Commandant Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 What does this mean? http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/author/elliotte-friedman/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 The two sides have agreed to mediation, sessions with them involved will begin later this week. There apparently will be a panel of 3 mediators who sit in on the meetings. Can't hurt, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Commandant is the lawyer here? I am guessing there is no such animal as binding mediation. If there was, this would represent a win for the players because to gain a central position one would have to employ give and take. All I've seen from the NHL is TAKE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 And now one of the 3 mediators has been removed already due to issues with his Twitter account. We're not off to a good start already... http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Yost/Worlds-Biggest-Creep-Worst-Liar-Will-Mediate-NHL-Disaster/134/47682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Commandant is the lawyer here? I am guessing there is no such animal as binding mediation. If there was, this would represent a win for the players because to gain a central position one would have to employ give and take. All I've seen from the NHL is TAKE. There is Binding ARBITRATION... where there is an Arbitrator who makes a final decision. This isn't arbitration, and the chances of this going to arbitration are essentially 0. This is MEDIATION. The difference between a Mediator and Arbitrator is this. A Mediator plays the role of "nice guy" who works to try and find common ground and encourage and push both sides to settle, but has no real power to force them to settle. The Arbitrator plays the role of judge, making a verdict and settlement if the two sides can't do it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thanx Commandant/ Exactly where I was going/ This is meaningless gobblygook/ This is a feel good,we have tried everything last step. Lets get to binding arbitration before they throw everything away. They probably couldn't agree on the mediators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thanx Commandant/ Exactly where I was going/ This is meaningless gobblygook/ This is a feel good,we have tried everything last step. Lets get to binding arbitration before they throw everything away. They probably couldn't agree on the mediators. Binding arbitration rarely happens in any industry that is "non-essential" such as this one. Its usually only used when you absolutely can't afford a work stoppage for the good of society... Doctors, Nurses, Police, Fire Fighters, that sort of thing. Neither Bettman nor Fehr want to put the power in the hands of a third party. Thats why decertification is such an intriguing process... because it does put the power in the hands of a third party (a judge) and as such encourages a settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thanx Commandant/ I guess that is what I am driving at/ To make any process binding one would have to give up control.Thats why there is zero chance of binding arbitration, and just slightly above zero chances that mediation will work. Just after I wrote the original comment, I listened to Prime Time Sports, and the guest, who's name alludes me, stated that in his recollection he could not remember mediation ever working , It is interesting that you think decertification is a more likely step. I am not sure what extra authority a judge may carry in decertification other than ordering them back to the table.Maybe you could clarify what extra power a judge might have. Surely he couldn't order them to take a deal they didn't accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Thanx Commandant/ I guess that is what I am driving at/ To make any process binding one would have to give up control.Thats why there is zero chance of binding arbitration, and just slightly above zero chances that mediation will work. Just after I wrote the original comment, I listened to Prime Time Sports, and the guest, who's name alludes me, stated that in his recollection he could not remember mediation ever working , It is interesting that you think decertification is a more likely step. I am not sure what extra authority a judge may carry in decertification other than ordering them back to the table.Maybe you could clarify what extra power a judge might have. Surely he couldn't order them to take a deal they didn't accept. Decertification means no union. Means anti-trust law is in play Means the judge could order things like a Salary Cap, the NHL draft, trading players, restricted free agency, etc.... are all illegal. Any damages he orders would be tripled under US law. However he could also order things like non-guaranteed contracts, no insurance and get rid of other player's rights that have been collectively bargained for as well. Think of the anti-trust suit like this. You are Donald Fehr, you have a nuclear bomb and you have a rocket. However the rocket only fires 50% of the time. By going through decertification we arm the nuke, but we aren't sure if the rocket is gonna fire and blow up the owners, or if the rocket will fail, and the nuke will blow us up. However its a long and costly process and with such big unknowns, and such big risk, usually once its started, it sees both sides settle either right away, or after a few minor court motions, but long before we get close to a trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 This reminds me alot of the movie "The Money Pit" where everything keeps spiralling out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 If mediation fails. 5 creative (and funny) ways to solve the lockout by Max http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/11/28/5-ways-nhlnhlpa-negotiations-could-be-solved/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The NHL has proposed an owners-players meeting (no Bettman, Daly, and the Fehr's) that the PA is said to be thinking about. It was noted on That's Hockey (TSN) last night that Geoff Molson has been aggressively trying to get into the meetings before (he's not on the negotiating committee) and that he would quite likely be a part of any players-owners only discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The player - owner mediation is a bad idea for the players. It's like a game of hockey vs the owners to decide the CBA. This proposal is in favor of the owners, a bunch of business men that have made lives of brokering deals. Bettman proposed this because Fehr is kicking his ass and making him look worse than he already did. Bettman feels the pressure because it doesn't look like the players will dissolve the union and be pushed over like last lockout. He has to go through Fehr to get the deal he promised the owners, and Fehr won't be bullied. If I could say one thing to the players, it would be to avoid this mediation. Make sure you have a Fehr brother in the room with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The NHL has proposed an owners-players meeting (no Bettman, Daly, and the Fehr's) that the PA is said to be thinking about. It was noted on That's Hockey (TSN) last night that Geoff Molson has been aggressively trying to get into the meetings before (he's not on the negotiating committee) and that he would quite likely be a part of any players-owners only discussion. From what I hear, Molson is a part of several teams (LA, New York, Philly, Winnipeg, possibly Detroit and Dallas) who do not support the lockout and have been looking into options to end it. The problem is that the NHL can continue this without the support of the teams not on the negotiating committee and what's funny about said committee is that the eighth team on it is Phoenix: owned by the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The NHL has proposed an owners-players meeting (no Bettman, Daly, and the Fehr's) that the PA is said to be thinking about. It was noted on That's Hockey (TSN) last night that Geoff Molson has been aggressively trying to get into the meetings before (he's not on the negotiating committee) and that he would quite likely be a part of any players-owners only discussion. The owners have the smarts, they are billionaires. Is there two players that have enough acumen to battle the owners straight up? I doubt it. They have spent more time learning hockey. Advantage owners- if this takes place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The owners have the smarts, they are billionaires. Is there two players that have enough acumen to battle the owners straight up? I doubt it. They have spent more time learning hockey. Advantage owners- if this takes place. Chris Campoli has been one of the most important pieces for the NHLPA during the lockout. He's the one educating the Fehrs on different hockey topics. I think the owners want to sit down with him so one can tell him to start pushing the Fehr's to accept a deal and he'll actually get signed by someone next year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The player - owner mediation is a bad idea for the players. It's like a game of hockey vs the owners to decide the CBA. This proposal is in favor of the owners, a bunch of business men that have made lives of brokering deals. Bettman proposed this because Fehr is kicking his ass and making him look worse than he already did. Bettman feels the pressure because it doesn't look like the players will dissolve the union and be pushed over like last lockout. He has to go through Fehr to get the deal he promised the owners, and Fehr won't be bullied. If I could say one thing to the players, it would be to avoid this mediation. Make sure you have a Fehr brother in the room with you. Doesn't mean that the PA will not have guys like Damphousse, Chelios etc at the table to guide them with these negociations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 So the players/owners meeting is being set up for Tuesday; there will be six players and owners present. The NHL has disclosed that the owners present will be: Jacobs, Edwards, Burkle, Chipman, Vinik, & Tanenbaum. No word yet on what players will attend. Bill Daly will be there, and I assume Steve Fehr will be selected to attend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Keeping Jacobs in the room? Yeah, this is going nowhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 So the players/owners meeting is being set up for Tuesday; there will be six players and owners present. The NHL has disclosed that the owners present will be: Jacobs, Edwards, Burkle, Chipman, Vinik, & Tanenbaum. No word yet on what players will attend. Bill Daly will be there, and I assume Steve Fehr will be selected to attend. Jacobs.... ugh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Edwards is another hardline union buster too. The other 4 are promising, though Jacobs might just shut them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Nobody knows where Toronto is in this but they were one of the big teams who stepped up in 1994/1995 to end that lockout. If Burkle is with Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh has been one of the teams wanting the lockout to end sooner rather than later. Those Winnipeg/NHL rumours make me wonder if Chipman was invited to make sure it looks like they are on the same page. No idea about Vinik in Tampa but I doubt the lockout helps them much. No representation from Philly, Montreal, New York or LA tells me there is a real split in the owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Nobody knows where Toronto is in this but they were one of the big teams who stepped up in 1994/1995 to end that lockout. If Burkle is with Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh has been one of the teams wanting the lockout to end sooner rather than later. Those Winnipeg/NHL rumours make me wonder if Chipman was invited to make sure it looks like they are on the same page. No idea about Vinik in Tampa but I doubt the lockout helps them much. No representation from Philly, Montreal, New York or LA tells me there is a real split in the owners. Toronto is certainly on the side of wanting this to end, especially now that the controlling interest is Rogers/Bell. Burkle has been heavily rumored wanting this to end. Chipman, we know where he stands, but I worry about the Jacobs/Chipman dynamic as you say. No idea on Vinik either. All that said, I think this meeting accomplishes nothing on its own. The real litmus test this week is the December 5th NHL BOG meeting and what these guys report to the other owners. I actually wouldn't be surprised if all three owners who we know want this to end, are the three biggest hardliners in the room... One last try to break the players before going to the BoG on December 5th and coming up with something December 15th or so that gets the season started Jan1st. I HOPE anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 We got a season in 1995 with a lockout ending on January 11 and a season starting January 20. The 2004-2005 lockout killed the season on February 16. There's still a lot of time knowing the season would start pretty quickly. The NBA lockout ended on December 8 and began play on December 25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Personally, I think the league is overestimating fans coming back if they lose another season. Last time around, the league was bleeding money and fans understood that and were behind the owners. This time, I think a lot more fans are either behind the players, or at the very least, are not behind the owners. The players didn't help their cause by hiring a guy whom fans knew would lead to labor unrest, but I still think they've got more support than the owners this time around. Last time, the owners crushed the players and now they want to crush them again, rather than be reasonable. Their current problems are self-inflicted. I for one, plan on boycotting spending money on the league for the duration of the next CBA if they lose a whole season. The only exception will be tickets to two games to complete my quest of seeing every team live. Even if they do resolve this in the coming weeks, I will still be reducing my spending on the league. The only way we, as fans, can show our disapproval is by hurting the owners in their pocketbooks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.