Only reason I hold out hope for the season starting at a delayed time is that the NHL was the first of the four major North American sports to have a lockout wipe out the entire season. That means that in nearly a century of existence (more or less) they had all resolved it at least part of the way through. The full season lockout might have just been the exception that proves the rule.

No, they're not capable of explaining it and are unwilling to divulge their actual revenues to the public. That's shady move #1, being dishonest/deceptive. Now they have the other side on guard which makes them suspicious of any other facts or figures they are presented with.


- jmo16

Teams never give out their exact financial situations publicly in any year. Whether there is a lockout or not. Your kidding yourself if you think either side doesn't know the true financial landscape.

What's more frustrating is that they pretty much got to script the last CBA and they cancelled the season in order to get what they wanted. If history repeats itself, then all the talk of them willing to consider other options is in vain. They know what worked last time and they are willing to do it again to get what they want. It's behavior that reminds me of a spoiled child. And they don't care who they screw to get it.
- jmo16

Yes, the League wants the players to accept the same pay cuts as the last time. How did that work out in the long run. Here we are 6 years later with the same issues.

I'm no expert but how hard would it be to freeze the players share at the 1.8ish it's at now and then when that amount is 50% then you go 50-50..
- braidan

Exactly. That has been the obvious answer for MONTHS.

Really Atoumic Wedgie, how do you know that I don't? In my former corporate career, I easily negotiated and spent in excess of $4-5 Billion, yes Billion, for my clients. I've worked with/for the largest corporations in America. I'm actually very well versed in negotiating. My field was not labour negs but when you're dealing with others' $$$ you have to be good at what you do or you won't last very long.

I'll take an IQ test against any of them and if you can measure common sense and fairness, I'd blow them off the map.

I'm also extremely sarcastic, which is how I hoped my previous post was perceived.

- jmo16

Then pipe down and let the pros handle it.

Save your high IQ for more important things, like capturing sasquatch.

Eklund: Source: "NHL Extremely Interested in PA Proposal"
- Eklund

Rather than looking at this as a potential way to resolve the lockout, I am going to be cynical and suggest the NHL is playing a game to force the PA's hand.

Is it possible the NHL has manipulated the network to float a very subtle rumour out about 'being interested in a PA deal"? Why would that news come public in such a manner? The NHL has been super tight with their details, so why float that out now?

Over the past week there was a players meeting in which they were asked if they would accept Fehr forwarding a drafted proposal where they offered some concessions. The players voted no to this, and thus the deal sits with Fehr waiting to be seen by the NHL.

Option 1 - NHL wants to see the deal to use as leverage to force the NHLPA further along than they want. Most likely, and a tactic used in the last lockout.

Option 2 - What if Fehr and Bettman actually drafted a deal in thier private meetings over the past weekend. Something with which they thought they could go back to their parties and get them to agree to. Maybe even something that, really is a fair deal where both sides don't come out as losers. Bettman does a quick survey of the owners, and gets the green light, while Fehr goes to the players and they vote it down.

So yesterday we see a video with Fehr saying he has a deal the players won't move on, and calls it a PA deal, and today the NHL calls them out. What if it is actually an attempt to get the players to change their stance, not the whole PA...

Okay pure fluff for option two, but whatever, one can dream.

Source: Internet not shocked by vague rumor issued by website fraud.

So what? That answer was to the poster who said that the NHLPA had no regard for the fans. As if they were on the only side involved in this lockout. So in those terms, it certainly is relevant. And it wasn't offered as a solution to the lockout. I agree with your point about the NHLPA delaying the start of negotiations. That is a legitimate criticism that I agree with. The players are the only side in my opinion that has made any concessions and offered a compromise. While the League set up their base of negotiations with the laughable first offer, to set up another proposal so they can falsely set up the charade that they have compromised. Which they really haven't.
- MJL

From the NHLPA view, them receiving 57% and the league receiving 43% for the entire previous CBA was considered just fine. They like it and are willing to continue to play under those conditions. Of course they are. So, why is an offer by the league for them to get 57% and the players 43% considered "laughable"?

From the NHLPA view, them receiving 57% and the league receiving 43% for the entire previous CBA was considered just fine. They like it and are willing to continue to play under those conditions. Of course they are. So, why is an offer by the league for them to get 57% and the players 43% considered "laughable"?
- Donnie27J

Simply because it is an offer that the NHLPA would never accept. And it's not in any way a compromise. And it's not negotiating in good faith. The players took a 24% paycut in the last lockout. Accepted a Salary Cap, based on the League's formula for calculating the Upper and Lower limit. Now the League is saying that isn't working, and again we want the players to take a big paycut. How did that work out for the League last time? Doing it again is just more of the same. The League needs to take care of it's own house and foot some of the bill to help the poorer teams. The players are willing to take a lesser percentage going forward. They ask the richer teams to increase revenue sharing. They are compromising in the future. But aren't willing to take paycut on current salaries. Nor should they in my opinion.

