Skip to content

No dice: NHLPA shoots down NHL’s latest offer

Sep 12, 2012, 6:00 PM EDT

Donald Fehr

The NHL and NHLPA remain far apart in their CBA negotiations, union chief Donald Fehr said Wednesday in New York.

Fehr’s comments came hours after the league presented a counter-proposal that reportedly cut the players’ share of hockey-related revenue to 49 percent (eventually 47 percent) from its current take of 57 percent.

Fehr conceded the NHL lessened its demands today; however, those demands still aren’t close to acceptable for the players.

Fehr also doesn’t believe the owners’ revenue-sharing plans are progressive enough to help the small-market clubs.

The CBA expires Saturday at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Bottom line: looks like we’re headed for a lockout.

  1. sippindasyzurp - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:08 PM

    How come it always seems like it’s the owners coming forward off there number closer to 50%?? The players have not come down at all from there number of 57%… They just keep saying they want to play hockey… I thought this was a negotiation??

    I hate both sides, I am sick and disgusted right now… I am curious if there will be mediator involved in this to avoid a potentially lost season??

    • dannythebisforbeast - Sep 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

      I think its because the owners kicked them in the nuts with the first offer, so things could only improve from there. I also thought the players were seemingly OK with a 50/50 split

      • hockeydon10 - Sep 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM

        Yes and no (re: the 50/50 split). The initial PA offer was weighted more toward the players, as one might expect an initial proposal to be during this type of negotiation. If one is able to read between the lines it’s easy to see how they might have negotiated down to 50/50 for the players over the course of the contract — say 54%, 52%, 50% on a three year deal the players wanted — with some revenue sharing thrown in there from the rich clubs to help out the poorest clubs.

        In essence, they want to avoid a salary roll-back (which would hurt a lot of players and the high-spending teams), while helping out the poorest clubs (which would help the players make money) but it looks like the possibility of eventually reaching 50/50 was certainly within the realm of possibility.

    • rickb57 - Sep 13, 2012 at 1:51 PM

      This is not good for our sport. Its sickening. I do not like this Fehr guy. Or Bettman. Both need to go. Do they realize what is at stake here?

  2. virusgvr - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

    Sweet… Lockout! Glad I haven’t paid for my season tickets in full yet.

  3. sharksman - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM

    if they bring in a mediator it will take longer…i think both sides suck for not getting this done 6 months ago

    • phillyphanatic76 - Sep 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM

      Seriously. I have been wondering this for a while… Why did they wait til the 11th hour and expect this not to be the result?? This negotiations should have started 6months to a year ago if they really wanted a deal done. I think they both knew a lockout was going to be the result of starting negotiations a month and a half before the CBA expires. Both sides are at fault, but after watching Bettman’s press conference today I hate him even more. He’s such a condescending little weasel. He responded to every question as if the reporter was a child that doesn’t understand anything about the negotiations or collective bargaining. And he contradicted himself several times answering the questions… like when he said the players feel they’re entitled to 57% based on the last CBA (and that isn’t the case according to him) and then responded to the next question by saying that based on the last CBA the owners are entitled to increase escrow on player contracts or basically reduce a players a salary. So players must be held to the terms of the last the agreement during negotiations but owners don’t have to be? Too much hypocrisy from both sides. But I side more with the players union.

  4. pastabelly - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

    The NHL has no business being in some of these small markets and neither the owners nor players will accept that. They should keep the cap where it is and lower the floor. That way, the small market teams can either stay in business at a disadvantage or move to Canada, Seattle, or somewhere else. As a fan, I don’t want to be paying higher ticket prices to offset $10 seats in Florida or Phoenix. We pay enough.

    • capesouth - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM

      Agree..there are a handful of teams that should be either moved or completely dis-banded. Having too many teams waters down the talent level and obviously screws with the economics. It about quality not quantity..that will always win out in the end and it better for the league long term.

    • sunking1 - Sep 12, 2012 at 9:08 PM

      Even if the league moves teams from Florida and Phoenix, do you really think that your ticket prices are going to drop at all??? The owners in your market charge what they chareg because that is what YOUR market will bear. That price has NOTHING to do with the fact that certain markets are losing money. If your owners were charging $200/ticket and they couldn’t fill the arena, then your ticket prices are likely to drop. But, if they are charging $100/ticket and the place is full, no movement of teams losing money is going to lower the price in your market.

