Thread: GDT: The lockout thread
View Single Post
10-20-2012, 12:57 PM
Rusty Batch
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 352
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jason Lewis View Post
You mean those changes that were probably the most sensible and likable things about the deal?

The ONE and ONLY thing hinging these negotiations up is that the players want no less then 57%. Even if you look at their 3rd proposal of the most recent negotiations, and the ones prior to that...

They say "Yup let's go 50/50...BUT we want a lump sum of money paid out over X amount of years (In this case 650 million) to replace the 7% we would lose.

So essentially the NHLPA does not want to lose ANY money. The 7% they are taking of revenue sharing they want paid out to them.

Real life example: Your parents give you an allowance that allots to 1000 bucks a year. You agree to take a reduced overall yearly allotment of 800 dollars but you want them to give you 200 dollars cash in the first 3 weeks of the new year.

It's the same. It's all semantics from the PA recently, they aren't actually changing anything except for the way that they are going to get paid the 7% the NHL is asking them to give back.
If the players proposed a deal using the nhls same framework. But instead of immiateley hitting 50% it
It started at 54.5% then 52 then finally 50 and stayed there. Would this not be a great deal for the owners? Why do the owners need 50 this year? Also, shouldnt owners realize that the revenue split is the main issue, and that if they can get to 50 over the duration of this cba then they have basically won the negotiation? Im not sure why their proposals also include taking so much more then just revenue from the players. Owners should fix the retirement contracts and thats it.

Rusty Batch is offline