View Single Post
Old
12-08-2012, 03:13 PM
  #3
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,711
vCash: 500
This whole 'winning' and 'losing' crud is annoying and is detrimental to the process if any of the actual parties treat it like that either. The hope should be for both sides to prosper, for players to get the fairest deal while allowing the league long term stability.

Before last lockout, the NHL was losing what? $300 million a year collectively? If not for the systemic change that required them to lock the players out, the NHL would be near bankrupt if it was still seeing players make 73% of revenues or anywhere close to it. It is revisionist history saying the Owners got everything they wanted though. The NHLPA accepted the salary cap, and in turn focused on the %, getting the NHL to concede the salary cap to rise from 54% to 57% if revenue targets were met, UFA from 31 to 27, and favourable changes to arbitration and some other goodies.

It was a negotiation, nothing more, and it produced a CBA that while an improvement over the previous one is still out of balance for the players side. The NHL is looking to fix that. They won't be able to get everything they want, but they'll hopefully get it more balanced than it currently is.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote