LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
For all of these other talking points mentioned in this blog post, as I understood it, one of the biggest issues between the two sides was who was going to "pay for the lockout". Also, every offer from the NHLPA to this point has attempted to de-link player revenue from league fall/growth and make that revenue guaranteed, something the owners were obviously adamantly against. Has any ground been made on these issues?Originally Posted by santiclaws
They have an agreement, or at least did, until the NHL "pulled the offer off the table" because the players would not agree to length of contract limitation, length of CBA, and variance in contracts year-to-year. This was far and away the thorniest issue, which is why I am optimistic that they will reach agreement on the other issues.
As I mentioned last week, I think it's a bit of a fallacy to say the two sides had an agreement on dollars, as Fehr put it. All along, the players have sought to negotiate incrementally, point-by-point, and it's clearly their preference to have locked in the make-whole number before moving onto the other issues. Thus far, that style has been reasonably successful against the league. But as we've seen this past week, it seems that style of negotiation has come to a halt because the league refuses to continue negotiating in that fashion. While the league's last offer increased the make-whole number to a level apparently satisfactory to the players, it was expressly conditioned upon the players' acceptance of those three other contracting issues. Presumably, that meant if the players wanted movement on the contracting issues, the make-whole number would decrease accordingly. The idea that the increased make-whole number was a unilateral concession from the league designed merely to expedite negotiations over the remaining issues (much as the players would like the idea) is squarely refuted by everything's that has happened since, including the league's testy press conference and a complete breakdown in negotiations. Reports indicate that the league now expects the players to table the next comprehensive offer that covers all the major deal points, something the players are refusing to do. (Come to think of it, have the players ever tabled a genuinely comprehensive offer yet? I can't recall that they have, which would be consistently with their negotiating strategy up to this point.)
I agree with you and many hockey columnists that the two sides are not that far apart. But I suppose I just don't share your level of optimism, at least for the immediate future. When I read the ESPN blog you cited plus the coverage from Canadian media, the players appear to be sending signals that even the slightest movement on the part of the owners might bring about a quick resolution to this dispute. Appealing, for sure. However, how can anyone rule this out as another negotiating ploy? What Fehr and players want most is a resumption of negotiations, preferably along the lines where they left off. If the league takes the bait, and puts forth a new offer with concessions on some of those contracting issues, how can the league be sure it won't again fall into a trap causing them to negotiate against themselves? That's why I think at this point, it's incumbent upon the players to table the next comprehensive offer. The fact that the players flatly refuse to do so raises substantial questions in my mind about how serious they are about winding up this dispute sooner rather than later. When they finally do so (probably in a matter of weeks, not days, in my opinion), that'll be the surest sign yet that the lockout will soon be over.
Sure, the dollars were contingent on the other points, but they still agreed - and the other points were just not that vital in my opinion, at least not in terms of the numbers. I am not buying for a minute the idea that the five-year max deal is a hill the NHL is willing to die on. That would be monumentally stupid. The players have agreed to the NHL structure of the deal, including the cap on the length of contract and a limit on annual salary decreases. In my opinion, the agreement to the framework of the NHL deal was far more important than the agreement to the numbers which were contained in that framework. There's just not very much left to negotiate. Even the make whole difference is pretty small, even taking that off the table - $90M. Just not that much money when it really comes down to it. You may be right that it will still take weeks. But I really don't see the season being lost over differences which are pretty negligible at this point.
Under more typical circumstances, I'd agree with most of what you've said (although I've not heard that there's any kind of agreement yet with respect to contract term limits and salary variances from year to year). But consider this: at best, we're at the same juncture as the middle of last week. Despite how close an agreement might be, there's been no movement, at least no positive movement. Obviously, the problem right now is that both sides are dug in, and neither side trusts the other. I seriously doubt the legal theatrics will do much to accelerate these labor talks either. Only the passage of time, until we're much closer to the deadline, which most seem to agree will be early or mid-January.
Like I said, I don't think that trial balloon floated by one of the owners was meaningless and I don't think the players' response was meaningless either. Fehr obviously wants to go to the edge and extract every possible concession he can. I guess the question is: does he think he can get more?
"The league also claims player contracts will be voided should they go ahead with threats to disband their union because, in the NHL’s view, all existing agreements would cease to exist."
Oh boy, time to make a second batch of popcorn
NHL lockout: Dissolving union voids player contracts, league claims - thestar.com
I don't know how you can say that. It was a package deal per the owners. The money was not agreed upon because it relied on other things before it would be paid out, and those other thing were not done. If I offer you a 100 bucks to clean the garage, wash the car and walk the dog, and all you want to do is walk the dog, then the $100 was not agreed upon. Maybe I'd agree to $10 for you to walk the dog. It appears that as we've moved forward the owners had two things in their sights from the beginning: 50/50 split (phased in or not) , and 5 year max on contracts (which I believe is more than the NBA gives). Those seem to be the guiding forces.
Posting Permissions
823Likes
Reply With Quote
KRC1221
