Scugs said:
I would think that the NLRB would take into consideration that the owners are making offers according to their current income. Which right now is $0.00
They can only offer as much as they can afford. With the cancellation of the season, the revenue of the NHL dropped dramatically.
yes, but this happens in most industries. the parties must still negotiate in good faith.
my question is if the nlrb ultimately needs to decide on the validity of an impasse, they will see that the owners offered a salary cap of $ 42.5 million per team, while the players countered at $ 49 million.
for the nhl to return to negotiations with a regressive offer of $ 37.5 million appears to me to be bad faith. no one forced the owners to go to $ 42.5 million, but once they did, i think with this regressive offer i think the nlrb may see them negotiating in bad faith.
i also feel the same way if the NHLPA came back with a salary cap number of $ 54 million. if the nhlpa comes back with a number of $ 49 million or under, and the league sticks to their regressive number of $ 37 million, i just don't think they've made a strong case for impasse.
i still believe a cap around $ 45 million is the magic number. the owners backing off from their $ 42.5 million appears that they are not interested in negotiating.