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............. ?
- Thesource

Yea, that's why the Owners wanted a Salary Cap and contract restrictions. For parity. Same reason why they want to take away from the players again. For the good of the game!

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

Exactly, the owners got everything they wanted, according to the players, and the legues is thriving. Kinda makes sense that these billionaires know a little bit about how to run a business, but for some reason these players, most of whom have only a high school level education, seem to think they know how the business should be run. I think one of the main problems is the players don't trust the owners and really don't know what to do, so they just don't so anything. They're just making safe proposals that gaurantee they won't lose money, which obviously won't work for the owners. That and the fact that they've signed these ridiculously long term contracts and stand to lose money on them, but to me, that's a risk of signing those deals.

Exactly, the owners got everything they wanted, according to the players, and the legues is thriving. Kinda makes sense that these billionaires know a little bit about how to run a business, but for some reason these players, most of whom have only a high school level education, seem to think they know how the business should be run. I think one of the main problems is the players don't trust the owners and really don't know what to do, so they just don't so anything. They're just making safe proposals that gaurantee they won't lose money, which obviously won't work for the owners. That and the fact that they've signed these ridiculously long term contracts and stand to lose money on them, but to me, that's a risk of signing those deals.
- 13sundin13

If those Owner's know a little bit out how to run a business, and the League is thriving. Why are they in a lockout? Why aren't they playing Hockey and making money right now?
How is that a risk of signing those deals exactly?

- Flyfreaky

Yea, that's why the Owners wanted a Salary Cap and contract restrictions. For parity. Same reason why they want to take away from the players again. For the good of the game!
- MJL

So we agree then ?

Just kidding, I mean of course not for the good of the game, no way.

But the cap was imposed on the NHL to create parity and allow for league expansion. From reading you posts you have to be at least as old as me, and should easily remember how the league was controlled by dynasties.

I'm cool with it if the players want to go that way again, by all means.

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

The owners couldn't care less about public sympathy, unless of course it affected their ability to make money. These are highly successful businessmen, their main focus is making money, the sooner the players understand that and stop taking it personally, the sooner this deal gets done. Right now it's all about pride. Also, legally, they can't "control themselves", that would be collusion, and they'll get into trouble for that. The players just have to realize, they'll make their money, they young up and coming guys will make their money, as well. Only the long term guys will lose out, but that's part of the risk in signing that kind of deal.

So we agree then ?

Just kidding, I mean of course not for the good of the game, no way.

But the cap was imposed on the NHL to create parity and allow for league expansion. From reading you posts you have to be at least as old as me, and should easily remember how the league was controlled by dynasties.

I'm cool with it if the players want to go that way again, by all means.
- Thesource

The Salary Cap was about money, make no mistake about it. Same as this CBA negotiation is. Two sides can't figure out how to split up 3.3B! Instead they'd both rather lose millions a day. Asinine!

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?
- MJL

i just did prove it. your reply to my statement doin so was to prove it again??

im not frustrated.
debating with you is just pointless. we prove you wrong over and over and over and u refuse to just admit it.u change the subject, change people you're arguing with if they catch on to your contradictions etc etc etc.

go straight to 50/50 immediately and they'll make whole starting year 2.....

The owners couldn't care less about public sympathy, unless of course it affected their ability to make money. These are highly successful businessmen, their main focus is making money, the sooner the players understand that and stop taking it personally, the sooner this deal gets done. Right now it's all about pride. Also, legally, they can't "control themselves", that would be collusion, and they'll get into trouble for that. The players just have to realize, they'll make their money, they young up and coming guys will make their money, as well. Only the long term guys will lose out, but that's part of the risk in signing that kind of deal.
- 13sundin13

Yes they can legally control themselves. They can change the rules of the Cap floor, so teams won't be forced to spend and keep up with the richer teams. The cap was linked to revenue growth in the last CBA, that drove up the Upper Limit. That was the Owner's plan. There isn't going to be a claim for collusion if the Owner's are spending all the money available to them.

The Salary Cap was about money, make no mistake about it. Same as this CBA negotiation is. Two sides can't figure out how to split up 3.3B! Instead they'd both rather lose millions a day. Asinine!
- MJL

doesnt matter what the motives were. u sound exactly like the players. are u sure ur not one of them?
quit making this so personal. its embarrassing. the only thing that matters is the end result.
more parity was created.

i just did prove it. your reply to my statement doin so was to prove it again??

im not frustrated.
debating with you is just pointless. we prove you wrong over and over and over and u refuse to just admit it.u change the subject, change people you're arguing with if they catch on to your contradictions etc etc etc.

go straight to 50/50 immediately and they'll make whole starting year 2.....
- hugefemale dog77

You can arbitrarily state that you proved it. Doesn't mean that you did. You can't, that's why you came back again with the same type of reply that has zero substance to it. And now you need to include others and use the term "we" to try and convince yourself.

Again, I'll ask you how is the Owner's offer of Make Whole a concession to the players? Let's find out who is spewing vile and who isn't!

The Salary Cap was about money, make no mistake about it. Same as this CBA negotiation is. Two sides can't figure out how to split up 3.3B! Instead they'd both rather lose millions a day. Asinine!
- MJL

Sure yeah, fully agree. But the cap was different, it was not only about money because it definitely was, but it was based on a more communistic dispersal of the money (see previous post apparently i'm full on red).

