[msbarnett]

This article seems poorly researched and poorly reasoned. Most observers are crediting the end of the lockout not to "the players realizing the owners were willing to scuttle the season", but instead to the players having voted to authorize the NHLPA to disclaim their representation of the players, effectively removing the players from the union, thereby opening the owners up to anti-trust lawsuits.

Only once the NHLPA took that step did the league seem to start negotiating in earnest, having previously pursued a strategy they hoped would break the union as it did during the previous lockout.

It's essentially the same tactic that ended the NBA lockout.

[parineum]

I disagree about the disclaimer of interest threat ending the lockout.

If you look back to the previous two lockouts, you'll see that the NHLPA was bullied (or felt like it) and wanted that to end. The hiring of Donald Fehr, a known hard liner on the side of labor with a history of labor disputes. When Fehr was hired, there was going to be a lockout. Almost no negotiation was done prior to the actual lockout which is par for the course for the NHL but something new for the NHLPA. Fehr's strategy was to make lockouts in the future not seem like such an painless move for the NHL and he did so.

As the process moved from forward after the lockout, it was the NHL negotiating with itself. All of the proposals the NHLPA suggested were only small ideas of what could eventually be in the final agreement. Each successive comprehensive NHL proposal incorporated some of the ideas the NHLPA had suggested. It wasn't until Bettman announced that there would need to be at least 48 games in the season for it not to be cancelled and that the deadline for that amount of games would be Jan. 19. Only when that deadline approached did we see the NHLPA actually counter an NHL proposal with their own, comprehensive proposal. That's when the horse trading began and the deal was done relatively quickly after that point.

Donald Fehr's strategy all along was to drag his feet for as long as possible to not only get the best deal for the NHLPA but to, more importantly, frustrate the NHL and show them that a lockout is not an easy button for labor disputes.

[rprasad]

That's an inventive take on the owners demanding the players give up 15% of their profit stake on top of 10-35% cuts to salaries, contract rights, health benefits, and licensing rights.

The owners started with a ridiculous offer and maintained the same ridiculous offer through the negotiations. In the end, the players union was forced to fold because the players did not have the same financial resources as the owners did to weather a lost season. The players union was negotiating against itself the entire time; the owners got everything they wanted.

Donald Fehr's strategy all along was to drag his feet for as long as possible to not only get the best deal for the NHLPA but to, more importantly, frustrate the NHL and show them that a lockout is not an easy button for labor disputes.

If that was his goal, he failed, miserably. It also ignores the previous two NHL lockouts, which did not turn out so badly for the players union.