View Single Post
10-25-2012, 11:44 AM
Flyotes's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,090
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I think you missed the point--and that's a fairly simplistic way of putting it, no? The owners are spending beyond what the economics of the situation dictated. The economics of the situation are shaped by the NHL's decision to continue a fool's errand in some losing markets, etc.
The 2-3 teams are probably not very salvageable, but the rest of the league can be brought up by adjusting the player's salaries. I think the NHL is right to focus on that. Helping almost all the teams instead of a few. Moving a team is a bigger project than settling a CBA.

The core of the NHL economic situation revolves around getting to 50/50 so that 7% back in team's pockets brings up the majority of the league, not 2-3 teams.

All I was saying is, for all the NHL's posturing, the owners have yet to make a single concession from the current system on ANYTHING (not just the revenues)--yet it keeps presenting itself as the pliable party. Of course the revenue needs to be redistributed--everyone knows that, and the players latest proposal reflected that as well
Sure, but honestly, I think they are holding onto those concessions for the moment. Perhaps a shorter distance towards UFA gets the players to come down to 50% sooner (say in a 54% year 1, 52% year two, and 50% year three and forward). Using those concessions which you want to see from the NHL's side (I agree) is part of future discussion when the proposals get closer.

Anyway, my question still stands: has the NHL made a single concession from the existing system in exchange for the dramatic cutbacks and restrictions its asking the players to take?
Again, do they have to? Not really. Plus, from a negotiating standpoint, they should hold onto those concessions until a better deal is put forward by the players.

Flyotes is offline