But "bargaining for the benefit of future players" is exactly what the union is NOT doing. The union is willing to go 50-50 for FUTURE players...as long as CURRENT player contracts are protected. Essentially, the union is saying they will agree to a two-tier system.
Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.
That's where you're wrong. The make whole provision proposed by the NHL offers to pay the players the money they'd lose off their current contracts, but deducts that money out of the player's future share of HRR. That makes the player share of HRR less than 50% - or makes it that they aren't actually protecting the player's contracts at all, pick your poison.
The NHLPA is at least trying to find a solution that meets in the middle, recognizing they can't protect everything they'd like to going forward. If they didn't offer things like actual value of their HRR share holding while revenues are allowed to grow, or holding the owners to the current contracts while understanding the need for better revenue sharing and limits on cap and contracts as they are, then they wouldn't be negotiating. What they don't want to do is just give up all the things they've already been promised.
That's what aggravates a number of the people on here that have been debating this for some time: someone comes along and doesn't read anything from this thread (the one your thread was merged with, rather than your original) and posts something obviously wrong for or against one of the sides. The basis for your argument is using the sound bite version of the NHL's proposal as your evidence.
Here's my post from earlier in this thread:
Bettman offered a deal that looks good only when described via Twitter: 140 characters or less. Once we all got a chance to have the details explained it was clear they weren't offering strictly 50/50 either, just in a different way from how the NHLPA accounted for their 50/50 offer(s).
What Bettman said: "50/50, and we offer to make whole any losses from player contracts."
What Bettman meant: "50/50, but we'll use a part of your future 50% share of HRR to pay for the losses from player contracts."
If you feel strongly enough that you have to create a thread to voice your opinion on something, I'd think it's worthwhile to at least read up on what you want to discuss.
EDIT: for clarity
Edited by elvis15, 26 October 2012 - 12:31 PM.