Your reply is a completely non sequitur and failed to address any of the points I made.


Additionally, if the players had wanted to avoid a lockout, they could have begun negotiations last year. They waited until August to provide a proposal. If the players wanted to negotiate while playing under the current CBA, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, who had his players strike a month and a half before playoffs began in MLB, the last time a major sport was willing to play on without a CBA.
- Antilles

non of that would have a chance off standing up in a legal battle in regards to acting in bad faith.

First of all the players offered to play while negotiating the CBA, so what you say there obviously isn't true. But it's understandable that the League declined that offer.
- MJL

You skipped over the point. If the players HAD ACTUALLY WANTED to negotiate while playing under the current CBA, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, who had his players strike a month and a half before playoffs began in MLB, the last time a major sport was willing to play on without a CBA. The players making an offer after choosing to guarantee it would not be accepted is not them genuinely wanting it to happen.

What the (frank) are you talking about? How can you say the owners were negotiating in bad faith but the players were not? It is not as if the owners were the only ones who knew a lockout was coming. That would be negotiating in bad faith. BUT both sides knew there would be a lockout, and both sides went about entering into contracts knowing full well that a lockout was on the way. How you can say the owners were negotiating in bad faith but the players were not is beyond me.
- niedermayer27

To expect a rollback on contracts signed hrs even minutes before the cba expired is indeed acting in bad faith. Also the owners did not have to lock the players out.

You fit entirely in the later category. Completely ignoring the evidence of the substantial change in the amount of the contract paid in the signing bonus in order to vilify the owners, instead of admitting the most likely answer: Both sides were negotiating from the same premise.
- Antilles

You can't make the jocksniffers understand this. Give up. Let them win and live in their little fantasy world.

You skipped over the point. If the players HAD ACTUALLY WANTED to negotiate while playing under the current CBA, they wouldn't have hired Fehr, who had his players strike a month and a half before playoffs began in MLB, the last time a major sport was willing to play on without a CBA. The players making an offer after choosing to guarantee it would not be accepted is not them genuinely wanting it to happen.
- Antilles

I didn't skip over the point at all. Your point is incorrect in my opinion. What happened in Baseball has nothing to do with this in my opinion.

To expect a rollback on contracts signed hrs even minutes before the cba expired is indeed acting in bad faith. Also the owners did not have to lock the players out.
- Bieksa#3

Your right that the Owners did not have to lockout the players. But reality is once the CBA expired, the League had little choice but to lockout the players, unless they were willing to put themselves in an extreme disadvantage in the Negotiations.

The entire premise of either side negotiating with the roll back in mind is false in my opinion.

non of that would have a chance off standing up in a legal battle in regards to acting in bad faith.
- Bieksa#3

Another logical fallacy. The ideas you have put forth, which I have pretty cleanly refuted, would not "have a chance off standing up in a legal battle" thus neither does my refute need to meet that standard.

Another logical fallacy. The ideas you have put forth, which I have pretty cleanly refuted, would not "have a chance off standing up in a legal battle" thus neither does my refute need to meet that standard.
- Antilles

I didn't skip over the point at all. Your point is incorrect in my opinion. What happened in Baseball has nothing to do with this in my opinion.
- MJL

The idea that what someone did in their previous job/situation has bearing on what they will do in their current job/situation is a pretty widely accepted concept. The fact you disagree with that principle is all well and good, but it's unlikely the owners share your disagreement with something so commonly accepted.

The idea that what someone did in their previous job/situation has bearing on what they will do in their current job/situation is a pretty widely accepted concept. The fact you disagree with that principle is all well and good, but it's unlikely the owners share your disagreement with something so commonly accepted.
- Antilles

Wasn't Gary Bettman at the table the last time a league scraped the entire season in a labour dispute? Or does it only work one way

The idea that what someone did in their previous job/situation has bearing on what they will do in their current job/situation is a pretty widely accepted concept. The fact you disagree with that principle is all well and good, but it's unlikely the owners share your disagreement with something so commonly accepted.
- Antilles

What also is commonly accepted is that every negotiation is different. All the variables involved are different. The key issues are different. What was the right call for one group in another sport, may not be the right call for a different group. All of that is a factor. And a hell of lot more of a relevant factor to this negotiation then what Fehr did with Baseball, 17 years ago.

