Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

[Et le But]

Apologies if this was already posted. Turns out Bergevin was working behind the scenes last week with Lemieux, Brisson et all.

http://triblive.com/mobile/m/msports/mpenguins/#3096577-96/nhl-lemieux-players

It's nice having a proactive GM, also I'm sure some credit has to go to Molson who would have had to play a role in such an attempt.

 

[Kriss E]

I need to take a break, thus, I'll take a break. I'll end up on a positive note by writing out what I think would be a fair CBA.

1) Owners want the players to take 50% rather than 57%, over an 8+2 year term.
OK.

As this is still a financial concession worth ~1 billion dollars from the players; the NHLPA would be compensated with temporary exclusive renewal power over the CBA once it is over. It would be an 8+2+2 term, with the NHLPA having the power to renew the CBA up to four years. This would also allay's Fehr's concern that kids now 13 years old should not be ruled by the current CBA.

Further, the NHL would increase revenue sharing. It should, at a minimum, scale with total league revenue.

2) Owners want to rollback existing contracts
If the owners do not agree to a 100% make-whole, then players on rolled-back contracts should be entitled to walk away from their contracts and declare themselves UFAs.

3) The NHL wants 5-year contract limits and salary variation limits.
In return, the players need to get something else. A good idea might be a trade limit, that a team can average no more than 1 outgoing and 1 incoming player per year, with some reasonable limits in case of injuries. Alternatively, the no-trade clause can be made universal for contracts of duration 2 years or shorter.

Alternatively, every player who is traded would be given a $500,000 compensation for relocation, at the owners expense and not counting towards the cap.

Contracts longer than 5 years would be allowed with the caveat that it would be 5 UFA years; so an RFA could sign a 9 year contract if it is his second contract, as in 5 UFA years and 4 RFA years. This would allow team-building. The fact is, for example, that the 6-year contracts the Habs have with Gorges, Price, Pacioretty are a two-way street. They benefit both sides... Habs management benefits from long-term security.

On salary variation limits. If it becomes impossible to front-load contracts, then the age 35 retirement rule should be dropped as it would no longer be necessary and all it does is encourage discrimination against 35+ players.


4) Owners want the UFA age to be 28 rather than 27.
OK, but players no longer on entry-level contracts are grandfathered to the age 27 rule. For players who end up on the age 28 rule, they will now receive better salaries as RFAs -- the NHL should agree to reduce the outrageous compensation packages for offer sheets.

**********************

Overall, I think such a package would be a generous balance of give and take by both sides. It would be good the growth of the game, induce more stability, good team-building, and be good for parity. However, I think the owners would reject because it is constructed on the logic of give and take.

1) The excuse that the 13 yo kids shouldn't be affected by this CBA is ridiculous. Btw, didn't you say you wanted the players to sign a long term CBA? Agree on a good deal, and make it long. Didn't you say something along those lines?
Let's just re-new it every two years that way every rookie or sophomore will get to negotiate on early and won't be affected from any previous deals.

2) I can agree with that.

3) Not sure why there should be a trade limit. It's not like every team makes a trade every year anyways. Also, sometimes, players want to get traded. If an owner already made a move, then that player would be screwed. This doesn't really make sense for either the players or the owners.
Also, I'd like to know how you rounded up a 500K figure as relocation compensation.

4) That depends on just how far back you want to drop the compensation from an offer sheet.

and owners will still make billions, and I dont see many complaining about them being Billionnaires.

Which is why they have the upper hand. Owners are still making money from their other sources of revenue. Players, unless they invested their cash smartly (which, according to DAChampion, is not the case), aren't bringing in anything.

It's not because they still make millions (not billions) yearly, that they shouldn't want a 50-50 split. Seems only fair to me.

 

[NORiculous]

unless the deal is the right opne for them, not at all, a long deal wouldnt do them any good.

You are right? The deal on the table is exploiting the players and they will starve to death...


And losing pay checks is good...

