So does anyone know how many teams profits are actually contributing to all this "record revenue" that players and agents keep talking about? I keep seeing "the owners are making record profits" but is it really just like, 6 teams making all that money? Yea, there probably needs to be more revenue sharing, and I believe the league has said they'll go higher than now (and via negotiation could probably go higher), but how fair is it that the 6 teams that make all the profit subsidize the entire rest of the league? Are the Leafs and Rangers just expected to give up 70% of their profits to make it all work for everyone else? I think this still comes back to failed expansion. If the bottom 6-8 teams didn't exist, there probably wouldn't really be a problem here. The NHLPA certainly likes those extra teams though, as it's 6-8 teams worth of jobs available for players.

I don't know how the NHL compares to other leagues with regards to how many teams really pull in most of the profits. I guess I maybe read somewhere the Yankees give out tons and tons of money via revenue sharing, and maybe the players expect the Leafs to do the same thing.

I don't know... whatever it takes to get it done, just get it done.
- eayost

Nobody has accurate information of how much profit each team is or isn't making. Keep in mind that revenue is not the same thing as profit.

Nobody has accurate information of how much profit each team is or isn't making. Keep in mind that revenue is not the same thing as profit.
- MJL

You're right, I should have specified profit in the original post.

wow! so the owners are leaving the players as poor broken down bums
good for you and your ridiculous points


- puckhead17

It was a thought experiment to illustrate where we'd be if past union groups, across all sports, hadn't stood unified to preserve their collective bargaining rights.

It was a thought experiment to illustrate where we'd be if past union groups, across all sports, hadn't stood unified to preserve their collective bargaining rights.
- Tomahawk

No, it's cool, you were disagreeing with me because your pro player, pro union, I get it.
I guess if Fehr tells the players the sit out 3 seasons to get what they want, then he's doing his job well, in the "principals" department.

I'm not pro player nor pro owner, I'm for pro hockey, that's it,

I want to see Hartnell on the ice, not in a suit standing behind the guy that fuc&ed up baseball.

I believe a 50/50 split seems more realistic than the current 56% BUT one thing is I have no idea what the current CBA and the new NHL proposed CBA considers hockey revenues so its really hard for me to have a real opinion. its just so damn frustrating that we are facing another lockout. The fans just don't matter...just our dollars. and sadly I love the game so much that I will be back and I will still go to the games (mainly because as much as they doubled my ticket prices from last year, I am still getting my tickets way below face value).

I believe a 50/50 split seems more realistic than the current 56% BUT one thing is I have no idea what the current CBA and the new NHL proposed CBA considers hockey revenues so its really hard for me to have a real opinion. its just so damn frustrating that we are facing another lockout. The fans just don't matter...just our dollars. and sadly I love the game so much that I will be back and I will still go to the games (mainly because as much as they doubled my ticket prices from last year, I am still getting my tickets way below face value).
- nastyflyergirl

amen to that

and, now there are murmurs of some players already stating that if they have to sit out the whole season, so be it.
I never thought I'd see our players become as bad as baseball players, but yeah, they are.

amen to that

and, now there are murmurs of some players already stating that if they have to sit out the whole season, so be it.
I never thought I'd see our players become as bad as baseball players, but yeah, they are.
- puckhead17

one thing ........we don't know if what is considered basketball/footballs revenues in their respective sports is not considered hockey revenues ion hockey so the 50/50 split in those sports may not be as fair in hockey. Is there any place we can see what is considered hockey revenues? Sounds like both sides don't even agree on that

I believe a 50/50 split seems more realistic than the current 56% BUT one thing is I have no idea what the current CBA and the new NHL proposed CBA considers hockey revenues so its really hard for me to have a real opinion. its just so damn frustrating that we are facing another lockout. The fans just don't matter...just our dollars. and sadly I love the game so much that I will be back and I will still go to the games (mainly because as much as they doubled my ticket prices from last year, I am still getting my tickets way below face value).
- nastyflyergirl

I thought that while the first NHL proposal to the players redefined revenue, the latest one used the previous CBA's definition of revenue. I'm not following this whole situation terribly closely though, so don't take that as gospel.

Bobby Sanguinetti on waivers... right-shooting, puck-moving, PP QB...

