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.
- MJL

IMO, right here, at 50-50. but maybe that's me being naive and the owners will claw for more when this thing expires. but i think at 50-50, with reasonable contract restrictions to avoid artificially driving salaries higher than they should be, i think the owners know there isn't much more they can claw back on.

now to the point of having everything taken away from them...it's just hard to get behind that argument when the players are doing better now than they ever have. people talk about the players being responsible for the revenue growth, and i disagree. i think it's the league that's been responsible for it. i don't think the collection of players today is better than the collection of players 10-15 years ago. it's the same. but the rule changes, the league marketing strategies and relationship building, these are the things that have led to increased revenue.

i've lost track of my point...

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

Your kidding yourself if you think it wasn't the teams that exploited the loopholes. Nobody held a gun to any Owner's head to agree to a deal.

either way. as u said, they sign the cheques. the gm's and agents dont make the final decision. they do
- hugefemale dog77

agree. BUT, if the owners collectively refused to sign these completely legal contracts? then the union would have a much, much stronger argument in its pocket--collusion. because the owners would be collaborating for the purposes of keeping salaries down. that is so, so much worse than what the owners are doing now. it's also illegal.

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.
- MJL

what a joke. the sad part is u actually believe the bile u spew over and over. not sure which union ur a part of, but u need to wake up and see what's best for the sport.

agree. BUT, if the owners collectively refused to sign these completely legal contracts? then the union would have a much, much stronger argument in its pocket--collusion. because the owners would be collaborating for the purposes of keeping salaries down. that is so, so much worse than what the owners are doing now. it's also illegal.
- scotch_tape

ive thought about this word collusion abit...how does 1 prove anything?

but more importantly, cant they just have self imposed parameters that they wont sign contracts over a certain amount?

IMO, right here, at 50-50. but maybe that's me being naive and the owners will claw for more when this thing expires. but i think at 50-50, with reasonable contract restrictions to avoid artificially driving salaries higher than they should be, i think the owners know there isn't much more they can claw back on.

now to the point of having everything taken away from them...it's just hard to get behind that argument when the players are doing better now than they ever have. people talk about the players being responsible for the revenue growth, and i disagree. i think it's the league that's been responsible for it. i don't think the collection of players today is better than the collection of players 10-15 years ago. it's the same. but the rule changes, the league marketing strategies and relationship building, these are the things that have led to increased revenue.

i've lost track of my point...
- scotch_tape

Isn't the League doing better then they ever have? Why isn't that a two way street? How can you not get behind the argument that if the Owner's get their way, the only side that will be giving up anything is the players. Isn't it supposed to be a partnership between the two?
You really give the players zero credit for the Revenue growth? I think it's a combination of the two. The players, the marketing, good things that the League has done, etc.

IMO, right here, at 50-50. but maybe that's me being naive and the owners will claw for more when this thing expires. but i think at 50-50, with reasonable contract restrictions to avoid artificially driving salaries higher than they should be, i think the owners know there isn't much more they can claw back on.

now to the point of having everything taken away from them...it's just hard to get behind that argument when the players are doing better now than they ever have. people talk about the players being responsible for the revenue growth, and i disagree. i think it's the league that's been responsible for it. i don't think the collection of players today is better than the collection of players 10-15 years ago. it's the same. but the rule changes, the league marketing strategies and relationship building, these are the things that have led to increased revenue.

i've lost track of my point...
- scotch_tape

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.
- MJL

Yes I'm completely saying they should take what they can get, and move on with a smile on their face. 100% yes quote me on that, exactly. Yes !!

They should walk away smiling and with a hard on knowing that they make millions of dollars, and then march straight into a local charitable organization and donate a huge sum to people that actually need it.

Nothing wrong with a little bit of negotiation to get the best deal possible, but it's past that time now.

They each get millions of dollars, having a chance at dividing an amount of money in the billions. Sure the owners can be Richards and "take" from you every 5-10 years, so what.

