From: ARBOGASTW@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Warren Arbogast)
Subject: Re: Trust works 2 ways (Re: Strike : NY response)
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 18:46:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.164500.7444@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>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:
>>>In article <92093.125421JXR130@psuvm.psu.edu> <JXR130@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>

>There is a big difference between a CBA clause saying this portion of
>the trading card revenue belongs to the players, and a clause saying
>the trading card revenue belongs to the owners, but we'll give you
>this share of it for one more year.
Your original point was that the owners put nothing in writing and only 
said "trust us." It now seems as if you are saying they did put something in 
writing.

>>Before the end of next season's playoffs, they proposed to 
work out this and >>all the other disputes.  The owner's did conceed on this 
point, and it did >>nothing as far as making the players more willing to 
give.>>

>The players want to collectively bargain what their rights are on the
>trading card issue now...the owners want to retain their claim that
>the money from cards is theirs and how it is disposed is their perogative.

NHL players each signed a contract that extends the 
rights to their images from games in team attire (still or moving) to the 
owners.  The owners are not merely retaining a claim, it's theirs.  If 
the players wanted to collectively bargain their rights on this issue, as 
you say, why are they accussing the owners of bringing it up last minute?
Maybe it was because they realized they had a good thing going and didn't 
want to bring it up and are now crying union-busting.

>This is really a union-busting issue since the PA's in all the 
major>sports used this as the major source of financing the PA's.  

This is not true in MLB.  Card revenue does not go to their association.

>If the> owners really want a partnership with the players, which they now >
claim, it would be a act of good faith, to recognize the rights of>the 
players with respect to trading cards, and they proceed with>negotiation for 
a new partnership in licensing from a position>of equality, rather than 
their union-busting stance, which only >sows mistrust of the entire 
ownership position in the players...>because of such a bad faith stance on 
the trading card issue.

If the players want to play as badly as they claim, care about the game 
and the fans and partnerships as they claim, they'd be on the ice and at 
the table -- working to a partnership.  If, if, if...you could go all day 
with that...

>>You may have mentioned mistrust before.  I'm fairly new to the group.  
>>But next time you mention mistrust, please get it straight, the owners put 
>>it in writing.  They didn't say, "trust us."  The players demand was, "keep 
>>your hands off our hockey card money."  The owners said fine for now and 
>>wrote it down.  
>>

>They didn't right it down...the owners wrote down...the money is ours,
>but we will give this amount to you next year, but for years after that
>we maintain our claim that you aren't entitled to a red cent.

Now you are saying they didn't write it down.  Did they or didn't they?
In fact, by the player's contracts, the players legally aren't entitled. The 
owners have simply WRITTEN DOWN IN THEIR ONE-YEAR CBA PROPOSAL, "let's 
take a look at all revenue before the end of the 1993 season."

And by the way, I read that the $10 million hockey card revenue 
finances 80% of the NHLPA's annual OPERATING costs.  If this is true, 
Goodenow must have some nice offices.