Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

NHLPA Ready To Negotiate Through The Holiday

from TSN,

NHL Players' Association executive director Donald Fehr says negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement won't take a Christmas holiday.

Joining TSN Radio 1050's Cybulski & Company on the same day the league announced the cancellation of all games scheduled through Jan. 14, Fehr expressed hope that momentum towards a new deal could continue as the traditionally slow business period of the holidays arrives.

"We owe that to the fans and we obviously owe it to our own members and I believe the NHL would owe it to its owners, so hopefully that won't be an impediment," Fehr said.

"I'll make the following assumption," Fehr told TSN, "we're involved in serious negotiations. We've got to try to find a way to make an agreement and for my part and my staff we'll make whoever needs to be available available in order to get the job done."

continued

Filed in: NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

Evilpens's avatar

Fehr is so over his head in this one, It is fun to watch

Posted by Evilpens on 12/20/12 at 08:11 PM ET

Avatar

Evilpens, you really think Fehr is over his head?  I dont’ see it.

He’s had no leverage these entire negotiations but now the tables are turned.  The NHL can not cancel the season, they may do it.  But even Bettman has to know that what will come is unknown, some teams will not survive, the league will not be take seriously by fans, sponsors, broadcasters, etc for a long time.

Plus now Fehr will say we have done everything in our power to negotiate a deal, we could not.  The disclaimer of interest will be put in play and the court battles for the next year or so will begin. 

Uncertainity is all that will be left for everyone.

I have a glimmer of hope Bettman is not this stupid, but Fehr is about to push him to the brink.

Posted by tbassett on 12/20/12 at 08:18 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Yes they will, He is saying that they “will work through the Holidays” because the NHL has already said the Deal that was on the table was IT!

So he can look all magnanimous !! when he knows there will be No negotiating!


It is Nothing but PR & the last train out left a week + ago

Posted by Evilpens on 12/20/12 at 09:16 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Okay Evil.  (btw- Nothing you do is as evil as what you do to language).

  Why don’t we just wait 2 weeks until the final offer improves.

Every two weeks the offer gets better.  Yeah, he’s in over his head.  They should have put you in charge of taking the first deal that was offered.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/20/12 at 09:57 PM ET

Avatar

Every two weeks the offer gets better.

... but what the players get will be worse.

I mean, you guys get this, right?  The money the PA has lost so far from this half season is gone.  Forever.  The entire armed forces of Epirus are shaking their heads in disbelief at the PA.

Fighting over percentage points of a smaller pie means that even if you win the battle over the percentage points you end up losing money.

The pie is already smaller because they aren’t playing.  It may even be smaller afterwards when they do resume playing because they haven’t been playing.

Fact: The players, in aggregate, would make more playing 7 years at 50% of HRR than they would playing 6 years at 57%.

Fact: They ain’t getting 57%.

So… what are they doing?

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/21/12 at 04:13 AM ET

Hippy Dave's avatar

@HockeyinHD are you a mortgage adjuster?

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 12/21/12 at 04:54 AM ET

Avatar

Hockeyinhd I think your looking too short term here.  The first offer proposed by the league was 43 percent to players. Its gotten better over time but if they would have taken that to play an entire season, long term they are out more money than if they’d just accepted it.

Plus I believe there us a lot of other principals you aren’t taking into account.  The growth the NHL has experienced, Bettman insulting and trying to break the union.  If the players cave this time their future as a serious group is over.  They need to take a stand.

The NHL has had all the power up to this point an they have choosen to use it against the players.

Posted by tbassett on 12/21/12 at 06:22 AM ET

Avatar

@HockeyinHD are you a mortgage adjuster?

?

The first offer proposed by the league was 43 percent to players. Its gotten better over time but if they would have taken that to play an entire season, long term they are out more money than if they’d just accepted it.

This would be a valid point, had I suggested such a thing.  My position has been all along that had the PA taken the NHL’s first (or even second, or even third) 50-50 offer they’d not have had to lose a single dollar in real revenue and they wouldn’t have risked a single dollar in real revenue declining due to another stoppage.

