I agree with your sentiment, but I think what you fail to see is that a long term solution to make the entire league solvent is going to require both sides to give a little, hence the term collective bargaining agreement. Once again you are making out like the players have no responsibility in this dilemma other than to hold on to their piece of the pie and stay status quo. I hate to tell ya, but that's not how a CBA works. If as many teams are losing money as has been reported, there is no other way for the league to solve the financial issues that have been set in motion by the previous CBA without lowering players cut. The players simply have to give up some of their piece of the pie. The make whole offer by the owners is about the fairest deal the players are going to get. Yet the players still want to control the entire process by dictating contract terms. At this point the players are cutting their own throats, whether the season is canceled or they foolishly choose decertifiaction, either scenario is a lose/lose for the players.
- MnGump

What, exactly, are the owners giving?

The owners are not making a single concession in these talks, nor have they made one in any of their public proposals. The owners not only want to reduce the share of revenue that goes to the players, they also want to limit contract length and extend the required age and service time for free agency eligibility.

The players association has offered to take a smaller cut of the revenue pie. It's not as if the PA is saying there's no way they go below 57% of HRR. They simply want deals that the owners negotiated right up to the 11th hour of the last CBA to be honored. If I negotiate a deal with you, expecting that I won't have to make good on it a week later, that's negotiating in bad faith.

I blame both sides for the lockout, and the fact that it has gone on for as long as it has. But I see one group making concessions & another group making demands. I personally don't care what the final terms of the CBA are, but let's not act as if the owners are proposing a wonderful offer or making concessions to entice the players to take a smaller cut of the pie.

Also, I have serious questions about the "reported" losses. Forbes makes estimates. They don't see the actual books. In fact, a report out of Broward county, in Florida, strongly suggests that the Panthers, rather than losing money each year, turn a profit annually.

The Panthers have to show Broward officials their books because of an agreement with the county. Each year, over the past ten years, the profits generated by Bank One Center have been around $10mm...except during the 2005 lockout, where they were around $3mm.

Also, if so many teams are bleeding money, why are billionaires buying them? Outside of Phoenix, teams generally have several people trying to buy in. In one case was a NHL team sold for less than the seller originally paid for it under the last CBA.

If the NHL was really in such dire financial straits, why has Gary Bettman received raises? Why is he still the commissioner? If his stewardship has really brought such huge financial troubles, why haven't the owners fired him?

What, exactly, are the owners giving?

The owners are not making a single concession in these talks, nor have they made one in any of their public proposals. The owners not only want to reduce the share of revenue that goes to the players, they also want to limit contract length and extend the required age and service time for free agency eligibility.

The players association has offered to take a smaller cut of the revenue pie. It's not as if the PA is saying there's no way they go below 57% of HRR. They simply want deals that the owners negotiated right up to the 11th hour of the last CBA to be honored. If I negotiate a deal with you, expecting that I won't have to make good on it a week later, that's negotiating in bad faith.

I blame both sides for the lockout, and the fact that it has gone on for as long as it has. But I see one group making concessions & another group making demands. I personally don't care what the final terms of the CBA are, but let's not act as if the owners are proposing a wonderful offer or making concessions to entice the players to take a smaller cut of the pie.

Also, I have serious questions about the "reported" losses. Forbes makes estimates. They don't see the actual books. In fact, a report out of Broward county, in Florida, strongly suggests that the Panthers, rather than losing money each year, turn a profit annually.

The Panthers have to show Broward officials their books because of an agreement with the county. Each year, over the past ten years, the profits generated by Bank One Center have been around $10mm...except during the 2005 lockout, where they were around $3mm.

Also, if so many teams are bleeding money, why are billionaires buying them? Outside of Phoenix, teams generally have several people trying to buy in. In one case was a NHL team sold for less than the seller originally paid for it under the last CBA.

If the NHL was really in such dire financial straits, why has Gary Bettman received raises? Why is he still the commissioner? If his stewardship has really brought such huge financial troubles, why haven't the owners fired him?
- Jsaquella

I've been round and round on the exact same points you make here with a lot of posters who are against the players and Fehr. I was pretty much told that the article you reference about Florida was BS. All the points you make here are spot on in my opinion. I favor the players side. But I don't absolve them, or Fehr from a lot of the nonsense that has been unnecessary in this negotiation. The PA has done more then their fair share of posturing, stalling, and in creating rhetoric in the media. But overall, it has been the League that has created the environment of negotiating in bad faith from the very beginning until now. Not to mention that they now don't want to honor the contracts that were agreed to, signed, and approved by the League. And that also no doubt came with a handshake across the table while looking the player in the eyes.

I've been round and round on the exact same points you make here with a lot of posters who are against the players and Fehr. I was pretty much told that the article you reference about Florida was BS. All the points you make here are spot on in my opinion. I favor the players side. But I don't absolve them, or Fehr from a lot of the nonsense that has been unnecessary in this negotiation. The PA has done more then their fair share of posturing, stalling, and in creating rhetoric in the media. But overall, it has been the League that has created the environment of negotiating in bad faith from the very beginning until now. Not to mention that they now don't want to honor the contracts that were agreed to, signed, and approved by the League. And that also no doubt came with a handshake across the table while looking the player in the eyes.
- MJL

My bottom line is, I don't care if the players end up making $8.50 an hour or if they get 95% of the money. I want hockey back.

That said, I do see one side making concessions, while the other side isn't offering any. If somebody says both sides have to give, I agree. But there's only one side giving anything in this mess, and it's the players. I'm tired of people acting like the owners are being magnanimous and offering a great deal.

Compared to the last CBA, the owners are not "giving" the players anything.

As for the Florida report, BS or not, the Panthers have to file the actual books with the county, so I trust those numbers a lot more than I do Forbes.

My bottom line is, I don't care if the players end up making $8.50 an hour or if they get 95% of the money. I want hockey back.

That said, I do see one side making concessions, while the other side isn't offering any. If somebody says both sides have to give, I agree. But there's only one side giving anything in this mess, and it's the players. I'm tired of people acting like the owners are being magnanimous and offering a great deal.

Compared to the last CBA, the owners are not "giving" the players anything.

As for the Florida report, BS or not, the Panthers have to file the actual books with the county, so I trust those numbers a lot more than I do Forbes.
- Jsaquella

I feel the same way. If the players give in and get bent over. I won't feel sorry for them. And I certainly won't care or be thinking about it when I'm watching the games.

Here's an interesting article concerning Forbes.

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=4784

I feel the same way. If the players give in and get bent over. I won't feel sorry for them. And I certainly won't care or be thinking about it when I'm watching the games.

Here's an interesting article concerning Forbes.

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=4784
- MJL

Good stuff, and Tyler Dellow is a guy that generally does his homework-and goes back and checks the spelling, to boot.

The thing that does suck, outside of the occasional angry rant, I am still largely apathetic.

This is about the 3rd time you've labeled my opinion inaccurately. I have stated umpteen times repeatedly, that I'm in favor of the players going to from 57% to 50%. And I've said repeatedly that 50/50 is fair. In fact that principal is one of the 3 aspects that I base my entire opinion on the lockout on. So either you aren't paying attention, or you are practicing selective memory.
I hate to tell you, but ask anyone on the Flyers threads what poster is the most well educated on the CBA, and understands it the best. See what answer you get.
What you fail to see based on your comment that the players want to control the entire process. Is that it is the exact opposite of that. The League has time and again placed parameters on what they will discuss or negotiate. And with their take it or leave it negotiating posture. Why should the players give anything up without something in return? Because I'll remind you of your comment that that's not how a CBA works! So if your going to go around telling people things like that. Be accurate in putting words in their mouths. And secondly, practice what you preach!
And the Owner's are cutting their own throats also. To the tune of 10-20M a day. Not to mention the long term fallout from the lockout that might occur.
- MJL

How am I putting words in your mouth? In one post you say 50/50 is fair, and another you say the owners want to take everything and give nothing. Which is it?

According to the Owners, by taking everything from the players! How did that work the last time?
- MJL

The Owners are asking the players to take less money then they negotiated for in good faith. As well as give up player contract rights which further reduces their ability to maximize their income in the future.
- MJL

Unless I'm wrong they offered this;

The NHL on Oct. 16 proposed a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue, down from the players' 57 percent portion of $3.3 billion last season. With guaranteed contracts likely to push the players' share over the halfway mark at the start of the next deal, management wants that money to come out of future years to bring the overall percentage down to an even split over the length of an agreement adding in November their make whole offer honoring ALL current contracts.

