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.
- MJL

People can hate on the cap all they want, but I remember "trading" Gretzky for cash, that league sucked.

Owners, managers, and players have all driven up contract signings. We're on here fighting over the percentage of the blame, can't we all just agree to agree to something sometime ? also please add crying thing up above in Gretzky comment

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.
- MJL

Not the players as a whole, but a few players, like Ian White, have called out Bettman for putting teams in places that don't do well. That's just an indication of where their minds are at. I dunno, it's a complicated situation, but I think that if egos were taken out of the equation, a deal would happen pretty quickly.

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

Because as a collective not all of the owners are making a profit. These teams are supposed to make money for very rich men. Meanwhile every player has guaranteed profits, their contracts ensure every year they walk away in front. If contracts were not guaranteed I could see the players argument but they are.

Some of the owners are not getting out of the red, so they need to change their business model, the CBA is that model. So cutting costs is one way to do it, also find ways to be more efficient with money spending, ie sign contracts they players are worth, not potential production.

It's obvious owners want to win, so if their GM says we have to pay this amount to have a competitive team, they will sign the cheques, even if they know it is going to be an 'overpayment' due to fans not paying to watch a consistent loser, especially in non traditional markets.

Option for the players here, is hold firm and have teams losing so much money some teams get folded (I don't think it will happen), if they did, jobs lost, players worse off. Or they can 'cave' for want of a better word and keep their 30 teams all the jobs and move forward before the HRR is so small they will be worse off than the last lockout.

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.


- 13sundin13

So why haven't they put those checks in place in the past? What took them so long to do that? I agree totally that professional sports is not like any other business out there. But my problem is that what they call checks, is just taking from the players to fix the problems that the Owners caused themselves.

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.
- 13sundin13

Nothing to do with players pride. Were in a lockout because the NHL and it's Owners can't control themselves. It is a fiercely competitive market. And we'll likely see uncontrolled spending again in Free Agency in the future. And there's a big difference between Escrow where the possibility exists that the players could get a check at the end of the year, versus a rollback.

Not the players as a whole, but a few players, like Ian White, have called out Bettman for putting teams in places that don't do well. That's just an indication of where their minds are at. I dunno, it's a complicated situation, but I think that if egos were taken out of the equation, a deal would happen pretty quickly.
- 13sundin13

You know what, Ian White and a few of the players have acted like jackasses. I don't paint the entire players group the same because of a few fools. I place zero weight on what the players say to the Media.

Eck no offense but you are so far gone in a dream world. just accept it . no deal no season

Because as a collective not all of the owners are making a profit. These teams are supposed to make money for very rich men. Meanwhile every player has guaranteed profits, their contracts ensure every year they walk away in front. If contracts were not guaranteed I could see the players argument but they are.

Some of the owners are not getting out of the red, so they need to change their business model, the CBA is that model. So cutting costs is one way to do it, also find ways to be more efficient with money spending, ie sign contracts they players are worth, not potential production.


- walshy66

The risk of losing money is part of the deal when you purchase a NHL team. And the bigger money is owning a team is in the franchise value, not yearly profits. Plus they have ways of hiding money. When you're a player, and you sign a contract with a team. Losing money is not part of the deal. So that comparison isn't really relevant.
There's no doubt that the NHL needs to make some changes to it's business model. Because they're obviously in a lockout. My only beef is that the players shouldn't be footing the entire bill for the Owner's mistakes. If your going to take money from them, then the Owner's need to give them something in return.

It's obvious owners want to win, so if their GM says we have to pay this amount to have a competitive team, they will sign the cheques, even if they know it is going to be an 'overpayment' due to fans not paying to watch a consistent loser, especially in non traditional markets.

Option for the players here, is hold firm and have teams losing so much money some teams get folded (I don't think it will happen), if they did, jobs lost, players worse off. Or they can 'cave' for want of a better word and keep their 30 teams all the jobs and move forward before the HRR is so small they will be worse off than the last lockout.
- walshy66

I don't believe that any team is close to having to fold. And if the Owners sign the checks, then honor them.

The risk of losing money is part of the deal when you purchase a NHL team. And the bigger money is owning a team is in the franchise value, not yearly profits. Plus they have ways of hiding money. When you're a player, and you sign a contract with a team. Losing money is not part of the deal. So that comparison isn't really relevant.
There's no doubt that the NHL needs to make some changes to it's business model. Because they're obviously in a lockout. My only beef is that the players shouldn't be footing the entire bill for the Owner's mistakes. If your going to take money from them, then the Owner's need to give them something in return.



I don't believe that any team is close to having to fold. And of the Owners sign the checks, then honor them.
- MJL

Also one line that drives me crazy is the: players gave up last CBA and give up now....

Right now they have given up nothing, the reason for that is the old CBA is over so right now they are making $0. If they want to make money again they need to agree a new structure that allows less teams to be in the red. (I also think no team will actually fold), you're right there are no guarantees of profits, but the players pay has no risk or financial cost to the players. Plenty of physical risk however and should be paid according to that and their skill level. I don't know any business that would not want to stop the bleeding. Right now there are some teams that are in front by not playing, and as a league that doesn't work.

So why haven't they put those checks in place in the past? What took them so long to do that? I agree totally that professional sports is not like any other business out there. But my problem is that what they call checks, is just taking from the players to fix the problems that the Owners caused themselves.



