Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#4471 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:38 AM

Bettman has taken each offer off the table after it's been countered by the PA. If you don't know this, you've clearly got no clue what's going on this lockout. Simple as that. And yeah, you just said Bettman had power because he took the last offer off the table. Look in my last post, it's quoted there. Do you have a one post memory limit or something?

Lost revenue =/= lost HRR/lost profits. You need to learn to actually research what you're talking about. I laid it out for you on how to equip yourself with the knowledge to comprehend my point. Go away and do your homework, then come back with a reply. This knowledge is neither secret nor difficult to understand. Currently you're just exhibiting willful ignorance.



This is gibberish for not being able to back up what you claim.

Give me a link or admit you are pulling things out of your....... "hair"
  • 0

#4472 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:44 AM

On the issue of the 'Big 3 Issues' for the owners and the extra $100, I look at it this way.

1- the owners committed 100% of the contract money on each and every player contract that they negotiated. So really, if the players take 1 cent less than the full value, it's a concession. All of the numbers talked about so far on the make whole provision have been a concession by the players financially.

2- the owners said 'here's a 100 million for a total of 300 million, but we get 5 years terms, a 10 year CBA, and the transitional terms we want (escrow, buyouts, etc.). It came with a typical 'take it or leave it'.

That extra 100 million (98 actually) spread out over 30 teams works out to 3.3 million per team. For giving up 3.3 million, which in the grand scheme of things is nothing, especially over 10 years, the owners get the last 3 remaining issues completely in their favour without having to compromise on them at all.

Not a bad deal. For the owners.

It didn't need to be this way.

I believe the owners need a ten year deal in order to shore up the weaker teams so that they can survive the war that always ensues in CBA negotiations. They might be able to afford a lost season every 10 years, but not every 5 or 6. If true, that tells me that there are owners today that are VERY nervous about the survivability of a cancelled season this time around.

Edited by JAH, 07 December 2012 - 01:49 AM.

  • 2
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#4473 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,350 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:45 AM

Am I the only one who noticed the expression change on Bettman's face when the reporter asked about decertification?

Go to about the 23 minute mark of the interview to see what I mean.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#4474 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:53 AM

This is gibberish for not being able to back up what you claim.

Give me a link or admit you are pulling things out of your....... "hair"


Should I provide an excel spreadsheet on the repercussions of each proposal as well? Do your own work you lazy sod. It's happened multiple times over the course of the negotiation.
  • 2

#4475 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:59 AM

Am I the only one who noticed the expression change on Bettman's face when the reporter asked about decertification?

Go to about the 23 minute mark of the interview to see what I mean.


what did you think? I remember when watching it earlier Bettman suggested to look up disclaimer of interest rather than decertification..
  • 0

#4476 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:59 AM

I was heartened to here Daly say that the league was willing to "die on that hill" over contract term lengths.I hope the league stands it's ground on the ten year CBA as well. I have no stomach to go through this in five or six years again. Even if it means missing another year I would hope the owners are willing to stand in there for a good, sustainable CBA.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#4477 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,146 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:01 AM

Red herring day.

A day of public relations displays - competition - to attempt to one-up on expressions of the greater disappointment that they did not capitulate under pressure.

Great energy in the room, until their professional was allowed back into the process...
  • 0

#4478 Canucks_fo_life

Canucks_fo_life

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,579 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:04 AM

There will be hockey this season, I've said it from the start and I still maintain that. The two sides have never been closer, talks will resume shortly and we'll have a 48-52 game season starting in late December or mid January the latest. The stakes are too high, theres no way they would cancel another entire season.
  • 0
I rather lose with the Canucks, than win with any other team

This is OUR year

GO CANUCKS GOOOOOO!!!!!!!

#4479 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:07 AM

Should I provide an excel spreadsheet on the repercussions of each proposal as well? Do your own work you lazy sod. It's happened multiple times over the course of the negotiation.


