goalie13 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The bargaining committee on either side can't just accept a deal. They can endorse a proposed deal to their respective sides but there has to be a vote by the members to accept or reject. There is no such thing as wholesale acceptance by a bargaining committee at the table. And even then, it's not a given that the membership votes in acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Enough owners are there at the BOG meeting that the owners side could likely accept a deal. If the players in New York tell the other members that they have a good deal in place, I'm sure there would be no issue with them accepting it. Players trust each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Ya I think it's been said that 8 owners counts as a majority (I'm not entirely sure how this works out), 6 of which would have already agreed to the deal brokered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I thought it was that it only takes 8 owners to prevent a deal, meaning that it would take 75% to accept it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 A majority vote is 23 which could easily be accomplished by conference call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I think he was being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I thought it was that it only takes 8 owners to prevent a deal, meaning that it would take 75% to accept it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJokinen! Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Yep. it's a stupid system designed by Bettman to protect the weak market teams. How does it make sense that you can have over 2/3 of the owners accept a deal, but if there's less than a 1/3 that don't like it they have the power to reject it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I think it's more like 17/24 if we assume all the owners in the meeting are unanimous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Yep. it's a stupid system designed by Bettman to protect the weak market teams. How does it make sense that you can have over 2/3 of the owners accept a deal, but if there's less than a 1/3 that don't like it they have the power to reject it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The fastest way for deal to be done is to have the NHL accept a union proposal rather than the other way around. I am sure both sides are aware of this and if an agreement is reached this week it will likely be this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Or it's designed so that a small contingent of owners can control the league, or Bettman can, or Jacobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJokinen! Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Yea, but Jacobs seems to be the greediest of the owners. There were reports before the lockout started that he wanted to have one, and was even willing to bankroll part of it. Either way I'd be pissed if I were an owner and a small group of owners were holding negotiations hostage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Enough owners are there at the BOG meeting that the owners side could likely accept a deal. If the players in New York tell the other members that they have a good deal in place, I'm sure there would be no issue with them accepting it. Players trust each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Actually, it's not a bad system. Bettman and his crew make decisions for the league. It takes a 2/3 majority to overturn what they have recommended as the best option for the league. Theoretically, this allows NHL management to make decisions in the benefit of small market teams, provided it does not go against the wishes of an overwhelming majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Yea, but Jacobs seems to be the greediest of the owners. There were reports before the lockout started that he wanted to have one, and was even willing to bankroll part of it. Either way I'd be pissed if I were an owner and a small group of owners were holding negotiations hostage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everybody Hates Raymond Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Glen Macnow @RealGlenMacnow NHL source tells me settlement could come Friday. Camp in a week, opener by Christmas, 60 game schedule. Hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Glen Macnow ‏@RealGlenMacnow NHL source tells me settlement could come Friday. Camp in a week, opener by Christmas, 60 game schedule. Hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 This would NEVER happen in any union. They would still have to put it to a vote regardless of bargaining committee endorsement or not. Granted, when your bargaining committee endorses a deal, it is very likely to pass but there will still be players who will vote no because they can or simply do not agree with some of the concessions. Very few offers are ratified 100% in favour of acceptance. It's all in how they word it to their members. It is in the owner's best interest to be voting on a deal anyways as there is much less room for dissidence. So hopefully it's the NHLPA tabling the offer to the owners. That said, the NHLPA might have some sort of acceptance mechanism in their current CBA that allows the bargaining committee to be a quorum. I know everyone is getting excited that there might be a deal in place in short order but there is some old saying about not putting the cart in front of the horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.