The follwing are what the players are saying is holding up the negotiating; Owners are demanding losing a year of salary arbitration eligibility, allowing the team to file for salary arbitration in any year that the player can file, extending UFA eligibility to age 28 or 8 seasons, limiting contracts to 5 years, and permitting only 5% year to year variability in player contracts.

Actually what you keep saying is "the owners made their own bed" and they need to fix things from within. That to me indicates you are insinuating that there is some other solution to fix the leagues financial woes besides lowering players revenue share and limiting contract terms and lengths.

Whether you side with the players or the owners, it really makes no difference. Because what I've been trying to convey is simply that both sides need to take responsibility in resolving the leagues problems. I believe their offer is reasonable and I'm guessing many of the players do as well vs. no season or even worse, decertification.

Right or wrong or however you see things, the players have to be the losers in this. That's just the way it has to be if ALL players want to continue to enjoy having NHL careers. It can't be just about the top 50%. The owners can only afford to bend so much without breaking if the overall common goal is to solidify the leagues solvency and avoid future lockouts. Otherwise what's the point of any of this?

How am I putting words in your mouth? In one post you say 50/50 is fair, and another you say the owners want to take everything and give nothing. Which is it?


- MnGump

Both! How is it a choice between one or the other? It's two completely differnt things. Your stating that I don't understand that both sides have to give, is completely misrepresenting my position on the lockout. 50/50 is not the only concession being negotiated in this lockout.

Unless I'm wrong they offered this;

The NHL on Oct. 16 proposed a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue, down from the players' 57 percent portion of $3.3 billion last season. With guaranteed contracts likely to push the players' share over the halfway mark at the start of the next deal, management wants that money to come out of future years to bring the overall percentage down to an even split over the length of an agreement adding in November their make whole offer honoring ALL current contracts.

The follwing are what the players are saying is holding up the negotiating; Owners are demanding losing a year of salary arbitration eligibility, allowing the team to file for salary arbitration in any year that the player can file, extending UFA eligibility to age 28 or 8 seasons, limiting contracts to 5 years, and permitting only 5% year to year variability in player contracts.

Actually what you keep saying is "the owners made their own bed" and they need to fix things from within. That to me indicates you are insinuating that there is some other solution to fix the leagues financial woes besides lowering players revenue share and limiting contract terms and lengths.


- MnGump

They do need to fix it within! The Owner's want to give zero concessions to the players. They want the players to pay the full bill to fix the League's financial issues. I am against that. You're misreading what is being said. And the Owner's Make Whole offer doesn't come close to honoring all contracts. It is hundreds of millions short of that.

Whether you side with the players or the owners, it really makes no difference. Because what I've been trying to convey is simply that both sides need to take responsibility in resolving the leagues problems. I believe their offer is reasonable and I'm guessing many of the players do as well vs. no season or even worse, decertification.

Right or wrong or however you see things, the players have to be the losers in this. That's just the way it has to be if ALL players want to continue to enjoy having NHL careers. It can't be just about the top 50%. The owners can only afford to bend so much without breaking if the overall common goal is to solidify the leagues solvency and avoid future lockouts. Otherwise what's the point of any of this?
- MnGump

I agree totally. And have since the entire lockout has been going on! So tell me how the Owners are taking responsibility for it? The players are going to lose in this deal. It's just a question of how much! How the Owner's realistically expect the players to take a lesser share, and take away all of their contract rights? What concessions are they willing to give to the players? But answer this question. How is the solutions offered by the Owners going to fix it? It didn't fix it after the previous lockout! In any of the Owner's proposals offered. There is only one side giving concessions to the other side. And that's the players.

If the NHLPA immediately accepted the NHL's proposal, it still wouldn't solve the NHL's financial troubles as explained by Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...key-team-worth-1-billion/

Some teams would be helped, quite a bit, but several teams in financial trouble would need to make it to the conference final to sustain, even under the NHL's proposed plan.

