In response to ipotnyc's comment:

With new broadcasting deals in NA markets and owners willing to pay has-been's 14 million a season, the KHL can most certainly afford big contracts for top talent.  That's why the owners need to wise up and realize this isn't 2004 anymore and sign the deal Fehr placed in front of them today.

Did some digging, and managed to find this article... 

  The Cult of Hockey @ The Edmonton Journal

Do you realize that the fate of this NHL season depends on a phantom issue?

Yes. It’s most unfortunate, but that’s how it is.

What seems to be the main stumbling block? Why, the idea that the owners have to honour player contracts signed under the rule of the previous collective bargaining agreement.

The strangest thing is the league doesn’t really even have to entertain this idea, never mind make any offers to make players “whole,” as the legalistic description has it.

As mentioned in an earlier column regarding the Russian players’ empty threats, their contracts were all written, agreed to and signed under the previous collective bargaining agreement, the one that expired Sept. 15.

Why are their threats of not coming back if they were to lose a single kopeck (or cent, your pick) empty? Simply because the CBA that their own union, the NHLPA, had agreed to, says so.

It says so in Paragraph 18 thus:

“18. The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by the League Rules and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by the Club, its directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the Club, and the main office of the NHLPA. This SPC is entered into subject to the CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this SPC inconsistent with such CBA are superseded by the provisions of the CBA.”

And, of course, come to think of it, this particular paragraph not only makes the Russian players’ threats empty, it makes the entire brouhaha about honouring contracts perfectly moot. Not even worthy of academic debate.
Unfair? Why? Can’t the players read what’s written in their contracts, except for the figures signifying their salaries and bonuses? Has anyone been forcing them to play in the NHL or else?

Nice find, Big Skye. 

So, for all of the people spearing the owners for not honoring the contracts:  stuff it.

The players need to stop asking for what they are not entitled to receiving and get back to work.

In response to biggskye's comment:

Sooo, is this actually saying that there's a possibility that a signed contract can be altered if there's a change in the CBA?

If that's the case & if this was the gameplan the NHL had all along. I'll reiterate what I said weeks ago. If the NHL had no intentions of honoring these signed contracts then they should've without a doubt cancelled this past years Free agency!That would've shown some trust from the owners stand point. The other side of the coin is that the players can't really be upset about a document that says that signed contracts could be changed. The players signed agreeing to that possibility.

In response to biggskye's comment:

Of course, any terms can be negotiated into a new agreement.  The players could be asking for 25% increase in all salaries effective the signing of the new CBA.  How would that fly? It's not shocking to see a general provision such as this in the old CBA. Means very little. 

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

Thanks.

Every time I see Fehr crying about the big bad owners wanting concessions without offering anything in return, I am impressed he can say it with a straight face.

No wonder the owners are so irritated with this entire negotiation.

In response to scooter244's comment:

You're missing the part that links contracts signed in the previous CBA, to being adjusted to meet the criteria of a new CBA.

If the situation was different, and the players were asking for an increase in revenue sharing, say 60%, up from 57%, and the owners agreed, that would mean an increase in value of every contract signed under the old CBA.

It works both ways.

 

In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

Do you really believe the league has the power to cancel a year of free agency?

People should not be giving the players and their agents, a free pass on the contract signings. Could they had not just waited for the new CBA to be signed, before agreeing to new deals?

In response to biggskye's comment:

The players knew the CBA was going to be a season stopper, yet they signed the deals anyway.  Why are the players getting the free pass here?

In response to biggskye's comment:

No that is my point exactly.  It does work both ways which is the negotiation process.  They are negotiating the "make whole" as a way of honoring the existing contracts.  Of course they don't have to, but if there is any chance of the players accepting a new agreement it has to be in there.  Conversely if the players were asking for an increase, the owners would want some way to faze it in to ease it's impact and aid in the long term planning the GM's have done.  Yes...Works both ways.   The fact it's vaguely written in the CBA doesn't make it an owner slam dunk.   

If the owners had any intentions of honest negotiations they would have negotiated without a lockout or at least not called a lockout until after serious negotiations had failed

 

They're playing rich guy games . They don't give a crap about the sport, it's pure business. And they know that the tax system is rigged in their favor. Any losses will be a write off against their other income gains.

 

Pure greed

In response to skater68's comment:

What and started the season without a new CBA ? That would have lead to a real dog and poney show. Whats worse, no season or a season half way through and then cancelled ? I'll take the former.

In response to skater68's comment:

The players refused to negotiate without the threat of a lockout. 

In response to scooter244's comment:

I've heard this idea a few times here recently.  The difference is that one way it's limited.  There is a finite amount of money available.  The owners can't give too high of a percentage or their businesses will fail. 

Let's assume that they do the unlikely, and reach an agreement, and the League announces a shortened season (let's say 41 games -- a half season -- for the sake of simplicity). 

I assume that all contracts would be pro-rated for the half season, so that all players receive 1/2 their annual contracted salary. 

