Skip to content

Report: New NHL proposal is “basically the same” as previous one

Aug 28, 2012, 6:45 PM EDT

Fehr-Bettman-Getty Getty Images

The NHL presented the union with their second proposal on Tuesday, but according to Tim Panaccio’s union source, it’s “basically the same” as the NHL’s original proposal.

As you might suspect, the same union source doesn’t think the NHLPA will agree to this deal.

This latest revelation comes after Canucks goaltender Cory Schneider said, according to the Boston Globe’s Fluto Shinzawa, that the union was “not going to say yes just to say yes.”

As we previously reported, NHLPA boss Donald Fehr said that the new proposal was “different in some respects,” but he “doesn’t feel better or worse.”

The union intends to respond to this proposal. The two sides will meet again on Wednesday.

  1. id4joey - Aug 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

    Fehr indicated the offer is different, but this guy is say it’s ‘basically the same’. WTF!

    • kitshky - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM

      Union source – “it’s basically the same”

      Fehr – “different in some respects …[but]… doesn’t feel better or worse”

      What about these two statements don’t relate?

  2. jimw81 - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    does bettman and owners think Fehr is stupid? guess it’s time to start the countdown clock. if you really want to send a message to owners, cancel your sth and season tickets.

    • polegojim - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

      oh yes, THAT will teach them… YAWN

  3. flyeredup202 - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

    Really thinking about canceling my Season tix….. They have no problem wacking my Credit card every month for 850.00 and then dodging my calls when I question the lockout.
    This is a joke…… The Owners are being stubborn 3 years about their toys. They need to man up and just pay out.

    • polegojim - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

      BOTH sides need to man up and make the season happen.

      Owners with a FAIR deal… and players as EMPLOYEES, not partners.

      The whole thing is wacked.

      • jimw81 - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

        why do the players need to man up? they gave up so much the last two lockouts. It’s not the players fault that owners can’t had control themselves handing out contracts left and right then cry about the ‘system’. Plus Does it seem strange that Bettman has fought to keep Coyotes in PHX and keep Devils in Newark while losing $, then blames player salaries for league $ issues?

      • kitshky - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:50 PM

        No … players are most certainly partners, in fact they’re more than partners, they’re the product itself.

        That’s not even the debate (to oversimplify it) they’re debating how much each partner should get when revenues are split.

      • eggserino - Aug 28, 2012 at 7:55 PM

        I gotta say…

        Players getting 57% of hockey related revenue… what does that mean? What is hockey-related and what is not hockey-related?

        If it’s merchandising, ticket sales, video game licensing, and concessions, that seems a bit high. What revenue do the owners get that is not hockey-related? Other events that occur in buildings that they own?

        It’s important to understand what the numbers represent. If we’re talking about hockey operations, it seems that the revenue should be split roughly evenly. 57% seems high.

      • polegojim - Aug 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM

        No Kitsh… the players are no more ‘the product’ than any other employee of a large company… on earth. The players are only a PART of the product.

        If these players ALL went away tomorrow, there would be another group of players following right in behind them, wearing the same jersey’s the guys before them did. The players get drafted, sign a contract, and skate on ice they NEVER EVEN thought about… before that moment. That folks, is why the PRODUCT endures and supercedes any individual player.

        The product includes everything: The OWNERS efforts to build a market, the brand, the venue, the logo, the broadcasting and advertising, AND the players.

      • polegojim - Aug 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM

        @Jim – because they’re employees. Take a good deal and say THANK YOU.

        Stop trying to get deeper and deeper into the OWNERS pockets.

      • kitshky - Aug 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM

        “the players are no more ‘the product’ than any other employee of a large company… on earth. The players are only a PART of the product.”

        I can’t even put into words how wrong you are.

        Employees of “large company” contribute to the goods, service, and ultimately the product of a company … the players are the NHL’s product. Without the players the “large company” ceases to exist.

        Of course that’s ignoring your iron clad argument that if every one of the best players in the world suddenly disappeared the product would be exactly the same because they’d still have jerseys to put on warm bodies… and there’s no arguing with that kinda “logic” is there…

      • polegojim - Sep 8, 2012 at 10:05 AM

        On that we completely agree – you cannot argue with my logic.

