Make sure to follow Travis on Twitter!
--
Friday's implosion in New York City was
quite the low-point. The NHL told the NHLPA to basically take-it-or-leave-it, Donald Fehr and the union rebuked ownership's strong-arm tactics, and the NHL soon thereafter implemented an attempted character assassination of their arch-nemesis in an attempt to (a) apply pressure to the NHLPA; and/or (b) fracture the union through direct criticism of his handling to-date.
Judging by player reactions [I think Alex Ovechkin
put it best], ownership's takedown of Donald Fehr didn't exactly work. The two allegedly did repair-work in a Saturday lunch meeting after Friday night's debacle, but it didn't do anything to change the divisive issues standing in the way between the ownership and the union in an attempt to reach a new CBA.
Nor did today's meeting -- if you want to call talks that lasted just over an hour as much. The two sides apparently met to try and hammer out some of the issues with player contracts, but talks quickly fell apart.
A couple of notable quotes from Daly and Fehr from today's disaster below, all via
ESPN:
Bill Daly:
I just don't, right now, given our opposition to addressing some of these issues, know where we go.
We've always made clear that an agreement on the player contracting issues was as important to us as any other issue.
Donald Fehr:
The owners made it clear that there is no give with respect to any of their proposals. That unless players are prepared to take - this is my phrase, not theirs - down to the comma, that there's nothing to do.
We're past the point of give and take. That's what I was told Gary said when I was out of the meeting.
Both men -- as has been par for this ridiculous course -- continued to emphasize that their only interest was reaching a new CBA. Again, it's hard to put a ton of stock into those sentiments when it appears such a statement comes with massive caveats. That is, the two sides are only interested in reaching a new CBA that's wildly one-sided and favorable on their end.
Here's the problem. The going-angle through much of this nonsense in past months was that this was standard operating procedure in collective bargaining agreement negotiations, and not necessarily -- or, exclusively -- a National Hockey League issue. Unfortunately, it's November 11th, and we're now just ninety-nine days away from February 16. That's the same day the 2004-2005 regular season was cancelled, curtailing expected revenues, growth, and overall popularity for quite some time.
Rewind a bit, though, and you'll notice that we're less than three weeks away from the 1st of December -- a major, major deadline for the health of this regular season. It's quite possible the two sides could start closer towards Christmas-time, but it appears that with each passing deadline, the resolve of each side strengthens.
The player contracting issues aren't the only hurdle on this track, either. Even if the two sides overcome this particular quagmire, there's still another obstacle in their path, and that's the first year of the new CBA. Inside of that issue are smaller points of contention, such as the now-infamous make-whole provision offered by owners.
Essentially, neither party can now agree on how much revenue has been lost as a result of the lockout, which factors heavily into the make-whole provision and corresponding dollars fronted by ownership. And, reports have suggested that owners are willing to fight the players on the costs incurred during the lockout. It would seem ironic that the NHL has chosen to fight on this turf, mostly because they were the ones who -- rightly or wrongly -- unilaterally imposed the actual lockout. But, it's a negotiation, and neither side is ready or willing to compromise on any specific issue without consideration from the adverse.
Donald Fehr and the NHLPA have been quite consistent about player contracts (specifically, guaranteeing the honoring in-full) being a priority for the union, so expecting them to bend much here is pretty foolish. The quarrelsome points were outlined by
Katie Strang nicely on Sunday afternoon:
The league's last full proposal Oct. 18 included several elements the NHLPA didn't like: long-term contract limits of five years; strict variance rules to avoid back-diving contracts; 28 years of age or eight professional years before free agency; two-year entry-level deals; and salary arbitration after five years of service.
And while several reports suggested the league was willing to bend on some of those -- although never the strict variance rules, believed to be of paramount importance to the owners -- that was not the message communicated across the table Sunday.
"The owners made it clear that there is no give with respect to any of their proposals," Fehr said. "That unless players are prepared to take -- and this is my phrase, not theirs -- down to the comma, that there's nothing to do.
What gets lost on me is that this isn't a fundamental divider. The NHL swears that they're willing to negotiate on points with respect to player contract issues; the NHL swears that's not the case. These are completely opposing statements, and certainly don't speak well about the two sides understanding the other's position. It's not just disingenuous -- it's a blatant twist of where negotiations currently are, and problems like this really shouldn't be manifesting at this stage of the game.
Nevertheless, the parties are still in communication, and the NHLPA has mentioned that talks in the immediate future are probable. They've requested a venue shift to Toronto.
Will crossing the northern border have a positive impact? Let's hope. I'm still cautiously optimistic that the two sides are close enough to understand that their current worst-case position is still more desirable than losing the entire year, but as always, I don't doubt the rather-die-than-lose mentality of the powers currently in charge.
--
Thanks for reading!
Ottawa Senators Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»