2012 CBA Negotiations Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
- Status
bustaheims
Active member
Real_ESPNLeBrun: Am told in NHL offer there is a proposal designed to "protect" players for salary reductions in the initial years
Real_ESPNLeBrun: Also league has taken off table some of the systemic changes to player contracts which they asked for in initial July offer
Real_ESPNLeBrun: Also league has taken off table some of the systemic changes to player contracts which they asked for in initial July offer
bustaheims
Active member
From the sounds of things, the League has made some very real concessions here. Meanwhile, the players haven't tabled a proposal since their initial salvo in response to the owners' first offer. Without presenting something of their own, this is probably the best offer the players are going to get, and, if they reject this without a realistic counter proposal in the next few days, we can probably kiss the season goodbye.
trojanweed
New member
if the players don't take the deal they look like greedy kids, i tip my hat to the owners...
Corn Flake
New member
Michael said:
I wouldn't be holding my breath.............. yet.
Corn Flake
New member
the NHL actually tabled a 50/50 HRR split? Wow. I mean, come on.... it really doesn't ever need to be any better than that for the players and lines up with what the NBA put together a year ago.
Kin
New member
bustaheims said:
What are the concessions here? All this offer is is asking for is less than they asked for previously. If I try to bargain with Scarlet Johannsen that I get to sleep with her two nights a week, it's not a concession if I cut my offer down to one when I started with zero.
trojanweed
New member
any live feeds of the pressers?
Corn Flake
New member
Fehr may have a tough time telling the players this offer ain't no good.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik? said:
Asking for less than they previously did is, by definition, a concession. As is taking some of the structural issues they were asking for off the table. It's a lot more than the players have done since early in these negotiations.
They've conceded the fact that they're not going to get the players down to 43% (their initial offer) or 47% (their last offer). THey've conceded the fact that they won't get all the structural changes they want. These are the concessions they've made. What have the players done?
Champ Kind
New member
Nik? said:
True, but wouldn't it be true that you would really, REALLY like to sleep with her twice per week? In that regard, isn't getting less than what you wanted a concession.
Incidentally, I would have used Charlise Theron, but I can live with your example.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik? said:
Therefore conceding their position on the matter.
Kin
New member
Champ Kind said:
No, because there has to be some distinction made between a concession and reduced demands. Cutting my demands from 2 to 1 is not hurting me if it's not realistic to ask for either.
Offering something I have to her, like say, my '68 Fender Coranado Bass so she'd accept would be a concession. Also it makes my analogy creepy and wrong. More so.
Corn Flake
New member
Champ Kind said:
Champ FTW. Also, I forgot what we were talking about.
Corn Flake
New member
Nik? said:
I fully endorse and applaud your creepy analogy.
Kin
New member
bustaheims said:
But it's meaningless. By that logic the players could have asked for 100% of revenue and grudgingly come down to 75% and claimed a meaningful concession. The players offer has been to give up something that they have, a percentage of the league's growth, in exchange for something they want which is a guaranteed dollar number.
What that does is essentially encourages the NHL or anyone else to make a unrealistic opening offer that never stands a chance at getting a deal done. Just because they put their nonsense down on paper and offered it to the players doesn't mean that throwing it away means anything.
Champ Kind
New member
Corn Flake said:
I used the Canadian spelling!
Thanks, Flake.
- Status