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

I don't think that's envy at all. People are fed up and just want to watch some hockey. They look at the situation thinking ''What's really gonna happen to the players?'', they'll still make millions and keep doing what they love, something so many other people in the world wish they could do as well.

That's all it is.

You are wasting your breath. DAChampion typically resorts to personal attacks once he can no longer hold to his argument. More and more people are starting to realize that Fehr is screwing the players, the owners, and the fans with his BS. DAChampion seems to have decided that the owners are wrong simply because they have more money than the players. Everything done to show him that the owners are not actually in the wrong falls on deaf ears. However, once his actual arguments get picked apart, he resorts to personal attacks knowing that it will get some people emotionally involved in a petty "flame war" rather than continue showing how his actual arguments are toothless.

I am "envious" of the players getting to play a game I would love to be able to play for money. I would love to play hockey for my beloved Habs. I would also love to play football for my beloved Cowboys. However, that is as far as it goes. I do not begrudge the players who make the salaries they make playing professional sports. I love what I do, and make a decent enough living to care for my family very well, especially since I am quite smart with my money. I am on the owners' side not out of "envy" for the players, but because I believe that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR, just like I believe the players deserve 50% of the HRR. I also think that a 10 year CBA and a 5 year limit on contracts helps to maintain some sort of competitive balance in the league. I prefer the parity we have in Hockey to the garbage we see in Baseball. I want all NHL fans to have a team with a chance at succeeding and doing well, not just my beloved Habs, the Leafs, and the Rangers. I do not want to see the NHL become the next MLB where the richest teams can win far more often than not, and the little teams are basically feeder teams for the stronger ones. I saw what that did to my Expos and do not want other fans to go through the same thing. Finally, I also refuse to agree that the players are the only ones "giving" in this process. When you consider all of the perks the players are given by the owners that are not part of the players' salaries, it is offensive to hear anyone on the players' side claim they get nothing. The owners ensure that their players fly FIRST CLASS, not COACH. The owners put the players in very expensive rooms, get them great food, the best trainers, etc... SOME people want to dismiss that, take it for granted, but they need to realize that it all COSTS LOTS OF MONEY! Where does that money come from? Not the payers, that is for certain. The players "get" almost everything they could desire and more.

So, I am not with the owners because I am "envious" of the players. I am with the owners because I think they hold the moral high ground in this particular instance. When the players were getting peanuts and not being as well cared for as they are today, I was in agreement with the players. The pendulum has swung the other way, too far, and so I am with the owners.

I hope people like DAChampion can finally stop insulting people to obfuscate their lack of an argument, and we can all finally stick to the facts of the debate.

 

[Myron Gaines*]

100% agreed on everything.

 

[vokiel]

So who makes the next move?

- The Owners
- The Players
- Don Fehr
- Steve Fehr
- Gary Bettman
- Bill Daly
- Sherif Joe Arpaio?

 

[uiCk]

You are wasting your breath. DAChampion typically resorts to personal attacks once he can no longer hold to his argument. More and more people are starting to realize that Fehr is screwing the players, the owners, and the fans with his BS. DAChampion seems to have decided that the owners are wrong simply because they have more money than the players. Everything done to show him that the owners are not actually in the wrong falls on deaf ears. However, once his actual arguments get picked apart, he resorts to personal attacks knowing that it will get some people emotionally involved in a petty "flame war" rather than continue showing how his actual arguments are toothless.