Teams never give out their exact financial situations publicly in any year. Whether there is a lockout or not. Your kidding yourself if you think either side doesn't know the true financial landscape.



Yes, the League wants the players to accept the same pay cuts as the last time. How did that work out in the long run. Here we are 6 years later with the same issues.
- MJL

This guy knows everything

Simply because it is an offer that the NHLPA would never accept. And it's not in any way a compromise. And it's not negotiating in good faith. The players took a 24% paycut in the last lockout. Accepted a Salary Cap, based on the League's formula for calculating the Upper and Lower limit. Now the League is saying that isn't working, and again we want the players to take a big paycut. How did that work out for the League last time? Doing it again is just more of the same. The League needs to take care of it's own house and foot some of the bill to help the poorer teams. The players are willing to take a lesser percentage going forward. They ask the richer teams to increase revenue sharing. They are compromising in the future. But aren't willing to take paycut on current salaries. Nor should they in my opinion.
- MJL

The players also know that every CBA the owners will be looking to take more off. I really think that there will be an agreement before too long. Both sides know they lose more than they gain from a cancelled season. The players simply need to make sure that they don't make it too easy and exact a bit of a cost on the owners.

Simply because it is an offer that the NHLPA would never accept. And it's not in any way a compromise. And it's not negotiating in good faith. The players took a 24% paycut in the last lockout. Accepted a Salary Cap, based on the League's formula for calculating the Upper and Lower limit. Now the League is saying that isn't working, and again we want the players to take a big paycut. How did that work out for the League last time? Doing it again is just more of the same. The League needs to take care of it's own house and foot some of the bill to help the poorer teams. The players are willing to take a lesser percentage going forward. They ask the richer teams to increase revenue sharing. They are compromising in the future. But aren't willing to take paycut on current salaries. Nor should they in my opinion.
- MJL

I do agree on some level that revenue sharing between the teams can be adjusted to a degree, but the "richer" teams should not have to give too much because then what is the point of buying, owning, operating a good team in a good market if they just have to give everything to "lesser" teams. On that sharing note, if it is ok for owners to share their revenue with other teams and thats the way you and the NHLPA want it then if players want higher salaries, for example, why can't Alex Ovechkin give Krys Barch a couple million dollars of his salary. Basically the exact same concept, right? Have the ones earning more give to the less.

Eklund: Source: "NHL Extremely Interested in PA Proposal"
- Eklund

Uh oh...

http://www.theglobeandmai...our-talks/article4588613/

On the union side, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr sees no reason to make another offer even though NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is playing the We-made-the-last-offer-so-it's-your-turn game.

But things could get interesting on that front, since a player told Tim Panaccio of Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia that NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr does not have a proposal ready for the NHL but asked the players if he should make one. The answer was no, let the NHL make concessions with their next proposal.

Uh oh...

http://www.theglobeandmai...our-talks/article4588613/

On the union side, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr sees no reason to make another offer even though NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is playing the We-made-the-last-offer-so-it's-your-turn game.

But things could get interesting on that front, since a player told Tim Panaccio of Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia that NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr does not have a proposal ready for the NHL but asked the players if he should make one. The answer was no, let the NHL make concessions with their next proposal.
- Atomic Wedgie

So, what round of the 'waiting game' is this?

Ek was your source PJ Stock ?

The players also know that every CBA the owners will be looking to take more off. I really think that there will be an agreement before too long. Both sides know they lose more than they gain from a cancelled season. The players simply need to make sure that they don't make it too easy and exact a bit of a cost on the owners.
- Canada Cup

I beleive there will be an agreement and the entire Season won't be lost. But I think there will be significant time lost.

So, what round of the 'waiting game' is this?
- BulliesPhan87

If you asw the movie you would have really bad images of Gary dis-robing right now

I do agree on some level that revenue sharing between the teams can be adjusted to a degree, but the "richer" teams should not have to give too much because then what is the point of buying, owning, operating a good team in a good market if they just have to give everything to "lesser" teams. On that sharing note, if it is ok for owners to share their revenue with other teams and thats the way you and the NHLPA want it then if players want higher salaries, for example, why can't Alex Ovechkin give Krys Barch a couple million dollars of his salary. Basically the exact same concept, right? Have the ones earning more give to the less.
- Donnie27J

They don't have to give everything to lesser teams. It's a compromise that the NHLPA has offered. They are willing to take less in the future for the players share along with increased revenue sharing from the richer teams in combination to help solve the League's financial issues. As the system put in place from the previous CBA of the players take a 24% rollback obviously didn't work for the League. So why will it work now? And then when the next CBA comes along, and the same system fails, then what? Another paycut?

