22 replies to this topic

[Carmissimo]

As the lockout drags on it has to be worrisome that when one thinks of the NHL negative thoughts dominate. What should be the focus is the great skill of the players, the tremendous advance that high def broadcasting has been to showcasing the sport that I believe is the best suited to television.

Instead, we talk about, focus on lockouts, decertification, struggling franchises, an unpopular commissioner, a mistrusted union chief, greedy players, selfish, disrespectful owners, too many concussions.

I have no doubt that both parties involved in CBA talks can extract better offers by pushing this further. Yet taken in the context of the big picture, dragging this mess out is simply bad for business.

I get what Bettman was trying to do by putting franchises in strategic markets aimed at expanding the base for hockey in the US. Better chance of landing lucrative TV deals and grow hockey at a grassroots level throughout the US. Yet struggling franchises, leading to multiple lockouts, adds up to a poor reputation and surely that's cause for concern. Hockey will never be taken seriously south of the border as long as the media coverage is more focused on a league in trouble than it is on the exploits of the major stars on the ice.

Yes the owners want what they want and sure there is a degree of respect that the players are seeking in order to move forward. Yet both parties have to understand that stepping back to consider the big picture, what's happening is destructive which is bad for all involved. Bettman is failing even if he gets the CBA he'd like to have because the NHL's reputation is taking a beating. That reputation should matter to the players and the owners. It seems as if neither party gives a darn. Strange stuff.

[youngbud]

Well said Carm good post. And this is why they have to get a mediator to step in. Oh no doubt the image of NHL hockey is being tarnished. I am and will always be a leaf fan, nothing will pull me away from that. But as far as having a hockey season goes for this year anyway, I hate to say it but I've given up and thrown in the towel. I will be very excited as usual when hockey does start up again. First I would like to see Gary Bettman fired. I would like to see them hire new nhlpa executives, not just STAR STUDDED players to represent the NHLPA it should be a level playing field ie first line second line third line or fourth line guys.

At least with a mediator they can get a real adult to settle the situation. These guys act like little kids in a candy store fighting over the last lollipop or gum ball from the machine. Ridiculous!

Why is there so much focus on marketing hockey in the u.s.? Hate to be rude but who gives a **** about that? The original six teams are the ones generating all the revenue anyhow take a look at seers post in regards to that it's true. Boston, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, NY Rangers TOP 5 money makers in the NHL. Marketing hockey in lame u.s. cities does not work. Selling hockey in Canada does work. Canadians love hockey always have and always will that will never change ever! It is our national sport and favorite pass-time right?

Seriously you find me a commish who wants to market hockey in canada like anywhere or all over canada and I'll show you a league that can generate even more dough/revenue than what they are looking at right now!

[Eukardios]

Seriously you find me a commish who wants to market hockey in canada like anywhere or all over canada and I'll show you a league that can generate even more dough/revenue than what they are looking at right now!

This is a little off topic, but there's nothing unwise in principle about marketing hockey in the States; there may be enough fans in Canada to support a few more franchises, but you'd only be dividing up the pool of available hockey fans a bit differently, not creating new ones. If you're not creating new hockey fans, you're not really adding revenue, just moving it around. By developing franchises in the United States, however, you can (in theory, anyway) expand the universe of hockey fans and grow the revenue pie. In practice, this has met with mixed success, but it wasn't a bad idea.

~E~

[Carmissimo]

There is no question that gaining traction in the US is crucial. The basic premise that growth in the US is critical I have no problem with. Yet that has to be balanced off by ensuring expansion is into viable markets. It is the ownership group's responsibility to have healthy franchises. Sure you might have to work at growing a franchise but you need to know that growth is possible. You can't just enter a bad hockey market and hope for success eventually. Grow the game but do it smartly.

