View Single Post
10-05-2012, 05:52 PM
Dom - OHL
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,540
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Just wondering how inaccurate Thornton is on this.

The league did ask for that rollback initially. And their second proposal (from what I understand) increased the percentage share, but changed the definition of HRR, which worked out to about even stevens financially.

Is this wrong?

I'm not sure if the league proposed revisions in their second stab as to their initial offer including the five-year entry-level deals (and so on)...

And you're right. By not negotiating, they're going to get nowhere. And that's on BOTH sides' heads.
2nd proposal restored HRR back to the levels they were in the expired CBA after they reduced them in their first proposal. 2nd one didnt have a rollback but higher escrow which still gives the players the chance to earn their paychecks in their entirety. There was plenty of give in the NHL's 2nd offer COMPARED to their first. The NHLPA however is sticking to their guns on their first offer.

Thornton's misdirection is that the way he is quoted is saying there has been one offer from the league. He's saying they are stuck on a 24% rollback. It was never 24% and they've moved off that. Totally inaccurate.

So is he misinformed? That's what I want to know. And who does that fall on, the union or the Bruins rep?

Dom - OHL is offline