http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/extras/bruins_blog/2012/11/nhl_cba_talks_p.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/hockey/nhl/11/21/lockout-cba-talks-new-offer.ap/index.html

" It took the PA slightly more than five weeks to reckon with the harsh reality that the owners are serious about gaining major financial givebacks, and today's response by the union more closely resembled the 50/50 offer that owners put on the table in October when the lockout was but a month old. In essence, the players finally were prepared to split in half the game's gross revenues, which last year totaled some $3.3 billion.

Today's offer had the players accepting the even split (a drop from their 57 percent share each of the last seven years) while also requesting that the owners allocate an additional $182 million toward the contentious ''Make Whole'' provision that addresses the value of player contracts already on the books. In its last offer, the league earmarked $211 million toward that provision, and now the players want a total $393 million, paid over four years. No doubt that will take some protracted jawboning, especially in light of the league's negative overall response today.

Other than an offer to amend the contentious long-term back-diving contracts, which have been a way for teams to ease (read: cheat) salary cap burdens, the new players' offer did not address many of the key language/rights amendments that owners demanded in the Oct. 16 offer.

However, conventional wisdom in recent weeks has been that owners would relent on many/most of these provisions if the PA came around to the 50/50 revenue split and peace could be made on the Make Whole issue. No telling yet if that conventional wisdom proved true or was simply wiseguy speculation. "

 

So why no counter proposal from the owners ?

Why just walk away from the table after the NHLPA conceded more money ?

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

That's Jacobs for you.  If he doesn't get what he want's, he takes his puck and goes home.

It seems the crux of the issue will be the "make whole" provisions. If the two sides can get together on that i think the rest will fall into place regarding length of contracts,entry level deals, free agency and the rest. The "make whole" (paying out current contracts in full) will ultimately be the deal maker, breaker,imo.

I'm sure Leipold doesn't really want to pay Suter & Parise $98 million each after all, i don't think that was his intention. 

That's too bad. Seems like they are still way off, and I see no reason why they would come to agreement any time soon. 

Crosby's role in this is annoying the hell out of me. What is like the designated spokes person?

"In its last offer, the league earmarked $211 million toward that provision, and now the players want a total $393 million, paid over four years."

F the players.

Sign the deal and get on the ice.

In response to 50belowzero's comment:

just like Jacobs had no intention of paying Looch 6 mil per and getting Seguin for less than what he signed and for six years instead of five....

it seems the word "honour" doesn't exist as far as the owners are concerned....

In response to 50belowzero's comment:

What on Earth could this be based on?  Does Leipold control the world?

In response to days-of-Orr's comment:

And what is this based on?  Has Jacobs come out and said anything of the sort? 

   Maybe if the players, agents, and GM's would quit trying to circumvent every CBA, the owners would not be so determined to get "cost certainty".

IMO, it is the greed of the players that has caused the current situation. I also find it insulting, that North American players are willing to play over-seas, for substantially less money then they would receive, playing in front of their NHL fans.

As we grind on into December, I bet the players wish they didn't take a full month to make their first counter proposal.

 

 

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

and as if Jacobs would....

as for what this is based on, haven't you been following the negotiations?....

 

I have been following every second of them, but to suggest that honor doesn't exist for the owners based on a theory that you have is just silly.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

honour what you sign....  you're right, that is silly.... 

In response to days-of-Orr's comment:

   Agents are not stupid. Do you not think they factored in an expected roll-back into any contract signed, in the past couple of years?

Every time the players make a proposal the owners don't counter. They leave the meeting stating "we are still worlds, miles apart". The players have wanted prior contracts that were given to players by GMs , employed by the owners to their bidding, some just this past summer "Made Whole" no rollback.

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

   Since every player willingly signs a contract that has the stipulation that the terms of the deal are subject to change under a new CBA, I do not understand the "make whole" provision, the players seem to think they are entitled to.

In response to biggskye's comment:

I'm not doubting you as you're not the first one to say this but I really would like to see the wording in these deals. It seems hardly worth putting your name on a contract that states "terms subject to change". Why sign a contract if it'll eventually come back to just "give what you'll give me"?

In response to dezaruchi's comment:

I first heard it on Hockey central at noon, when Doug Maclean brought it up. He used to be a GM, so I figured he must know what he is talking about.

In response to biggskye's comment:

This will not be good enough for most here, but I believe you.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

No, but i think he knew there would be some kind of salary rollback in the new CBA,maybe not,but there might have been a good chance.

In response to biggskye's comment:

Yeah, he's actually one of TV's best overall. Too bad he has to deal with Kypreos. I wish they'd give the role to Brad May full time because Kypreos manages to irritate me even when I agree with him. As I said earlier, it seems funny to sign a deal that's subject to change. It sounds strange at best but I guess it is what it is.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to ipotnyc's comment:

I guess part of the problem is who pays for the lockout, the NHLPA says the owners should pay for it and the owners say it should be, surprise, 50/50. I imagine it will end up being 50/50.