Why don't they do contract length based on age? If you are 25 or under you can sign up to a 10 year deal. 26-30 7 years max. 31 and up is a 5 year max.
- Jimmygrazz

Because it makes too much sense?

didnt the NFLPA do it last year?
- DoubleDown

Technically, yes. The reality was they didn't. Other than making the head of the NFLPA and his firm richer, it accomplished nothing for the players. No contracts were disolved or signed, etc. The league would've fought that in court all the way. It would've been years. The head of the NFLPA is a lawyer and represented the players whether he was the NFLPA head or if he was the head of the legal team for the players. Essentially, he double dipped, getting paid to lead the union but also collecting fees every time the NFLPA took the NFL to court. In general, players are idiots when it comes to CBA time. You saw it during football CBA negotations (when NFL star players making several million $$ a year were comparing their lives to SLAVERY, etc). Players want to hear that the owners are the root of all evil in their lives so when it's whispered in their ears that the owners are out to enslave them and disrespect them. The thought processes stop there.

Look no further than Sidney Crosby. What has Crosby brought to the negotiations? Zilch. He's spouting all this anger towards the owners that provide him with 8+ mill/yr and the best medical care in the world without actually saying anything relevant. It's like the politician who talks on the podium for 20 minutes and at the end of it you can't think of a single point he made.

Should the players be asked to give, and not expect anything in return? I agree that 50/50 is a reasonable ratio. But that still doesn't change the fact that they are giving in that. That can't be ignored. So in a deal that is supposed to be give and take, what do the players get out of it? The NHL's vision of a new deal is 50/50 and taking contract rights away from the players. How is that reasonable? And how is that not insulting to the players?
- MJL

it doesnt matter.

the owners take losses regardless of whether they play or not.. so why not lock the doors and sit tight til the union caves?

its dirty pool.. but in the end.. the odds are in the owners corner.. the sooner the PA realizes this the sooner we get back to hockey.

in a situation like this.. right and wrong have no place.. its who can take the incurred losses the longest.. and that, by far, is the owners.

i see it more questioning whether the PA--specifically the Fehr boys--cares about the season. the reason we're in such a dangerous position is that the man who controls this entire process has nothing invested in or riding on the health of the game. all he cares about is the optics of the dealits its aesthetic value. he is the most dangerous thing for the game that i can remember.
- DoubleDown

I think the mistake there is thinking that fehr controls the process for the players. He doesn't. In the end he works for the players. If they leadeship group of players tells him to make a deal, he will have to do so. He has no power without the backing of the players.

Great blog Ek,

Fact is Fehr has been working hard for 1+ years building up the rift that seems to exist between the players and owners. In order to make a solid union the guy has instilled fear and mistrust between the owners and players. Its not like they were best friends before, but having a strong union was a must going into negotiations. Fehr and the players will not win this battle. I give it one month if the season isn't cancelled already, and we will start to here complaints and fractures within the union. The all might dollar becomes more and more important to the 75% of players not making Crosby type money. And when that happens the season will already be gone or a deal will get made quickly. Fehr is painting himself into a corner that he will not be able to get out of. The NHL is 100% correct, they are negotiating against themselves. It is time a line was drawn in the sand. As much as I disliked Bettman at the start of the process, I have shifted my anger and distrust to Fehr. Better to trust the devil you know vs the devil you don't.

Ek would be interesting to put up a poll now.... on Sides NHL vs NHLPA, Fehr vs Bettman.
- TSTER

Bang on. Bettman is just what he seems to be; a cut throat lawyer who does not f**k around. His manadate is simple; fix what they didn't last time.
Jimmy D was right; the players are cattle and do own the game ON THE ICE.
Off the ice: they're the help. Make what you can, as long as you can.

it doesnt matter.

the owners take losses regardless of whether they play or not.. so why not lock the doors and sit tight til the union caves?

its dirty pool.. but in the end.. the odds are in the owners corner.. the sooner the PA realizes this the sooner we get back to hockey.

in a situation like this.. right and wrong have no place.. its who can take the incurred losses the longest.. and that, by far, is the owners.
- Dozzer

I think it is a misconception that the Owner's are willing to do that. They want to get the Season going. They can't build their business or make money if they're not playing. That is what they want to do. If what you say was true, the League would have never come back with their latest make whole offer.

