Skip to content

Lightning defenseman Carle argues against one of Bettman’s assertions

Sep 1, 2012, 8:21 PM EDT

Matt Carle #25 of the Philadelphia Flyers celebrates his first period goal against the Pittsburgh Penguins in Game Five of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals during the 2012 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs at Consol Energy Center on April 20, 2012 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(April 19, 2012 - Source: Justin K. Aller/Getty Images North America) Getty Images

The CBA proposal that the NHL presented on Tuesday would have provided the players with 46% of revenues. That’s, as the Montreal Gazette put it, a $460 million improvement from the NHL’s initial offer when they asked the players take 43% of the pie.

As you probably already know, the talks ended up stalling after Friday’s negotiating session.

“Somebody needs to be in a position to offer or say something new,” said Gary Bettman. “And considering that we made such a large move on Tuesday, to have gotten the response that we got is disappointing.

“We’re not in a position to go back and offer more and negotiate against ourselves.”

The owners did make substantial concessions compared to their original offer, but Tampa Bay Lightning defenseman Matt Carle argued that it’s really all about context.

“…if we’d absurdly asked for 71% of revenue in our first offer and then came down to 68%…make sense?” Carle tweeted.

It’s worth noting that under the expiring CBA, the players were getting 57% of hockey-related revenues, so both of the NHL’s proposals represented a substantial reduction from their perspective. Either way, for now we’re in limbo while we wait to see who will make the next move.

Related:

Reaching a new CBA is a negotiation, not an exercise in fairness

Video: Bettman, Fehr speak out after Friday’s talks

What they’re saying about Friday’s disappointing negotiating session

Dreger: Real negotiating won’t start until or around Sept. 10

  1. tealwithit - Sep 1, 2012 at 11:06 PM

    Um no, Carle, that doesn’t make sense. More like if the players had absurdly asked for 60% of the revenues and then came down to 57%. Or, I don’t know, asked to have the current CBA reinstated in three years after giving up a minute percentage over that time. Because 57% is still completely unreasonable, as far as anyone in the league (other than players, of course) is concerned.
    This is why they call it a negotiation – Each side starts by asking for way too much, and then they give a little at a time until a compromise is made.

    • leafs2013 - Sep 2, 2012 at 2:59 AM

      Your an idiot!

      • freneticgarfieldfan - Sep 2, 2012 at 5:26 AM

        If you absolutely have to offend others legitimate opinion, please do it at least grammatically correct.

    • whlskey - Sep 2, 2012 at 3:19 AM

      I didn’t know Gary Bettman was a PHT member.

      • tealwithit - Sep 2, 2012 at 5:55 AM

        Wow. You and the Leafs guy… You got me good.
        If anybody disagrees with me and thinks the players’ share being at 57% is completely fair and reasonable, feel free to come at me with some facts about the NHL’s business operations and financial status that will prove me wrong. And I mean that genuinely… I’m open to considering any new information.

      • paperlions - Sep 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM

        Yes, it is a negotiation. The point was that if you start from a ludicrous position and make a small concession that still puts you in the really of untenable proposals….to publicly claim you made “such a large move” and that the response is “disappointing” is to be disingenuous. If you are negotiating the price of a new car, and originally offer $2k, then up your offer to $4k and claim to up your offer more would be ” negotiate against ourselves”….you would be an asshat.

        FWIW, the players are the talent, the entire reason anyone follows hockey. The owners are just the facilitators who are lucky enough to be in a business where if you control the arena, you control the sport. If a new league could spring up (as is possible in other businesses) and offer jobs to the players….the owners would be SOL, because they don’t actually bring anything to the table except for their monopoly….which has value, but is a horrible reason to side with the owners in negotiations.

      • tealwithit - Sep 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

        I get it. I just think his analogy (and yours) is way off. You have to understand that from the owners’ perspective, the players’ first proposal was just as ludicrous as theirs. And they did make moves in their counterproposal – small ones, but still – whereas the players apparently haven’t budged (other than offering to make some changes regarding the fourth year, but that was basically an F-you to the owners). I’m not saying either side is right… Honestly, I’m just really annoyed by all this PR b.s. coming from the NHLPA’s side, and that sometimes makes me lean towards the owners.
        Also, what you said about the owners bringing nothing to the table – completely untrue. My dad’s bosses were team owners, and I know they didn’t just completely hand the job off to him – They were very involved in the team’s business operations. Not all owners choose to do it that way, but all owners do have hundreds of millions invested in their team and about 2/3 of NHL team owners are losing more millions each year. Also, the “owner’s share” goes to all of the team executives and arena employees… Which includes marketing teams and ticket sales and customer service people, who work very hard to bring in fans and make sure they’re happy. The hockey players are the main attraction, but they aren’t carrying this business on their backs.

  2. dbick - Sep 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM

    This is essentially like me trying to sell you a 1995 Jetta and I set the price at $50,000 and you say “uh, no. I’ll pay $5k” Then I drop the price down to $15,000 and claim that I made such a huge drop in price that it’s a great deal for you.

Featured video

Chances Blue Jackets bounce back?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. D. Backes (3114)
  2. T. Oshie (3078)
  3. M. Duchene (2712)
  4. B. Bishop (2433)
  5. S. Mason (2383)
  1. R. Getzlaf (2336)
  2. O. Palat (2263)
  3. H. Zetterberg (1920)
  4. N. MacKinnon (1860)
  5. R. Emery (1583)