View Single Post
11-16-2012, 04:58 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,965
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz View Post
There's 2 sides to everything though, you say the PA can choose to act ******** over the first offer. I can say the NHL is choosing to act ******** over the PA not liking their offers. Hasn't the NHL mandated that they go off of their offers, and also has said there is no room for serious negotiating on any of their contract stipulations? To me, that seems ridiculous.

A lot of people say on here "The previous CBA Doesn't matter, its a different financial situation, etc etc" as a reasoning for the NHL's offers. Two can play that game, right? The previous CBA has nothing to do with the new CBA, so de-linked offers are just as legitimate than linked offers going by that line of reasoning everyone here chooses to use.

Personally, I'm just not a fan of the demonization of the NHLPA here. If you actually want my real thought (not that it matters) I believe the NHLPA will ultimately loose out, because money is power, and the owners have the most power IMO.

If I had a carte blanche on the matter I'd personally do a 50-50 split, which is fair, all previous contracts honoured, and no changes to the current contract structure.

Maybe asking for 1 major concession per CBA is better than asking for 5.
You're right; the NHLPA is fully within their rights to ask for de -linked cap. However, when the last CBA already proved to be on the players side and gave too much risk to individual owners, its not likely the owners will ever accept the proposal that swings even more risk onto them so the reason people are brutal on them for continuing to propose it is because its fairly obvious it won't lead to a deal.

PensFanSince1989 is offline