Should the players be asked to give, and not expect anything in return? I agree that 50/50 is a reasonable ratio. But that still doesn't change the fact that they are giving in that. That can't be ignored. So in a deal that is supposed to be give and take, what do the players get out of it? The NHL's vision of a new deal is 50/50 and taking contract rights away from the players. How is that reasonable? And how is that not insulting to the players?
- MJL

Not making much sense here. Both the players and owners need to give. It is clear though that we sit at a 50/50 becuase the owners brought us to that point. We sit at a make whole because the owners brought us to that point. What have the playes brought to the table that has told you and I that they are actually negotiating? All the do is spin proposals that don't even speak the same language. Owners agree to make whole and what do the players want... They want "make whole" plus their entire contracts!! Just plain stupid. All of their numbers assume NHL revenue cotinues to grow. Are you freaking kidding me! Are players that stupid that they believe Revenue will not be impacted by this Sh&t show. No they are not stupid, but Fehr is filling their heads with unrealistic expectations!

I think it is a misconception that the Owner's can do that. They want to get the Season going. They can't build their business or make money of they're not playing. That is what they want to do. If what you say was true, the League would have never come back with their latest make whole offer.
- MJL

i understand that.

but here is the truth about a couple things

the league does not have to pay NBC back for missed games til the end of the deal.. which is ten years from now

and while you are correct about wanting to grow the game, they are still businessmen, and they want to close the loopholes that were in the last CBA

think about it.. at the beginning, we knew the owners were shooting for a 50/50 split.. thats why they initially proposed the 43%, which is the flip of 57%. if you remember the players were never intent on conceding to a 50/50 split.. but hey.. here we are.

the owners know damn well they just have to sit and wait. because simply, to them, growing the business is moot when the players are walking away with all the profits.. forbes magazine had 18 teams in the red last season. so you are right, the owners want to make money, and thats what this is about. the make whole provision might burn them in the first couple years of the deal, but in the end contract value would become far more managable. thats the give.. the problem is the PA doesnt consider that a give.

just you wait.. the owners will sit tight until they get a deal they like.

Not making much sense here. Both the players and owners need to give. It is clear though that we sit at a 50/50 becuase the owners brought us to that point. We sit at a make whole because the owners brought us to that point. What have the playes brought to the table that has told you and I that they are actually negotiating? All the do is spin proposals that don't even speak the same language. Owners agree to make whole and what do the players want... They want "make whole" plus their entire contracts!! Just plain stupid. All of their numbers assume NHL revenue cotinues to grow. Are you freaking kidding me! Are players that stupid that they believe Revenue will not be impacted by this Sh&t show. No they are not stupid, but Fehr is filling their heads with unrealistic expectations!
- TSTER

How am I not making much sense. When I state the same thing as you did in your opening point? That both sides need to give! If your saying that the players don't speak the language of the NHL, which is we want everything from you, yea you're right. They don't, nor should they.
They wan't make whole plus their entire contracts? Now that doesn't make any sense. The NHL Make Whole offer is based on NHL revenue continuing to grow, at a 5% rate to be specific. Is the NHL that stupid that they beleive revenue will not be impacted by the lockout? It seems as though you don't have the facts.

