NHL CBA Talk

Heh. Nothing's mutual in these shenanigans!

shabbs wrote:Heh. Nothing's mutual in these shenanigans!

Big roadblock there!

Edit: Looks like I spoke to soon... Various reports have the new CBA agreed to, in principle, subject to setting the profit split on "Game On" merchandise...

more to come

SeawaySensFan wrote:
This is the line about HRR from the NHL proposal:

Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

PA is giving more weight to italic and league interprets this as HRR staying the same.

That was put in because Fehr argued that Glendale's subsidies to the NHL should count as HRR. The league just wants to clarify everything so that doesn't happen again.

They've made no proposed changes in quite a while, make whole simply charges the existing out of the player's share but it doesn't redefine what revenue is or isn't.

Hoags wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:
This is the line about HRR from the NHL proposal:

Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

PA is giving more weight to italic and league interprets this as HRR staying the same.

That was put in because Fehr argued that Glendale's subsidies to the NHL should count as HRR. The league just wants to clarify everything so that doesn't happen again.

They've made no proposed changes in quite a while, make whole simply charges the existing out of the player's share but it doesn't redefine what revenue is or isn't.

Was that an existing interpretation? If not, that statement would have nothing to do with that. To leave that out of the discussion the clause would have said existing accounting of HRR to remain through the life of the new CBA. The clause as it is leaves existing HRR definitions up for review doesn't it?

-------

http://www.gmhockey.com/viewtopic.forum?t=5760