View Single Post
11-16-2012, 07:15 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,373
vCash: 500
I don't understand the players insistence that the owners need to compromise more.

The league has already compromised quite a bit according to Russo.

There has been a lot of headway in negotiations that really has not been spelled out to date, but because the owners are looking to reduce the players’ share from 57 to 50 in a new CBA, there seems to be a perception that the players would get nothing in a new CBA.

That’s not entirely true.

Among other things, the owners have proposed to
1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players;
2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);
3) eliminate re-entry waivers;
4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted);
5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).

Some other things that the players should like:

1) Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union;
2) Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing);
3) Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city;
4) Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense;
5) Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp;
5) Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms;
6) Ice condition improvements and standards;
7) More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones;
8) Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams;
9) increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players;
10) And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders
This on top of the $200+ million in revenue sharing and the partial make whole of contracts.

A lot of the stuff above could have been negotiated in the summer. It shouldn't have taken this long.

Edit: Just to add, the complaining about a two year ELC and then an extra year tacked on to RFA doesn't make a whole bunch of sense to me. If the player isn't happy with the contract he is offered in year three, there is nothing to stop him from signing a 1 year contract until his value increases. You have to take the good with the bad. Some players are going to get more money under this proposal, and others less.

Last edited by Matador: 11-16-2012 at 07:22 PM.
Matador is offline