As of this morning, the NHL Players' Association apparently has not let the league know if it will accept a proposal to have a meeting between owners and players in an effort to get the stalled collective bargaining agreements back on track.
That mght be because, according to a report in today's editions of the New York Post, the NHLPA wants to impose a series of conditions before agreeing to the offer.
For example, the players purportedly don't want anyone from the owners' negotiating committee -- including hard-line Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, who has become a lightning rang for their anger during the lockout -- and they want the get-together to be a discussion, not a negotation.
OK, so why would any of that be a problem?
Can anyone on either side honestly be concerned that the owners and players in that meeting -- however many of either there might be -- will reach an across-the-board agreement on all the contentious issues still on the table, then ramrod that deal down the throats of those who didn't attend?
Have some people forgotten that both the owners and the players will get a vote in whether whatever CBA eventually is worked out gets ratified?
It's understandable that both parties are skeptical of the other's motives anytime it makes a proposal -- there's been a lot of bitterness built up since the negotiations began -- but it's time for cool-headed adults from both to point out that the only danger in any meeting between the players and owners is that they'll waste an afternoon or two.
And both sides have given up a whole lot more than that over the past 2 1/2 months.
|< Prev||Next >|
You must be a registered user to post. Commenting system instructions