RippedOnNitro

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN #CBA PA Executive Director Don Fehr: "The players made multiple core-economic proposals on Thursday that were a significant move in the ... Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN "....owners direction. We are and continue to be ready to meet to discuss how to resolve our remaining differences, with no preconditions.." Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN #CBA "...For whatever reason, the owners are not. At the same time they are refusing to meet, they are winding the clock down to yet... Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN #CBA "...another artificial deadline they created." John Vogl ‏@BuffNewsVogl The lockout talks might gain some traction if Fehr realizes these "artificial deadlines" are real, actual deadlines in the NHL's eyes.

Some more interesting tweets: @Real_ESPNLeBrun: Bettman says 82-game season must start by Nov. 2. NHLPA leadership believes an 82-game season can start a bit later... Game of chicken Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland According to sources Don Fehr has convinced the players the longer they remain firm, the better the deal will be down the road #NHLPA

They all signed contracts knowing that they are subject to future cba's. If not...either they are ignorant or their agents have lied to them. A lot of the recently signed deals included huge signing bonuses, because their agents know those are not subject to future cba's and are guaranteed in full face $$$. And according to the most recent players twitters, there would be already a deal if the owners would 'honor' existing deals. The players already accepted for the player's share to drop to 50/50 in the end, meaning they just want to secure the paychecks for the coming 1-2 years and are willing to give up future players' share in return. If they are already fighting for the next cba (which most players wouldn't even make), they should fight for a higher players' share at the end of the deal instead of the beginning of the deal. If I read messages from guys like Krejci saying they are treated like animals by the owners, I question his intelligence. Making millions of dollars per year and than complain you are mistreated...ugh. Good thing for him he has talent otherwise he would realize what being treated as an animal really feels like with a 'normal' job.

It has always been all about the money, it still is all about the money and it will always be all about the money

I would agree with a lot of points made. But everyone can spin around all they like, in the end if the owners and players will not get an agreement before the Thurday deadline, games will be permanently lossed, which results in paychecks lost (= already a cut on their salary essentially) and lost revenues (= already a cut on their future salaries essentially). So the players can demand for their salaries to remain uncut 100% all they want, it will happen! Either via an agreement for lower % or missed paychecks. However if they really really want their current salaries to remain uncut, the owners did propose something like paying out the "cut" over the remaining years of the contracts. However this does mean it will be taken from new contracts in the future, meaning the actual % would drop below 50%.

True, but for my statement I already assumed a full season is out of the window.

Well that is the problem...a 82 game schedule is not possible anymore after the PA's proposal. Leaving your enemy a little bloody is fine, but not when that means you leave yourself in a bloody massacre...

My only question is...do the players realize that they are already giving up percentages of their salary with each missed paycheck during this lockout? They are telling everyone each time they want their contract to be honored 100%...but in the meantime they already lost 1 of 12 paychecks this year...essentialy giving up 8% of their salary. They also have to realize that when the next batch of games is canceled...the chances are only getting smaller that the owners are willing to honor their contracts in full, whatever construction they want to use. I hope that the PA shares their proposals with the media, so I can have a look for myself how they want to get to 50/50 in the first year without giving up salary...

I wouldn't want to see the entire season cancelled, but if it were to happen...I would want to see both Bettman and Fehr canned!

I thought he could not play overseas because of insurance issues...

Yes, the players will be able to take one paycheck hit, since the 8% escrow replaces that first paycheck. However the players still lose their paycheck in the total amount since the escrow would have been paid anyways. I guess this means also, that with each missed paycheck this season means a lower escrow payment next season?

Thanks for the info! Based on total cap hits for this season (=$1.8B), this means $120M worth of paychecks are lost atm. So that leaves $880M on the table between the current offers of the NHL and the NHLPA. Edit: Actually according to http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/10/06/nhlers-begin-feel-pain-locked-out-again-begin-miss-paycheck-this-week/SlObwrb5UE6a5rKaVr1UDN/story.html there are 12 installments between October and April. Assuming every paycheck is given on the 1st and 15th of the month. So that actually leaves: $1.0B - $150M = $850M on the table.

If the NHLPA's most important point is no salary rollback then they are already failing...every cancelled game costs revenue. A missed paycheck for the first year already means a loss of 8.3% (1/12th). Or maybe more...since I am not sure how many paychecks a player receives per year?

