At least you're honest. This negotiation is all about taking anything and everything they want. Why do the players have to yield on their rights? To play? I thought the NHL only wanted to get to 50/50. The NHL wants a CBA that's more favourable to them and more likely to see more teams profit. If the Last CBA was even in the first place and didn't see over half the teams losing money (or at the very least, struggling to break even if not losing money) there'd be a better argument to 'but the players aren't gaining anything in return.' The owners aren't perfect and they've played their fair share of hardball too but you seem to buy right into the whole 'but the owners won't give up contract rights' as if its contract rights that are holding up a deal. It's still the HRR split holding up a deal. NHLPA gives up on de-linkage, the NHL will be more likely to give up some of the contracting rights issues. But they aren't just going to keep sweetening their offer while the NHLPA keeps throwing the de-linked proposal in their face over and over and over again. It's called a negotiation, both sides have to give up something at least for it to be a negotiation and not an extortion. Obviously the players have to give up a lot more than the owners since the structure (57-43 on HRR and 27-7 FA rules with no contract length restrictions) still