On the other hand, if they don't reach an agreement, and the whole season is cancelled, then I would assume that, for contractual purposes, the 2012-13 year did not exist, and any contracted salary for this year would be transferred to the 2013-14 season.  I'm assuming that the player "still owes a year of service" to his team, much like the discussion which took place earlier regarding TT's contract.

So, it seems to me that the players' choices come down to this:

1. Reach an agreement, and minimize the lost salary on the pro-rated 12-13 season (because the longer the lockout goes on, the fewer games would be played, assuming an agreement is reached).

or;

2. Hold out until the league cancels the whole year, and keep the full amount of the contracted amount, deferred for one season.

Of course, this totally screws free agents and rookies, who, in addition to receiving nothing (or AHL wages) this year, will have to wait one additional year before their entry-level contracts expire.

In response to biggskye's comment: [/QUOTE]    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. [/QUOTE]

GMs and team Presidents work under the supervison of their owners as officers to do their bidding. Jacobs requires that he sign off on any contract over $5M per year, I'm quite sure he didn't invent this requirement. I just don't see how the owners were decieved or weren't aware of the contracts that Pronger, Chara, Savard, Luongo etc. recieved, not buying it.

The owners had intent in not honoring these contracts, some of them signed last summer, and now Fehr is calling the owners bluff. This why I am perplexed at the owners not countering when Bettman comes back with the latest proposal. The owners jammed the last CBA down the players throats, authorized the current contract(s) (Fletcher, Jacobs and Snider included) in many cases and now don't want to honor the contracts.

You may like the the opinion of the writer from Edmonton all you want but the players and some fans have a right to scratch their head when this latest offer was not countered.

          "No wonder the owners are so irritated with this entire negotiation."

The owners put the last CBA in place, they are part of the process. Laughable the board of govenors think they are in the right in comparison to what Fehr wants for his clients at every turn.

Players knew the owners would want the 57% back after they gave it up. Hence the hiring of Fehr. The initial offer by the owners was insulting and done with a straight face.

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. [/QUOTE]

GMs and team Presidents work under the supervison of their owners as officers to do their bidding. Jacobs requires that he sign off on any contract over $5M per year, I'm quite sure he didn't invent this requirement. I just don't see how the owners were decieved or weren't aware of the contracts that Pronger, Chara, Savard, Luongo etc. recieved, not buying it.

The owners had intent in not honoring these contracts, some of them signed last summer, and now Fehr is calling the owners bluff. This why I am perplexed at the owners not countering when Bettman comes back with the latest proposal. The owners jammed the last CBA down the players throats, authorized the current contract(s) (Fletcher, Jacobs and Snider included) in many cases and now don't want to honor the contracts.

You may like the the opinion of the writer from Edmonton all you want but the players and some fans have a right to scratch their head when this latest offer was not countered.

[/QUOTE]

Not just an opinion. The reporter quoted the part of the CBA that proved what he was saying.

The owners have repeatedly stated that their best proposal has been made. Why is it a surprize that they are not willing to negotiate further?

As far as the "make whole" proposal is concerned, I wonder how the 40% of the players that are without contracts, feel about this battle, that will do nothing to help them?

Maybe the reason Fehr has not had the players formally vote on the current offer, is because he is afraid the players will vote to accept it.

In response to 49-North's comment:

Actually, Fehr is insisting that, because the owners locked out the players, that the players receive their ENTIRE 82 game salary for this year, no matter how many games are played. That is just one of the reasons there will be no hockey this year.

Also, according to the TSN web site, contracts are based on seasons, not years, and the contracts from a lost season, do NOT carry over.

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

I've said it before, but maybe they would be playing hockey right now, if the players and agents had not circumvented the previous CBA, with the long-term contracts.

I understand that the owners had to agree to those deals, but that just means, both sides were in the wrong. I can understand why the owners would want to "idiot-proof" the next CBA, to protect themselves from the agents, and well, themselves.

 biggskye's comment:
[/QUOTE]

Not just an opinion. The reporter quoted the part of the CBA that proved what he was saying.

The owners have repeatedly stated that their best proposal has been made. Why is it a surprize that they are not willing to negotiate further?

As far as the "make whole" proposal is concerned, I wonder how the 40% of the players that are without contracts, feel about this battle, that will do nothing to help them?

Maybe the reason Fehr has not had the players formally vote on the current offer, is because he is afraid the players will vote to accept it.

[/QUOTE]


Why would Fehr be afraid of that?  His job gets much easier the day they sign.  In terms of re-doing existing contracts, many here are aware of that.  What both sides are doing at this point is "negotiating".  No ones arguing the legalities of "current" CBA fine print, but rather how the new transfers from the old.  The old CBA says existing contracts shall be altered to reflect the new ones.  2 Things to negotiate here.  1.  It's expired, so we'll see if it is part of the new one, and 2.  If it is, exactly what is the new deal.

Anyone who suggests the players have no business negotiating "make whole', don't understand the process. 

In response to stevegm's comment:

Not just an opinion. The reporter quoted the part of the CBA that proved what he was saying.