So why would owners propose a deal that doesn't resolve their own, repeatedly stated, financial problems? Kind of makes me think that the main reason for the lockout isn't financial sustainability for 30 teams, but a short sighted cash grab...kind of like how expansion has been handled for the past 20 years or so.

Two teams in Florida? Sure! One in the desert? Absolutely. Another team in the Los Angeles market? Giddyap! So long as the proposed owner doesn't argue about giving us a certified check for the expansion fee up front.
- Jsaquella

You are exactly right. Its just like the last time they lost a season. Where they basicly said that they need a cap and everything in this CBA to save the NHL. Now years later we are in the same exact spot and not much was fixed. The problem isn't the CBA its Bettman having franchises in bad markets.

My bottom line is, I don't care if the players end up making $8.50 an hour or if they get 95% of the money. I want hockey back.

That said, I do see one side making concessions, while the other side isn't offering any. If somebody says both sides have to give, I agree. But there's only one side giving anything in this mess, and it's the players. I'm tired of people acting like the owners are being magnanimous and offering a great deal.

Compared to the last CBA, the owners are not "giving" the players anything.

As for the Florida report, BS or not, the Panthers have to file the actual books with the county, so I trust those numbers a lot more than I do Forbes.
- Jsaquella

No, Jsaq, they don't. The company that manages the arena has to file. It's not the same as the Panthers' books.

Even the writer of the blog admitted he completely misinterpreted the report.

I've been round and round on the exact same points you make here with a lot of posters who are against the players and Fehr. I was pretty much told that the article you reference about Florida was BS. All the points you make here are spot on in my opinion. I favor the players side. But I don't absolve them, or Fehr from a lot of the nonsense that has been unnecessary in this negotiation. The PA has done more then their fair share of posturing, stalling, and in creating rhetoric in the media. But overall, it has been the League that has created the environment of negotiating in bad faith from the very beginning until now. Not to mention that they now don't want to honor the contracts that were agreed to, signed, and approved by the League. And that also no doubt came with a handshake across the table while looking the player in the eyes.
- MJL

You still haven't said what the players have given up. Their latest best offer on the core economic issue has the players share of HRR at 56.5%. You are right that other secondary issues have to be negotiated, but every person in the know does call these issues secondary. As the original poster has said the 50/50 with a make whole was the owners offer. The players then come back with 56.5%. Yes at some point in the future the split gets to 50/50.... maybe But the players then want gaurantees that their percentage of Revenue never drops. If i were the owners would take 20 minutes and walk away from negotations as well.

You still haven't said what the players have given up. Their latest best offer on the core economic issue has the players share of HRR at 56.5%. You are right that other secondary issues have to be negotiated, but every person in the know does call these issues secondary. As the original poster has said the 50/50 with a make whole was the owners offer. The players then come back with 56.5%. Yes at some point in the future the split gets to 50/50.... maybe But the players then want gaurantees that their percentage of Revenue never drops. If i were the owners would take 20 minutes and walk away from negotations as well.
- TSTER

Not maybe. The 56.5% was for year one. Here is what Bob McKenzie said the players offer share gets to when you factor in the same growth rate that the League used with Make Whole payments.

@TSNBobMcKenzie: A shade over 55 per cent in Year 1, a shade under 54 per cent in Year 2, 52 per cent in Year 3, and 50. 3 per cent in Year 4.

And since there are no Make Whole payments involved in year 5. The players share is 50%.

And you're incorrect that the players want guarantees that their percentage of revenue never drops. They want a guarantee that the total amount they're paid never falls below the previous year.

No, Jsaq, they don't. The company that manages the arena has to file. It's not the same as the Panthers' books.

Even the writer of the blog admitted he completely misinterpreted the report.
- Atomic Wedgie

I stand corrected, then. I still doubt that teams are losing money to the degree that Forbes reports, and I also doubt that a 50-50 split between players and owners solves that issue.

That's for the best. Can't make a profit? Fold. That's what real-life businesses do.
- Flyskippy

Heck yeah, Skippy.

I just love the old school stuff. I actually made a video a couple of years back that kinda does a little history of hockey video games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59eqvjDR_A0
- tmlfan69

I really like this video, tyvm

This is clearly about breaking the union.

