Skip to content

Meeting with mediator wraps for the day; NHL offer back on the table? (Update: No it wasn’t)

Dec 12, 2012, 5:40 PM EDT

Bill Daly and Gary Bettman Getty Images

Today’s CBA meeting with federal mediators involved is over.

Sportsnet’s Nick Kypreos reports talks broke off this evening and while things didn’t go well, the NHL’s offer they pulled off the table last Thursday was back on it. The catch tonight being that it’s a “take it or leave it” offer. If that’s the case, the league is insistent to have it their way regardless of what tweaks the players want to do with contracting rights.

Meanwhile, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly says there was “no conclusion” to the process, the two sides spent time with mediators only. The mediators will continue meeting with players tonight and then follow up with the league.

Renaud Lavoie from RDS says there are no further meetings scheduled at this point. This is the second time mediators have been involved in negotiations and it appears they’re doing what they were called in to do and try to help the two sides figure out where they’re at.

Update: To clear things up,according to Tom Gulitti,  the league didn’t re-table their proposal. Turns out mediators asked the players about what their answer would be if the NHL had put their offer back out there. Daly said specifically: “We have not re-tabled a proposal.”

  1. id4joey - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM

    And there you go….. tic toc tic toc. That’s the sound of a years salary go down the drain. Money you’ll never see again. What part of take it or leave do players not understand?

    • chrisvegas - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

      They said leave it. Can’t blame them, nobody likes to be cheated.

      • id4joey - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM

        How are they being cheated? Anyway. They have a choice, either lose big (100%) or lose small (12%). Their choice.

      • chrisvegas - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:32 PM

        @id4joey – The owners are getting out of the contracts they agreed to as recently as this summer. The owners are bullying the players at a time when the NHL is making record revenue. All one has to do is listen to their rhetoric. The players are being bullied with the owner’s take it or leave it attitude. It is easy for billionaires to intimidate the less fortunate.

      • spiciercheez - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:46 PM

        NHL was** making record revenue, haha. It’s too bad that the superstar players are basically dictating this whole process. Everyone knows the guys with smaller contracts/lesser roles in general want to be out there now….

      • chrisvegas - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM

        @spic – I don’t disagree. I am sure the players who make the min salary are ready to end it now while the other half who makes the majority of the players portion of revenue aren’t ready to give in. I’m sure players like Crosby who make millions can sit out longer. Never said it was fair.

      • id4joey - Dec 12, 2012 at 8:45 PM

        chrisvegas, there are links to articles ob Forbes.com that spell out the financial situation from a business perspective. Perhaps you should read them. Yes! The players will have to lose some to make some. But the owners can’t continue to keep losing some to make some. It just doesn’t work that way.

      • chrisvegas - Dec 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM

        @id4joey – I’ve addressed the Inaccuracies of the Forbes article several times. It is very misleading and very wrong. Don’t be fooled into this garbage that somehow the NHL is losing money while at the same time they have record revenue. Think! They are doing very well for themselves. Here is a article that address MANY of the problems with the forbes article you suggest.

        http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2012/9/30/3427436/misconceptions

      • chrisvegas - Dec 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM

        @id4joey – “Forbes says 18 teams are losing money!
        Every year, Forbes releases a valuation of NHL franchises in which the magazine does a lot of research not only to hammer down what each team is worth, but also how their cash flow works. Last year’s rankings showed 18 of the NHL’s 30 teams running at an operating loss. The problem is that NHL teams are run as private businesses and private businesses don’t release their financials for review. Forbes builds their data off what they can gather off publicly available data, but that data is extremely sensitive to Hollywood accounting. For instance, last year, the Colorado Avalanche reported $7M more in gate receipts than the Florida Panthers, despite the Panthers drawing 1,100 more fans per game and having a higher average ticket price.
        The Truth: Sadly, only the league, and possibly the players know the truth. Did the Panthers lose money? Yeah, probably. Did the Capitals lose more money than the Panthers? Probably not. Did the Sharks lose more than both of them? Come on now. Part of the reason for the Panthers’ gate receipts being so low is that their lease agreement leaves nothing to the team for luxury box sales. Of course, the Panthers lease their arena from a company owned by the same company that owns them, but Forbes doesn’t count that.”

