Buppy

I wasn't referring to the concessions made in the last lockout. Though for the record, total player expenses have increased around 56% from the first year after, and only around 28% from the year before. What I was referring to is the concessions they've made relative the the 57% split they had last year. That split was a real thing. In my view, going from a real 57% split to 54% is a far more meaningful concession than going from an imaginary 57% to 50% (when you had been at 43%). Negotiations in other sports may influence the NHL, true, but not absolutely dictate. Furthermore, you can't just cherry pick certain terms and say, "we have to have this exactly, right now". Yeah, the NBA has a 50% split, sort of. It was actually 51.15% in year 1, and could be anywhere between 49-51% the remaining years (depending on how close actual revenue comes to the projections). NBA also has a soft cap, which you don't mention. The current cap in the NBA is $58.044M. Current average team salary is ~$66.9M. Slightly higher than it was in 10-11 (just before their new CBA), and below the projected players' share. The reduction in the actual dollars of the players' share wasn't as drastic. NBA has a maximum escrow of 10%, which you don't mention. That could potentially push the players' share higher. You don't mention MLB, which doesn't have a cap at all and does just fine. Point is, there are differences. Furthermore, ending at 50% doesn't seem to be a problem for the PA. I'll try to explain my take on why I don't care about the timeline again. It really has nothing to do with whether or not more time would have helped. Everything boils down to the offers being made. The only reason to complain about the timeline, or the lack of negotiations, is that you reason that more time or talking would result in better proposals. So your real problem isn't with the time, it's with the proposals. If the sides had put off meeting until 9/14, but reached an agreement that day, you wouldn't be complaining that they only spent a single day on it. I don't have a problem with the proposals from the PA. I thought even their first was good enough to use as a framework. I thought the financials of the second were fine as they were, and should have served as an agreement in principle while the secondary issues were worked out. I think the players' latest offers were good enough that the owners should have taken them without even asking for concessions on contracting rights. In short, I believe the PA got where they needed to be, and got there soon enough that the lockout wasn't necessary. Would more time have been enough to get the owners there? Maybe, but I don't care. Owners had just as much time as the players. If the players got there, the owners should have too. So again, I don't care about the timeline because I think the players' offers are good. You don't, so I understand why you'd be critical. I don't quite understand why you only criticize the PAs delays though, nor do I understand why bashing the owners' apples should make me obligated to bash the players' oranges. And I would argue that Fehr is exactly the person to help establish peaceful labor relations, as he did exactly that in an even more hostile MLB environment. And I'd like to know how exactly you interpreted the phrase, "Fehr was party to a devastating strike", as "not mentioning" it. Seems like a mention to me. I guess you just missed that part. I don't think a conciliator like Kelly would work. Weak leadership on either side would lose the respect of the people they represent. To have a peace both sides are happy with I think takes leadership that has the confidence of their constituency and the respect of their counterparts. The leaders don't have to be friends, don't need any shiny, happy handshakes. Just respect, maybe a little fear. Cold war style. MAD and all that. I think Fehr has proven himself capable of that in baseball, so he deserves a shot in hockey. What has Gary proven? (Sidenote: I found this line a little hilarious, from here. "Bettman's mission is simple: Put a stop to labor unrest...". I think it's been mentioned before, but still funny.) Lastly, you're getting one thing completely backwards. I don't think the way I do because I support the PA. I support the PA because I think the way I do. It's not about what has or hasn't been done wrong on either side, it's what has and hasn't been done right. The PA making the right (IMO) offer, makes any wrongs I might have had a problem with meaningless. They can only be wrong insofar as they contribute to making the offer wrong. If the offer isn't wrong, the actions leading to the offer aren't wrong. The actions themselves are meaningless. All anyone should be concerned with is the offers. You don't agree with the offers. You have your theories on what you think has contributed to those offers (or more accurately, the lack of better ones), but don't let that confuse your true issue.

Fehr is saying the league refuses to meet unless the PA basically agrees to their proposal. From what Fehr said before, the league is only willing to discuss the "make whole" provision, and that only on the condition that the PA accept all the owners' other terms. True nor not, who can say. I'd expect believability is proportional to your level of support for the PA.

I don't believe that person is really an NHL exec, or at least not one with any actual knowledge of what's going on. At best he's probably some 24 yo kid fresh out of college whose dad got him a job with an official sounding title, like 'Assistant Director of Corporate Partnership'. Some of the answers are factually wrong, some implausible, and some suggest a general lack of any real knowledge. I wouldn't put much stock in anything from there.

