From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: "Trust us, Trust us" (Re: Trust works 2 ways)
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:34:30 GMT

In article <9204040927.AA16779@skatter.usask.ca> gerry@skatter.usask.ca (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
>References: <1992Apr02.200839.115961@cs.cmu.edu> <ARBOGASTW.33@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu>

>In article <ARBOGASTW.33@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu> ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr02.200839.115961@cs.cmu.edu> lli+@cs.cmu.edu (Lori Iannamico) writes:
>>>Why the hell should the players "just trust" the owners?  I see nothing wrong
>>>with the players getting the 8% down in writing.  They are just protecting 
>>>their own interests.  I don't see why the owners would object to a logical
>>>request.

>>The owners did put it in writing.  They wrote down that players could keep 
>>all their revenue from hockey cards through the END of NEXT season's 
>>playoffs.

>Oh well that's big of them. "OK we'll let you keep your hockey card money
>for one more year, after that though..well we'll see."

Big of them?  Originally the argument was the owners were jerks for not 
writing anything down and simply saying "trust us."


>Sure the owners conceeded for all of one year. In which time the owners 
>are going to "restructure" their finances. Remember who the owners are
>here. They have never shown any ability to be fair to their employees
>or to give them a say in the operations of the league. Do you really think
>they would give the players a say in what happens to their 8% after the
>one year guarantee?

No evidence?  Who do you think gave the players the 8% in the first place?

>>On the surface, the hockey card issue seems silly.  But what is wrong with 
>>owners saying, "fine you want us to reslice our pie, let's talk about 
>>reslicing yours."  The players got upset at the thought of the owners 
>>turning the tables on them, and they walked.  

>There is nothing wrong with reslicing the pie. However the offer was that
>the players would have control over their 8% of the pie for a one year
>period. After that who knows what the owners would give them under their
>new "restructuring" plan. 

You're right. Who knows? In all negotiations, there are tradeoffs. Who knows 
what the owners would give them, or better yet, if the players were as 
intelligent as they were together on the negotiations, who knows what the 
players would have agreed to?

>If the owners had wanted to establish some trust this would have been the
>spot to do it. They could easily have given the players total control over
>that 8% for however long the NHLPA exists. Then with the understanding that
>the league finances would have to be restructured they would ask that the
>players think about giving up some of that money until such time that the
>league was again doing well. 

I couldn't agree more. But I don't think our views are the problem.  If it 
were up to us, it seems like we'd have this worked out.  Let the players 
have the 8% for as long as their union exists, but you also add that the 
players think about giving up money until such time tat the league was again 
doing well.  The players believe the league is doing well now.  They don't 
want to think about the future fiscal success of the league much less make 
compromises based on this perspective.  That, in my opinion is why the 
owners couldn't go more than a year -- at least not on paper.  Like you 
say, let's not forget who the owners are here and the owners are the ones 
who have given the players this money for years now and probably project 
doing so for years to come.

>You do see the difference in this scenario I hope. Under the owners 
proposal>they are saying they will give the players 8% of the pie, that the 
owners>control, for a guaranteed one year. However the players already 
believe it is>their 8% to do with what they like. If the owners need part of 
that 8% for>awhile then they will have to work with the players to decide 
exactly how much>the players are going to kick in and for how long. But this 
would require that>the owners completely open their books for the players to 
see so that the>restructuring could be done together. That of course isn't 
going to happen, or>at least wasn't without the players taking a stand and 
going on strike.

I see the difference, but I hope you see that giving up the 8% for years to 
come and hoping that the players will think about concessions until the 
league is stable in the future is the reason we have the strike.

>>The players are being childish.  Or maybe they simply can't read!

>The owners are being unequivacal idiots. Or maybe their just greedy.

I think we both have valid points here.

God I wish we were debating playoff games istead of listening to baseball 
games.  I've heard so much about the Orioles new stadium, I'm sick of it 
already.  And they haven't even played a real game in it yet.