      • polegojim - Sep 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

        On that we completely agree – you cannot argue with my logic.

        PS – without employees… large companies CEASE to exist.

        It’s called parity. If ALL the current players were replaced tomorrow, the game wouldn’t be ‘quite’ as good, but not markedly substandard. The parity of incoming player talent would still produce very good hockey

    • Eberwizzle - Aug 28, 2012 at 9:38 PM

      you won’t cancel the tickets….I double dog dare ya!
      Actually, I canceled my season tickets five years ago and instead take the kids on a vacation and go to 5 playoff games a year and still save money more money if I kept the season tickets. Regular season games are stupid!

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Aug 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM

        Hockey relates revenues are your tickets, your jersey, your beer, your hotdog, your kids thingamajig, your game program, the television deals your favorite team has locally and the NHL nationally around the US and Canada, and everything you buy that is an officially licensed product all pooled together.

        Both the NFL and NBA deals, the players took pay cuts down to around 52 to 53% of the their total sport revenue. The NHL should be no different, in fact I’ll argue they should get less than those. Compared to the NFL and NBA, the NHL is a niche sport here in America. Where I can hear the argument is that the NHL is the NFL of Canada.

        The problem is the players are trying to put the big markets (Chicago, Toronto, Rangers, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles against the small market teams (Winnipeg, Carolina, Edmonton, and Columbus) against each other. The big markets don’t want to share their massive local tv deals with the small market teams to help keep them competitive.

        Those are just the monitory issues. Throw in the Olympics, drug testing, realignment, and player safety; this is just looking like one big cluster (explicit word here).

        This CBA really shouldn’t be that hard to get done. The players get to represent their countries once every four years and the NHL takes a break with no All-Star Game, the owners get realignment (which was perfectly realigned). It’s going to take the players to know their place in such a niche sport and the big market owners are going to have to be willing to help out the small market teams. Until these 2 things happen, wr aren’t going to see hockey for a long time.

        I’d invest in the Big10 network and start watching Minesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan, and Ohio State hockey programs each Friday and Saturday night. Or start watching the Lakers/Heat journey to the NBA Finals (which is exactly why a luxery tax is a terrible idea).

      • lostpuppysyndrome - Aug 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM

        @greatminnesotasportsmind, small edit: while Winnipeg is the smallest town in the league, they didn’t qualify for revenue sharing because they made cash hand over fist this year. I don’t know if Edmonton qualified either. Not a big issue, just sayin. Carry on.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Aug 29, 2012 at 2:47 AM

        I’m sure but I was just trying to think of small market teams. Sure the excitement is there today, but just like Minnesota 12 years ago. Through the last few years the team had been garbage and fans were starting to stay away.

        On a side note, is Minnesota a small market team (like the Twins and Wolves) or middle market or big market now they spend like one?

      • tatdue - Aug 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM

        @greatminnesotasportsmind….You call yourself a “great sports mind” and yet you think that this CBA comes down to “the Olympics and realignment”????….You might want to rethink your handle buddy….just sayin’

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Aug 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

        @lostpuppy, you might want to read the whole thing I posted as opposed to reading what you want to read. I pretty much said those were secondary issues.

  4. deadrabbit79 - Aug 28, 2012 at 8:22 PM

    Well i guess i will start to brush up on my soccer.

  5. buffalo65 - Aug 28, 2012 at 9:13 PM

    Why not have revenue sharing. Every team splits the league profits evenly then spends to a minimum/maximum cap. If owners were serious about a healthy league, this is the only answer.

    • hockeyflow33 - Aug 28, 2012 at 11:12 PM

      the owners don’t want revenue sharing

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Aug 29, 2012 at 12:18 AM

      Successful organizations shouldn’t have to pay for the lack of success in other markets. The NHL’s revenue is largely gate-driven. When I go to see the Wild, I don’t want to pay to keep Phoenix/Florida/Dallas in the league just because nobody shows up to their games. The logical choice would be to move these teams elsewhere.

