The players way of handling it sucked. All it did was deter GMs from front loading but didnt prevent it. (They proposed if a player retires the cap hit remains). Players still win out because they made 90% of the money and don't have to honor the last 4 years. Makes no difference to them.

Front loading contracts hurts owners because the players share grows because the actual salary > total cap and the cap is there to control players share. I don't see why the 5% change in salary the NHL proposed is a bad thing.
- mrhattrick27

Wrong. The players get no more or no fewer dollars no matter how contracts are structured, because they only get a certain percentage of revenues in aggregate.

Those front-loaded contracts just push the amount the players are scheduled to be paid above their guaranteed share; that means more money that has to be paid back to the owners, which means higher escrow. In the later years, the process is (potentially) reversed; the players aren't getting as much as they should, and the owners have to write checks to the players to cover the shortfall.

There is no net gain or loss in aggregate from front-loading or back-loading. There's only a possible gain/loss among individual players; money paid to one player above the allowed percentage comes out of the pockets of all the other players to balance.

Go to tsn.ca, read the main headline there. Tells us everything we need to know about what happened today only Mr Eklund, of course, will never acknowledge this.
Can we see the meter now?
- Aliaksandrhn

There were definite positives today. The players moved off of a guaranteed share and submitted an offer based on a percentage share. That is a good thing. One of the issues the NHL had was with that. So that has changed, and now both sides are using the same structure in a deal. That was a roadblock to getting a deal. So now they just have work on the actual numbers, and make a compromise. Now there is an undisputed difference between the two sides.
The best thing to do in my opinion is to ignore the BS and rhetoric. Ignore what both sides are saying to the press. And focus on the process. Maybe there wasn't as much progress as many wanted or anticipated. But there was progress nonetheless.

Hamrlik

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...erfeed&utm_medium=twitter


"I am disgusted. We have to push Fehr to the wall to get the deal. Time is against us. We lost 1/4 season, it is $425 million. Who will give it back to us? Mr. Fehr?

"There should be voting between players. Four questions - YES or NO - then count it. If half of players say let's play, then they should sign new CBA. If there is no season he should leave and we will find someone new. Time is our enemy."

It is doom and gloom.it had been since day one. The owners were always prepared to lose a season to undo the.mess they made last CBA.

Bettman is a joke. 3 lockouts, most games lost than the other big 3 sports combined. Crap franchise movement/expansion. Now this.

For those of you on the owners side you don't get whats going on. The owners have always been ready to close it out and lock the doors the first minute they got. It had been obvious from they way they handled the first offer.

I heard people comparing this to hostess union. Really? A company that loses money compared to one with record revenue. As much as people rag in fehr it is bettman and the owners that have screwed us over.

And Ek, you write this blog like there is a negotiators handbook. I like your site and reading your rumors, but you are way off on this. Seems like people think this is a game. This is business, where we will be lucky if these morons are able to save 2014 season. Fire bettman now. He has made a joke of the nhl.
- KOS

I really find it hard to believe pro-players support amongst these boards. Every so called expert has said that the deal should be made at 50/50. Even players are now saying they knew the deal would be made at 50/50... So who put that deal on the table? The owners did. Who came up with Make whole? The owners did. Please tell me how and where the players have negotiated from the old CBA of 57% to what we sit at today. The players have done nothing Fehr has done nothing... Roman Hamrlik's comments are just the start of players turning on Fehr. Fehr has spent the better part of the last year and half filling playes heads with thougths of mistrust, lie and has done everything possible to paint the owners has the enemy. He was asked to negotiate very early in 2011 and refused... Guess he was not done brainwashing hockeyplayers. NHPLA are amazing athletes that get paid very well. But lets face it, they are not very smart if they think that they will win this battle.

It is indeed both sides fault. To me the league is struggling because the Cap Floor is far too high. And there was record revenue but the big markets are where all the money went. There needs to be a balance.

A huge issue is teams in bad markets need to go. I hope this ends like 94-95 with teams moving except the other way. Move the yotes and the team next in line thats crying poor to Canada and be done with it.
- mrhattrick27

1. The cap floor is "too high" because high-revenue teams are growing faster than low-revenue teams can keep up. This only doesn't make sense to people who think every market is (or should be) identical or have identical chances for growth; everyone else realizes that's not the case (and can never be).

2. Moving teams from "bad" markets to "good" markets doesn't fix that "problem." In fact, it pushes the cap even higher as more revenue is generated - and that puts even more pressure on every team that isn't moved as well as any market that moves from "OK" to "need a little help here." In short: you're arguing that if enough teams are moved, everyone will eventually be "above average" and not need any help.

Like a record baby! I'm here!

- MJL

I think, like Fehr negotiating ability you both may have a scratch... cause we continue to hear the same thing over and over again. I really don't mean any disrespect to you MJL... the composure you keep in your posts are both honourable and something many here could learn from...

I think, like Fehr negotiating ability you both may have a scratch... cause we continue to hear the same thing over and over again. I really don't mean any disrespect to you MJL... the composure you keep in your posts are both honourable and something many here could learn from...
- TSTER

When your message is something you believe in and is what you feel is right. Why change it? I've got 3 fundamental beliefs on this lockout.

1) The players can't continue to make 57%. The ratio needs to go to 50/50. That is fair.

2) Players contracts need to be honored.

3)The players should not be held fully responsible for the Owner's mistakes, and have the foot the entire bill to solve the League's financial and systemic issues.

Hamrlik

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...erfeed&utm_medium=twitter


"I am disgusted. We have to push Fehr to the wall to get the deal. Time is against us. We lost 1/4 season, it is $425 million. Who will give it back to us? Mr. Fehr?

"There should be voting between players. Four questions - YES or NO - then count it. If half of players say let's play, then they should sign new CBA. If there is no season he should leave and we will find someone new. Time is our enemy."
- Symba007

As much as I may like Harmlik's comments you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. He's in the small percentile of aging players who are on their last NHL contract, opinions like his will differ vastly from those of the average NHLer. I honestly don't think the PA really cares about Hamrlik's situation and I don't think his comments will have much impact.

When your message is something you believe in and is what you feel is right. Why change it? I've got 3 fundamental beliefs on this lockout.

1) The players can't continue to make 57%. The ratio needs to go to 50/50. That is fair.

2) Players contracts need to be honored.

3)The players should not be held fully responsible for the Owner's mistakes, and have the foot the entire bill to solve the League's financial and systemic issues.
- MJL

I think most people here would agree with you on the first 2 of those points. The problem is in how you find an answer to them - and that's where the disagreements start.

#3 sounds good, but both sides are in this together. As idealistic as it might be to say "the owners have to figure it out themselves" the players are one of the variables involved; thus, they necessarily have to be part of the "figuring it out."

When your message is something you believe in and is what you feel is right. Why change it? I've got 3 fundamental beliefs on this lockout.

1) The players can't continue to make 57%. The ratio needs to go to 50/50. That is fair.

2) Players contracts need to be honored.

3)The players should not be held fully responsible for the Owner's mistakes, and have the foot the entire bill to solve the League's financial and systemic issues.
- MJL

Agreed... # 2 is the tough one. # 3 regardless of who's fault it is simply needs to get fixed. My # 4 would be the deal needs to be longer than 5 years.

As much as I may like Harmlik's comments you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. He's in the small percentile of aging players who are on their last NHL contract, opinions like his will differ vastly from those of the average NHLer. I honestly don't think the PA really cares about Hamrlik's situation and I don't think his comments will have much impact.
- DarthKane

During the last lockout, something like 150 guys lost their job (retired or were replaced by younger guys), you can be sure he isn't the only one. A lot of older guys, 3rd/4th liners, 5-6th D REALLY don't want to lose a full season.

It is doom and gloom.it had been since day one. The owners were always prepared to lose a season to undo the.mess they made last CBA.

Bettman is a joke. 3 lockouts, most games lost than the other big 3 sports combined. Crap franchise movement/expansion. Now this.

For those of you on the owners side you don't get whats going on. The owners have always been ready to close it out and lock the doors the first minute they got. It had been obvious from they way they handled the first offer.

I heard people comparing this to hostess union. Really? A company that loses money compared to one with record revenue. As much as people rag in fehr it is bettman and the owners that have screwed us over.

And Ek, you write this blog like there is a negotiators handbook. I like your site and reading your rumors, but you are way off on this. Seems like people think this is a game. This is business, where we will be lucky if these morons are able to save 2014 season. Fire bettman now. He has made a joke of tof 2:03:38he nhl.
- KOS

Sigh.

If I had a dollar for every time I had to explain that record revenues does not mean profits...

I think most people here would agree with you on the first 2 of those points. The problem is in how you find an answer to them - and that's where the disagreements start.


- Irish Blues

Agreed on that.

#3 sounds good, but both sides are in this together. As idealistic as it might be to say "the owners have to figure it out themselves" the players are one of the variables involved; thus, they necessarily have to be part of the "figuring it out."
- Irish Blues

That's not at all what I said. I didn't say that the players don't have to pay some of the bill. But that they don't have to pay the entire bill. By taking a lesser share and moving towards 50/50, the players will be paying part of the bill. And same with the contract issues when some of that is inevitably changed.

Sigh.

If I had a dollar for every time I had to explain that record revenues does not mean profits...
- Atomic Wedgie

You should explain it to a few players also....

1. The cap floor is "too high" because high-revenue teams are growing faster than low-revenue teams can keep up. This only doesn't make sense to people who think every market is (or should be) identical or have identical chances for growth; everyone else realizes that's not the case (and can never be).

2. Moving teams from "bad" markets to "good" markets doesn't fix that "problem." In fact, it pushes the cap even higher as more revenue is generated - and that puts even more pressure on every team that isn't moved as well as any market that moves from "OK" to "need a little help here." In short: you're arguing that if enough teams are moved, everyone will eventually be "above average" and not need any help.
- Irish Blues

With the possible exception of Quebec City, there are no better markets.

+1

I love how Crosby and Richards have come out crying (again) that the NHL should have accepted their proposal because they have moved significantly towards the owners. Maybe if they had actually moved an inch before now we would have hockey by now. 5 months later they finally give something up and then cry because the NHL don't accept it right away.
- niedermayer27

you're right. thats a stupid move.. the owners just did the exact same one a month ago. be original players.

It is doom and gloom.it had been since day one. The owners were always prepared to lose a season to undo the.mess they made last CBA.

Bettman is a joke. 3 lockouts, most games lost than the other big 3 sports combined. Crap franchise movement/expansion. Now this.

For those of you on the owners side you don't get whats going on. The owners have always been ready to close it out and lock the doors the first minute they got. It had been obvious from they way they handled the first offer.

I heard people comparing this to hostess union. Really? A company that loses money compared to one with record revenue. As much as people rag in fehr it is bettman and the owners that have screwed us over.

And Ek, you write this blog like there is a negotiators handbook. I like your site and reading your rumors, but you are way off on this. Seems like people think this is a game. This is business, where we will be lucky if these morons are able to save 2014 season. Fire bettman now. He has made a joke of the nhl.
- KOS

Buddy, Hostess revenues last year was 2.5 Billion, You need to learn the difference between revenues and earnings.

Sigh.

If I had a dollar for every time I had to explain that record revenues does not mean profits...
- Atomic Wedgie

Hey man. Glad to I'm not the only one.

you're right. thats a stupid move.. the owners just did the exact same one a month ago. be original players.


- joel878

The owners have actually been making concessions, moving towards the players. This is the first sign of a real proposal from the players, and they are immediately out in the press crying because the owners did not take the deal.

Every offer from the league has attempted to move in the direction of the players, but the players have moved nowhere until today.

Sigh.

If I had a dollar for every time I had to explain that record revenues does not mean profits...
- Atomic Wedgie

sure some accountability of your own economic system is in order.

record revenues not equaling profits is bettman and the owners responsibility. not the players.

"I have said it too many times now, but we simply can't cover this like a regular season game. This is a negotiation, not a sporting event and we can't follow it in a linear way"

I am glad you finally told us this because I was starting to wonder what the score was.

"I have said it too many times now, but we simply can't cover this like a regular season game. This is a negotiation, not a sporting event and we can't follow it in a linear way"

I am glad you finally told us this because I was starting to wonder what the score was.
- kingapadan

sure some accountability of your own economic system is in order.

record revenues not equaling profits is bettman and the owners responsibility. not the players.
- joel878

What? That is not how the world works....no business has revenues = profits.

The owners have to pay for EVERYTHING to keep their team on the ice. That is where all the revenues go. They pay to keep the lights on, the ice cold, the team jet fueled. Maybe the players should start paying for all that, then they can have a bigger share.

The owners have actually been making concessions, moving towards the players. This is the first sign of a real proposal from the players, and they are immediately out in the press crying because the owners did not take the deal.
- niedermayer27

really? i remember quite the temper tantrum when the players didn't accept the leagues offer the second it was dropped.

the owners haven't been making concessions. they made A concession, and then they stepped back and set a hardline, like they always do, even so far as to state that no more negotiations would even take place until the players came agreed with the bulk of the leagues proposal.

Just cancel the season and give the Leafs the first overall pick and start up again next year.