Get out of here you clown. It's not my work, it's yours since you are making the claim.

If you can't back up your claims don't engage me in conversation. You make a claim you back it up with proof.

Give me a link from credible source that says Bettman has pulled off the table every offer he's made.

Other wise quit pulling stuff out of your arse and leave me alone.
  • 0

#4480 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,350 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:10 AM

what did you think? I remember when watching it earlier Bettman suggested to look up disclaimer of interest rather than decertification..


I thought he had a pensive smile almost as if he was daring the PA to go down that route. He had the look of a bluffer who tries to act as if he wants the person to do it.... when he very clearly does not.

Edited by theminister, 07 December 2012 - 02:11 AM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#4481 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:12 AM

theminister, a question about something you wrote earlier (I was busy today and checked in periodically without time to comment, I'd go back to find the quote if this were a normal day in the CBA thread, but this place is a mess today). Anyways, you said that the position of commissioner was only created as a response to the formation of the PA? but the PA has been around since the 50s, while the role of commissioner was made specifically for Bettman in 93... curious if I misinterpreted what you were saying (if indeed it was you, I'm going by memory).

Also, a note about throwing around the phrase 'the hill to die on'. It's my impression that Fehr doesn't have any intentions of staying in his role past the lockout. From what I read he was reluctant to take the job in the first place, and only agreed to help them through this CBA negotiations. Bettman and Daly, meanwhile, clearly have aspirations to keep their jobs for years to come.
  • 0

#4482 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,146 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:15 AM

A bunch more smoke that generates no revenue, and no real entertainment.

The 'business' of hockey lockouts.

Counterproductive.
  • 0

#4483 brewdog

brewdog

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:15 AM

$100M from 30 owners over 10 years is really such a small amount of money in exchange for some pretty significant contracting rights. That's barely more than $300K per owner each year. I'm sure they spend more than that on sticks each season.

I propose a new drinking game. ::D Choose your personality and take a swig each time they say the following phrase:

Gary Bettman - "That was our best offer."

Bill Daly - "We don't have a negotiating partner."

Donald Fehr - "It's unclear why..."

Doug MacLean - "56.5%!"
  • 0

#4484 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:17 AM

I thought he had a pensive smile almost as if he was daring the PA to go down that route. He had the look of a bluffer who tries to act as if he wants the person to do it.... when he very clearly does not.

Interesting, I thought he seemed to be showing confidence and i might use your word of daring.

I only watched it once live but perhaps that's what he was doing, playing poker face. Clearly he wouldn't' want the PA to go that route because it means they are further away from an agreement then he'd like.
  • 0

#4485 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:17 AM

Get out of here you clown. It's not my work, it's yours since you are making the claim.

If you can't back up your claims don't engage me in conversation. You make a claim you back it up with proof.

Give me a link from credible source that says Bettman has pulled off the table every offer he's made.

Other wise quit pulling stuff out of your arse and leave me alone.


I'm frankly uninterested in digging through months of articles about this process to find something that's agreed upon by everyone in this thread except you. Look at other people's posts here. Bettman's approach that involves taking NHL proposals off the table when they are countered instead of accepted outright is common knowledge. It's referenced multiple times per page.

And you still don't know what revenue or profit are or you'd have said so by now. Demonstrate that you comprehend some fragment of the subject matter. The burden of proof is on the person who contends what is otherwise accepted. That's you here, not me.
  • 0

#4486 Franz Liszt

Franz Liszt

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,742 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:19 AM

Sheeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiit.........
  • 0

120px-Liszt_sign.JPG


#4487 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:19 AM

Bettman: " my intent was to start the season on time (30:30)". WOW talk about eating his own rhetoric, ya a 43% proposal in late July is obviously going to get things done by mid September. What a clown, I feel sorry for anyone that believes this clown.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#4488 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:23 AM

I'm frankly uninterested in digging through months of articles about this process to find something that's agreed upon by everyone in this thread except you. Look at other people's posts here. Bettman's approach that involves taking NHL proposals off the table when they are countered instead of accepted outright is common knowledge. It's referenced multiple times per page.

And you still don't know what revenue or profit are or you'd have said so by now. Demonstrate that you comprehend some fragment of the subject matter. The burden of proof is on the person who contends what is otherwise accepted. That's you here, not me.


Your right, Bettman has frequently said we'll take this offer off the table after *this date*. He did it in mid September after the league proposed a 46/54 split in their favour, with the ultimatum later that Friday. He did it before American thanksgiving, saying the 'make whole' provision changes would only be available if the deal was signed before thanksgiving. I'm pretty sure he did another one in late October when he felt they could salvage an 82 game schedule, believing that kind of rhetoric would get the fans on his side. You are completely correct nateb, don't concern yourself with WHL, I've seen him attack posters before on semantics, one can assume it's because he can't formulate a real argument.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#4489 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:25 AM

I thought he had a pensive smile almost as if he was daring the PA to go down that route. He had the look of a bluffer who tries to act as if he wants the person to do it.... when he very clearly does not.


I disagree. I didn't see it. I saw very real confidence. He is after all a former Proskauer and Rose lawyer with one of the heads of the firm on the NHL BoG. They've seen what decertification did in the NBA lockout and a man as methodical as Bettman has definitely prepared owners for that possibility. I don't think it's that big of a threat to the owners as it throws guaranteed contracts, pension, benefits and tons of other expenses out the window. They knew it was an option, evaluated it long ago and went "Doesn't sound too bad to us".
  • 0

#4490 brewdog

brewdog

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:29 AM

Bettman: " my intent was to start the season on time (30:30)". WOW talk about eating his own rhetoric, ya a 43% proposal in late July is obviously going to get things done by mid September. What a clown, I feel sorry for anyone that believes this clown.


I'd like the next CBA to include a clause that the League commissioner and the Union leader forfeit their salary if future CBA negotiations delay the season during the next negotiating year. :)
  • 0

#4491 shiznak

shiznak

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,356 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:32 AM

I think everything has gone according to Bettman's playbook up until today. He always planned on giving nothing to the players until Dec 1 and counted on them compromising right up until then. That way he begins negotiating on Dec 1 against a player position that is far closer to their own, allowing them to give less in the end.

They knew when the players started missing paycheques, this would cause them to compromise. They also know that in many markets the NHL doesn't make very much money in October and November as compared to the later months and certainly the playoffs. In short, they lose less than the players by forgoing the first 2 months. The players miss a third of their salary, but the owners only miss a fifth or sixth of their revenue.

They figured once Dec 1 rolled around, the players would be ripe for compromise and would be anxious to deal.

What happened here is that Fehr slowed down the process, knowing that we are entering waters that the owners do not care to be in (missing games deep into December and January). He now has the NHL in a more precarious position, much like the players were in for the last 3 months.

It is now Fehr's turn to grind the NHL and see what HE can get from THEM. This was not a part of Bettman's playbook and now he is extremely unhappy.

IMHO


Lol, you got to be kidding me!

This was Bettman plan all along, to hold out to Dec 1, in risk of losing the entire season (which he won't earn a salary) and his job?

Gimme a fracking break.

Edited by shiznak, 07 December 2012 - 02:35 AM.

  • 0

f9mgqu.png


#4492 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,945 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:33 AM

Bettman was asked by the Owners to remove the make whole aspect he did not.He wanted to keep the process going. The owners listened to the NHLPA in regard to their "key" to ending the Lock out but that key kept changing or being added to lol. In regards to the decertification Bettman stated disclaimer....they made concessions and the NHLPA said no so why keep these deals on the table only to have the NHLPA take them and ask for more....lol

"NBA

Gabriel Feldman: The disclaimer of interest is a less formal process that is initiated by the union itself, and it is a statement that the union no longer wishes to represent the players as their collective-bargaining representative. So it is, in essence, the union walking away from the players.