      I do support lowering the players’ salaries down to help some of these teams stay more competitive but there’s no way dropping salaries alone will by any stretch make failing teams more economically viable, unless they chopped it from the current 57% to less than 30%. That’s clearly out of the question. It would be frustrating as an owner to have to spend more and more every year, and overpay players simply to reach the cap floor.

      What they ought to do is place the cap at 50% OR a hard cash cap at, say, $55-60 mil/year, whichever is lower. Who’s the say that HRR won’t just keep climbing over the next 8-10 years? Also, consider that if a failing team (eg Phoenix) moves to greener pastures (Quebec City), you also bring up league revenues with it, further raising player revenues and the cap floor/ceiling. I do really want the league to be successful (obviously) and there is something to be said about keeping the field level. However, revenue sharing in a league that makes it money by tickets sold is not really the answer.

      • greatminnesotasportsmind - Aug 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

        There more to it than that. Television deals are a big part of it too. While all 30 teams share the mega (hockey wise) deal NBC and NBC Sports Network are paying. Why should local tv deals give teams an advantage. The Rangers, Maple Leafs, and Bruins local television deal are waaaaaay bigger than Winnipeg, Carolina, Florida, and Columbus. Owners shouldn’t be given more money in bigger markets to spend on players.

        We like to think the Wild had a nice deal, but it’s only in the mid teens to early 20’s.

      • lostpuppysyndrome - Aug 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM

        I guess I really don’t know much about the local TV deals or how they affect team revenue, but I haven’t seen anyone mention that as a significant factor thus far.

  6. revansrevenant - Aug 28, 2012 at 10:06 PM

    I’m just glad that the same package that includes NBC Sports Network also includes Fox Soccer Channel. At least this way if there is a lockout I can catch up on BPL, and watch a few more Liverpool games than I did last season.

  7. sunderlanding - Aug 29, 2012 at 12:58 AM

    People you can’t keep blaming the owners for the big contracts. It’s the players who sign them, and hold out signing until they get them. The owners latest proposel is a 50% split. Originally I was siding with the players, but more and more I’m starting to agree with the owners.

    • kitshky - Aug 29, 2012 at 3:43 AM

      This isn’t a 50/50 offer, the owners proposal wouldn’t reach a 50/50 split until year 3.

      They owners are asking for a massive rollback that wouldn’t see the salary cap reach it’s current level until year 4 which would put over half the league currently over the salary cap … after these exact same owners just spent the last few months handing out some of the biggest contracts hockey has ever seen.

      Once again they’re asking the players to protect the owners from the owners…

      Add to the equation the fact that the players offered to continue the season and negotiate in good faith without a work stoppage of any kind … and it’s kind of hard for me to be on the owners side right about now.

      • sunderlanding - Aug 30, 2012 at 2:16 AM

        Of course the players want to opperate under the current CBA. It’s in thier favour. That’s the problem the owners have. There are teams who are currently losing money. How does that make for a successful league?

      • kitshky - Aug 30, 2012 at 2:19 AM

        … the current system that the owners fought for.

        The players aren’t saying keep it the way it is, they’re saying don’t risk permanent damage to the league by shutting it down while they renegotiate.

  8. aventador12 - Aug 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    Since they all make a lot of money, it seems like this is just a legitimate approach and way of taking time-off/vacation and spend their earnings. NHL-13, i guess will be the only Ice Hockey for me this season. (-_-)…..

  9. chrisvegas - Aug 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM

    Screw the Owners! They already cost us a year lockout and now they won’t even accept their own deal. I’m pissed. I guess i’ll be watching basketball this fall.

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Aug 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM

      Wow, now THAT’S desperation ;)

  10. vibes98 - Sep 4, 2012 at 3:16 PM

    owners: we need to cut back on salaries and long term contracts…. First sign praise, Sumter to 12 yrs and over $100, then offer weber much more than he is worth! sounds like a plan.
    nhlpa: we need to help the smaller market teams, your the perfect face of the players praise.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches