[Article] SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: CBA MYTHS VS. FACTS

[Hobble]

If the owners want to spend less money on players, why don't they just spend less money on players. Don't throw around ridiculous contracts.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

There is a term for what this article really is...propaganda. I have no doubt Bettman is an insufferable douche that is going to be a major cause of the next lockout but this is just an awful showing by the NHLPA to garner support. Might as well carry signs saying "we're the good guy...they kill puppies."

Having said that though there is still some really good information in this article.

[thad]

Calling that fact or myth is as dumb as fox news saying they're "fair and balanced"

[elvis15]

Why? The NHLPA is just a union, it isn't active in the day to day runnings of the teams or the league. The current CBA is the owners' doing as is everything since that negotiation. Inflated contracts, long terms, etc didn't have to be handed out to players. But owners acted like they had more money to throw around than they had, now they're freaking out and want more.

[TOMapleLaughs]

lol at "Fact: Why?"

But here's a cold hard fact for the PA to swallow: The NHL can/will lockout the players and win this battle 'because they can.' There doesn't even have to be a good reason to do it other than because they can win. All the players can do is complain about it, but in the end it's still likely gonna happen.

Let's just hope an entire season isn't lost due to owner arrogance. Prediction: Jan 1st season start.

[SukhKular]

Part of the NHL's newest proposal is that the cap is no longer tied to revenue, therefore making it so the players' salaries don't increase as revenue is expected to increase.

[TOMapleLaughs]

The thing is, even if we whole-heartedly supported the players here, so what? It changes nothing.

We've already proven we'll come back to the game even after an entire season and playoffs is lost. And the NHL has already seen other leagues fail when there is a season-long lockout.

The owners are holding all the cards, but the players will still get plenty rich. So i'm siding with nobody. I could care less just how rich these people are getting. Let's just get back to the game fixing and bs off-and-on-ice drama please.

[filthycanuck]

So, knowing the reasoning for the addition of the cap and the salary rollbacks when the last CBA was put in place, would you say:

A ) The players willingly signed exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to the spirit of the CBA, or

B ) The players were forced to sign exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to spirit of the CBA.

Certainly the owners have the lion's share, but if the NHLPA thought top players getting signed to crazy deals (particularly recent deals like Parise, Suter and Weber) would be good for the players as a whole, then they have their own responsibility in this mess. Those massive deals aren't helping the lower players the NHLPA is meant to protect.

[Baggins]

There are several quotes from Bettman in the article. Unfortunately, he took the same approach...not backing up his statements. He goes on record saying things like "revenue sharing is a non-issue," and doesn't expand at all. The PA can at least use other leagues as examples; the NBA, NFL and MLB, all have extensive, well documented, revenue sharing programs.

Bettman not only doesn't explain why revenue sharing is not an issue, but goes as far as manipulating the actual definition of revenue.

Bettman essentially says, "Ok, you don't want a 24% reduction in the overall revenue share? That's fine, you can keep the same percentage, but we've decided that what we declare as total revenue is 24% less than before, and we keep the rest."

I don't just see that as insulting in the sense that they would be taking repeated cuts from the same owners the lured them in with massive contracts. I also see it as insulting because Bettman is approaching the negotiations as though the players are stupid, and can't do simple math.

[elvis15]

It has nothing to do what the NHLPA thinks of Parise, Suter etc. whatever, all those guys that signed long term contracts have one thing in mind, their own well being and their families. The idea of getting guaranteed money for that length of time is too attractive to just thinking "hey im gonna make a mess of the CBA" This is all on the owners and their ridiculous ways to circumvent the camp.

It is noted that when Luongo was in contract negotiations with the Canucks, Roberto was expecting a deal about 8 years in length and the Gillis gave him 12 years which suprised him. The 12 years was done to make the salary cap lower, not in terms of believing he'll be capable to play in a high level until hes 40. You don't just dole out 12 year 10 year contracts without an owners approval

[Baggins]

The salary cap is going up because of a rise in revenues.

[Baggins]

It is noted that when Luongo was in contract negotiations with the Canucks, Roberto was expecting a deal about 8 years in length and the Gillis gave him 12 years which suprised him. The 12 years was done to make the salary cap lower, not in terms of believing he'll be capable to play in a high level until hes 40. You don't just dole out 12 year 10 year contracts without an owners approval

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

As there is nothing in there from the owners/Bettman explaining their stance it is most certainly one sided. The players side.