Wasn't Gary Bettman at the table the last time a league scraped the entire season in a labour dispute? Or does it only work one way
- Bieksa#3

Another non sequitur to what was being discussed. You tried to put full responsibility for the lack of hockey on the owners. The point being made was that the players did not take any steps to avoid the lockout, if anything they took steps to ensure it. Gary Bettman canceling a season has nothing to do with any of that.

Another non sequitur to what was being discussed. You tried to put full responsibility for the lack of hockey on the owners. The point being made was that the players did not take any steps to avoid the lockout, if anything they took steps to ensure it. Gary Bettman canceling a season has nothing to do with any of that.
- Antilles

Iss this another cleanly refuted fact

What also is commonly accepted is that every negotiation is different. All the variables involved are different. The key issues are different. What was the right call for one group in another sport, may not be the right call for a different group. All of that is a factor. And a hell of lot more of a relevant factor to this negotiation then what Fehr did with Baseball, 17 years ago.
- MJL

So you admit that the players hiring Fehr is a relevant factor to this lockout happening. I see no reason to argue over our disagreeing as to how relevant and which factors are more relevant, when the point I was making was that the players share blame in the lockout happening.

So you admit that the players hiring Fehr is a relevant factor to this lockout happening. I see no reason to argue over our disagreeing as to how relevant and which factors are more relevant, when the point I was making was that the players share blame in the lockout happening.
- Antilles

So you admit that the players hiring Fehr is a relevant factor to this lockout happening. I see no reason to argue over our disagreeing as to how relevant and which factors are more relevant, when the point I was making was that the players share blame in the lockout happening.
- Antilles

In that we agree. There is no question in my mind that Fehr and the PA is just as much at fault for this getting to a lockout as the NHL is. And I've repeatedly said that the PA refusing to negotiate earlier, is a legitimate criticism.

Iss this another cleanly refuted fact
- Bieksa#3

You're at the point of laughing in the face of logic because you have no counter argument.

Since you're unable to continue with a reasoned discussion, I'll just assume this one is over, and leave you to your spouting of unsupported opinion.

You're at the point of laughing in the face of logic because you have no counter argument.

Since you're unable to continue with a reasoned discussion, I'll just assume this one is over, and leave you to your spouting of unsupported opinion.
- Antilles

Just because you choose not to read other posts and decide your right and everybody else is wrong doesn't make it a cleanly refuted fact you clown.

Just because you choose not to read other posts and decide your right and everybody else is wrong doesn't make it a cleanly refuted fact you clown.
- Bieksa#3

you're

Are Bieksa#3 and MJL the same person?

you're

Are Bieksa#3 and MJL the same person?
- Aetherial

Are we the only 2 that disagree with you? Its like me saying are you and ek the same person.

Are we the only 2 that disagree with you? Its like me saying are you and ek the same person.
- Bieksa#3

Honestly, just ignore that nonsense. And let the Moderators take care of stuff like that.

First of all the players offered to play while negotiating the CBA, so what you say there obviously isn't true.
- MJL

While the players did in fact offer to play while negotiating, Antilles is absolutely correct - the last time a pro league tried that, Fehr and the MLBPA went on strike a month and a half before the playoffs started. We all know how that turned out. With that in mind, the NHLPA's offer was disingenuous because it already knew the owners weren't going to accept that.

Honestly, just ignore that nonsense. And let the Moderators take care of stuff like that.
- MJL

nice

While the players did in fact offer to play while negotiating, Antilles is absolutely correct - the last time a pro league tried that, Fehr and the MLBPA went on strike a month and a half before the playoffs started. We all know how that turned out. With that in mind, the NHLPA's offer was disingenuous because it already knew the owners weren't going to accept that.
- Irish Blues

All you should really do when someone points out that the players were willing to play under the conditions of the OLD CBA, is just laugh.

While the players did in fact offer to play while negotiating, Antilles is absolutely correct - the last time a pro league tried that, Fehr and the MLBPA went on strike a month and a half before the playoffs started. We all know how that turned out. With that in mind, the NHLPA's offer was disingenuous because it already knew the owners weren't going to accept that.
- Irish Blues

I think everyone is aware of that. And I've stated multiple times that the NHL not agreeing to play while negotiating, was the right call for them to make. They would have been putting themselves in a poor negotiating position by doing so. I agree 100% with the NHL not agreeing to that.