I am "envious" of the players getting to play a game I would love to be able to play for money. I would love to play hockey for my beloved Habs. I would also love to play football for my beloved Cowboys. However, that is as far as it goes. I do not begrudge the players who make the salaries they make playing professional sports. I love what I do, and make a decent enough living to care for my family very well, especially since I am quite smart with my money. I am on the owners' side not out of "envy" for the players, but because I believe that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR, just like I believe the players deserve 50% of the HRR. I also think that a 10 year CBA and a 5 year limit on contracts helps to maintain some sort of competitive balance in the league. I prefer the parity we have in Hockey to the garbage we see in Baseball. I want all NHL fans to have a team with a chance at succeeding and doing well, not just my beloved Habs, the Leafs, and the Rangers. I do not want to see the NHL become the next MLB where the richest teams can win far more often than not, and the little teams are basically feeder teams for the stronger ones. I saw what that did to my Expos and do not want other fans to go through the same thing. Finally, I also refuse to agree that the players are the only ones "giving" in this process. When you consider all of the perks the players are given by the owners that are not part of the players' salaries, it is offensive to hear anyone on the players' side claim they get nothing. The owners ensure that their players fly FIRST CLASS, not COACH. The owners put the players in very expensive rooms, get them great food, the best trainers, etc... SOME people want to dismiss that, take it for granted, but they need to realize that it all COSTS LOTS OF MONEY! Where does that money come from? Not the payers, that is for certain. The players "get" almost everything they could desire and more.

So, I am not with the owners because I am "envious" of the players. I am with the owners because I think they hold the moral high ground in this particular instance. When the players were getting peanuts and not being as well cared for as they are today, I was in agreement with the players. The pendulum has swung the other way, too far, and so I am with the owners.

I hope people like DAChampion can finally stop insulting people to obfuscate their lack of an argument, and we can all finally stick to the facts of the debate.

Your argument relies solely on what your perception is of the players worth; as in that their worth is capped, and all extra revenue growth is solely due to owners spending more capital. Which is obviously false.

 

[HuGo Sham]

interesting habs / bergevin were 'moderates' in on talks last week
http://triblive.com/mobile/m/msports/mpenguins/#3096577-96/nhl-lemieux-players

 

[DAChampion]

1) The excuse that the 13 yo kids shouldn't be affected by this CBA is ridiculous. Btw, didn't you say you wanted the players to sign a long term CBA? Agree on a good deal, and make it long. Didn't you say something along those lines?
Let's just re-new it every two years that way every rookie or sophomore will get to negotiate on early and won't be affected from any previous deals.

2) I can agree with that.

3) Not sure why there should be a trade limit. It's not like every team makes a trade every year anyways. Also, sometimes, players want to get traded. If an owner already made a move, then that player would be screwed. This doesn't really make sense for either the players or the owners.
Also, I'd like to know how you rounded up a 500K figure as relocation compensation.

4) That depends on just how far back you want to drop the compensation from an offer sheet.

1) I think 8+2+2 would be satisfyingly long.

Giving the players exclusive renewal power would be a good compromise to signing a deal that favors the owners.

The owners' offer was only an 8 year deal anyway, as both the owners and players would have the power to cancel it after 8 years.

3) The $500,000 figure is made up and arbitrary. I am trying to think up of something the players could get in return for the concession that is term limits.

I think making the no-trade clause universal or nearly-universal might be sufficient.

4) How far back the compensation packages should be dropped would be a matter of negotiation. I think "half" would be a good start but it could be negotiated left or right.

 

[Reiher]

You are wasting your breath. DAChampion typically resorts to personal attacks once he can no longer hold to his argument. More and more people are starting to realize that Fehr is screwing the players, the owners, and the fans with his BS. DAChampion seems to have decided that the owners are wrong simply because they have more money than the players. Everything done to show him that the owners are not actually in the wrong falls on deaf ears. However, once his actual arguments get picked apart, he resorts to personal attacks knowing that it will get some people emotionally involved in a petty "flame war" rather than continue showing how his actual arguments are toothless.

