No, not equal. Owners proposed rollbacks to contracts they just offered.
- Canada Cup

I'm not positive, but I do not actually think the owners have tried to roll back contracts. Has that ever been the case with one of the offers they have made during these negotiations?

I'm not positive, but I do not actually think the owners have tried to roll back contracts. Has that ever been the case with one of the offers they have made during these negotiations?
- Aetherial

You are aware that there is no way to get to 50/50 immediately without salaries being rolled back. And the Owners original offer was 57/43 in their favor. You don't recall any of this?

i know im late to the show but EK nailed it.

fehr WORKS FOR THE PLAYERS, all the retarded players have to do is tell their voice that a deal needs to get done. end of story.

i know im late to the show but EK nailed it.

fehr WORKS FOR THE PLAYERS, all the retarded players have to do is tell their voice that a deal needs to get done. end of story.
- LetsGoIsles

Bettman WORKS FOR THE OWNERS, all the retarded owners have to do is tell their voice that a deal needs to get done. end of story


goes both ways....

Not true at all. Sponsors increase Revenue for the League. The more revenue the League makes, the more the players make.
- MJL

How much do you think the revenue split is between Crosby and the NHL when it comes to the Reebok sponsorhip?

I'm willing to bet my left testicle it's not 50/50.

Bettman WORKS FOR THE OWNERS, all the retarded owners have to do is tell their voice that a deal needs to get done. end of story


goes both ways....
- Symba007

But they won't. There are some owners (8-10 in particular) that are actually saving money by not operating.

The players on the other hand will never see the paycheques they're losing.

How much do you think the revenue split is between Crosby and the NHL when it comes to the Reebok sponsorhip?

I'm willing to bet my left testicle it's not 50/50.
- Pen15

That's not a part of HRR as is defined by the CBA. Reebok isn't making a contract with the NHL, but with Sidney Crsoby as a spokesman for the Company.

You are aware that there is no way to get to 50/50 immediately without salaries being rolled back. And the Owners original offer was 57/43 in their favor. You don't recall any of this?
- MJL

Has it been confirmed that the 'make whole' HAS to come from revenues?

That's not a part of HRR as is defined by the CBA. Reebok isn't making a contract with the NHL, but with Sidney Crsoby as a spokesman for the Company.
- MJL

There is no CBA.

And I was only responding to your comment re: player sponsorships making the league revenue.

Has it been confirmed that the 'make whole' HAS to come from revenues?
- Pen15

Where else would it come from? The NHL isn't about to drag player endorsements into the discussion at this point, unless it wants to thoroughly destroy negotiations. If it wanted to count player endorsements as HRR (something that comes with its own set of problems - namely, the NHLPA saying "fine, then we want all revenues counted in HRR with no offsets), that should have been done way back at the very start.

Where else would it come from? The NHL isn't about to drag player endorsements into the discussion at this point, unless it wants to thoroughly destroy negotiations. If it wanted to count player endorsements as HRR (something that comes with its own set of problems - namely, the NHLPA saying "fine, then we want all revenues counted in HRR with no offsets), that should have been done way back at the very start.
- Irish Blues

The escrow pool.

Which is still sorta from revenues, but...

Bettman WORKS FOR THE OWNERS, all the retarded owners have to do is tell their voice that a deal needs to get done. end of story


goes both ways....
- Symba007

oh of course...goes both ways. no doubt about it.

but players cant afford to lose the season and an entire year of paychecks.

there are owners who wont mind losing the season because according to reports they would lose more money playing than not playing; players rarely "win" these lockouts.

There is no CBA.

And I was only responding to your comment re: player sponsorships making the league revenue.
- Pen15

Need to go back and read what I said. I did not say players sponsorships. If you follow what I replied to, the discussion was on League sponsorship such as Molson.

I feel like I should totally be apathetic at this point but after watching videos of the Flyers vs Pens from the playoffs last season I realize how much I miss the NHL both the league, the players and other cities fans . All i want to see is Crosby back at his peak again and the continued rise of Giroux. Ovechkin return to OV of the past. Chara and Weber dominate. Watch the young Oilers team continue to develop an insane level of talent. Marvel at the passion of the Habs fans as Ole Ole cascades around the arena for a regular season game. This sucks.

