Nightfall

I am not saying that a new guy would be worse. I am just saying that the new head of the NHL would be doing the same thing. The owners call the shots, and he does what the owners want him to do. You don't think that there are a bulk of NHL owners that are tired of losing money or giving all their revenue sharing to crappy teams? Bettman is just doing what the ownership wants him to do. As "steward of the league" do you expect him to tell the ownership that he isn't going to lock the players out because its bad for the league? I think you are taking the whole "steward of the league" thing a little too far. Bettman is there to negotiate on behalf of the owners. In reality, the steward of the league would be a different person with no ties to management or the players when it comes to bargaining. Whats best for the NHL right now is to fire both Bettman and Fehr and get two leaders in there that get along and can work towards a deal. The current leadership on both sides has been all about their constituents, and while that isn't bad, it is when it comes to neither willing to budge much on key issues. Two sides that can work together would have this fixed quickly. In the meantime, Fehr has a message for the fans. Funny, I could say the same about Don "no compromise" Fehr.

Point is that if Bettman was fired, then the next guy would be doing the same thing.

A great article on why firing Bettman or Fehr would solve nothing. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/firing-gary-bettman-donald-fehr-won-t-solve-123818740--nhl.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Lets keep in mind that the side that has the worst deal always strikes or locks out. If the players were making 43% and the owners were making 57%, would you be against the owners if the players went on strike? I hardly think so.

I agree 100% with your assessment. What Bettman and Daly are doing now is petty. Not that we haven't seen this from Fehr in these negotiations though. Before the NHL's big 50/50 proposal hype, they were waiting on Fehr to table a proposal, and Fehr never did. His response was that this wasn't "ping-pong" and the NHLPA proposal was what they wanted to work from. So, while you are against Bettman, just realize that Fehr pulls the same crap when it benefits him. In the end, the fans lose. Which is why I say the NHL and NHLPA can go jump off a cliff.

Once again, if the players were making 43% and not earning enough of the pie, they would strike in a heartbeat in order to get a better deal. Billionaires or not, they are entitled to as fair of a deal as the players are.

The distrust is already there. Both sides have not had a friendly past, that is for sure. This is why the leaders of the NHL and the NHLPA need to be fired. They need to get new leadership that won't be so combative. We already know that Bettman is one of the root causes, but Fehr has to go as well. The NHLPA hired him to be their Bettman. In the end, both of these leaders are leading us right where we thought we would go, to another lost season.

Link? Source?

The "making whole" portion of these negotiations are just now becoming a priority. The HRR was the priority before. The contracts are just a piece, a major piece mind you, but a piece. Its like staying that the realignment, drug testing, and other categories are not potential hangups because they could be. Now that we have the HRR ironed out, getting to that HRR is key which is why the contracts are taking the front seat now. You are right, the owners don't want to pay those out. I am merely saying there are options and both sides have to get in a room and negotiate. The owners have things the players want, so they should relinquish those things to get the contracts down if that is what it takes. I don't know what is going to be the final deal, but I am sure you and I both agree that a deal is there to be made. To say that someone is "confused" would indicate that they don't know what the issue really is. I believe you and I have a good understanding of the problem and solution even more than the NHL or NHLPA does at this stage. Its widely accepted that two parties that could work together could have had this ironed out in a week or less. So, when you say I am confused about this whole lockout thing, it is about as insulting as me calling you a "NHLPA sheep". The point is that kind of classification can stay away from these discussions. What you pointed out was a "duh" statement. I believe we both know why the sides are stuck right now. Acknowledging that is the first step to fixing the problem. So where are the negotiations?