I am "envious" of the players getting to play a game I would love to be able to play for money. I would love to play hockey for my beloved Habs. I would also love to play football for my beloved Cowboys. However, that is as far as it goes. I do not begrudge the players who make the salaries they make playing professional sports. I love what I do, and make a decent enough living to care for my family very well, especially since I am quite smart with my money. I am on the owners' side not out of "envy" for the players, but because I believe that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR, just like I believe the players deserve 50% of the HRR. I also think that a 10 year CBA and a 5 year limit on contracts helps to maintain some sort of competitive balance in the league. I prefer the parity we have in Hockey to the garbage we see in Baseball. I want all NHL fans to have a team with a chance at succeeding and doing well, not just my beloved Habs, the Leafs, and the Rangers. I do not want to see the NHL become the next MLB where the richest teams can win far more often than not, and the little teams are basically feeder teams for the stronger ones. I saw what that did to my Expos and do not want other fans to go through the same thing. Finally, I also refuse to agree that the players are the only ones "giving" in this process. When you consider all of the perks the players are given by the owners that are not part of the players' salaries, it is offensive to hear anyone on the players' side claim they get nothing. The owners ensure that their players fly FIRST CLASS, not COACH. The owners put the players in very expensive rooms, get them great food, the best trainers, etc... SOME people want to dismiss that, take it for granted, but they need to realize that it all COSTS LOTS OF MONEY! Where does that money come from? Not the payers, that is for certain. The players "get" almost everything they could desire and more.

So, I am not with the owners because I am "envious" of the players. I am with the owners because I think they hold the moral high ground in this particular instance. When the players were getting peanuts and not being as well cared for as they are today, I was in agreement with the players. The pendulum has swung the other way, too far, and so I am with the owners.

I hope people like DAChampion can finally stop insulting people to obfuscate their lack of an argument, and we can all finally stick to the facts of the debate.

I'm not denying the fact that these are luxuries, but I kind of see flying first class, and having expensive rooms as giving the players the best chance at being well rested from the exhaustion of travelling. It's not like the players won't perform if they fly coach, but if the teams that pay for those luxury do it to give their team an advantage, I think you can categorize it as an expense to give your team an edge to win. I haven't done any studies on the matter but I know that flying coach for a 5hr flight (Vancouver to Montreal) is not comfortable and somewhat cramping. But alright for other shorter flights maybe it's not as big of an effect, however I just see those expenses as giving your franchise the best chance to arrive to the game in the most restful way possible.

Also lets just throw some numbers out there as rough: say it's $3000 per ticket for first class, and lets say 32 players travel, if we then consider 41 games on the road that is ~4mil in travel expenses a season.

Lets say hotels cost $500 a night, 2 players per room, for 2 nights on average per away game so that's 16 rooms for 41 games that's ~$0.6mil

So on the points you're contending it is not inconceivable that it's costing $5mil per team in travel and accommodation expenses, so that's $150mil for the whole league.

So of $1.65billion that's ~ 10% of the owners share put into the players to try and give them the best chance at competing for away games. From a team by team basis, is it not worth it to try and give your team the best chance of winning?

I mean, I think you could try and leave it up to the players to get their own way to the game, but as I mentioned in a previous post I think that would lead to more chaos then solve anything.

 

[Roulin]

Finally, I also refuse to agree that the players are the only ones "giving" in this process. When you consider all of the perks the players are given by the owners that are not part of the players' salaries, it is offensive to hear anyone on the players' side claim they get nothing. The owners ensure that their players fly FIRST CLASS, not COACH. The owners put the players in very expensive rooms, get them great food, the best trainers, etc... SOME people want to dismiss that, take it for granted, but they need to realize that it all COSTS LOTS OF MONEY! Where does that money come from? Not the payers, that is for certain. The players "get" almost everything they could desire and more.

Within the NHL, I see 30 different businesses competing against each other. Perks such as first class flights and expensive hotel rooms have been used to attract talent. Using those perks as a reason to limit future salaries across the board, throughout the industry, because some of those businesses have been failing? That logic doesn't work for me.

 

[vokiel]

If the players decertify, that actually leaves the responsibility to get to the games to them right?

 

[DAChampion]

I'm not denying the fact that these are luxuries, but I kind of see flying first class, and having expensive rooms as giving the players the best chance at being well rested from the exhaustion of travelling. It's not like the players won't perform if they fly coach, but if the teams that pay for those luxury do it to give their team an advantage, I think you can categorize it as an expense to give your team an edge to win. I haven't done any studies on the matter but I know that flying coach for a 5hr flight (Vancouver to Montreal) is not comfortable and somewhat cramping. But alright for other shorter flights maybe it's not as big of an effect, however I just see those expenses as giving your franchise the best chance to arrive to the game in the most restful way possible.

