View Single Post
11-05-2012, 12:32 PM
Registered User
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,248
vCash: 500
That article a yet another example of how the owners have a ton of in-house issues they need to resolve in order to form a viable, long-term CBA with the NHLPA. Until owners can find consensus on the financials, there will always be a group of owners on one end or the other that are unhappy and will risk another work stoppage with the next CBA expiration date.

I don't expect that to happen, no consensus that works for everybody, no revenue sharing plan that works for everyone, no single policy on finer aspects of salaries, parking and luxery box revenue, etc. In the meantime, the owners should (which SHOULD have been two months ago) be willing to agree with the players on a salary reduction schedule that reduces player HHR% over time without reducing actual dollars or reneging on recently signed contracts. I know the effect of an expired CBA on all these things, but if the owners want to get where they feel they need to be, they should have a common sense approach to it. Trying to hammer the players again after hammering them in 2005 and finding out their cap plan didn't work out well enough, knowing the players feel like they got screwed, is not common sense approach to these talks.

Come up with a 57%-50% timeline that doesn't cut actual dollars and doesn't cut into other areas like ELCs and FA eligibility and there is no reason the NHLPA doesn't sign. The revenue sharing plan has already been tweeked so the NHLPA should be happy enough with that. A 60 game schedule won't feel official, but it may actually allow for some better hockey, and I can't be too upset with Buffalo in a transition stage right now. Get it done.

Sabresfansince1980 is online now   Reply With Quote