Nightfall

The players proposal just addresses a problem with the camp temporarily. It gives temporary relief to the owners, but it doesn't look in the long term. The players shouldn't have to concede anything when it comes to the owners overspending. What they should be doing is working with the league to create a system where everyone can win. The league things this is with a salary cap rollback. The players think this is with a temporary concession. Both of which don't solve the problem. Rolling back salaries will just bring the same demons back in the light 3-4 years later. The players proposal, which you are behind, only gives the same relief for a couple years. There has been no attempt to look at the big problem and that is with a rising cap floor that is forcing teams to spend money they don't have. Right now, the current deal is good for the players and the owners of lucrative teams. There are too many teams that cannot spend to the cap floor and still remain profitable. The Devils just broke even last season and they made it to the cup finals. 17 other teams aren't able to break even and are infact losing money. Lowering the cap floor is going to bring forward a luxury tax system or a more stringent cap system. Neither will pass because Bettman is married to the cap system and the players want the cap floor higher because it brings up salaries. He is right too. I know I will be back thats for sure. Just don't count on me buying tickets to games or other merchandise.

I like how one person says that only #1 is the issue that the players need to assist with while someone else says none of them are issues the players have to deal with. It really is a pretty simple economic problem. You have billions in revenue. The owners attitude about the salary cap is just depressing. Its quite obvious a revenue sharing with a luxury tax system would be the best. Does it destroy parity? Not really. Parity has been part of the sport for a long time. There hasn't been a back to back cup winner since 1997-1998. The sticking points are easy to acknowledge. Owners: Roll back salaries, limit contract terms. In short, restart the clock like back in 2006. Players: Roll back our cut to 53% this year, then 55% next year. It goes back up to 57% in year 3. Which proposal solves the problem? Neither one. A deal can be made, but it will take concessions on both sides to get it done. So far, neither side is willing to concede jack s***.

Here are the problems, in my mind. 1. Cap floor is too high. 2. Teams spending too much 3. Contract lengths too high 4. As a result, some teams not able to break even The players association suggestion was decent, but it didn't go far enough. As you said, good starting point, but not a solution to the problem. What they need is more of a luxury tax system, a slight salary rollback by the players, limit contract terms to 8 years or so, and keep the arbitration. I could go on and on here, but thats the gist of things.

I wish I knew what was being discussed in those meetings and which side was not being flexible. I don't even want to speculate at this point, having only heard the two initial proposals. One proposal from the owners was "Go f*** yourself" and the players proposal was "Lets rollback the salaries a little bit, but in two years, show me the money!" A deal CAN get done here, but both sides have to see the problem first. So far, neither side wants to even acknowledge the real problem.

We are in complete agreement. The issue here is that ownership isn't going to like that. Nevermind that sometimes, people make poor investment choices. Sometimes teams move in order to become profitable again, like the Thrashers move to Winnipeg. Contraction has to be on the table Same goes for a luxury tax system and a no cap floor so teams can spend as little as they want I could go on and on here, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides don't want to see the issues they have in front of them. One of the sides is just interested in dealing with rollbacks in salaries and limiting contract length. The other is just interested in giving up some salary for the next couple years, and then it ramps back up to 57% again. Neither of these solutions addresses the problem as a whole.

Here is the article i posted. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2012/05/30/lack-of-economic-parity-could-kill-nhl/ It doesn't list all the franchises, but it does say that 18 are losing money. Thats a lot of franchises. So, while the players are making great money, and 12 of the owners are also happy, there are 18 owners that are in deep trouble. As has been pointed out before, the proposal set forward by Bettman doesn't address the core problem. Same with the proposal by Fehr. Something needs to be done to help the 18 teams for the long haul, and what Bettman or Fehr proposes won't fix that.

I agree. Bettman's negotiating tactics are primordial, and thats putting it nicely.

Just remember who the current deal benefits the most. The players and lucrative clubs. With 18 of 30 teams not making a profit, there is a huge problem with the current deal. I am not surprised that "lockout" is being mentioned, and neither should you.

This is part of the reason why I am not dropping $200 a ticket to go to the Winter Classic. I could afford to go, but I won't. Even if they get a deal done on time and they start the season on time, the greed is just disgusting. I will watch it on TV instead.

By the end of these negotiations, we shall see if Fehr feels the same way about the union. So far, I cannot rule out that "Fehrland" doesn't exist.

I hope Fehr enjoyed his week of travel and Bettman enjoyed his time off while Fehr was gone. 3 weeks until camps open. Get a deal done!

As promised, I stand corrected.