The problem isn't the CBA its Bettman having franchises in bad markets.
- PhillyFran

I missed where Bettman was the sole person who decided where teams were located. Could you point out when he was given that power?

Then, could you tell me which teams should be moved where, and how that ultimately helps the remaining low-revenue teams as well as current "we're OK" teams who move into the low-revenue pool - and what should be done with them?

I missed where Bettman was the sole person who decided where teams were located. Could you point out when he was given that power?

Then, could you tell me which teams should be moved where, and how that ultimately helps the remaining low-revenue teams as well as current "we're OK" teams who move into the low-revenue pool - and what should be done with them?
- Irish Blues

It's definitely the BOG that makes decisions, however, Bettman does have influence with them.

Expansion was a short sighted cash grab, though, regardless of who made the call. Phil Esposito talks about how the Lightning came into being. He said that he told the Japanese investors to do two things: Let him talk to the BOG & make sure they brought a certified check to the meeting for the full expansion fee.

Tampa Bay was considered a real dark horse, at best. When Espo held up the $50mm check & saw the reaction of the BOG, he knew that Tampa was getting a team

It's definitely the BOG that makes decisions, however, Bettman does have influence with them.

Expansion was a short sighted cash grab, though, regardless of who made the call. Phil Esposito talks about how the Lightning came into being. He said that he told the Japanese investors to do two things: Let him talk to the BOG & make sure they brought a certified check to the meeting for the full expansion fee.

Tampa Bay was considered a real dark horse, at best. When Espo held up the $50mm check & saw the reaction of the BOG, he knew that Tampa was getting a team
- Jsaquella

The last 2 paragraphs were true. You also forgot to mention that Hamilton was actually preferred to Tampa Bay, but the Hamilton ownership group didn't have the $50 million for the expansion fee and wanted to make payments in installments, and Jeremy Jacobs (perhaps a few people here know who he is ... I hear he's been in the news in the last few months or so) refused to accept that, preferring the $50M check that Tampa was offering up front.

Of course, Tampa/Hamilton didn't happen under Bettman's tenure (John Zeigler was still NHL President, Bettman was still over in the NBA) - but that doesn't stop some people from blaming Bettman for it.

The last 2 paragraphs were true. You also forgot to mention that Hamilton was actually preferred to Tampa Bay, but the Hamilton ownership group didn't have the $50 million for the expansion fee and wanted to make payments in installments, and Jeremy Jacobs (perhaps a few people here know who he is ... I hear he's been in the news in the last few months or so) refused to accept that, preferring the $50M check that Tampa was offering up front.

Of course, Tampa/Hamilton didn't happen under Bettman's tenure (John Zeigler was still NHL President, Bettman was still over in the NBA) - but that doesn't stop some people from blaming Bettman for it.
- Irish Blues

Bettman is easy to blame. He is an unlikable guy. But the BOG, or at least the hardliners on it, really hold sway

Bettman is easy to blame. He is an unlikable guy. But the BOG, or at least the hardliners on it, really hold sway
- Jsaquella

Then he's doing his job, right? The owners decide what they want, occasionally task him for getting it for them, and he plays the the role of Snidley Whiplash (absent the moustache) and takes the heat from the fans and the media instead of that anger and vitriol being focused on the owners ... right?

Then he's doing his job, right? The owners decide what they want, occasionally task him for getting it for them, and he plays the the role of Snidley Whiplash (absent the moustache) and takes the heat from the fans and the media instead of that anger and vitriol being focused on the owners ... right?
- Irish Blues

If I'm an owner, Bettman's main job is to make sure that I'm making money and growing the "brand" to continue my financial success. He's not doing that for me right now. He's great at being the unlikable dippoop, for sure.

My biggest concern is how Bettman only needs 7 other owners to agree with his view on a matter to implement his plans.

If I'm an owner, Bettman's main job is to make sure that I'm making money and growing the "brand" to continue my financial success. He's not doing that for me right now. He's great at being the unlikable dippoop, for sure.

My biggest concern is how Bettman only needs 7 other owners to agree with his view on a matter to implement his plans.
- Jsaquella

Isn't it 6, since both PHX and NJ are "league-run" now?