View Single Post
12-07-2012, 12:56 AM
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
The Bob Cole's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,691
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I'm still waiting to hear what the NHL has "given" the players.

They HAD 57% of HRR and got some "make whole" money to partially compensate for the loss, down to 50%. MINUS

Contract Limits at 5 years. MINUS

5% variance. MINUS

Arbitration rights stay the same. SAME

10 year agreement. UNKNOWN (PA wants 5 years though)

Someone find me a gain anywhere in the NHL proposal for the players. It's hilarious that some morons out there think that the owners are bending over backwards to give and give and give to players. They are giving **** to the players that they already had and telling them "You ****ing ingrates! We added $100m to the "make whole" you should be thanking us!", when in reality they are purchasing 7% of HRR (likely in perpetuity) for a mere one time payment of $300m...a pittance of its actual value already.
Now I don't think Fehr did himself any favors by going public with the deal and singing the virtues of their movement and how close they were to a deal now. It's kind of slimy and disingenuous. It wouldn't bother me at all if they canned him. More progress was made without either Bettman or Fehr.

For those who side with those "poor" owners who need all these concessions from the players I would suggest reading this article...

It's from July, but its a good reason why you shouldn't be siding with these chumps.
No one in their right mind did not see 50% coming. Every other major sports league has 50% rev share or the players earning less of that share. Owners asking players to have a lower shared rev; unfair? How about players earning disproportionate amount of revenue; this is unfair too. That's why anything with half a brain right now knows the middle ground was and is 50% each. The fact that the NHL is willing to concede and offer "make whole" payments to honour contracts proves that they are willing to work to transition the rev sharing.

And contract limits? Let's get this straight, you haggle over a couple things and get them to compromise at 6 or 7 UFA, 8 for own team signing. The trickle down effect of a UFA only getting 5 years, so a lesser calibre player would get even less, should not be a worry. The differentiating point is money still and it will always be money earned by the players, not the term. If Jason Garrison signed a 5 year deal as a UFA, Mike Weaver can still go out and sign the same 5 year deal as well. His contract may be a fraction of Jason's, but he still can get his term. This point affects so few players its ludicrous to think it's one of the sticking points.

And 5% variance, honestly, someone needs to explain the gigantic problem with this one to me. I don't see how this even starts to be a 'strikeable' issue. Top end players (who this effects) are still going to command top dollars on the market. All it means is that their cap should be closer to their true value. I don't think you can find a single player on the Canucks roster whose current contract doesn't fit into the 5% variance goal.


This has been the most embarrassing negotiations between a league and union possibly ever seen in sports history. They should come out feeling ashamed of themselves.

The Bob Cole is offline