[youngbud]

Right I'm not saying that marketing hockey in the usa is against the law or should be ignored. Carm said it best and it's a no brainer really. We need to have hockey marketed in areas where people actually WANT to watch hockey. I'm just saying some of the suggestions for future expansion I have hear like kansas city? las vegas? really? It's already bad enough we got columbus, phoneix, nashville, florida, tampa, etc.
Again, not knocking the states at all. I just know for a fact you could market hockey BETTER and attract MORE fans if you have more teams in Canada, which is the birthplace of hockey in the first place. It's the same reason why no one gives a **** really about basketball or baseball in canada but they love it in the states. Get used to it. Hockey is our game!

[howiegethere]

There is a lot of problems with the NHL lockout and the fans ,the sponsors and even the media are fed up with the lack of progress in negotiations for a new CBA . That is going to do a lot of damage to the image of players and owners alike and will impact the huge growth inrevenues generated over the last few years .
The idea that the NHL can make any great strides in fan base depends on the US market even the teams that are losing money yearly are still a big part of the broadcast revenue and growth . Some of these franchises are doomed to failure but I see it as a necessary testing to find the right markets to succeed in .
I have to agree with Eukarios on this one that dividing the Canadian fan base with more Canadian franchises will not grow the game much as the fan base increase would be minimal . Every businessman knows the Us population s 10 times that of Canada and therefore the growth potential is far greater in the US especially since the fan to population ratio in Canada is very high already .

[Eukardios]

Right I'm not saying that marketing hockey in the usa is against the law or should be ignored. Carm said it best and it's a no brainer really. We need to have hockey marketed in areas where people actually WANT to watch hockey. I'm just saying some of the suggestions for future expansion I have hear like kansas city? las vegas? really? It's already bad enough we got columbus, phoneix, nashville, florida, tampa, etc.

Actually, Phoenix, Tampa and Florida weren't (again, in theory) bad choices for locating franchises (though I do question locating two franchises in Florida). Both Florida and Arizona have large populations of retirees from more hockey-friendly climes.

~E~

[Carmissimo]

If this were an early stage in expansion, that there were a significant number of teams struggling would be acceptable but we are more than 10 years into the last wave of expansion. If there are franchises today crying poor that is quite simply an unqualified failure. It's one thing to take some hits to grow the league but it's another to invest more than a decade in developing teams in certain markets and have little to show for it. Teams that are not able to support a big-league budget, have no business remaining in operation especially if there are strong hockey markets able to support a good franchise. If 20 current franchises are viable and there are let's say four untapped markets other teams could be moved to, I believe a strong 24-team league would allow the NHL to be regarded as viable. A healthy 24-team league would be preferable to a 30-team league held back by 10 struggling franchises.

[Carmissimo]

If the NHL owners wanted to come across as a reasonable bunch just trying to negotiate a fair deal, yesterday was a bad day.

The owners seemed shocked that making demands, rather than negotiating in good faith, went badly. Are you kidding me?

They claim that the players were not moving on the points that seem important to the owners and yet all the movement on those points came from the players. In negotiations it's offer and counter offer, back and forth to arrive at a deal. The owners' version amounts to offering the players a few one-time dollars in exchange for dramatic systemic changes.

Take contract length as an example. Why is five years non-negotiable? What happen if it goes to six years, seven years, even? What horrible calamity befalls a franchise if it has the option, with a stress on option, to put seven years on the table? Putting this in perspective, Kessel is eligible for unrestricted free agency in the summer of 2014, under the system proposed by the owners. He'll be 27 and a seven-year deal would take him to a season in which he played as a 35-year-old player. Reasonable in my view. And if it's fine for the owners of the team Kessel is already on to offer him a seven-season deal, why is it bad for some other team to offer him such a deal as well. It perverts free agency if one team can offer that player something other teams can't. If the player's existing team can offer more term, it means it can also offer less money. Not acceptable.

As well, what sort of idiots to the owners think us fans are? This whole week was staged by the owners with no intention of finishing off with a deal. They would have negotiated in good faith if a deal was the goal. As for the staements in follow-up by the owners, well, one word, embarrassing.

[racer888]

If the NHL owners wanted to come across as a reasonable bunch just trying to negotiate a fair deal, yesterday was a bad day.