I was asking specifically about your objections to the players' proposals. I get the other stuff, even though I don't necessarily agree. Though it's curious that the "dragging their feet" criticism is reserved solely for the PA. The league claims they were ready to start in January, but didn't make any proposals; didn't to anyone's knowledge try to schedule any meetings, or even express any particular concern over the timetable. It took them two weeks from the time of the first meeting to actually make an offer, and another two weeks after that to deliver the full details. It took them two weeks again to make a new proposal after the PA finally made their first. Neither side made a proposal for a month after the start of the lockout. Seems if you want to criticize for this, you'd criticize both sides. Personally, I don't see the timeline as an issue at all. Nor pandering to the media (I don't really see any of that, to be honest), nor the lack or negotiating sessions. I see the cause-effect relationship the other way I guess. I believe the lack of negotiation is the result of the separation between the proposals, not the other way around. Likewise, I believe the time it has taken thus far is the result of the separation, rather than the continuing separation being due to the lack of time spent. The way I see it even if either side had waited until 11:59PM on 9/15, kicked down the other guy's door, spit in his eye, called his mother a *****, then laid a fair offer on the table...we should be watching hockey right now. I happen to think the PA offers have been fair. As to the actual proposals, of course the PA could give up a little more, but should they? They have already made plenty of concessions. Their first offer was a concession. Their second offer went further, and the third set went further still. You can say the same for the owners, but you have to remember that their "compromises" are only relative to the arbitrary figure from their first proposal. Much easier to give up something you never had (and likely never had any expectation to get anywhere close to) than give up something you do. Also, there has been speculation that the 50/50 deal the owners offered was what they wanted all along, and the other offers were just to give the illusion of compromise without really compromising. You could speculate the same regarding the PA, but that seems far less plausible. In all their proposals, the first three years are very similar, with almost all the movement coming in the final two years. You might interpret that as stubbornness, but it seems more likely that they just started off as low as they think should be in those years. One might wonder where the negotiations would be now if the owners hadn't started off with such a hostile first offer. Furthermore, the owners have yet to actually offer anything to the players, or even to maintain the status quo on anything. They are taking on every point. The only thing that sort of goes in the players' favor is the 2-year ELC, but that only affects a very small number of players, and has its own drawbacks as well. The players haven't asked to be given anything. They're offering to lower their share, and all they ask in return is to limit how much and what else is taken from them. Again, one might wonder where we'd be if the owners offered something other than imaginary concessions. As to firing Fehr, I think you're doing him a disservice. When he came in the PA was in disarray. Many players were unhappy with how much the players gave up in 2004-05. They had one director spying on their emails, replaced him with a guy who many felt was too conciliatory toward the league, seemingly more interested in avoiding a work stoppage than acting in the players' best interests. A couple interim directors that no one seemed to have any faith in. No due diligence in auditing league HRR accounting. You may think a weak union or weak leadership is a positive, and maybe it would make a work stoppage less likely, but the players would never be happy with it. It's really best for all sides to have strong leadership on both sides, so long as they are reasonable. Both Fehr and Bettman are strong. How reasonable they are is up for debate. But looking at their records, it's clear that Fehr has the much better resume. Bettman has now been party to three lockouts in three chances, resulting in two shortened seasons (presuming it's true we can no longer save a full season now) and one completely lost. His big victory last time really solved nothing, and we're locked out again. Fehr was party to a devastating strike, but his big victory in 94-95 helped broker a deal that left both sides healthy and happy enough that it hasn't been changed much in what has now been three straight CBA negotiations without a work stoppage. Baseball has flourished, and owners know they have to be accountable so spending on players is controlled without any need for a cap. Fehr helped accomplish that in an environment that was far more hostile, with a counterpart in Selig who was in part responsible for that hostility (Selig, as an owner, was one of those involved in the late-80's collusion). I think Fehr deserves a chance. Bettman has had his three strikes (or lockouts if you prefer), he should be out. TL:DR synopsis: I disagree.