Well...that only goes as far as some players. Since Ovi, Cindy, Malkin, Tavares, Stamkos etc. did not even played back then. I also can't imagine it's the players who only have a few years left in their career...they just want to play now. Well...it is not like Fehr is their employer...it is the other way around. The players should not be happy with Fehr if the final deal delivers less money than the deal they can sign right now.

“We know we’re going to have to take a hit,” Capitals defenseman Karl Alzner told CSNWashington.com “It’s just how big of a hit we need to take.” “I think both sides know what their next proposal is, it’s just who wants to give it first,” Alzner said. “The owners know what their bottom percentage is and I’m sure Don [Fehr] knows what’s going to be a good one for us economically. “But who’s going to be the first one to bite the bullet? No one wants to lose the negotiation. We understand we’re definitely not going to win it.” http://www.csnwashington.com/hockey-washington-capitals/capitals-talk/Alzner-admits-players-wont-win-labor-war?blockID=784509&feedID=10283

I've found another interesting link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/columnist/allen/2012/10/04/nhl-labor-dispute-solution/1614379/ Worth the read...

I found the ESPN article very interesting to read. Not that I think the owners have a fair deal currently in place, I do agree that the players can not win this battle. For each week games are cancelled, the players will lose money they will not recupe. What I really don't like is (a couple of) the players say it is a matter of principle...the hell it is, in the end it is all about the $$$. Just be honest about it. Mr. Ovechkin (for example) can say what he wants, staying in the KHL forever and not returning to the NHL, but I will not be surprised if he would demand more money than his current deal ($5.7M tax free) if he would stay in the KHL.

Nope actually not, because the $1B difference mentioned in the article is based on the next five years. Losing a season means losing $3.3B revenue = $1.9B player's revenue. So giving into the NHL offer means they will have to give in $1B player revenue over the next five years. Not giving into the NHL offer, keep the league locked out for a whole season and then to have the NHL give in to the PA's offer means there is $1.9B player revenue lost.

Thanks for sharing the link! The title of the link actually says it all...the difference is $1B, a lost full season means a loss of $3.3B revenue or $1.9B player's salaries. Which means the players would lose $0.9B more if a full season is lost oppose to the NHL offer. The break even point would be around half a season (play-offs create more revenue). So if there is no deal before let's say mid to end January...the players would even lose more $$$ with their own deal than when they sign the NHL deal right now.

Working with some numbers again...although I have trouble finding the correct and full numbers, this is what I based it on. The NHLPA is set on not reducing players salaries in year 1. While the NHL's latest offer was a player's share of 49%. The NHLPA mentioned they wanted to keep the player's share on a fixed amount of $1.91B (equals 57%), while the NHL offered $1.64B (equals 49%). Difference is $270M, calculating on the NHL proposal that is the same as $551M revenue. Since a revenue of $100M was already lost due to cancelling the preseason, there is only an amount of $451M of revenue left, untill the proposal of the NHLPA (for year 1) is already below the offer of the NHL of 49%. These calculations are based on year 1 only, but what I understand of what I've read...the NHLPA's most important point is to not reduce salaries in year 1. Perhaps I will look into the other years tomorrow if I have time for it.

Andy Strickland Told #NHLPA is working on proposal and will present it to #NHLsometime soon[/background][/font][/color] http://bleacherrepor...er-cba-proposal

Can we push them off the cliff??? Please??? Since I love messing around with numbers...they are talking about $100M lost in revenue due to the cancellation of pre-season games. This equals 3% of the annual revenue. So in other words...the players already lost 3% on their paycheck right now (first year only). If they go for the proposed PA's 4-year deal, this would mean a lost percentage of around 0.7% based on a annual increase of 4% on total revenue. Ofcourse these amounts are not huge comparing to the offer the league has put on the table, but salaries are already taking a cut with the lockout. Hopefully financial details will be released during the lockout, so I can crunch the numbers.

In my opinion, the players are not reasonable if they refuse to take a paycut. In my opinion, the owners are irresponsible if they refuse to take action against/for the losing teams. In my opinion, the players should be open for taking a paycut to get to a 50/50 split of revenue. In my opinion, the owners should be open to increase revenue sharing and/or relocating teams to big markets.

Missing half a season is optimistic? YIKES!!! I would call it disastrous...but then again I am not a hockey legend.

I actually like that idea...probably won't work since both kids want to split the cookie and pick one themselves.