Lockout

[the wicked child]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49123-Thanks-to-Fehr-NHL-negotiating-against-itselfand-losing.html#.UN5-DBX0RGI.twitter

The legend of Don Fehr continues. The NHLPA will end up with a very similar deal to what Paul Kelly would have negotiated, and it probably would have been accomplished without a lockout. So the membership gains nothing with Fehr, but loses at least a 1/2 year of salary. As I said the Fehr legend continues.

Uhh..I agree with the article author. If the owners would have just jumped to this offer to begin with, we would be talking about playoff races now. Right now it looks like it took fehr to get them there. Then again, the owners did get a half year reprieve from paying salaries. Time will tell if any damage done to the brand was worth that.

If the owners jumped right to this offer, the outcome would have been the same... Fehr would try to hold out for a better offer.

[darkstar57]

I'm not sure either. You don't negotiate one full proposal at a time...in any negotiation...ever. Thats not negotiating. Thats bidding. There are only two parties involved here. It is not a bid situation. Argue that the PA is making things difficult all you want, its just not true. The owners have repeatedly halted this process because they're afraid to negotiate with someone that is competent. Thats bad faith.

Good faith is putting proposals on the table that aren't "eliminate the Salary Cap". Fehr knows that theres not a "snowballs chance..." of the owners even considering that.

You can't possibly believe that's good faith negotiating.

Neither the players or owners have negotiated in good faith at points, in the process. Its an unwillingness of both sides to get in a room and really hammer out the details

The owners put a better offer on the table yesterday then they had two weeks ago, its in fehr court to work with it, lets see what they do. But the time for games and childish BS are gone if they want to have any season. There needs to be a really negotiation that happens if we don't see that the season is gone plain and simple

[Pitt87]

So is this basically the last take it or leave it offer? Like take this or done?

I'm sure its the same as the last one. I'm not sure where people get the idea that the PA will counter with something outlandish, as that has yet to happen. I'm guessing the players counter, the owners huff and walk away and then the owners inch closer to them next week. That either happens at the drop dead date or a couple days before, then right before it hits the deadline, the players take that offer. The owners get played to the greatest extent possible, which is to say that they make no concessions and get what they were looking for all along.

You don't remember the three scenarios they presented in October? I'm not sure where you come from with the assumptions you've been spouting off, but the bottom line is that the Fehr's routinely come to a planned negotiation meeting with an offer and little else. They haven't been acting in good faith, nor have they helped the players cause.

I clearly remember them. Those were closer to where we are now than the owners proposal that they were responding to. What have they done in bad faith? The owners have refused to negotiate. Thats bad faith.

The post before this one you said owners won't make any concessions, then said that they are closer now to one of the three proposals... it can't be both.

Its clear you have seen this through some prism that says labor is right and owners are evil. From the article posted recently:

A recent “negotiating” session provides a perfect example of how Fehr operates. The league and the NHLPA negotiators agree to meet at 10 a.m. one day. Everyone shows up at the appointed hour, with the exception of Donald Fehr, who finally walks into the room at 11:15 and apologizes for being late. At exactly 12 noon, he announces he has a lunch meeting with someone in uptown Manhattan and leaves the room.

He's come to mediation with 'take it or leave it' options, he's changed the players' bargaining positions multiple times, and he's the chief reason we're not playing hockey right now; he thinks he can keep this going and win. He's probably correct, but the circus is not good for the business of hockey.

[MRandall25]

Who has come with take it or leave it options?

So far, it's only been the owners.

[ExPatriatePen]

Who has come with take it or leave it options?

So far, it's only been the owners.

To 'piggyback' on Pitt87's point, you can't negotiate if you aren't even in the room.

[MRandall25]

Who has come with take it or leave it options?

So far, it's only been the owners.

To 'piggyback' on Pitt87's point, you can't negotiate if you aren't even in the room.

They wouldn't even let him in the room 2 weeks ago.

[shmenguin]

Well since they just made yet another offer that leans even further towards the players, in hindsight, you can't describe any of their offers as "take it or leave it". They've continued to negotiate towards the middle. Just not in a timeframe that the fans like.

[ExPatriatePen]

Who has come with take it or leave it options?

So far, it's only been the owners.

To 'piggyback' on Pitt87's point, you can't negotiate if you aren't even in the room.

They wouldn't even let him in the room 2 weeks ago.

That's a bit of an overstatement wouldn't you say?

[MRandall25]

Who has come with take it or leave it options?

So far, it's only been the owners.

To 'piggyback' on Pitt87's point, you can't negotiate if you aren't even in the room.

They wouldn't even let him in the room 2 weeks ago.

