clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

2012 NHL CBA Negotiations: Fehr: Players Willing To Accept Reduced HRR Over Next 3 Years

New, comments

[Update: Some parts of the proposal have come out via Twitter and are detailed after the jump.]

NHLPA says players are willing to accept reduced hockey related revenue over the next three seasons.

The NHLPA told media this week that their reponse to the NHL's first CBA proposal would not be a "counter proposal", but rather an "alternative view" of the situation. "I think (a counter proposal) is within the framework of what the other guy said," explained Donald Fehr. "This is a different approach."

Very different indeed.

Fehr announced Tuesday afternoon that the players want a short term deal - 3 years, with an option for a fourth. They are willing to make some concessions where HRR is concerned, reducing their revenue by an unknown percentage as of right now. Revenue sharing will be key, and it appears in the name of that revenue sharing that the players are willing to make these concessions.

The current cap system would remain largely in place, as would the contract system. They want more "aggressive and targeted revenue sharing", and Fehr said revenue sharing could reach as high as $250 million per year - Numbers the NHL will be crunching independently tonight, no doubt.

There could be "exceptions" to the cap, but it's unclear what that means. Many are speculating Fehr means a luxury tax for those desirous of exceeding the cap, but a "hard" cap was mentioned today.

The the main idea we take away from all of this (and we reserve the right to change our minds, it's only been 20 minutes...) is that the players appear committed to, as their main goal, nursing the unhealthy franchises (of which there are many) in the league back to a state of wellness, and then deciding what to do next after there's more financial stability league-wide.

A more cynnical way of looking at it is that the players have tried to position themselves on the high road once more, saying they will accept reduced HRR like the league wants - But only if there's meaningful revenue sharing among clubs. It is, one might say, a position designed to pit big market, profitable teams against those struggling right now. Owners versus owners, rather than players versus owners. That's where many believe the conflict should exist.

In the NHL's first proposal to the NHLPA the owners asked the players to accept just 46% of HRR (Hockey Related Revenue), down from the 57% they receieve currently. They also proposed changing the definition of what HRR is, to the detriment of the players. The NHLPA has estimated that the adjustment would mean they'd actually get about 43% of what is currently defined as HRR. That's nearly a 25% rollback on salaries - Hundreds of millions of dollars.

32 days to go know.

A few details from Twitter after the jump...

Neither side has been exactly forthcoming with the details of the NHLPA's proposal thus far, but a few interesting tidbits have emerged via Twitter.

Aaron Ward, former NHL defenseman and current TSN employee, sent out a series of Tweets that laid out the following.

Proposal theme is to partner with the stronger teams in league to help smaller market/struggling teams. In past as revenues go up, cap goes up. Now players share will grow at an artificially slower rate.If revenue grows at least by 7%, owners would keep $465 million. Rev grew at 9% this year and at 10.2% year before which means teams could stand to make double. In essence players are saying, go for it, make money and grow the game and keep what's leftover and in the 4th year the Players have the option to revert back to present system at 57%. Parameters in proposal as to how that money is used to help teams 'in need'.

Chris Johnston, the lead hockey writer for The Canadian Press, added this.

I'm told a luxury tax is part of the NHLPA's new proposal. Cap won't move much under the deal, but some teams can go above and others below

Sportsnet columnist Michael Grange has also chimed in.

players get $1.89B for 3 yrs; owners keep bulk of rev growth from that period. Revenue sharing up; hard cap stays

If and when we find out any more about this proposal, we'll let you know.