NHL offers 50/50 split

[Ravin]

The NHL put a new offer on the bargaining table for the NHL Players' Association on Tuesday morning, which includes a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue across the board and contingent on an 82-game season beginning Nov. 2.

"We hope we've given our best shot," NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told reporters on Tuesday afternoon.

Bettman added that the offer calls for no salary rollback and the revised schedule - if implemented - would see every team play an extra game every five weeks.

Negotiations resumed Tuesday in Toronto in the NHL's labour dispute with the NHL Players Association - the first in five days following two days of meetings in New York last week. Key negotiators Bettman, Bill Daly and Donald and Steve Fehr were in attendance as both sides looked to start bridging the gap on core economic issues.

Both sides have communicated regularly since the lockout began on Sept. 15, but with little to no progress so far as the meetings have focused on non-core economic discussions.

Neither side had formally tabled an offer since Sept. 12.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407490


This would make Ravin very happy if NHL started back up on Nov 2.


IMO though, if the players dont accept the 50/50 split, the season is done. This is like a make or break deal right here. Right down the middle, everyone gets an equal piece. Players are still gaining from their previous 43% I believe, and everything is equal. Other then side issue holding this up, I can't see a reason on the big issue why this should be a problem.

The NHL is in the stage of growth right now, and the players wanting 57% is insane. Work your way up, don't just demand it.

Only thing is, I don't know if they can get a season ready by Nov 2. That is only 16 days away.

 

[Fappin Raptor]

I won't be able to survive the winter with the Pistons on tv every other night.

 

[MVPete]

Get this done ffs.

 

[wingsfan77]

Yeah there's really no reason for them not to accept that, here's to hoping.

 

[Ravin]

So here is the timeline on events if everything went straight forward.

October 16th - Offer made
October 17th to October 25th - Timeline for the NHLPA to go through the offer and accept it
October 26th to November 1st - One week Trainging Camp
November 2nd - Puck drop for 82 game NHL season.

I hope this is the timeline they keep to, and we get NHL hockey back soon. Players would play 1 extra game every five weeks to make up those games lost, but everything would still end at the normal time.

 

[PP]

:fap: give me my bruins back.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

Wow, I really hope this happens. Would be difficult for the players to turn down, and as Ravin said, they should work their way up to 57.

 

[wr50l]

NHL is still giving up nothing that they currently have. Still taking with demands for 8 years before free agency.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

LOL, as any baseball fan will tell you, Donald Fehr will never take that deal. He will destroy your sport before he concedes a penny to the owners.

The owners are bending over backwards, here. No excuses from the union now, take the deal.

 

[dave]

LOL, as any baseball fan will tell you, Donald Fehr will never take that deal. He will destroy your sport before he concedes a penny to the owners.

The owners are bending over backwards, here. No excuses from the union now, take the deal.

You know nothing about the NHL. You're just spewing your anti-union rhetoric. A person who has neither sat on either table during a union/management negotiation.

As a man who believes in freedom, should NHL players be restricted to 5-year max deals? Shouldn't they be allowed to be free market players?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You know nothing about the NHL. You're just spewing your anti-union rhetoric. A person who has neither sat on either table during a union/management negotiation.

As a man who believes in freedom, should NHL players be restricted to 5-year max deals? Shouldn't they be allowed to be free market players?

Of course I have never sat in on a union negotiation, I have a brain, I would never work in a union shop nor would I ever employ greedy union workers.

The owners have conceded 7% of their revenue, 50-50, right down the middle, which is quite generous and more than I would ever give those leeches. They would break eventually, they always do. The owners will always be rich, the players need the money.

From what I have read, i'm on the fence when it comes to the contract length restrictions. On one hand, the owners created that monster. On the other hand, there are solid points to be made why these obscenely long deals are bad for the long term health of the sport. So I don't know. What I do know, is the owners are no doubt smarter than the players, so if they concede they were wrong and think they need to correct their previous mistakes and limit these deals, I would tend to trust their judgement.

The owners clearly want hockey back. Union, your move.

 

[dave]

You can't be knowledgable on a management/union negotiation. You have never sat in on talks. I have.

You pretend to be knowledgable, but have no actual experience. I have negotiated a contract. You pretend to know what that feels like.

 

[wr50l]

The owners haven't given up anything. Let's take this back to the last CBA, where the players conceded to a salary cap. So the owners set up the current situation that they now want to change in their favour again. Again, the owners are not conceding anything here; all they are doing is moving (finally) from their absolutely scandalous original bargaining position. If you demand that you don't have to pay the contracts you've already agreed then say, 'ok we'll honour those deals' or if you demand a 14% pay rise then say 'ok we'll settle for a 7% pay rise' then you aren't conceding anything.

