Quote:
Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers
They are open to splitting revenue with the players. Considering that was originally the biggest problem, I'd say that's a nice compromise.
|
Perhaps you should actually read the article I linked.
"An angry Bettman said Thursday night the league's proposal to use $300 million to "make whole" players contracts in deferred compensation -- now being called "transition payments" --
had been withdrawn."
When you withdraw, what both side consider the biggest issue, you're not interested in compromise or negotiation, you just set everything back to square one, your using siege tactics. It's the same technique lawyers uses, try and bankrupt the other guy so he's forced to accept your terms with no negotiation.
It's pretty clear to me, the owners intend to keep resetting "negotiations" until the players are to demoralized (or to broke) and simply accept the owners terms.
Fact, the owners locked out the players, the players didn't strike. IMHO the owners have demonstrated no interest in good faith negotiations, they maintain the "my way or the highway" attitude. Now ask yourself, if the players return feeling like they got shafted (because unlike owners their primary source of money is playing hockey) how hard do you think they will play? What quality of hockey will we be watching (if any of us decide to watch, I'm happy watching the AHL)?
I suspect (stealing logic from Office Space) they will try just hard enough not to be benched/traded, would you work harder if someone just cut your pay 7% (knowing hard work won't bring the money back, and if the owners have their way it would be 8 to 10 years before you could even talk about money again, which is far beyond the average players career of 5 years)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers
Do you really need the meaning of compromise and how negotiations work spelled out for you?
|
If you think that's what the owners are actually doing, I guess I don't understand this new definition of compromise or negotiations.