October 18th, 2012, 3:28 pm
Good discussion in the comments section of the previous post about the CBA negotiations, be sure to check that out.
The players have responded with three separate proposals, all which move to an even 50-50 split. The owners have rejected the offers. Now, it certainly appears as if games will be missed, and possibly the season.
There’s no doubt the owners gained the upper hand in the PR war by offering the 50/50 split first. We will see if the players win back some goodwill by proposing their own. It looks as if the big difference right now is the NHLPA wants the current contracts to be honored in full, some of which were signed only days before the lockout, without impacting the 50/50 split. The owners offered to honor those contracts, but they will count against the future players’ share, which led the players to say it was “the players paying the players”. I can see this both ways. Under the owners’ proposal, on one hand, the owners will be paying those players their actual salaries in the future. On the other, the owners will suffer no financial repercussions for signing deals that are incredibly rich (Parise) and oftentimes foolhardy (Ehrhoff).
As disappointed as I am, I’m still on the players side. Perhaps there are important terms that have not been made public, but the latest proposals seem to decrease the player’s future income and contract negotiating positions from the previous CBA in every case. The players’ proposed deal weakens them across the board; they get no stronger position in any area. If games are lost or the season is canceled, it’s difficult for me to believe how people can blame the players for that (“You didn’t capitulate enough!”).