Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

If They Really Love Our Game

from David Shoalts of the Globe and Mail,

This is the week we’ll discover if all those people on both sides of the NHL lockout love hockey as much as they promise while holding the game for ransom.

Thursday may be yet another deadline imposed only by NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners as the final day to save a full 82-game season but unlike the Sept. 15 one when the previous collective agreement expired, it is one grounded in reality. Unless the players and owners make serious progress toward an agreement this week, there simply would not be enough time to shoehorn 82 games into the calendar and still finish the Stanley Cup final by the end of June, a outrageously late date to be sure, and still allow the players some semblance of rest between games.

Since both sides acknowledge their latest offers show there is a deal to be made, that a 50-50 share of revenue is now the admitted goal, the solution is going to lie with the moderates among the owners and players. They have to start nudging, well, pushing really, the hard-liners among them to a deal.

continued

Filed in: NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

I refuse to believe Shoalts is this much of a simpleton.

“Since both sides acknowledge their latest offers show there is a deal to be made, that a 50-50 share of revenue is now the admitted goal, the solution is going to lie with the moderates among the owners and players.”

It is important to note that I have not seen the NHLPA make an offer of any kind which moves them significantly off of 55-57% of HRR as defined under the old agreement.

So, no, the NHLPA apparently does not believe that there is a deal to be made in the 50-50 zone.

Whether you think that means the absence of NHL hockey is the players fault or the owners fault (it’s both, but it is also pointless to argue this with the entrenched) I just wish writers would describe it accurately.

The owners want a 50-50 split under the previous definition of HRR.  The players don’t want anything less than 55+% of HRR, and in any scenario want every dollar of previous contracts honored regardless of share number.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/22/12 at 12:25 PM ET

Avatar

So after weeks of arguing that SPCs are irrelevant because the old CBA   is expired; the old CBA definition of HRR is now sacrosanct?  Have you not been conversely arguing all along that the players should not be neogatiating off of the expiring CBA share of 57%  for the same reason?

If the CBA is expired and no longer matters, then the old defintion of HRR and 57% no longer matter either. Which way are we going to have it? You can’t pick and chose your pieces of the CBA is expired argument. You are asking a writer to be accurate when there is no single definition of 50/50 that anyone can agree with and why we have a lockout.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/22/12 at 12:38 PM ET

Avatar

So after weeks of arguing that SPCs are irrelevant because the old CBA   is expired; the old CBA definition of HRR is now sacrosanct?

You are JJ-ing.

I am merely defining the terms of the discussion.  You are apparently attempting to put veritable chapters full of words in my mouth.

In case my actual opinion is a factor in what you choose to yell at me about, I don’t think anything is sacrosanct.  Not definitions, not guaranteed contracts, not percentage shares, not terms of deals, not current SPCs, not number of teams, not which teams are in which divisions or conferences.

None of it.  As soon as a CBA is up everything is up.

You are asking a writer to be accurate when there is no single definition of 50/50 that anyone can agree with and why we have a lockout.

Well… yes.  Is that wrong of me?

Rather than writing what he did, he could have written what you supposed.  But since he didn’t, and presupposed an area of agreement where there is none, I have a bit of a problem with what he chose to write.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/22/12 at 12:50 PM ET

Avatar

As soon as a CBA is up everything is up.

Nice job HDing.  So we are in agreement 50/50 based on the old CBA definition is meaningless in any discussion moving forward. Any new definition of 50/50 is just as valid as the last. The players have a deal in the 50/50 zone, it just isn’t 50/50 within the framework of the old CBA or by your definition.

I am merely defining the terms of the discussion.

You are defining the terms of the discussion in a way that uniquely validates your stance. Where did I put chapters of words into your mouth? Did I misrepresent your stance that the old CBA is expired and is no longer applicable? Only now you are using an “old” definition to frame a new debate.

Well… yes.  Is that wrong of me?

Yes, it is quite wrong since you are asking the writer to use a flawed definition which is the old CBA HRR. I don’t necessarily agree with author on many points, but I believe what he is saying is that 50/50 is the agreed upon goal. How that is defined is now the challenge and is a much wider gap than Shoalts implies, but it is at least the target.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/22/12 at 01:44 PM ET

Avatar

So we are in agreement 50/50 based on the old CBA definition is meaningless in any discussion moving forward.

Okay, look.  Either you’re trolling me (which, hey, whatever) or you are spectacularly awful at reading.

No, 50/50 based on the old CBA definition is not ‘meaningless’.  I know this to be true because it has, in fact, a pretty succinct meaning.

As in, from the owners perspective instead of the old deal where it was 43/57, the new deal will be 50/50 using the same numbers to determine the ‘pie’.

Any new definition of 50/50 is just as valid as the last.

I agree with that.  I just don’t agree that since the definitions are equally valid that they are all therefore meaningless.  Things can be defined differently without losing either their meaning or their relevance.

Where did I put chapters of words into your mouth?

Let me answer your question with a question:  What have I ever said to lead you to believe I thought the terms of the old CBA were sacrosanct?

Did I misrepresent your stance that the old CBA is expired and is no longer applicable?

No, you just leapt from that to the opposite conclusion, that it was ‘sacrosanct’, and then yowled about something that I’ve never said.

Of course the old CBA is expired and no longer applicable.  I hope that you are aware that even though the old document is no longer applicable it can serve as a general framework for subsequent CBAs.

Or it can be thrown out and ignored entirely.

Or it can be re-enacted verbatim.

Any or all of those things could happen, or some range between.

Yes, it is quite wrong since you are asking the writer to use a flawed definition which is the old CBA HRR.

1) It’s not a flawed definition.  It’s a definition.  Just because it isn’t your preferred one doesn’t make it more or less valid.

2) I would suggest you go back and actually read Shoalts’ article in full.  When you do, you will discover he makes no mention of different definitions of revenue, merely that that everyone agrees it should be split up 50-50… and that since this is the case, why the sides must be close.

My point of contention with the article, which you actually agree with if you’d stop yelling for a minute and connect what you’ve already said here to this, is that since the definitions of revenue are so disparate and unfocused, attempting to spin ‘hey we all agree 50-50 is the way to go’ is indicative of closeness between the two sides is STOOOOOOOPID.

How do I know you agree with me?

How that is defined is now the challenge and is a much wider gap than Shoalts implies, but it is at least the target.

Bingo.  That’s why, as I said earlier, “Whether you think that means the absence of NHL hockey is the players fault or the owners fault (it’s both, but it is also pointless to argue this with the entrenched) I just wish writers would describe it accurately.”

See?  You agree with me.

Now by all means, yell at me about it. smile

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/22/12 at 05:58 PM ET

Avatar

50/50 based on the old CBA definition is not ‘meaningless’.

It has meaning only if you agree that 57% of the pie is where negotiations would start because the old CBA is the reference point if you are using the old definition of HRR.  Many of us have argued that the old CBA should be a reference point because that is the framework from which the PSCs were originally defined. To not recognize that doesn’t seem like a good way to negotiate even though it would be within everyone’s rights, but I don’t want to troll you or yell. So yes it is a valid definition, but meaningless in the current context if all other parts of the CBA are not in play. Pie is a crust full of baked fruit, but that definition is meaningless if I am trying to find the circumference of the earth.  So I’ll leave it at that.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/23/12 at 10:14 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com