So the current split is 57 (NHLPA) to 43 (NHL) which clearly needs to be balanced. Regardless of what was agreed to in the last CBA. 50 - 50 is the end game here so if I am the owners I look at an approach like this.

Two scenarios:

1. 50 - 50 right away with less contracting restrictions\changes and current contracts made whole but prorated for this season.

2. phased at say 54 , 52, 50 with contract restrictions lessening as the % drops and current contracts made whole but prorated for the season.

I put that to the NHLPA and say we have already most likely done irreparable damage to the sport and if this goes any longer we will lose sponsorship. We need to make a deal because playing a 62-60 game season is a lot better than playing a 48 game season. Cancelling the season though would likely signify the end of the league as a viable business . While the stars or second line players of the league can go play in the KHL or other foreign leagues the hundreds of role players , 3 and 4th line , 4-7 dmen wont have that option.

I know its not that simple but at this point both sides need to realize just how much is at risk and do whats better for the survival of the business vs whats better for the league or the players.

Dude.

Your post was actually interesting and informative and I quite seriously would love to hear about the crap that goes on in collective bargaining.

Then you blow it all up with a dumb final statement.
- Aetherial

Union guys are union guys and swearing, insults, threats of physical harm across the table, showing up late etc. are things they resort to when emotions get high. Its all part of the process with high profile unions. Polyanna wouldn't feel comfortable in most of those meetings.

I"ll bet there are some interesting books around detailing negotiations that have occurred over the years with the UAW, Steelworkers, Teamsters etc.

And I'm willing to bet that there was some supercharged emotions among the NHLPA when Paul Kelly got the axe.

Need to go back and read what I said. I did not say players sponsorships. If you follow what I replied to, the discussion was on League sponsorship such as Molson.
- MJL

And what do the players have to do with Molson as a sponsor?

The escrow pool.

Which is still sorta from revenues, but...
- Atomic Wedgie

In other words, the players will be paying themselves. I think they've already answered that proposal.

I feel like I should totally be apathetic at this point but after watching videos of the Flyers vs Pens from the playoffs last season I realize how much I miss the NHL both the league, the players and other cities fans . All i want to see is Crosby back at his peak again and the continued rise of Giroux. Ovechkin return to OV of the past. Chara and Weber dominate. Watch the young Oilers team continue to develop an insane level of talent. Marvel at the passion of the Habs fans as Ole Ole cascades around the arena for a regular season game. This sucks.

So the current split is 57 (NHLPA) to 43 (NHL) which clearly needs to be balanced. Regardless of what was agreed to in the last CBA. 50 - 50 is the end game here so if I am the owners I look at an approach like this.

Two scenarios:

1. 50 - 50 right away with less contracting restrictions\changes and current contracts made whole but prorated for this season.

2. phased at say 54 , 52, 50 with contract restrictions lessening as the % drops and current contracts made whole but prorated for the season.

I put that to the NHLPA and say we have already most likely done irreparable damage to the sport and if this goes any longer we will lose sponsorship. We need to make a deal because playing a 62-60 game season is a lot better than playing a 48 game season. Cancelling the season though would likely signify the end of the league as a viable business . While the stars or second line players of the league can go play in the KHL or other foreign leagues the hundreds of role players , 3 and 4th line , 4-7 dmen wont have that option.

I know its not that simple but at this point both sides need to realize just how much is at risk and do whats better for the survival of the business vs whats better for the league or the players.
- opeth_pa

You stated the current split is 57/43 in players favor. This isn't entirely correct. The current split is 0 for the players. The sooner they start working from that number and away from what "was" (57) the better off they will be. CBA is gone yet the players continue to think they are given up something coming down from 57 to 50. Actually they are gaining 50% since they are now making 0

Where else would it come from? The NHL isn't about to drag player endorsements into the discussion at this point, unless it wants to thoroughly destroy negotiations. If it wanted to count player endorsements as HRR (something that comes with its own set of problems - namely, the NHLPA saying "fine, then we want all revenues counted in HRR with no offsets), that should have been done way back at the very start.
- Irish Blues

There are always other options than just 'revenue'.

