Originally Posted by eyemissgilmour
I think that's true... the NHLPA has gained nothing. And I think part of the problem is the mentality that they should. If I'm a 3rd or 4th line player making 1mil to 1.5mil, and I see that 2/3 of the league is unprofitable, I wouldn't be fighting the league. I would be trying to make a deal, as I would recognize players costs spiralled out of control.
The fact that they aren't "gaining" anything in this CBA doesn't mean they are mistreated. That is exactly where the reality check needs to factor in.
I'm pretty sure the players haven't attempted to make any 'gains' compared to the last CBA and as they have said they would be happy to continue playing under the previous deal I can't see an argument here.
And as someone mentioned the first league offer... that was for 43% HRR, 5 year ELCs and 10yrs before UFA status. Now over the course of 5 years a 24% drop in HRR going to the players is EXACTLY LIKE MISSING A WHOLE SEASON. (actually a season + 20 games, whatever) So going from the last CBA to the league's first offer is a dumber idea than a year of a lockout.
Even compared to a 50-50 split that first offer would be worse than missing half a year from the players' perspective. Throw in the changes to ELCs and Free Agency and it suddenly becomes worthwhile to miss some paychecks.
Sucks for the fans, but I don't know that the players are 'in the wrong' here any more than the league.