It’s kind of annoying because so many people saw things unfolding as it appears they are, but we’ll take it. Beggars can’t be choosers after all, so here we go: it seems as though the NHL has made a new CBA proposal to the NHLPA, in which they’ve made a couple concessions. With the media’s attention turned to the World Junior Championship and the Spengler Cup (we’re desperate), it’s the perfect time for the two sides to actually get to work and get this deal done. Here’s what we know so far:

 

 

But wait, there’s more!

 

 

  Lebrun’s information was confirmed by other quality sources. Dreger added:

And Elliotte Friedman weighed in as well:

 

 

So there you have it. A considerably less qualified source claims the two sides will meet at some point today. More on this as it develops, but this morning, there seems to be some light – a pinhole, at least – at the end of the tunnel.

***

 UPDATES:  

 

 

 

 

  Eek!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then…there’s this does of realism from Chris Botta:

 

Bill Daly has confirmed that they have, in fact, delivered the NHLPA a new CBA proposal.

“In light of media reports this morning, I can confirm that we delivered to the Union a new, comprehensive proposal for a successor CBA late yesterday afternoon. We are not prepared to discuss the details of our proposal at this time. We are hopeful that once the Union’s staff and negotiating committee have had an opportunity to thoroughly review and consider our new proposal, they will share it with the players. We want to be back on the ice as soon as possible.”

Comments (18)

  1. Concessions makes it sound like the owners were actually giving something up. It should read something like “NHL has made NHLPA a new offer: Backs off some on outrageous demands.”

    • Other than the 50/50 split, I haven’t seen the NHLPA making any concessions. The NHL concedes something that the NHLPA claims is the sticking point, then the NHLPA says that there’s a different sticking point (and the process starts all over again). 18 of the 30 teams lost money, the deal needs to go the owners way. The players will still make boatloads of cash.

      • How do you define concessions though? Would it not be movement from the status quo? Every NHLPA offer has included major concessions from the beginning. The difference is the placement of the bargaining points makes it look like a meeting in the middle, when no matter how you look at it, there will end up being MAJOR concessions by the players and none by the owners. So far I have yet to see a single bargaining point that is better for the players compared to the previous CBA.

    • Concur.

  2. Devils Win, I have only seen one thing that doesn’t involve the NHLPA making concessions. Other than increased revenue sharing coming from the oweners, please name something that the NHLPA gains from the last CBA to this one.

    • Spot on- the owners only concession was increased revenue sharing. Even then, I don’t think the amount they have agreed to boost will have that much of an effect on some of the poorer teams, but at least they’re moving in the right direction.

    • Again, 18 of 30 teams lost money last year. How many concessions should the owners be making? Should we aim for more teams to lose money?

      • Are you including teams where they had near capacity crowds but still don’t know how to run an effective budget like the Caps?

        • If you leave out the Leafs, Rangers, and Habs, the remaining 27 teams lost a total of 44 million. If you drop Edmonton and Vancouver from the 27 teams, the remaining 25 lost 86 million. So yeah, I am including the Caps.

        • By the way, part of running an effective budget is not paying players 57% of the revenue. That had to change in these negotiations. Dropping to 50% will help a lot of teams that are losing a little money…for other teams, like Phoenix, they’re going to lose a ton one way or the other.

      • I didn’t say the players shouldn’t help, I was just responding to your assertion that “Other than the 50/50 split, I haven’t seen the NHLPA making any concessions.” I stand by my original post.
        The increased revenue sharing will drop that 18 teams stat. Also, that only includes HRR. Most teams make money in areas not on the ice. There was an article on Puck Daddy yesterday explaining that a cancelled season would actually make the Coyotes profitable.

  3. It sounds like the NHL is still proposing a $60 Mil cap for 2013-14. I would bet that will be the hangup on this deal. Still too much of players’ salaries going into escrow. They’re likely going to have to come off that number by a few million, maybe to 63 or so, to get a deal done. Players will still feel like they’re not honoring current contracts.

  4. So this would be “the offer Bettman had in his drawer the whole time”?
    There isn’t a great reason for players to object to this one, buy-outs going against players share but not cap is fair.
    Since players lose a lot in any negotiation, 8-10 year CBA is a win for them.
    They know 50/50 was necessary, so an expected loss there.
    Six-year UFAs, seven-years for players returning to same team makes a lot of sense. There really hasn’t been a contract over 7 years that has looked good yet (for players or owners). They result in players facing higher criticisms and being trade bait.
    10% flexibility is reasonable, everyone knew the front-loaded, back diving contracts were terrible.
    Sign this and game on! (Oh, and free game center for fans so I can cancel cable!)

    • I think the players actually win with shorter-term contracts. The more times a player is a UFA, the more cash he’s likely to get overall. Just look at how much salaries have gone up from the beginning of the last CBA to the present. The only exception is if you know your skills are seriously deteriorating, in which case, you’re unlikely to be offered a long-term contract in any event.

  5. Devils Win, keep in mind that “lost money” is based on cooking the books akin to Hollywood Accounting. It comes from the owers’ self-report of what they’re counting as hockey-related-revenue, and most often DOES NOT COUNT things that they make tons of money on directly because of their hockey teams, like arena parking. So it’s not entirely accurate to say that the majority of the teams are actually losing money; just that they’re claiming to.

    Although apparently, most of the changes they want are to tell they playes “Hey, don’t let us sign you to these contracts we’ve been signing you to! Please stop us from messing up our own budgets!” It makes it hard for me to find sympathy when they game the system that they created with the last CBA, when they got everything they wanted, and then claim that they can’t function under their own rules.

    • “Their own rules” were not actually fully their rules. They were negotiated in the last CBA with the union. The union’s role in those negotiations was to leave as many loopholes as possible in the deal.

      Unfortunately, many teams can spend as much money as they like (New York, Philly, etc), which forces less financially sound teams into a situation where they can either sign players to insane contracts, or they can have a terrible team and hemorrage fans. The math on the last CBA has expanded the cap ceiling (and floor) way too much and too fast for about half of the teams in the league. Frankly, in my ideal world, the cap should be static except for an inflation adjustment – there’s no way the union would go for that though.

  6. fak hky and all of u

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *