View Single Post
12-10-2012, 11:54 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Seems pretty clear NHL and NHLPA aren't talking same language.

Players have given everything in regards to the previous CBA.

However, owners have surpassed what is considered industry standard in NA major sports.

Owners deem that other leagues are the basis and NHLPA thinks old CBA is the basis. I personally see other leagues as the basis and as such I'm on owners side but if you look at previous CBA its fairly obvious why someone would be on NHLPA's side.
This I think is pretty much THE reason for the lockout. And if I was a lawyer and I'm not, it seems to me that Don Fehr is doing everything he can in the best interests of the players, which is to bargain off the old CBA. I also don't think it's necessarily a bad way of going about negotiating a new CBA for the players especially when under that old CBA the league brought in record revenue.

Having said that, I can also see that given the fact that the league is only marginally stable, and I say that because there is 25% (8 teams) of teams losing money, the top 25% of teams are growing the game faster than the bottom can keep up with so that continued model is going to squeeze out the bottom teams under the current CBA with rising cap floors.

I think the players have said they acknowledge and recognize this so they want to see the league fix it with greater revenue sharing. That's all good and dandy but I see from an owners perspective that if they are going to increase revenue sharing a concession especially for the top 25%, then the share of the players must be reduced.

From the players perspective I think this is something that is workable as long as the contracts they currently have will be honored, and thus the make whole. Now the owners want 5 year contract limits, while I think it is not necessarily a bad thing to protect the owners from themselves, I don't see why those owners irresponsibility should be limited. I don't understand why the amount the player is being paid IN that year is not the value counted against the cap. I see that kind of framework as a way to stopping BS cap circumvention. I also see it as a way to limit the benefits of front-loading contracts. From the players point of view though, that is a concession for the star players, but I really don't see why it can't work this way.

The last point of contention is, I think the owners have the right idea in wanting a long-term deal. Why are the players right now concerned with a player that's 13? I mean the upcoming draftees won't have a say in this CBA, they'll have a say in the next one. I don't see a 10 year CBA as a bad thing for either side.

Judging by where the negotiations were headed, I don't think there is much to be debating about. The 50/50 split will happen, I'm not opposed to a transition in which I think in principle the owners have agreed to while the make whole is paid out.

Reiher is offline