Originally Posted by Loch
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.
I definitely agree the first offer was crazy. But it was designed to do two things:
1) antagonize the players
2) telegraph an eventual 50/50 split (which most of us realized immediately after the offer and which Bettman admitted himself was the intention)
As for the antagonizing aspect of that offer, I hate to play the "he started it" card but the PA had raised the league's hackles previously for no other reason than to be confrontational (by refusing to begin negotiations until the summer when the league tried to start a year ago, and even before that totally crapping all over the league's realignment proposal).