So yes, taking the NHL’s very very first offer would have been stupid.  Which is what I said at the time, which is what everyone said at the time.

What I also said at the time was that the NHL’s first offer was a pretty nakedly obvious mirror to the just-expired players share of 57%, the similarly obvious intent of which was to end up ‘in the middle’ at the 50% the NHL actually wanted, and which they will eventually get.

The only question is how many hundreds of millions of dollars in profit will the PA be willing to throw away before they accept that.

The growth the NHL has experienced, Bettman insulting and trying to break the union.  If the players cave this time their future as a serious group is over.  They need to take a stand.

Now you’re the one who’s not thinking long term.

Here was the smart play from the PA, and since I espoused this at the time this isn’t a ‘hindsight is 20-20’ thing.

1) Take the NHL’s 50-50 offer and push back as hard as they could everywhere else to keep as many contracting clauses as they could without missing any paychecks.

2) Play into the CBA and see how things go, knowing that they are at least making money now and will make more over the deal than they would have had they ‘stood firm’.

3) At the next CBA the PA would have more leverage because the owners would have a greater interest in seeing games played because they would (hopefully) be making money from hockey ops, and therefore less willing to not make money from hockey ops by not playing.

Then the CBA can claw back a couple contractual details, and they end up pretty much where they wanted to be now, just a few more years down the road.

And a few hundred million richer in aggregate.

And, further, should the new CBA end up really screwing them in some heretofore unanticipated way it’s not like they can’t strike mid-season two or three years in, after salting away some paychecks to buffer against a stoppage.

All the PA has established in 2005 and now is that they’ll just stupidly refuse to give up anything until the NHL smashes them, so what the NHL does every time a CBA rolls around is prepare to smash them.

I mean, look… according to Daly (huge, huge bucket of salt here) the PA is demanding that the salary cap not drop below 67.9 mil, ever.  Regardless of what revenues are.  That’s a pretty specific claim to make.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/21/12 at 08:41 AM ET

Avatar

hockeyhd actually has it right here.  Fehr is selling the players on principal… but the problem is these players will never really benefit from the deal that they lost a season over.  The newwer players, yet to be drafted will benefit.  But these current players, having lost a season, will never make that money back no matter what they negotiate at this point.

Also, as i mentioned before… some of these current NHLPA members will not even have a job when they begin playing hockey again.  With this season lost, they will have now two crops of younger players to compete against for jobs.  I am looking at you Craig Adams.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/21/12 at 09:17 AM ET

Avatar

Now you’re the one who’s not thinking long term.

...

without missing any paychecks.

Ah, so in your mind, missing paychecks now has something…ANYTHING…to do with the “long term”?

Posted by Garth on 12/21/12 at 10:19 AM ET

RedMenace's avatar

... but the problem is these players will never really benefit from the deal that they lost a season over.  The newwer players, yet to be drafted will benefit.  But these current players, having lost a season, will never make that money back no matter what they negotiate at this point.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/21/12 at 09:17 AM ET

That’s the point. That’s what the PA has been saying all along. It’s not necessarily about money in the immediate term, but protecting the rights and livelihoods of players going forward.

Posted by RedMenace from the Church of Jesus Lashoff on 12/21/12 at 10:43 AM ET

calquake's avatar

Fehr is selling the players on principal… but the problem is these players will never really benefit from the deal that they lost a season over.

Sometimes you have to be willing to lose to stand up for a principle.

Posted by calquake on 12/21/12 at 10:43 AM ET

RedMenace's avatar

Sometimes you have to be willing to lose to stand up for a principle.

Posted by calquake on 12/21/12 at 10:43 AM ET

Exactly.

Posted by RedMenace from the Church of Jesus Lashoff on 12/21/12 at 10:50 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

Absolutely, Calquake. Additionally, this CBA is not ONLY about THESE players. It is also about the people playing in Juniors, high school and even rec league right now. It’s about players 15-20 years down the road. These guys are sacrificing their own short term gain for the long term viability of the sport as a career.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/21/12 at 10:53 AM ET

Avatar

@redManace, calquake, and redxblack…

I know the issue is though, that the CBA they are working is not forever.  It is for the duration of the current NHLPA members careers.  So in a way, they are standing on principle, that is really all they are doing.  It really is not about them, and not about others… in the sense that in 5-8 years this will all be re-negotiated anyways.

