The difference between revenue and profit is light years away from being semantics. It is a drastic difference. And it did have a bearing on your post in my opinion. That they are talking about dividing revenue versus profits is a key point to consider. Alot of people, not saying you do, misunderstand that.
- MJL

But that also gets back to my point about Fehr's arguments: his bluntest object has been "record revenues." He has repeated it ad naseum.

He hasn't once uttered the word "profits."

He's seen the books. If profits were good for the majority of franchises, he'd be trumpeting it.

But that also gets back to my point about Fehr's arguments: his bluntest object has been "record revenues." He has repeated it ad naseum.

He hasn't once uttered the word "profits."

He's seen the books. If profits were good for the majority of franchises, he'd be trumpeting it.
- Atomic Wedgie

thank you,

u put it much more succinctly than i was able to

no, it didnt..at all

if the nhl's true NUMBERS, (profits, revenues, losses, expenditures etc etc) that the union has access to, were vastly different then what they are claiming, the union would make this front and center. not only with the media while attempting to win the PR battle, but also with negotiations. as they've attempted to do with far lesser issues....

imo, if this was in fact the case, negotiations would be going even worse than they presently are. or at least they'd be much furthur apart than they currently are


- hugefemale dog77

Makes sense, especially so if the numbers were skewed in the NHL's favor. I think logic would dictate that the PA would have iron clad leverage in the negotiations if that were at all true, or at the very least they'd be identifying it as a key issue.

I hope the contractual issues don't get given up, I like the 5-7 year limit and the 5% increase year over year.
The circumventing contracts NEED to be addressed.
INstead of giving players a set amount I'd offer a percentage of the cap, so as the cap moves so does your salary.
Instead of giving out 10mil/year they get 15% of the cap, so as the cap moves so does their salary. Just poop storming here, but I HATE front loaded contracts and tacking on years to bring the hit down.

I hope the contractual issues don't get given up, I like the 5-7 year limit and the 5% increase year over year.
The circumventing contracts NEED to be addressed.
INstead of giving players a set amount I'd offer a percentage of the cap, so as the cap moves so does your salary.
Instead of giving out 10mil/year they get 15% of the cap, so as the cap moves so does their salary. Just poop storming here, but I HATE front loaded contracts and tacking on years to bring the hit down.
- braidan

Agreed that those contracts have to go. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that though.

One of the reasons I like the 5 year limit is it prevents teams from signing long term deals regardless, when the GM's know full well that cap hell will be someone else's problem. If you don't get strict on the contract length, you are still going to see garbage like 20 years at 5 million...

Funny thought, who will work out a deal first, NHL or Congress???

HOCKEY SUCKS! I HATE EVERYONE INVOLVED. WHAT A BUNCH OF WHINING LITTLE BIT**ES. F*** ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!

But that also gets back to my point about Fehr's arguments: his bluntest object has been "record revenues." He has repeated it ad naseum.

He hasn't once uttered the word "profits."

He's seen the books. If profits were good for the majority of franchises, he'd be trumpeting it.
- Atomic Wedgie

Of course he would. He wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't. If profits were good for every team, would we even have a lockout? But as I've stated many times. This is a negotiation on Revenue, not profits. And the NHLPA is negotiating with the NHL as a whole, not the individual teams.

There is too many reasons for the lockout to end, i think even with Fehr and Bettman being idiots, or at least spending too much time on getting the upper hand, this lockout has to end, at the end of the day players will accept whatever is the last offer on the table no matter, because its a money game, and if they don't play this season they lose out on all that money, and regardless of what they negotiate in CBA it won't add up for the losses created in a lost season. Only 1 reason that players won't give in is pride, they don't want NHL to pull all this bs on them, cuz they are getting screwed over in every offer and they got too much pride to get run over by the NHL, other than that there is no reason for them to not accept even the worst deal, cuz the main issue is money, and the players lose way too much if they lose the season.
- lovin

Sometimes pride is more important than money when dealing with matters involving honour!

Agreed that those contracts have to go. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that though.

One of the reasons I like the 5 year limit is it prevents teams from signing long term deals regardless, when the GM's know full well that cap hell will be someone else's problem. If you don't get strict on the contract length, you are still going to see garbage like 20 years at 5 million...
- Aetherial

What is the NHL asking for, a five year limit? Personally, I hope the NHLPA negotiates that up to maybe the seven to nine year area. I think teams should be able to commit to a player, but not incentivized to abuse the system.

