Deadbolt
Well-known member
So Bettman says everything is off the table and is publicly bad mouthing Fehr. We're back to the league posturing and whining to the media. We've gone backwards.
Why does Fehr have to be in the room? The owners wanted a deal with certain guaranteed conditions that they believed they had negotiated by pumping more money into the make whole. Fehr comes back with a proposal that modifies all of those conditions and then goes to the media to say how close they are to deal. If you want to find out how close you are to a deal, why don't you put the original proposal (or any of the proposals) to a union vote?Hahaha. The NHL wanted to get a deal done without Fehr. The players insisted on bringing Fehr back. The owners decided to end talks and pin the blame on Fehr. Fehr brings a proposal that makes it look ridiculously stupid to let the process break down now. The owners are sticking with the original plan, with owners sending out press releases blaming Fehr, who, again, wasn't in the room for any meeting they took part in, as far as I know.
Don Fehr: professional troll.
Why does Fehr have to be in the room? The owners wanted a deal with certain guaranteed conditions that they believed they had negotiated by pumping more money into the make whole. Fehr comes back with a proposal that modifies all of those conditions and then goes to the media to say how close they are to deal. If you want to find out how close you are to a deal, why don't you put the original proposal (or any of the proposals) to a union vote?
It's not like they were flying solo. They had a break between negotiating sessions and Steve Fehr was in the room the whole time.Well, didn't the NHLPA hire him to negotiate for them? Not having your negotiator in the room is like not taking your lawyer to court. Yeah, you could do it, but the chances are good that you will get screwed over. If you want to say they shouldn't have hired him, that is a different story.
Why does Fehr have to be in the room? The owners wanted a deal with certain guaranteed conditions that they believed they had negotiated by pumping more money into the make whole. Fehr comes back with a proposal that modifies all of those conditions and then goes to the media to say how close they are to deal. If you want to find out how close you are to a deal, why don't you put the original proposal (or any of the proposals) to a union vote?
It sounds like the owners thought they had negotiated something. The owners will give you $300MM in make whole and if you give us a 10 year CBA, 5 year SPC max, no compliance buy-outs or caps on escrow during transition. Everything else, negotiable. NHLPA's response is we'll take the $300MM and give you nothing that you asked for. How does that sound?What did they negotiate? All I read is that they talked generals on Tuesday, and the specifics didn't come up until Wednesday. I can't imagine that the players would have agreed to five year contract limits.
I don't get the vote argument. Can't the same be said for the owners? What is the point? They are in communication with the players and can gauge interest, they don't need to vote on every offer.
It sounds like the owners thought they had negotiated something. The owners will give you $300MM in make whole and if you give us a 10 year CBA, 5 year SPC max, no compliance buy-outs or caps on escrow during transition. Everything else, negotiable. NHLPA's response is we'll take the $300MM and give you nothing that you asked for. How does that sound?
No link, I just don't think the owners dropped changes to unrestricted free agency, entry-level contracts and arbitration, and made a jump in make whole so the NHLPA could squeeze them on their supposed non negotiable points. That seems to be confirmed by their reaction to the NHLPA's counter proposal.Do you have a link? I haven't read anything that implied that the players agreed to anything on Tuesday. The only thing close to a specific that I saw was that the owners had offered to ease up on their demads in regards to contracting rights.
Finally, a quick word on the system issues and contracting rights. Both the NHL and NHLPA believe these are critical issues and, to a point, they absolutely are. But only to a point and with a couple of exceptions, there shouldn't be a hill there that's worth dying on for either side.
John Shannon @JSportsnet
Just the Facts: NHL expect a simple YES or NO on All 3 key issues.... 10 Year CBA...5 Year contracts/5% Variance...and Compliance issues
John Shannon @JSportsnet
They got neither a YES or a NO. They got a counter proposal.... And so it goes.
No link, I just don't think the owners dropped changes to unrestricted free agency, entry-level contracts and arbitration, and made a jump in make whole so the NHLPA could squeeze them on their supposed non negotiable points. That seems to be confirmed by their reaction to the NHLPA's counter proposal.
Agree with Deadbolt, there have been no actual negotiations.
And why in the world is a 5 year contract length a "hill to die on"? BTW, love that Daly stole that line from a Bob McKenzie article earlier in this process:
John Shannon from last night:
Why can't the owners agree to existing UFA, ELC and arb conditions, and $300MM in make whole for 5 years SPCs, a 10 year CBA, and transition? I guess the NHLPA really wants that 9 year CBA with a 7 year opt out. GMAFB.I don't think there is such thing as a non negotiable point. There are points that either side will claim is non negotiable in order to attempt to gain leverage. Why is a 5 year contract limit instead of an 8 year contract limit a necessity for the league? They are arguing over peanuts.
Do you remember the NHL and NHLPA's initial offers? Both sides are negotiating.John Shannon proving my point. It's like the league has no idea how to negotiate.
League: HERE'S OUR OFFER, YAY OR NAY.
PA: Well, let's change this, this, and this.
League: SO NAY THEN? WE HATE YOU. YOU'RE NOT EVEN OUR REAL MOM.
adater @adater
From deep inside players side: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) and told us we could get more and to hold out"