That's a bit of an overstatement wouldn't you say?

No, it really isn't. The owners kinda gave it away when they said "If Fehr comes, we're done". Not sure what else you want to call that besides not letting him in the room.

[KG]

Sorry if this was posted. Good summary of the latest NHL proposal. Should be common ground to get a deal done here!

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/2 ... 7-proposal

[ExPatriatePen]

Who has come with take it or leave it options?

So far, it's only been the owners.

To 'piggyback' on Pitt87's point, you can't negotiate if you aren't even in the room.

They wouldn't even let him in the room 2 weeks ago.

That's a bit of an overstatement wouldn't you say?

No, it really isn't. The owners kinda gave it away when they said "If Fehr comes, we're done". Not sure what else you want to call that besides not letting him in the room.

Again, that's an overstatement without evidence to confirm or support it.

[MRandall25]

Again, that's an overstatement without evidence to confirm or support it.

Go back a few pages. Don't feel like explaining this for the 50th time. It's not an overstatement.

[MRandall25]

A quote from Ron Hainsey, who was in the room during the players-owners meeting said that the owners told the players bringing Fehr back into the meeting was a "deal-breaker".

I can't "overstate" that. That's what the players were told.

[ExPatriatePen]

A quote from Ron Hainsey, who was in the room during the players-owners meeting said that the owners told the players bringing Fehr back into the meeting was a "deal-breaker".

I can't "overstate" that. That's what the players were told.

Now there's an impartial source without an axe to grind

[MRandall25]

A quote from Ron Hainsey, who was in the room during the players-owners meeting said that the owners told the players bringing Fehr back into the meeting was a "deal-breaker".

I can't "overstate" that. That's what the players were told.

Now there's an impartial source without an axe to grind :face:

So a player who was in the room negotiating and was told this has an axe to grind?

Lol k. Whatever you say.

[ExPatriatePen]

A quote from Ron Hainsey, who was in the room during the players-owners meeting said that the owners told the players bringing Fehr back into the meeting was a "deal-breaker".

I can't "overstate" that. That's what the players were told.

Now there's an impartial source without an axe to grind

So a player who was in the room negotiating and was told this has an axe to grind?

Lol k. Whatever you say.

Seriously? That's how you're spinning that?

Ron Hainsey makes a ridiculous statement to the press about the owners not allowing Fehr into the room (while Bettman was also not part of the process. - only four owners were present - and counsel for both sides (Daly and Fehr) ). No one else is willing to say they heard this comment, nor has it been attributed to any single person in the room (Ron B. maybe?) but you buy it 'lock stock and barrel' because it was uttered by the senior players rep involved. (who for some reason you think is an impartial source)

Not only that, but shortly there after the negotiations started up again with both Bettman and Fehr at the center. What happened to Fehr being locked out?

LOL, so OK. You wanna buy a bridge?

[pens_CT]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49123-Thanks-to-Fehr-NHL-negotiating-against-itselfand-losing.html#.UN5-DBX0RGI.twitter

The legend of Don Fehr continues. The NHLPA will end up with a very similar deal to what Paul Kelly would have negotiated, and it probably would have been accomplished without a lockout. So the membership gains nothing with Fehr, but loses at least a 1/2 year of salary. As I said the Fehr legend continues.

If the owners would have just jumped to this offer to begin with, we would be talking about playoff races now.

Uhh-no. Fehr's plan was to hold out until the last possible minute before the season was cancelled. I'm convinceed the owner's first low ball offer was a shot directed at Fehr, with Kelly or someone else running the NHLPA there would have been meaningful talks long before any owner lockout. The players are getting nothing in this deal that somebody else could have negotiated, and are losing salary as an added bonus thanks to Don.

[Gaucho]

I'm convinceed the owner's first low ball offer was a shot directed at Fehr

... but somehow the owners share no blame for this mess?

I don't know why we keep debating who's to blame for this debacle. The answer is both, period.

[pens_CT]

I'm convinceed the owner's first low ball offer was a shot directed at Fehr

... but somehow the owners share no blame for this mess?

I don't know why we keep debating who's to blame for this debacle. The answer is both, period.

Didn't say the owners are blameless in this. They realized that Fehr was an a-hole from the beginning and wanted to stick it to him regardless of what damage it did to the league.

[Gaucho]

I'm convinceed the owner's first low ball offer was a shot directed at Fehr

... but somehow the owners share no blame for this mess?

I don't know why we keep debating who's to blame for this debacle. The answer is both, period.

Didn't say the owners are blameless in this. They realized that Fehr was an a-hole from the beginning and wanted to stick it to him regardless of what damage it did to the league.