You will have to excuse me, but that is the first time I have heard you levy any kind of criticism against the NHLPA in this thread. I will go back and re-read 19 pages of posts tomorrow just to make sure, and if I am wrong, I will post back here. So far, that is the impression I got from what you have said. I apologize if I got the wrong impression. As for who the current CBA favors, you are correct. It favors the players and rich franchises. I may even go as far as profitable franchises. Yet, 19 franchises are not even breaking even. You and I think a lot alike on this issue. Lets hope that there is no lockout or strike and they find a way to make a deal happen in time. I just don't think either side is up for giving up much but they both want everything. That is a bad combination. I agree. I am going to be watching a lot of Griffins hockey if the NHL strikes. f*** the players and the owners. One thing is for certain though, if they have an agreement midway through the season, I will come back to the NHL very quickly. I won't buy tickets to games, but I will watch them on TV.

The part you did read you didn't even answer the question. Do you believe the current deal favors the owners more than the players? While you believe I am acting that somehow makes that makes the players rich and not the owners, you are sadly mistaken. You probably feel this way because I am levying criticism against both sides whereas you can only see fault with the owners. I will go back and edit out the "crack pipe" sentence since that prevented you from reading the points that I addressed. You are right, and I apologize for that. I wanted you to give full consideration for my points just as I have for yours. That was the wrong approach. What I will say is this..... There are too many people blindly taking everything the NHLPA has said on faith without looking deeper into the details. Both sides proposals, as you even said, don't even fix the overall problem. Fixing that problem should be simple, as you said and I agree with, but both sides don't see the problem yet. Those two points do not bode well for hockey starting on time. So, if these two cases are correct, and you and I agree on them, then how can it be all on one side if there is a strike?

How can you ask me how the economic deal that is currently implemented doesn't favor the players? Look at the salaries and terms players are getting. Look at the salary cap floor/ceiling. The owners deserve some of the blame for sure, as some of these signings are just bad. At the same time, players are getting inflated salaries that just don't make sense. Still, if one side has it good while the other side struggles, its a problem. I point out Fehr running around and talking with his constituents. I point out Fehr right now because this is a critical junction, and he isn't at the bargaining table. In order for a deal to get done, both the leaders have to be there and working towards a deal in person. Not one person deciding to take off for meetings while the other side is ready to negotiate. Can they do it over the phone? Sure, but it isn't the same. FYI, a part that you omitted is that I mentioned both sides in my last post and choosing not to meet until July, a full month after the season was already over. I don't give either side a pass for waiting until 2 months before the CBA expires. I am not giving Fehr a pass for taking off for a week, and neither should you. As for the part you bolded, we are in total agreement. What you are forgetting is that the owners and players union needs to make some concessions to make a new deal work. The current system is broken. The owners got what they wanted last time, very true. Except that the system they got needs to be refined. The players have an opportunity to get things that they want in return. It really is, as the article states, an agreement that both sides can live with, but not be happy about everything. I don't blame the league for going after cost certainty. I blame the way they are looking at the current system and trying to come to an agreement by lowballing the union. That initial offer was terrible. I don't blame the players for wanting to keep the current deal and coming forward with a solid proposal. The problem is their counter proposal, while it cut revenues initially, they rose back to the regular levels a couple years later. The NHLPA also wants to put a limit on what teams can spend on non-player revenue. The NHLPA also wants to give extra draft picks to teams in financial trouble, at both the league and NHLPA discretion. As you said, the league is not looking at the issue correctly. Even if they were, it is going to take both sides to hammer out a deal. The owners don't have all the keys here. So far though, the NHLPA has made a solid proposal and its a good start, but that isn't the solution either. I really do think that many people here are kissing the ass of the NHLPA and saying that its all the owners fault if they lock out. To me, its more difficult than that. The NHLPA wants to continue the current agreement for a reason, and that reason is they have an advantage. The league has only 11 of the 30 teams in the league making a profit. Only 1 in 3! Could you operate under an agreement that has that? Would you operate under an agreement like that? I would operate under it just to get another CBA hammered out, but I certainly understand why the owners are threatening lockout. http://www.forbes.co...could-kill-nhl/ As you said, both sides are not looking at the issue correctly. In order to address the issue correctly, then both sides have to first acknowledge the issues, come up with options, and then implement, with both sides willing to give up and get some things. So far, that isn't happening. EDIT: Removed some borderline offensive content.

