One of the NHL biggest concerns is the length to the contract. The NHLPA wants a 5 year deal because they would like to renegotiate the CBA during the 100 anniversary season. Why? Because they feel they will have more leverage. The NHL originally asked for a seven year agreement. This point has stayed in the background. Also pushed in the background are the contractual issues. NHLPA is very concerned with this issue but did not go into detail in their proposal. And of course the newest issue is the NHLPA proposing that player’s contracts never decreasing from the previous year’s dollar amount.

How does it end? The players get most or all of the $182M make whole issue and claim a victory. The owners get a no strings attached 50/50 split and claim a victory. Players and owners split the contractual issues and both claim a victory. The term is moved to 6 years and both claim victory. This is important; the NHLPA’s last proposal will be the basis for the deal, a face saving gesture for the players. What we end up with a CBA that has no clear winner in which both side are unhappy. A successful deal

I know a lot of the cynics around here already think the season is completely lost, but thats not the case. Both sides are much closer to a deal now then they were a few weeks ago, no matter what the PR spin from both camps might say. That doesn’t mena a deal will get done, but its there… and decertifying will all but kill that.

It should also be noted that there are a lot of possible downsides for the players in the process. If the owners don’t give in right away, and this goes to the courts… bad things can happen for both sides.

Much too little, much too late. De-certifying back when it became apparent the NHL would institute a lockout instead of negotiating would have been a smart preemptive move. Now it would just look like the desperation it is.