Also lets just throw some numbers out there as rough: say it's $3000 per ticket for first class, and lets say 32 players travel, if we then consider 41 games on the road that is ~4mil in travel expenses a season.

Lets say hotels cost $500 a night, 2 players per room, for 2 nights on average per away game so that's 16 rooms for 41 games that's ~$0.6mil

So on the points you're contending it is not inconceivable that it's costing $5mil per team in travel and accommodation expenses, so that's $150mil for the whole league.

So of $1.65billion that's ~ 10% of the owners share put into the players to try and give them the best chance at competing for away games. From a team by team basis, is it not worth it to try and give your team the best chance of winning?

I mean, I think you could try and leave it up to the players to get their own way to the game, but as I mentioned in a previous post I think that would lead to more chaos then solve anything.

Do you know what he's talking about when he says great food?

As far as I know it is universal for north american employers to pay for food as a travel cost. I've never heard of an employer that doesn't cover travel costs, so I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't know what the per diem might be in the NHL.

The US government suggests $295/day, excluding lodging, for food costs for travelers to Manhattan, and $100/day for Buffalo.

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100120

That said, most people I know would rather eat at home than eat in exotic restaurants 60 nights a year. It gets old real fast.

***********

And yes I agree with you, any team that required its players to fly coach would lose games.

 

[DAChampion]

If the players decertify, that actually leaves the responsibility to get to the games to them right?

It would be up to each individual team.

Before the last lockout, some teams such as the Boston Bruins were considered cheap and as such had a lot of trouble attracting free agents.

I read about this on the Bruins board. Posters argued that the salary cap is the reason Boston won a cup in 2011, because it nipped off Jeremy Jacobs' cheapness and thus allowed to keep and attract talent.

 

[Kriss E]

1) I think 8+2+2 would be satisfyingly long.

Giving the players exclusive renewal power would be a good compromise to signing a deal that favors the owners.

The owners' offer was only an 8 year deal anyway, as both the owners and players would have the power to cancel it after 8 years.

3) The $500,000 figure is made up and arbitrary. I am trying to think up of something the players could get in return for the concession that is term limits.

I think making the no-trade clause universal or nearly-universal might be sufficient.

4) How far back the compensation packages should be dropped would be a matter of negotiation. I think "half" would be a good start but it could be negotiated left or right.

1) 8years with the option of 2 extra. That's almost double what it was. Yet players want a shorter term. Seems to me like you favor the owners when it comes to term length.

3) Players already get a concession with no trade/movement clause, not sure why they should get another one. Now the NHL also wants to prevent the owners/GMs from sending a player down in the minors without it counting against the cap. That favors the players. They don't need any compensation for getting traded. They get their full money, that's good enough.

4) If all teams had to give was two 1st round picks for a guy like Crosby, then every team in the NHL would be given away offer sheets. We're talking about the top compensation here, two first rounders. That's a joke. It would create a problem.
Half of the compensation is huge.
I think the price is set high enough, and shouldn't be lowered.

 

[HCH]

The US government suggests $295/day, excluding lodging, for food costs for travelers to Manhattan, and $100/day for Buffalo.

And we all know what fine shape the finances of the US government is in.

And yes I agree with you, any team that required its players to fly coach would lose games.

They would probably lose a few players too... as soon as their eligibility for free agency rolled around.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

More and more people are starting to realize that Fehr is screwing the players, the owners, and the fans with his BS.

Fehr is a consultant and he can be replaced at any time. Fehr's role is greatly confused by you people. I can't speak for all the players but it's clear that they feel a) insulted by the initial offers and b) feel like they're losing at every corner.

Now can you disagree with both points? Forget the supposed "realities", just how they feel.

DAChampion seems to have decided that the owners are wrong simply because they have more money than the players. Everything done to show him that the owners are not actually in the wrong falls on deaf ears.

