Yeah but you have to think they knew it was going down in the next CBA, maybe not 10 million but they knew it was going to be a gamble either way.
- Vukota

IMO a drop of $10M vs. a drop of $5M is enormous. $5M I'd say well worth the risks, be creative, make it work.

IMO a drop of $10M vs. a drop of $5M is enormous. $5M I'd say well worth the risks, be creative, make it work.
- mrhattrick27

I agree its a big difference. Hopefully it doesn't work out for you guys

It's not money owed to the players already? Please explain how it isn't?
- MJL

That doesn't mean it is not a concession.

The players have to take this. For MJL, there ARE things the owners gave players here that are improvements on the last CBA for players. They must take this deal:

http://espn.go.com/blog/n...s-of-nhls-dec-27-proposal
- mrhattrick27

I agree With a few exceptions, it's a good deal. And there are some good things in there for the players. We'll see what the NHLPA response is.

That doesn't mean it is not a concession.
- rmdevil313

So agreeing to keep something the same is a concession?

It's not money owed to the players already? Please explain how it isn't?
- MJL

Mainly, because nothing is owed to the players.. The Make Whole provision was introduced to kinda "cushion the blow" of getting to a 50/50 split. Had the owners not included this in their offers, the PA wouldn't get anything.

So agreeing to keep something the same is a concession?
- MJL

The Owners: We need to move down to 50/50 for the league to be healthy. Until then, we will shutdown the league.

Players: OK, we will take 50/50, but we want you to give us money that we signed for under the last CBA.

Owners: Fair enough.

Under the definition of concession bargaining, that is a concession.

The Owners: We need to move down to 50/50 for the league to be healthy. Until then, we will shutdown the league.

Players: OK, we will take 50/50, but we want you to give us money that we signed for under the last CBA.

Owners: Fair enough.

Under the definition of concession bargaining, that is a concession.
- rmdevil313

No, not money signed for under the last CBA. Money that was agreed to in individual SPC's that are still in effect.

I don't see it as a concession, but you might.

The Owners: We need to move down to 50/50 for the league to be healthy. Until then, we will shutdown the league.

Players: OK, we will take 50/50, but we want you to give us money that we signed for under the last CBA.

Owners: Fair enough.

Under the definition of concession bargaining, that is a concession.
- rmdevil313

+1.

So agreeing to keep something the same is a concession?
- MJL

Going from 57% to 50% isn't keeping something the same...


Dang, where is that book again...

Oh here it is;

Mainly, because nothing is owed to the players.. The Make Whole provision was introduced to kinda "cushion the blow" of getting to a 50/50 split. Had the owners not included this in their offers, the PA wouldn't get anything.
- PatC80

Incorrect. Players are owed what is in their signed contracts. Subject to any conditions of the new CBA that is agreed to.

No, not money signed for under the last CBA. Money that was agreed to in individual SPC's that are still in effect.

I don't see it as a concession, but you might.
- MJL

Not the first time you argue against a definition. Like I said, write a book. The whole world has it wrong according to you.

Going from 57% to 50% isn't keeping something the same...


Dang, where is that book again...

Oh here it is;



- PatC80

Exactly. That is a concession to the Owners from the players.

No, not money signed for under the last CBA. Money that was agreed to in individual SPC's that are still in effect.

I don't see it as a concession, but you might.
- MJL

Here's what I don't get. Waht is a concession in terms of $$ then. If the players had 57% anything less than that players will view as a concession on their part. Then what can the NHL do to conceed something back? Essentially, according to you, the NHL can never agree to pay players less money.

Not the first time you argue against a definition. Like I said, write a book. The whole world has it wrong according to you.
- rmdevil313

I'm not arguing against a definition at all. You may simply interpret it differently then I do.

Hey Ek,

Spector on NHL referenced you in his article today as the original source for the new offer.
Can the rest of the foul mouthed idiots on here shut their yap for a little while now?
Not likely, but dare to dream.
Keep up the good work!

Here's what I don't get. Waht is a concession in terms of $$ then. If the players had 57% anything less than that players will view as a concession on their part. Then what can the NHL do to conceed something back? Essentially, according to you, the NHL can never agree to pay players less money.
- mrhattrick27

There are some things in the NHL's new offer that I view as a concession to the players. In terms of money, it was always going to be the players giving a concession to the Owners on that. It was just a question of how much.

I'm not arguing against a definition at all. You may simply interpret it differently then I do.
- MJL

You "interpret" things differently than the rest of the world then.
Can you please give me an example of concession bargaining in the real world? I will show you how both sides make concessions, regardless of what the previous terms were.

Hey Ek,

Spector on NHL referenced you in his article today as the original source for the new offer.
Can the rest of the foul mouthed idiots on here shut their yap for a little while now?
Not likely, but dare to dream.
Keep up the good work!
- Hartless13

You should help Ek keep up the good work...buy a season ticket from him. $19.99 and you get full access to the rumour chart.

Hey Ek,

Spector on NHL referenced you in his article today as the original source for the new offer.
Can the rest of the foul mouthed idiots on here shut their yap for a little while now?
Not likely, but dare to dream.
Keep up the good work!
- Hartless13

Pierre LeBrun and Darren Dreger on twitter also pointed out Ek broke the story

Pierre LeBrun and Darren Dreger on twitter also pointed out Ek broke the story
- sjshrky27

So did Mack.

Hey Ek,

Spector on NHL referenced you in his article today as the original source for the new offer.
Can the rest of the foul mouthed idiots on here shut their yap for a little while now?Not likely, but dare to dream.
Keep up the good work!
- Hartless13

Hey! I resemble that comment!

You should help Ek keep up the good work...buy a season ticket from him. $19.99 and you get full access to the rumour chart.

- Pen15

Ek?

You "interpret" things differently than the rest of the world then.
Can you please give me an example of concession bargaining in the real world? I will show you how both sides make concessions, regardless of what the previous terms were.
- rmdevil313

You can bring up any issue you want from this lockout and I'll give you my opinion on who is giving the concession.

The NHL has moved on every proposal they have offered the NHLPA. If the players don't accept this new one. There will be no hockey this year and it will be the players fault in my eyes. Not sure why a player is telling TSN that the players will have a problem with the salary cap being at 60 million this year. That shouldn't even be a concern of the players that is the owners concern.