Allen: NHL must negotiate with Fehr, not attack him

• Fehr is a union man the way Derek Jeter is a Yankee and Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stone
• Players say, often unsolicited, how well-informed everyone is about the issues
• The battle has been about money from the beginning and will only be settled when the money is right

At best, an unidentified NHL official exercised poor judgment in accusing NHL Players' Association executive director Donald Fehr of not fully informing his constituents of the NHL's offer.

At worst, owners are embracing a misguided, counter-productive strategy

Anyone who believes owners can bring about peace with players by trying to discredit their leader has not been watching how Fehr has managed this organization.

All you need to do is talk to Fehr for 10 minutes and you realize that he's a union man the way Derek Jeter is a Yankee and Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stone. Transparency. Inclusiveness. Getting more people involved. Fehr doesn't just talk about those ideas; it's clear he believes in them. He has said continually that every player is welcome at every bargaining session.

One of the constant quotes you get from players, often unsolicited, is how well-informed everyone is about the issues.

The targeting of Fehr resulted from his Thursday night memo in which he didn't go into elaborate detail about the owners' proposal. Owners want to reduce players' share of the revenue from 57% to 50% and players say they will only accept a 50-50 split that includes a gradual walk-down that assures the preservation of their already-signed contract values. In response to that request, owners say they will commit $211 million back to players over the first two seasons.

Under the drop from 57% to 50%, players would lose more than $461 million over two years, not counting revenue growth. Hence, owners, through their proposal, are offering to return roughly 45% of player losses for those two years.

About the owners' "make whole" offer, Fehr wrote: "While a small step forward, a significant gap remains."

This memo came after players had the opportunity to climb aboard a conference call to hear about the offers in detail. If a player doesn't know what's happening in the bargaining session, it isn't Fehr's fault.

Fehr is often vilified by fans because he represented Major League Baseball players when a 1994 strike cost the sport its postseason, but the truth is Fehr is always respected and lionized by those he represents. He's an impressive guy, and his guys will stand up for him.

An NHLPA spokesman offered a one-word expletive as his unofficial response to the Fehr targeting, and it seemed like a perfect response. Players clearly viewed the Fehr attack as pure malarkey.

Owners aren't going to get this deal by trying to tug on Superman's cape. There is no kryptonite that will bring down Fehr. This is not 2004-05.

This battle with players has been about the money from the beginning, and it will only be settled when the money is right. By dropping players from 57% to 50%, owners are trying to gain about $1.6 billion over a six-year period.

In the make whole offer, owners are reducing that take by about $211 million. That's not enough to protect the value of contracts already signed. They will reduce their percentage, but they are adamant about protecting their signed contracts.

How much does the make whole pool have to grow to get players to agree? Some say it is another $370 million, plus the league agreeing to back off on the vast majority of their demands for changes to free agency, arbitration and contract lengths.

Would you consider the sides too far apart to get a deal done? That's an average of more than $12 million per team over the course of six years. Could a deal get done if the NHL added another $100 million to the make-whole pool. Would owners do that? How about $150 million?

The answer is that we don't know. The only way we are going to know if the two sides continue to talk every day without the distractions of finger-pointing, name-calling or personal attacks. Regardless of whether you like Fehr, talking to him in this situation is a more effective strategy than talking about him.