I agree. I would hope that if this stalemate goes much longer, that they consider that.
- MJL

it most certainly cant hurt

i mean if its not going to cost anything to have him in there then bring him in.. i dont know.. makes sense to me.

it most certainly cant hurt

i mean if its not going to cost anything to have him in there then bring him in.. i dont know.. makes sense to me.
- Dozzer

Won't happen.

NHL rejected this idea because it made too much cents.

Get it? Cents? They don't make enough..

Ok, I'll be over there.

Won't happen.

NHL rejected this idea because it made too much cents.

Get it? Cents? They don't make enough..

Ok, I'll be over there.
- StayTunedMTC

true enough... i am passed the point of giving either side the credit of logic

If there is no deal struck by US Thanksgiving the NHL will cancel games through Dec 15th, then NHL will cancel the season somewhere around the middle of December. After that, the nuclear winter will set in and the NHL as we know will end. The NHLPA will begin the process of starting the basis for an unfair labor practice agaisnt Bettman and the owners, followed closely by a challenge to the entire CBA salary cap and all. I suppose it's possible there may be a hybrid NHL come October of 2013, but I wouldn't count on it. Many NHL careers will be over, and Gary Bettman will finally resign as Commissioner after the owners take a no confidence vote. Only Jeremy Jacobs votes for keeping Bettman as commish and he is burned in effigy in the parking lot adjacent the beautiful TD Bank Garden. In the eventual new NHL, the Coyotes, Islanders, Predators, Panthers, Columbus and possibly Lightning, Devils and Ducks will fold and cease operations. The 3 billion dollars in revenue will be long gone, and the Don Cherry's of the world will embrace the new league saying it's better than ever, while never looking back twice at those who scarficed their careers for a better CBA and league.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

And then you woke up!!! Great story

All this up and down this is sucha kick in the balls from the players and owners.

And then you woke up!!! Great story
- SouthNash

It was really late when I wrote that that and I had taken a lot of cough medicine. The point with the accountants, was made. A team like the Islanders can say it loses money but the books need to be more transparent. Plus there needs to be an independent group or two that puts a value on the intangible benefits gained, such as tax breaks, cross marketing etc...

You take a look at the different ways they tried to make the Coyotes profitable in Phoenix and there are ways to negotiate with the state or city. Maybe it is real estate development nearby or tax breaks. These are the things that should be explored on top of a new profit sharing program. However, in the end, if the city can't support a team then there is no need to force a team on them. There are many areas that can support hockey teams and 3 new NHL arenas being built.

I also want to state that I agree that more money should go to the owners and I am on their sides. I simply want to point out that the owners painted themselves into this corner. The cap system is good in theory but fans want to see their team have more money to get that one extra player. They can't control the ridiculous contracts that GMs are offering. They can't stop rookies getting 3.5 mill in their first year and these long term deals signing players till they are in their 40s.

The owners new this was coming and should have down shifted slowly to avoid this lockout. Gaining shares each year over this new CBA rather than go for it all at first.

In the end the owners are making more than they are reporting. That has always been known but I agree that salaries are out of control. But the GMs control the salaries with the owners who hire them and the players have proven they can find somewhere else to play and make money. The players hold all the cards on this one and it was obvious before last year started this would be true. This was all predictable.

But we are all talking about which rich person should become more rich so I will leave it at that.
- bsteinley

First point is coming off of your earlier post, Why does it matter what the owners make from other businesses? That shouldn't and CANNOT come into play when you look at the financial conditions of a franchise. Those other companies that owners make money off of are corporations with their own boards of directors operating separately. Each entity operates as an individual, and attempts to get the best deal for itself. Just because Katz is rich from Rexall doesn't mean he isn't justified in going after subsidies, tax breaks, and other money in a deal to create a new arena for the Oilers Franchise. Lets also remember that arenas DO also benefit the community and whoever owns the building (which could sometimes mean the city).

