Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Honestly, I'm kinda missing watching hockey...but on the other hand, I also kinda appreciate the additional time this gives me. Work benefits, family benefits, free time benefits.

So right now, I'm pretty comfortable...and frankly, I don't really care anymore if this gets solved next week or next year. **** 'em, I say.

Eff the NHL.
With all the lockouts over the last decade plus, I'm pretty much where I was when the North Stars slunk down to Dallas with Bettman's blessing.
What a horribly run league.

I miss spending my nights off watching the games, once and awhile driving down to Staples to watch the games in person.

But at this point, I couldn't care less. The players that want to/can are playing elsewhere, they lose no money, the owners can sit in their board rooms doing a circle jerk over a picture of Bettman, I don't care.

Until the owners figure this isn't 1994 and the players have other options it doesn't make a difference, they don't seem to care, so why should I.

yep... bring up some replacements or something already. Neither the players or owners seem to care.

Originally Posted by Bogey

The players don't get it, how should it be expected that the pro PA people get it?

There's a poster on the HF Boards, who apparently is good with numbers, who says that the latest NHL proposal, since taken off the table, could have been better for the players than the PA's 3rd proposal.

This whole thing has reached the heights of absurdity.

That poster has broken it down very clearly, and the NHLPA's offer is actually more harmful to its constituency than the NHL's offer. A majority of players only have 1 or 2 years left on their deals, thus becoming free agents after this season or next. Ironically enough, there would be more money available for teams to sign free agents under the NHL's offer than the PA's, so basically the PA's rhetoric about the "future" is crap. They want to get paid paid now (which they're not at all) and don't give two craps about the future of their brethren.

A good story on some of the guys who'll probably never see NHL ice again if there's no season.

"You feel like if you speak out maybe something could happen, but that's never the case. It's best if we stay united, and this time guys have and kept their mouths shut. Maybe it's because that [hard-line] first owners' proposal [July 13] cemented us together."

Careers threatened as NHL lockout continues | StarTribune.com

The ridiculous first offer by Bettman is to blame for this. There will be NHL again.

Originally Posted by Bogey

From what I've read, every PA proposal includes de-linking salaries to revenue and, especially at this stage, no way does the NHL every agree to that.

yes. the latest proposal included de-linking 13% of player salaries from HRR. The remaining 87% would be a strict 50/50 split of HRR. The NHLPA proposal assumes that the 13% would diminish over time as contracts expire and as revenues increase. So, while you are technically right there is a world of difference between the PA's latest proposal and their earlier proposals that did not link salaries to revenues. I don't think that you can say the same thing of the owners' proposals. Their movement from 43% to 50% looks good on paper, but when you consider that they have never sought to provide incremental decreases that would honor existing contracts but still move the league toward a 50-50 split, it's clear that one side is making a lot of movement (and dancing) and the other is mainly dancing.

I think the key point to be made is that the latest NHLPA proposal, especially option three, has the players agreeing to a 50-50 split of HRR as they are currently defined (at least for a large bulk of the salaries). This is huge. On the other hand, the players are still assuming a lot about future revenues (as are the owners btw), which would give the owners pause. There is a deal to be made here, though. If the players and owners could work together to come up with a plan to honor existing contracts and diminish the players' percentage of revenues over time so that in three or four years we are at 50-50, it would benefit both sides. Also, the owners should institute a much more robust revenue-sharing model in the first year or two which would allow struggling teams to cope with the demands that elevated salaries would have on the first few years of the new CBA. Each year, that pot of shared revenues could also diminish over time, settling at the latest figure proposed by the league in their last offer.

if i could add one last point, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the reasons why revenue sharing isn't a bigger part of the NHL's proposal is because the larger market teams are frustrated with smaller market teams who are signing contracts that they cannot afford, especially in the weeks heading into the lockout. Part of that frustration comes from the overwhelming sense of entitlement that large market teams have regarding the NHL.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

A good story on some of the guys who'll probably never see NHL ice again if there's no season.



Careers threatened as NHL lockout continues | StarTribune.com

Good read.