2012 CBA Negotiations Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
- Status
bustaheims
Active member
Frank E said:
It certainly could be, though, I imagine there's more to the story than we've been told.
bustaheims
Active member
ChrisBottaNHL: In memo to PA, Don Fehr shoots down report of Make Whole concessions. In text, player calls report "latest NHL smokescreen."
With that level of trust in each other, I really just can't understand how they haven't made a deal yet.
With that level of trust in each other, I really just can't understand how they haven't made a deal yet.
Frank E
Active member
bustaheims said:ChrisBottaNHL: In memo to PA, Don Fehr shoots down report of Make Whole concessions. In text, player calls report "latest NHL smokescreen."
With that level of trust in each other, I really just can't understand how they haven't made a deal yet.
Well, quite frankly, I think the PA has been providing more smokescreen than the owners..."We're at 50% too!"
bustaheims
Active member
Frank E said:
I agree. And, really, I'd say this most recent move by the owners provides the most equitable way of managing the situation re: current contracts.
WalterSobchak
New member
But apparently the last offer by the NHL,some three weeks ago, was the last offer the players would get...
I know it's a negotiation ploy but c'mon man! ???
I know it's a negotiation ploy but c'mon man! ???
bustaheims
Active member
BMan said:
Well, this isn't another proposal - it's a tweak to their most recent proposal.
WalterSobchak
New member
Fair enough. I always thought final meant final. In The World According to Gary, I guess not.bustaheims said:
bustaheims
Active member
BMan said:
When it comes to these types of contract negotiations, final doesn't mean final until both sides are putting ink to paper.
Hopefully this gets them in the same room until a solution can be worked out. I'm not holding my breath.
I remember hearing an opinion on the radio this week, probably the FAN, that the players knew just as much as the GMs that the landscape was going to change with the new CBA, and that contributed to some of these ridiculous contracts and bonuses.
Tango, two sides.
I remember hearing an opinion on the radio this week, probably the FAN, that the players knew just as much as the GMs that the landscape was going to change with the new CBA, and that contributed to some of these ridiculous contracts and bonuses.
Tango, two sides.
Derk said:
Of course the players knew.
At first, Fehr's line that the players "just wanted the contracts signed to be paid out" sounded good. Then some commentator somewhere woke me up to the fact that it is just rhetoric. The contracts signed were, always had been, and always will be tied to the CBA in force. If the players did not want to incur the risk of a changing CBA then they simply shouldn't have signed a contract. Of course, there was risk either way -- no one knew whether it would be better to sign a deal before or after the new CBA...and there was plenty of discussion of that before the lockout! Anyway, there's no logical moral or legal reason I've heard why the owner-player split can't immediately be cut to 55% or 50% or 45% or 40% or whatever the players and owners agree to.
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
I think that's kind of missing the point that the players are making. I'm sure players are aware that their contracts are fundamentally tied to a CBA. I think what they're saying is more along the lines that the owners went into negotiations with FA's in the summer fully aware of the fact that they were going to look to take a big chunk out of those same contracts via the CBA negotiations and some players feel, justifiably in my opinion, as though those owners negotiated those deals in bad faith.
Regardless of whether or not you think that's a justified way to see things I think that has to be acknowledged as the cause of a lot of the strong feelings on the matter.
Chev-boyar-sky
New member
Nik V. Debs said:
I agree with this completely (or that this is the players stance).
I find it harder to fault the GM's on the bigger UFA signings. The owners knew there would be a rollback but couldn't all agree not to sign any players without it being collusion. Therefore they wanted to be the ones to sign players, so that at least makes sense to me.
My issue lies in the Eberle/Hall/Kane (am I forgetting anyone?) deals. Teams didn't have to make sign those deals until after the CBA. The players weren't going anywhere, and the teams see these guys as cornerstone players.
They could've said "We'd prefer to see where the CBA stands next season before making a deal. There's a chance your salary will be rolled back and we want everyone to be happy with/understand the exact implications of the contract because we value you a lot".
Now it looks as if they were trying to screw cornerstone players out of 12% of their next contract. Obviously if players feel like that's what happened, this will take awhile to sort out.
maplesyrup
New member
Long session. Hope that's good.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
bustaheims said:
Ahhhhhh I see, only the NHL is allowed to tweak their offers...Not the PA...Makes sense
bustaheims
Active member
OldTimeHockey said:Ahhhhhh I see, only the NHL is allowed to tweak their offers...Not the PA...Makes sense
We're still waiting for the PA to put forth a complete proposal.
Also, where did I say anything that even insinuated the PA can't tweak their offers? They're absolutely allowed to. Not that it would make them more palatable to the owners, but, whatever.
- Status