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

Well der....I never could of figured that one out. But are revenues going up for all teams equally? No. The poor teams are still the poor teams. Which means the rich teams are outdistancing them again. The poorer teams need an equitable salary cap in order to compete. Otherwise half the teams just develop their draft picks for the rich teams and you see the same teams competing for the cup year after year just as it was prior to the cap era. And as a bi-product those poorer teams can't attract a solid fan base because they can't win and generate enough interest. Which means they will remain the poor teams.

The players are going to have to accept a rollback. There's simply no way that it won't happen. While the owners need to improve revenue sharing. Which is what the NHLPA should be going after in exchange for a rollback. It takes decades to develop a solid fan base in nontraditional markets. They need to be in those markets if they want larger national TV contracts. There's going to have to be give on both sides to keep the ENTIRE league stable and competitive.

[SamJamIam]

So, knowing the reasoning for the addition of the cap and the salary rollbacks when the last CBA was put in place, would you say:

A ) The players willingly signed exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to the spirit of the CBA, or

B ) The players were forced to sign exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to spirit of the CBA.

Certainly the owners have the lion's share, but if the NHLPA thought top players getting signed to crazy deals (particularly recent deals like Parise, Suter and Weber) would be good for the players as a whole, then they have their own responsibility in this mess. Those massive deals aren't helping the lower players the NHLPA is meant to protect.

[Baggins]

This is what I believe needs to happen as well. Because I disagree with the demands and negotiation tactics of Bettman, doesn't mean I view the situation at the opposite extreme, with the players giving up absolutely nothing. The current process being employed, led and forced upon the players by Bettman is ultimately what will be the cause of a lockout. The players are fully willing to negotiate amicably while playing a full season without any threat of a strike. Bettman, on the other hand, is fully willing to negotiate by extortion.

[Grapefruits]

Tell that to the guys who are taking less because the superstars are taking up a large percentage of the cap space and teams - particularly teams that don't spend to the cap but want to retain their superstars - have to cut back on other player's salaries.

Are the players trying to earn as much as they can? Yes. Are they doing it to directly circumvent the cap? Not really. Are they aware that it could be seen that way and have impacts on future CBA negotiations? Of course.

Remember, the NHLPA is a union, and a union is formed to protect all of it's members not just the highest earning ones. Players (and their agents) are aware of the ramifications yet they still work at playing teams against each other to drive up what they can earn regardless of their actual value, and they would rather take the money in many cases rather than sign a contract they can live up to.

Just because an owner offers something doesn't mean the player should accept - look at Wade Redden and how it's affected his NHL career.

[Dogbyte]

The owners are the ones putting up the capital and taking all the risk. We reward these people as Gods in society today. They can do whatever they want while they rest of us struggle to get by. The players are filthy rich but at the end of the day they are just pawns as well.

Well der....I never could of figured that one out. But are revenues going up for all teams equally? No. The poor teams are still the poor teams. Which means the rich teams are outdistancing them again. The poorer teams need an equitable salary cap in order to compete. Otherwise half the teams just develop their draft picks for the rich teams and you see the same teams competing for the cup year after year just as it was prior to the cap era. And as a bi-product those poorer teams can't attract a solid fan base because they can't win and generate enough interest. Which means they will remain the poor teams.

The players are going to have to accept a rollback. There's simply no way that it won't happen. While the owners need to improve revenue sharing. Which is what the NHLPA should be going after in exchange for a rollback. It takes decades to develop a solid fan base in nontraditional markets. They need to be in those markets if they want larger national TV contracts. There's going to have to be give on both sides to keep the ENTIRE league stable and competitive.

[Shift-4]

While I agree with all that was said when was the last time you saw Safeway helping out Sobey's with revenue sharing because no one went to their markets? It's quite ludicrous to expect a money hungry old windbag to give up his share of undeserved monies when he is winning, even if he is making unprecedented gains. When you start playing with that kind of money decency has gone out the window a long time ago.

[The Lock]

The quotes are essentially all the information Bettman would provide. He did not/would not give information supporting his statements. He just stated his points, as quoted, as though they were gospel. The union is simply providing a rebuttal WITH information supporting their point. Its not propaganda when making a counter argument with supporting information, even though its one-sided, just proper debate methodology.