The money has a lot to do with it. A majority of the owners don't take a LIFE risk with their team. They don't even stake too much of their own money. For the players it literally their life, and their average career isn't even that long.

Again, this brings up lots of issues but mostly it ha to do with where you feel the owners fall. Are they investors or are they business owners in the modern sense? Are the players the product or are they employees of these businesses? Can me or you compare our work and job to theirs?

I am "envious" of the players getting to play a game I would love to be able to play for money. I would love to play hockey for my beloved Habs. I would also love to play football for my beloved Cowboys.

The players trained all their lives and sacrificed a lot to get to where they are. Much more than your parents or you were willing to sacrifice (so it seems). They sacrifice a lot every year. Being on the road for so long is a major issue that most people would not be able to comply with. Having to stay in tip-top shape is a major issue that most people would be able to comply with. Being a public figure is a significantly major issue that most people wouldn't even consider.

This is all clear, obviously, but it seems as though most of the anti-PA folks are glossing over these realities.

I am on the owners' side not out of "envy" for the players, but because I believe that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR, just like I believe the players deserve 50% of the HRR.

Why do you feel the owners are owed 50% of the fans' money?

I also think that a 10 year CBA and a 5 year limit on contracts helps to maintain some sort of competitive balance in the league.

The current offer in it's current state is massive ground lost for the players - I think we'd all agree. So the players are hesitant to give to an unknown system that clearly starts off disadvantaging them from the get-go.

I don't know where I stand on this but I can still consider it from the players' perspective and it makes a bit of sense.

I prefer the parity we have in Hockey to the garbage we see in Baseball.

Baseball is really, really competitive even with its whack financial structure. It's boring as hell to watch though, but that has nothing to do with it.

I want all NHL fans to have a team with a chance at succeeding and doing well, not just my beloved Habs, the Leafs, and the Rangers. I do not want to see the NHL become the next MLB where the richest teams can win far more often than not, and the little teams are basically feeder teams for the stronger ones.

Then you'd hate the current owners. The owners would've encouraged even more revenue sharing if theu were interested in parity.

Finally, I also refuse to agree that the players are the only ones "giving" in this process. When you consider all of the perks the players are given by the owners that are not part of the players' salaries, it is offensive to hear anyone on the players' side claim they get nothing.

Ok, from June '12 to Dec '12 the amount of the pie the players are to receive got smaller. This is not arguable.

The owners ensure that their players fly FIRST CLASS, not COACH. The owners put the players in very expensive rooms, get them great food, the best trainers, etc... SOME people want to dismiss that, take it for granted, but they need to realize that it all COSTS LOTS OF MONEY! Where does that money come from? Not the payers, that is for certain. The players "get" almost everything they could desire and more.

Actually if an owner wanted to skimp on stuff it would be his prerogative but his franchise would clearly not be appreciated as there are other teams which would. It's call competition. And the money comes from the fans, not the owner. Owners put very little of their money after the initial purchase - it's an investment not a continuous cost and for the most part the entire thing pays for itself and then some.

So what's your point with this?

So, I am not with the owners because I am "envious" of the players. I am with the owners because I think they hold the moral high ground in this particular instance.

Elaborate on this.

When the players were getting peanuts and not being as well cared for as they are today, I was in agreement with the players. The pendulum has swung the other way, too far, and so I am with the owners.

Didn't the pendulum swing last lockout? Salary cap and a huge reduction in the HRR-pie seems awfully like they gave up a lot - no? Now there are record revenues overall but problems with lower-revenue teams but to make up the difference they're going for the players. Seems wrong.

I hope people like DAChampion can finally stop insulting people to obfuscate their lack of an argument, and we can all finally stick to the facts of the debate.

I refrained from insulting you, let's see if we can come to a real discussion. But if you don't address ALL my questions you'll be dismissed.

 

[Myron Gaines*]

So who makes the next move?