The owners seemed shocked that making demands, rather than negotiating in good faith, went badly. Are you kidding me?

They claim that the players were not moving on the points that seem important to the owners and yet all the movement on those points came from the players. In negotiations it's offer and counter offer, back and forth to arrive at a deal. The owners' version amounts to offering the players a few one-time dollars in exchange for dramatic systemic changes.

Take contract length as an example. Why is five years non-negotiable? What happen if it goes to six years, seven years, even? What horrible calamity befalls a franchise if it has the option, with a stress on option, to put seven years on the table? Putting this in perspective, Kessel is eligible for unrestricted free agency in the summer of 2014, under the system proposed by the owners. He'll be 27 and a seven-year deal would take him to a season in which he played as a 35-year-old player. Reasonable in my view. And if it's fine for the owners of the team Kessel is already on to offer him a seven-season deal, why is it bad for some other team to offer him such a deal as well. It perverts free agency if one team can offer that player something other teams can't. If the player's existing team can offer more term, it means it can also offer less money. Not acceptable.

As well, what sort of idiots to the owners think us fans are? This whole week was staged by the owners with no intention of finishing off with a deal. They would have negotiated in good faith if a deal was the goal. As for the staements in follow-up by the owners, well, one word, embarrassing.

Your whole post applies to the players as well. Why do they only want a CBA that is 4-5 years long......so we can do this dance again in 4 years? The owners have the half billion or so invested in their club the players have nothing invested so of course the owners should have a higher say then the players. the players should thank their lucky stars that the play in a time that gives then unbelievable wealth and get back to work......playing the game the suppossedly love

[roadtoglory]

I agree with racer. The NHLPA is a union of players with no money invested in their franchise. They are really, glorified and extremely highly paid employees. The owners are the ones with a huge investment and who stand to lose the most. If Bill Daly is correct and the owners are losing $20 million a day and the players $10 million, the sanity of both groups has to be seriously questioned.

The players and the owners have got to realize that fans on both sides of the border are going to lose interest, and there won't be much of a pie left to fight about. If these idiots can settle their differences and get at least a 50 game season in, they'll be able to keep most Canadian fans. They'll lose a large number of fans in the US but rebuilding will be easier than if the whole season is lost.

I just can't believe that another lost season is such a strong possibility. And the amount of money each side will lose and never get back is just ridiculous. What is wrong with these people?

[roadtoglory]

If the NHL owners wanted to come across as a reasonable bunch just trying to negotiate a fair deal, yesterday was a bad day.

The owners seemed shocked that making demands, rather than negotiating in good faith, went badly. Are you kidding me?

They claim that the players were not moving on the points that seem important to the owners and yet all the movement on those points came from the players. In negotiations it's offer and counter offer, back and forth to arrive at a deal. The owners' version amounts to offering the players a few one-time dollars in exchange for dramatic systemic changes.

Take contract length as an example. Why is five years non-negotiable? What happen if it goes to six years, seven years, even? What horrible calamity befalls a franchise if it has the option, with a stress on option, to put seven years on the table? Putting this in perspective, Kessel is eligible for unrestricted free agency in the summer of 2014, under the system proposed by the owners. He'll be 27 and a seven-year deal would take him to a season in which he played as a 35-year-old player. Reasonable in my view. And if it's fine for the owners of the team Kessel is already on to offer him a seven-season deal, why is it bad for some other team to offer him such a deal as well. It perverts free agency if one team can offer that player something other teams can't. If the player's existing team can offer more term, it means it can also offer less money. Not acceptable.

As well, what sort of idiots to the owners think us fans are? This whole week was staged by the owners with no intention of finishing off with a deal. They would have negotiated in good faith if a deal was the goal. As for the staements in follow-up by the owners, well, one word, embarrassing.

Well, the owners put another $100 million dollars on the table to improve the "make whole" provision. That's a serious pile of money.

