You don't think it's personal for Jacobs. With everything you read about him?
- MJL

i really don't. i think it's about $$. NHL owners are animals, complete animals. and all they care about is $$.

You step up, say your piece and if the majority doesn't go with you, support the majority. Not quite the way Gary is running things.
- Canada Cup

hey man, i don't support the owners. just want to make that clear. i support no one in this dispute. i think both sides are disgusting. but looking at it from a $$ viewpoint, i just don't agree with the PA's approach.

owners have the hammer and call the shots? too (frank)ing bad, and welcome to the real world.

How the hell did the meter move to the right when the two sides have not met nor are there any immediate plans to do so? WTF

How the hell did the meter move to the right when the two sides have not met nor are there any immediate plans to do so? WTF
- dayers31

you must be new here

It's not personal for Jacobs, he just has no respect for the players, it's different.
- Symba007

One and the same. Not respecting the players is making it personal.

if you were part of a union (actually something tells me you ARE part of a union) and you felt that the union was NOT negotiating in yours and many of your coworkers' best interests (and i'm NOT saying that's happening here, it's hypothetical), you'd blindly support? you wouldn't have the stones to step up and defend yourself?
- scotch_tape

Unfortunately that can be an unwanted side effect of any CBA. There's always a chance that a certain percentage of people aren't going to get what's in their best interests. One of the hardships of being a part of the labor side of a CBA. That's union, like it or leave it.

if you were part of a union (actually something tells me you ARE part of a union) and you felt that the union was NOT negotiating in yours and many of your coworkers' best interests (and i'm NOT saying that's happening here, it's hypothetical), you'd blindly support? you wouldn't have the stones to step up and defend yourself?
- scotch_tape

Your comment was in regards to Pomminville's statement. He obviously supports the Union. So your saying that Pomminville is blindly supporting the Union?

i don't think that's fair to say. i think the fans feel about the players the same way the players feel about fans. maybe i don't see the players as human beings. but i'm pretty confident in saying that the players don't see the fans as human beings. we see them as entertainment figures, they see us as customers. it goes both ways and as fans, we owe players NOTHING.
- scotch_tape

You're making nothing but assumptions based on emotion. And that because the players haven't given in to the Owners so you can have your NHL Hockey, that they don't care about the fans. That they don't see the fans is a ridiculous statement. Realizing that players are indeed human beings with emotions, has nothing to do with owing the players anything.

Your comment was in regards to Pomminville's statement. He obviously supports the Union. So your saying that Pomminville is blindly supporting the Union?
- MJL

i'm not saying Pomminville blindly supports the union. Pomminville is saying he blindly supports the union, flat out.

hey man, i don't support the owners. just want to make that clear. i support no one in this dispute. i think both sides are disgusting. but looking at it from a $$ viewpoint, i just don't agree with the PA's approach.

owners have the hammer and call the shots? too (frank)ing bad, and welcome to the real world.
- scotch_tape

So you don't believe in honor, or giving your word and sealing it with a handshake?

And if the Owners call the shots, why aren't they playing Hockey?

i'm not saying Pomminville blindly supports the union. Pomminville is saying he blindly supports the union, flat out.
- scotch_tape

Not blindly, he believes in the cause. That cause isn't going to change if they don't de-certify.

Unfortunately that can be an unwanted side effect of any CBA. There's always a chance that a certain percentage of people aren't going to get what's in their best interests. One of the hardships of being a part of the labor side of a CBA. That's union, like it or leave it.
- MnGump

And we already know that is going to be the case. Some players will not be happy. If a Season is lost, some players careers will be over. There is no way to completely satisfy over 700 players. There is no doubt that some of the Owners aren't happy either.

hey man, i don't support the owners. just want to make that clear. i support no one in this dispute. i think both sides are disgusting. but looking at it from a $$ viewpoint, i just don't agree with the PA's approach.

owners have the hammer and call the shots? too (frank)ing bad, and welcome to the real world.
- scotch_tape

perfect !! previous few posts of yours were perfect too, completely agree

well said

Not blindly, he believes in the cause. That cause isn't going to change if they don't de-certify.
- MJL

I guess the question is what is the "cause". Another interview mentioning contract length being an issue... really ? wow !!!

I guess the question is what is the "cause". Another interview mentioning contract length being an issue... really ? wow !!!
- Thesource

The cause is not allowing the Owners to repeatedly take from the players, due to the Owner's lack of ability to manage their business properly. The cause is to have the contract that they signed in good faith, honored by the men who agreed to it.

Dolan wants this lockout about as much as he wants to have dinner with Bettman. What probably puzzles him is why is Jacobs such a hawk. After all, he has a tremendous fan base, a beautiful new arena. Oh wait, maybe he's just a money grubbing slob. That management group is laughable. Leonias is a blow hard, Leipold is Jacobs puppett and Edwards is small potatoes. No wonder we can't get a deal. Get rid of Bettman and the slob, there would most likely be a deal in hours.

Edit: Where are the Molson family and Rogers Communication in all this? There franchises are the face of the NHL, get off the sidelines and help make a deal.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

Heretic... you dare to label Gary the ultimate leader as incapable of getting a deal and perhaps representing the ownership blowhards in a Eklund blog?

You will be banned - no doubt. Ek has defended the Gary (the Weasel) consistently and often... and what keeps getting overlooked in this collective baloney is that he is the common factor across all that has happened since before the last half-season was lost and the entire season being lost.

I've said it before - I'll say it again... send the meetings to northern Alberta, or northern Quebec, no Bettman , no Fehr (who the NHLPA picked to simply mimic Bettman's Richardishness - yes that is no a word in the dictionary) and a two or three owners and two or three players.

