Where the sides stand as NHL talks resume Monday

• Owners, players divided over to protect contract with drop to 50-50 share
• Owners want a linkage and seem willing to risk a season over that
• Owners' proposal aims to eliminate big 'second contracts'

NHL owners and players will resume talking Monday. What's unknown is whether they will be speaking the same language.

That has been the problem during the 64-day-old lockout that threatens the 2012-13 NHL season. Owners are seeking what they consider as a fair 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue. Players view their demands as another money grab.

Owners also want a change in contracting rules because they think the league will operate more effectively if veteran, proven players are rewarded rather than up-and-coming stars. Players see the owners' plan as another method to take away their rights and limit their leverage.

Monday's meeting will be the first formal session since last Sunday's 90-minute bargaining session that left both sides frustrated.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Sunday via email that he expected the Monday session would include himself, Commissioner Gary Bettman and a "small number" of owners. Some players are expected to join NHL Players' Association heads Donald and Steve Fehr at the meeting.

"I don't know what they have on the agenda," Daly said.

Any hope of starting a season around Dec. 1 would necessitate major progress Monday. It is expected to take 10 days from the time of a deal is reached to the opening of a season. Players would probably be given three days to report for a seven-day training camp.

But it seems as if the two sides are a long way from that point. Here is a recap at how differently they view the major issues:

Dividing hockey-related revenue 50-50

Players' perspective: They accepted a salary cap and took a 24% pay cut during the last collective bargaining agreement seven years ago under the flag that those changes would fix the system. In exchange for those concessions, they received a 57% share of the revenue. Now, they see owners coming back for more.

They say they are willing to accept 50-50 provided owners are willing to honor all existing individual contracts. Essentially, they want a guarantee that they can preserve their existing dollar take to ensure that players who signed deals won't have to give money back through escrow.

Instead of negotiating the split, players have said they will accept $1.883 billion each season for the length of the deal, compounded by 1.75% interest per season (to create room for new contracts to be signed). They view that as getting close to the 50-50 split. They want to set that as the core economic structure and then negotiate how to deal with the reduced revenue that would result from an abbreviated season.

Owners' perspective: With revenues expected to be reduced by a minimum of $350 million to $400 million, and probably by much more, they say the players' proposal actually ensures them a raise in their share of revenue in year one and then never goes lower than a little more than 52%.

Acknowledging that players with players under contract don't want to give back money, they have offered $211 million (deferred by a year with interest) to be returned to players as part of a make-whole provision designed to cover two seasons worth of individual losses resulting from dropping the players' share from 57% to 50%.

They think by the third season anticipated revenue growth will be enough to ensure that they will be above the $1.883 billion they were at last season.

How it boils down: Owners want a deal that cleanly establishes the 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue. They want a linkage and seem willing to risk the season to accomplish that.

Changes to contracting rights

Owners are seeking entry level contracts reduced to two years, a change in qualification for arbitration rights and changing unrestricted free agency qualifications from seven seasons or age 27 to eight seasons or age 28. Those changes, working together, would effectively reduce leverage players have to land the lucrative "second contracts" that have been commonplace since the last lockout. Owners are also seeking to cap individual contract lengths to five years, plus limiting the variance of salaries in a deal to 5% from one year to the next.

Owners' perspective: It's primarily a philosophical issue. They think, or maybe it is general managers who think, that the system operates better when they are paying players in the prime of their careers rather than players on the rise.

The cap on individual contract lengths, plus the variance restrictions, are designed to put an end to "back diving" contracts, the deals that include lower salaries late in a career designed to lower the average salary for salary cap purposes.

The owners' view this practice as legalized salary cap circumvention. Agents and GMs found a loophole and exploited it. Owners want to close it off.

Players' perspective: The proposed restrictions are as major as the 50-50 split to the NHLPA because the proposed changes would affect many members.

When the last CBA was completed, it was presumed a star player would receive 20% of the team's cap, which is the maximum allowed.

But that never happened. Instead, stars started taking less to ensure that they could be on a team with top players. With the current rules in place, agents were able to use existing rules and comparable player salaries to get better deals for every player coming out of his entry-level contract. Not only are rising stars getting lucrative deals, but many players have used the rules effectively.

They think the rules in place affect a large number of players, and they think they ensure a strong "middle class" in the NHL salary structure.

How it boils down: Players think the owners' position is that these demands are non-negotiable. That's difficult to believe. You don't even have agreement among teams about which of these rules is most important. If players accept a 50-50 split of revenue, would owners really risk losing the season over these issues? It seems as if this the area where owners would be most inclined to back off, although they have made it clear in recent weeks that they don't view these issues as minor.