Quote:
Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers
The owners withdrew their suggestion for transition payments because, unlike the players union, they're not going to keep submitting the same proposal hoping that this time it passes. If the players didn't like the idea, then the owners withdraw it. Something tells me it's not going to be the last we hear of that idea though.
|
So you have seen the proposals the players keep submitting, care to link them? Because I suspect they aren't dumb enough to keep handing over the same offer without making some changes. Again, please feel free to back up your statements with some type of evidence.
Players "liked" the idea of "made whole" what they could not agree on was the amount. When both sides agree in principal there is no need to entirely withdraw from that position, like buying a car there is offer and counter offer, the side that withdraws shows they are unwilling to deal.
Those owners must be fast readers, since they are rejecting the offers in 15 min. It's almost as if they aren't reading them at all, which might also be the reason they aren't submitting any counter proposals.
Evidence:
http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2...ject_play.html
It's one thing to say, "300 mill that's as high as we can go", it's entirely different to say, we were willing to offer 300 mil but now you get zero because you pushed us on some other issue. It wasn't removed because the players didn't like it, it was a punitive measure, why would Bettman have done it
out of anger if it was just because the players didn't like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers
You seem to be confusing my point of view as support for salary rollbacks. I don't support that and I don't support either side more than the other. My point -- the one you initially responded to -- is that the players have done NOTHING to contribute to the progress of negotiations.
|
So agreeing in principal to reduction from 57% to 50% is nothing in your mind?
Then feel free to send me 7% of your pay check, just think of it as nothing. Players have agreed to a cut in salary there is no debate on that point, and there seems to be a point were both side can feel they both win (the magical 50/50). Both side seem to agree to that term, it's when they go to 50/50 that is the sticking point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers
The owners, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to compromise and have even made a big step toward the middle when they tentatively agreed to a revenue split.
|
Oh how generous of the owners, their share goes up and the players goes down, must have taken them a long time to agree to that. Add that the owners want it to be retroactive on existing signed contracts, their generosity has no depth. Blame totally on the players for not taking such a good deal.
It's almost like Bettman is afraid of Fehr, imagine the cops saying to a suspect under interrogation, "our deal is off if you bring your lawyer back in!"
"Winnipeg Jets defenceman Ron Hainsey, an influential member of the NHLPA's negotiating committee, said that players were told by the NHL on Wednesday night that it would be a potential "deal-breaker" if Fehr was brought back into the negotiating room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phila26Flyers
The fact that the owners offered contracts in full through a separate fund also shows they are willing to compromise from their original position. The players didn't like the idea so the players rejected it and the owners withdrew the offer so they don't keep submitting the same rejected ideas like the players are.
|
Again please provide ANY evidence supporting this statement, the owners never offered "in full" (league offer 211 million) they have offered multiple different payment schemes but NONE have matched what the players feel is "in full" (393 million). The owners are so ridiculously low that adding an additional 100 million was considered insulting. Players never rejected it they just didn't say "Oh thank you Mr. Owner, that huge sacrifice on your part will seal the deal", and the owners said "this is a package deal, take it or leave it", again, my way or the highway. When you are negotiating in good faith EVERYTHING is negotiable.
Evidence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12...n_2251595.html
"Not only was the NHL flatly rejecting the union's offer,
it was also pulling all the concessions it made earlier this week off the table."
Like a petulant child that invites a friend to play in the sand box and then takes away the toys when the friends doesn't want to play his game.
I see the players making offers, and the owners rejecting said offers.
I see owners making low ball offerings, and then pulling them back when the players don't capitulate in some other area.
If you really want to get a deal done you don't offer a "package only deal" that has no negotiable terms. If the owners really wanted to deal then take the players proposal and make counter offers, rejecting it in whole is indicative of a piss poor negotiator.
Neither side is without blame, on that we agree, I just think more of it belongs on the owners, and you apparently think it's on the players, to each his own.