Boychuk, Plante and Peters on waivers, too... it's raining former blue-chip prospects.

one thing ........we don't know if what is considered basketball/footballs revenues in their respective sports is not considered hockey revenues ion hockey so the 50/50 split in those sports may not be as fair in hockey. Is there any place we can see what is considered hockey revenues? Sounds like both sides don't even agree on that
- nastyflyergirl

No, I don't know where that would be posted, even so, there seems to be different versions, & amounts claimed, (remember, maybe a month ago, an article that claimed the sharks lost $15 million last year), no one could believe that, & again was proof ever shown?
It doesn't seem that the players are disputing a 50/50 split, as much as female doging that they are being asked to go from 57% down to the 50% range all in one shot.
Again, money is money & even if the profits obviously aren't the same as the NFL, they do not guarantee any of the contracts they give the NFL players, whereas the NHL owners never disputed or argued to take away the guaranteed contracts.
If I'm a player, I'd rather have 100% of the check I sign, than just the signing bonus, and then get cut the next season & claim not another dime of the contract thereafter.

It all comes down to Fehr, everyone can go on about Bettman, (and yes, he's annoying), but what will Fehr do for the good of the game? really?
I really fear he's here to fuc& this league up.

Another thing, why are they only have short meetings, and minimal negotiations sessions at this point? They should be locked in a room for marathon sessions to try and hammer out a deal. The lockout is scheduled to begin later today, and there are no formal meeting scheduled? That's a kick in the balls to the fans.
- MJL

Both sides seem to trying to let the other 'sweat it out' in hopes they'll show up at the next meeting prepared to make concessions, or something to that effect. I agree that it's ridiculous there's no meeting planned today. These guys should've met early in the day and chained themselves to the bargaining table until either a deal got done or a lockout officially started. Then again, they should've taken this more seriously months ago, rather than both sides wasting the summer so they could incorporate a ticking clock into their tactics.

There is definitely no good guy in these proceedings right now.

People involved in this situation say they feel sorry for the "little guy" who gets hurt the most if there is a prolonged lockout -- the arena workers, team ticket sales staff, etc -- yet not one of them would put their money where their mouths are. I can 100 percent guarantee there won't be a fund set up to reimburse any one who gets laid off.
- bmeltzer

Excellent blog, this little bit really stood out to me. The NHLPA garnered some positive snetiment with their first offer, but in the time since I think it's become apparent neither side was so much interested in serious negotiating or avoiding a lockout as they were looking like the good guy in the media.

Statements like you described ring hollow as both sides willingly lead us into a lockout. If any of these people are serious about their altruistic feelings towards arena workers et all, they'd make a financial commitment to prove it.

Both sides seem to trying to let the other 'sweat it out' in hopes they'll show up at the next meeting prepared to make concessions, or something to that effect. I agree that it's ridiculous there's no meeting planned today. These guys should've met early in the day and chained themselves to the bargaining table until either a deal got done or a lockout officially started. Then again, they should've taken this more seriously months ago, rather than both sides wasting the summer so they could incorporate a ticking clock into their tactics.

There is definitely no good guy in these proceedings right now.
- BulliesPhan87

The bottom line is that actual and real negotiations haven't begun yet. It'll take a lockout and actual time missed of the Season, before real negotiations will begin.

Bill this lockout is a complete joke. The NHL is ruining any momentum it had. I don't get how the league and the owners don't see this.

Bobby Sanguinetti on waivers... right-shooting, puck-moving, PP QB...

Boychuk, Plante and Peters on waivers, too... it's raining former blue-chip prospects.
- Tomahawk

Hell, why not take a shot in the dark on one

I believe a 50/50 split seems more realistic than the current 56% BUT one thing is I have no idea what the current CBA and the new NHL proposed CBA considers hockey revenues so its really hard for me to have a real opinion. its just so damn frustrating that we are facing another lockout. The fans just don't matter...just our dollars. and sadly I love the game so much that I will be back and I will still go to the games (mainly because as much as they doubled my ticket prices from last year, I am still getting my tickets way below face value).
- nastyflyergirl

The NHL lost my money that goes to NHL center ice. That is, until the season comes back.

No, I don't know where that would be posted, even so, there seems to be different versions, & amounts claimed, (remember, maybe a month ago, an article that claimed the sharks lost $15 million last year), no one could believe that, & again was proof ever shown?
It doesn't seem that the players are disputing a 50/50 split, as much as female doging that they are being asked to go from 57% down to the 50% range all in one shot.
Again, money is money & even if the profits obviously aren't the same as the NFL, they do not guarantee any of the contracts they give the NFL players, whereas the NHL owners never disputed or argued to take away the guaranteed contracts.
If I'm a player, I'd rather have 100% of the check I sign, than just the signing bonus, and then get cut the next season & claim not another dime of the contract thereafter.