If you read the article, you will see that there are options on the table to get to 50% in year one. I like Fehr's option in his proposal. As for what happens next year, I can tell you that the NHL will typically follow the other sports. Just like the NBA and NFL splits in revenue, the NHL will stay right along those lines. I think that it is off the mark to expect the players to take a pay cut to 40% No player would bow to that. If you look at the NBA for instance, the players had a similar deal as the NHL players had. 57% was the number in the NBA. The NFL has always been around 50/50, with the negotiations giving or taking about 1%. I doubt it goes down for the NHL unless the NBA and NFL decide to become more draconian in their negotiations and greedy as a result. When it comes to concessions, the owners have more to give than the players. They want to see the 50/50 split right away? Then pay up the contracts you signed, its that simple. Now if the NHLPA is willing to give the owners a bone on current contracts, then the owners can concede earlier free agency as an exchange. I think that we need less of the, "That won't work" attitude and more of a can do attitude in these negotiations.

There are good examples here of how they can get to a 50/50 split out of the gate while paying out existing contracts. http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19925/deal-revolves-around-solving-make-whole

The only thing I am seeing right now is red. Not the Red Wings, but the color red. I am angry at the NHL and NHLPA for their lack of negotiating and their willingness to play games with the media instead of get into a room and get to work. I am angry that the fans have been taken for a ride by these two organizations. I don't know what deal would work or what wouldn't. The point is that everything we are talking about in terms of getting to 50% through rollbacks or paying up front or paying out contracts over a longer term are all just "possible" endings. Without the sides talking, we wont' get to a deal at all.

Precisely why I didn't post what I thought. The thought of making owners pay 7% of every contract up front and off the cap OR making the length longer to minimize the impact does not compute to many NHLPA fans. Hell, I don't know if it would work, but its an idea that only a league financial expert can answer if that can work or not. I just wish at this stage that Fehr and Bettman were locked in a room and working on the next deal and hard as we are talking about it. I meant the latter, but that is an option that is on the table. May not be ideal, but I believe that the players are entitled to every cent of those contracts, and there is a way to make it happen. I don't think this will be in the final deal though. Easy for someone to ***** at the idea. Hard to come up with a solution that is a win/win.

Once again, the 50/50 split the union and league touted was not a true 50/50 split. You can read both proposals that have been posted here. Maybe over time would be the best way to get to that split. I have no idea since I am not a league financial expert.

You know we have crossed into the twilight zone when pure speculation by opinionated writers is being touted by the fans of the NHLPA as fact. I suppose the lack of information really does give way to drawing your own conclusions. Carry on! Haha, fair enough. Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest. 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. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap. Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

Let me know when you have the league financial records. I have some ideas, but I have no idea if they would work or not in the current system without having someone who is a league financial expert. I could speculate, but I want to avoid that right now. Without a firm grasp on the financials, no one really knows if the ideas would work or not. Yup, I get what you are asking. There are ways around that with the right deal in place.

This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.

No kidding. I believe that we have a grasp on what each side needs more than Fehr and Bettman do. haroldsnepsts, you can be the NHLPA negotiator I will be the NHL negotiator Here is my first proposal. 50/50 split We will pay all current contracts 3 year entry level contract limit 6 year contract limit I want the new realignment plan as well Any thoughts?

The hardline NHLPA fan will look at what Fehr is saying and do the, "He's the best, He's the best," impression. While they look at Bettman and say, "Lying moron!". Do both sides have points to consider? Yes. I just find the rhetoric unnecessary. I believe that both sides could improve on their public image even more so if they got into a room and negotiated for longer than an hour. Is it wrong for me to point the finger at both Fehr and Bettman and say that there has been a true lack of negotiation? I don't believe so. Here are where both sides have done a disservice to not only the fans, but to the game of hockey.

Being as that 80% of the people here support the NHLPA, that is not surprising. So I can understand to a certain point. At least the people who support the NHLPA who have kept up with the discussion here could look back and acknowledge the criticism I have towards Bettman and his negotiating tactics instead of ignoring them. As I said before, people who say things like that are showing their bias and true ignorance at its finest. It really isn't hard to see that I have similar backlash towards the actions of both sides, not just one.

