Skip to content

League, union set to meet again Wednesday

Jul 17, 2012, 6:18 PM EDT

NHL and NHLPA logo

Wednesday in New York, the NHL and NHLPA will sit down to resume CBA negotiations.

In the wake of Friday’s first reported offer by the league, it should be interesting to see if the union provides a counter-offer.  (Or, if its message to the owners is, “Wait, you were serious about that?”)

From the Associated Press:

There were multiple reports coming out of the last round of talks that the owners’ offer included players’ hockey-related revenues get slashed from 57 percent to 46 percent. It also was reported that players would be forced to wait 10 years before becoming unrestricted free agents and that contracts would be limited to five years.

If the NHLPA makes its own proposal, expect revenue-sharing to be part of it.

Which is to say the union will ask highly profitable teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs to share a higher percentage of their revenues with the NHL’s less financially successful franchises. With more revenue sharing, everyone will be making money and the players won’t have to take a haircut, the PA will argue.

If the union’s ever going to divide and conquer the owners, it will be on the topic of revenue sharing.

Just don’t expect teams like the Leafs to get on board with subsidizing their poorer brethren.

Why would they?

With all due respect to the NHL’s small-market teams, there’s a reason the Leafs are worth more than half a billion dollars and the Nashville Predators would be lucky to fetch a third of that on the open market. You get what you pay for, and what you get when you buy the Leafs is a money-making machine.

In response, the union will likely claim more revenue-sharing will have a “rising tide lifts all boats” effect, but the league would prefer any increase in small-market revenue come out of the players’ share, thanks anyway.

  1. adlent - Jul 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM

    Revenue sharing just seems like a logical choice. Not every team in a league is going to be in a market making oogles of money. Share some revenue and everyone benefits. Seems to have worked pretty well for the NFL.

  2. mclovinhockey - Jul 17, 2012 at 7:43 PM

    They need to meet every day… Not once a week. If there is a lockout it helps no one.

    • hockeyflow33 - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

      They’re processing complex, legally binding contracts. It does take time to develop them so they’re accurate.

  3. atwatercrushesokoye - Jul 17, 2012 at 9:56 PM

    If they’re going to base the salary cap, and much more importantly the salary floor on league revenues then they have to have revenue sharing of some sort. Toronto makes way more money than any other team and that forces up the salary floor, but that forces other teams that could just be scraping by into the position where they’re forced to lose money in order to get to this salary floor.

    The NHL isn’t the NFL, there’s no massive tv deal, instead revenue is driven by ticket sales, you can’t have a runaway salary cap and floor under the current system.

  4. northstars17 - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:39 AM

    the hecks this all about?????

    bah blah blabah blah


  5. therealjr - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM

    Why should they? Because if the NHL were reduced to six teams do you think the Leafs would be making the same pile of money? I don’t.

  6. hockeyflow33 - Jul 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM

    It’s negotiating and it certainly isn’t the end of the world if they differ on opinions now

    • chiadam - Jul 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

      True enough, but this is exactly what the league did in 2004 (when they got the major, crippling players concessions that they ****ed up already). They made one absurd opening proposal, barely budged, and then murdered a season. Don’t be shocked if the Winter Classic opens the season, because the league is ALREADY PLANNING for a lockout. The Premiere Games overseas were killed. One rookie tournament was killed. Another might be soon. The lockout is coming.

      • hockeyflow33 - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM

        I’m not sure where you’ve heard the league is planning for a lockout but both sides should be prepared in case of a lockout; they’re paying their respective representation to prepare for possible outcomes.

        The opinions coming out in 2004 were far different than what is being talked about today. The game has seen incredible growth and it appears as though both sides are aware of how crippling any stoppage could be.

  7. chiadam - Jul 18, 2012 at 2:34 PM

    Remove Bettman from the equation and then I might have more faith. The NHL has lost a season and a half of hockey under his “leadership.” His comical and indefensible expansion has created the bulk of the issues the league is about to lose more games over. He’s guided the league to the brink of irrelevance time and time again. Now, he gets to finish the league off once and for all, which is exactly what I think he’ll do.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1830)
  2. P. Kane (1407)
  3. S. Matthias (1247)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1120)
  5. D. Carcillo (1104)