How am I not making much sense. When I state the same thing as you did in your opening point? That both sides need to give! If your saying that the players don't speak the language of the NHL, which is we want everything from you, yea you're right. They don't, nor should they.
They wan't make whole plus their entire contracts? Now that doesn't make any sense. The NHL Make Whole offer is based on NHL revenue continuing to grow, at a 5% rate to be specific. Is the NHL that stupid that they beleive revenue will not be impacted by the lockout? It seems as though you don't have the facts.
- MJL

i think that will be honestly be the final sticking point when they get to it

the players will want this years pay in full.. the owners will want to pay them the same percentage as games played

The mere fact that they are being asked to give shouldn't be seen as an insult. I don't think anyone outside of the players themselves think that 50/50 is an insult but more likely a more rational ratio. Hockey players get a higher percentage of revenue than any other league and that's not sustainable.

I'm hearing alot of pride and ego from the players side rather than a rational discussion of the economic reality. Players would rather lose $2 billion so they can say they saved $400 million. The $1.6 billion lost never enters the equation.
- Flyers_01

Fine. Go to 50-50 on a go-forward basis but man and up and pay the contracts you agreed to sign under the old CBA. It's that simple. This debacle is totally on the owners. I haven't heard a rational argument that refutes this simple solution.

This CBA isn't even about how much the players make - its about putting rules in place for owners to control their own general managers. They got their wonderful salary cap last time, but they franked it up themselves and came up with creative ways to circumvent their own vaunted 'system'. Boo hoo, NHL. Bettman has collossally failed as a steward of the game.

Look Gary & Donnie:
This is how we will do it. We bring you guys into a room with one ref. We bring out the electronic scales. We place your balls on the scales. Heaviest balls win. Negotiations over. Lets play HOCKEY!!!!!

i understand that.

but here is the truth about a couple things

the league does not have to pay NBC back for missed games til the end of the deal.. which is ten years from now


- Dozzer

Let me ask you a simple question. That year tacked on to the end of the TV deal that accounts for the lockout. If the Season is lost, NBC will get that year on this time periods cost. Who is that a good deal for? You don't see what that year could be worth to the NHL in a potential new TV deal for the League 10 years from now? The NHL loses it's shirt in that situation. And based on the potential of growth, NBC get's that year for peanuts on the back end.

i
and while you are correct about wanting to grow the game, they are still businessmen, and they want to close the loopholes that were in the last CBA

think about it.. at the beginning, we knew the owners were shooting for a 50/50 split.. thats why they initially proposed the 43%, which is the flip of 57%. if you remember the players were never intent on conceding to a 50/50 split.. but hey.. here we are.

the owners know damn well they just have to sit and wait. because simply, to them, growing the business is moot when the players are walking away with all the profits.. forbes magazine had 18 teams in the red last season. so you are right, the owners want to make money, and thats what this is about. the make whole provision might burn them in the first couple years of the deal, but in the end contract value would become far more managable. thats the give.. the problem is the PA doesnt consider that a give.

just you wait.. the owners will sit tight until they get a deal they like.
- Dozzer

And gain, I'll ask the question, if the Owners are going to just sit tight until they get a deal they like. Why did they give the players a better deal in the last Make Whole deal, then they did the previous one? That tells you that the Owners don't want to just sit tight. I disagree that the players were never intent on conceding to a 50/50 split. The players have know that was the end game all along. The League does not need to take away all the contract issues to close the loopholes. All they really need is the 5% variance in yearly salaries.

Should the players be asked to give, and not expect anything in return? I agree that 50/50 is a reasonable ratio. But that still doesn't change the fact that they are giving in that. That can't be ignored. So in a deal that is supposed to be give and take, what do the players get out of it? The NHL's vision of a new deal is 50/50 and taking contract rights away from the players. How is that reasonable? And how is that not insulting to the players?
- MJL

Again with the rhetoric. "Taking contract rights away" sounds more evil than "negotiating new contract rights". The NHL has said they are willing to negotiate the changes to the players contract rights. The NHLPA has characterized it the same as you. Personally, some of the loopholes in the salary cap need to be closed so that things are better for everyone but the owners have indicated that there is room for negotiation, the players have not.