It's like we're not even on the same internet. But whatever, I'm done arguing about team value. You keep missing my main point, which is that operating income relative to current team value doesn't mean anything. That's not what a profit margin is, not what ROI is. It's just a number you came up with, and since it's small you plug it into your argument and call it "proof". Worse yet, it seems (at times at least) that you don't even disagree with me or the PA. It's like you have some obsessive need to blame both sides, so you throw up all these straw men to argue against. Literally no one has, on either side or in this thread, proposed keeping the 43/57 split. Every single proposal is better from the owners perspective. No need to say "the owners have a right..., 43% is not enough...", since no one has ever disputed that. I may dispute the level "needed", but that's not really relevant since the PA has shown themselves willing to get down to ~50% at the end. Maybe not "guaranteed", but the growth needed to get there is very modest compared to what we've seen the last 20 years. (At least, it would have been modest before the lockout.) Maybe not exactly 50%, but the difference at that point is very small, and I'm sure the PA would be willing to negotiate that if the league accepted the principles for the first few years. What exactly are you arguing against? Your argument comes off like the PA says, "we're willing to take a gradual reduction to 50%", and your response is, "damn you greedy screwballs, you need to take a gradual reduction to 50%". So again, what is your big issue with the PA proposals? That they don't get to 50% by year 2?

It's still an estimate. Regardless of the veracity of the number, comparing a single year of profit to the price you'd have to pay to buy the team doesn't mean anything. At least not anything relevant to this discussion. (Even using $250M value, the actual % would be 1.79. For reference, MLB is 2.38%, NFL is 3.71%, and NBA is 1.48%. All that really means is that as a rule, sports teams are considered more valuable than what might be indicated by profitability.) Yearly profit (or actually, it's operating income, net profit would be less) has been around 5% of revenue. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes like a 5 year-old, that's your problem. Yes, the owners can and should pay every contract. That is what I, the PA, and others that support the PA have been saying all along. The problem is that the owners aren't willing to do that. They want to pay 50%, and make future players pay the difference. Players want the owners to pay the difference. You can say it "works", but that's just a word. Anything can "work" if the two sides agree to it. First off, the cap doesn't mean anything. The cap could be an octopus with a dollar sign in front of it and it wouldn't do anything but confuse people. What matters is the players' share. That is the amount of money that players actually get, regardless of what the cap numbers are, regardless of what contracts are...the players get the players' share. Let's try an example: Say we use an applicable % of 50%. Assume full season revenue of $3.4B. The players' share is $1.7B From that share, you subtract benefits; league is estimating $95M. That leaves $1.605B for player salaries. Current contracts are valued at $1.74B according to Capgeek, with most roster spots full. Capgeek shows around another $53M in potential bonuses. Fehr says player contracts are $1.776B. Seems close enough to use in an example. Using that we're left with $171M that someone has to pay. If the owners pay it, then for all practical purposes, the players' share is $1.871B, and the true % is ~55%. If we defer that payment instead... Move on to year two: Assume full season revenue of $3.57B. The players' share is $1.785B. If you use a part of that to pay the year 1 shortfall, the amount actually earned by the players that year is only $1.614B (since $171M was earned the prior year), which gives a true % of ~45.2%. If the owners pay out of pocket, then the share is $1.956B and the % is ~54.8%. And so on. It will never "even out". Either the owners pay more than 50%, or the players earn less. That is a mathematical fact. One or the other has to happen. The one and only possible way to avoid that is if revenues next year are $3.742B or more. Anything less and it is absolutely impossible to have a "true" 50/50 split, whether you go 2 years, or 5, or 500. Someone has to pay the difference. Neither side is willing to at this point. I, the PA, and those who support the PA, say the owners should pay it. You say the owners should pay, but either you don't really mean it or you don't know what you're talking about.

Quite serious. It doesn't matter what the players "did not want", because they can't change what's already happened. Whatever is lost (which is not 25%, cancelled games can be rescheduled, we're only three days removed from the date we would have had a full season) is lost regardless. Everything moves forward, but the basic equation stays the same: What can we get now .vs what do we believe we can get next week. By the time you get to next week to see if you're right, the 'what can we get now' side has changed. So long as the players believe they can get more in the future, and the 'more' is more than what they'll lose by giving in at the time, they won't give in. The longer it goes on, the less likely they are to believe they can win in the future. But the same is true on the owner's side. It's more a matter of confidence than a true logical evaluation, since you can't ever truly know what the other side will do in the future. What "strategy" do you think either side can really have? Covert infiltration? Flanking maneuver? Rubinstein Counter-gambit? Should the PA have an R&D department working on mind control and robot doppelgangers? I'm over-simplifying to say "hope", but all either side can do is make offers they think are fair and try to present them as compellingly as possible. In the end it basically amounts to just hoping the other side will agree with you.