      • bauerstick - Sep 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM

        YEP — Tampa Bay Has been pullin’ this S**T for years! Don’y Worry about them “Pulling

        Out “…or moving the Lightning Franchise! Within the Past 2 years the ownership and

        Manage – ment

        Have sunk several Millions into the former ‘ Ice Palace ‘ (as Phil Esposito Named it over 2

        decades ago! ). Now the ‘ Tampa Bay Forum ‘ has about ever thing the New Stadiums have

        as they are now being Constructed. I remember….when 2 seats were $75.00 a piece –2

        rows up from the glass ( Parrellel to the Visiting Teams’ Bench). No, they Weren’t Filling

        the House in those days ( PRE Stanley Cup Win ). Now….Seats in the SAME Area can go

        from$ 500.00 to $675.00. DECENT Seats go for $300.00 a piece 15 rows up on the Blue

        Line or R/H/S — L/H/S/ . Yes, They’re Filling the Sections…all the way to the Nosebleed

        seats. Far Too Much Change, Too Much Greediness, Too much Profit — Margin. What Do

        YOU Do ??!!

  5. semin28 - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

    Take the 49%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. capesouth - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

    Time isn’t going to solve the issue, actual compromise is, so why wait? A deal will get done eventually and neither side will be 100% happy with it. That’s a fact. Accept that and get a deal done. It has already been MONTHS…but somehow, waiting even longer is the answer to getting a deal done and being happy?? No, IMO, once the deadline hits, each side will dig their heels in because what do they have to lose? What will happen is they’ll wait a few more months and then start to come of their demands because that is the only way they start to play games..I don’t see the point in waiting to get to there..just do it now.

  7. ludacrish05 - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM

    Seriously need to just meet in the middle, players make my salary times 100

  8. somekat - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:37 PM

    Once again, the players “wer just wanna play hockey” is shown for the joke it is. They have no counter proposal, just “that’s not good enough for us”.

    50/50 split, lessen the time of service it takes to become a UFA, lessen penaltes for RFA, and sign the deal

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:49 PM

      It would even help if they said “Well this isn’t exactly what we asked for but we continue to work toward a solution.” Their reaction is not going to help their PR in the least.

    • kitshky - Sep 13, 2012 at 2:32 AM

      They gave the Owners an offer to consider.

      Where do you get “they have no counter proposal” from … they do. They gave them their counter proposal, what do you think Bettmans commenting on?

      • somekat - Sep 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM

        The same thing Fehr is commenting on, the NHLPA’s refusal of the OWNERS latest offer. Refusal, not rebuttal.

        I know it’s easier to win arugments in your own mind when you can just make up facts, but it doesn’t make you more correct.

      • hockeydon10 - Sep 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

        Exactly. The PA has given several proposals to the NHL brass. Some are smoking some really good stuff if they believe there have been no proposals from the PA.

      • kitshky - Sep 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM

        You want to nitpick me for pasting in your “counter proposal” after my original thought of “they gave the owners an offer to consider” … have at er.

        Doesn’t change the (actual) fact that the two sides have recently exchanged offers. How exactly are the players supposed to counter proposal within a few hours … which is why Fehr’s statement was “we need time to look over it”.

    • bauerstick - Sep 13, 2012 at 6:28 PM

      Whatever Happened To The N.H.L. “Be a Player” Quizzer ? They (N.H.L. .com ) bounced

      Questions off of active Players (ie., Tie Domi , Teemu Selani, Jamir Jager,Roman Hammerlick,

      and many others. The SPORT was in Its’ 3/rd Incarnation with New Fans (almost 7 –10 years

      back ). a 30 minute show that really High Lighted the Players and Their off — ice Activities.

      This was Good Press and the League and the N.H.L.P.A. both worked with it !

  9. vindicatus - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

    Omg enough crying about the small market teams. Hockey is growing to record levels of viewership and profitability. Phoenix, Dallas, Tampa, et al have nothing to do with the coming lock out. We are headed for a lockout because Bettman is a nefarious, devious troll and because the precedent has been set that lock outs are the only way to negotiate in this business. Both sides are at fault, and we are just caught in the middle.

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM

      Not sure if trolling orrrrrr….

    • jernster21 - Sep 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM

      Oh that’s right, the NHL doesn’t own the Phoenix Coyotes which lose money every year. Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with the lockout. The owners (read: THE NHL, THE OWNERS) are losing money and believe they’re paying the players too much and they want the players to give them back their money because they think that’s going to fix all their problems. It’s not the imminent lockout that pisses me off, it’s the lack of both sides even identifying the REAL issues leading up to all of this…they’re so focused on what’s going into each others pockets that frankly, it seems like they couldn’t care less what the problem is. The NHL wants to take the money from the players, call it a 6-10 year deal and then at the end of the CBA say hey, this didn’t work either, we need more of your money.

  10. fortwaynekomets - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM

    oh well… at least we have good professional minor leagues like the AHL and ECHL.