Decertification requires a formal petition to the National Labor Relations Board and then a formal vote in front of the NLRB where 50 percent of the players have to choose to no longer be represented by the union. So decertification, in essence, is the players walking away from the union.

So there are formal distinctions between the two processes. Decertification is a more formal process that takes longer. The disclaimer is a less formal process that is much quicker."

which do you think the NHLPA choose lol

Who mentions "the fans" more in thier PR....lol

Don't forget it was the NHLPA that quit the new process that brought so much optimism to everyone including the media....
  • 0

#4493 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:40 AM

Your right, Bettman has frequently said we'll take this offer off the table after *this date*. He did it in mid September after the league proposed a 46/54 split in their favour, with the ultimatum later that Friday. He did it before American thanksgiving, saying the 'make whole' provision changes would only be available if the deal was signed before thanksgiving. I'm pretty sure he did another one in late October when he felt they could salvage an 82 game schedule, believing that kind of rhetoric would get the fans on his side. You are completely correct nateb, don't concern yourself with WHL, I've seen him attack posters before on semantics, one can assume it's because he can't formulate a real argument.


Aaaaand now he's gone offline to avoid admitting he's wrong. It must require a spectacular amount of self-assurance to defend his comments and act like what he's saying has some authority when he doesn't have any clue about accounting, finance or negotiations. Thanks for helping me give him a dose of reality.
  • 0

#4494 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,350 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:40 AM

I disagree. I didn't see it. I saw very real confidence. He is after all a former Proskauer and Rose lawyer with one of the heads of the firm on the NHL BoG. They've seen what decertification did in the NBA lockout and a man as methodical as Bettman has definitely prepared owners for that possibility. I don't think it's that big of a threat to the owners as it throws guaranteed contracts, pension, benefits and tons of other expenses out the window. They knew it was an option, evaluated it long ago and went "Doesn't sound too bad to us".


Yeah, you could be right. It wouldn't surprise me. It would still be incredibly stupid for all involved to let it come to that.

theminister, a question about something you wrote earlier (I was busy today and checked in periodically without time to comment, I'd go back to find the quote if this were a normal day in the CBA thread, but this place is a mess today). Anyways, you said that the position of commissioner was only created as a response to the formation of the PA? but the PA has been around since the 50s, while the role of commissioner was made specifically for Bettman in 93... curious if I misinterpreted what you were saying (if indeed it was you, I'm going by memory).


Yes, that was me. i was mobile at the time so I probably didn't give enough effort to explain myself clearly. I apologise.

My understanding, which could be entirely incorrect, is that the position of Commissioner was created for Bettman specifically in 1993 after the labour problems of the previous year. When this happened they also gave him broad new abilities, including a substantially bigger budget than the Presidents previously had, to build the business. One of these main functions was to deal with collective bargaining with a main goal actually steering the league and owners toward a direction. Priorly the President was more involved with strictly internal issues as the franchises acted much more independently. Even since 1993 we have seen the consolidation of power under the Commissioner's office grow until we have gotten to the point where there is actually revenue sharing and intertwined bookkeeping by the teams.

Essentially, without a union the way the Commissioner's office enacts it's duties now would be completely illegal in both the US and Canada and would be in direct violation of anti-trust laws.

Edit: I meant to add that the PA didn't really start until 1967 with expansion and Zeigler was the President for almost all of the time. He was deemed to have failed utterly by the owners to grow the game and avoid the negative problems they were experiencing then. In my view it's similar to moving from having a President to a Fuhrer.

