[quote name='sendme']After reading that am I the only one that thinks the 50/50 offer was only given so that their would be an 82 game season? And now that their wont be an 82 game season that deal will come off the table. I really don't think Bettman wants to make a deal. I really think he doesn't want to even have a season.[/QUOTE]
The record revenues following the last lockout show that, while fans say they won't return, inevitably do. Not only that, but more follow. There's no incentive to avoid a lockout for fear of fan reprisal (currently). Just like people kvetch about Christmas displays in stores before Halloween - yes, it's annoying, but market research shows that people do start their Christmas shopping now, if not sooner. So something we wish were true, in both cases, isn't borne out by evidence. In both, the opposite is the case.
The NHLPA threw down three offers last week, one of them being a "expose the NHL owners" CBA. In it, the current CBA remained intact, with one change - 50/50 sharing of revenue. They NHLPA conceded that, and everything else remained - including the major sticking point, honoring existing player contracts fully in terms of length and cost. The NHL owners refused all of them around 15 minutes after they were submitted. In doing so, the owners outed themselves as the villains and the continued cause of stoppage in the season. The players gave them the greatest concession they wanted, but in the end, that was not good enough for them. The owners want to have their cake and eat it too - they want players to be bound to honor their contracts, while the owners wish to modify the terms of the contracts that were negotiated, in good faith, with the players. They want to
the players, and they want to do so at the fans' expense (missing out on a season).
The ball has always been in the owners' court, from my vantage point, to make concessions on the terms of the CBA. Their refusal to accept a shift from 57/43 HRR sharing to 50/50 HRR sharing exposes their greed.