Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Buffalo Sabres' Ville Leino waits for a drill during an informal hockey practice in Amherst, N.Y., Monday, Sept. 24, 2012.

The Associated Press

Well, it's Day 9 of the NHL lockout, and there remains a distinct lack of urgency from the league and the NHLPA.

Even with 61 preseason games (and probably 1 per cent of hockey-related revenues) already wiped out, Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr have had hardly any negotiating sessions, prolonging a stalemate that appears its headed for at least December.

So if they're not going to sit down and hammer this thing out, we'll have to step in and act as an impartial mediator by putting together a compromise for both sides.

Story continues below advertisement

(In case you haven't seen it, the two proposals currently on the table are spelled out in detail here.)

Those offers put the two sides at least $1-billion apart depending on how league revenues grow over the coming years, but there is a deal to be had somewhere in the middle of all this.

And the answer to how to settle this thing is with a new agreement neither side is going to like all that much.

Step 1: Let the players keep the $1.87-billion they earned last season – and not a penny more.

The union's offer comes with a 2 per cent raise in Year 1, but it's become clear in negotiations that that's just not going to fly.

And the league wants players to take a big pay cut via escrow next season that won't work either.

The players have dug in on this one, and it's really not too much to ask in Year 1 of the deal. If NHL revenues grow at 6.3 per cent (which is roughly what they've averaged the last eight years minus the effects of the Canadian dollar), that $1.87-billion will drop the players' share to 53.6 per cent.

Story continues below advertisement

And it'll slowly trail down from there.

Step 2: Allow the players small raises of 3 per cent annually between Years 2 and 5. That's salary growth that should easily be outstripped by revenue growth.

Basically what that means is that if revenues grow at 6.3 per cent a year, the players' share would decline from 53.6 per cent to 52.0, 50.4, 48.8 and 47.3 over the first five years of the agreement.

If they grow at a more modest 5 per cent, however, the players' share will slide down to 50 per cent by the fifth year of the deal.

Either way, the owners would be rewarded handsomely for growing league revenues in this period, as they'll keep everything beyond those modest raises.

Step 3: Leave the current three-year entry level contract system as is, but put a cap of $5-million average annual value on contracts during players' fourth and fifth years in the league. And only players who get to the 600 games played mark or age 29 become unrestricted free agents.

Story continues below advertisement

This would help curtail some of the "second contract" issues currently occurring, where players like Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin are signing behemoth extensions.

One solution is a system where players are given incentive to sign a two-year, $10-million "bridge" contract after their entry level one, setting them up for a bigger payday by Year 6 when everyone will have a much better idea of their true talent level and value.

Step 4: No more lifetime contracts. Put a reasonable cap on the length of a deal at somewhere between six and eight years.

This is one issue where the league is bang on in trying to find a fix, and one concession the players are going to have to live with to get a deal like this done.

There's little point having a salary cap if half the league's teams are able to circumvent it with massively front-loaded contracts that extend beyond players' retirement dates.

Step 5: Make it a 10-year collective bargaining agreement. Play at a 50-50 revenue split for the final five years and never have a lockout again.

Story continues below advertisement

The last bit is the most important there.

My sense is this is the kind of deal both sides will hate, which is why it likely works as the middle ground.

The league is giving up some compromises here in guaranteeing the players will hold onto their current salaries and even get a little bit more. Bettman wants the share to ultimately settle below 50 per cent, and we haven't given ownership that here.

The players, meanwhile, are giving up a lot of money (basically double what they've already offered) but are guaranteed to see their share rise from $1.87-billion to $2.1-billion over the next five years even as their percentage shrinks to between 47 and 50 per cent with even modest revenue growth.

With 6.3 per cent revenue growth a season, the league would save $120-million in Year 1 but more than $430-million in Year 5, with the deal improving for both sides over time.

Over the 10 years of an agreement like this, the owners could receive $3.2-billion more than in the current 57 per cent share system, in addition to the contract term limit, a new "second contract" provision and a slightly later free agency date.

Story continues below advertisement

If that's not enough, then we're all in big trouble.

And we'll probably miss a full season.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies