It's been a while since I wrote a full-out, serious article on this blog; I know, I'm well aware. Some of you may have deeply missed my thought-provoking writing mixed with satire and, basically, arrogant remarks that make reading about everyday hockey events so enjoyable, haven't y'all? I can't blame you, I really can't, but if you have a cure for offseason writer's block, by all means send it my way. After all, my email and twitter are plastered all over the site.
But, for the time being, I actually have a developing story that requires my opinion to be spread out on paper this blog. Now, before you go ahead and read this and maybe shed a tear or two realizing that the 2012-13 hockey season is in jeopardy (damn, I probably shouldn't have said that yet), consider this my warning to you; although you are drooling over the thought of a Nick Montemagno article for the first time in weeks, the topic being written on is not exactly something that will be music to your ears. Now that that's out of the way, let's get on to the good stuff.
Our best buddy Larry Brooks (heh) from the New York Post dropped some bombs on the hockey world last night via twitter regarding the current status of CBA negotiations between the National Hockey League/Owners and the Player's Association - which we haven't heard much of anything about until now. To freshen everyone's memory, the current CBA expires before the start of the 2012-13 season, which means a new, reorganized one must be put into action prior to, let's say, September if the plan is to get things rolling at normal pace. That would allow players to report to training camp and would mean that preseason as well as regular season action would begin as scheduled.
Those hopes, at the moment, have been squashed to pieces based on what was leaked late last night.
What was released last night were the proposals by the League's owners relating to player contracts and salaries - obviously the jugular vein when it comes to importance of issues to get the process of CBA negotiations moving. Those proposals, however, almost 100-percent undoubtedly will NOT be going over well with the Player's Association camp when they get wind of this all (which presumably has happened already). Basically, like in any negotiation, the first proposal is what will be the structure of argument - the foundation for what is to be built upon.
The problem here is that one side has severely, and I mean severely, low-balled the other to the point that negotiation would seem out of the question. Don't believe me? Check out the following tweets from Mr. Brooks himself (which were also confirmed by various other sources):
Post has learned proposal not only would reduce share to 46% of HRR as per @RenLavoieRDS but would redfine HRR to dramatically reduce gross
— Larry Brooks(@NYP_Brooksie) July 14, 2012
Post has learned proposal calls for ceiling to be set $4M above midpoint, floor $8M under
— Larry Brooks(@NYP_Brooksie) July 14, 2012
Post has learned proposal would eliminate signing bonuses and mandate same salary in each season with 5-yr term limit
— Larry Brooks(@NYP_Brooksie) July 14, 2012
I know, that was a lot of information thrown at you in a different language all at once, so you may not understand it all. I'm going to sum this all up as comprehensible as I can with one simple phrase, and since we're all influenced and familiar with street-talk and slang terms these days, here it is: That's some f*cked up sh*t.
The NHLPA is most likely feeling a sense of embarrassment right now. Basically, the League's owners would like to chip away at the players' shares of revenue stream by 11-percent (57 to 46), which is a substantial amount when talking big bucks in a professional sports franchise. To put this into perspective, a 1-percent drop would cause a slight argument to take place between the two sides. 11-percent? That's unimaginable.
In addition to this, they would also ask that signing bonuses be done away with all together and that general managers can no longer front-load contracts by putting forth a mandate to keep the same annual salary amount over however many years the contract is signed for. Oh yeah, and a player cannot sign a contract longer than five years in length, eliminating the ridiculous deals we have seen develop in growing frequency over the past few years.
That last tidbit, about limiting contract length and evening out yearly salary, is actually a fantastic idea in my book. It would eliminate all of the circumvention that has been taking place. But remember, my ideals as a fan/blogger far much from that of the players. They will not take a liking to the idea of such limitations, I will tell you right now. Players want long-term and they want loads of money guaranteed right up front. The proposal from the NHL and it's owners would prevent both.
Now that the bombs have been dropped, let's take the aftermath into consideration here and look at the current circumstances. It is now mid-July and a new CBA, according to what we wrote above, needs to be completed by September (more specifically mid-September). That leaves the NHL and NHLPA just about a two-month period of time to get things sorted out and agreed upon. Remember what I said above about the NHL's proposals being pretty much unimaginable?
Yeah, right now, I wouldn't be getting my hopes up for the Rangers, let alone any team, opening the regular season on October 12 as planned. At this point we should be hoping for a delayed start as opposed to a complete lockout.
You wanted news, didn't you?
Comments