In The Hockey News, Ken Campbell writes about the owners first offer to the players for the new CBA and says that it’s not as bad as some are making it out to be.
He writes, “Rather than look at the owners’ opening salvo as a war on the players, perhaps it’s time to look at it as a workable framework for a new deal. You’d have to presume the NHL’s offer isn’t going to get worse. The league is not going after guaranteed contracts, which is sacrosanct to the players, nor is it demanding a pre-determined rollback on existing contracts. And if the two sides can negotiate up from there, perhaps there’s a deal somewhere in here that works for everyone involved.”
Jesse Spector writes in the Sporting News “Right, the NHLPA gets to have its say at the bargaining table as well. Strange as it may seem, Friday’s initial proposal from the league was not a take-it-or-leave-it offer. “
Stu Hackel writes at SI that the owners proposal had one purpose
In some sense, the owners’ initial offer is all of these things — wish list, vision of their perfect world, opening gambit and an insult to their supposed partnership with the players. But in another sense, it’s probably none of them because with their proposal — which is certainly regressive and very severe, if not oppressive — the owners are, more than anything, posing a first test to the new unity of a union they crushed and dismembered in their previous negotiations, in 2004-05. They want to see how the players react, test their mettle, learn how good a job new executive director Donald Fehr has done preparing his membership. There’s still a long time to go before the current CBA expires on September 15, so the owners want to assess their adversary before they proceed further.
In the Globe and Mail, James Mirtle breaks down the issues.
Steve Zipay writes at Blue Notes that the TV deal will be a big factor in the NHL either not having a lockout or not having a long one.
PHT spoke with someone who thinks that the whole season could be lost.