The PA is arguing for honouring contracts on every cent on every dollar. With no CBA in place, they're certainly free to make those demands. The context of their demand is misleading because their stance implies that owners are not honouring contracts with in their proposals but the reality is that the honour of their contracts when they signed was also dependent on the CBA in place and the CBA moving forward. They have the opportunity to redefine what 'honouring' a contract means, but it's suspect at best that they suggest that owners haven't or aren't honouring contracts because they completely disregard the system in place when they make these accusations.
If the players can get every cent of their contracts honoured, then good for them. I'm not hoping that one side suffers, I'm not hoping that one side gets crushed but the reality is the every side of the equation loses in this situation and the end will come when one side has decided that they don't want to lose any more than they have already. The league could surprise me but I don't foresee them honouring contracts the way the PA suggests that they should and from the owners point of view, I don't blame them for not wanting to pay every single penny on every current contract when that was never the agreement and I certainly don't blame them for not agreeing to that when the players are painting the picture to be too simplistic and misleading than what the reality of the situation truly is.
g) Eventhough all contracts are bound under a mutually agreed upon CBA, eventhough you want to reduce costs, previous contracts are transferred from one CBA to the other without monetary loss. All new contracts we dont care about them, slash away.
h) 2 year lockout. In 2 years this will be a moot point assuming contract years are lost equivalent to lockout years.
I'd say that the owners should be putting three options on the table, two of them well spelled out, the other pretty much open for negotiation:
1) They honor established contracts, but demand serious reductions in player costs for the teams moving forward from here.
2) There is little honoring of previously negotiated contracts, and the necessary modifications are made in order to immediately free the vast majority of teams from yearly losses.
3) Some compromise between the two options above, in which relatively minor adjustments are made to previously negotiated contracts, and the reductions moving forward in player costs to teams aren't so drastic.
No matter how you look at it, the players will be taking a hit, either sooner or later. The PA won't like any of those choices, but at least they won't be able to deny that there are options to choose from or the option of some negotiated middle ground.
Here's another option. I like it because both sides get what they want and also have to give up a lot:
Honor every contract yet institute a hard cap tied to a negotiated % of HRR. This may put a number of teams over the cap. It's their problem to get within the upper limit. If doing so means less than a full roster so be it.
If the leagues revenues continue to grow in the 5% range that the NHL predicts, there shouldn't be a problem honouring all of those contracts. If they don't newer players would have their balls squeezed.
What if you signed Parise for $98 mil assuming a continuation of 57% share of HRR, with the condition that the $98mil could go up or down with the renegotiation of future CBAs?
That's an NHLPA Non sequitur that revolves around the false premise that the percentage being altered means the player will receive less money. It's been debunked numerous times - it's designed to fool the average person who doesn't know how CBAs work - NHLPA talking down to fans again