Thread: We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Originally Posted by aaron

Do you honestly believe this?
If so, you underestimate both bettman and fehr

Do I honestly believe the anecdote? No. Do I believe a lot of what is going on is a dick measuring contest? Yes.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Particularly when the ownership's "Plan A" every time is to lock out the players and wait for the union to break. If you're on the NHLPA's side, you want to ensure that a lockout is not "Plan A" and you can only do that by making a lockout an unpalatable option.

I guess I just don't see what other realistic options were out there other than lockout or strike.

The unfortunate thing is that so many negotiations don't go well unless there is some sort of deadline or external pressure. When people are trying to buy cars, why do they threaten to walk away and go to a different dealer? You want the dealer to move towards your demands. When people are buying a house, why will people perhaps pay more than they wanted to avoid a bidding war? Pressure from other buyers means they might lose the house. You need some sort of external pressure sometimes to get things done. What's going to motivate the players to negotiate? Missing paychecks.

If the NHL doesn't use the lockout, what pressure do they have to put on the NHLPA to get a deal done? Like I said before, if the NHL had agreed to play the season with a pledge for no strikes or lockouts, what is going to motivate the NHLPA to negotiate? A no-strike pledge would have taken away a lot of the players leverage in that case. If the owners know the players can't strike, what motivates the owners to work for a deal that the players think is favorable? Does anyone think a deal would have been reached if they agreed to play this season under the old CBA? The owners demands wouldn't have changed. I don't think the players willingness to accept a rollback in salaries or contract limits would have changed either. The issues still would be the same whenever negotiations got heated.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Because long-term, if one party "loses" every negotiation, it will only get worse. The players clearly lost the last two CBA negotiations, despite the fact that the last CBA turned out to be far more beneficial for them than anyone would have predicted and certainly far more than the owners expected. The breaks even out over time. If you're on one side of the negotiations and the pattern of loss after loss is developing, you must break the pattern at some point, as it only gets worse with every successive negotiation. Particularly when the ownership's "Plan A" every time is to lock out the players and wait for the union to break. If you're on the NHLPA's side, you want to ensure that a lockout is not "Plan A" and you can only do that by making a lockout an unpalatable option. Enter Don Fehr. He's being an absolute dick in this negotiation, but it is not an accident. It is a very calculated move. Th more painful it is for the NHL, the better it is for the NHLPA. His actions carry a risk, but so do Bettman's. These guys are two of the best. You're watching a chess match between two grand masters.

I understand that. What I fail to understand is how "we lost last time" is a strong argument in terms of defending a group of players who made out pretty god damn well the last time they lost.

At the end of the day, both sides need to fix some things. The owners screwed the system up because there is an inherit need to outsmart and take advantage of any angle to be the best teams. The players go along with it because their interest is in making as much money as they can while they can. Neither side is looking out for making sure the game is running smoothly. So, now we have owners saying they're losing money after three or so years of escalating revenue that tripled where it was before the last lockout and players saying that they gave last time so they shouldn't have to again.

Give credit to the owners for trying to fix their latest round of mistakes and give credit to the players for going to the 50/50 split. The biggest issue is that neither side really made any sort of effort until games were already being canceled. We've literally gotten to a point now where the players are being stubborn and not giving in on certain things that should be obvious for the long term health of the league because they know it means no more balloon payments. So, while I was on the players side at the start of this, I've moved to the other side at this point. They're playing chicken now and holding out to "win" instead of recognizing that the deal is not too bad and they're likely going to end up doing just fine over 10 years.

Originally Posted by pg1067

I'm not sure what "this layout" means, but I'm fairly sure that "west coast teams like the [K]ings" always have more travel than east coast teams.

One of the reasons the Kings love having the Coyots and Ducks nearby.

Aaron Ward✔
@aaronward_nhl

CBA meetings between NHL and NHLPA that are to take place at undisclosed location WILL involve a mediator. #TSN

11 Dec 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite

added 2:26pm,







Tom Gulitti@TGfireandice


Bill Daly confirms via email that federal mediator(s) will be involved in Wednesday's meeting.

11 Dec 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite

Originally Posted by aragorn

One of the reasons the Kings love having the Coyots and Ducks nearby.

I can't wait until Edmonton moves to Seattle. That'll make 4 away teams on the West Coast plus Phoenix/Glendale.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

I understand that. What I fail to understand is how "we lost last time" is a strong argument in terms of defending a group of players who made out pretty god damn well the last time they lost.

At the end of the day, both sides need to fix some things. The owners screwed the system up because there is an inherit need to outsmart and take advantage of any angle to be the best teams. The players go along with it because their interest is in making as much money as they can while they can. Neither side is looking out for making sure the game is running smoothly. So, now we have owners saying they're losing money after three or so years of escalating revenue that tripled where it was before the last lockout and players saying that they gave last time so they shouldn't have to again.

Give credit to the owners for trying to fix their latest round of mistakes and give credit to the players for going to the 50/50 split. The biggest issue is that neither side really made any sort of effort until games were already being canceled. We've literally gotten to a point now where the players are being stubborn and not giving in on certain things that should be obvious for the long term health of the league because they know it means no more balloon payments. So, while I was on the players side at the start of this, I've moved to the other side at this point. They're playing chicken now and holding out to "win" instead of recognizing that the deal is not too bad and they're likely going to end up doing just fine over 10 years.

Well said. This "we lost last time" is a complete bull****. Of course the players are going to lose again. The only possible way they could "win" is if the previous CBA along with revenues created a significant drop in player's salaries. It's only a matter of how much they're going to lose, and that's going to be determined with the final offer they negotiate. They will lose one way or another, because the previous CBA was imbalanced towards the players. And guess WHY it was imbalanced...because the players didn't lose enough 8 years ago. Simple.

I'm looking forward to when the season is cancelled so I can get on with my life....

Already registered for classes assuming they are just going to scrap the season.