Lockout: Players or owners?

[Gaucho]

meh

[Idoit40fans]

no

Seems more accurate.

[Sarcastic]

Sorry, there's no way you can convince me it wasn't a **** move by the owners to try to get the players to sign a deal without their legal representation. That's "negotiating in bad faith". It has nothing to do with Fehr "winning". It really has nothing to do with Fehr. It was a PR tactic by the owners to try and strong-arm the players without their legal representation in the room.

When it came to actually signing the deal, they could have given it to Fehr and whatever other lawyers they have present to look over to see if there isn't a pig hidden in the contract somewhere. I am talking about negotiations and agreeing on terms. They seemed happy. One day later, they didn't seem so happy. Only thing I can see is that Fehr told them they could get more.

[Sarcastic]

The owners balked because they gave in on pretty much everything WHEN COMPARING TO THE FIRST LEAGUE OFFER except for contract length and variance (that they should stick with no matter what) and it still wasn't good enough.

Fixed that for you..

First offer or tenth offer. Doesn't matter. It was a good offer and players should have signed it.

[rinkflea]

When Fehr was hired, the owners knew he would hijack the process, feeding his KoolAid to the players who were dumb enough to drink it. The owners knew what he would do and decided that they would not let him decide what would happen with their league. So now the NHLPA is stuck with the process he started with no way out of it. Until they take back ownership of their union from Fehr, there's no way the owners will give Fehr what he has promised he would get for the players to build his reputation further. Except that the owners knew him and his reputation and are not about to let him build it more at the expense of their league.

[Gaucho]

Would it help if I donated $5 to the league?

[columbia]

Maybe they should have a bake sale.