And come on Carm, the 5 year maximum contract length is a way to enforce the salary cap. I don't think a 5 year maximum is such a terrible thing for the players to have to agree to.

I wasn't personally insulted by this weeks bargaining sessions. I certainly disagree with you about the owners sincerity. I think they are getting desperate to get a deal done and when their latest, improved offer was brushed aside by the players, they were shocked and disappointed.

[Carmissimo]

Well, the owners put another $100 million dollars on the table to improve the "make whole" provision. That's a serious pile of money.

And come on Carm, the 5 year maximum contract length is a way to enforce the salary cap. I don't think a 5 year maximum is such a terrible thing for the players to have to agree to.

I wasn't personally insulted by this weeks bargaining sessions. I certainly disagree with you about the owners sincerity. I think they are getting desperate to get a deal done and when their latest, improved offer was brushed aside by the players, they were shocked and disappointed.

What's shocking and disappointing is NHL ownership's notion that fans are so unsophisticated that they will, in the long run, buy what the NHL owners are selling. If the owners think it's perfectly OK for the Leafs to offer Kessel a seven-season deal to follow up on his current contract, why do they think the world would come to an end if some other team had the option of offering Kessel that same seven years. What's next? Do we see a provision that limits how much money other teams can offer compared to what the player's existing team can offer? That's not how free agency is supposed to work. When a player hits the open market, it's supposed to be a level playing field and teams are then free to bid for that player's services.

As Kypreos on the FAN has repeatedly pointed out, what the owners have offered to give up in this negotiation is in no way an enhancement of an existing benefit. The starting point for this negotiation has been from Day 1 about just how much are the owners going to gain from a new CBA. The owners signed players to contracts prior to the lockout and the players are simply asking the owners to honour those contracts. The Make Whole provision is intended to move towards that. It is the height of absurdity that owners open negotiations asking for a major rollback and then when they reluctantly back off on that demand, characterize that as the epitome of generosity. The NHL owners do not now possess a limit on contract length. None whatsoever. They have demanded that one be implemented and insisted that the only acceptable answer is that it be five years for players coming in from other organizations and seven years for your own players. The players have to concede something to the owners and they are arguing over how much. The players have expressed a willingness to give the owners something, their latest offer being to implement an eight-year limit which would, if implemented, represent a concession from the players.

Let me explain how this has gone. The owners have demanded that they get absolutely everything moving more in their favour in this next CBA. That's absolutely everything except possibly some pension enhancements. The owners have used as a starting point, the extent to which they want the players to give to the owners. Any movement off that extreme position is characterized by the owners as a sign of immense generosity. It would be as if someone broke into your house and declared, "I have decided to take all your property and then kill you on the way out the door." Then, to show just how swell a person this criminal is, he amends that to take all your property but not kill you. Then, in a further moment of weakness, decides to leave you your big screen TV, and then, upon you deciding to call the police just the same, blames you for not simply being grateful that the crook decided to not kill you and also was generous enough to leave your TV behind.

This is all about just how much the players are willing to give up and whatever they concede to the owners, it is truly shameful that the owners would attempt to characterize themselves as anything but greedy, overbearing, capitalists with no regard for their employees, their so-called partners.

I say, kudos to the players with Fehr leading the charge for refusing repeated ultimatums from the owners disguised as bargaining in good faith. Telling your bargaining adversary that only a yes or no response is acceptable when responding to what has been proposed is the height of arrogance. Utterly amateurish, embarrassing and quite frankly I am deeply disappointed that a game that I have come to love is being run by such a poor group of overbearing fools.

The game of hockey has suffered immense damage from the league's insistence that it ignore strong markets, pursue weak ones, and seem only capable of negotiating at the expense of every imaginable partner in this process. It is my belief that only the excellence of the game of hockey itself has prevented this incompetent bunch from failing miserably. If they are making lots of money, it's despite what they are doing, not because of it.