My guess is you have solution in principle in a few hours.

The cause is not allowing the Owners to repeatedly take from the players, due to the Owner's lack of ability to manage their business properly. The cause is to have the contract that they signed in good faith, honored by the men who agreed to it.
- MJL

Yeah I was worried you would say that, it's probably the stupidest cause I've ever heard of... but you're probably right. And if that's the case I guess it's either decertify or forget about hockey for a long long time, or both. Absolutely pathetic.

hey man, i don't support the owners. just want to make that clear. i support no one in this dispute. i think both sides are disgusting. but looking at it from a $$ viewpoint, i just don't agree with the PA's approach.

owners have the hammer and call the shots? too (frank)ing bad, and welcome to the real world.
- scotch_tape

while I agree with you... the owners are asking the players to bail out the owners from their own stupidity, dumb contracts, attempts to circumvent the CAP they(the owners so badly wanted)....

on principle - and I know that is on thin ice in this debate - the players have to get some concessions from the owners... simply for the reason that it IS the owners who have created the contract landscape that exists , it is owners who collectively allow poor performing (financially) franchises to continue to exist.

Yeah I was worried you would say that, it's probably the stupidest cause I've ever heard of... but you're probably right. And if that's the case I guess it's either decertify or forget about hockey for a long long time, or both. Absolutely pathetic.
- Thesource

What exactly makes it stupid?

What exactly makes it stupid?
- MJL

Like the last poster said... if the players "give in" to 50% they want "concessions" in other areas... I get it... I just think it's stupid, it's a d(!)ck measuring contest and that's it.

They have major concessions already including guaranteed contracts (guaranteed being a very big deal), a percentage of league revenue that is as good as (or better) than any other profession athlete. If they had conceded to the NHL's last offer they would be making more money now, and in the future, than any possible concession they could ever get.

And the interesting case for me is the players have some areas they could use to their advantage, like if they were actually fighting over "what was actually HRR" because franchises are not as hard up as they seem on Forbes (most of them anyway).

It just doesn't seem like a "cause"... it seems like an angry teenager mad because dad took away the car.

How do you solve that ? what's a "win" here for these kids ? get these concessions ... but lose billions of dollars in the process ... priceless

Like the last poster said... if the players "give in" to 50% they want "concessions" in other areas... I get it... I just think it's stupid, it's a d(!)ck measuring contest and that's it.

They have major concessions already including guaranteed contracts (guaranteed being a very big deal), a percentage of league revenue that is as good as (or better) than any other profession athlete. If they had conceded to the NHL's last offer they would be making more money now, and in the future, than any possible concession they could ever get.

And the interesting case for me is the players have some areas they could use to their advantage, like if they were actually fighting over "what was actually HRR" because franchises are not as hard up as they seem on Forbes (most of them anyway).

It just doesn't seem like a "cause"... it seems like an angry teenager mad because dad took away the car.

How do you solve that ? what's a "win" here for these kids ? get these concessions ... but lose billions of dollars in the process ... priceless
- Thesource

You can certainly make a good argument that the players aren't making the smartest business decision, no doubt. But it seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong. That you seem to think that the players should just take what they have and be happy with it. But where does it end? They had a lot taken away from them in the previous lockout. And they stand to lose more in this lockout. What indication is there that when the next CBA ends, it won't happen again. And they lose more? At some point, they have to fight back. I don't see how fighting for what is rightfully yours, is stupid. For putting principle in front of money. And I'm not about to call them stupid for it, while I'm sitting on the sidelines.

"They have utterly refused to negotiate for months. When they finally did come to the table, they made essentially one proposal -- five times. They continue to request a "guaranteed" Players Share as part of the next agreement and we repeatedly tell them maybe they should get a reality check." -- Daly

principle, revenge, stick it to bettman. these are the only words the PA knows. it's embarrassing. get ur heads outta your ass and look at how good the deal wil look like in the future. quit thinking about your money right this second or the small loss. make a concession and a get a deal done for the good of the game, health of the league, the fans, yourselves, and future players.

while I agree with you... the owners are asking the players to bail out the owners from their own stupidity, dumb contracts, attempts to circumvent the CAP they(the owners so badly wanted)....

on principle - and I know that is on thin ice in this debate - the players have to get some concessions from the owners... simply for the reason that it IS the owners who have created the contract landscape that exists , it is owners who collectively allow poor performing (financially) franchises to continue to exist.
- BorjeFan4Ever

this is one point that i've never been in agreement with. true, the owners signed them, but they weren't happy about them. it was a loophole in the CBA that agents exploited. (i don't believe owners were the ones to introduce frontloaded deals but we will never know, i guess. Charles Wang doesn't count )

this is one point that i've never been in agreement with. true, the owners signed them, but they weren't happy about them. it was a loophole in the CBA that agents exploited. (i don't believe owners were the ones to introduce frontloaded deals but we will never know, i guess. Charles Wang doesn't count )
- scotch_tape

either way. as u said, they sign the cheques. the gm's and agents dont make the final decision. they do

principle, revenge, stick it to bettman. these are the only words the PA knows. it's embarrassing. get ur heads outta your ass and look at how good the deal wil look like in the future. quit thinking about your money right this second or the small loss. make a concession and a get a deal done for the good of the game, health of the league, the fans, yourselves, and future players.
- hugefemale dog77

Our way or the highway. Negotiate on our terms or we won't talk. Stick it to Fehr. These are the only words the League knows. The League should get their heads out of their asses, accept responsibility for the business errors they made. Offer the players some concessions. Which they haven't done through this entire negotiation. And make a deal for the good of the game, health of the League, the fans, the teams, and everyone involved.