There should be no concessions for the 50/50 above the "make whole". The teams need to not go bankrupt trying to keep their salaries above the salary cap floor. That's good business for the players (the majority) as well as the owners.

Fine. Go to 50-50 on a go-forward basis and man and up and pay the contracts you agreed to sign under the old contract. It's that simple, isn't it. It's on the owners, people.
- triggermartin

and if they say no?

most teams take losses and are tax write offs anyways

that wont change under a lockout

look at it from the owners perspective.. they have nothing to lose here.. sure there is the corporate support but hell.. thats already damaged for this season.. so really.. no pressure there. the tv deal is in place for 10 years (why do you think bettman was so gung ho to get the deal done last year?) and any games missed doesnt have to be paid back to NBC til the end of the contract.

when hockey begins again the owners have the advantage of a large network deal.. that alone will help to rebound the game. regardless of what happens, when hockey starts up again NBC will market it hard.. they simply have placed too much of an investment in it not to. that alone will recoup most of the fairweather fans.

I am full of rage and I think I have finally crossed over into the non beleiver category. I no longer beleive we will see hockey this year. I really don't like the way Don Fehr is handling this and in all honesty the players are too stupid to know any better. I am a bitter, bitter man today.

Again with the rhetoric. "Taking contract rights away" sounds more evil than "negotiating new contract rights". The NHL has said they are willing to negotiate the changes to the players contract rights. The NHLPA has characterized it the same as you. Personally, some of the loopholes in the salary cap need to be closed so that things are better for everyone but the owners have indicated that there is room for negotiation, the players have not.

There should be no concessions for the 50/50 above the "make whole". The teams need to not go bankrupt trying to keep their salaries above the salary cap floor. That's good business for the players (the majority) as well as the owners.
- Flyers_01

You call my reply rhetoroic. I call your reply spin. The NHL is absolutely trying to take contract rights away from the players. No matter how you spin it, that's what it comes down to. What's not good business for the players is accepting make whole and losing all the contract rights. And closing those loopholes aren't neccesarily better for the players.
The NHL says there is room for negotiation. The PA says they were told that if they want to talk they have to accept that there is no room there for negotiation. So who do you want to beleive?

Fine. Go to 50-50 on a go-forward basis but man and up and pay the contracts you agreed to sign under the old contract. It's that simple. This debacle is totally on the owners. I haven't heard a rational argument that refutes this simple solution.
- triggermartin

My personal favorite solution to that dilemma is to keep the contracts at full value but get rid of guaranteed contracts. If you can't afford Parise under the salary cap then you have to release him into the open market. Otherwise, pay him what you agreed to. If the player doesn't play up to the level we was when he signed the contract, cut him. It works out well for the NFL, I don't know why it wouldn't work out for the NHL. The only thing worse than overpaying for a player is when the player coasts after getting a longterm contract. It will result in a better product on the ice when players know they can't coast until the year their contract is up. It will also help sad sack teams turn around when they overpay someone like Yashin and are stuck paying him for years of mediocrity.

i think that will be honestly be the final sticking point when they get to it

the players will want this years pay in full.. the owners will want to pay them the same percentage as games played
- Dozzer

That is a reasonable speculation based on the PA saying that need to decide who pays for this lockout. But there are other possibilities there. I'm going to wait until that is actually made known what is going to happen, before passing judgement.

I am full of rage and I think I have finally crossed over into the non beleiver category. I no longer beleive we will see hockey this year. I really don't like the way Don Fehr is handling this and in all honesty the players are too stupid to know any better. I am a bitter, bitter man today.
- xxCHRISTOFIRExx

What's wrong with Fehr's handling of this? If anyone is unreasonable here, its the NHL.

Ek

You cant keep that meter at almost to over the hump for weeks on end. Taking so long means NO PROGRESS. Simple. If they meet the highest you could move it could be "could go either way". If they walk away then back to no progress. If they say they have agreed to the frame work, move it to progress, when they start working on details move it to "over the hump".

