Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
None of us know the exact assumptions used and models generated when they negotiated ... agreed.
|
I didn’t suggest that at all but we can agree to a certain extent, though there were some reports that gave some details regarding some of the projected outcomes.
Quote:
|
But the logic of them wanting an adjustment pretty much proves that they underestimated a few parameters doesn't it?
|
Not at all. All that you or I could really say with the admittedly limited information we have is that the NHL would prefer to have these amendments because they will reduce their potential losses. The NHL was almost certainly going to lose money in the first season of this CBA. Whether that was $10M per team or $20M, or even more we don’t really know. But we can probably agree that the league would prefer to reduce those losses as much as possible, so we can also agree they have an incentive to try and get the players to agree to this even if the league did agree in good faith back in the summer with the assumption that each team would lose say $20M in the first season.
The league’s entire approach here raises a lot of red flags to me. For all we know the league could very well have signed this MOU with the intention of getting the playoffs done as a test to see what some of the added costs would look like and then make a determination on whether or not to cancel the upcoming season or ask the PA for concessions on the existing deal. I’m not insinuating that has happened, but to be honest I find that much easier to believe than assuming the league’s highly experienced negotiating committee could drop the ball so badly on their projections 4 months ago but have now magically figured it out.
Quote:
|
And never said the players are trying to harm the league.
|
Fair enough, though you did say damage their industry and considering they are the only major professional hockey league in North America I don’t see much of a difference.
Quote:
|
They could harm the league, and their union however if they're not careful.
|
Agreeing to concessions when the league is essentially holding a gun to their heads would have serious long term effects on the Union’s leverage in bargaining going forward. If the players agreed to their demands it would open the door for the league to do this unilaterally anytime they want something changed during the term of a CBA. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room to try and negotiate a resolution if the league can present a legitimate case to the PA for doing so, but this take it or leave it approach that the league has opted for is leaving the PA very little choice other than to say no. Whether you agree with them or not the PA is always going to look out for what is in the long term best interest of their bargaining unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
But they are where they are. The players had better have a good sense of both roads if they're firmly going to make the owners stick to a road that will see them lose billions.
|
These amendments won’t be saving the league billions so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.