It all comes down to Fehr, everyone can go on about Bettman, (and yes, he's annoying), but what will Fehr do for the good of the game? really?
I really fear he's here to fuc& this league up.
- puckhead17

I don't share the same sentiment that Fehr is here to screw the game up. In my opinion, Fehr doesn't have any responsibility to the fans or the game. He was hired by the players to represent them. His only loyalty is to the players. Bettmann on the other hand has a responsibility to the fans and the health of the game going forward, and not just the interest of the Owners.
I think the players are willing to share in the cost of helping out the lesser teams as far as finances go. But they aren't willing to pay the entire bill, as the League wants them to do. They want the richer teams to share in paying that bill.

I don't share the same sentiment that Fehr is here to screw the game up. In my opinion, Fehr doesn't have any responsibility to the fans or the game. He was hired by the players to represent them. His only loyalty is to the players. Bettmann on the other hand has a responsibility to the fans and the health of the game going forward, and not just the interest of the Owners.
I think the players are willing to share in the cost of helping out the lesser teams as far as finances go. But they aren't willing to pay the entire bill, as the League wants them to do. They want the richer teams to share in paying that bill.
- MJL

here's an idea move the lesser teams to healthier markets

I don't share the same sentiment that Fehr is here to screw the game up. In my opinion, Fehr doesn't have any responsibility to the fans or the game. He was hired by the players to represent them. His only loyalty is to the players. Bettmann on the other hand has a responsibility to the fans and the health of the game going forward, and not just the interest of the Owners.
I think the players are willing to share in the cost of helping out the lesser teams as far as finances go. But they aren't willing to pay the entire bill, as the League wants them to do. They want the richer teams to share in paying that bill.
- MJL

Right, Fehr has no responsibility to the fans, and he's not here to "purposely" screw up the game, his loyalty to the players can/will lead then down that same road where Goodenow is sitting.

Remember Goodenow's words? "we will never accept a salary cap"
Fehr's words "we will not take a paycut".
I understand the players claim to feel as though they are being "bullied", but who will ultimately win a standoff such is this? They feel Fehr telling the owners what to do will be any different? Because he's the so called crafty shark as they say?
I can imagine the gag order the owners have not going so well when they see Fehr across the table

What leverage do the players have? What leverage do they think they have different from 8 years ago?

Give a listen --- AND NO MERCH... it is our only thing we can do.

Give a " " if you agree.

Please repost.

Right, Fehr has no responsibility to the fans, and he's not here to "purposely" screw up the game, his loyalty to the players can/will lead then down that same road where Goodenow is sitting.

Remember Goodenow's words? "we will never accept a salary cap"
Fehr's words "we will not take a paycut".
I understand the players claim to feel as though they are being "bullied", but who will ultimately win a standoff such is this? They feel Fehr telling the owners what to do will be any different? Because he's the so called crafty shark as they say?
I can imagine the gag order the owners have not going so well when they see Fehr across the table

What leverage do the players have? What leverage do they think they have different from 8 years ago?
- puckhead17

I don't agree that Fehr is anywhere near what Goodenow was. Goodenow was plain incompetent. And to my knowledge, Fehr is willing to limit growth in player salaries, which is essentially a paycut as long as the richer teams share in helping out the poorer teams. The leverage the players have is that there is no Hockey without them. The Owners have no product to sell without them.

The entire process it what irks me. Both sides are posturing and making proposals that they know either side is not going to accept. What's gone on up to this point has basically been window dressing. They haven't sat down and really started the real negotiations yet. Why is that? It doesn't have to be that way. Why did they wait so long to get to this point. Why wait until August to start talking? There is no legitimate reason why this couldn't have been settled by now, and Training camp opening getting ready for the Season. Sept 15th was a soft deadline.
- MJL

It always seems like the wrong way to get something done. I understand Fehr had to do his thing when he took the job but he's been in it 2 years now, no reason these talks couldn't have started after last season to start checking things off the CBA list to allow more time for the big parts to get done in time to avoid this but here we are on the verge of another lockout.

Give a listen --- AND NO MERCH... it is our only thing we can do.

Give a " " if you agree.

Please repost.
- Beatle_john

If you are going to post a video, at least change the size settings. I took care of it this time.

Bobby Sanguinetti on waivers... right-shooting, puck-moving, PP QB...

Boychuk, Plante and Peters on waivers, too... it's raining former blue-chip prospects.
- Tomahawk

Teams will likely not take anybody on waivers right now.

Flyers Yotes game on NHL network. Great Goal by JVR. This is the game i'm convinced that Pronger sustained the greatest severity of his condition