[Carmissimo]

Your whole post applies to the players as well. Why do they only want a CBA that is 4-5 years long......so we can do this dance again in 4 years? The owners have the half billion or so invested in their club the players have nothing invested so of course the owners should have a higher say then the players. the players should thank their lucky stars that the play in a time that gives then unbelievable wealth and get back to work......playing the game the suppossedly love

The latest offer from the players has called for an eight-year deal with an opt-out for both parties available after six years. Based on past history, the owners would be far more likely to excerise an opt-out than the players would be.

If the position of the owners is that eight years is not the 10 years they demanded, that's an indefensible position. Eight years is not an unreasonable counter from the NHLPA and it is insulting to that association's membership that NHL owners would think it unforgivable that the players have chosen to negotiate, rather than flatly capitulate.

The reasonable response from the NHL owners would have been to counter with nine years and a seven-year mutual opt-out. If the league goes nine years vs. 10 years with assured peace, is that really a deal breaker?

Is it, likewise, a deal breaker that instead of getting that five-year limit on contract length, it ended up being seven years? After all, if the owners offered seven for their own players and five for the others, whereas the NHLPA countered with eight years across the board, would it not have been possible to negotiate towards a six- or seven-year limit? The wiggle room to go there was on the table. Instead, we get an indignant bunch of owners insisting that the world would come to an end if their five/seven proposal was rejected. I believe Daly's melodramatic comment on the matter was something like, "It's the hill we will die on."

Perhaps it's just a negotiating strategy and within days the owners will negotiate like adults, rather than irrational children, to get the season going. There was a time when I would have figured that was the case but this group of owners has more than once behaved rather incompetently so I suppose it would be a mistake to overestimate their collective intelligence.

[racer888]

Sorry but its the PA that is acting like children. they are already overpaid in relation to the rest of the world most importantly the people that pay their dam pay checks. The NHL has continued to up their offer every time and the players only response is that they want it all their way. I think the owners should shut it down for 2 years and lets see what kind of job most of the players end up with..........I'm betting it won't pay like hockey. I watched Kyprois on Hockey Central at Noon today and even he could not think of much to say in the players defence. One of the major sticking points is the players want the ability to give dishonest cap circumventing contract to continue. Yes we know some of the owners are stupid enough to give those out so they must be stopped by dissallowing it in the new CBA but the players want it left in. The 90% of the players would never be offered that kind of deal so lets ask them if they are prepared to give up the season for the 10% fat cats at the top. I know I am rambling but I am so disgusted with the players and hold them in the highest contempt.......they don't even carry their own hockey sticks for Christ sake and every travel, every thing they do is 1st class paid by the owners. get back to work you losers

[Carmissimo]

Sorry but its the PA that is acting like children. they are already overpaid in relation to the rest of the world most importantly the people that pay their dam pay checks. The NHL has continued to up their offer every time and the players only response is that they want it all their way. I think the owners should shut it down for 2 years and lets see what kind of job most of the players end up with..........I'm betting it won't pay like hockey. I watched Kyprois on Hockey Central at Noon today and even he could not think of much to say in the players defence. One of the major sticking points is the players want the ability to give dishonest cap circumventing contract to continue. Yes we know some of the owners are stupid enough to give those out so they must be stopped by dissallowing it in the new CBA but the players want it left in. The 90% of the players would never be offered that kind of deal so lets ask them if they are prepared to give up the season for the 10% fat cats at the top. I know I am rambling but I am so disgusted with the players and hold them in the highest contempt.......they don't even carry their own hockey sticks for Christ sake and every travel, every thing they do is 1st class paid by the owners. get back to work you losers

You mean the owners reluctantly have agreed to temper their demands for concessions, don't you?

It's the owners who have taken a take-it-or-leave-it stance on several occasions, insisted that they've made their best possible offer several times only to be proven liars on that front because they have sweetened the pot, or should I say, soured it a little less.

Remember that the players would have been perfectly happy to leave the CBA as it was. The owners wanted change, wanted concessions, and the negotiations have basically consisted of the parties haggling over how deep the players' concessions have to be to cut a deal. The players have conceded that concessions of some sort are in order but they are also rightfully upset that the NHL owners are exploiting the situation by demanding the maximum concessions they think they can get away with. The only choice the players have is to resist by not signing a deal, hence pressuring the NHL owners into being less demanding.