The owners have repeatedly stated that their best proposal has been made. Why is it a surprize that they are not willing to negotiate further?

As far as the "make whole" proposal is concerned, I wonder how the 40% of the players that are without contracts, feel about this battle, that will do nothing to help them?

Maybe the reason Fehr has not had the players formally vote on the current offer, is because he is afraid the players will vote to accept it.

[/QUOTE]


Why would Fehr be afraid of that?  His job gets much easier the day they sign.  In terms of re-doing existing contracts, many here are aware of that.  What both sides are doing at this point is "negotiating".  No ones arguing the legalities of "current" CBA fine print, but rather how the new transfers from the old.  The old CBA says existing contracts shall be altered to reflect the new ones.  2 Things to negotiate here.  1.  It's expired, so we'll see if it is part of the new one, and 2.  If it is, exactly what is the new deal.

Anyone who suggests the players have no business negotiating "make whole', don't understand the process. 

[/QUOTE]

I agree that everything can be on the table, in contract negotiations. I personally, don't like the players', seemingly sense of entitlement to something they willingly agreed to forego, when they signed their contract.

I also question why this has become the #1 issue with the NHLPA, when it would create a pay scale imbalance between the 60% with contracts, and the 40%, without.

I also feel, that a players' vote to accept the current offer, would be considered a loss by Fehr, in the media. I don't know the man, but he does not strike me, as a man who would easily accept defeat.

In response to biggskye's comment:

GMs and team Presidents work under the supervison of their owners as officers to do their bidding. Jacobs requires that he sign off on any contract over $5M per year, I'm quite sure he didn't invent this requirement. I just don't see how the owners were decieved or weren't aware of the contracts that Pronger, Chara, Savard, Luongo etc. recieved, not buying it.

The owners had intent in not honoring these contracts, some of them signed last summer, and now Fehr is calling the owners bluff. This why I am perplexed at the owners not countering when Bettman comes back with the latest proposal. The owners jammed the last CBA down the players throats, authorized the current contract(s) (Fletcher, Jacobs and Snider included) in many cases and now don't want to honor the contracts.

You may like the the opinion of the writer from Edmonton all you want but the players and some fans have a right to scratch their head when this latest offer was not countered.

[/QUOTE]

Not just an opinion. The reporter quoted the part of the CBA that proved what he was saying.

The owners have repeatedly stated that their best proposal has been made. Why is it a surprize that they are not willing to negotiate further?

As far as the "make whole" proposal is concerned, I wonder how the 40% of the players that are without contracts, feel about this battle, that will do nothing to help them?

Maybe the reason Fehr has not had the players formally vote on the current offer, is because he is afraid the players will vote to accept it.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't read it that way. It says all contracts are bound by the CBA. That doesn't mean the owners are free to rollback if they want. It means they are free to do it if that's what's agreed upon in the new CBA. That's why the players are refusing to agree to a new CBA with that provision right? I'm not being argumentative, that's just what it looks like to me. If the players agree to sign a rollback into the new CBA, then there will be one. If not, there won't.

In response to dezaruchi's comment:

Not just an opinion. The reporter quoted the part of the CBA that proved what he was saying.

The owners have repeatedly stated that their best proposal has been made. Why is it a surprize that they are not willing to negotiate further?

As far as the "make whole" proposal is concerned, I wonder how the 40% of the players that are without contracts, feel about this battle, that will do nothing to help them?

Maybe the reason Fehr has not had the players formally vote on the current offer, is because he is afraid the players will vote to accept it.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't read it that way. It says all contracts are bound by the CBA. That doesn't mean the owners are free to rollback if they want. It means they are free to do it if that's what's agreed upon in the new CBA. That's why the players are refusing to agree to a new CBA with that provision right? I'm not being argumentative, that's just what it looks like to me. If the players agree to sign a rollback into the new CBA, then there will be one. If not, there won't.

[/QUOTE]

Dez, i think that's what it means too....

unlike in 2005 players are refusing a rollback, which they're "entitled" to do....

don't see why some on here are having trouble understanding their fight, although i have a good idea....

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. [/QUOTE]

GMs and team Presidents work under the supervison of their owners as officers to do their bidding. Jacobs requires that he sign off on any contract over $5M per year, I'm quite sure he didn't invent this requirement. I just don't see how the owners were decieved or weren't aware of the contracts that Pronger, Chara, Savard, Luongo etc. recieved, not buying it.

The owners had intent in not honoring these contracts, some of them signed last summer, and now Fehr is calling the owners bluff. This why I am perplexed at the owners not countering when Bettman comes back with the latest proposal. The owners jammed the last CBA down the players throats, authorized the current contract(s) (Fletcher, Jacobs and Snider included) in many cases and now don't want to honor the contracts.

You may like the the opinion of the writer from Edmonton all you want but the players and some fans have a right to scratch their head when this latest offer was not countered.

[/QUOTE]


Yes, the owners jammed fewer years until UFA status right down the players throats.  Also, the last few years of the last CBA had the highest league payroll in history.  Poor players, getting the CBA jammed down their throats like that.