Second, many owners operate these franchises at a loss on purpose in order to reduce their tax liability on their personal tax returns. Owners are extremely rich, and sometimes just treat these franchises as a toy, like we would treat an xbox, or a mildly rich person a sports car. The owners' accountants probably suggest buying franchises as an investment, and a hobby, because they generally appreciate or stay neutral over time and if you operate them at a loss you can use that to reduce the amount of taxes you pay in current years. JUST MAKES SENSE.

Third, there already is a system of third party verification of financials. Any corporation must submit an audit with their financials done by an independent accounting firm. Yes I remember Arthur Anderson and Enron, but Sarbanes-Oxley has done a good job of fixing those problems, and no that does not relate to the financial meltdown of 2008. There is no need to make that information more "transparent." Why? So idiots who dont understand accounting can criticize how a company categorized an asset, lease, or cash flow? There are other competitive and privacy concerns there as well.

And then you woke up!!! Great story
- SouthNash

I guess time will tell.

That's what happens when u watch countless amounts of porn, you tend to find yourself awake at some obscene hour of the night and once youre done you check hockeybuzz so your history doesnt look like youre a dirty perv.
- Snagglepuss

fixed.

not only is there no good news on lockout but the clown sitting near me is playing a Train CD at work.. How many times can I tell him to turn it down/off they are so bad

A forensic audit? WTF? where did that come from?

The next point you mention is my FAVOURITE!

The NHLPA in this negotiation, cried foul about the NHL proposed method of honouring contracts. They coined the term "players paying players". It is not literally true, and I think it is debatable whether or not it is figuratively true.

It is my favourite arguement because this same group keeps proposing that the solution to the problem of teams failing financially is OWNER PAYING OWNERS. This is not figuratively speaking... this is literally speaking.

So let me get this straight, the players take home about 8X what the owners do after expenses (retarded in itself) ... and the players' solution is that the few owners making money pay the ones losing it. Not to mention that the intent of this is really to allow teams to spend at or over the cap floor which is necessary for those teams to be competitive so there is every chance that at least some of the shared revenue ends up back in the players' pockets.

So... the player's solution is ... "Pay us more".
- Aetherial

I'm not sure what is so "debateable" about the make whole clause in the owners 50/50 offer. They were going to cover the difference in salaries by taking the difference out of future player shares. Now to the owners credit they moved off of this and were going to honor the contracts in some form of escrow with a small interest %, but that being said there is nothing debateable about the original "make whole" b/c it wasn't a make whole. It was a form of prepayment and nothing more

Revenue sharing is part of the solution in every major sport. Because it works. In the current system teams have to already spend to the Cap floor. And who put that system in place? But let's put that on the players! And most teams don't seem to need any urging from the PA, to spend to the hilt and hand out the big checks. And in the NHL's first make whole offer, it wasn't just literally true. It was just plain true. The money for make whole came out of the players share in that offer. To the NHL's credit, they made a good offer in their 2nd make whole offer. The players counter proposal to as you put it "pay us more". Is simply a reaction to the NHL stance on the contract issues. Nothing more. It's a negotiation. Now if the NHL says that the PA should come to the table and see what they're willing to negotiate, then that's what they should do. Because talking can lead to a deal.
- MJL

Judge Arthur Boylan, the guy who mediated the deal between the NFL and NFLPA said he would mediate the discussions for the NHL and PA for free.

this is a no-brainer.. get this guy involved and get this deal done

i've said it before.. i cannot fathom why there isnt a third party present during these discussions. a neutral would be able to look at things far more objectively and it would go a long ways to solving the trust issues between the two sides.
- Dozzer

If this season gets cancelled without a mediator getting involved then heads should roll...plain and simple

The League told the teams to operate business as usual during the Summer, and that teams would not be punished for being over whatever the new Cap would be.
- MJL

http://insider.espn.go.co...nesty-keep-rosters-intact

Throughout these negotiations, the league has shown little to no appetite to include amnesty or buyouts as part of the next CBA. Early on in talks, one NHL source left little wiggle room on amnesty when I asked about it.

