View Single Post
10-27-2012, 03:58 AM
Just One Cup
Registered User
Just One Cup's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
because every other part of the offer is a straight take back from what the players gained in the last round of negotiations.

I agree that a 50/50 is fair. I disagree with the immediate drop down to that number costing the players an immediate rollback.

I do not think that the rest of the proposal is fair in terms of pushing out the UFA years, limiting the ELCs to two years, eliminating the Arb. Process, forcing teams to carry cap hits for players playing in the minors after being made freely available to the NHL. 5 year term limits on contracts.

It's terrible when the NHL tells the NHLPA that they can meet on and discuss "tweaks" to the Make Whole provision so long as ALL OF THE ABOVE is accepted.

The NHL's offer is to take back EVERYTHING they gave up in the last round of negotiations and is not willing to negotiate off of those points.

All negotiations are give and take, all I have seen from the NHL is take. Where is it exactly that they are giving in any of the proposale they have made?

Please do not say they went from 43/57 to 50/50 because at the end of the day, they are still TAKING
Of course they are going to take, they have all the leverage and need to stabilize the league. Its pretty bad when teams will make more money during a lockout then a full season. Player salaries are too high, the last CBA failed to address this so here we are again.

As far as the concessions with contracts, blame the teams that gave out the 10-15 cap circumventing contracts. These gms/owners are too competitive, and make horrible financial decisions so the league now has to fix loop holes to protect against these guys stupidity.

Last edited by Just One Cup: 10-27-2012 at 04:08 AM.
Just One Cup is offline   Reply With Quote