With me saying I blame the owners 60%-40% over the players, I don't see how you can make the claim that I support the owners over the players. Maybe it is because when I mention how much Bettman and the owners are greedy and they insult the players with their initial offers, you actually read "blah blah blah blah blah". When I mention how much Fehr has not bargained in good faith, you read that and believe I am biased. My advice to you would be to go back and reread some of my posts and get a firmer grasp of my position. So why do it? Fairness. I believe that 57% is too much. The NBA and NFL negotiated 50/50 splits. The NHL should follow suit. Just because the owners are billionaires doesn't mean that they should take a loss. I believe they have as much of a right to earn half the profits of the league as the players do. It should be an equal split. If the owners made 57%, you can bet that everyone would be on the side of the players of they went on strike in order to make more money because they felt that 43% was not fair. Haha, touche. I will give you that one. Instead of apologizing though, since you didn't give me an apology for overstepping your grounds on calling me out for thinking I believe the players are at fault for the owners demise, I will retort. I believe the issue I have with most people who are firmly on the side of the NHLPA is that they are unwilling to look at the faults of their own side while pointing out every little fault with the owners. In my opinion, that is ignorance at its finest. We are in total agreement, and once again I will say that the ownership is being unreasonably greedy. The owners can and should pay the players EVERY PENNY of what they owe on current contracts. (If you read nothing but blah blah blah blah blah blah in those first two sentences, please back up and read again. I bashed the owners and its worth reading if you are a fan of the NHLPA.) That should not be even up for negotiation. That being said, I believe that there is the framework for a deal here. Do I believe that the players should give a little and the owners should do the same? Yes. Why not give the owners that 50/50 split, but give the players a 2-3 entry level deal cap and then a 3 year restricted free agency after that before they turn unrestricted? That way, players get an easier entry into free agency. That would be a great tradeoff because then players could get UFA status while they are still in their mid 20s, which is the prime of their careers. I didn't say that the league was playing the PR card more than the players. I just said I am sick of both sides playing it. Especially with the offers that are on the table that are being touted as 50/50, but in reality they aren't. That kind of boldface lying is just that....lies. When they pander to the media, and not get into a room and negotiate, it sickens me. I don't care how many times the players and owners decline the other sides respective proposals, get in there and work it out instead of whining. I agree with your last two sentences. I also agree with your line of thinking. Which is why I don't agree with the league asking for the players to take rollbacks to current contracts. Contract limits and a 50/50 split? I agree with those things 100%. Earlier free agency for the players I also agree with.

If thats the case, then the owners should be just letting the current contracts go and concentrating on the 50/50 split. The NHL proposal was similar. Just not the 50/50 split that the NHLPA touted. http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19875/donald-fehrs-latest-letter-to-players

Please point out where I placed any blame on the financial state of the NHL on the players. Oh, thats right, I didn't. You just made that up. Now, I will point out that the players and owners have blame for the lockout. Right now I put that at 60%-40% in favor of the owners being at fault. I believe that every player should get every penny from every contract that was signed. However, I do believe that a 50/50 split is more equitable in the long run. Especially since the NBA and NFL both negotiated 50/50 splits in their respective sports. Like it or not, this was the way it was going to end up. The owners are more at fault because they are asking for the salary rollback. At the same time, Fehr's responses to the owners proposals have been all about revenue sharing, which the owners apparently don't want to address because they don't want it based on possible revenues. Fehr comes into these meetings speaking an entirely different language, and yet the people who are on the side of the players are ok on giving him a pass on that. Do I think its right for the NHL to ask for a 50/50 split in revenues? Yes I do. Do I believe that the NHL has the right to ask for salary cuts across the board to existing contracts? No I do not. I believe a deal can be made in this medium. So far, it hasn't been proposed. The NHLPA claims their 3rd option proposal did that, but that was a lie if you read the letter that Fehr sent to all players explaining each proposal. That is the one that is the closest to this option though. So in essence, you have two leaders who are sitting in their prospective camps and not willing to budge very much. The players don't want to relinquish to 50% from 57%, and yes even their option #3 proposal wasn't 50%. Same with the NHL's latest proposal. So both leaders were lying there. Negotiating in good faith? Neither leader can say they have been doing that. From Fehr dragging his feet a full 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to propose something different, to the NHL and their initial lowball proposal that was insulting, no one can say that they were the angel in these negotiations. You are right, lets not get into semantics at all. What if the NHLPA decided to come to the table early? We have no idea. You can guess that no deal would have worked out. I can say the possibility was there. Who is right? No one knows because it didn't happen. My point is that more time is better than less time. Now for my question to you..... I have no clue how you can realistically look at Fehr's actions and say that he has been bargaining in good faith this whole time. I really don't understand how you can stand behind a side and say that they are entirely in the right, when history and documentation have proved that they have lied and not negotiated in good faith. Instead, the NHLPA has been more focused on playing the PR card instead of getting into a room and negotiating. Do you have anything to say about this? I agree with this. I believe the players should get paid every cent that they signed for in existing contracts. At the same time, limits have to be placed on contracts. I agree it goes far beyond the split. So far though, it is the split that is causing most of the issue right now.