No, you're wrong. $250M is your estimate. Which just means it's a made up number that you think is fairly close whatever the real number is. However, it's irrelevant. The average price actually paid for an NHL team is $139M. Even that is irrelevant, since again owners don't buy their teams every year, and no one looks to buy an NHL team for a 1 year profit. And again, the numbers I gave are not "league as a whole", it is the average per team. League-wide profits in '10-11: $126.5M '09-10: $160M '08-09: $183.5M '07-08: $141.5M '06-07: $95.4M '05-06: $125.1M '11-12 ~$110M (Your estimate, probably low) Total league-wide for term of prior CBA: ~$942M Average per team: ~$31.4M Total league-wide revenues for term: $19.591B Average per team: $653M Average profit margin: 31.4/653 = ~4.8% And paying outside the cap (players' share, more accurately) would solve the problem from the player's perspective (which is why they proposed it), but not the owners. Whether the owners are paying out of pocket or out of revenues before they go into their pocket means nothing. No matter how you try to phrase it, no matter what accounting chicanery you employ, you can't escape the simple mathematical fact that 50% + any amount of money needed to make up the shortfall = >50%. There is no way to get around it (barring requisite revenue growth of course). Owners either pay more than 50%, or players get less than they're owed next year. If players get less, it's either a straight pay cut, or that money is deferred. If deferred, then in later years owners again need to pay more than 50%, or future players take a larger relative pay cut (below 50%). It simply doesn't matter what you do. If existing contracts are honored, then in some year or another either owners need to pay more than 50%, or players need to earn less than 50%.

Doesn't matter how much they've lost. Agreeing to an owner proposal isn't going to send them back in time. At any given time, agreeing to the owner proposal means less money than the owners agreeing to theirs. I don't know that there's any 'strategy' to use. More of a "hope the owners' losses encourage them to change their minds first". It may be hopeless, and too bad for them if it is, but I don't fault them for trying. BTW, depending on growth, they'd need to lose around 20 games or so. (And that's not counting whatever money they're making in other leagues.) Given the NHL's "82 games if we start Nov. 2nd", they'd need to "win" by the first week of December or earlier, as opposed to what they'd get if they agreed today. But that date keeps moving back the longer they wait, since they will no longer be able to "agree today".

It's always been damage control. I'm sure it's still possible to get an 82-game season, they just might need to end the season later which probably isn't easy. Regardless, fighting for the full value of their contracts, pro-rated or not, is just loss prevention. They've just gone from trying not to lose any to trying not to lose more.

$250M is still a made up number. Even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant. Owners don't buy their teams every year. The profit numbers I gave were per team. They're the numbers for what the average team has made in profit over the time period given. The "simple fact of the matter" is that what you call a "fact" is simply not true and profit relative to asset value doesn't matter. Profit, as in the amount of revenue left over after all expenses are paid, has averaged about 5% per year over the term of the last CBA. No matter how much you want to deny it, or make up numbers that make your argument sound better, ~5% is the truth. We have that data. Anyone can look at it. If you want to look at the return on investment, then you have to look at the actual amount invested, factor in appreciation, and all yearly profits instead of just one year. Those are the numbers I gave (where available). Again, anyone can look at them on Forbes. Demand for franchises may be low, but that's mostly because the teams being sold are the teams that aren't doing well, and usually the league wants a buyer that will keep the team in the same location. But even with that low demand, half the teams in the NHL have been sold in the last 10 years, and 26 have been sold (or expansion rights purchased) in the last 20. Some teams have been sold (or at least partial ownership sold) more than once in that time. All of that under CBAs that were less 'owner-friendly' than anything the PA is proposing now. Maybe it's not such a horrible business after all. And no, it isn't possible. At least not unless revenues grow by ~15% or so. You may think your idea is clever, and maybe you really believe that somehow it magically makes two unequal values equal, but it doesn't. It's basically just what the PA proposed, and the owners rejected. You're just saying that some of the money paid doesn't 'count', as if that means the owners don't really pay it, but magically the players still get it. Again, saying something doesn't make it true. You can't pay all contracts in full, while also paying less than the amount of all contracts.

