Skip to content

NHL makes counter-proposal to NHLPA

Sep 12, 2012, 3:44 PM EDT


The NHL’s latest proposal that was delivered to the NHLPA today in New York City has the players’ share of hockey-related revenue starting at 49 percent and ending in the sixth and final year of the deal at 47 percent, reports ESPN’s Pierre LeBrun.

Currently the players receive 57 percent of revenue.

Bettman says the offer is negotiable but comes off the table Saturday when the CBA expires.

What’s not known yet is what the NHLPA thinks of the counter-proposal. Union chief Donald Fehr will address the media at 5 p.m. ET.

  1. getadealdonealready - Sep 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

    Here’s the most important percentage for you, have a 3rd labor stoppage and 0% of fans will support your league.

    • davebabychreturns - Sep 12, 2012 at 3:52 PM

      It’d be nice if that were the case but most of us are pathetic junkies who will come back no later than the playoffs of the next (complete or partial) NHL season.

      • lostpuppysyndrome - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:06 PM


        /hangs head in shame

      • noisetheorem - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:08 PM

        True, but what about the new fans that have been brought in the last few years? My wife and I just started getting into it the last few years, and I have a young son who is taking to it to. If we don’t have hockey this winter we will fall back into the old habbit of not paying attention. We may come back, but is it guaranteed?

        This could absolutely stall the growth that the league has seen these last few years. That is bad for everyone – players, owners and fans alike. Burning NBC like this won’t exactly lead to better deals later. The NHL is still proving itself on TV (boy does HD make a difference!)

        Everyone knows this, and I think that things arent as dire as some say. The media exaggerates because bad news sells…the NHL and NHLPA rattle their sabers and stall because it sways opinion and postures for negotiations. Really, if you look at it, the league has kept moving to meet the players and their one big mistake may have been starting with such a lowball offer. I think this current offer shows that they really don’t want a lockout if they can avoid it.

      • davebabychreturns - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM

        No doubt it will be a setback for the league. But this CBA negotiation has been positively charming compared to the last time around, and the league recovered from that one too.

        Keep in mind they now have a TV deal taking them through the entire next CBA, last time they were giving away their broadcasting rights for free in the US. That should insulate them nicely from some losses at the gate – for a couple of years at least. If push comes to shove the slow creep of obstruction into the game can always be “addressed” which will juice offense again and in theory, make the games more attractive to casual observers.

        Ultimately there are a few powerhouse franchises that will generate the bulk of the league’s revenue even if the whole thing grinds to a halt for a year, it could be really rough for the small market teams but I guess that will just help Gary Bettman’s successor form a case to justify the lockout at the end of the CBA being negotiated now.

      • woodsvikes - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM

        As @noisetheorm points out its the CASUAL fans that they are going to lose. The revenues did not go up from us hardcore hockey lovers. Its the casual fans the NHL has gained from putting a good competitive product on the ice. The salary cap has worked in it has made small market teams competitive to the large market teams. If they lose the season to say “The Winter Classic” I think the NHL is going to see a real dip in the casual fans attention. Probably substantially until the playoffs and more likely until well, into the 2nd or 3rd year of the CBA. Then what?? Lose them again 3 yrs later in the next CBA negotiations? The NHL needs to be realistic and not TRY to screw the players over so that the next time its not a “now we will got ours..” mentality for the players. The revenue split is a major issue, yes. BUT the bigger issue here is WHAT are the owners willing to do to save these failing teams. The PLAYERS CANNOT be expected to do it all. They (owners) need to really look at they’re revenue sharing. There are to many teams that make A LOT of money and NOT giving all that much to help the teams that are not. IF these teams are NOT willing to give more of their share to these teams then they NEED to be moved ASAP or contracted. THAT is the only answer. 8% or 9% more in revenue is NOT going to save these teams.

  2. raveman213 - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM

    Does DirecTv offer KHL Center Ice?

    • noisetheorem - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM

      That would be центр Ice.

  3. bigoldorcafromvan - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM

    Hey Gary. Start it at 51% and in the sixth year have it at 49% and I bet the players will take it. If not lock them out until they do.

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

      If this is what they’re offering, I can’t imagine they’ll stay locked out for long. Hopefully the PA can counter with something reasonable (like what you suggested).