This is not a case of the players asking for any enhancements of any great consequence. They have agreed, so far, to reduce their share of the revenue to 50 per cent and the owners have agreed to have their share of revenue increased to 50 per cent. The players have agreed to put a limit on the term of contracts and also to implement a mechanism limiting the variance of those contracts. The players have also agreed to go to a longer term, at this point offering the owners eight years, which is entirely reasonable. The players have asked for very little and received, of course, very little in terms of enhancements over the previous CBA.

If you are feeling jealous because these players are making more money than you are, that's a personal issue that you need to deal with on your own terms. Yet, I challenge you to list what, exactly, the owners have offered to the players that is a significant upgrade on the previous CBA. Maybe a pension upgrade but that's it, as far as I can determine.

The owners are saying give us X, Y and Z and get from us in return nothing, other than maybe a few pension dollars. The players are saying, if you are going to take from us, we're not going to make it easy. Perhaps you can't grasp how this could be, that the players are being surly about having to make numerous concessions to the owners, because, from your perspective, the players have it so good. Yet you don't understand human nature if you think that the players should act differently than you or I. Frankly, if I was a player witnessing a negotiation that amounted to deciding how many concessions the players would give to the owners, I would not be in a generous state of mind, either. It's really not about money. It's more about respect and the players have received none whatsoever from the owners. They deserve at least as much as any regular person would and in my estimation, right now, they're not getting it. This is all on the owners who have a negotiation partner that has conceded a lot of downgrades to the previous CBA and yet is being accused of being inflexible because it refuses to concede precisely what the owners have demanded they concede.

If you think the players should just be happy with whatever the owners decide to give them, you just don't get it. It's not the way any of us are wired and it's certainly too much to ask of individuals who having winning at all costs engrained in their DNA more so than the average person.

[roadtoglory]

Does anyone really think that a 50/50 split of revenues is unfair? I think most would agree that 50/50 is reasonable.

The 3 main issues that are preventing a deal are:

1. Length of CBA. 8 years or 10 years.
2. Maximum 5 year contracts.
3. Compliance buyouts as a way to get under salary cap.

Can't we just agree that a 9 year CBA and opt out provision after 7 years is reasonable for both sides?

The league wants 5 year maximum contracts with a 5% maximum variation from year to year as a way to prevent some owners from circumventing the salary cap. So a player making a salary of $1 million per season would be limited to a raise the following year of $50,000.00. A 5% yearly raise for most workers is unheard of these days. I think the players should take it.

I think most owners would agree to buying out a player as a way to get under the cap and this is something the players are pushing for. Is there something here I don't understand?

The owners have also included a $300 million dollar fund to transition from the old CBA to the new one.

Egos aside, why aren't we getting an agreement signed? When you compare what is being lost to what could be gained by prolonging this lockout, it's not even close.

Why is it that involving lawyers in any discussions or negotiations is a sure way to screw things up? There was more progress made without the two head lawyers being present on Thursday than at any other time.

[racer888]

You mean the owners reluctantly have agreed to temper their demands for concessions, don't you?

It's the owners who have taken a take-it-or-leave-it stance on several occasions, insisted that they've made their best possible offer several times only to be proven liars on that front because they have sweetened the pot, or should I say, soured it a little less.

Remember that the players would have been perfectly happy to leave the CBA as it was. The owners wanted change, wanted concessions, and the negotiations have basically consisted of the parties haggling over how deep the players' concessions have to be to cut a deal. The players have conceded that concessions of some sort are in order but they are also rightfully upset that the NHL owners are exploiting the situation by demanding the maximum concessions they think they can get away with. The only choice the players have is to resist by not signing a deal, hence pressuring the NHL owners into being less demanding.

This is not a case of the players asking for any enhancements of any great consequence. They have agreed, so far, to reduce their share of the revenue to 50 per cent and the owners have agreed to have their share of revenue increased to 50 per cent. The players have agreed to put a limit on the term of contracts and also to implement a mechanism limiting the variance of those contracts. The players have also agreed to go to a longer term, at this point offering the owners eight years, which is entirely reasonable. The players have asked for very little and received, of course, very little in terms of enhancements over the previous CBA.

If you are feeling jealous because these players are making more money than you are, that's a personal issue that you need to deal with on your own terms. Yet, I challenge you to list what, exactly, the owners have offered to the players that is a significant upgrade on the previous CBA. Maybe a pension upgrade but that's it, as far as I can determine.

The owners are saying give us X, Y and Z and get from us in return nothing, other than maybe a few pension dollars. The players are saying, if you are going to take from us, we're not going to make it easy. Perhaps you can't grasp how this could be, that the players are being surly about having to make numerous concessions to the owners, because, from your perspective, the players have it so good. Yet you don't understand human nature if you think that the players should act differently than you or I. Frankly, if I was a player witnessing a negotiation that amounted to deciding how many concessions the players would give to the owners, I would not be in a generous state of mind, either. It's really not about money. It's more about respect and the players have received none whatsoever from the owners. They deserve at least as much as any regular person would and in my estimation, right now, they're not getting it. This is all on the owners who have a negotiation partner that has conceded a lot of downgrades to the previous CBA and yet is being accused of being inflexible because it refuses to concede precisely what the owners have demanded they concede.

If you think the players should just be happy with whatever the owners decide to give them, you just don't get it. It's not the way any of us are wired and it's certainly too much to ask of individuals who having winning at all costs engrained in their DNA more so than the average person.

Of course the players would leave the CBA alone.....they had the keys to the vault. With 3 teams earning somewhere around 83% of the league revenue how healthy is the league? Not very if you ask me. If it continues there will be no option but to shrink the number of teams and how will the PA like it when 100-150 of the players are out of work. Of course the owners have not offered any thing in the way of an upgrade.....how can they with so many teams bleeding money. Have you not been following the plight of many of the teams. Not about money......Really.....of course its about money.....everything the owners do for the players is 1st class from travel to lodgings to training to food etc. thats respect

[racer888]

Does anyone really think that a 50/50 split of revenues is unfair? I think most would agree that 50/50 is reasonable.

The 3 main issues that are preventing a deal are:

1. Length of CBA. 8 years or 10 years.
2. Maximum 5 year contracts.
3. Compliance buyouts as a way to get under salary cap.

Can't we just agree that a 9 year CBA and opt out provision after 7 years is reasonable for both sides?

The league wants 5 year maximum contracts with a 5% maximum variation from year to year as a way to prevent some owners from circumventing the salary cap. So a player making a salary of $1 million per season would be limited to a raise the following year of $50,000.00. A 5% yearly raise for most workers is unheard of these days. I think the players should take it.

I think most owners would agree to buying out a player as a way to get under the cap and this is something the players are pushing for. Is there something here I don't understand?

The owners have also included a $300 million dollar fund to transition from the old CBA to the new one.

Egos aside, why aren't we getting an agreement signed? When you compare what is being lost to what could be gained by prolonging this lockout, it's not even close.

Why is it that involving lawyers in any discussions or negotiations is a sure way to screw things up? There was more progress made without the two head lawyers being present on Thursday than at any other time.

Agreed with you 100%. We are not getting an agreement because Fehr's job it to bleed the owners as much as he can, no matter what it does to the game or health of the sport. If he gets his way it will be like the Auto industry in North America it will dissapear but he won't care because he is not a hocky guy just a greedy union Stooge

[CrazyCanuckEh]

Pretty sure it's not about bleeding the owners, it's about getting the fair deal for the players, which by all accounts hasn't been the case at all. Every time they apparently get close to agreeing on things, Bettman jumps in and says "nope, we aren't even close" like the ignorant, snide, condescending piece of stool that he is.