If there is no season???

[rebedom]

If there is no season what will happen next year? Will the owners replace the players with replacement players? Will the fans pay top dollar to see replacement players or even a reduced ticket price to see replacement players? The OSL in Ontario did not bring out the fans although the Quebec version of this is still playing. Will all 30 teams field replacement players including Pittsburg and Phoenix? Will there be a season next year with replacement players and watch as the real players slowly cross the line and come back, one by one? If two thirds of the players are below the average as some have indicated and it is only the top third that are making way over the average, will those guys under the average decide to return?

This strike is all about the money as most strikes are, yes there probably are other outstanding issues but the deciding factor will be money. The average salary today it has been mentioned is $1.8 mil, the league wants to reduce it to $1.3, should they settle at $1.5 mil.

Click to read more...

 

[bling]

This strike is all about the money as most strikes are, yes there probably are other outstanding issues but the deciding factor will be money. The average salary today it has been mentioned is $1.8 mil, the league wants to reduce it to $1.3, should they settle at $1.5 mil.

For the thirty thousandth time....THIS IS NOT A STRIKE! It is a lockout, there is a huge difference. If you do not know even that basic fact anything else you say has no validity.

 

[rebedom]

For the thirty thousandth time....THIS IS NOT A STRIKE! It is a lockout, there is a huge difference. If you do not know even that basic fact anything else you say has no validity.

Wow, cut back on the medication bling, so it's a lockout not a strike, it's still about money though isn't it? My question is basically will the owners use replacement players next year if there is no deal reached?

 

[bling]

Wow, cut back on the medication bling, so it's a lockout not a strike, it's still about money though isn't it? My question is basically will the owners use replacement players next year if there is no deal reached?

See that is the problem with your lack of knowledge, it was the owners who chose not to allow the players to play thus far this season. What you are asking is if it is okay for the owners to kick out this group of players because they do not want to pay them what they have been paying them.

Yes it is about money, but it is not about the players wanting more money it is about the owners wanting the players to pay for ownership's ineptitude.

Quote from The Hockey News, November 6th 1998..."The collective bargaining agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend.....If anyone is spending more than they can afford, they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA," Gary Bettman....

 

[dawgbone]

See that is the problem with your lack of knowledge, it was the owners who chose not to allow the players to play thus far this season. What you are asking is if it is okay for the owners to kick out this group of players because they do not want to pay them what they have been paying them.

The CBA is up. The owners don't want to extend it, which means no hockey until a new agreement is reached...

Really, the terminology is meaningless. Players strike, lockout, whatever. There is a deal in place one side isn't happy with, and the other side isn't making concessions to make the other side happy.

Whether it's a lockout or a strike, it's a moot point.

Yes it is about money, but it is not about the players wanting more money it is about the owners wanting the players to pay for ownership's ineptitude.

No, it's about the players thinking they deserve more than they are worth. They don't want to tie salaries to revenues because it means less money for them. The owners are not asking the players to pay for their ineptitude. The owners are not asking for money. The owners are asking for a system to be put in place that creates more of a balance between small market teams and large market teams. It would be nice if they could all unilaterally agree to stay within a certain economic structure, but that is against the law... so they need the players to agree to it.

Quote from The Hockey News, November 6th 1998..."The collective bargaining agreement allows a team to spend whatever it can afford to spend.....If anyone is spending more than they can afford, they shouldn't be complaining about the CBA," Gary Bettman....

That's a lovely quote... the problem is, not everyone is spending more than they can afford and blaming the CBA. Some are spending more than they can afford and putting a better team on the ice. When that quote was made, the average Salary was $1.4mil... total NHL salaries were $1.1bil, still within that reasonable 65% area of revenues (which were about $1.6 billion).

It's now at 75%... and climbing.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Really, the terminology is meaningless. Players strike, lockout, whatever. Whether it's a lockout or a strike, it's a moot point.

It is not. It is critical. The owners can't break a lockout with replacement players.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

It is not. It is critical. The owners can't break a lockout with replacement players.

Tom

In terms of what the owners can do... yes... but that isn't what I was referring to... he was talking about blame, doing the tired old "The owners are locking the players out, remember".

The fact of the matter is, it's a moot point in terms of blame. There is no deal, and neither side is talking.

 

[bling]

In terms of what the owners can do... yes... but that isn't what I was referring to... he was talking about blame, doing the tired old "The owners are locking the players out, remember".

The fact of the matter is, it's a moot point in terms of blame. There is no deal, and neither side is talking.

