Lockout VI:ve la Revolution!

[cbcwpg]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412769

sources tell TSN that seven or eight unresolved issues remain, the three most meaningful ones being the second-year cap number, the length of player contacts and the players' pension.


Just 7 or 8 issues to hammer out..... And they are all going to be resolved in the next week? Just don't see it.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Well here's a reason, I think overall NHL players makes too much for what they generate, it has always been that way and it was worse in the mid 90s when you had guys getting 10 million a year. As good as they are, for market value, NHL players just cannot command NFL/MLB players' money, not even NBA players money.

Now as far as having a softer cap with a luxury tax, I would not be opposed to it but we presume that only wealthy teams would do this, while I think a lot of teams would go to 70 million(just look at Nashville being able to give Shea Weber even though they are supposed to be poor) and it would screw up the salary structure.

I agree that the players should not all the brunt of the financial problems of the NHL, though. But my solution would be to cut around 6 to 10 teams first trying to put other measures in place. But it's strange to think that just by reducing the part of the players' pie will fix everything.

You see, THAT'S a rational reason right here my friend. That's not the stupid "they make millions of dollars anyway, they should up" ********. If you think they players are paid too much based on what they really generate, I think you have a good argument. Do I agree with it? I don't know, I don't have any numbers in front of me, but that makes sense.

I think the players are the product and I think that without the absolute most talented players in the World, people outside of a few select markets wouldn't watch hockey. I think the players deserve AT LEAST a 50/50 share of the revenues. If you have to go lower than that, it means that the league is sicker than I believed and that the owners have to come up with mesures such as a higher revenue sharing and cutting a few teams in order to make the overall league better.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

You see, THAT'S a rational reason right here my friend. That's not the stupid "they make millions of dollars anyway, they should up" ********. If you think they players are paid too much based on what they really generate, I think you have a good argument. Do I agree with it? I don't know, I don't have any numbers in front of me, but that makes sense.

I think the players are the product and I think that without the absolute most talented players in the World, people outside of a few select markets wouldn't watch hockey. I think the players deserve AT LEAST a 50/50 share of the revenues. If you have to go lower than that, it means that the league is sicker than I believed and that the owners have to come up with mesures such as a higher revenue sharing and cutting a few teams in order to make the overall league better.

Completely agreed: It's an entirely different argument to me and a much more valid one.

 

[Pepper]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412769

sources tell TSN that seven or eight unresolved issues remain, the three most meaningful ones being the second-year cap number, the length of player contacts and the players' pension.


Just 7 or 8 issues to hammer out..... And they are all going to be resolved in the next week? Just don't see it.

With the possible exception regarding pensions, there are really no big differences. The cap number has really no real effects because it's going to be balanced through escrow anyway. PA's 65M cap means bigger escrow payments, NHL's 60M cap means smaller escrows (and more buy-outs but the effect of those is marginal).

Length of contract is at the moment NHL's 6/7y vs. PA's 8 years, anyone willing to bet that they agree on 7/8y (with players already in system getting max 8y and FA's 7y)?

 

[Hank Chinaski]

Over 1K

New thread is up.