Edited by theminister, 07 December 2012 - 02:44 AM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#4495 brewdog

brewdog

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:41 AM

It's hard to separate the truth from the posturing while watching this unfold through TSN and Twitter, but the posted comments from those 4 owners (Burkle, Tanenbaum etc) have me a bit concerned that the PA may have pissed off the owners.
  • 0

#4496 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,146 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:43 AM

I disagree. I didn't see it. I saw very real confidence. He is after all a former Proskauer and Rose lawyer with one of the heads of the firm on the NHL BoG. They've seen what decertification did in the NBA lockout and a man as methodical as Bettman has definitely prepared owners for that possibility. I don't think it's that big of a threat to the owners as it throws guaranteed contracts, pension, benefits and tons of other expenses out the window. They knew it was an option, evaluated it long ago and went "Doesn't sound too bad to us".


I think I have heard him going on about the health of the game under the last CBA - 29 teams making the playoffs, 7 different SC champions... The New York Yankees might welcome decertification, but the also-rans in the NHL... if they are struggling to survive under the existing collective terms, it's not hard to project their fates under a free for all...
  • 0

#4497 Mufasa

Mufasa

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,095 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:44 AM

Lp
  • 0
RIP - Rick Rypien
PSN - BthaKing



#4498 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:09 AM

Seething step backward as deal disappears

The two-word expletive that means "go forth and multiply" can be delivered in all sorts of ways.
But in the context of a relationship, probably nothing in the world says it more clearly than being dumped by voicemail. Unless it's by text message.
So when NHL Players' Association executive director Donald Fehr walked off the podium after his press conference Thursday in New York - having told the assembled media that with all the concessions the players' side had offered in a new proposal, there wasn't enough difference left in the two sides' positions to prevent a new Collective Bargaining Agreement - he probably wasn't expecting to be stopped short of the door by a message left on his brother (and deputy) Steve's cellphone.
"Unacceptable," said the message, from Bettman's 2-IC, Bill Daly. "Everything's off the table."
As reporters watched, fascinated, Don Fehr returned to the podium. Maybe it dawned on him that the message had probably been left while he was still on TV answering reporters' questions.
He was not happy, but he does a decent job of hiding the exact width and breadth of his displeasure. He's been through these wars before, in baseball.
Gary Bettman's been through them before, too. Repeatedly. But when he arrived for his moment in front of the microphones, he was one seething heap of New York lawyer. He's a pretty good actor, but I'm not sure, given the colour in his face, that his anger was a put-on.
It's pretty clear what happened: talks, which had begun so well on Tuesday, began to deteriorate late Wednesday night when the owners put nearly an extra $100 million into the "make whole" pool, meeting the players halfway in essence, and in Bettman's words, "the union's response was shockingly silent. It was 'thank you, we'll take the $100M.' "
The owners left behind their counter-offer, which Bettman said required a simple "yes or no, not a negotiation session." Fehr tried to negotiate off it Thursday, and the league hit the roof.
And immediately, the conspiracy theories began.
Was all that sudden bonhomie from the owners' side on Tuesday - the meeting suggested by Bettman between six hand-picked owners on one side and as many players as the union wished to send on the other - an elaborate setup?
Were Bettman's "moderates" - Pittsburgh's Ron Burkle, Winnipeg's Mark Chipman, Toronto's Larry Tanenbaum and Tampa's Jeff Vinik - really the NHL's Trojan horse, sent in to catch the players off-guard and get them stampeding toward a resolution? All the while knowing that as soon as Fehr was back in the room, he'd sniff out the ruse, and throw up a roadblock, and make himself an easy scapegoat for the inevitable recriminations that would follow the next breakdown?
Is it too much to have a horse and a goat in the same paragraph?
On the other side, could the whack-a-mole game Fehr's been playing with the union's ever-moving target be happening because - though he must have known from the start that he was playing a losing hand - he's worried about what his own legacy might be, if he's unable to stem the tide of givebacks to the owners?


