View Single Post
11-03-2012, 04:46 PM
Registered User
Gberg's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 977
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Because it's laughably simple to negotiate these things.

Redefine HRR? Ok, if we get public subsidies and share of naming rights and franchise expansion. Oh, now you don't want to redefine it? Probably a good idea.

43% Ok, that is a little insulting. How about we get 60%? Oh, not a good idea huh? Well I guess we will meet in the middle somewhere...

Face value salaries with deferment? Present value of money is worth more than future value. Give us amnesty, and share the deferment payment or give us extra interest % on the deferred money. Put the excess salary into a luxury tax. Give us a soft landing.

The UFA years would be similar. Both sides could compromise in the middle.

Seriously, this isn't that hard. All the NHL needs is some tweaks to the last CBA. Honestly, revenue disparity is a problem in every sport and there is no proven way to get rid of it. The NFL is a special case. All they can do is try to tweak and then see where it goes.

Goodenow/Saskin had a much tougher job in 2004 and I'm willing to bet that their work will far overshadow what Fehr will end up with here.

If the whole season is cancelled and I'm the owners, I now have to make gains on an entire year of lost revenue. At that point I'd look to break the union with non-guaranteed contracts. That hasn't happened so far.
master negotiator over here, they should get you in the room...

non-guaranteed contracts would never fly. It's terrible, it leads to contract holdouts as well, and just overall a big mess.

Gberg is offline