And even the "taking from us every CBA" argument is a sham really. They made wayyyyy move money since the last CBA.

And for sure I can call people stupid for this, because I don't believe in their principal. If they were fighting to increase NHL revenue sharing into charities to go up, or for a the NHL to increase revenues towards injured minor hockey players... those would be "causes" or "principals"... they're just out buying tape measures.

Your kidding yourself if you think it wasn't the teams that exploited the loopholes. Nobody held a gun to any Owner's head to agree to a deal.
- MJL

don't be silly. of course they did. it's called leverage. "sign me to this deal, or i'll find someone who will..." it ain't the grinders signing those deals my friend, it's the highly sought-after players.

frontloading is just bad business. it's like putting money down on a leased car. it's stupid.

what a joke. the sad part is u actually believe the bile u spew over and over. not sure which union ur a part of, but u need to wake up and see what's best for the sport.
- hugefemale dog77

I could make the same reply to your original post. But I won't. And the sad part for you is that can't show that what I post is bile. That's why you have to make replies like this one! So you think the Owners plan is what's best for the sport? Because the plan the Owner's had in the last CBA has led us directly into another lockout. So ignore history.

don't be silly. of course they did. it's called leverage. "sign me to this deal, or i'll find someone who will..." it ain't the grinders signing those deals my friend, it's the highly sought-after players.

frontloading is just bad business. it's like putting money down on a leased car. it's stupid.
- scotch_tape

I disagree. You know how many times in individual player negotiations, team's decline to sign a player? What creates that leverage? Teams bidding against one another! I guess the players caused that also!

Isn't the League doing better then they ever have? Why isn't that a two way street? How can you not get behind the argument that if the Owner's get their way, the only side that will be giving up anything is the players. Isn't it supposed to be a partnership between the two?
You really give the players zero credit for the Revenue growth? I think it's a combination of the two. The players, the marketing, good things that the League has done, etc.
- MJL

no. some owners are actually losing money. they make less than the lowest paid player. and pay all the bills, and take all the risks.

u knew this right? or u think this is ok? no player lost money last year. they're doing better than they ever have.

I could make the same reply to your original post. But I won't. And the sad part for you is that can't show that what I post is bile. That's why you have to make replies like this one! So you think the Owners plan is what's best for the sport? Because the plan the Owner's had in the last CBA has led us directly into another lockout. So ignore history.
- MJL

all i do is show your biased bile.
history shows the players will do better eventually with the current growth!!
they need to look at the big picture!! get off the principle argument and use your head!!
for themselves, the league, future players

remember u spewing the coming off guarantees concession?? untrue
remember u spewing the owners haven made any concessions? untrue-make whole. etc.etc.

yawn.

ive thought about this word collusion abit...how does 1 prove anything?

but more importantly, cant they just have self imposed parameters that they wont sign contracts over a certain amount?
- hugefemale dog77

they can, but at the same time, you need players. because if you let those players go to other teams who will sign them to those contracts, you become less competitive. and maybe that sets you on the road to a deeper financial hole than you would be in without that huge contract. think Shea Weber. Nashville can't afford that contract. nor could they afford not to sign it.

Yes I'm completely saying they should take what they can get, and move on with a smile on their face. 100% yes quote me on that, exactly. Yes !!

They should walk away smiling and with a hard on knowing that they make millions of dollars, and then march straight into a local charitable organization and donate a huge sum to people that actually need it.

Nothing wrong with a little bit of negotiation to get the best deal possible, but it's past that time now.

They each get millions of dollars, having a chance at dividing an amount of money in the billions. Sure the owners can be Richards and "take" from you every 5-10 years, so what.

And even the "taking from us every CBA" argument is a sham really. They made wayyyyy move money since the last CBA.