    • badintent - Dec 13, 2012 at 2:05 AM

      There’s a $ 1 million dollars up for grabs on the ICE this week in Canada…..oh sorry, it ONLY for the Curlers. Sorry NHLPA.

      • duster1982 - Dec 13, 2012 at 11:12 AM

        when will people get that REVENUE does NOT equal PROFIT. This is why businessmen run the business, and players are supposed to play.

      • badintent - Dec 14, 2012 at 1:37 AM

        @duster
        You’re right. Curlers getting some nice ratings this week and lot of $$$. Has a PRO NHLer ever played at a pro level in Curling ??

  2. stangz11 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM

    There really isn’t any harm in at least putting this offer to a vote. Let’s see where the players really stand

    • stakex - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

      Fehr and the super starts would never let that happen. Right now the only real leverage the players have is the claim that they are united behind Fehr. If they put this to a vote, one of two things is likely to happen:

      1. It is accepted by the players, something Fehr and a lot of the super stars with massive contracts would rather not have happen.

      2. Its not accepted (not sure what % of players need to vote for it ot be accepted), but a large percentage of players vote for it. This is the nightmare scenario for the players side, since it would expose this whole “united stance” thing for what it probably is… a bunch of BS. Once that happens, the players side is dead in the water. Once the league smells a sizable split in the players ranks, its all over.

      • id4joey - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:25 PM

        They will play the we are united and stand by Fehr card publicly. However, there is going to be plenty of lobbying behind the scenes to rally the players to accept whatever is on the table. Guaranteed.

      • duster1982 - Dec 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM

        When you have to keep publicly announcing “we are united” it usually means youre not.

  3. nothanksimdriving123 - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

    I truly believe they only broke off for the day because they are dizzy with excitement over being on the verge of an imminent agreement!! Of course, I also truly believe that investigators are mere hours away from finding Saddam Hussein’s WMD. Ah, time for my meds.

  4. dprouse - Dec 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

    Fehr will not have the players vote on an offer he doesn’t like. If it gets approved anyway, the players have now essentially fired their Executive Director. What Fehr will do instead is go looking to the NHL for some kind of crumb that he can dress up as a win. If the NHL is smart, they’ll toss him that face-saving bone, at which time he can recommend approval of an offer.

    • id4joey - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

      The PA protocol requires that the 13 player negotiating committee unanimously accept that the deal shall be proposed to the membership. They can veto Fehr’s decision. Honestly, the players hired Fehr for this very reason. After the Goodenow/Saskin/Kelly eras they decided to hire Fehr to avoid another slaughter.

      • valoisvipers - Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

        Great info Joey, I hope that the 13 player negotiating committee isn’t entirely make up with overpaid superstars because at this point it is only about them.All the 3rd and 4rth liners on teams want to play now and would sign. Add to that anyone 35 and older which most teams have 2 would want to sign and play now, as would all the back up goalies. Now through in the guys that are under performing for the money they are getting or players on the last year of a lucrative contract.You also have the 2-3 guys that are up with the team trying to establish a spot on the roster,you know they want to play so add all this up and you have about 75-80% of each teams players that would sign and play today. Wish they could vote!

      • id4joey - Dec 13, 2012 at 9:09 PM

        Here is the list of the dirty dozen+1-1
        Ron Hainsey
        Jamal Mayers
        Mathieu Darche
        Brad Boyes
        Adrian Aucoin
        Shane Doan
        Chris Campoli
        Andy Macdonald
        Steve Montador
        Geoff Wynick
        Brandon Morrison
        Doug Murray

  5. bcsteele - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM

    Hell, just take the deal…

  6. flyeredup - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

    Queue the Fat Lady, she’s gonna be singing real soon. Kill 2014 and 2015 as well!

