NHL, NHLPA close to eight-year deal?

[Chili]

8 years is too long.

It gives both sides too much time to poke holes in the agreement and exploit them for years. Before the ink is dry on a cba someone is looking for ways around some of the clauses.

Of course if they added a reopener clause it would be ok.

My two cents.

 

[Crows*]

8 years isn't long enough.

I don't want this again in 8 years.

 

[Chili]

8 years isn't long enough.

I don't want this again in 8 years.

An 8 year agreement could easily mean the end of hockey in some cities if the players and agents are able to find similiar loopholes to the last agreement.

 

[Trottier]

I feel that as an owner supporter, that this IS the compromise.

Give this poster the prize.

Once the concept of "not getting everything you want in a CBA" is recognized by both sides (and - PLEASE - some fans on this board), an agreement will be reached and rapidly.

It is laughable at this juncture that fans who are anti-NHL player would reject this outline of a "hybrid" agreement out of hand. Likewise, a cap of some sort (though not a hardcap, IMO) is in order as a concession from the player's side.

Those who insist on a hardcap "or else the players can stick it" are the same types who offer up Marian Gaborik for Dale Purinton trade suggestions. As in, "I want it all." That's delusional, and won't happen.

Compromise is in order.

 

[Isles72]

jesus murphy , I'd be 46 when an 8 year deal expires

 

[Cole Caulifield]

An 8 year agreement could easily mean the end of hockey in some cities if the players and agents are able to find similiar loopholes to the last agreement.

Well it works both ways. If the agreement is perfect and both sides end up doing well, 8 years is a good number.

 

[BLONG7]

Its not there anymore. Honestly though if this is true....(but im sure its not)...I would consider this the best day of my 19 1/2 year life. Without NHL hockey..my life is not the same.

Quite the avatar... is that Keith Partridge or Gary Bettman???

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Give this poster the prize.

Once the concept of "not getting everything you want in a CBA" is recognized by both sides (and - PLEASE - some fans on this board), an agreement will be reached and rapidly.

It is laughable at this juncture that fans who are anti-NHL player would reject this outline of a "hybrid" agreement out of hand. Likewise, a cap of some sort (though not a hardcap, IMO) is in order as a concession from the player's side.

Those who insist on a hardcap "or else the players can stick it" are the same types who offer up Marian Gaborik for Dale Purinton trade suggestions. As in, "I want it all." That's delusional, and won't happen.

Compromise is in order.

Yes but... I think the owners get out of this with a better deal than the players. They get the best of both world. They get the cap they wanted in the long term, while still getting the rollback. They get the short term solution and it would solve the problem long term.

The main reason the players offered the rollback in the first place was because they thought they would get it back anyway. Now with a cap after 4 years, they likely wouldn't.

 

[Chili]

Well it works both ways. If the agreement is perfect and both sides end up doing well, 8 years is a good number.

If that was the case, a reopener clause would not be activated by either side (if there was one).

 

[Cole Caulifield]

If that was the case, a reopener clause would not be activated by either side (if there was one).

True. But still I see this proposal as 2 separate ones. They likely wouldn't have much time to exploit the loopholes in the first 4 years if there indeed are loopholes.

 

[copperandblue]

Quite the avatar... is that Keith Partridge or Gary Bettman???

The first time I saw the picture I thought it was Steve Perry from Journey (just to date myself a bit)....

The hybrid proposal could work fine imo.

One thing that we saw heading into this CBA negotiation is that as the time got closer, teams finally started to pull in the reigns a bit.

4 years and then a switch to a cap could provide similar pressure to the traditional spenders where as they won't want to end up in a position where they can't make the transition.

That said, I think everyone is getting caught looking ahead here, I will believe it is legit when they say itis legit....

 

[DuklaNation]

Compromise?

If a nuclear reactor needed to be fixed in 24 hours before meltdown, would you accept a compromise on how the reactor should be fixed?

 

[Chili]

True. But still I see this proposal as 2 separate ones. They likely wouldn't have much time to exploit the loopholes in the first 4 years if there indeed are loopholes.

The reason I even bring this up is because in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the last agreement was the length.

1995? Alot has changed since then and what may have worked in 1997 doesn't necessarily apply now.

 

[jratelle19]

Sportsnet.ca pulled that article on the 8-year deal from their website.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

The reason I even bring this up is because in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the last agreement was the length.

1995? Alot has changed since then and what may have worked in 1997 doesn't necessarily apply now.

Well the last agreement's lenght was fine, they just shouldn't have kept renewing it like it was a good one.

 

[Trottier]

Yes but... I think the owners get out of this with a better deal than the players. They get the best of both world. They get the cap they wanted in the long term, while still getting the rollback....

But you know, sometimes you have to swallow your pride, take what you can get and declare victory.