I don't even care that much where the split ends up as long as the owners who are completely non-essential to the product aren't getting any more than half of it. 50-50 is perfectly fine in my opinion, but the league has gone and twisted the public into completely ignoring the rest of this offer which will still be an owner's kind of setup, and crucially won't solve the problem that around half the league will still make a loss and some of those teams have almost no potential to make a profit in the next decade. Dead in the water teams such Phoenix are only in Phoenix losing money because the owners' employee and biggest wanker in the world Gary Bettman insists on it.

The players and their big bad world conquering union won't look like the heroes, but again it will be them who take the concessions to get back on the ice, and again they'll make the league record profits and the owners still won't be ecstatic.

The owners clearly want hockey back. Union, your move.

The owners opened up with a hard line offer which was never going to work, then locked out the league despite players offering to play under the current deal whilst a new CBA was agreed. I bet they don't want hockey back as much as they want to be super-rich, and I bet they don't want hockey back as much as the players, coaches and fans.

 

[wr50l]

Things the super-smart owners have done recently.

Sat and watched the Coyotes lose money in Phoenix year on year despite viable relocation opportunities.
Remained oblivious to the fact that not a single warm weather hockey club has made money year on year even with playoff appearances, and not bothered to ask that dickhead Bettman to stop being dismissive of the idea of moving some of these failures to places like Quebec City or Ontario where they would be incredibly prosperous.
Created long-term contract chaos. Continued to hand these out even in the days following their original offer which would put a limit on contract length far shorter than what they were offering.
Created massive salary inflation with front-loaded contracts.
Overpaid players who've been so bad they can't even justify playing them in the NHL; moved them to the AHL where they still get full salary to cover their recruitment errors.
Signed up a bunch of players on contracts which they intend to part-void.

They're the leeches, and they're either not that smart or they are that despicable.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Players are still gaining from their previous 43% I believe

I just read that the players actually received 57% under the last deal.

So which is it?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You can't be knowledgable on a management/union negotiation. You have never sat in on talks. I have.

You pretend to be knowledgable, but have no actual experience. I have negotiated a contract. You pretend to know what that feels like.

Once again dave, you are making things up.

I don't pretend to know anything about sitting at a negotiation table, because I would never, ever, put myself in a position to either work for or employ union labor. This isn't 1890.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I don't even care that much where the split ends up as long as the owners who are completely non-essential to the product aren't getting any more than half of it.

This is something I disagree strongly with in all of these sports labor disputes.

The owners are most definitely essential, because there are no leagues without the owners. If the owners were non-essential, work stoppages would never happen, because the players would just up and form leagues on their own without the owners. The owners are the league.

This is not chicken or egg. Neither exists without the owners.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

It wasn't immediately clear how willing the league is to negotiate off its latest offer. The NHL's previous proposal called for the players' revenue share to fall to 47 per cent and tabled a number of restrictive rules governing contracts.

According to a source, the only one that remains in Tuesday's proposal is a maximum contract length of five years. The new offer also calls for unrestricted free agency to come into effect at age 28 or after eight years of service -- one year later than the last CBA -- and keeps entry-level deals at three years.

So if I am understanding this correctly, the league is bumping their revenue offer up 3% to an even 50/50 split, while tossing out all of the new contract rule proposals with the exception of the five year contract max, and one additional year of team control before free agency.

So at the end of the day, compared to the last deal, the union loses 7% of revenue, long term contracts (which pretty much everybody concedes have spiraled out of control and are ultimately bad for the health of the sport), and would have to accept one additional year of team control before free agency.

Looks to me like the league is leaving the union some room to counter, namely the added year of team control. The union should counter with age 27, seven year free agency, and maybe add some years to the max deals. The league would probably take that.

The bottom line, is you will not convince the league to keep allowing teams to lose money. The union has to take a hit, here.

 

[wr50l]

I just read that the players actually received 57% under the last deal.

So which is it?

You read correctly. Ravin the budding hockey journalist is wrong, oh lawd.

 

[wr50l]

So if I am understanding this correctly, the league is bumping their revenue offer up 3% to an even 50/50 split, while tossing out all of the new contract rule proposals with the exception of the five year contract max, and one additional year of team control before free agency.

So at the end of the day, compared to the last deal, the union loses 7% of revenue and long term contracts (which pretty much everybody concedes have spiraled out of control and are ultimately bad for the health of the sport), and would have to accept one additional year of team control before free agency.

Looks to me like the league is leaving the union some room to counter, namely the added year of team control. The union should counter with age 27, seven year free agency, and maybe add some years to the max deals. The league would probably take that.

The bottom line, is you will not convince the league to keep allowing teams to lose money. The union has to take a hit, here.

Pretty much I guess. But what sticks in my craw is the way NHL fans have orgasm'd over this offer to the extent that the players are going to get no credit or backing now. They are still taking a loss on the deal even if they end up 50-50 and minus any new restrictions on free agency. More worryingly to be honest, this doesn't address fundamental issues that the owners refuse to look at i.e the teams that still won't make a profit even with a new, lower cap-ceiling.