What is the NHL asking for, a five year limit? Personally, I hope the NHLPA negotiates that up to maybe the seven to nine year area. I think teams should be able to commit to a player, but not incentivized to abuse the system.
- BulliesPhan87

I agree. I really don't want to see the contract rules changed. But really all the NHL needs, is to get the 5% variance in salary from year to year on a deal to stop the deals that they view as circumventing the Cap, from happening.

But that also gets back to my point about Fehr's arguments: his bluntest object has been "record revenues." He has repeated it ad naseum.

He hasn't once uttered the word "profits."

He's seen the books. If profits were good for the majority of franchises, he'd be trumpeting it.
- Atomic Wedgie

I agree, but a lot of that is solely due to the incompetence of the NHL.

But that also gets back to my point about Fehr's arguments: his bluntest object has been "record revenues." He has repeated it ad naseum.

He hasn't once uttered the word "profits."

He's seen the books. If profits were good for the majority of franchises, he'd be trumpeting it.
- Atomic Wedgie

correct...the Buffalo Sabres sold out nearly every game and ownership lost 5 million last year........the players all made millions, or close, but I know known of them were in the red.

I hope the contractual issues don't get given up, I like the 5-7 year limit and the 5% increase year over year.
The circumventing contracts NEED to be addressed.
INstead of giving players a set amount I'd offer a percentage of the cap, so as the cap moves so does your salary.
Instead of giving out 10mil/year they get 15% of the cap, so as the cap moves so does their salary. Just poop storming here, but I HATE front loaded contracts and tacking on years to bring the hit down.
- braidan

i love the idea of a percentage of the cap. that is fantastic! players would never go for it because its not guranteed.

correct...the Buffalo Sabres sold out nearly every game and ownership lost 5 million last year........the players all made millions, or close, but I know known of them were in the red.
- Homer

it's funny to think that rick nash actually came our furthur ahead than the jackets owner did

For that and that alone, Gary Bettman needs to step down. No, we can't impeach him. Yes, we can continue to excoriate him. He's the worst commissioner in sports history, and really, it's going to remain that way unless Roger Goodell extends the NFL's season to 20 games, adds Wednesday- and Friday-night football to the schedule, pays a hitman to murder Jonathan Vilma, and gets outed for having a heated affair with his biographer, Peter King … and even then, I'd probably still give the edge to Bettman.

correct...the Buffalo Sabres sold out nearly every game and ownership lost 5 million last year........the players all made millions, or close, but I know known of them were in the red.
- Homer

Maybe your moneybags owner shouldn't have signed a bunch of stiffs to overpriced contracts.

Maybe your moneybags owner shouldn't have signed a bunch of stiffs to overpriced contracts.
- triggermartin

trying to make a point, thanks for the cheap shot. Not like Toronto's ownership has never made any mistakes.....havent made the playoffs since when again?

Maybe your moneybags owner shouldn't have signed a bunch of stiffs to overpriced contracts.
- triggermartin

really just one player too, not "a bunch"

correct...the Buffalo Sabres sold out nearly every game and ownership lost 5 million last year........the players all made millions, or close, but I know known of them were in the red.
- Homer

That sounds fishy to me. If they sold out nearly every game, and lost 5M. Then what is the solution to the Sabres turning a profit? Besides cutting payroll. It's a catch 22. If you don't put a good product on the ice, then your attendance may drop.

That sounds fishy to me. If they sold out nearly every game, and lost 5M. Then what is the solution to the Sabres turning a profit? Besides cutting payroll. It's a catch 22. If you don't put a good product on the ice, then your attendance may drop.
- MJL

Lower the salary cap.

Lower the salary cap.
- Jacob582

That's why I said cutting payroll.

i love the idea of a percentage of the cap. that is fantastic! players would never go for it because its not guranteed.
- joshs

It's better than guaranteed, if the league grows by 5% every year so does your salary.

it's funny to think that rick nash actually came our furthur ahead than the jackets owner did
- hugefemale dog77

18 out of 30 teams lost money this year....so yeah you can also count guys like Tavares, Thornton and Kovalchuck making money of someone that is losing some.

If Bettman can listen to 8 bottom owners, why can't Fehr hear bottom 200 players?