I believe the problem that you and others have with my posts are that I am listing reasons why the PA is to blame. Every point I have made that has upset me with the NHL is summarily ignored by people who are on the side of the NHLPA. After all, they are the ones that are 100% at fault right? I have countless posts here where I go after Bettman and his negotiating, crappy proposals, and combative style where he belittles Fehr in front of the press. Yet, you and others here who are on the side of the NHLPA ignore those. The league was on the record saying that they were ready to negotiate in January. Many links were posted with this information. Of course Bettman thought that there was plenty of time to negotiate a deal at the time. I didn't expect Bettman to come out and say the season was screwed because Fehr and the players weren't willing to negotiate early. I don't believe for a second that Bettman or Fehr were planning a lockout. Some people who are backing the NHLPA believe that Bettman planned to lockout the players the whole time. Some people who are backing the NHL believe that Fehr wasn't planning on negotiating because he wanted the league to lock them out so he could negotiate a new deal with a luxury tax in place. If the season is lost, then that was ok with Fehr. So, do you believe that either side was planning to scrap the season? I certainly don't. The problem is greed and the unwillingness to compromise on both sides.

The players are going to have to take a pay cut of some kind. That much is certain. The 57% that the players got last CBA really was fair at the time, considering what they came from before the last lockout. When the NBA and the NFL negotiated 50-50 splits for the most part, you knew that the NHL was headed for the same destination. Now, how much of a pay cut is up for discussion. I believe that the players are entitled to every dime they have in current contracts. I also believe that the players should be looking at a 50-50 split. The problem I have with the league and the union is that they say 50-50, but in reality it isn't. If you look at the 3 proposals given by the players and the proposal by the league, which of those are an actual 50-50 split right off the bat? Answer: None of them I can find plenty of blame on both sides of the coin. Since you can't seem to find any fault with the league except for "not seeing the problem", how about I educate you on a few other problems. League invites the players to start bargaining in January, but Fehr says he needs more time. League invites the players to bargain upon conclusion of the season, but Fehr waits until the end of June. Fehr holds off a full 3 weeks after the NHL's crappy proposal before he issues his first proposal. (Notice he is dragging his feet yet?) Being willing to play the PR card as much as the league is. Touting 50-50 split in his 3rd proposal was a outright lie, just like the NHL proposal was. I could go on and on here, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides have not been honest and have not negotiated in good faith. The NHL speaks one language, while the NHLPA speaks another. Then they go to the press and play the PR card. They get in a room for 30 minutes, decline the others proposals, and then don't meet again for a week or two at a time. Is that the sign of two sides eager to get a deal done? So before you start saying that the only fault you can see with the union is that they don't see the problem, take a long good look at the crap they have pulled since the beginning of the year on these CBA negotiations. If you still can't see any fault at all with their actions, then I really am sorry. (Please note that this behavior does not excuse the NHL's behavior in these negotiations either. Two wrongs do not make a right.) As a fan, this kind of behavior from both sides just pisses me off. It should piss off any fan who has had to sit through this for the last few months.