Nightfall

As I expected, this deal wasn't going to get done with this proposal. I guess the nhlpa is going to bargain tomorrow. Wish there was more of a sense of urgency out of them.

Ah, so two wrongs make a right? Got it.

On the other side of the coin.... Why didn't Uncle Fehr make the first major concession? I guess Uncle Gary cared a little bit more than Fehr. Especially after Fehr was given the last proposal and he chose not to negotiate by saying it wasn't a game of "ping-pong". With one major move, the league has the attention of the fans, and most importantly, the players.

The NHL just got a serious boost to their PR. Reading the twitter and facebook posts have been quite an eye opener. Everyone is saying this is the best proposal yet. The NHLPA, which had the ball in their court after the NHL made a proposal last time, now still has the ball in their court and it looks like they are going to volley it back. The big question is, will it be a friendly volley or an aggressive "game point" volley. I think it is going to be a friendly return, but the NHLPA will ask for 52% or something along those lines.

I don't think Fehr will accept this offer as is. What I believe will happen is Fehr will come down from his last offer of 54.5% down to 52% or so as a counter offer. Yes, the league made a good concession, but Fehr will counter.

I am hoping that Fehr makes a concession at this stage as well. Glad to see the owners finally blink though. If anyone had room to move from their position, it was the owners.

I do agree with you here. I have no idea what would be "fair" other than meeting in the middle somewhere. I also dislike Daly playing the PR card saying that they are waiting on a proposal. I will also say that I dislike Fehr being unwilling to put forward a proposal. IMHO, negotiation is just that. It goes back and forth. The NHL did give the last proposal, and Fehr says that this isn't "ping pong". I beg to differ. This is a negotiation, and it should go back and forth. It seems to me that both sides are doing more of playing the PR card than they are at negotiating a deal. That is the most frustrating thing.

I really don't have the answer here without having the financials. What I can tell you is that the NHL and the NHLPA have to budge off of their stances in order to get a deal done. IMHO, there is no way that a deal should be this hard to make unless both sides are unwilling to go off of their stances. So far, that is what we have. So I guess the question you have to answer is.... Is it unreasonable for either team to not come up or come down from their stances or is it unreasonable if both sides stay entrenched in their economic beliefs? I think its unreasonable to stay entrenched, but that is just me.

I really think that you need to take a step back and re-read what I posted. I merely said that anyone here going off of opinion is just that....stating an opinion. For instance, I say that costs have gone up, and you disagree. What makes your point more valid than mine? No data to support each other's stance really doesn't help matters. I think the thing to take away from this discussion is that anyone saying that the owners are fine or that the owners are losing their shirts is really making an uninformed opinion one way or the other. In my opinion, I believe costs have went up if not for the sake of inflation. There should be no problem making a statement like that. Just as I respect those people who say that costs have stayed the same. The point is these are just opinions with no facts to back them up. I agree with you. I would like to see some hard data before I make any conclusions. This is mainly because it isn't stopping someone ele from posting that they are an informed financial planner working for the Blue Jackets and saying that the team is losing money like crazy. We can only go off of the Forbes report, not supposition.

Thats the key right here. The owners locked out the players, not Gary. Who is to say that the owners won't lockout the players again? I know people like to point at Gary and say he caused a lost season and 3 lockouts in the last 3 CBA negotiations. The fact of the matter is that the owners did this, not Gary. The ownership will need to change hands first. Even then, the new head of the owners will still be doing what the ownership recommends. We need uniters in these positions though, so I will agree that Fehr and Bettman are not uniters. They both do need to be fired, but i don't agree that will be best for the NHL as a whole. The next people could be worse.

I suppose I am not surprised. In the end, the NHLPA has played the PR card to a T. Fans are blaming the owners hardcore.

I think this is where the divide lies. When I mention costs, some people say that costs are unchanged, some people say costs have indeed went up and agree with me, and then some people say that costs have went down. We are talking about the opinions of people who do not work in the industry. So do I work in the industry? No I do not. Which is why, when I say, in my opinion I see that the owners are entitled to a little more for these reasons, its my opinion. Which is why I respect the opinions of people who may say otherwise and disagree with me. In the end, no one here knows the true bottom line for these teams. What we do know only comes from the Forbes report, which sides have said don't carry any creedence or are accurate. What we also know is that one side is being overly greedy while the other side has said that they aren't relinquishing anything. Lets just assume that we are somewhere in the middle. Have costs went up? That much we can assume as a yes. Have more player personell been added? Possibly. Is the cost to run an NHL team went up? Probably. So is the NHL entitled to a little bit more? Probably. Are they entitled to go from 43% to 57%? Hell no. Which is why I am not going to pose the same question to people who are fans of the NHLPA. Its not a fair question because we don't have an economist among us that has all the answers. What they need is an economist that will look at the business plans and proposals of both sides and to mediate a deal that will work for both sides. Luxury tax, salary cap, and the split between both sides should all be discussed. The problem is that both sides have dug into what they want.

I believe that financially, things change so a new CBA should be negotiated every 5 years or so. Lets get that out of the way first. I believe the players should have to give up a little for various reasons. The cost to operate a club has went up, rent, fuel charges, team personnel, and so on. I don't know what it takes to run an NHL team in terms of cash, but these costs alone are worth a little bit at least. As clearly pointed out in Forbes, many teams are not making a profit right now, which means the most profitable ones are carrying the entire league. Lastly, I look at other leagues and the split in each league. For example, the NFL and NBA the split is close to 50-50 with the league. I believe an even split is quite equitable. Now, through all this do I believe the players should take the 43% that the owners were asking for in the original proposal? No. The players should not be held at fault for the foolish ownership decisions that have been made. The players are entitled to every dollar of every contract that signed. The players should not be held responsible for the NHL adding franchises into areas that cannot sustain them. There is a fair and equitable deal to be made here. I keep going back to 52-48 in favor of the players. I can see your point though in that the players should not have to relinquish any share of the revenues for the mistakes of the NHL or management of the teams. At the same time, there are other factors which can easily make the CBA sway 2-3% back from the players to the owners.