Am I misreading this hybrid agreement floating around, or is the future "cap" a soft one? In which case, the union would, in fact, be getting a key demand of their's - no hardcap.

One thing that we saw heading into this CBA negotiation is that as the time got closer, teams finally started to pull in the reigns a bit.

A insightful reminder, and one either forgotten, (or conveniently overlooked) by those who wish to insist that the owners must have a hardcap, otherwise they will just keep on spending recklessly.

Fiscal restraint can be achieved, by virtue of a softcap with a meaning luxury tax, shrewd business acumen....and a wink and a nod among all 30 owners. (Not to be confused with "collusion". )

 

[Cole Caulifield]

But you know, sometimes you have to swallow your pride, take what you can get and declare victory.

Am I misreading this hybrid agreement flaoting around, or is the future "cap" a soft one? In which case, the union would, in fact, be getting a key demand of their's - no hardcap.

Maybe you're right. I thought it was a hard cap, but if it's dollar for dollar above 40-45M it's almost as good as a hard cap.

Sportsnet might have jumped the gun a little bit though. I just hope it's going to get solved. Any kind of season would be welcomed on my part.

 

[Oilhitch]

I'm not a technical person but is it possible that someone just hacked into their site and posted that?

 

[Charge_Seven]

I know the thoughts on Eklund here...but...here's his take on it:

"Sportsnet.ca reported briefly that the lock-out was over and an eight year deal was signed. Then, they quickly took it off of their site. I do know that even though the two sides are meeting today in person, they have been talking since Saturday. Until the meeting is over, I don't have any new info. According to one source, Sportsnet may be sitting on something for a few days, and they wanted to scoop everyone, and then the NHL forced them to pull it. It is odd that something so specific would be gone so quickly. "

Take it for what it's worth...my issues with it are: Sportsnet didn't say the deal was done they said it was close.

 

[hockeyfan125]

I'm not a technical person but is it possible that someone just hacked into their site and posted that?

doubtful.

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

I know the thoughts on Eklund here...but...here's his take on it:

"Sportsnet.ca reported briefly that the lock-out was over and an eight year deal was signed. Then, they quickly took it off of their site. I do know that even though the two sides are meeting today in person, they have been talking since Saturday. Until the meeting is over, I don't have any new info. According to one source, Sportsnet may be sitting on something for a few days, and they wanted to scoop everyone, and then the NHL forced them to pull it. It is odd that something so specific would be gone so quickly. "

Take it for what it's worth...my issues with it are: Sportsnet didn't say the deal was done they said it was close.

Yeah, I saw it on hockeyhearsay, and when I clicked the link, it talked about Mike Milbury calling season ticket holders to tell them that they're suckers for being season ticket holders, and that they should find a new team, because there won't ever be another Islanders dynasty. Those aren't his exact words, but they should be, jk Isles fans

 

[copperandblue]

Take it for what it's worth...my issues with it are: Sportsnet didn't say the deal was done they said it was close.

YEah and counter that with what they're reporting now;

The consensus reached on an NHLPA conference call may suggest the lockout battle is far from over. A source told Sportsnet the players are as resolute as ever on avoiding a salary cap.

"There's no change in our position," the source explained to Sportsnet.

Interestingly enough, another source within the NHL said the league's stance on cost certainty remains unchanged as well.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=IBLKPJGPAOOI?content=20050119_015720_1312

 

[417]

YEah and counter that with what they're reporting now;

The consensus reached on an NHLPA conference call may suggest the lockout battle is far from over. A source told Sportsnet the players are as resolute as ever on avoiding a salary cap.

"There's no change in our position," the source explained to Sportsnet.

Interestingly enough, another source within the NHL said the league's stance on cost certainty remains unchanged as well.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=IBLKPJGPAOOI?content=20050119_015720_1312

Blah, blah, blah...I would love to ask both sides, if that's the case, why are you meeting tomorrow. to figure out new ways on how not to get a deal?

Players can be as resolute as they want in avoiding a cap, eventually, the owners will get what they want, I can't see how they couldn't...

 

[MarkZackKarl]

shortsighted then

Well if you cant see how they 'couldn't' then youre shortsighted.

Basically the deal will end up with the NHL parading 'cost certainty' and the players parading 'marketplace' while Ottawa gets on the way to winning a Stanley Cup .

 

[417]

Well if you cant see how they 'couldn't' then youre shortsighted.

Basically the deal will end up with the NHL parading 'cost certainty' and the players parading 'marketplace' while Ottawa gets on the way to winning a Stanley Cup .

How am I being shortsighted, believe this, the owners will get cost certainty, in some shape or form, there's absolutely no doubt about that IMO, that's the one thing you can be sure about this whole lockout thing...

Think about it, god forbid this lockout last for a long time, who do you see eventually capitulating? it's not the owners, and unless there's some secret 3rd party involved, it'll be the players