It most certainly is not a moot point in terms of blame. The owners ARE locking the players out. The owners ARE to blame for their own misguided and inept management of their NHL teams.
Those, like you. who would prefer to slide that fact under the rug are perpetuating the myth that players are greedy and money hunger merceneries bent on destroying hockey.
You may consider it a tired old argument but I think it needs to be reiterated on a regular basis lest the reason we are in this position gets lost!

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

It most certainly is not a moot point in terms of blame. The owners ARE locking the players out. The owners ARE to blame for their own misguided and inept management of their NHL teams.
Those, like you. who would prefer to slide that fact under the rug are perpetuating the myth that players are greedy and money hunger merceneries bent on destroying hockey.
You may consider it a tired old argument but I think it needs to be reiterated on a regular basis lest the reason we are in this position gets lost!

Can you name me a industry that is still around even though they lose money over the long term?

Over the long term, if the owners don't make money, there will not be a NHL. Then the poor, opprossed NHL players can go play in Europe at a fraction of what they were making.

Does anyone think the owners of the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, or the Avalanche wanted to lock the players out? I sure don't. I think the players want to perpetuate the system where the limited markets (or owners) that can (or will) support a payroll at double the proposed cap are allowed to do so. I don't blame them for it. I do blame them for not being able to see what's the best for the league, and all of their union members. If that continues to happen, you will have teams that are able to compete, and the feeder teams that have to ship out player when they produce more than the team can afford to pay them.

IMO, some sort of compromise has to be reached where players and owners share in the successes of the NHL. All they are doing right now is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

[Digger12]

It most certainly is not a moot point in terms of blame. The owners ARE locking the players out. The owners ARE to blame for their own misguided and inept management of their NHL teams.
Those, like you. who would prefer to slide that fact under the rug are perpetuating the myth that players are greedy and money hunger merceneries bent on destroying hockey.
You may consider it a tired old argument but I think it needs to be reiterated on a regular basis lest the reason we are in this position gets lost!

Other than perhaps personal gratification for yourself, what good is served by placing blame on either side? Is it going to get hockey back on the ice instead of in a boardroom any faster?

Sure, blame the owners. They're idiots, they should all go to jail or at least be forced to watch Ally McBeal reruns.

But without them, there is no NHL. Just like without players, the NHL is just a collection of old rich guys. They need each other.

 

[dawgbone]

It most certainly is not a moot point in terms of blame. The owners ARE locking the players out. The owners ARE to blame for their own misguided and inept management of their NHL teams.

Those, like you. who would prefer to slide that fact under the rug are perpetuating the myth that players are greedy and money hunger merceneries bent on destroying hockey.

Point me to one time where I said the players were bent on destroying the league.

You won't find it.

And the owners are trying to fix the mistakes they made, but the players don't seem willing to agree.

The league economics in hockey, just like in footall and basketball, are not suited for a free market system... one the players have been enjoying for years.

You may consider it a tired old argument but I think it needs to be reiterated on a regular basis lest the reason we are in this position gets lost!

It won't get lost. We are in this position because the players refuse to accept some responsibility for the current state of the league. They refuse to let their performance, be tied into what their performance generates in terms of revenues.

I mean, if they were actually entertaining fans across North America, there would be more revenues, and a bigger TV deal, and the current salaries wouldn't be an issue.

There would be hockey right now if the players would accept a cap correct?

There would be hockey right now if the owners accepted the players initial offer correct?

Sounds to me like it's both sides.

 

[rebedom]

It most certainly is not a moot point in terms of blame. The owners ARE locking the players out. The owners ARE to blame for their own misguided and inept management of their NHL teams.
Those, like you. who would prefer to slide that fact under the rug are perpetuating the myth that players are greedy and money hunger merceneries bent on destroying hockey.
You may consider it a tired old argument but I think it needs to be reiterated on a regular basis lest the reason we are in this position gets lost!

It seems like most people including the media (X-players excluded) are on the side of the owners this time around. Most agree that the players make too much money and that it has to be tapered back a bit to allow for small market teams to be able to compete. Irrespective of what you or anyone thinks of owners, they own the teams and will do whatever the hell they want with their property, as did the owner of the capitals when he liquidated his assets on the team.


The problem here IMO is that the players compare this league to the NFL, NBA and other major sports. It is a major sport in Canada but we don't have enough money, sponsors or television deals to support it alone, we need the US. Unfortunately, in the US hockey is behind Bowling and Poker in popularity and can't get the kind of sponsoring and television deals that the other major sports routinely get. That is why the players need to get real, would a cap for the next 5 years really be so bad for them?
P.S. - are you the resident expert when it comes to hockey on these boards?