The emerging truth — the NHL is the clubhouse leader in emphasizing new truths and obscuring the old — is unavoidably this:
Gary Bettman did not beat Bob Goodenow in the last labour dispute.
In fact, in the long view, he probably lost.
So, if continuing under that 2005 agreement jeopardized the owners' financial health and inordinately promoted the players' financial health, as Bettman claims, then what was the ugly 15-month process that produced it?
A loss for the owners — it says not only here, but also in the speech bubbles over Bettman's and Daly's heads.
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.
Way too much focus on the previous lockout these days.
The owners won the battle for the CBA but lost the war for sustainability (to use an expression; I don't really think the players were actively trying to ruin the league!)
I couldn't agree more. The previous CBA is a sunk cost. But yet it seems like both sides are destroying the NHL over it.
Who cares! What is done is done, and they should just focus on getting an acceptable deal for TODAY and TOMMOROW's NHL. The ''In order for us to win you must lose, and you winning is 100% unnaceptable'' mentality is really stupid.
Hopefully at some point before they cancel the season they'll all understand they need to make a deal.
PA, in getting more than 50%, already won compared to every other major league in NA. Of course, they made both sides lose to do it, and come out of it poorer than if they'd just taken the October offer. That's why their strategy sucks.
No reason why the owners should give into more than they believe is good for them and the League. If they do, then it's to save this Season (not the next); and if they're thinking that's what's happening, then they'd be stupid beyond belief to create a 10-year CBA that they'd have to live with. However, if this Season isn't saved, then there's no reason why the owners should settle for anything less than what they think is necessary going into the next Season. I'd certainly push the PA to see if they would really want to lose 2 Seasons of salary. The worst will already have happened if this Season is lost. Losing another month in the next Season wouldn't make a lot of difference.
And they have, in proposal and counterproposal, offered many more concessions the past two months than have the owners. We're talking real concessions here, meaning retreats from ground you already won and held; not fake concessions, meaning retreats from ground you would like to have won and held.