming, and the PA doesnt try to resolve it until close to the end, then I dont think they are doing a good job protecting the players way of life.

It can be argued that it wouldnt have made a differnece anyway, since it took 3 months of no hockey for the PA to acknowledge the problem with a legitamite proposal, so whatever, its history.

But the way I look at the PAs proposals, is that the NHL said they want a tie between revenues and salaries. The PA has not even come close to that, and even offered a bribe to avoid the issue, so is that bargaining in good faith? Its arguable. The league has said what it wants, the PA has offered anything but.

I dont see whats wrong with tying salaries to revenue.

First of all the fact that this is a lockout, not a strike, is not a meaningless point. In any dealings between a business and a union most of the time there is one side that would like to remain status quo and one that doesn't. In this case the PA would remain status quo. Therefore if or when this thing goes to court, it will be the NHL's job to convince the NLRB that they have been negotiating in good faith. The PA, if they are the side that wishes to remain status quo, doesn't really have to do anything but listen to the NHL's proposals in order to "bargain in good faith".

Now, will the PA win this in court? Not likely. Have the PA made any offers that are close to being accepted? No, but that is of one's opinion. But just because your opinion is that the PA has been bad at negotiating or you "dont think they are doing a good job protecting the players way of life" or they haven't proposed any eye catching deals yet doesn't mean they aren't bargaining in good faith. That is your opinion, but just because you support one side doesn't mean that the other isn't negotiating with good faith. It simply means you disagree with them.