Fehr is actually a genius in this way… he has rallied the current crop of NHLPA members to agree to not agree on principle ... although I am not sure if all the players are smart enough to realize that this is really all they are fighting for at this point.  I wonder if they actually realize, that financially, they will never come ahead now having lost an entire season.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/21/12 at 11:09 AM ET

calquake's avatar

although I am not sure if all the players are smart enough to realize that this is really all they are fighting for at this point.  I wonder if they actually realize, that financially, they will never come ahead now having lost an entire season.

They may not be pharmacists but I’m sure they understand the ramifications of what they are trying to accomplish.  Some people believe in “the greater good” concept, even if it means they will not reap the benefits they are fighting for.  This is what happened when unions were initially formed.

Posted by calquake on 12/21/12 at 11:45 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Fehr is actually a genius in this way… he has rallied the current crop of NHLPA members to agree to not agree on principle .

Ridiculous.  The NHL is going to continue to act as a bulldozer until someone stands up to it.  Why you think that the term “principle” diminishes this fact is beyond me.  How the hell does a few hundred million bucks compare to being treated with some respect?

HD, you should change your name to SpuriousArgumentinHD.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 11:52 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

I wonder if they actually realize, that financially, they will never come ahead now having lost an entire season.

I wonder if you realize that contracting issues are important.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 11:53 AM ET

Avatar

Some people believe in “the greater good” concept, even if it means they will not reap the benefits they are fighting for.  This is what happened when unions were initially formed.

The issue though is that it is not infinite.  We are talking 8 years max.  Its as if they are fighting for nothing… certainly nothing financial at this point, certainly not job security in the older players at this point, and certainly not “the greater good of unions” when we are talking about a short term CBA.

 

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/21/12 at 11:53 AM ET

Avatar

I wonder if you realize that contracting issues are important.

I understand their importance… but only if it affects the person who is signing it.  To take the stance, well.. i am standing up for contracting issues for the person that comes after me is all well and good… but nothing is promised after the CBA they are workign on now expires anyways.

Contracting issues are meant to benefit the person signing the contract, not be a tool for the UNIONS to use for future contracting issues.

 

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/21/12 at 11:56 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/21/12 at 09:17 AM ET

Don’t count on Adams being Gone ! I think He is Bylsma illegitimate Child or something

Posted by Evilpens on 12/21/12 at 11:56 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

certainly not “the greater good of unions”

Really?  How about for the bargaining power gained after they show that they have some nuts.  The whole point of this “don’t fvck with us” attitude that is so confusing to you, is that the next time the CBA needs to be renewed, the owners say, “well, that was brutal last time…let’s try something else.”
Fehr is trying to make their tactics unpleasant for them to use.  And its working.  Daly is confused and Jacobs is hopefully having an aneurysm somewhere.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 11:58 AM ET

calquake's avatar

The issue though is that it is not infinite.  We are talking 8 years max.  Its as if they are fighting for nothing… certainly nothing financial at this point, certainly not job security in the older players at this point, and certainly not “the greater good of unions” when we are talking about a short term CBA.

If all you have are short term CBA’S then you fight the fight presented to you.  I’ve never once heard the owners call for a long term CBA.  They don’t trust themselves let alone the players.

Posted by calquake on 12/21/12 at 12:14 PM ET

Avatar

If all you have are short term CBA’S then you fight the fight presented to you.  I’ve never once heard the owners call for a long term CBA.  They don’t trust themselves let alone the players.

i agree… but once you fight to the point of a lost season, it becomes a lost cause.  I mean, i understand everyones point… but i just don’t see how the players are ok with losing an entire season of pay to argue for something that they most likely will never ever get… and even if they do get, it would never benefit THEM financially do to the fact they lost a season of pay.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/21/12 at 12:26 PM ET

calquake's avatar

i agree… but once you fight to the point of a lost season, it becomes a lost cause.  I mean, i understand everyones point… but i just don’t see how the players are ok with losing an entire season of pay to argue for something that they most likely will never ever get… and even if they do get, it would never benefit THEM financially do to the fact they lost a season of pay.