Yeah, as I said, both sides didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in this. Small wonder, since both sides elected an egomaniac as their leader.

[interstorm]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49123-Thanks-to-Fehr-NHL-negotiating-against-itselfand-losing.html#.UN5-DBX0RGI.twitter

The legend of Don Fehr continues. The NHLPA will end up with a very similar deal to what Paul Kelly would have negotiated, and it probably would have been accomplished without a lockout. So the membership gains nothing with Fehr, but loses at least a 1/2 year of salary. As I said the Fehr legend continues.

If the owners would have just jumped to this offer to begin with, we would be talking about playoff races now.

Uhh-no. Fehr's plan was to hold out until the last possible minute before the season was cancelled. I'm convinceed the owner's first low ball offer was a shot directed at Fehr, with Kelly or someone else running the NHLPA I believe there would have been meaningful talks long before any owner lockout. I think the players are getting nothing in this deal that somebody else could have negotiated, and are losing salary as an added bonus thanks to Don.

...fixed that for you. it is fine to speak your mind -- just remember it is an opinion as opposed to a fact.

[shmenguin]

Oh get a grip. Opinions are implied. Should we run through all your posts and do the same edit?

[shmenguin]

The Fehr boogeyman stories are getting a little overblown. If you take him out of the equation, we're still in the same spot. Both parties were willing to hold out until at least D Day - no matter who their spokesmen are.

[DudeMan2766]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49123-Thanks-to-Fehr-NHL-negotiating-against-itselfand-losing.html#.UN5-DBX0RGI.twitter

The legend of Don Fehr continues. The NHLPA will end up with a very similar deal to what Paul Kelly would have negotiated, and it probably would have been accomplished without a lockout. So the membership gains nothing with Fehr, but loses at least a 1/2 year of salary. As I said the Fehr legend continues.

If the owners would have just jumped to this offer to begin with, we would be talking about playoff races now.

Uhh-no. Fehr's plan was to hold out until the last possible minute before the season was cancelled. I'm convinceed the owner's first low ball offer was a shot directed at Fehr, with Kelly or someone else running the NHLPA I believe there would have been meaningful talks long before any owner lockout. I think the players are getting nothing in this deal that somebody else could have negotiated, and are losing salary as an added bonus thanks to Don.

...fixed that for you. I THINK it is fine to speak your mind -- just remember I THINK it is an opinion as opposed to a fact.

[Idoit40fans]

So is this basically the last take it or leave it offer? Like take this or done?

I'm sure its the same as the last one. I'm not sure where people get the idea that the PA will counter with something outlandish, as that has yet to happen. I'm guessing the players counter, the owners huff and walk away and then the owners inch closer to them next week. That either happens at the drop dead date or a couple days before, then right before it hits the deadline, the players take that offer. The owners get played to the greatest extent possible, which is to say that they make no concessions and get what they were looking for all along.

You don't remember the three scenarios they presented in October? I'm not sure where you come from with the assumptions you've been spouting off, but the bottom line is that the Fehr's routinely come to a planned negotiation meeting with an offer and little else. They haven't been acting in good faith, nor have they helped the players cause.

I clearly remember them. Those were closer to where we are now than the owners proposal that they were responding to. What have they done in bad faith? The owners have refused to negotiate. Thats bad faith.

The post before this one you said owners won't make any concessions, then said that they are closer now to one of the three proposals... it can't be both.

Its clear you have seen this through some prism that says labor is right and owners are evil. From the article posted recently:

A recent “negotiating” session provides a perfect example of how Fehr operates. The league and the NHLPA negotiators agree to meet at 10 a.m. one day. Everyone shows up at the appointed hour, with the exception of Donald Fehr, who finally walks into the room at 11:15 and apologizes for being late. At exactly 12 noon, he announces he has a lunch meeting with someone in uptown Manhattan and leaves the room.

He's come to mediation with 'take it or leave it' options, he's changed the players' bargaining positions multiple times, and he's the chief reason we're not playing hockey right now; he thinks he can keep this going and win. He's probably correct, but the circus is not good for the business of hockey.

I didnt bother reading most of your post, but it absolutely can be both. The owners have never made a concession during these cba talks. They asked for a ton and have progressively asked for less. This isnt opinion, they will be making 0 concessions when all is said and done and the pa hasnt even asked them to. Players are doing nothing but mitigating loss. Fact.

The owners have put proposals on the table and said "yes or no", the players have negotiated. No one has ever given any indication that the players said anything resembling "take it or leave it". The owners just tookthe counter offer as a "no". They dont want to negotiate with the players so as time goes by, theyre instead negotiating against themselves.