Don't make up numbers and use them as if they were facts. The league made $126.5M in 2010-11. About 4% of revenue. We don't know what the profit was last year, since Forbes doesn't have those numbers yet. (However, the numbers we do know, and growth trends for those we don't know, suggest it's very possible the league may have turned record profits last year.) Secondly, the average purchase price for an NHL team was $139M. Average ownership length is 14 years. Average team value as of last November is $240M, for an appreciation average of $101M. Average profit for the first 6 years of the prior CBA, plus the last year of the CBA before that was $24.5M. Even if we assume profits for last year of only $110M, it brings that to $28.2. Profits or losses from '98-99 through '02-03 aren't available, but considering the league could have, but didn't (in fact, the league agreed to extend that deal 4 years beyond it's original end), open negotiations for a new CBA before each of those years it's hard to imagine any losses were significant. We'll just say the league broke even over that span. So in total profits, income plus appreciation, the average owner has seen pretty close to (and possibly more than) a 100% return on investment minus whatever was lost in '04-05. Average annual ROI is probably at least 6%, and that's even with losing an entire season. Average annual return on revenue over the life of the last CBA is likely around 5%. And that was with a players' share of 54-57%. All the players' proposals have been less than that. So you can continue to make up "facts", act like owners can't make any money, etc...but saying it doesn't make it true. Even at 57%, the league as a whole does decent. At 53-54%, the league as a whole would be doing better than the vast majority of industries in the US. The problem in the league is not player salaries, nor player contract rights. The problem is the revenue disparity. That is an issue the owners need to address among themselves. The players have offered to slow (almost stagnate) their salary growth for a time to help. The owners should be saying 'thank you'. In regards to the bolded section, it simply isn't possible to take an immediate pay cut and honor every contract at the same time. They can take a relative cut in the future, and they have already offered to do so. But the owners are demanding both an immediate cut, and a larger relative cut in the future. Neither is justified by the numbers. And here's something for the owners to think about, if they're already worried about their public image: Imagine how much worse it will be if we're still locked out in a month, and the Forbes numbers do come out showing record profits.

What the owners' camp is doing now is standing firm. Nothing inherently wrong with the behavior; it's wrong only if you believe they're standing firm behind an unreasonable demand. You can say the same for the PA, if you happen to think their demands are unreasonable. I don't, so I don't see any problem in their standing firm. (And it's hard to believe you really think they are either, when you posted an idea that was essentially the same as one of the PA proposals.) But you're also ignoring the fact that it isn't ping-pong. There's no rule anywhere that says proposals have to take turns. When Fehr didn't put forth a new proposal, what he was really saying was that the offer at that time was the same as the last offer made. The owner's were the ones who supposedly took their offer off the table, so really they were the ones not showing their hand at the time. Besides that, the owners gave the impression that they weren't willing to consider any offer that didn't include an immediate pay cut (and considering how they handled the PAs last offers, that's not hard to believe), so it's likely there was little point in making a new offer. Much like the current situation. There's nothing to talk about, and there won't be until someone loses (or sits on the brink of losing) enough to change their mind. (Hopefully that's tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath.) You can go either way (or neither), depending on which side (if any) you think is being reasonable. For clarity, when I say reasonable, I mean making an offer the other side should accept. The players' demands as I see them: No reduction in current contracts (or at least, no more than would be taken under the escrow rules of the prior CBA) No reduction in the actual dollar value of the current players' share: $1.883B + marginal growth to offset rising benefit costs. (at least not as long as revenue keeps growing at a decent rate. Subject to the same escrow as above.) Players' share not below 50% in any given season Token rise in players' share if revenue growth exceeds expectations (not so adamant on this I think, but the only proposal without it is the "#3", where it's mostly replaced by some player pay being outside the players' share) They certainly want contracting rules to stay as is, but they haven't talked much about that. I don't know that I would conclude that the lack of any provisions in their proposals is because they're actually proposing to keep them as is, or just leaving them to be negotiated later. The owners' demands: Immediate reduction of the players' share to 50% Players' share not more than 50% in any given season Pretty much across the board reduction in all player contracting rights They seem fairly adamant about "clarifying" the definition of HRR, which should be taken to mean redefining it in their favor (though it does also open the door to go the other way). Seems absurd that there's anything to clarify after seven years, but then again the PA didn't exercise their right to audit league accounting until Fehr came in (and found problems, league settled for paying players an additional $20M, who knows what the player's might have been shorted in the first 5 years since those years can no longer be audited) so I guess it really is needed. I don't think anything in the players' demands is unreasonable, unless it turns out they are totally inflexible on any contract rules. The only demand from the owners that I think is reasonable is the HRR, and only if they really mean 'mutual clarification'. Ironically, that one should be the most ridiculous, but sadly it seems truly necessary.

