View Single Post
12-06-2012, 09:37 PM
Registered User
EverettMike's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,451
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
There is no CBA in place. That old CBA was based around the landscape of the NHL 6 years ago. It's gone, finito. The concessions are based on the current landscape, not the landscape from 6 seasons ago.

50/50 is a reality. It's happening, it isn't a concession. The sooner the players get on board with that the sooner the NHL can avoid a lost season. The owners can show why 50/50 is necessary, and why the NHL needs such a split to continue to make the league viable. Make whole however is a concession, the owners gave on that large adding an additional 100 million to the pot essentially splitting the difference. Not good enough because Fehr thinks he can do better and solely because Fehr thinks he can do better.

10 years is in everyone's best interest, mainly the NHL's for a plethora of reasons. The whole "but that won't give new players a chance to be a part of a lockout" excuse Fehr threw out there is asinine. Poll the young players and ask how many want to lose a years salary to be a part of this process.

5 year contract limits hurt only high end players and likely won't even hurt them, because it eliminates cap circumvention. 90% of the players won't be affected by such a stipulation. It allows owners to insure contracts fully and prevents dead space contracts like Dipietro which do no one any good except Dipetro. 1 contract 6 years or longer in 2004, 90 in 2012. It's become an issue. Thinking it hurts 4th liners making minimum salary is ridiculous. They'll still be 4th liners and they'll still be making near the NHL minimum.

I like how Fehr avoided the player vote question in his presser. It will be put to a player vote when and only when he puts his stamp of approval on it, and that won't happen until he gets everything he wants. Put it to a vote now.
You aren't describing a negotiation if you say the old CBA has no bearing on this one or how it works in terms of give and take.

You are describing a scenario where one side dictates how things will work and the other side needs to accept that.

I can see why the players are upset then.

(The players have gone to 50/50. I personally always said they had to.)

EverettMike is offline