As far as your Ovechkin/Barch scenario. That's not an issue in this CBA and lockout. How does Ovechkin sharing money with Barch help solve the League financial issues. The players don't have a problem with their current salary levels.

They don't have to give everything to lesser teams. It's a compromise that the NHLPA has offered. They are willing to take less in the future for the players share along with increased revenue sharing from the richer teams in combination to help solve the League's financial issues. As the system put in place from the previous CBA of the players take a 24% rollback obviously didn't work for the League. So why will it work now? And then when the next CBA comes along, and the same system fails, then what? Another paycut?

As far as your Ovechkin/Barch scenario. That's not an issue in this CBA and lockout. How does Ovechkin sharing money with Barch help solve the League financial issues. The players don't have a problem with their current salary levels.
- MJL

I hope not

They don't have to give everything to lesser teams. It's a compromise that the NHLPA has offered. They are willing to take less in the future for the players share along with increased revenue sharing from the richer teams in combination to help solve the League's financial issues. As the system put in place from the previous CBA of the players take a 24% rollback obviously didn't work for the League. So why will it work now? And then when the next CBA comes along, and the same system fails, then what? Another paycut?

As far as your Ovechkin/Barch scenario. That's not an issue in this CBA and lockout. How does Ovechkin sharing money with Barch help solve the League financial issues. The players don't have a problem with their current salary levels.
- MJL

Write a blog dude.... you are the know it all guy

Write a blog dude.... you are the know it all guy
- Flyers_1488

Did you really have to complain about him being a 'know-it-all' twice in one page?

Did you really have to complain about him being a 'know-it-all' twice in one page?
- BulliesPhan87

He doesn't like people who articulate their thoughts properly.

Uh oh...

http://www.theglobeandmai...our-talks/article4588613/

On the union side, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr sees no reason to make another offer even though NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is playing the We-made-the-last-offer-so-it's-your-turn game.

But things could get interesting on that front, since a player told Tim Panaccio of Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia that NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr does not have a proposal ready for the NHL but asked the players if he should make one. The answer was no, let the NHL make concessions with their next proposal.
- Atomic Wedgie

Not surprising at all. This is Fehr's tried-and-true tactic: make an offer, let the owners make an offer, say "no, that's not good enough - you'll have to do better" and make little to nothing in the way of concessions off the initial offer. In the meantime, watch the owners negotiate against themselves and move their offer progressively closer to what he [Fehr] originally put out, and continually say "no, that's not good enough - you'll have to do better."

The question is whether or not the NHL owners become dysfunctional like MLB owners were and turn on each other and Bettman in desperation. If 2004-05 was any sign, this may drag on for a lot longer than most think.

They don't have to give everything to lesser teams. It's a compromise that the NHLPA has offered. They are willing to take less in the future for the players share along with increased revenue sharing from the richer teams in combination to help solve the League's financial issues. As the system put in place from the previous CBA of the players take a 24% rollback obviously didn't work for the League. So why will it work now? And then when the next CBA comes along, and the same system fails, then what? Another paycut?

As far as your Ovechkin/Barch scenario. That's not an issue in this CBA and lockout. How does Ovechkin sharing money with Barch help solve the League financial issues. The players don't have a problem with their current salary levels.
- MJL

Are you a player? A member of the NHLPA? You seem to stand out to me as one of the very few on here that share your side of these thoughts. To me it is quite simple what needs to be fixed. Player salaries are too high and too many teams are not making money. The players are flourishing but teams are struggling. I can't stand the arrogant, self entitled, spoiled brat player attitudes. The old CBA has EXPIRED. That is why there is a term on it because as things change it needs to change. The players are blind to this and want it all to just stay the same. You cant operate a business with all of the other expenses when you are starting at only 43% of total revenues.

As the system put in place from the previous CBA of the players take a 24% rollback obviously didn't work for the League. So why will it work now? And then when the next CBA comes along, and the same system fails, then what? Another paycut?
- MJL

It's important to realize why the previous CBA didn't work for the owners. Way too many people don't understand the fundamental problems with this CBA, and of those who do virtually no one has come up with a solution that addresses those problems long-term. If one doesn't understand what the problems in the 2005 CBA are [hint: it's not escalating player salaries in the "2nd contract" or players getting 11-15 year, $70-124 million deals or revenue sharing that's not sufficient, or "loser teams in bad markets" or any of the oft-cited excuses that are really symptoms of the problems] it's hard to understand exactly what needs to be fixed.

Simply reducing the share of revenues the players get won't fix things; it will only put a Band-Aid on the problem, which will re-appear in another 6 years or so and potentially result in yet another lockout and delayed season.

Did you really have to complain about him being a 'know-it-all' twice in one page?
- BulliesPhan87

Yeah I do.... He is never wrong and always knows everything. Im just calling it how I see it.