Nothing to do with players pride. Were in a lockout because the NHL and it's Owners can't control themselves. It is a fiercely competitive market. And we'll likely see uncontrolled spending again in Free Agency in the future. And there's a big difference between Escrow where the possibility exists that the players could get a check at the end of the year, versus a rollback.
- MJL

no no no ... you had it, now you're heading out to lunch. Just like a few pages ago you said the lockout was entirely due to player pride, that they didn't want to keep getting slagged by the owners offering them less. I while I could (and did) disagree with the players opinion, I agreed with your opinion.

now you've done a complete 180... I mean now you're saying it has nothing to do with player pride and it's due to the owners and league giving the players too much ? I mean this is literally what you are saying in this

and they have put checks in place before, see other lockouts.

so confused

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

you seem to think i'm defending owners. i'm not. you're clearly pro-player. i'm anti-everyone. that's the difference.

but my original point was that it was the agents who introduces frontloading. and it's gotten to the point where every deal must be frontloaded if you want that signature.

but my point stands: no owner WANTS to sign a frontloaded deal. why would they??

you seem to think i'm defending owners. i'm not. you're clearly pro-player. i'm anti-everyone. that's the difference.

but my original point was that it was the agents who introduces frontloading. and it's gotten to the point where every deal must be frontloaded if you want that signature.

but my point stands: no owner WANTS to sign a frontloaded deal. why would they??
- scotch_tape

To win, that's the only reason they are signed. So in reality this lockout is the agents fault for blowing out salaries on the top 10-15% of players where front loading works.

NHLPA authorizes $10,000 stipend for each player

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410746

no no no ... you had it, now you're heading out to lunch. Just like a few pages ago you said the lockout was entirely due to player pride, that they didn't want to keep getting slagged by the owners offering them less. I while I could (and did) disagree with the players opinion, I agreed with your opinion.

now you've done a complete 180... I mean now you're saying it has nothing to do with player pride and it's due to the owners and league giving the players too much ? I mean this is literally what you are saying in this

and they have put checks in place before, see other lockouts.

so confused
- Thesource

I haven't done a complete anything. Where did I say the lockout was due to player pride? Please point out where I said that!

How did the checks they put in place work out?

you seem to think i'm defending owners. i'm not. you're clearly pro-player. i'm anti-everyone. that's the difference.

but my original point was that it was the agents who introduces frontloading. and it's gotten to the point where every deal must be frontloaded if you want that signature.

but my point stands: no owner WANTS to sign a frontloaded deal. why would they??
- scotch_tape

I disagree completely that it was the Agents who introduced frontloading. It was the teams that did so. And I also disagree that no Owner wants to sign a frontloaded deal. They absolutely do. Because the richer teams can fit more quality players under the Cap, to try and win.

I would say that more then being pro player. I'm pro what I think is right. It just so happens that more times then not, then comes out on the players side.

Also one line that drives me crazy is the: players gave up last CBA and give up now....

Right now they have given up nothing, the reason for that is the old CBA is over so right now they are making $0. If they want to make money again they need to agree a new structure that allows less teams to be in the red. (I also think no team will actually fold), you're right there are no guarantees of profits, but the players pay has no risk or financial cost to the players. Plenty of physical risk however and should be paid according to that and their skill level. I don't know any business that would not want to stop the bleeding. Right now there are some teams that are in front by not playing, and as a league that doesn't work.
- walshy66

That's a mistaken belief. Yes, the CBA is expired, but it still exists as a reference point for what the situation was in the past. And as a basis for the ongoing negotiations. And it's not true that the players are making zero. Some have received signing bonus money, and injured players are getting paid. Because what hasn't expired and is still in effect. Is the contracts the players signed. And I also don't believe for one second that any team is better off in any way by not playing.
The players are willing to agree to a lesser share in the future. But they aren't going to sign off on a deal, if they don't get something in return.

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The one question the players can really ask is .........What time in Sept/Oct should I count on?

hay ek ur meter is still (frank)ed

The one question the players can really ask is .........What time in Sept/Oct should I count on?
- Skeezix459

They are not sure of they want to meet with the owners...even if it's there won't be any negotiations. They prefer to talk to the media and whine. They are afraid to face the owners and explain themselves and hear what the owners have to say.

NHLPA authorizes $10,000 stipend for each player

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410746
- Feeling_Glucky

funny... I thought people here didn't like players much... the comments after that article are borderline lynch mob

They are not sure of they want to meet with the owners...even if it's there won't be any negotiations. They prefer to talk to the media and whine. They are afraid to face the owners and explain themselves and hear what the owners have to say.
- Symba007

Players have been attending the meetings and negotiations since the beginning. So how are they afraid? How many Owner's have attended?

They are not sure of they want to meet with the owners...even if it's there won't be any negotiations. They prefer to talk to the media and whine. They are afraid to face the owners and explain themselves and hear what the owners have to say.
- Symba007

Didn't Fehr already tell the players what the owners have to say??...The owners said lock them out...

Players have been attending the meetings and negotiations since the beginning. So how are they afraid? How many Owner's have attended?
- MJL

Fehr won't be there do to the talking for them. It's one thing to have Bettman and Fehr talk with some players and owners attending. Players should welcome the opportunity to meet the owners and talk, if they want to lockout to end, they have to talk with each other.

funny... I thought people here didn't like players much... the comments after that article are borderline lynch mob
- Thesource

I like the idiots that are blaming Fehr. The Executive Board voted to give the players the stipend. The Executive Director, which is Fehr, doesn't have a vote.

Then there is the moron down the bottom who states that 95% of all NHL players have a signing bonus written into their contract. Some people are so uninformed.

Fehr won't be there do to the talking for them. It's one thing to have Bettman and Fehr talk with some players and owners attending. Players should welcome the opportunity to meet the owners and talk, if they want to lockout to end, they have to talk with each other.
- Symba007

Still doesn't explain how they're afraid.