Didn't you get the memo? Bettman is entirely at fault for the lockout.

I wouldn't sacrifice a full season to ensure that Bettman was canned. Hell, even if that did happen, the owners could hire in someone even worse. Right now, Bettman is a serious problem, but Fehr is a big problem as well. Maybe not as big as Bettman, but still a sizable one. What we need are two sides that get along and are eager to work together to make the sport better. So far, I am not convinced that either Bettman or Fehr are interested in doing this. You can say I am turned off by the way that both sides are not willing to budge at all on the money issue. At this point though, I wouldn't sacrifice another season just to see these two greedy asshats get canned.

My stance is what it has always has been. Both sides have not been willing or able to move from what they have wanted. The owners want too much, the players won't give up very much. Do I believe the owners should be able to negotiate a fair deal? Yes. Do I believe both sides are being unreasonable? Absolutely. People such as yourself are pissed off saying the owners are abusing their power. The side that is not getting a good deal is going to strike or lockout every time. I look at it less that the ownership is abusing their power and more that both sides should be ashamed of themselves for not being willing to negotiate in good faith and come up with a fair and equitable deal. I wish the NHL would dump the salary cap and institute a luxury tax. The owners are morons for not at least being willing to look down that road. It would be beneficial to both sides in the long haul.

Finally the true colors of each side are coming out and people are starting to see what the NHL and NHLPA are all about. Those people taking sides one way or the other are really in for a dose of harsh reality. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=407263

Do you have a link or source to this? I would like to see for myself what Bettman changed back in 95 and where they stand today. I did a google search on this and didn't find anything on it.

Agreed, which is why the 57% is also irrelevant to the big picture of HRR, and so are the 52%-48% numbers I was envisioning. In the end, the rest of the deal and the HRR are going to be just as big as the percentages that each side get. Which is also why I agree with Dreger. It shouldn't be this hard. Both sides are making it harder than it should be. We should be watching hockey tonight.

I have no doubt that some players will stay, but the major players will return for the paychecks and the stardom. The players are just playing the PR game right now. Get the public afraid that their players are going to leave and not come back.

I don't agree that the 57% number fits the criteria. In the NFL and NBA where a salary cap exists, it is closer to a 50-50 split in each league. Do I agree that the players should get more? Yes I do. At the same time, I do see the rising costs that the teams have to absorb. Billionaires that own teams should have the right to at least try to make a profit with their investments. Illitch breaks even most years or loses a little money because he chooses to compete for a cup. Teams like the Maple Leafs can stink on the ice but still turn a profit. I do agree with you that the owners had more to give than the players just based on their crap proposal. I just expect the NHLPA to follow suit a bit more than they have and to stop dragging their feet through this process. So far, they have been reluctant to play ball so to speak and delay the negotiations in favor of playing the PR game. Now we are at a stage where the NHL final number is around 48% while the NHLPA final number is around 54%. Where we are at today, doesn't it make sense for both sides to concede a bit and make it a 51%-49% in favor of the players? I do agree with you as well that if you have a number in mind that the players or owners should make, then meeting in the middle is flawed logic. I have taken no side in this. If anything, those people who have taken a side in this and are comfortable giving a number on how much their side should earn may not be operating on flawed logic in their minds, but they see all other numbers as "flawed logic". I compare it to believing in being a republican or democrat. Its impossible to see the other side and their opinions when you are so focused into the side you support. In short, the number that I had for the NHLPA has adjusted about 1/2 percentage point down, but there is still a deal to be made here. I hope that the NHLPA gets to that 52% number. At the same time, I hope that both sides can come to some kind of decision on what is fair and make a deal.

I want them to meet in the middle. I think the players are entitled to 52% when the sides were arguing back in July. Now, the number could be 51.5 because its meeting in the middle and both sides have been stubborn. Its called compromise. Obviously, you are only willing to listen to compromise if it comes from the owners side of things. As for the final number they should come up with, I have no idea what that number would be. Any logical person could deduce if one side was at 52% and the other side was at 48%, wouldn't 50% be a reasonable place to meet in the middle? As evidenced by their proposals, they have compromised more than the players. Considering they have been a major beneficiary to the last deal, I would say it was a big deal, but at the same time, it wasn't.

Another thing to consider is the last lockout. Take a guess on how many things that the owners asked for in their initial proposal actually showed up in the final copy that both sides drafted after a season was lost. Answer: 0 None of their "requests" in their initial proposal were upheld in the final draft. Partly because they were just out of the realm of reality at the time. In the end, both Goodenow and Bettman saw the shambles of a lost season and actually compromised. The owners have compromised more than the players have in the last month or two. Sure, the owners had more headroom due to their lower starting point, but the point is the owners are closer to the 50% split than the players are at this point. I have a feeling they will also compromise on these secondary issues as well.

Already been pointed out. My mistake..... If the players are at 54% and the owners are at 48%, then 51% sounds pretty darn reasonable.

Two reasonable sides would have come up with a deal already. As it stands, both sides are being unreasonable.