- The Owners
- The Players
- Don Fehr
- Steve Fehr
- Gary Bettman
- Bill Daly
- Sherif Joe Arpaio?

The owners for sure.

 

[CN_paladin]

You are wasting your breath. DAChampion typically resorts to personal attacks once he can no longer hold to his argument. More and more people are starting to realize that Fehr is screwing the players, the owners, and the fans with his BS. DAChampion seems to have decided that the owners are wrong simply because they have more money than the players. Everything done to show him that the owners are not actually in the wrong falls on deaf ears. However, once his actual arguments get picked apart, he resorts to personal attacks knowing that it will get some people emotionally involved in a petty "flame war" rather than continue showing how his actual arguments are toothless.

I am "envious" of the players getting to play a game I would love to be able to play for money. I would love to play hockey for my beloved Habs. I would also love to play football for my beloved Cowboys. However, that is as far as it goes. I do not begrudge the players who make the salaries they make playing professional sports. I love what I do, and make a decent enough living to care for my family very well, especially since I am quite smart with my money. I am on the owners' side not out of "envy" for the players, but because I believe that the owners deserve 50% of the HRR, just like I believe the players deserve 50% of the HRR. I also think that a 10 year CBA and a 5 year limit on contracts helps to maintain some sort of competitive balance in the league. I prefer the parity we have in Hockey to the garbage we see in Baseball. I want all NHL fans to have a team with a chance at succeeding and doing well, not just my beloved Habs, the Leafs, and the Rangers. I do not want to see the NHL become the next MLB where the richest teams can win far more often than not, and the little teams are basically feeder teams for the stronger ones. I saw what that did to my Expos and do not want other fans to go through the same thing. Finally, I also refuse to agree that the players are the only ones "giving" in this process. When you consider all of the perks the players are given by the owners that are not part of the players' salaries, it is offensive to hear anyone on the players' side claim they get nothing. The owners ensure that their players fly FIRST CLASS, not COACH. The owners put the players in very expensive rooms, get them great food, the best trainers, etc... SOME people want to dismiss that, take it for granted, but they need to realize that it all COSTS LOTS OF MONEY! Where does that money come from? Not the payers, that is for certain. The players "get" almost everything they could desire and more.

So, I am not with the owners because I am "envious" of the players. I am with the owners because I think they hold the moral high ground in this particular instance. When the players were getting peanuts and not being as well cared for as they are today, I was in agreement with the players. The pendulum has swung the other way, too far, and so I am with the owners.

I hope people like DAChampion can finally stop insulting people to obfuscate their lack of an argument, and we can all finally stick to the facts of the debate.

Agreed 100%.

Just because Buffet is richer than anyone here doesn't mean he has the moral obligation to distribute his wealth. Those capitalists create jobs here for most of us so we don't end up like Spain. The wealthy has already started deserting France...

Remember when we actually had a middle class who didn't spend 2 dollars for every dollar earned back in the day (TD Securities study)? The severe lack of basic economics comprehension and budgeting skills will gradually ruin this country as the public and private debt piles up.

 

[PunkinDrublic*]

i hope hockey starts up again soon, montreal is taking a big hit espically the hotels, i went from doing 40 hours a week down to 10-20 we would do 100+ covers a night on hockey games for the resto. Now we are only doing 5-10 a night no need to be two cooks is what my boss says....

This is the part of the cocky rich ****ers acting like spoiled children that bothers me the most !!!

Sorry to hear it !!! I have a friend that works for an indirect job servicing the Bell centre who is dying for hockey income also.

 

[Roulin]

Agreed 100%.

Just because Buffet is richer than anyone here doesn't mean he has the moral obligation to distribute his wealth. Those capitalists create jobs here for most of us so we don't end up like Spain. The wealthy has already started deserting France...

Remember when we actually had a middle class who didn't spend 2 dollars for every dollar earned back in the day (TD Securities study)? The severe lack of basic economics comprehension and budgeting skills will gradually ruin this country as the public and private debt piles up.

It's a funny situation here. Seems like most lefties want free-er market in the NHL, while most righties want increased regulation.

