Domination of the Players Association seems to remain the focal point of NHL owners desires with a new collective bargaining agreement with players, at least, that's what can be concluded from a piece of information dropped by Larry Brooks in his column today in the New York Post:
The Post has learned the NHL proposals feature a "management rights" clause under which the league would assume unilateral power over issues including realignment, scheduling and playoff format.
These may come off as complications to some - complications that would best be taken care of directly and without the interference of a second party... But when that second party is the faction directly affected by said complications? Of course you want a say. Conceding scheduling, alignment, playoff formatting, and who knows what else on top of other demands by the NHL (without much of an offer of a concession from the NHL itself)? That'd be lunacy.
...Especially in the wake of ownership propaganda popping up yesterday via an anonymous source. The league has supposedly been losing money, an anonymous owner let slip... Boatloads in fact. Really. Honestly!
So, let me get this straight: The league bled through something like $240 million during the past two seasons, and the only recourse is to blame the players? The National Hockey league collectively lost $240 million, despite crowed about record revenues, yet Gary Bettman, Bill Daly, and other league business officials still have a job?
And we're supposed to believe this?
In a collective bargaining negotiation, management and labor are supposed to work out issues. At this point in time, ownership will not work out issues because labor will not concede their say on issues, or concede (further) financially. They've expressed a willingness to compromise, but compromise is not in the cards, as compromise consists of give-and-take. The league's demands are take and take alone.