It is tough to argue for the owners due to the horrible proposal they put forward. That being said, while the players proposal was a good start, the simple fact of the matter is that neither side is willing to budge off its original stance. In the world of negotiating, two wrongs don't make a right. Sure, its easy for you and many others here to point at the ownership and say they did wrong, because they did and are continuing to do so. At the same time though, the players have got to be willing to come off their original demands as well. Now, you and others here who are pro NHLPA can say that the players have done that, but all I have seen is their original proposal which was to lower their share to 53% in year 1, 55% in year 2, and then back up to 57% in year 3 with a player option at the same amount the next year.
Lack of flexibility, concession, and greed is what caused the strike. The owners feel like they are entitled to more. The players feel that they are entitled to more. The deal that is currently going on right now favors the players and lucrative franchises, but what I don't get is that every owner voted to strike? Are things really that bad in Hockeytown or Toronto? I know those are extreme examples, but I had to add that in there.
Details from the second proposal, per Lebrun
FIRST THREE YEARS OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
Total payroll is fixed at $1.91 billion in Year 1; $1.98 billion in Year 2; and $2.1 billion in Year 3. Effectively, they are 2 percent, 4 percent and 6 percent raises.
FINAL TWO YEARS
If revenue doesn’t adequately grow: NHL option to extend two more years at a payroll of $2.1 billion
If revenue skyrockets: NHLPA option to extend two more years at $2.1 billion, plus 57 percent of new revenue only in years 4 and 5
If revenue falls in between, deal automatically extended two more years, as follows:
Year 4 = Year 3 share plus 54 percent of hockey-related revenue growth in Year 4
Year 5 = Year 4 share plus 54 percent of hockey-related revenue growth in Year 5
The players' offer fluctuates based on revenue growth.
Example: Based on historical revenue growth of 7.1 percent a year, the players' share would start at 54.3 percent in Year 1 and phase down to 52.3 percent in Year 5.
No info on what constitutes "adequate" or "skyrockets", but either way they have in fact given up the 57% share. I trust you will now finally stop saying they're unwilling to give up anything.
A couple notes on the numbers:
Using the Forbes revenue figures for the first 6 years of the last CBA, and the oft-cited $3.3B figure for revenue last season, growth rate has been 6.5%. Projecting that forward, and assuming that would be "skyrocketing" revenue, I come up with the following percentages: 54.3, 52.9, 52.7, 52.9, and 53.2%. Projecting 7.1% growth going forward, I get: 54, 52.3, 51.8, 52.1, and 52.5%. Trying to reconcile the Forbes numbers to "Hockey Related Revenue", it comes out: 52.3, 50.6, 50.1, 50.5, and 50.8% of "actual" revenue.
So basically, the players are offering to cut their share by 4%, and very close to a 50/50 split of actual revenue. Cap numbers would be around $69, 71.3, 75.3, 80.3, and 85.5M. Interestingly, these numbers are probably less friendly to low revenue teams than what I was expecting to see. I was basing some of my projections off last season's cap number, but a closer look at the revenue numbers suggests that it was lower than it should have been, per the CBA. It should have been around $68M instead of $64.3. I'd still want some more recent revenue reports before I'll believe those numbers aren't workable, and I'd still be surprised if there are more than a handful of teams that would be unable to make the floor.
However, if there are as many as 9 teams who would struggle (it's possible), then I can see why there isn't a fair middle ground. The players shouldn't settle for anything significantly less than they are offering, so if the rich owners aren't willing to make up any difference needed by the poor ones, then the basic core structure needs to be changed. Either widen the gap between the floor and ceiling, or allow trading cap space for cash.
Edited by Buppy, 14 September 2012 - 09:54 PM.