The economics of the current deal favor the players. Of course it would be in their best interest to not strike. It is also in their best interest to tell the press and fans that they would prefer to play the season and continue negotiations. The current party that is happy is not going to strike, and that is a no brainer. I am not saying that the owners haven't been their own worst enemy here. They have self-inflicted the wounds upon themselves by continuing to sign players to 10-12 year deals at $103 million to get around the "cap space" issue. That being said, the system does need to be fixed in some way. I don't know what that way is, but the players by saying that they will continue the season under the current deal isn't a solution to the problem. Maybe shooting each owner would be a better option. There are going to be a lot of people kissing the ass of the NHLPA over the course of the next month. The fans will be on the bandwagon of the NHLPA. The press is already on their side. Just keep in mind that it is in their best interest to keep the current deal. It is in the owners best interest to get some things fixed. I don't think it is in the best interest of the owners to strike, but something has got to get the NHLPA to the table. Right now, Fehr is touring the US with three weeks to go until camps open. Does that sound like someone who wants to get a deal done to you? When both sides wait until July to start talking, does that sound like a league and a players association that is concerned with starting the season on time? While I have a lot of respect for Fehr, I do not understand why he is lollygagging around. I don't care if he is winning in the public opinion. I don't care that he made a great proposal. The fact of the matter is that both sides need to come up with an agreement. Just because the owners lock them out doesn't make the owners 100% at fault. Thats just false thinking. In professional sports, a deal has to work for both sides, not just one. The side that locks out the other isn't 100% at fault just because the current deal doesn't favor them. A deal can be made that favors both sides. I like this guy's take on it. http://www.sbnation....pa-lockout-2012 This compromise really does favor both sides.

Bettman alone isn't responsible for 3 lockouts. Both sides are responsible. It takes two sides to come up with a deal. What we have here are two sides that are hard headed. They are also made up of complete morons. On the owners side, you have Bettman and his band of morons who's only solution is to slash salaries, contracts, and lowball the union. On the other side, you have a union which really proposed a reduction in salaries, but the figure climbs right back up to where it is now. Also, the union wants to see the salaries of non-player personnel reduced. Which of these solutions work? The answer is neither of them. Add onto the fact that both the players and the owners just started getting together about a month ago. Hockey was over in June. Hell, why weren't both sides meeting in March? Lack of urgency on both sides as well. The owners tabled the last proposal last week on Wednesday, and they won't meet again until this wednesday? A full week with the leaders of the two sides not sitting down? These guys are total toolbags. While I like Fehr a lot more then Bettman, I think that both sides have handled this horribly. No sense of urgency, no compromise, and most importantly, no meaningful discussion on the real issues. Even if there were meaningful discussions, nothing came out of them. Both sides have the "its my way or the highway" attitude. I know that most people are saying that its all the owners fault if there is a lockout, but I am convinced that its both sides fault if there is a lockout. Both sides are equally at fault. No doubt about it if you look at the actions of both sides in the last six months. Its very difficult for me to hold in my anger on this topic and not spew out a tirade that would get me banned for excessive swearing.

Hell, they have had the talent in GR. They have just underperformed.

Being good guys in the court of public opinion is fine and dandy, but if there is a lockout, the people who say who won't come back are going to hurt the players as much as the owners. This isn't a popularity contest. They should be working to get a deal done.

Just the fact that both sides waited until the final hour to start negotiations, and now one party leader is traveling the US which prevents any real work from being done. As I said, no sense of urgency. I have taken the time to watch a lot of video on Fehr and I like how articulate he is. That doesn't help though if he is out traveling while a lockout is 3+ weeks away. We really are in trouble.

I agree with you. I wasn't all high on Fehr or Bettman when this started. After watching Fehr's speeches on Youtube, I have respect for Fehr. A lot more than Bettman. Still, no bargaining for a week? Both of these guys are in my doghouse right now.

I will admit that I am becoming more of a fan of Fehr's as time goes on. The proposal that they put forward seemed to be a good one to me. Its not surprising that the NHL owners turned it down. Still, I just cannot fathom why Fehr is traveling around right now at this critical junction. I know why people are rising as one against Uncle Gary, and rightfully so. At the same time though, I cannot give a pass to Fehr. Both of these guys should be in a room hammering out a deal. When I see these sides meeting for a couple hours and then breaking for the day or waiting for a week before sitting down again with a month left in the season, it just seems to me that both sides don't want to get a deal done in time. I don't care if both sides are posturing. Its going to be bad for the game if there is another lockout, and no one can say without a doubt that it was all Gary's fault. Both parties have got to be available and working towards a deal, and so far, it just feels half assed at this point.

What I want to know is, why aren't the sides getting together with their leadership? I know that Fehr is traveling, but by the time they meet next week, we are going to be 3 weeks away from camps opening. It just seems to me that both sides are just lollygagging around. Where is the sense of urgency? If I was in charge of either side, I would have my calendar clear and ready to negotiate.

Well, I admit I am wrong. I thought Fehr and the players were going to lowball the union. This is good progress made by the players. Instead of being pricks like the owners, they took the high road and they put forward a good proposal. Lets see what happens with the owners now.

I am very eager to see what the NHLPA brings to the table on Tuesday. Its my hope that they are going to be reasonable and give a solid proposal. I have a feeling they are going to try to lowball the league, which would fulfill my expectations of two parties who don't want to work with each other.