I get the same question asked when I say the cap shouldn't be linked to revenues.

How about if the owners instituted a one-time payout (anything that is owed after players get paid their 50% hrr) out of their own pockets?

Wouldn't that solution make the players 'whole' AND allow the 50/50 split to still work?

You are aware that there is no way to get to 50/50 immediately without salaries being rolled back. And the Owners original offer was 57/43 in their favor. You don't recall any of this?
- MJL

If "rolled back" = "dramatically increased escrow, which results in a de facto reduction in salaries for at least 2012-13 and probably 2013-14" then you're right. If "rolled back" = "actual cut on salaries stated in contracts on the books," then no ... they can go to 50/50 without cutting any salaries.

The real problem with each side's proposal is this: the owners want 50/50 immediately, and won't entertain 57/43 for the players that eventually gets to 50/50 (even if it swings to something like 48/52 for the owners in a couple years to even out in aggregate). The players want nothing less than the $1.883B they got last year, and want 1.75% increases each year off of that amount starting in '12-13. Until someone budges, there's no way to create anything that bridges that gap and makes any kind of sense.

Need to go back and read what I said. I did not say players sponsorships. If you follow what I replied to, the discussion was on League sponsorship such as Molson.
- MJL

I think what was be referenced was how many other business's pay their employees more than 50% of revenue. I might be wrong but that is what I took from the post. It would be like a farmer paying his hired hand 57% of revenue but the farmer assuming all risk for the farms... Doesn't happen much in business, yet players still feel they should get more than half and assume none of the risk and get gauranteed contracts

You stated the current split is 57/43 in players favor. This isn't entirely correct. The current split is 0 for the players. The sooner they start working from that number and away from what "was" (57) the better off they will be. CBA is gone yet the players continue to think they are given up something coming down from 57 to 50. Actually they are gaining 50% since they are now making 0
- TSTER

Excellent point.

One of the biggest fallacies I see people make on here (and the players are making it everytime they step into negotiations), is that they are trying to negotiate off of the last CBA - which is expired.

What they need to do imo, is open their ears and listen to the problems of the league, and work toward addressing them. And if that means taking a pay cut, then so be it....because with no CBA in place, the players share is currently 0%.

Excellent point.

One of the biggest fallacies I see people make on here (and the players are making it everytime they step into negotiations), is that they are trying to negotiate off of the last CBA - which is expired.

What they need to do imo, is open their ears and listen to the problems of the league, and work toward addressing them. And if that means taking a pay cut, then so be it....because with no CBA in place, the players share is currently 0%.
- Pen15

Waiting for MJL response....

In other words, the players will be paying themselves. I think they've already answered that proposal.
- Irish Blues

Well, yes....and no.

Under the last CBA, lost escrow money was gone for ever.

Under the current NHL proposal, you'd eventually see some of it back.

Old system: players pay owners.

Proposed new system: players pay owners, owners pay some back later.

It's something that becomes more relevant as this season continues to be shortened, and HRR revenues are shrinking faster than Toskala's save percentage.

How about if the owners instituted a one-time payout (anything that is owed after players get paid their 50% hrr) out of their own pockets?
- Pen15

The owners have already decided they've paid a ton of money to the players, they're not about to fork over even more to make the players feel warm and fuzzy - even if it's a 1-time payment.

If both sides would agree to 57% this year and then step down to get the Players Share to 50/50 both by year and in aggregate by the end of the next deal, they could so something like 57% in Year 1, followed by 51.5
%, 48%, 47%, 48% and then 50%. That would put the Players Share at almost 50/50 (within a couple hundreds of a percent, something that could be evened out as needed going into Year 6). However, that a huge "if" because there's no sign either is willing to do that.