 

[CN_paladin]

At the end of the day, the owners will always "win" these negotiations. If the players want to play in the NHL, they have to play by the NHLs rules. If they don't like them, they're free to play in the numerous other leagues over the world. Even at 50/50 the average NHL player will make way more money than any other league. The KHL cap is at $36.5 million for comparison.

The players are fighting for things that only really affect the top 10%. I don't really think it's fair to put the contract cap at 5 years though, but I like the idea that signing with your previous team gives the option of a longer contract.

It isn't fair that players signed contracts, and now the owners don't want to pay the full amount, but at the end of the day, these guys will still be multi-millionaires. The ones making league minimum, or close to it, won't be affected.

December is going to be hell, TV is going to be filled with Christmas specials, please sign a new CBA.

SO WHY DON'T YOU FIND A MAJOR INSURANCE FIRM WILLING TO INSURE EXPENSIVE CONTRACTS LONGER THAN 5 YEARS? This has been explained over and over again.

 

[Blind Gardien]

It's a funny situation here. Seems like most lefties want free-er market in the NHL, while most righties want increased regulation.

I'm lefthanded... but torn on the issue. Free market/decertificiation/whatever would benefit me just in that my hockey team of choice is one of the more profitable ones, and ought to benefit to some extent in a freer market (although I haven't seen a lot of practical evidence in the past to convince me of that - with the restrictions still in place, of course, and a host of other factors in play). Increased regulation would just make everything easier to follow and a little less chaotic as a fan... I liked the old days when you could reasonably expect to retain players as long as you wanted, and that continuity and familiarity was attractive as a fan too.

I don't *really* care who makes how much and how the profits are distributed. There are sides to argue from what we know of the details of the negotiations and established precedents that might make us pick our own private thresholds for what is "fair" and what isn't. But at the end of the day, I don't really care if the owners pocket 57% or 43%. I really really don't care. As a fan, why would we. But I suppose as people who are entertained by competition between opposing sides, it's natural to pick a side even in this labour battle and go from there. Lacking our usual form of competition to spectate upon.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

Your argument relies solely on what your perception is of the players worth; as in that their worth is capped, and all extra revenue growth is solely due to owners spending more capital. Which is obviously false.

100% incorrect. My argument is about what is fair between the owners who pay for everything related to hockey, and the players who people want to watch play. Both sides need the other, more or less, equally. People pay to see great players in their favoured teams' jerseys, and the owners pay everything necessary to bring in those players and make the experience at the arena as good as possible.

By the way, the players' worth is not "capped" beyond what the NHL makes. There is a salary cap in place, but as long as revenues grow, so do salaries. Significantly. Now, the owners DO pay to "sell" their team, and certain teams are far more marketable than others, no matter which players are on the team (Leafs and Habs, for example). So, owners are quite necessary to the entire process. As are the players. Ultimately, though, the owners are MORE necessary. In any case, giving both sides a 50/50 split is fair since both sides are necessary for the league to grow and develop.

 

[Blind Gardien]

SO WHY DON'T YOU FIND A MAJOR INSURANCE FIRM WILLING TO INSURE EXPENSIVE CONTRACTS LONGER THAN 5 YEARS? This has been explained over and over again.

The insurance is a convenient point for the owners to stand on. Of course, many of them have handed out longer term contracts in the past, despite this. So it will always sound hypocritical. But maybe they could at least offer 5-year limits, but some form of non-guaranteed years after that, for any uninsured years. (Which I'm sure would be a non-starter for players, of course).

That said, I wonder why there are 5-year limits? Why wouldn't it just be rolling insurance, or case-by-case? If a player signs a 6-year deal at 24, and is perfectly healthy in Year 1, why couldn't you just cancel an initial 5-year policy and get a new one to cover the next 5 years? Similarly if a player has a significant injury history, why would that player get a 5-year policy? Why would the insurance companies offers something "across the board" that applies to all players, with a 5-year limit for all? Something doesn't seem quite right in all that.