View Single Post
08-14-2012, 06:03 PM
Registered User
surixon's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,447
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post

Seems to be a weak counter offer by the players. They really have just made concessions, usually for a counter-offer they should have tried to take some things (ie shorter RFA time, no arbitration, etc), rather than automatically surrendering. Interesting.

The key to this CBA really is revenue sharing though. The only way ANY CBA will work with the NHL, with it's MASSIVE disparity in revenues among it's members is revenue sharing. That means taking money right out of the hands of Toronto, New York, Montreal, etc and simply handing it over to Phoenix, Columbus, Anaheim, etc. The PA will not let that go, as they shouldn't, Bettman will have to get the big boys on board with it, whether they like it or not.
I was quite surprised with that response, absolutely shocked that the players agreed to a reduced portion of revenue off the bat. It looks like they want to keep the long term deals. You are correct that one of the major things that needs to happen in this CBA is revenue sharing and this proposal seems to address that. I'm very interested in seeing how the owners respond to this. I have a feeling that they may agree to the PA's salary proportions and if there is enough noise from the smaller market teams the revenue sharing plan. But I have to think that those long term deals are still a major issue for a number of teams. The PA may have to accept some cap on length or an entirely new formula for calculating the cap hits.

surixon is online now