  7. billsin20xx - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM

    Why would they sign without having the owners at least compromise a little on the contract issues? And with the 5 year contracts the stars will make more money then now, then the rest of the salary cap will be filled with min wage players. Do you really want to see that?
    The league should move closer to what the players want on contracts, the players should give the owners the long term agreement they want, everybody wins!

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

      WHAT!!?? Give and take?? Like actual negotiations?? Like grownups?? Are you completely nuts?? Besides, I just figured out Bettman’s secret plan. He wants to elevate the Stanley Cup to the stature of the Olympics by only awarding it every 4 years.

  8. cruuuzcontrol - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    Between the NFL lockout and the NHL lockout, I’ve learned that not only is there a reason the world has so many lawyers, and there’s also a reason why it can be nice to be a good car salesman. Most people have little to no idea how a negotiation is supposed to work and would just take the first deal they’re offered.

    The NHL has already said once that the offer was off the table… Now, a few days later, it’s magically back on the table. Why should Fehr and the PA believe the same, regurgitated empty threat today?

  9. dbarnes79 - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

    Just take it already!! Five year cap on contracts is fair because these long contracts are just cheating in disguise. 50-50 is fair with paid in full clause. 10 year CBA should be fair for fans so we don’t have to go through this crap for at another decade.

  10. jaker85 - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

    People who work for the Pens are being told the lockout is over and will be announced Friday.

    • ron05342 - Dec 12, 2012 at 8:47 PM

      I call BS.

  11. coreydm80 - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:25 PM

    @jaker85, is there an article for that?

    • isithockeyseasonyet - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

      Yes, where is this coming from?

      • ibieiniid - Dec 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM

        the mysterious land of butthole

  12. stakex - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:31 PM

    Well, its actually good news to hear that the NHL offer is still on the table. The players can kick and scream all they want for more, but thats probably what the final deal will be. If it had stayed off the table, any hope for a season would have been completely gone.

    Its just a matter of how many more games the players want to lose in an effort to defend contract lengths that only about 10% of players will ever get.

    • billsin20xx - Dec 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

      You are wrong in one sense. 10% of the players might get limited by 5 year contracts. They will then demand more dollars for the shorter contract. In turn then the other 90% of the players will be fighting for whatever crumbs are left of the salary cap max.
      So the limit will help raise wages for the top 10%, lower wages for the bottom 90%.

      • stakex - Dec 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

        So the argument is that the super stars will be even more greedy with a 5 year term limit, and as such the players as a whole are going to lose a season over this issue? That makes sense….

        Besides there is a very easy solution to this problem: Lower the max amount of money (currently 20% of a teams cap) a player is allowed to make. That number could be lowered to 15% of a teams cap and things would stay about the same as they are now.

        Its also worth pointing out that players probably wouldn’t get many max contracts under this new system, if any at all. The reason back diving contracts started was because owners wouldn’t give out max contracts because they are bad for a team overall with a cap. So what makes people think owners would start throwing max contracts around like candy with 5 year limits? They didn’t before, and they won’t now because its hard to win a cup with two super star and a bunch of 4th line players…..

  13. mattyo99 - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

    Well if cumbs mean alot of $$ i’ll take it, those players will still be rich

  14. chrisvegas - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:09 PM

    The owners think the players will crack first, and they will if they give in this season. If the players want to win they need to be willing to miss this season and part of next, and if they aren’t willing they should just give in now so we can have some hockey. The owners set themselves up nicely to miss an entire season knowing the players will most likely cave first. However, I really hope the owners lose on this. I’m tired of their lockouts. Also they act like they are losing money when the NHL is thriving. If the players want to win they have to be willing to miss more then one season, if not give in now.

    • id4joey - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

      Holy crap! Very good strategy if you’re looking for a fight. Very poor strategy from a financial perspective. You have to pick your battles. You know. Like Sean Avery always avoided the heavy fights, but played like he was one. He knew he had to pick his battles to put all chances on his side. And when he fought, his arms were so extended during the fight that he got treated for hyper extension after the game. Anyway! Players! Pick your battles. This is not one you want to have.