Such an interesting situation.

doesnt matter what the motives were. u sound exactly like the players. are u sure ur not one of them?
quit making this so personal. its embarrassing. the only thing that matters is the end result.
more parity was created.
- hugefemale dog77

The Salary Cap was about money. Plain and simple. There's only one person making this personal, and that's you. I have no problem not talking about the poster and sticking to the subject.

And who screwed over Nashville with that contract?
- MJL

Ed Snider.

Ed Snider.
- scotch_tape

Exactly! Not the agent, not the player. But Ed Snider and Paul Holmgren.

And then afterwards, hey, we need some of that money back!

- Flyfreaky

you are relentless

If those Owner's know a little bit out how to run a business, and the League is thriving. Why are they in a lockout? Why aren't they playing Hockey and making money right now?
How is that a risk of signing those deals exactly?
- MJL

They're in a lockout because though the league is doing well, the salaries are getting out of hand and the owners feel that they deserve 50% of the revenues. The players wanted nothing to do with that because they don't trust the owners, so it's become a stalemate.

Those contracts were risky because you never know how the market can change over the course of 10 years, especially in a system where the CBA expires every 5-10 years.

They're in a lockout because though the league is doing well, the salaries are getting out of hand and the owners feel that they deserve 50% of the revenues. The players wanted nothing to do with that because they don't trust the owners, so it's become a stalemate.

Those contracts were risky because you never know how the market can change over the course of 10 years, especially in a system where the CBA expires every 5-10 years.
- 13sundin13

Whose fault is it that salaries are getting out of hand? If the NHL Owner's are such smart business men, how did that happen. How is the NHL in it's second lockout in 6 years?
The long term contracts are certainly risky for the teams. But they willingly agreed to them, so they should honor them.

The Salary Cap was about money. Plain and simple. There's only one person making this personal, and that's you. I have no problem not talking about the poster and sticking to the subject.
- MJL

I'm actually really curious if the NHLPA decertifies and goes back to a pre-cap situation full on free market economy open for business right in the middle (maybe) of a recession.

The players might be right, and that the florida panthers which lose like $10 million a year, well their building makes like $330 million a year non-HRR, and guess what all players get a pay raise because we can ! Teams move to profitable cities and everyone is happy.

Or the players could be wrong, and teams fold instead of moving due to financial risk, tv revenue drops to nothing because toronto wins the cup every year, and they're left with essentially a fraction of what they have now.

Exactly! Not the agent, not the player. But Ed Snider and Paul Holmgren.

And then afterwards, hey, we need some of that money back!
- MJL

But Weber wasn't gonna sign for anything less, so Nashville really had no choice. They put in a lot of time and money developing Weber into the player he is today, it's very hard to let that go for basically nothing. Yes, the owners and GMs have a role in how crazy these contracts are, but ask Fehr or any player in the league and they'd have it no other way. It's ridiculous, like the players who blame Bettman for expanding the league, but wouldn't have jobs if he didn't.

I'm actually really curious if the NHLPA decertifies and goes back to a pre-cap situation full on free market economy open for business right in the middle (maybe) of a recession.

The players might be right, and that the florida panthers which lose like $10 million a year, well their building makes like $330 million a year non-HRR, and guess what all players get a pay raise because we can ! Teams move to profitable cities and everyone is happy.

Or the players could be wrong, and teams fold instead of moving due to financial risk, tv revenue drops to nothing because toronto wins the cup every year, and they're left with essentially a fraction of what they have now.
- Thesource

Decertification and relocation are not really areas that I'm well versed in to discuss the details, and what could or couldn't happen. What little I know about decertification. I would be in the Owner's corner on that one I think. Although I have an open mind about it.

But Weber wasn't gonna sign for anything less, so Nashville really had no choice. They put in a lot of time and money developing Weber into the player he is today, it's very hard to let that go for basically nothing. Yes, the owners and GMs have a role in how crazy these contracts are, but ask Fehr or any player in the league and they'd have it no other way. It's ridiculous, like the players who blame Bettman for expanding the league, but wouldn't have jobs if he didn't.
- 13sundin13

Nashville could have possibly negotiated a more friendly deal where there wasn't as much cash up front. And if they couldn't, at least they would be doing it on their own terms. I agree, Nashville was put in an impossible position. I don't think the players have blamed Bettman for expanding the League.

you are relentless
- Crimsoninja

...

Whose fault is it that salaries are getting out of hand? If the NHL Owner's are such smart business men, how did that happen. How is the NHL in it's second lockout in 6 years?
The long term contracts are certainly risky for the teams. But they willingly agreed to them, so they should honor them.
- MJL

They're smart because they know how to make money, and they've proven it. The salaries got out of hand because its more than just business when it comes to winning a cup and it ceases to become a regular business, which is why as whole, they need to have these checks in place to control how it's run. That's just the reality of profesional sports, it's not like any other business out there.

I think it's the 2nd lockout in 6 years because the players have too much pride and have signed these long deals where they stand to lose millions of dollars. But that's just a small percentage of the group. We all know that once this lockout is over, any player signing a new deal will basically get the same as they're getting now because it's a fiercely competitive market. Ideally they should honor the deals, but with escrow, none of these deals are 100% locked in anyways so I really don't see the big deal. With the damage that this can cause the game, the players could stand to really lose out in the future.