Its very hard to compare typical everyday jobs to hockey. Hockey is a form of entertainment. The players who play in the NHL are the best of the best. If the NHL uses replacement players, there is no way they even exceed 2 billion in revenue. Just compare fan bases for college football teams. No one can really give two shuts less about division 3 basketball or football.
- JFlyers00

Yes they are the best of the best and deserve to get payed. When i hear poop like "im just trying to support my family" i want to (frank)ing barf. A 12% doesnt effect their quality of life that much.

What if your company came to you again and asked for a 25% pay cut? What if you knew for a fact they were making 3 times what they were making the last time they asked you to take a pay cut and you sucked it up for the sake of THE COMPANY? How would you feel about it then. Would you be grateful that they were making record profits and crowing to their friends while sticking their hands in you pocket to take back money they promised you?

Think about it. The NHL isn't a struggling business in this economy. It's friggin' turning record profits. You can't compare that to what's going on in your life. It's completely unrealistic.
- mayorofangrytown

I don't have a huge problem with the NHL to ask for a reduction of the players share in the future, but I have a huge problem with asking them to give up money they are currently already owed based on current contracts. Splitting future revenue more evenly is a lot different than asking them to reduce money that the owners themselves decided to pay them. It's just stupid.

What if your company came to you again and asked for a 25% pay cut? What if you knew for a fact they were making 3 times what they were making the last time they asked you to take a pay cut and you sucked it up for the sake of THE COMPANY? How would you feel about it then. Would you be grateful that they were making record profits and crowing to their friends while sticking their hands in you pocket to take back money they promised you?

Think about it. The NHL isn't a struggling business in this economy. It's friggin' turning record profits. You can't compare that to what's going on in your life. It's completely unrealistic.
- mayorofangrytown

Part of the reason that its turning record profits is that the canadian dollar is about equall to the american dollar....in 2004 October it was about:

.80 US$ to 1US.

The league has had growth but some of it can be explained by the exchange rates.

Part of the reason that its turning record profits is that the canadian dollar is about equall to the american dollar....in 2004 October it was about:

.80 US$ to 1US.

The league has had growth but some of it can be explained by the exchange rates.
- Philly1980

That would equate to 25% growth if applied across the board and it's not. Growth is nearly 300%.

No matter how you shake it or stir it the NHL has dramatically increased revenue, the salary cap has risen along with it so the players are making more. You want a better split? The players are okay with that They're willing to work towards what the owners want. The owners want it right NOW!

No one can tell me the owners aren't acting like a bunch of children here. Who looks at three proposals that took 48 hours to put together in less than an hour and dismiss them then claim that the side that tabled them didn't run the numbers in 48 hours but you did in 30 minutes... please. I want to beat them all with a big stick.

That would equate to 25% growth if applied across the board and it's not. Growth is nearly 300%.

No matter how you shake it or stir it the NHL has dramatically increased revenue, the salary cap has risen along with it so the players are making more. You want a better split? The players are okay with that They're willing to work towards what the owners want. The owners want it right NOW!

No one can tell me the owners aren't acting like a bunch of children here. Who looks at three proposals that took 48 hours to put together in less than an hour and dismiss them then claim that the side that tabled them didn't run the numbers in 48 hours but you did in 30 minutes... please. I want to beat them all with a big stick.
- mayorofangrytown

According to Crosby, all 3 were rejected in under 10 minutes lol

According to Crosby, all 3 were rejected in under 10 minutes lol
- JFlyers00

This is the second time they've done this. They think they've moved in negotiation. Some of the things they've proposed are ridiculous at best.

I also believe current contracts should be honored. I think they should be working for a resolution that helps the future, not take away from anything that's happened in the past. That sounds like a money grab to me.
- funmaster18

Agreed. Also the provision that the League wants put in of the team that signed a player to a long term deal has to carry the cap hit of a player that retires, is just asinine. How can you punish a team that operated within the rules. All of those contracts were approved by the League when they were signed. Deal with the future, not the past.

Your logic is a bit off there. If HRR goes up 7% next year, the contracts should only go up 3.5%. The 50/50 split would still have to be preserved. Overall, I like the idea and agree with all your points... I also really like the fact that the owner proposed cba closes the loop hole of burying players in the minors.
- JFlyers00

I don't know why any fan would like the idea of closing the loophole of burying players in the minors. I don't want my team to have to continue to carry a player's cap hit that isn't good enough to make the team. Why would I have wanted the Flyers to be forced to keep Matt Walker on the team? It weakens my team's ability to build a team, and weakens the product overall.

On the other hand, the owners are losing money hand-over-fist, too. Where's their leverage?

Comparing the NHL to NBA/NFL is a joke. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. It's not even an apples-to-oranges comparison. It's more like an apples-to-hat pins comparison.

Anyway, the players said many times yesterday they'll get to 50/50 no problem, just honor the existing contracts 100%, with no cutbacks and no funny business. That passes the "reaonable man" test, imho. Start there and get a deal done.
- Scoob

Totally agree Scoob. Your dead on here.

I don't know why any fan would like the idea of closing the loophole of burying players in the minors. I don't want my team to have to continue to carry a player's cap hit that isn't good enough to make the team. Why would I have wanted the Flyers to be forced to keep Matt Walker on the team? It weakens my team's ability to build a team, and weakens the product overall.
- MJL

I was thinking about it more along the lines of players being sent to the minor who dont belong there simply because they are overpaid. Wade Redden for example. The best players should be in the NHL regardless of whether they are overpaid or not... There really should be a way to release a player like the NFL, but we are still a few lockouts away from that

Agreed. Also the provision that the League wants put in of the team that signed a player to a long term deal has to carry the cap hit of a player that retires, is just asinine. How can you punish a team that operated within the rules. All of those contracts were approved by the League when they were signed. Deal with the future, not the past.
- MJL

Exactly. It's like the league is in denial that they made mistakes in the last CBA and want to punish the teams for operating under the rules the NHL pushes for. Cross your T's and dot your I's next time instead of throwing teams under the bus for following the rules both sides previously agreed on. The NHL is absolutely bullying the NHLPA right now and basically holding them ransom for their own past failures at the negotiating table.

I was thinking about it more along the lines of players being sent to the minor who dont belong there simply because they are overpaid. Wade Redden for example. The best players should be in the NHL regardless of whether they are overpaid or not... There really should be a way to release a player like the NFL, but we are still a few lockouts away from that
- JFlyers00

Wade Redden is sent to the Minors because his level of play doesn't justify his Cap hit according to the Rangers. You can't expect a team to be perfect in every player decision. There has to be flexibility there.

Agreed. Also the provision that the League wants put in of the team that signed a player to a long term deal has to carry the cap hit of a player that retires, is just asinine. How can you punish a team that operated within the rules. All of those contracts were approved by the League when they were signed. Deal with the future, not the past.
- MJL

It puzzles me that the owners would even want that included.

It puzzles me that the owners would even want that included.
- Scoob

Tells you how ass backwards this negotiation has been thus far. How is that part worded anyway? Is it effective to existing contracts as well or is this a provision they want for future contracts?

Wade Redden is sent to the Minors because his level of play doesn't justify his Cap hit according to the Rangers. You can't expect a team to be perfect in every player decision. There has to be flexibility there.
- MJL

Exactly. Outside of his cap hit, he would and should be in the NHL though. Whether or not there should be flexibility is just opinion... I think that the NHL sees it as not every team being able to afford to bury contracts in the minors thus that stipulation is a way of getting closer to some sort of parity.

Exactly. Outside of his cap hit, he would and should be in the NHL though. Whether or not there should be flexibility is just opinion... I think that the NHL sees it as not every team being able to afford to bury contracts in the minors thus that stipulation is a way of getting closer to some sort of parity.
- JFlyers00

No doubt that it's a parity issue. But I don't know with the financial landscape of the League that there is ever going to be true parity.

