chances14

nhlpa kept variance and term limits out of their proposal. the nhl is going to want one of those things in the next cba. i don't really see how punishing teams 5-10 years in the future is going to deter them from signing these long term ridiculous deals to circumvent the cap.

why do the players keep proposing such short cba's? i really don't want to have to deal with this in 5 years. should be at least 10 years

tsn guys on what to expect in meetings tomorrow http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip810858#clip810858

the only thing it can do is hamper negotiations and it makes the players look just as idiotic. now if you care more about getting bettman fired than getting hockey back, which seems to be a very popular opinion around here, that's your choice and that's fine i don't care who the commissioner is, i just want to watch red wings hockey again. players calling the commisoner an idiot and a cancer is not helping that whatsoever.

i don't like bettman either and i hope he is gone soon after the next cba is signed. but i don't let the hate cloud my judgement and i certainly don't let it support players who call out the head nhl guys idiots and cancer as somehow being the right thing to do. it's unprofessional and does nothing positive whatsoever for getting hockey back.

so basically, the pa needs to come up with a proposal or else negotiations are going to go nowhere.

canada giving up the nhl is like americans giving up the nfl. it will never happen no matter how many strikes/lockouts there are

LOL. so you're saying that the only reason why they are back negotiating tonight is because white called bettman an idiot? good lord.... we shouldn't be pro bettman or pro union, rather we should all be pro hockey. if your employees called you an idiot or a cancer (like versteeg said today on the radio) would that make you more willing to compromise? agreed. the nhl said that it will be flexible on these the contracting issues if they can agree on the economics. we shall see.

as far as the elc term, they want to shorten it so that players for the most part don't reach free agency after their second contract, once you factor in the 5 year cap on contract length, which gives teams more control over that player. they want players to be more unproven when they come out of their elc so that they can sign them to cheaper deals just before they start to hit their prime, effectively trying to lower the market value of these players during their peak production years. they want to prevent the drew doughty contracts so to speak.

to me, i think the nhl believes that by artificially restricting market value of players, the poorer teams will be able to keep their star players for cheaper, thus diminishing the disparity between the rich and poor teams. they don't want to have another small market team go through what nashville did this summer with shea weber. they were essentially handcuffed into accepting a deal that they know they can't afford, but had to accept if they wanted to remain competitive and appealing to their fan base.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409721 so did fehr misrepresent the nhl's position to the players or is the nhl simply backtracking? we'll probably never know.

interesting http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/17/report-player-called-out-for-criticizing-fehr-in-conference-call/

this goes back to why i believe the owners are so dead set on the contracting issues and it's not just for cap circumvention issues. in my opinion, they want to artificially keep players market value lower and allow teams to keep their star players for cheaper through their prime years. they don't want that bidding war that you are referring too. this would be extremely beneficial to teams like nashville for example, so that they are not faced with having to sign 100 million dollar contracts for their star players that they cannot afford but must accept if they want to be competitive. They believe that by putting strict standards on the contracts they will diminish the disparity between the rich and poor teams. it's kind of a no win for the owners in that regard. they get crucified for taking on a contract that they cannot afford, but then when they don't sign a star player for outrageous money, they get crucified for not trying to be competitive and instead only caring about the bottom line. the problem is that it only takes one owner to make an outrageous offer and the market value for players goes through the roof.

and they are with the make whole provision which the nhl revised in the lastest round of talks so that the owners pay 100% of the make whole provision. but the players didn't like that the make whole was based on projected growth, which is the ultimate hypocrisy considering that every pa proposal to get to 50/50 has been based on projected revenue growth. can't have it both ways. the issue now seems to be with the contracting issues, which i agree the nhl is making outrageous demands for. they can be honest all they want, just keep it within the conference calls and meetings and out of the media.

players calling the commissioner an idiot in public is not going to get negotiations going any faster. if anything it will only hinder it. if you are pro hockey, i don't see why you would support any name calling in the media by either side. it will only hinder progress it's also not realistic for owners and gm's to pass up the chance of trying to make their teams better. if one owner didn't offer the big contract, someone else would. If the owners all secretly agreed on keeping contracts at a certain limit, that would be considered collusion and grounds for legal action by the players.

another red wing personnel making himself look like an idiot. so we've had devellano, zetterberg, and now white making stupid comments in public. wonderful.

http://www.sportsnet...wn_nhl_spector/

that's not true. while the nhl hasn't given anything up as far as economics or contracting issues go here are some of the things the players have reportedly gotten -artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; - trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); -eliminate re-entry waivers - Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted) - Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish) -Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with equal representation by the league and union; -Establishment of a “standard of care” and “primary allegiance” obligations between the team medical staff and players (this is directly due to the tragic Derek Boogaard situation that remains ongoing); -Offseason rehab activities would no longer be required in the team’s home city; -Players have access to second medical opinions at the club expense; - Ice time restrictions and days off during training camp; -Improved facility standards in visiting locker rooms; -Ice condition improvements and standards; -More player friendly rules for parent-son trips, teams would have to pay for parents travel and lodging to first-ever games, other milestones; -Different standards for rent and mortgage reimbursements from teams; -increased access to tickets for visiting players and also a game ticket policy that minimizes the tax impact on players; -And also, the league has agreed to consider a player proposal for single rooms for all players on the road, which would be thousands of extra dollars spent on travel. Typically, players share rooms on the road unless you’re a longstanding player (600 games), or in a lot of cases, goaltenders http://www.startribu.../177160641.html now obviously these aren't as big as the revenue split or contracting issues but the notion that the owners haven't conceded a single thing yet is misinformed. i do agree that the owners contracting demands are outrageous and they should be willing to give on those neither side couldn't care less about the game of hockey as long as they get their money

Daren Millard ‏@darenmillard Per Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, "Don (fehr) called Gary (Bettman) and suggested he didn't know how to proceed from here. Gary suggested that perhaps a moratorium might be in order. We have not heard back.

Renowned mediator wants crack at talks Bring this guy on board asap

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409406

yes because negotations went nowhere the day after that memo leaked. yet somehow at the end of that day the pa and league were closer on the economic issues. well in the last lockout, the season wasn't cancelled until mid february, so i would say by late janurary at the latest yea i don't really understand why bettman would need both a max 5% contract variance and a max contract limit when either one of them will do just fine in ending the cap circumvention. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409346

that is true. but then you also have fehr saying in the leaked memo that they were far apart on the make whole provision. but then he comes out 24 hrs later and says that they are closer on economics than even the nhl thinks. so who knows whats really going on behind the scenes.

since you seemed to dodge the question, i will ask it. do you think it's right that if the meeting was suppose to start at 10am, that fehr had didn't show up until 4? now acording to this article, the the only major issue yet to be resolved is the player contracting issues. if the league wants a 5% max variance from one year to the next on player contracts (thus preventing cap circumvention, why is the nhl dead set on only limiting contract lengths to 5 years? seems like they should be able to easily give on that issue.

fehr didn't end the 95 strike. the courts decided it for him. put an injuction on the owners. both sides are at fault here. i think that's pretty obvious by now.