How can I explain a concept that you, by your own admission, don’t understand?  I’m not saying your thinking is wrong.  It’s just that some people, like myself, don’t mind making a sacrifice if it benefits everyone.  This concept can be and is used in politics, in religion and yes, in sports.  It is a different viewpoint but a valid one nonetheless.

Posted by calquake on 12/21/12 at 12:46 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Contracting issues are meant to benefit the person signing the contract, not be a tool for the UNIONS to use for future contracting issues.

How broken has the system become when everything from a CBA that benefits the owners is just a presumed non-fight every time a new one is expected to expire, but it’s a brand new horrible battle for the future every time the players get something that might be better for them?

This is why every day I root more and more for a serious decertification by the players to reset the idiotic anchoring that’s gone on with collective bargaining, even if it means there won’t be NHL-level hockey for the foreseeable future.

Of course contracting issues is for individuals AND for the union as a whole. Every time the NHLPA turns over a single member, the person who left has created the rules for the person who is coming in.  The longer the CBA, the more NHLPA members are beholden to a CBA that they had no say in creating.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/21/12 at 12:54 PM ET

Avatar

The first offer proposed by the league was 43 percent to players. Its gotten better over time but if they would have taken that to play an entire season, long term they are out more money than if they’d just accepted it.

His point is the league’s offers stopped getting better in October. That extra hundred million in make-whole came at the cost of $450 million in lost salaries (number has balooned to $800 million now). So, while the current offers might take slightly more out of pocket money for the owners to give, they’re still waaaaaaay less money to the players because the pie has shrunk.

The newwer players, yet to be drafted will benefit.

I’m not so sure about that. The one thing the PA did agree to early and earnestly is that 5 years down the road the player percentage could fall 7% from where it’s at. And of course, the total that 50% of the revenue comes from has been torched.

I don’t think anyone benefits from this lockout.

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 01:22 PM ET

Avatar

Really?  How about for the bargaining power gained after they show that they have some nuts.  The whole point of this “don’t fvck with us” attitude that is so confusing to you, is that the next time the CBA needs to be renewed, the owners say, “well, that was brutal last time…let’s try something else.”
Fehr is trying to make their tactics unpleasant for them to use.  And its working.  Daly is confused and Jacobs is hopefully having an aneurysm somewhere.

If so, the players have torched $800 million they’ll never see again over a dumb idea that didn’t work and won’t work.

Goodenow was a bigger hardass than Fehr (and more effective union negotiator—Fehr never had baseball players taking home 75% of the yield) and, not only did this not deter the owners from “fvcking’ with them, it encouraged them to do so.

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 01:33 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Which is why there is such serious labour strife and such tiny salaries in baseball.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 01:43 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Oops.  I think you meant that the NHL was encouraged to fvck with the union because they had a hard-ass negotiator.
Pretty tough to prove that point.
If it’s true that the NHL can’t stand the brand damage of a lost season then taking a hard stance is a great idea.  It’s called using your leverage….in this case the fact that little shxtty Gary really wants to play.
For what it’s worth though, they’ve hardly taken a hard-line stance…..they just haven’t taken the quisling stance that so many of you were hoping for.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 01:49 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

The argument (coming from HD, Evil, Larry, etc.) that whatever is lost from this season will be greater than any amount that gets negotiated away now and the next dozen times they get killed at the bargaining table is laughable and misses a bunch of other key points….no matter how great you look juggling big numbers around.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 01:54 PM ET

Avatar

Which is why there is such serious labour strife and such tiny salaries in baseball.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 01:43 PM ET

Not sure what you mean by this.