Tells you how ass backwards this negotiation has been thus far. How is that part worded anyway? Is it effective to existing contracts as well or is this a provision they want for future contracts?
- funmaster18

Effective on existing contracts. So if Mike Richards or Jeff Carter would retire early, the Flyers would have to carry their Cap hit. I would assume this wouldn't include having to retire due to serious injury. Which if LTIR stays the same, they wouldn't do that any way.

Exactly. Outside of his cap hit, he would and should be in the NHL though. Whether or not there should be flexibility is just opinion... I think that the NHL sees it as not every team being able to afford to bury contracts in the minors thus that stipulation is a way of getting closer to some sort of parity.
- JFlyers00

I don't like parity. I want my team to win by 5 or 6 goals every game. Screw parity.

Exactly. Outside of his cap hit, he would and should be in the NHL though. Whether or not there should be flexibility is just opinion... I think that the NHL sees it as not every team being able to afford to bury contracts in the minors thus that stipulation is a way of getting closer to some sort of parity.
- JFlyers00

MLB has great parity, even with a luxury tax system.

Why can't the NHL do something similar? Give the larger spending teams a higher cap.

Keep a cap floor and ceiling, based on a 50/50 HRR split, for any team that wants to. But also allow teams that can and are willing to give more than 50% to the players a higher cap ceiling.

Effective on existing contracts. So if Mike Richards or Jeff Carter would retire early, the Flyers would have to carry their Cap hit. I would assume this wouldn't include having to retire due to serious injury. Which if LTIR stays the same, they wouldn't do that any way.
- MJL

I could understand if they wanted it installed for new contracts to avoid a plethora of new mega long deals, but how can you punish teams for doing something that was allowed and without ramifications at the time the deal was made?? It's like buying a product today and tomorrow they make the purchase of that product illegal, and then they arrest you for buying the product yesterday. That makes zero sense to me.

Obviously that's an over exaggeration of their situation, but the principle is the same.

I could understand if they wanted it installed for new contracts to avoid a plethora of new mega long deals, but how can you punish teams for doing something that was allowed and without ramifications at the time the deal was made?? It's like buying a product today and tomorrow they make the purchase of that product illegal, and then they arrest you for buying the product yesterday. That makes zero sense to me.
- funmaster18

They wouldn't need it in their proposed deal for future contracts because they've proposed a 5 year max on new deals. The bottom line is they want to retroactively punish teams who they felt circumvented the CBA with these long term deals. MY question to them is, then why did you approve those deals when they were signed?

No doubt that it's a parity issue. But I don't know with the financial landscape of the League that there is ever going to be true parity.
- MJL

I agree as well. I don't see how it would be possible. The league also seems to be quite thick headed as well.

While all NHL contracts have a base number attached to them and a perceived value (let's say 5M per year), the actual value that they signed on to, under the old system, is actually ($5M - %Escrow) correct? So how does one know what the "true" value of these contracts are in order to "honor" them?

They wouldn't need it in their proposed deal for future contracts because they've proposed a 5 year max on new deals. The bottom line is they want to retroactively punish teams who they felt circumvented the CBA with these long term deals. MY question to them is, then why did you approve those deals when they were signed?
- MJL

What a mess. January is sounding pretty optimistic at the rate the negotiations are currently going.

They wouldn't need it in their proposed deal for future contracts because they've proposed a 5 year max on new deals. The bottom line is they want to retroactively punish teams who they felt circumvented the CBA with these long term deals. MY question to them is, then why did you approve those deals when they were signed?
- MJL

Doesn't it only take 8 owners to nix a deal? I can't imagine the Ed Snider voting for a deal like this (if this new rule counted against contracts signed under the old system). I can't imagine there aren't 7 more teams who would want nothing to do with this.