The 2012-2013 NHL Lockout Discussion Thread
View Single Post
12-07-2012, 01:22 PM
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Originally Posted by
Why is the fact that the owners said the deal was off the table as soon as Fehr was involved being ignored here? Seriously, a bunch of really experienced and business-savvy businessmen tried to tell a bunch of guys, most of them without even college education, to sign a contract without letting their lawyer see it first. Is this okay to you guys?
Steve Fehr was in the room.
Despite being vehemently anti-player in this dispute, I do have some concerns over the three main points that Daly listed off as hills the owners will die on.
1. CBA term (10yr w/ 8yr out)
2. Individual Contract Term Limits (7yr home team, 5yr new team - 5% annual variance)
3. Transitional process (no amnesty buy-outs or payments outside system - no soft cap in yr 1)
Number one I completely understand and hate the players passionately for not outright accepting.
Number three, I think the owners are exaggerating their die on hill stance and would actually allow for some transitional softening.
It's number two that I see as particularly contentious among the two sides, and I'm not sure why. I don't get why the owners need 5yr limits AND 5% variance limit.
Wouldn't 6yr (new team) and 8yr (same team) work just as well? Wouldn't it work exactly the same with 10%? I don't see how 6yr/8yr and 10% doesn't level the playing field every bit as much as they are hoping.
If you sign a 6yr UFA contract with a new team, and there is a 10% variance limit, your last year is going to still be at least reasonably close the the average of the deal. It's fine.
47.15m total / 7.85avg
To me, that's good enough. Every year is reasonably close to the average. That's not a ridiculous variance that gives hugely unfair competitive disadvantages to certain teams.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by rt