Could the players, 18 strong, have been so naive as to think that there wasn't something just a little fishy, a little orchestrated, about the sudden thaw from the owners' side? Were they really surprised when Jeremy Jacobs and Co. revealed the iron fist inside the velvet glove once it got down to specifics?
"The owners are beside themselves," railed Bettman. "Some of them I've never seen so emotional. They told me the process is over."
It does kind of make you wonder what the players are thinking right now.
Maybe Fehr has been telling his guys that a collective bargaining negotiation is like buying a car.
That the rock-bottom price the salesman gives you at the beginning is going to change, perhaps several times, before the haggling is all done, so don't get all shirty about it. Keep battling, and eventually you'll get a better deal.
If you can't get the price you want, maybe he'll throw in some options. You tell him to keep the extended warranty, maybe you'll get air-conditioning and the sun roof.
It sounded good. So Bettman's opening gambit in the summer was a bloody insult? Everyone could see that. But in the end, he'd come around a little bit. You couldn't expect to win the negotiation, exactly, because he's the only dealer in town, unless you had your eye on a Lada, in which case Russia was only about two hard days away by air.
But hang in there, and you could maybe walk away with your dignity.
If that's what the head of NHLPA has been telling his players, Thursday evening's events must have hit them like a stiff boot to the solar plexus and had them wondering if their hired gun was delusional. Surely they're smarter than to think they were - are - going to win this fight.
Surely they knew which way the day was going to end from the moment they found out that the only representatives the league had deigned to send to hear their proposal were Bill Daly and the dreaded Dr. Death, lockout lawyer Bob Batterman.
No Bettman; he was back at NHL headquarters, making Montgomery Burns steeples with his fingers, composing his speech. And no owners; they had begun leaving in shifts during the day, getting out ahead of the storm.
Fehr put on a pretty good song and dance, making it sound as though it would have to be a really cynical league to reject the players' offer of a maximum eight-year contract length, an eight-year CBA term with an optional out after six, a nip here, a tuck there - never exactly what the NHL had asked for, but closer.
But what he really was doing was a bit of sleight-of-hand. The sides weren't close, and he knew it. He kept changing the game, and as soon as the league would try to put one fire out, another would spring up.
His statement that the players were proposing the eight-year maximum on contracts (the NHL wanted five) appears to have touched a nerve.
The five-year limit, Daly said, is "a hill we will die on."
The players - hell, anyone who loves the game - had better hope he doesn't mean that.
The thing about having burned the house down once before, only to build a bigger one in its place at zero cost, is that it makes the arsonist think it's just that simple.


  • 0

#4499 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,030 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:21 AM

Notice how things were fine until Bettman and Fehr got involved again and then it goes completely off the rails.

I think both the NHL and NHLPA need to get rid of both these clowns, and just hammer out a deal.

They're playing chicken, and don't realise they are destroying the fan base because of it.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#4500 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:27 AM

Your right, Bettman has frequently said we'll take this offer off the table after *this date*. He did it in mid September after the league proposed a 46/54 split in their favour, with the ultimatum later that Friday. He did it before American thanksgiving, saying the 'make whole' provision changes would only be available if the deal was signed before thanksgiving. I'm pretty sure he did another one in late October when he felt they could salvage an 82 game schedule, believing that kind of rhetoric would get the fans on his side. You are completely correct nateb, don't concern yourself with WHL, I've seen him attack posters before on semantics, one can assume it's because he can't formulate a real argument.


LOL aren't you the guy who thinks Schneider would need to defect to come back to the Canucks?? C'mon man.

Then you called me out for saying PHX (Glendale) citizens had poured millions per year into the franchise. You thought my comment was ludicrous, when I asked you if you disagreed with this fact you never came back to answer. LOL Obviously you are not aware of the city giving up to $25 million per year to keep the team.Two peas in a pot!!

http://sports.nation...o-keep-coyotes/

After hours of testimony and discussion, the council voted 5-2 late Tuesday night to give the NHL $25-million for arena operating costs for next season. It’s the second $25-million Glendale will have forked over. The city did the same a year ago and the league collected that cash out of escrow last week.


Edit, see this is how it works. I claim something you call me out I provide you with link as proof to my claim.

Edited by WHL rocks, 07 December 2012 - 03:36 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.