View Single Post
10-26-2012, 06:16 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,159
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I think you're really underestimating what these other concessions mean to the players. Going from unlimited contract length to 5 years is a huge concession, to go along with losing hundreds of millions in contracts that the owners signed in good faith.
I think I said that the term length would be the only one the NHL likely fights for, but if an alternate mechanism for avoiding cap-circumvention could be found, then they'd likely accept that. But fundamentally this is a competition thing, not a money thing. The pool of dollars paid out doesn't change because of these deals, it just allows the big teams to spend more in comparison to their poorer sisters.

The PA probably would go along with the term length change anyway, because those deals only benefited a handful of stars, a tiny fraction of their membership, and at the expense of the rest, who had to help fund these deals out of their own escrow accounts.

And the only faith under which both sides agreed to contracts was faith in the CBA being renegotiated, which had the potential for altering the terms of contracts all along. Why else would those mega deals have included outrageous signing bonuses? It makes for nice press when Fehr stands up and cries unfair, but both sides knew what was coming.

Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'm not sure what makes you think the league would bend on these issues, they weren't even on the table after their last offer. The only thing the league was willing to negotiate off that offer was how the players can make themselves whole.
They were likely only put in there so the PA could be seen as getting some 'wins' for their membership. The NHL has to pretend to put up a good fight or the whole charade is worthless.

Chubros is offline