    • bmscalise - Sep 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM

      I don’t disagree – and a split closer to 50/50 makes sense. But this article doesn’t clarify how this deal defines HRR. If they’s constricted that definition, this deal could actually give the players closer to 45% – which is much less fair and appropriate. And this is to say nothing of the changes to FA, rookie contracts, etc. If this deal still includes changing FA to 10 years in the league – there’s no way the players will accept it. And I can’t say I blame them. There’s just not enough information here to know what this deal actually means – or make me more optimistic.

  4. proudliberal85392 - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

    Amen, brother.

  5. sjsharks66 - Sep 12, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    This deal is actually not that bad. However now it’s a “who’s going to cave in first” wait.

  6. windmiller4 - Sep 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM

    It’s probably gonna end up being a 50/50 split like so many of us have said all along. Now the waiting game begins…

  7. shogue99 - Sep 12, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    Typical owners and Gary Bettman. There’s a NHL because of the players. They do the work, they sacrifice their bodies, they deserve more than what they get. The NBA is paying its players unsure amount of money to run up and down a court. The MLB is paying its players to sit down for half the game and stand around for the rest. Hockey is the best sport on earth. Coming from a player I know the wear and tear it has on your body. I can only imagine what that feels like at the pro level. All I can say is the players better not give in. They derserve more so they must get more.

    Fire bettman

  8. id4joey - Sep 12, 2012 at 5:50 PM

    Why would the players accept a reduction in salary over time?

  9. vibes98 - Sep 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

    Ohhhhh, it’s the players that pay for the teams existence and all the costs involved? I didn’t know that. I thought they only had to worry about their own careers.

  10. capsrockva - Sep 12, 2012 at 10:45 PM

    Just get he god dam thing done before sunday. Hockey has become my favorite sport because of the 2010 winter Olympics. That was some of the best hockey I’ve ever seen played. Lock the reps from both the NHL & the NHLPA in a secluded room/conference center until the deal gets done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GIVE US FANS A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 lockouts in 20 years, that is pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. 6952m - Sep 13, 2012 at 5:05 PM

    Look I have No Idea what all these Comments are, the Majority of You guys a writing about here Siding with The Mouse Bettman’
    Now Read what i have to say here ok, Just try and pay a little Attention ok.
    All you have Heard from Bettman Up until About a Month ago was how great The NHL was Doing At the Gates Etc Etc Etc.Plus the NHL Was Flourishing in Revenue.
    About a month, The Dictator Bettman comes out with the Statement that the NHL has Lost $240,000,000 Now How Convenient is that on the Part of the Owners.
    If no not if, Why does The NHLPA Boss Mr. Fehr not say to Bettman, ok on your claim the the NHL lost as Much as $240.000.000 Prove this Mr. Bettman, Lets se the books where it can be Proven Fact or Fiction that the NHL did in Fact Lose $240.000.000 , All Bettman is Concerned about is the Players Negotiating to Bring their Share of the Revenue Sharing Down to 47%, Now why would The NHL Hockey Players , The Lowest Paid of Any Professional Sports organization even agree to Come down 1% .
    There Are 10 teams in the NHL that are really not making their share of the Revenue Sharing Teams
    So instead of these Teams being supported by the Reamainig 20 Teams at the Expense of the
    NHLPA, give each team a choice of #1 either to move their team, starting with the Team that is Losing the most money to a more lucrative area i.e. Seattle, Quebec, The GTA, Hamilton Etc. or #2 If they do not wish to do that, then they should ask the NHL to absolve them From operating their franchises any further and be allowed to sell or disband those teams from operating their under achieving, and money losing teams from the NHL.
    Therefor making a much better product on the Ice, and a more balanced NHL with say 24 Teams give or take, to share in the HRS end of things. I.E. “Hockey Revenue Sharing” it is time the NHL quit Pampering these teams and keep expecting the players to keep paying the way for the afforementioned, 10 teams of continuous losers, yes these teams are “LOSERS” No matter how you cut it, and in end if the NHLPA and their players agree to take any paycut, In my opinion they are, I hate this wording. “DIGGING THEIR OWN GRAVE” Plus if they stick to their guns, Maybe Just Maybe, the NHL Owners will Fire “BETTMAN” well i think it is a good plan, you say it will never “WORK” I say, Look at what the Majority of people said , they will never put a mon on the “MOON” and what Happened????

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1677)
  2. P. Kessel (1651)
  3. M. Richards (1396)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1243)
  5. N. Backstrom (1126)