HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 02:32 PM
  #176
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
What about restrictions on free agency age/service
Aren't those different by a year?

What about the provision that doesn't allow owners to walk away from arbitration under $3M.

And if you want to whine about the PA not accepting the deal in October. What about Bettman's crybabyfest in December?
To your point, I don't think you can look at the final details and just do a high level comparison to the October offer, because the devil is in the details. Who funds the make whole - owners or players? I think that that the #211M in Oct. was included in the players share of HRR, etc. And that doesn't take into account the all the other things the owners wanted (2 year ELC, etc) that seemed to have been dropped.

The big thing the strike did for the NHLPA is they kept their integrity and cohesion. I got the feeling based on Bettman's comments that the league thought this would be done in Oct/Nov without a lot of fuss. The NHLPA held together and proved that they wouldn't be walked all over. That might be a "moral victory" (or a pyhric defeat if you consider the cost), but it did set the precedent for future negotiations IMO that the owners weren't going to get everything they wanted.

It drove us fans crazy, because the players sacrificed $800M of collective salary to get things they seemingly could have been negotiated to in October. Hopefully the NHL remember that the next time around, and only goes down the labor stoppage route if there are huge fundemental issues that need to be resolved. Hopefully the NHLPA also realizes they sacriced $800M of salary because they weren't willing to negotiate and stonewalled the process with de-linked proposals.

My "kum-bu-ya" ending has Bettman & Fehr stepping down because they've both poisoned the well, and both sides working together to strengthen the brand and rebuilding the trust. Both sides would benefit by workign together collaboritively, and that needs to happen to avoid a repeat of this situation in 2021.

Beukeboom Fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:34 PM
  #177
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I acknowledged that. What you've failed to acknowledge for pages in a row is that he necessarily makes another player equally poorer when he does that. The total payout is the same.

"Total payout" is not the same in the context of revenue growth and a rising player share year-to-year.

In any individual year it's the zero-sum game you describe. Over the course of several years, in a growing league, it isn't, depending on who has signed, and when.

Assuming A 64.3M Cap:

Player A, a Superstar, re-signs to an Ind Max, 8 year deal (20% of Cap per '05 CBA)($12.86 cap per year, some variance). Assuming 5% growth (modest based on the last six years), that max deal falls below the subsequent individual max every year, opening up more cap room to be spent on players OTHER THAN PLAYER A.

By year 7 the spread is $4.37M. That's money that has to go to someone else on the roster. Long term deals with limited back-diving direct more of the growth in revenue and player's share to the middle tier than would occur with shorter terms.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:35 PM
  #178
PRMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
And just like in 2005, you can't do that the day the agreement has been reached.

When the deal was announced back in 2005 there was a unanimous declration that the Union was crushed.

7 years later we look at that result a little differently.
And the difference was almost entirely items that the PA threw in at the last second. I think this deal will be the same.

PRMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:36 PM
  #179
jimmycrackcorn
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmycrackcorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,304
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Doh Fehr, in my estimation understood that the owners were going to drag this out until the deadline.So he played the waiting game to keep his options open. Because deep down, I think Fehr wanted to take a crack at the cap.
Really Bob ... You believe this took so long because the owners wanted to drag it out this long? Doesn't it take two to tango?

And about the cap thing. I guess we'll never know. I think he knew he would fail and didn't go for the cap.

jimmycrackcorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:37 PM
  #180
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Last CBA evey year teams and fans waited to see what the cap was going to be. They then started calculating how much they could spend. The big diference now is teams can still spend up to 64.3 million and not have that worry. Sure if the league as a whole overspends the players have to payback through escrow. Teams however will not have the struggle as they did in the past to further pair their roster to get under 64 million. It is a benefit to players and some teams.
While I agree it's good for the players (as a whole) and the teams - this situation only works to the extent that tehr isn't growth in HRR. As soon as HRR grows where the midpoint of 50% of HRR + $8M exceed the $64.3 - we're right back to that space.

I do agree though that a "cap minimum" of $64.3M is the best way to make sure that all NHLPA member are treated "fairly" and minimize the chance of one group being unfairly punished just based on when their contract expires.

Beukeboom Fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:42 PM
  #181
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan View Post
While I agree it's good for the players (as a whole) and the teams - this situation only works to the extent that tehr isn't growth in HRR. As soon as HRR grows where the midpoint of 50% of HRR + $8M exceed the $64.3 - we're right back to that space.

I do agree though that a "cap minimum" of $64.3M is the best way to make sure that all NHLPA member are treated "fairly" and minimize the chance of one group being unfairly punished just based on when their contract expires.
Slight correction. They changed it to midpoint + 15% (according to Mertle)

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:42 PM
  #182
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Honestly, you haven't taken the time to understand the issues or how they effect individual players.

The PA eroded the owners original position by dragging their feet until their offer was reasonable enough to work off of.
You're only thinking about the players who gain, which is why you're so far off on your assumptions. Every gain by an individual is at the expense of another.

And your last line is just completely wrong.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:45 PM
  #183
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
"Total payout" is not the same in the context of revenue growth and a rising player share year-to-year.

In any individual year it's the zero-sum game you describe. Over the course of several years, in a growing league, it isn't, depending on who has signed, and when.

Assuming A 64.3M Cap:

Player A, a Superstar, re-signs to an Ind Max, 8 year deal (20% of Cap per '05 CBA)($12.86 cap per year, some variance). Assuming 5% growth (modest based on the last six years), that max deal falls below the subsequent individual max every year, opening up more cap room to be spent on players OTHER THAN PLAYER A.

By year 7 the spread is $4.37M. That's money that has to go to someone else on the roster. Long term deals with limited back-diving direct more of the growth in revenue and player's share to the middle tier than would occur with shorter terms.
The first bolded line is incorrect. Increasing revenues causing one player to no longer make the individual maximum does not mean that the team cap is any larger. Regardless of who is on the team or how long their deals are, the cap is unaffected. It is the team cap that determines how much the players as a whole get paid, not the individual cap.

The second bolded line may be correct, but doesn't prove your point: to the extent that teams are going to be signing people to the league max, longer deals mean that that player gets less than he might have had he signed another deal at a higher league max later, allowing more room for signing mid-level players. However, that, again, only moves money around between players. On net, it doesn't benefit the PA as a whole.

Keep coming at me, kids, I can prove that 50% really actually still equals 50% all day long. I'm a ****ing jedi.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:48 PM
  #184
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,152
vCash: 500
So let's review. For the players

IssueOct OfferFinal DealBetter or worse?
CBA Term6 years w/one year option10 years w/8th year opt outWorse
Share50/5050/50Same
Money for 12-13$0 unearned~$700m unearnedWorse
Make Whole$211m paid by players$300m paid by ownersBetter
Revenue Sharing$200m$200m + $60m growth fundBetter
12-13 Spending Limit$70.2m$70.2mSame
13-14 Salary CapN/A (revenue based)$64.3mUnknown
Cap MinimumNone$64.3mBetter
UFA Status8 yrs/age 287 yrs/age 27Better
Arb. Eligibility5 years4 yearsBetter
Arb. WalkawayFull team rightsOnly on awards over $3.5mBetter
ELC Term2 years3 yearsBetter
Contract Limits5 years7 years/8 resignBetter
Contract Variance5%35% year to year/50% lowest year vs highestBetter
Compliance BuyoutsNoneTwoBetter
Cap Benefit RecaptureNoneIn effectWorse
PensionUndefinedDefinedBetter

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:49 PM
  #185
PRMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Teams can't raise revenue at will to respond to paying players more. If they could, there's no lockout. Also, teams won't even be paying players more as a result of this. The cap is the same.
The rich teams in Canada (and even some in the US) with decade-long waiting lists and $100 cheap seats can absolutely raise prices 10% and not notice. Because for anyone that cancels their season tickets, another family will be happy to take their place.

This raises the salary floor for poor teams whether they like it or not. This is exactly how the players beat the owners last time (even though everyone called it opposite) and this is how they are going to beat them this time.

The 5% vs. 35% difference goes both ways, you know. Instead of $5m, $5.25m, $5.5m, $5.75m, $6m, you get $5m, $6.75m, $9m, $12.25m, $16m. (Still waiting to verify whether the LAST year is half of the highest or ANY year is half of the highest. If the first, which I have heard repeatedly, my example above stands.)

When the guy above is a hot free agent, it absolutely makes a huge difference. And the next year, when the guy comparable to him is a hot free agent, he's going to want the same. The high-profit teams are going to overpay and raise revenues for everyone else. And 10 years from now, the poor teams will again be in (slightly less) serious financial trouble.

The 5% variance was a major growth inhibitor and cost containment vessel, allowing the teams' revenues to outpace the escrow, thereby giving the players LESS THAN 50% by still giving them the full value of their contracts. The players have ensured that they will always get 50% of the revenues.

PRMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:51 PM
  #186
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
So let's review. For the players

IssueOct OfferFinal DealBetter or worse?
CBA Term6 years w/one year option10 years w/8th year opt outWorse
Share50/5050/50Same
Money for 12-13$0 unearned~$700m unearnedWorse
Make Whole$211m paid by players$300m paid by ownersBetter
Revenue Sharing$200m$200m + $60m growth fundBetter
12-13 Spending Limit$70.2m$70.2mSame
13-14 Salary CapN/A (revenue based)$64.3mUnknown
Cap MinimumNone$64.3mBetter
UFA Status8 yrs/age 287 yrs/age 27Better
Arb. Eligibility5 years4 yearsBetter
Arb. WalkawayFull team rightsOnly on awards over $3.5mBetter
ELC Term2 years3 yearsBetter
Contract Limits5 years7 years/8 resignBetter
Contract Variance5%35% year to year/50% lowest year vs highestBetter
Compliance BuyoutsNoneTwoBetter
Cap Benefit RecaptureNoneIn effectWorse
PensionUndefinedDefinedBetter
The Make Whole really should just say "none" under the October offer. Players were not losing that money. It was a proposal for how players could simply shift money around between each other.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:53 PM
  #187
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The Make Whole really should just say "none" under the October offer. Players were not losing that money. It was a proposal for how players could simply shift money around between each other.
It was in the proposal, it goes in the chart. Are you disputing that the final deal is better, even if I were to put none there?

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:01 PM
  #188
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
A player can make themselves richer by signing for 7 years rather than 5. I'm not convincing myself of anything, that is a fact.

Again, you're ignoring the role of individual rights to make your point. You can't be taken seriously if won't even acknowledge a key issue.
No that's an assumption, which is very flawed. In many cases those final years are at a discount, where if the player was able to hit free agency he would get a much bigger contract.

And you continue to ignore the fact that every extra dollar player X gains means one less dollar in player Y's pocket.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:10 PM
  #189
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The first bolded line is incorrect. Increasing revenues causing one player to no longer make the individual maximum does not mean that the team cap is any larger. Regardless of who is on the team or how long their deals are, the cap is unaffected. It is the team cap that determines how much the players as a whole get paid, not the individual cap.
The example holds if the team is willing to spend to the cap year after year. It's less effective if clubs have smaller internal caps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The second bolded line may be correct, but doesn't prove your point: to the extent that teams are going to be signing people to the league max, longer deals mean that that player gets less than he might have had he signed another deal at a higher league max later, allowing more room for signing mid-level players. However, that, again, only moves money around between players. On net, it doesn't benefit the PA as a whole.
I went with the league max for the example. The effect is the same for big contracts across the league, big market or small market, assuming plenty of years. Today's blockbuster deal is no great shakes in six or seven years.

Regarding the bolded bit: But that's something that matters to the Players Union. And they didn't want to be told by the league how that distribution was going to occur.

The contract terms the PA negotiated for help to shape the market for players post-ELC and appear to do so in ways that benefit the majority of the membership.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:11 PM
  #190
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
So let's review. For the players

IssueOct OfferFinal DealBetter or worse?
CBA Term6 years w/one year option10 years w/8th year opt outWorse
Share50/5050/50Same
Money for 12-13$0 unearned~$700m unearnedWorse
Make Whole$211m paid by players$300m paid by ownersBetter
Revenue Sharing$200m$200m + $60m growth fundBetter
12-13 Spending Limit$70.2m$70.2mSame
13-14 Salary CapN/A (revenue based)$64.3mUnknown
Cap MinimumNone$64.3mBetter
UFA Status8 yrs/age 287 yrs/age 27Better
Arb. Eligibility5 years4 yearsBetter
Arb. WalkawayFull team rightsOnly on awards over $3.5mBetter
ELC Term2 years3 yearsBetter
Contract Limits5 years7 years/8 resignBetter
Contract Variance5%35% year to year/50% lowest year vs highestBetter
Compliance BuyoutsNoneTwoBetter
Cap Benefit RecaptureNoneIn effectWorse
PensionUndefinedDefinedBetter
This chart, and whole discussion for that matter, is flawed because Fehr never negotiated off the Oct deal, so we don't know what the players could have had.

The owners agreed to pay for make whole after the first time the PA countered, so to say, "$211m paid by players" is misleading. IIRC, the owners also moved off many of the other things listed w/o much fuss so calling them "gains" is also misleading.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:11 PM
  #191
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
So let's review. For the players

IssueOct OfferFinal DealBetter or worse?
CBA Term6 years w/one year option10 years w/8th year opt outWorse
Share50/5050/50Same
Money for 12-13$0 unearned~$700m unearnedWorse
Make Whole$211m paid by players$300m paid by ownersBetter
Revenue Sharing$200m$200m + $60m growth fundBetter
12-13 Spending Limit$70.2m$70.2mSame
13-14 Salary CapN/A (revenue based)$64.3mUnknown
Cap MinimumNone$64.3mBetter
UFA Status8 yrs/age 287 yrs/age 27Better
Arb. Eligibility5 years4 yearsBetter
Arb. WalkawayFull team rightsOnly on awards over $3.5mBetter
ELC Term2 years3 yearsBetter
Contract Limits5 years7 years/8 resignBetter
Contract Variance5%35% year to year/50% lowest year vs highestBetter
Compliance BuyoutsNoneTwoBetter
Cap Benefit RecaptureNoneIn effectWorse
PensionUndefinedDefinedBetter
You forgot that under one they would have to play 82 games this year and the final one they only have to play 48

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:22 PM
  #192
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
This chart, and whole discussion for that matter, is flawed because Fehr never negotiated off the Oct deal, so we don't know what the players could have had.

The owners agreed to pay for make whole after the first time the PA countered, so to say, "$211m paid by players" is misleading. IIRC, the owners also moved off many of the other things listed w/o much fuss so calling them "gains" is also misleading.
I think that the number of issues that got better for the players in the final deal justifies how far off the October offer was from being a legitimate offer on the part of the owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
You forgot that under one they would have to play 82 games this year and the final one they only have to play 48
Is that a positive or a negative? Because you get a subsequent salary loss, which I put in there, as part of that package.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:25 PM
  #193
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Why did we miss 4 months of hockey when things were so close to the current cba in mid October?
I lost track - had the owners given up on changes to UFA age and increased ELC/RFA restrictions? My recollection is those demands - which are significant - were still present in the October offer.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:25 PM
  #194
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 539
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycrackcorn View Post
Really Bob ... You believe this took so long because the owners wanted to drag it out this long? Doesn't it take two to tango?

And about the cap thing. I guess we'll never know. I think he knew he would fail and didn't go for the cap.
No, it was Bettman who wanted to drag this out as long as possible with the belief that the union would eventually crumble and would thus enable him to extract as much concessions as possible.

Conflicted Habs fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:26 PM
  #195
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,012
vCash: 500
Ridiculous thread. The NHLPA agreed to 50% two months ago. The lockout should have been over then.

But then the NHL then tried to strip away contract rights. Aside from closing the most egregious loopholes, they failed. But we lost two more months of the season because of this greediness on Bettman's and Jacob's parts.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:27 PM
  #196
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I think that the number of issues that got better for the players in the final deal justifies how far off the October offer was from being a legitimate offer on the part of the owners.



Is that a positive or a negative? Because you get a subsequent salary loss, which I put in there, as part of that package.
It's a positive. You put the salary loss but without the subsequent gain of not having to work those additional days to earn the salary. If I lost half my salary that's bad. If I got half the year off as vacation that'd be great. Only presenting one doesn't paint the whole picture.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:28 PM
  #197
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
So let's review. For the players

IssueOct OfferFinal DealBetter or worse?
CBA Term6 years w/one year option10 years w/8th year opt outWorse
I would put that one down as a wash, to be honest. 6 + 1 is 7, and the 8 year opt-out is only a 7.5 year opt-out because we've already burned half this season.

Your classification is technically correct, but in practical terms, I don't see it as a meaningful variance.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:29 PM
  #198
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
You forgot that under one they would have to play 82 games this year and the final one they only have to play 48
The problem you have with assigning a better/worse comment is that in every given year, for some players its better while for others it worse.

ALL of the contracting rights, RFA, UFA, variance, contract length, etc. only change which players will get the money.

Pretty much the only figure that really matters is the 50% of HRR.

For instance, you say UFA at 27 is better than 28. Ok.

So Player A becomes UFA at age 27 and signs a bigger deal sooner. Great.
But Player B now either, has to sign for less money because of cap, OR both players get hit with a bigger escrow payment at years end.

So in any given year, some players will be better off, but because those specific players are better off, other ones will suffer because of it.

When we look at it from the players perspective, many of you are just ignoring the fact that any gains from one player is always a loss to another. The players have to be looked at as a whole.

50% off HRR is what theyre going to get, regardless of 5yr deals or 7 years deals, regardless of UFA at 27 instead of 28, regardless of 64.3M cap instead of 60M cap, etc, etc.

All the PA accomplished by fighting for those contractual rights is once again rearranged which players will benefit, and which will lose out.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:33 PM
  #199
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
When we look at it from the players perspective, many of you are just ignoring the fact that any gains from one player is always a loss to another.
It's not just about money, it's about markets being able (or unable) to hold talent that would rather, if it had a choice, be elsewhere.

It's about players having a choice.

That's why it's important.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:36 PM
  #200
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Ridiculous thread. The NHLPA agreed to 50% two months ago. The lockout should have been over then.

But then the NHL then tried to strip away contract rights. Aside from closing the most egregious loopholes, they failed. But we lost two more months of the season because of this greediness on Bettman's and Jacob's parts.
I pretty much agree. Certainly on December 15th the position of the PA was very close to what the final deal looke like. Daly's nonsense about contracting rights being a hill they would die on was even at the time a questionable statement. As it turned out those issues were abandoned by the NHL for the most part as most people had expected they would be. The only thing the NHL really gained from Dec 15th was a 10 year vs 8 year CBA. I think that the PA was always willing to go for that anyways. So certainly the last few weeks were a complete waste of time by the owners.

vanwest is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.