The NHL Players' Association didn't inform the NHL that it was filing a disclaimer of interest, which would essentially dissolve the union, before a self-imposed midnight Thursday deadline, according to league commissioner Gary Bettman.
When asked if the union had filed a disclaimer of interest, NHLPA executive director Don Fehr refused to give specifics.
“It is an internal matter,” he said.
The two sides and mediator Scot Beckenbaugh negotiated for five hours Wednesday night, with discussions ending at about 1 a.m. Thursday. Beckenbaugh has requested that the two sides meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday.
“As long as the process continues,” Bettman said, “I am hopeful.”
Only five minutes before Bettman confirmed the meeting request, Fehr said he was unsure if the sides would meet Thursday.
Meanwhile, the union still can choose to dissolve itself despite its deadline passing.
“The players are keeping their legal options open,” Fehr said.
The biggest issue during discussions the past two days is a discrepancy regarding pension plans.
“The sides moved closer on some issues,” Fehr said, “but there's still a way to go.”
Fehr gave few details of the negotiating session Wednesday but said federal mediators were included. Mediators have been involved off and on for the past month but haven't made a significant difference.
Bettman admitted the pension issue is an important one.
“It's a complicated matter,” he said. “And we realize it's something that is very important to the players.”
Bettman has said for a 48-game season to begin Jan. 19, a deal must be in place by Jan. 11.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.