His response: "No amnesty."

That's as recent as November 8. I'll have to find time later to go dig out comments where the NHL told teams "don't go crazy and spend to the cap." I know that the NHL pointedly said "do not expect any kind of amnesty" repeatedly; letting teams go over the cap without any consequences is de facto amnesty.

Judge Arthur Boylan, the guy who mediated the deal between the NFL and NFLPA said he would mediate the discussions for the NHL and PA for free.

this is a no-brainer.. get this guy involved and get this deal done

i've said it before.. i cannot fathom why there isnt a third party present during these discussions. a neutral would be able to look at things far more objectively and it would go a long ways to solving the trust issues between the two sides.
- Dozzer

Because (a) mediation isn't required, and (b) neither side wants it. Hell, look at the offers on the table and the complete lack of analysis from the media on the possible problems inherent in them; you really think anyone is interested in taking an objective look at things and finding a real solution that works short-term and long-term at this point?

I agree. I would hope that if this stalemate goes much longer, that they consider that.
- MJL

Mediation won't do anything right now. Both sides are so dug in on the positions they've taken, it would require either (both) to back off in some area(s). Neither side wants to do that, and that's going to have to happen to get a deal done right now because they're still trying to get to the same point via 2 completely different routes that can never meet up.

All this up and down this is sucha kick in the balls from the players and owners.
- derfmred

Now, he's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused
And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill
All he believe are his eyes
And his eyes, they just tell him lies.

But there's a woman on my block
Sitting there in a cold chill
She say who gonna take away his license to kill ?

Ya may be a noisemaker, spirit maker
Heartbreaker, backbreaker
Leave no stone unturned
May be an actor in a plot
That might be all that you got
'Til your error you clearly learn.

Now he worships at an altar of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection, he's fulfilled
Oh, man is opposed to fair play
He wants it all and he wants it his way.

Now, there's a woman on my block
She just sit there as the night grows still
She say who gonna take away his license to kill ?

http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/blog/_/name/custance_craig/id/8606653/nhl-teams-need-amnesty-keep-rosters-intact



That's as recent as November 8. I'll have to find time later to go dig out comments where the NHL told teams "don't go crazy and spend to the cap." I know that the NHL pointedly said "do not expect any kind of amnesty" repeatedly; letting teams go over the cap without any consequences is de facto amnesty.



- Irish Blues

That article is dealing with future years beyond this year in the deal. Call it amnesty, or call it what ever you want. But teams were told to conduct business as usual during the Summer using the 70M Cap figure. And that if the Cap was reduced for the upcoming Season, teams wouldn't be punished for being over. The following Season however, all bets are off. And teams will have to comply.

But we are all talking about which rich person should become more rich so I will leave it at that.
- bsteinley

So very true, and my apologies that my tone sounded like I was attacking you. It was not my intent, but it did come across that way.

All this up and down this is sucha kick in the balls from the players and owners.
- derfmred

Your avvytard....

I NEED THE OPTIMISM METER FOR ME TO KNOW HOW I SHOULD FEEL TODAY

I'm not sure what is so "debateable" about the make whole clause in the owners 50/50 offer. They were going to cover the difference in salaries by taking the difference out of future player shares. Now to the owners credit they moved off of this and were going to honor the contracts in some form of escrow with a small interest %, but that being said there is nothing debateable about the original "make whole" b/c it wasn't a make whole. It was a form of prepayment and nothing more
- uf1910

The dubious part for me is that players negotiating a contract ALWAYS have to have their contract amounts fit under the current Cap/Escrow balances. That does not change.

Does it become more onerous than what the players experienced under the last CBA? Yes. Does it mean less money available to the players going forward, Yes.