    There is some serious stacked talent in the ECHL this year! Esp. since the newly aquired Fort Wayne Komets joined the ECHL!!!

    • bauerstick - Sep 13, 2012 at 6:34 PM

      LAKELAND, FL. Needs an I.H.L., or ECHL Team. After All…. Pensacola,FL. have the Ice Pilots,

      Orlando,FL. has the Solar Bears, and Florida City,FL. (where the Fl. Panthers Home Ice is Located)

      have the Florida EverBlades. Why Not LAKELAND….Hosted by the Citys’ “Lakeland Centre “??

  11. spongebobsportspants - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM

    Hey both sides, if there’s a lock out go ahead and scrap the season. I’m not interested in seeing a compressed season stacked with injuries and sub par quality. Cause that’s what’ll happen when they play 4-5 games a week. Beat it!

  12. chiadam - Sep 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM

    This was always going to end in a lockout. And think about this: the league flushed an entire season for this system. Now they need to blow it all up. Why would anyone ever trust them? Just walk away.

  13. stevedurbano - Sep 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM

    How exactly is this even relevant? Until the owners stop stupid contracts like (fill in the blank) for $100 million then what difference does the contract make? Oddly enough, the best thing for everyone is for the owners to get their s**t together and make ALL of the teams viable. If they can’t even police their own pay structure then the future doesn’t look good. If not, then just go back to six teams and send all the best players to Europe. And the thing about the fans coming back after the last lockout? They should remember 2 things- HD TV and the recession.

    • dannythebisforbeast - Sep 12, 2012 at 10:36 PM

      even my mom can follow hockey now with HD. Casual fan will be gone again

  14. sampulls - Sep 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

    Players union is a joke.

  15. bhawksrule - Sep 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    Pretty crappy for newer NHL fans. I’ve gotten several friends into hockey over the last 3 years and now that they’ve all heard about a lockout they all say they don’t care about the sport anymore. I’m sure I will probably be back, but it’s just a shame that i’ll have to find new people to convince hockey is good again.

  16. aventador12 - Sep 12, 2012 at 7:40 PM

    Game-Over! Not surprised.

  17. phillyphever - Sep 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM

    No lockout if this happens (which I hope does):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sports/hockey/nhl-players-union-tries-legal-maneuver-in-canada.html

    • somekat - Sep 13, 2012 at 11:12 AM

      won’t effect a lockout either way. If those 3 teams (Toronto and Montreal already have a waiver. Could be wrong abut Montreal, whatever team is in the same province as Tornto) can’t vote to lock out the players, the players still get locked out. The best they could legally do is force them to pay them for the games they COULD play (aka, the games against the other teams that aren’t allowed to be locked out, 4-5 teams), and give them access to the facilities.

      It would have 0 effect on any U.S. team, which as you know,is where most of the league is

      • bauerstick - Sep 13, 2012 at 6:51 PM

        somekat….This is being adressed, check out T.H.N. Bob Mc Kenzies Latest Column.

        The Deal is that Albertas’ Flames and the Oilers have Attempted to ‘Opt Out” of the N.H.L.’s

        Lockout Proceedures as has Montreal QB. have declared their ‘Own “Referendum. ” (as Fr. –

        Speaking Canada ). BOTH Requests and attempts have Been shot full of holes by the

        N.H.L.s’ Governing Body and adherents. the N.H.L.P.A. won’t come to terms on these

        “Waivers” either.

  18. xaf605 - Sep 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM

    Weve seen what the owners are asking for in a nutshell but what the hell are the players asking for that they are so far apart

    • thomaspratt - Sep 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM

      You can read the details of the players first proposal, which is not that much different from their current one, here: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/08/15/grange_nhl_nhlpa_cba_talks_fehr_proposal/

      Essentailly the players proposed to do away with linkage, keep the cap roughly where it is, and forgo a percentage of future revenue growth. The portion of revenue growth that would have gone to the players instead is to go to a fund to help prop up financially struggling teams.

    • kitshky - Sep 13, 2012 at 2:34 AM

      They also offered the salary roll backs in a few years if revenue growth justified it..

  19. erika29 - Sep 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    These people, (players and ownership) have lost all perspective. I don’t resent the large income on either side; the teams rake in millions and everyone deserves a share. But not playing while they negotiate? Treating this like it’s a realistic disagreement? Not being able to find common ground? Asinine! These people are living in a dream world totally divorced from reality. No one is ever 100% satisfied, so stop these half-hearted meetings and find a solution you can both live with. It’s pure selfishness on both sides and I’ve already stopped spending money on the NHL that I would have otherwise.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Harding (1747)
  2. C. Price (1695)
  3. M. Staal (1647)
  4. A. Ekblad (1581)
  5. J. Giguere (1545)