And for sure I can call people stupid for this, because I don't believe in their principal. If they were fighting to increase NHL revenue sharing into charities to go up, or for a the NHL to increase revenues towards injured minor hockey players... those would be "causes" or "principals"... they're just out buying tape measures.
- Thesource

The rollback that the players had to take in the last CBA, using the same revenue growth for the last 5 years of the CBA, saw the players lose approximately 3.5B in the deal! Yes they made out well. But it still cost them money. Now I'm not saying that was wrong. According to the Levitt report, the players were making 75% of revenue. Which is flat out ridiculous. And I agree that they can't continue to make 57% either. 50/50 is fair. But if you expect the players to give in on that again, then you have to give them something!
And I get a big kick out of this they make millions, so just take what you can get and be happy about it! It's hogwash. I don't care if you have 5 dollars, or 5M in your pocket. Nobody likes having money taken out of their pocket. Especially when you negotiated for it good faith. And the people you negotiated with, agreed to it and shook your hand on it. And anyone who thinks differently, is full of you know what!
And the charity thing, neither side is looking to give money to charity. So I don't know how that comes into it.

no. some owners are actually losing money. they make less than the lowest paid player. and pay all the bills, and take all the risks.

u knew this right? or u think this is ok? no player lost money last year. they're doing better than they ever have.
- hugefemale dog77

You think some Owner's are losing money, but you don't really know. The NHL as a whole is doing very well. I'm sure some teams are struggling some. When you sign up to buy a team, you agree to take on those risks and pay all the bills. When you're a player, and you agree to a contract, you aren't agreeing to take on those risks, or to pay those bills. You're agreeing to play Hockey for an agreed upon salary.

all i do is show your biased bile.
history shows the players will do better eventually with the current growth!!
they need to look at the big picture!! get off the principle argument and use your head!!
for themselves, the league, future players

remember u spewing the coming off guarantees concession?? untrue
remember u spewing the owners haven made any concessions? untrue-make whole. etc.etc.

yawn.
- hugefemale dog77

And you have every opportunity in the World to show how all I do is show my biased bile. You can't do it. That's why you get so frustrated!

Explain to me how the Owner's are making a concession to the players on Make Whole?

they can, but at the same time, you need players. because if you let those players go to other teams who will sign them to those contracts, you become less competitive. and maybe that sets you on the road to a deeper financial hole than you would be in without that huge contract. think Shea Weber. Nashville can't afford that contract. nor could they afford not to sign it.
- scotch_tape

And who screwed over Nashville with that contract?

Who is that Anaheim ice girl? Why is she always the one featured? I'm not complaining, just curious...

The rollback that the players had to take in the last CBA, using the same revenue growth for the last 5 years of the CBA, saw the players lose approximately 3.5B in the deal! Yes they made out well. But it still cost them money. Now I'm not saying that was wrong. According to the Levitt report, the players were making 75% of revenue. Which is flat out ridiculous. And I agree that they can't continue to make 57% either. 50/50 is fair. But if you expect the players to give in on that again, then you have to give them something!
And I get a big kick out of this they make millions, so just take what you can get and be happy about it! It's hogwash. I don't care if you have 5 dollars, or 5M in your pocket. Nobody likes having money taken out of their pocket. Especially when you negotiated for it good faith. And the people you negotiated with, agreed to it and shook your hand on it. And anyone who thinks differently, is full of you know what!
And the charity thing, neither side is looking to give money to charity. So I don't know how that comes into it.
- MJL

Again my last post... they do give them something, millions of dollars in guaranteed contracts... among other things.

Nobody likes taking a pay cut, but if my boss says we're losing money and I need to take a $10 a week pay cut this year, but the customers keep coming and by next year I'll get an extra $300 a week, I don't lose my sh(!)t on twitter, quit my job and call my boss an bumhole. Ignore the percentages, how the money is coming in... just look at the money, it's been going up in the NHL at an alarming rate.