However the mechanism is not "new". It is just the way the numbers would have worked out. The catch-phrase the PA came up with though is more BS posturing.

... not that the owners have not done their share of the same. They most certainly have ... "no rollbacks" anyone??

FIRST!!!











Any habs rumors?!?













'Nuff said

I'm getting more and more convinced the two sides can't reach a solution with the positions taken, unless they're willing to half-ass a deal for the sake of getting one and see the next CBA have all kinds of flaws (and the ideas currently on the table from both sides are riddled with flaws). They may be better off just starting from scratch and trying this again - and that may mean having different people do the negotiating this time.
- Irish Blues

I think the PA and the league should both take everything off the table, salary cap, guaranteed contracts, revenue sharing, escrow... everything and start again.

There is no reason the players should have to accept a salary cap anymore. There is no reason the owners should have to guarantee contracts.

This becomes like maintaining software over time. The more you change it, play with it, tweak it, add in new rules and exceptions... the more it becomes so F'd up and convoluted that it can no longer do its job.

The CBA needs to be simpler, and for that they need to start from scratch.

Rather than fight over how to change the old CBA... I wish both sides came with a clean slate, sometime last February or so.

I realize that this is fantasy-land stuff though.

I'm starting to hope they cancel the season...

(frank)ing donkey's

The NHLPA has (and always has had) the ability to audit the HRR data of up to 10 teams a year. That's how the fight over the $25 million that Glendale was paying to cover losses broke out.


They should have also worked under the prior $64.3 million cap number knowing that they were going to go for a lower HRR split. They could still get to a 50/50 split point both at the end of the next CBA and in aggregate ... but doing so immediately effectively rewards the teams who knowingly overspent this past summer (despite warnings not to do so and that there would be no amnesty for them) and doing so from 57/43 as the players want requires the split point to get to almost 50/50 in Year 2 and then more like 48/52 or 47/53 for the next couple of years.

I don't see either side agreeing to either of those ideas. Not with where they currently stand.


HRR omits some key pieces of revenue (I don't have time to go through the list). Additionally, tricks like what the Blackhawks do (report all concessions, merchandise and parking as revenues of the United Center instead of the Blackhawks, claim the Hawks are losing $20M) can't be done in the HRR reports. All of that revenue has to be reported as accruing to the NHL team. That probably changes the true profitability of a few teams, but there's still several that are hurting in a major way.
- Irish Blues

I understood they had the idea to look at the books to some extent. I was also under the impression that the omitted list was not the only area that people were questioning. Plus there are other benefits to owing a team that value that aren't looked at. Marketing and cross marketing being large. Real estate being a big one for many owners as well. Plus free autographs... think about it.

I agree they should have worked under the same cap number and I expected teams to be cautious with their spending this summer but I don't remember reading anywhere that any team was told to be. I think every GM knew full well that if they went over it wouldn't be their problem to sort out. However for some a cap raise was needed to sign players as they already were at their max and they expect the new CBA to bring old contracts down.

I agree that both sides are not going to agree with it but the hard truth is that both sides should have figured this out by July. I don't think anyone here actually thinks they tried to negotiate at all in the summer. They both played hard ball hoping for the best deal possible when the reality of the situation was known. Recent lockouts should have had them talking all year.

No side will win this. This is not like the last lockout when hockey wasn't doing well. Hockey was arguably at a peak. I know here in Kamloops that our minor league team is selling out game after game and they are on a tear. I for one am going to buy season tickets to them instead of my game pack to the canucks next year. It is cheaper and I don't have to make the crazy drive through the snow. Plus I actually have a favorite KHL team and enjoy the SEL. I can catch their games online and they play with some real intensity. The NHL is no longer the only league and now the players and fans have a real taste for it. That can't help them. In the back of every mind I know I will be thinking when the cup is hoisted; were the best players playing in this league?

cancel the season... clap clap!

cancel the season... clap clap!

cancel the season... clap clap!