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

Originally Posted by aaron

This post is about as well thought out as your previous in this thread. Good to see you're staying true to form.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

You do know it's the owners and bettman who aren't willing to negotiate, right?

Both sides are waiting for the other to move. Both sides are not negotiating.

Originally Posted by x-wingcamewest

Not one little thing is wrong with it. I just believe that if the goalie gets out of his crease to play it, he should be willing to pay the price.

Originally Posted by beedee

but if they want to come out of the crease and play the puck, there needs to be a bigger risk, this bigger risk would be that they are fair game

So you can "run" the goalie, but not the skaters? You guys are implying, whether you realize or not, that penalties committed against a goalie should not be called as if it was committed against a skater. A good goalie is a helluva' lot more important to a team than any skater. Ask the Kings, ask the Devils. The NHL is literally protecting a team's best player by not making them fair game. I agree that Smith's antics are really lame, but that doesn't give anyone any reason to "run" him.

Originally Posted by FishMonger

This post is about as well thought out as your previous in this thread. Good to see you're staying true to form.



Both sides are waiting for the other to move. Both sides are not negotiating.

No. bettman has been saying all along that if the NHLPA will not "back down" on what they went, then the owners are unwilling to negotiate. Meanwhile, Fehr is saying the NHLPA will negotiate at anytime and at any place.

Yeah, well, if Fehr says the apocalypse is indeed going to happen, will you believe it?! Jeezus, people.

Stop looking for someone to believe into. They all lie, they are all making excuses. It's frickin' POINTLESS saying "he does this, he says that", it's POINTLESS thinking any side is any better.


The only sane way to look at this is common sense. The NHL does not want less than that, and the players need to settle, because the NHL won't. The sooner they do, the better for them. You can all cry out loud how this is unfair and how players deserve better and how the owners are moneygrabbers, FACT is that the owners can decide to stop paying for this sport and hence for these players' contracts. Period. If the Union thinks the NHL are so stupid, why aren't THEY so smart and risk losing a few thousand dollars per player (in the long run) and settle to just start playing already? OH WAIT, they don't want to lose again! Fehr would ruin his name and the players will have confidence of a 10 year old nerd!

If the new CBA proves to be OK and there are 28 teams at positive zero or better, I'm sure there wouldn't be any problem with the next CBA. But I'm afraid the Union will then say "Look, no teams lose money, so the players should earn more!" and the same **** will start hitting the fan.

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

No. bettman has been saying all along that if the NHLPA will not "back down" on what they went, then the owners are unwilling to negotiate. Meanwhile, Fehr is saying the NHLPA will negotiate at anytime and at any place.

And what a load that is from Fehr. The league has been negotiating against itself for months. If you mean the last week or so then yes, the league appears done doing that. Though for all we know (since we aren't privy to every detail) the owners floated through Steve Fehr, 6/8 years, 9year cba, but then the entire make whole would be wiped out with the owners getting 52% instantly. Who knows what tit for tat goes on in those phone calls and meetings. Both sides have negotiated and changed their offers from summer till we are where we are and the league appears to have now reached a point they feel they can't go anymore. That was bound to happen eventually. Fehr is a drop dead date negotiator so probably Jan 8-15 will be his final cards.

I just really want to see the guy who did the analysis on how much money they will ultimately profit by this strategy vs having a short CBA where they took the union up on their offer to decrease their revenues to 50% without a snap back. I can't believe the top money makers or even the head above water teams would have turned out better with this strategy. The money loser's were screwed no matter what.

Originally Posted by FishMonger

This post is about as well thought out as your previous in this thread. Good to see you're staying true to form.

Nothing says 'willingness to negotiate' like the voluntary breakup of a union...

Originally Posted by FishMonger

Nothing says 'willingness to negotiate' like the voluntary breakup of a union...