As a percentage of the whole, in comparison to hockey, salaries are tiny in baseball. It’s 43-ish% vs the NHL’s 57%. If I’m not mistaken, everyone, myself included, said the NHL was being moronic and unrealistic in proposing that early this summer.

Baseball’s also had the most labor disputes and lawsuits.

Yeah, no idea what you’re getting at.

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 02:18 PM ET

Avatar

The argument (coming from HD, Evil, Larry, etc.) that whatever is lost from this season will be greater than any amount that gets negotiated away now and the next dozen times they get killed at the bargaining table is laughable and misses a bunch of other key points….no matter how great you look juggling big numbers around.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 01:54 PM ET

So far, you’ve provided that

-Baseball players are better compensated for a sport their size than Hockey players. Which is wrong.

and

-if a union is difficult to negotiate with, the NHL won’t dare to lock them out. Historically, this has been proven wrong on 3 of 4 occasions a CBA expired and the NHLPA was run by hardliners.

Got anything else?.

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 02:23 PM ET

Avatar

the next dozen times they get killed at the bargaining table

Missed this.

If you’re referring to the cycle of lockouts seeking one-way concessions, those will end when 23 or more teams turn a healthy profit every year. Nothing else will stop it.

I don’t think it’s right, but it is what it is.

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 02:27 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

I misread your comment and I don’t like baseball or know much about it.  They have not lost more games than hockey though…...whatever, my mistake.

Look, here’s some quick math…...7% of $3.3 Billion = $231 Million
Over the ten years that the NHL wants that comes to $2.31 Billion.
Now, obviously that is larger than the $1.86 Billion that they stand to lose if they lose the whole season.
So, this terrible argument (that the losses now are worse than anything they could negotiate), which ignores the context and misses all the other issues, like contracting rights, also makes use of bad math.
Could that please be the end of this silly theory?

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 02:29 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

If you’re referring to the cycle of lockouts seeking one-way concessions, those will end when 23 or more teams turn a healthy profit every year. Nothing else will stop it.

Pure speculation.  If the league is unable to strongarm the concessions they want, then obviously that would have a reasonable chance of stopping it.

-if a union is difficult to negotiate with, the NHL won’t dare to lock them out. Historically, this has been proven wrong on 3 of 4 occasions a CBA expired and the NHLPA was run by hardliners.

So just because you say they are hardliners, they must have been a) hardliners, and b) effective negotiators?

And all this is supposed to support the argument that they should take a soft-line and just take the deal?

and when the CBA expires in MLB, they don’t have a lockout….for some reason….which isn’t the profitability you assume would help.

Larry…..the NHL is lying….the parent companies of “poor” teams are doing just fine, thanks to the fact that they have a team that opens a tonne of doors for them.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 02:35 PM ET

Avatar

Look, here’s some quick math…...7% of $3.3 Billion = $231 Million
Over the ten years that the NHL wants that comes to $2.31 Billion.
Now, obviously that is larger than the $1.86 Billion that they stand to lose if they lose the whole season.

You’re using the wrong numbers. The numbers you should use are what the PA has said it will settle for, which is (50% of revenues * 4) + $1.8 billion + $300 million - $800 million, and the league’s highest-money offer, which was (50% of revenues * 4) + $1.6 billion + $200 million.

The difference in these two offers is that the PA’s goal is -$500 million of what the league offered, give or take—at minimum.

And that’s ignoring that the (50% of revenues) figure is a lot lower in the PA’s offer than it was in the league’s, though there’s no way of knowing how much lower..

So just because you say they are hardliners, they must have been a) hardliners, and b) effective negotiators?

And all this is supposed to support the argument that they should take a soft-line and just take the deal?

Goodenow and Fehr are both well-known hardliners. In Goodenow’s case, he was an effective negotiator that was a great benefit to the PA for 15 years. In fact, Goodenow was the most-effective sports labor negotiator there’s ever been.

In Fehr’s case, he’s an ineffective negotiator who has thrown money away for…well…nobody can tell me why. I’ve heard because baseball players take home a bigger chunk of the pie (wrong), because being difficult deters businesses from a fight (wrong), because of future players (wrong…this was the first group Fehr sold out)

and when the CBA expires in MLB, they don’t have a lockout….for some reason….which isn’t the profitability you assume would help.