Doubt it will help much. It's only like 25 miles from where they were. I guess every little bit helps though.

Down to Nick and Stevie. Surprising to see Nick beat Gordie almost 3-1. Figured Nick would win, but thought it'd be closer than that. Not very surprised to see the Captain beat Ted 23-1 though.

Do you realize that your second idea, "Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. ..." is pretty much what the PA proposed in "option 3"? It is also not a true 50/50 split right off the bat, as you tout it to be.

55%. Increase revenue sharing a bit. Make the upper and lower limit %-based rather than the fixed +/- $8M. Allow trading cash for cap space. A revenue growth plan that explores the options of moving failing franchises. Leave contract rules as is. (Cap circumvention shouldn't be as much of a problem with a higher cap and tools to go over.) Under current growth trends, that split should see owners realize about 6% profit, profits growing so long as revenue growth continues to outpace growth of secondary expenses. The other points make it easier for struggling teams to control spending and stay profitable, as well as cutting loose a couple anchors.

Actually, the owners are proposing to shorten ELCs by a year. However, the purpose of that is to lower the value of the second contract. Consider Evander Kane. Had he come off his ELC before last year, his current deal would likely be $1-2M less per year. More than makes up the difference in year 3 salary. Originally they wanted it longer, but their latest offer is 2 years. It's arbitration and UFA eligibility the owners want to push back a year now. Meh, one man's rhetoric is another's normal press conference. Seems to me the difference lies in whether what is said is what the listener wants/expects to hear.

Almost all your posts are arguing with those who support the PA, so naturally the majority of your points go against the players. Criticism of the owners is mostly limited to one little line in a whole post countering any pro-player opinions. Someone not following the entire debate could easily draw a wrong conclusion. Hell, I've been involved in a lot of it, and sometimes I forget.