After weeks of this you really have to realize progress is not being made. If we had made progress we would be looking at a start date in the near future. That has even been talked about. it is still being discussed they may cancel the season.

That on the other hand is just smoke.....the season is already done. They just dont want to piss off fans more than they already have.

I would like TSN et al. to start to really bash both the NHL and NHLPA and really get the fans on the media side to publicly put pressure on both of them. Show them how pissed off everyone is and force this. But they are just as bad as they dont want to rock the boat and piss off their contacts that leak info to them.

If the media really started to push this in a much more negative forum that may show both sides the fans have the control over their revenue.

My personal favorite solution to that dilemma is to keep the contracts at full value but get rid of guaranteed contracts. If you can't afford Parise under the salary cap then you have to release him into the open market. Otherwise, pay him what you agreed to. If the player doesn't play up to the level we was when he signed the contract, cut him. It works out well for the NFL, I don't know why it wouldn't work out for the NHL. The only thing worse than overpaying for a player is when the player coasts after getting a longterm contract. It will result in a better product on the ice when players know they can't coast until the year their contract is up. It will also help sad sack teams turn around when they overpay someone like Yashin and are stuck paying him for years of mediocrity.
- Flyers_01

The union would have to be broken to pieces before that would ever happen. Guaranteed contracts would NEVER be given up by a Fehr-led NHLPA, nor should they. The owners should take their responsibility and pay up for the poopty contracts they agree to signing. It's a business transaction, and if they are not good businessmen, well, tough poop.

Let me ask you a simple question. That year tacked on to the end of the TV deal that accounts for the lockout. If the Season is lost, NBC will get that year on this time periods cost. Who is that a good deal for? You don't see what that year could be worth to the NHL in a potential new TV deal for the League 10 years from now? The NHL loses it's shirt in that situation. And based on the potential of growth, NBC get's that year for peanuts on the back end.





And gain, I'll ask the question, if the Owners are going to just sit tight until they get a deal they like. Why did they give the players a better deal in the last Make Whole deal, then they did the previous one? That tells you that the Owners don't want to just sit tight. I disagree that the players were never intent on conceding to a 50/50 split. The players have know that was the end game all along. The League does not need to take away all the contract issues to close the loopholes. All they really need is the 5% variance in yearly salaries.
- MJL

you are missing my main point (i apologize if i dont address everything you said, tough to do with these longer posts)

anyways i feel that what owners stand to lose in their tv deal is far less than what they lose in a player favoured CBA.

and i disagree 100% that they do not need to change the way salaries are worked.. richards for example.. you kidding me? you think he ever intends on playing out that contract?

no way.

this is what needs to happen..

A: players accept more stringent rules when it comes to signing new contracts (i do agree that current contracts should be paid out in full.. the teams who signed them did so knowingly)

or

B: simply stop averaging out salaries. your cap hit is what you earn. problem solved.

the nhl wont give in til that loophole is closed somehow.. its all about how it gets closed.. the PA should recognize this and table an offer that closes it in a way they prefer.. so long as it gets closed i think the NHL would bite..

but that contractual loophole needs to close..thats just the simple truth of it. like it or not i dont think the owners will fold til they get that.

That is a reasonable speculation based on the PA saying that need to decide who pays for this lockout. But there are other possibilities there. I'm going to wait until that is actually made known what is going to happen, before passing judgement.
- MJL

yeah, thats why i used the words "i think"... cause i can admit i am as clueless as to whats really happening as anyone else is.

You call my reply rhetoroic. I call your reply spin. The NHL is absolutely trying to take contract rights away from the players. No matter how you spin it, that's what it comes down to. What's not good business for the players is accepting make whole and losing all the contract rights. And closing those loopholes aren't neccesarily better for the players.
The NHL says there is room for negotiation. The PA says they were told that if they want to talk they have to accept that there is no room there for negotiation. So who do you want to beleive?
- MJL

Given Gary Bettman's CBA history, I'll believe the players.