shortage of napkins...
- Symba007

That means nothing. Just like last CBA the owners got their Cap yet still lost.

Both sides blinked on this one. Hard to say who won or lost when the battle is still going on...
- Gunslinger

How did they lose the last CBA?

Problem is the PA did blink. The owners got the 50/50 split. Negotiating over things like contract length is nothing, and the players still lost that battle too
- Cheeseballin

Everyone knew it was going to be a 50/50 split, that was never something the players were going to be able to prevent, all they cared about was the transition and making sure their contracts got "made whole". Blinking would have meant that they accepted a deal in which they got less than 50% revenue, no make whole payments and the loss of guaranteed contracts.

How did they lose the last CBA?
- Cheeseballin

Really?

That means nothing. Just like last CBA the owners got their Cap yet still lost.

Both sides blinked on this one. Hard to say who won or lost when the battle is still going on...
- Gunslinger

I think it's safe to say that all sides have lost. Including the fans. I don't see how anyone can be considered a winner at this point.

It was self explanatory. If the NHL had made the offer they recently made back in October. It would have led to a quick deal in my opinion. With no games lost.
- MJL

Nope!

Why would the PA have accepted that offer? The offer made NOW is good enough and relative to NOW.

The PA brought in Fehr for a fight, not to accept early offers REGARDLESS of how "reasonable" they were.

Considering that Fehr/PA only submitted their first real proposal in November, it looks fairly evident that they never had any intention to accept an offer while time was still on their side.

I think it's safe to say that all sides have lost. Including the fans. I don't see how anyone can be considered a winner at this point.
- MJL

Agreed. Both sides have lost, both sides have been a joke. What I dont see is how someone can actually take one side over the other, whether its pro PA or pro Owner.

Everyone knew it was going to be a 50/50 split, that was never something the players were going to be able to prevent, all they cared about was the transition and making sure their contracts got "made whole". Blinking would have meant that they accepted a deal in which they got less than 50% revenue, no make whole payments and the loss of guaranteed contracts.
- DariusKnight

So they were negotiating to prevent from losing anything more. They havent "won" anything, they have just prevented an even worse situation for themselves. You got it.

shortage of napkins...
- Symba007

If that wasn't an insult?...

Nope!

Why would the PA have accepted that offer? The offer made NOW is good enough and relative to NOW.

The PA brought in Fehr for a fight, not to accept early offers REGARDLESS of how "reasonable" they were.

Considering that Fehr/PA only submitted their first real proposal in November, it looks fairly evident that they never had any intention to accept an offer while time was still on their side.
- As_I_See_It

Nope!

Why would the PA have accepted that offer? The offer made NOW is good enough and relative to NOW.

The PA brought in Fehr for a fight, not to accept early offers REGARDLESS of how "reasonable" they were.

Considering that Fehr/PA only submitted their first real proposal in November, it looks fairly evident that they never had any intention to accept an offer while time was still on their side.
- As_I_See_It

Because that offer would've gotten them close to a deal then, just as it has now. Especially when you remove the lost pay check factor. The PA brought in Fehr to stand up for the players rights. Not to pick a fight just to pick one. There wouldn't be a fight if there wasn't a need for one. If the NHL had submitted the offer they last made in October. The NHLPA would've responded with a "real proposal". And there would've been an excellent chance of not missing any games.

Agreed. Both sides have lost, both sides have been a joke. What I dont see is how someone can actually take one side over the other, whether its pro PA or pro Owner.
- Gunslinger

Only people who really lose are the fans. The owners and players will go back to making millions.

I'm gonna go on the record here by saying applesauce is some damn good poop.

- Gunslinger

I do that after a heavy night drinking. It improves my gas mileage.

Only people who really lose are the fans. The owners and players will go back to making millions.
- Cheeseballin

Not really. Im a fan and I havent lost (frank) all. Im making the same amount whether they play or not.

Yea exactly. Thats why I dont understand how people can think the PA has won anything on the owners.
- Cheeseballin

The irony of all these CBA's is that the players always seem to end up winning...

Love that show. Rod Serling
- Gunslinger

YES ME TOO. I don't find that on TV anymore

I do that after a heavy night drinking. It improves my gas mileage.
- As_I_See_It

Its also what the NHL/NHLPA are doing to fans who take this personally.

Not really. Im a fan and I havent lost (frank) all. Im making the same amount whether they play or not.
- Gunslinger

I did not mean in terms of money. In terms of seeing no NHL hockey.

So they were negotiating to prevent from losing anything more. They havent "won" anything, they have just prevented an even worse situation for themselves. You got it.
- Cheeseballin

Right, which in itself is a victory, if everyone expects you to lose badly, but you manage to limit the damage, that's a win. Winning and losing is relative anyways and nobody's going to be able to say if any side won until after the deal ends. I personally think the players are going to end up losing by the end myself, strictly because I have a hard time seeing the growth the sport had before the lockout replicated or increasing and with no cap on escrow, it's likely the players will end up getting less than 50% share by the time the CBA expires. Star players will be paid, but there won't be a middle class anymore in the NHL, so likely you'll have 1 superstar paid the lions share of the cap and the rest will be rookies/second/third year players on entry level deals, or players being paid the minimum or slightly more.

YES ME TOO. I don't find that on anymore
- GCHonda

Its still on!

Not sure exactly which channels but ive seen it on many times later at night. I think channel NTV or CHCH or some crap like that.

The irony of all these CBA's is that the players always seem to end up winning...
- Flyfreaky

HEY FF, did Glucky post any hot pics from his New Years eve night at Wayne Gretzky's pub with the 4 yoga pants babes???

I'm gonna go on the record here by saying applesauce is some damn good poop.
- Giroux_Is_God

its ok

I did not mean in terms of money. In terms of seeing no NHL hockey.
- Cheeseballin

Speaking of

How is my inability to watch NHL hockey a bigger loss than people losing millions of dollars?

Right, which in itself is a victory, if everyone expects you to lose badly, but you manage to limit the damage, that's a win. Winning and losing is relative anyways and nobody's going to be able to say if any side won until after the deal ends. I personally think the players are going to end up losing by the end myself, strictly because I have a hard time seeing the growth the sport had before the lockout replicated or increasing and with no cap on escrow, it's likely the players will end up getting less than 50% share by the time the CBA expires. Star players will be paid, but there won't be a middle class anymore in the NHL, so likely you'll have 1 superstar paid the lions share of the cap and the rest will be rookies/second/third year players on entry level deals, or players being paid the minimum or slightly more.
- DariusKnight

The only way the players can get less then 50% is if that is negotiated in the CBA. Which I don't think it will be. Whether revenue grows or shrinks. The players are still going to get the percentage of revenue that is negotiated in the deal.