Skip to content

NHLPA response expected this afternoon

Oct 18, 2012, 11:06 AM EDT

Donald Fehr, Ron Hainsey AP

It’s not quite the equivalent of a must-win game, but today is still a huge day in the CBA negotiations.

This afternoon in Toronto, two days after the league offered the players a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue (whatever that may be) in hopes of ending the lockout, the NHLPA is expected to present some sort of a response to the NHL.

At the moment, the only thing we can say for certain is the union won’t show up with a signed agreement.

What we don’t know is if the players push back with something the league is willing to work off, or if the response is so unacceptable to the NHL that negotiations screech to a halt.

The latter scenario would all but doom an 82-game schedule.

  1. kotteintheslot - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

    And now we pray

    • giggywitit - Oct 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM

      Who are you? Mitt Romney?

  2. sjsharks66 - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM

    I bet since the players see the owners made the first move they feel like they’re in control. This was a PR move obviously. This is the owners deal, if the players don’t like it the owners will say, “look we tried but the players just don’t want to take our deal. We want hockey, seems like the players don’t. Blah blah” then no season.

    Guaranteed this is what happens. Really hope it does not though. Basically don’t hold your breath everyone.

    • elvispocomo - Oct 18, 2012 at 3:08 PM

      I won’t hold my breath based on your ‘guarantee’ there will be no season because of this, let’s just say that.

  3. capesouth - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM

    Whatever you think the purpose of the offer was two days ago (genuine or PR related), it was a step forward. The NHL shouldn’t expect their offer to fly with the PA but the players shouldn’t come back with a bogus offer either. The big thing the offer did two days ago was get the ball rolling. That’s it. Now it’s the player’s responsibility to accept they will need to compromise more and put a workable offer back on the table in order to keep the ball rolling. Both groups need to step off their ivory towers.

  4. ducksk - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    Please men, get er done. Please

  5. hockeyflow33 - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    Please get something done today

  6. davebabychreturns - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:24 AM

    My gut feeling is that the PA’s next proposal will not be seen in a very encouraging light in the media.. but that when considered as a whole it will be a substantial step closer to common ground.

    That’s all we can really hope for at this point, is continued forward progress without either side getting all uppity and imposing deadlines or ultimatums on the process.

    Frankly just getting the players to acknowledge with their counter proposal that they are going to end up (once again) with a system in which there is a hard cap and direct linkage to HRR would be a major step forward for the league.

    • somekat - Oct 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

      My gut feelins is Fehr will see this as “weakness” instead of a genuine offer to get a FAIR deal done, ask for much more and act as if this offer is an insult. You could see as much in the letter he sent out to players yesterday. This wil result in the owners saying “we offered a fair deal, and they came back with BS”, and even though all media will still show them as the bad guys, they will know they put a fair offer on the table (and so will fans), so they will be willing to say take a hike.

      This will either by some miracle be done by the weekend, or it will drag out for months

      • isithockeyseasonyet - Oct 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

        I have a very similar feeling but I’m banking on the fact that I’ve been wrong before and will be wrong again hopefully this is one of those times

      • davebabychreturns - Oct 18, 2012 at 2:05 PM

        I don’t think it’s so binary as “there will be a deal done in the next two days” and “there won’t be a deal done for 100 or so days.”

        A lot of the concerns Fehr expressed with the offer will be very real and I expect people will be shocked initially that the players next offer does not appear to be very close to the owners.

        They will have a week to argue about which set of concessions from each side would put them at a mutually agreeable spot between the two offers, if they can do this there will be a deal and we’ll get our 82 game season. If they can’t then I am guessing each side will retreat for a week or two at most and then resume, or perhaps one side will attempt to use an ultimatum to scare the other and then actually have to follow throw and stop negotiating for a few weeks or even a couple months.

      • elvispocomo - Oct 18, 2012 at 3:19 PM

        There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.

  7. furkmyster - Oct 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM

    As long as the response is a counter-offer of the NHL’s proposal, there is a chance. If it is a ground up re-design, like the players previous ‘vision’, I don’t hold out any hope hockey will be played soon.

  8. dbarnes79 - Oct 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM

    Get it done. If the players come back with a unreasonable response then they will quickly become the bad guys. Be very careful PA.

  9. somekat - Oct 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM

    This is the part that the NHLPA takes a fair deal that needs some tweeks, and pretends it is a slap in the face, and ask for much more. The owners will balk, and their offer will be pulled (they won’t be dumb enough to leave it out there so the union can pretend it is the “starting point” later), and as I’ve been saying since yesterday, this drags out MUCH longer.

  10. semin28 - Oct 18, 2012 at 2:04 PM

    Go caps!

    • therealjr - Oct 18, 2012 at 2:31 PM

      Dude, stop with the dumb comments and at least change your moniker.

Featured video

No lead is safe in the playoffs?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. D. Backes (3282)
  2. M. Duchene (2303)
  3. B. Bishop (2083)
  4. S. Mason (2037)
  5. H. Zetterberg (2012)
  1. T. Oshie (1943)
  2. N. MacKinnon (1903)
  3. T. Bertuzzi (1513)
  4. R. Getzlaf (1484)
  5. B. Seabrook (1425)