So players are are entitled to every dime in current contracts, but they also have to take a pay cut? Ok. I don't have any issue with the timeline. If the league won't accept (or even bother to look at) the player's offer now, on the cusp of a shortened season, there's no reason to think they would have back in January. What good would it have done? All it would accomplish is that people with your outlook would just keep expecting the players to lower their offer even more. 52% was good enough a week ago, but now that the players have offered plans that hit that even with limited growth, it's no longer enough. Now you want 50. But even that isn't really good enough, it has to be 50% immediately, even though that completely contradicts your stance that the players should be paid their full contracts. The way I see it, the players were where they needed to be before the lockout started. Had the owners been reasonable, there wouldn't be a lockout. You can assume all you want that more time is the solution, and no one can prove otherwise. But I think it's pretty clear the sides are at an impasse. Further progress, IMO, will only be motivated by lost income. That wasn't going to happen in January or March or June. As to the "PR card", I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Seems like just a buzz word for irritated fans to throw around. Like "speaking the same language". Seems like you just latched onto Gary's latest soundbite, and you're using it now as if it really means something. Every meeting there are reporters eager to get what the sides have to say, and throngs of fans hanging on every tweet looking for the tiniest morsel of news, but when the news isn't "we have a deal" you all want to ***** about them talking to the media. Of course the statements they make are biased; they are biased. If they didn't actually believe "their side", there wouldn't be a lockout. I'm sure there's some level of concern over public image, but I don't think either side is foolish enough to think this fight will be won based on our opinions. That relates also to the "50/50" splits. You may choose to call it lying, or categorize it as spin or whatever (By the way, anyone have any direct quotes from Fehr regarding the proposals?). I think it's more likely the media that's being misleading. Hyping a few headline bullet points and making everyone think all the details were written in invisible ink on the back page. As if there's any chance at all that either side was hoping to trick the other into signing. I'm certain all involved were well aware of the different caveats in each proposal, considering all of us were aware of them shortly after the proposals were made. For that matter, anyone with any knowledge of the numbers knew, even without the details, that "50% in year 1" and "owners honor existing contracts" just doesn't add up. The closest to an "outright lie" I see is Gary saying none of the proposals ever come close to 50%, but even that doesn't particularly bother me. I assume he's just referring to the aggregate % (51.5%-53.5%, depending on growth). Case in point regarding believing the media hype. You seem to be under the impression that the 3 player proposals were some kind of 'good, better, best' arrangement, with option 3 being best. Obviously, you haven't actually looked at them in any detail. You're making assumptions based on what you think everyone is saying. You can be sure both Bettman and Fehr expect the other to be more diligent than that. Obviously, no one is trying to slip anything by the other. Just with the details from Fehr's letter, I was able to whip up a spreadsheet in a few minutes to weigh the different proposals. For the record, the best (for the owners) proposal from the players varies with revenue growth. At a steady rate of growth, option 3 is the best up to about 4.25%, then option 2 is better up to about 6.3%, then option 1 up to about 8.1%. Then the players previous offer (from Sept.13th IIRC) becomes better. (I haven't checked with a year-year variable growth rate, since obviously there are just way too many possibilities.) I'm not sure how you would define "good faith". I'd say both sides have been bargaining with the intent of getting a deal done, and each side is willing to fulfill the obligations they are proposing. To me that satisfies good faith requirements. Though again, I'm not sure how they're supposed to negotiate from the current impasse. You can call it both ways, I suppose, as neither side seems willing to jump the fence. But it seems a little hypocritical to blame the players for not doing something you say you don't think they should have to do. I don't think players should take a pay cut, and I don't think they should take less than 50% in any given year. They are as low as they can reasonably go without doing one or the other, so I side with the players. I'm not blaming the owners for not negotiating, I'm blaming them for not moving off what I consider an unreasonable expectation. If you think players should take a pay cut, or less than 50% in a year, then obviously you'd have a different opinion on how reasonable each side's demands are. But some of the points you make seem contradictory. Makes me think you don't really understand the situation. Like you're just mad because there's a lockout and you're going to hate everyone involved until it ends. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and if so, I apologize. But no amount of "belief" is going to make nearly $1.9B in salary & benefit commitments for next year equal 50% of next year's revenue. So maybe you could clarify which of the two (immediate pay cut or <50% in a later year) that player's should be forced to take. Because one of the two is necessary to get to 50% next year, or 50% over the full term of the deal. Ending at 50% doesn't seem to be a problem for either side. Starting there is. 50% in total for the entire deal is. And if you want to bring the NBA in to it, then note that NBA players didn't take a pay cut. Their first year share was a bit over 50% (and they don't pay that back later), not to mention the soft cap allows them to go over. And going back to the last lockout, when the NBA was at 57% (plus a soft cap), the NHL owners didn't start the players there, nor was the sum of the full deal at that rate. They made it contingent on growth to get the players there at the end. So what's good for the goose...this time the owners need to start higher, and let growth get them where they want to be. If they want an NFL split, let growth get them there too. Only need another $6B or so.

Little point in sitting down if one side is going to throw out proposals after barely a glance. Remember, this is twice in a row Bettman has rejected proposals without even taking time to consider them. Just a glance to see if there's an immediate pay cut, and if not it goes straight in the trash. How do you negotiate with that? What more can the players do but capitulate to the owners demands? What bugs me about all of the people bashing the union is that you all seem to agree that they shouldn't have to take a pay cut, but then say they have to be willing to compromise and give up a little more. Those two statements are contradictory. The players are as low as they can realistically go in the short term without pay cuts, and pretty much as low as they can go on the overall share% without going below 50% in any given year. And the worst part is that the longer the owners fail to acknowledge that, the higher the player's share has to be to avoid cuts. That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again. The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%. Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.

Ray Whitney, Jason Arnott, and Chris Pronger (if you consider him as still playing) too. Probably a few more.

Not really sure what you all are seeing. Seems to me the majority of shuffling done in the last few seasons has been due to injuries.

If they can salvage a full 82 game schedule, there's likely no need to pro-rate any salary (aside from a drop in revenue). They may miss a check or two, but their remaining checks would just be that much higher. Also, there is the principle to consider. The fight may be futile, but that's not a good reason to just submit. If you can leave the other guy a little bloody, it makes him less likely to want to fight again in the future.

So it's all relative then. So long as one can maintain the threat of taking away more, taking away less should be perceived as a boon. However, that benefit, as you call it, comes from the union agreeing to a CBA, not an individual agreeing to a contract. But I'll rephrase the question to better emphasize my point. What benefit does a player get out of negotiating a contract with the intent/knowledge that some portion of pay be rolled back or deferred?