No charitable donations ? sure they give to charity. You just slagged the players worse than me, lots of them and there spouses contribute significantly.

no. some owners are actually losing money. they make less than the lowest paid player. and pay all the bills, and take all the risks.

u knew this right? or u think this is ok? no player lost money last year. they're doing better than they ever have.
- hugefemale dog77

Well they're not doing very well right now.If the owners wanted some sympathy,then they shouldn't have spent all that money on contracts at the deadline.I have no sympathy for a group of owners who can't,or won't control themselves.Save them from themselves,lol,put the employee down is more like it.Yes the $ pot needs to be spread more evenly,I agree with that.But 5 years after a 50/50 they will come back for more.Until they address the weak franchises nothing will change.The owners expect the players to take less revenue while they run their business poorly.Next thing you know they will put a team in Las Vegas!Hell they may even call up Jim Balsille to own it.

Yes I'm completely saying they should take what they can get, and move on with a smile on their face. 100% yes quote me on that, exactly. Yes !!

They should walk away smiling and with a hard on knowing that they make millions of dollars, and then march straight into a local charitable organization and donate a huge sum to people that actually need it.

Nothing wrong with a little bit of negotiation to get the best deal possible, but it's past that time now.

They each get millions of dollars, having a chance at dividing an amount of money in the billions. Sure the owners can be Richards and "take" from you every 5-10 years, so what.

And even the "taking from us every CBA" argument is a sham really. They made wayyyyy move money since the last CBA.

And for sure I can call people stupid for this, because I don't believe in their principal. If they were fighting to increase NHL revenue sharing into charities to go up, or for a the NHL to increase revenues towards injured minor hockey players... those would be "causes" or "principals"... they're just out buying tape measures.
- Thesource

You do realize how "communist" this way of thinking is. "Take what we tell you to take and shut up". Because the players make big money.....they should be told what to do? And who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn't do with their money? Hockey players do more charitible work than any other pro athletes. Get over yourself. Go become a fan of a different sport. Maybe you should be a fan of the professional bowlers tour....I don't think they make much money.

Again my last post... they do give them something, millions of dollars in guaranteed contracts... among other things.

Nobody likes taking a pay cut, but if my boss says we're losing money and I need to take a $10 a week pay cut this year, but the customers keep coming and by next year I'll get an extra $300 a week, I don't lose my sh(!)t on twitter, quit my job and call my boss an bumhole. Ignore the percentages, how the money is coming in... just look at the money, it's been going up in the NHL at an alarming rate.

No charitable donations ? sure they give to charity. You just slagged the players worse than me, lots of them and there spouses contribute significantly.
- Thesource

That's the problem. That's not giving the players anything. The players earned those contracts and those salaries. You really think that's giving the players something? The NHL as a whole is not losing money!
I didn't say the players don't give to charity, or that anyone doesn't give to charity. I said that charitable donations have zero to do with this negotiation.

Well they're not doing very well right now.If the owners wanted some sympathy,then they shouldn't have spent all that money on contracts at the deadline.I have no sympathy for a group of owners who can't,or won't control themselves.Save them from themselves,lol,put the employee down is more like it.Yes the $ pot needs to be spread more evenly,I agree with that.But 5 years after a 50/50 they will come back for more.Until they address the weak franchises nothing will change.The owners expect the players to take less revenue while they run their business poorly.Next thing you know they will put a team in Las Vegas!Hell they may even call up Jim Balsille to own it.
- eagle50

Agree 100%. We all live by a budget but because the rich owners have never had to live by a budget and can't control themselves, the players should bail them out. Give me a break!!!!!!

You do realize how "communist" this way of thinking is. "Take what we tell you to take and shut up". Because the players make big money.....they should be told what to do? And who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn't do with their money? Hockey players do more charitible work than any other pro athletes. Get over yourself. Go become a fan of a different sport. Maybe you should be a fan of the professional bowlers tour....I don't think they make much money.
- yttrohs

you're funny

That's the NHL... salary cap and contract restrictions... designed to create parity in the league ... Sounding like something ? communis... i won't say it, i won't................otherwise one of Toronto, Montreal, or NY would win every year.

If the players decertify ... then we can have a capitalist conversation... go for it.

And you're right... I should feel like a complete bumhole for suggesting people give to charity.

sooooooo............. ?