The MLB doesn’t have lockouts NOW because labor costs are so comparatively low, and the TV deal so comparatively big, that having lockouts would hurt the teams worse than the players.

Larry…..the NHL is lying….the parent companies of “poor” teams are doing just fine, thanks to the fact that they have a team that opens a tonne of doors for them.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 02:35 PM ET

While my gut tells me that the NHL is lying about its “losses” (or at least, greatly exaggerating them) and reject the notion that 18 teams are bleeding red, as baseball proves, once the big majority of teams makes a profit, labor strife stops. Labor strife hasn’t stopped in the NHL, which tells me it’s not the investment that a baseball team is at present..

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 03:02 PM ET

Avatar

(50% of revenues * 4) + $1.8 billion + $300 million - $800 million, and the league’s highest-money offer, which was (50% of revenues * 4) + $1.6 billion + $200 million.

The difference in these two offers is that the PA’s goal is -$500 million of what the league offered, give or take—at minimum.

Whoops. That $1.8 should be a $1.6 and that -$500 should be a -$700.

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 03:13 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Well I am confused by your math, and I have never taken the reports from the meetings too seriously, so I don’t really know the exact dollars for the offers…but whatever.  I think my calculation is simple and doesn’t rely on the spun numbers.  Even if you are right, I think it is a horrible argument, because there have always been non-financial aspects to this dispute.

My point about hardliners is that it is a relative term, it doesn’t matter about reputation…..it is an unverifiable characterization.  And in any case, none of those arguments should indicate that a “soft-line"would be an effective strategy.

being difficult deters businesses from a fight (wrong)

The jury is not actually in on this.  Would folding and signing in October be less of a deterent?

my gut tells me that the NHL is lying about its “losses”

And so, your theory that lockouts are a direct result of poor financial performance comes into question.

once the big majority of teams makes a profit, labor strife stops

A speculative principle.
Here’s another speculation….when a union is weak, the owner keeps coming back for more…....when a union makes bully tactics in negotiation a PR disaster and a frustrating shxtshow, the owners think twice. 

If all we disagree on are these last speculations, then we’ve narrowed it down and there are no points of fact to argue.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 12/21/12 at 03:44 PM ET

Avatar

I think my calculation is simple and doesn’t rely on the spun numbers.

The NHL put the offer in question on its website and Donald Fehr painstakingly went over the details of what he had offered in a cynical, embarassing press conference where he threw Marty St Louis to the wolves.

Your numbers are based a long-term extension of last year’s system vs one of the owners offers. Nobody proposed extending the previous system 5 years. You can’t calculate losses against something no one wanted.

My point about hardliners is that it is a relative term, it doesn’t matter about reputation…..it is an unverifiable characterization.  And in any case, none of those arguments should indicate that a “soft-line"would be an effective strategy.

It’s not unverifiable. The two executive directors in question have 9 work stoppages to their names (6 strikes, 3 lockouts) across two different sports. There are no two sports union bosses ever with that kind of record.

“Relative” to everyone else, they’re the hardest-line of the hard-liners.

And, incidentally, in 2 of 3 of hockey’s lockouts, had they had an executive director that settled for an early offer (a “soft-liner”), the players would have been richer.

In the third, they would have been way poorer. In 94 Bettman wanted to institute a baseball-type system, which, as we’ve seen in baseball, would have seen players keeping less than they have in either of hockey’s post-Eagleson systems. That Goodenow refused this is one reason why he’s the single-most effective union boss in sports’ history.

And so, your theory that lockouts are a direct result of poor financial performance comes into question.

That’s not my theory. My theory is that work stoppages occur when one side has a lot less to lose through a work stoppage than the other side.


You seem to be under the impression that because the owners are greedy bullies, what the PA is doing must be good for themselves. Those two things are far from 1-1. Some people react to bullying through self-mutilation.

Posted by larry on 12/21/12 at 04:55 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com