      • chrisvegas - Dec 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM

        I disagree. If the players give in to much this lockout the owners will continue to take more and more every CBA negotiation. Give them an inch and they’ll take a foot. The players need to stay strong.

      • id4joey - Dec 12, 2012 at 9:16 PM

        chrisvegas, you’re arguments are very good from a player’s perspective. Now, put on the owner’s hat and read the Forbes articles. If you’re being objective, then I suspect you’ll see the issue from a different perspective.

      • woodstakes - Dec 13, 2012 at 1:10 AM

        While I agree with you on the Forbes article Joey as it does show some large losses for a few teams while quite a few teams are on the bubble; $129.5M in losses combined by ALL the leagues teams that showed operating income losses… but there are a few questions that I always seem to come back to:

        1) If your business was losing multi-millions of dollars every year why would one who has reached billionaire or upper multimillionaire status hold on to such an investment? How many investments have these guys made over the years that lost money consistently for years and they still hold on to them? Why, aren’t all these teams up for sale… shouldn’t there be a fire sale on these teams?

        2) If you were trying to sell to the union that you are losing SO much money… why wouldn’t you GLADLY open your books to show them just how much your losing?? Really only 1 or 2 answers to come to from that imo… Either your not losing all that much money or you don’t want them to see how much money you are making outside of HRR.

        3) When you look at the Forbes article and you infer the fact that all these teams showing (operating) losses have been saying these losses have been going on for YEARS… why is it only 3 teams show a negative on value change?? If a team has been losing 10′s of millions of dollars for years upon years… why hasn’t its value decreased for all these teams? Why only 3??

      • id4joey - Dec 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM

        1) these owners are billionaires, and it wasn’t through hockey that they became so. Hockey is not their primary source of income. They own a professional franchise for the prestige, thrill and excitement it gives them. They are power seekers. For some selling would be like admitting a business failure. Again, they are pure business men looking to turn a profit. What better achievement is there for a business man than to take a business and turn loses into profits? For them it’s merely a game. We have difficulty putting our heads around that concept because we don,t have the same mindset as they do.

        2) if you’re a publicly traded company,then you are obligated to make your profits and loses known publicly. NHL owners are not. Business men will put all the leverage on their side in order to win. It is within their legal right not to open their books. Business men look for ways to win without breaking the laws, and some stretch future than others, while few actually break them just to flatter their egos.

        3) our only insight is based on whatever information is made public. Value has increased as a whole, and some teams are worth more than others. The ones in small hockey markets are worth less. Currently there are 7 or 8 teams that couldn’t care less if there is no hockey this year because they are losing money. For our sake I hope the ones that want a season can convince these 7 or 8 to have a season.

        We form our opinions based on information fed to us by the media, use a bit of common sense and experience to fill in the gaps. Forbes admits what they wrote was based on research and historical data. They may be off, but I suspect they have their inside information and can piece together the state of the finances fairly accurately.

  15. sportsfan69 - Dec 12, 2012 at 8:41 PM

    Come on guys. Get it done.

  16. cspsrbums - Dec 13, 2012 at 12:04 AM

    Id4 the Forbes arrival is a bunch of crap we went through that weeks ago we all know owners move money around between businesses to show a loss. I hole the players stick together not only to stick it to the owners but to stick it to you and your F*** sources get off the owners nuts again

    • chrisvegas - Dec 13, 2012 at 1:07 PM

      Yep. I point this article to anyone who refers to the BS Forbes article.

      http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2012/9/30/3427436/misconceptions

  17. cspsrbums - Dec 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM

    Forbes article. ( hate auto correct)

Featured video

Are Penguins vulnerable vs. Columbus?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. E. Malkin (4271)
  2. M. Brodeur (3087)
  3. T. Oshie (3071)
  4. M. Duchene (2865)
  5. D. Backes (2826)