So much for the positive vibes from yesterday's NHL CBA negotiation session in which the players submitted their much celebrated proposal to the owners, as both sides are said to be far apart after today's follow-up meeting...
Bettman adds that the players proposal didn't respond to theirs & didn't acknowledge industry trends.
NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr says the reason a wide economic gulf remains between the sides is because of the NHL's original proposal.
Don Fehr says players have been advised to prepare for the worst case scenario (lockout). "You hope for the best but prepare for the worst."— Chris Johnston (@reporterchris) August 15, 2012
Fehr closed by saying the players gave up a lot last time and aren't prepared to do so again.
Both sides are not expected to meet again until next Wednesday.
Pro Hockey Talk has more.
...there are such huge swings with these negotiations, I'm not sure I can take it anymore. One day it seems like guaranteed lockout, the next like an agreement is forthcoming. Today is a bad day for hockey fans. But there's always tomorrow to give us false hope.
Michael Grange at Sportsnet has a great breakdown of the player's offer and why the NHL rejects it.
@TheNYRBlog @NHLPA @EkExpressen Rick Nash and Joe Thornton will play in Switzerland for Davos if there is a lockout. Ping: @TheNYRBlog
@edlofgren FYI: http://t.co/xD6TvBEw
Again, I'm not on the owners side, but I was disappointed that the players didn't comeback with a real counter offer. As soon as I heard they were presenting an alternative, I knew the league would want nothing to do with it. And I was correct. What's lazy is the players not putting together a proposal that even acknowledges the owners' plan, no matter how insane it is. While I agree that the players plan seems like a better one for the health of the league they could have done a much better job presenting it. I still think there's plenty of time to get this done, but in my opinion they'd be a lot closer if the players actually started negotiating, not lay out a plan they knew the owners would be against. I know that's exactly what the NHL did, but two wrongs don't make a right.
My buddy just reserved 10th row behind the rangers bench in LAand I was set to go to the sharks rangers the following week. WTF. Fans as always the ones who get shit on here. I fully expect a lock out now.
C'mon, you clearly deemed it a significant distinction by implying that the players should've brought a counter-proposal instead of such a radical departure from the owners' proposal. Which is my point--that thinking is equivocation b/c it buys into the owners' frame. If a bully takes a kid's lunch money you don't assume that they're both wrong and split the money between them to resolve it. Sure that's a gross simplification, but the players aren't in the wrong here for negotiating as they have. During the last lockout the owners' PR line was that it was necessary to cut costs for the good of the game so that the savings could be passed onto the fans in the form of lower ticket prices. We all know how that turned out. The owners are at least honest enough this time around to not bother floating that bs. It's lazy to view this as just two groups of millionaires fighting over who cares what. The story here is the owners jeopardizing a financially healthy NHL by hypocritically demanding an agreement to protect them from themselves, an agreement which they'll all eagerly circumvent at the first opportunity.
Actually, the only reason I used the wording alternative proposal is because that's what Fehr called it. At no point have I taken sides. To be honest I blame both sides. Doesn't seem like either party is working very hard to get this done. If they were, they wouldn't wait until next Wednesday to meet again. I don't care who wins or loses in this battle because in the end the fan always loses.
yeah, Betmann says the he and the owners have different views of the world than the players do. Guess so, when you pull down 8 mill a year for basically handing out the cup and acting like a weasel. Guess the fans view the world differently from you too, ya think?
@CinciMike is that really what Bettman makes? _ Does the NHL pay him or the owners? I wonder what he stands to make with increased revenue sharing coming directly from the players pockets.... i'd like to punch his little round head in right about now.
I like the NHLPA proposal. It seems to more effectively address the issue of small market teams (the real issue with the current NHL) rather than just the owners' pockets.
Also I don't understand how you took issue with the NHLPA's semantic gamesmanship in calling yesterday's counter-proposal an alternate proposal. Categorically, what they proposed was still a counter-proposal regardless of what they called it and had absolutely zero bearing on how the owners' group would perceive it--all that concerns them are the terms. It's a negotiation and the owners' opened large. It'd be silly to think the players wouldn't come back large. Of the two proposals, however, only the NHLPA's addressed structural league problems, even if it was light on details. The owners are just greedy here and asking Bettman to save them from themselves and the bad deals they make.
Because you've clearly accepted their framing of the issue. Why blame the players for "taking swings" when it can be easily argued that the owners' initial proposal was far more of a "swing"? The owners are the party suggesting drastic overhauls not to improve the game or achieve some degree of equitable fairness, but merely because they want a larger slice of a growing pie.
As we were discussing, think the issue is this: NHL/Owners expected to eventually land in the middle on cap/player share, concede some contract demands etc. Essentially re-base the current agreement. Players came out of left field with their proposal which places NHL in a tough position. Can't be much middle ground when proposals are fundamentally different. Think yesterdays proposal was more of a suggestion of some things they would like to see considered/included and less of an actual proposal
Fehr had to know that there was no way to meet in the middle between the two proposals and basically left it in the leagues hands to figure out how to incorporate some of the novel concepts/intentions of the #NHLPA proposal
@BuJamb I said yesterday I was concerned NHLPA submitted alternate proposal, not counter proposal. Still a month to go, so there is time to get it done. Don't like that they won't meet again till next Wednesday. They need to be back in the board room together tomorrow working this thing out.
@KevinDeLury And some % participation in growth would be shifted from players to the need based fund. Even if the cap was rolled back to 62MM and league-wide 75MM (2.5MM/team based on diff from last yrs cap) annual contribution (% contribution based on club profitability) that would go a long way to bolstering the finances of the bottom 6-10 teams
@KevinDeLury Agreed and agree with your thoughts from yesterday. Wouldn't be surprised to see a cap rollback to 60MM and some portion of the difference applied to a need based fund to support payroll of struggling teams. Really the only logical middle ground I can find.
I wanted to see the preseason ranger/isles game but im not buying any advance tickets. I expect lockout. Damn.
@TheNYRBlog @NHLPA seemed like yesterday they were making progress and today they took a step back #CBA