Hi guys... I just finished up my final semester, and I have all of my Christmas shopping completed. I ended up spending about $100 less than I originally thought. Since I'll shortly be transitioning to full-time employment, I figured I won't need the money as badly as some other people out there may need it. Anyway, does anyone have Eric Cole's address? I'd like to send him the $100.
- laughs2907

Just got off the phone with Cole; he says at least $250 or FOAD.

Just got off the phone with Cole; he says at least $250 or FOAD.
- Irish Blues

Will he accept the $100, plus a combination of canned foods, Canadian Tire money, and King Kong for the Xbox 360?

I would also object to the term "make". More like "collect". The players make that money. The owners don't.
- prock

What really gets me is that the 'owners' 50% must also cover player costs like travel, meals, per diems, equipment, clothing, lodging, and generally player fines.

Players are given per diem of US$83 per day. What does a guy like Crosby need an extra $83 per day? It's just so crazy.

The owners should stop lying and give the players what they want.
- Scooby_Doo

That's a great business model

It's not a question of revenue. It's a question of risk and profit. Players have zero risk all profit. Owners have all risk and the majority see little profit. Aside from the fact that players are employees, if they want the bigger slice of the pie, then they should share in the risk.

So whose argument is weak?
- MnGump

Stating and bringing up that the players don't assume any risk, is the weakest argument of all. Owners chose to invest in NHL teams. They accept those risks when they buy a team. To try and inject that into this is simply silly. There are owner's and players. If you don't want to take on risk, don't buy a team. Show me a labor force in any sport that takes on the risk of owning a team? Then your point might be relevant.

Agreed, how dare the owners expect the league average salary to go down to $2.3 million for 2 or 3 years! Shame on them. But you could have summed it up with this; The players and Donald Fehr are greedy money grubbing bastards.
- MnGump

And how dare the players expect to not have to give up in every area of the negotiations because the Owners can't manage themselves. How is it greedy to want to keep what you have?

10 year CBA? Don't see that happening at all, i'd like it but no chance.
I agree with the voting, Gary cares about the game more than Fehr.

What really gets me is that the 'owners' 50% must also cover player costs like travel, meals, per diems, equipment, clothing, lodging, and generally player fines.

Players are given per diem of US$83 per day. What does a guy like Crosby need an extra $83 per day? It's just so crazy.
- bloatedmosquito

Rub and tugs.

Stating and bringing up that the players don't assume any risk, is the weakest argument of all. Owners chose to invest in NHL teams. They accept those risks when they buy a team. To try and inject that into this is simply silly. There are owner's and players. If you don't want to take on risk, don't buy a team. Show me a labor force in any sport that takes on the risk of owning a team? Then your point might be relevant.
- MJL

Sorry but I disagree.

The flaw in this is that most owners are LOSING money.
- laughs2907

You think most Owners are losing money. Don't forget about the value of the franchise.

3 teams = 83% profits
- Symba007

Exactly.

And after the owners fix the problem by rolling back salaries those three teams will continue to account for all the profits and will continue to drive up salaries for the bottom feeders as they generate the bulk of the revenues. Let's just not pretend that the leaguecis trying to fix its business model in these negotiations.

You think most Owners are losing money. Don't forget about the value of the franchise.
- MJL

And how dare the players expect to not have to give up in every area of the negotiations because the Owners can't manage themselves. How is it greedy to want to keep what you have?
- MJL

This argument falls apart when the AVERAGE wage is $2.4m. It's ludicrous that you have been championing the players side in these negotiations.

Shame on you.

Rub and tugs.
- Scooby_Doo

So Sydney is even making more money from his team-mates?

Stating and bringing up that the players don't assume any risk, is the weakest argument of all. Owners chose to invest in NHL teams. They accept those risks when they buy a team. To try and inject that into this is simply silly. There are owner's and players. If you don't want to take on risk, don't buy a team. Show me a labor force in any sport that takes on the risk of owning a team? Then your point might be relevant.
- MJL

Then why not take the argument further?

Players know going in that their contracts will be subject to a CBA.

If they don't like the idea of having to give concessions, they shouldn't pick up a hockey stick in the first place.

Don't shoot down someone's theoretical argument with your own. That's just not polite.

Fehr did an amazing job getting the 300M ... and it only cost him at least 1/4 of the season to do it.

If the PA decided to negotiate off the Owners deal in October, I bet they could have negotiated the other issues, taken ZERO make whole... and been ahead at least 1/4 season pay.

Meaning, net, at the end the of the day Fehr did an ABYSMAL job, and cost a lot of people a lot of money for the sole purpose of stroking his own ego.

Taking from the players every time they mismanage their own company? Do you realize how much player salaries have grown? And this goes back to what I just said... They're taking the benefits, but they think they're immune when things go wrong... How many players have complained about salaries going from a $1.7 million average to a $2.4 million average? Salaries are higher than ever, and there are more jobs than ever... You can't have it all.

Revenue means nothing, when profits are non existent for most teams.

Players need to realize that the owners are not there to lose millions. This is a (frank)ing business. They (The players) should be required to take a basic business/economics seminar before the next CBA comes into play.
- laughs2907

And do you realize why player salaries have grown so much? Whose fault is that? So were again back to mismanagement. Players don't think they're immune when things go wrong. They've agreed to take a lesser share of revenue going forward. Which is going to cost them Millions, if not billions.They won't even have their current contracts honored in full at this point. So tell me how are they wanting to have it all? They gave in the last CBA, and they're giving to the League again! But let's ignore that and pretend that doesn't exist.
Supporters of the NHL whine and complain when the players cry poor according to them. But are gullible beyond belief is stating that profits are non existent for NHL teams. Some of the NHL supporters should take a class in common sense.

For example then let's pretend you work in an office building with 99 co-workers. Everyone makes $50,000/year. The owner makes $1,000,000/ year. That means there is 6 million in payroll available.

Are you saying you'd be okay with taking a pay cut down to $30,000 a year just to make things "fair". I mean the owner should be making $3,000,000/year if the entire work force combines to make $3,000,000/year. Am I right? The owner took all the risk...
- I-own_da-Northwest

This analogy is pointless. First of all comparing tens of thousands to tens of millions is a bit silly to point out the obvious. Considering the contrast in scales, the percentages obviously would be no where near comparable or equal. Secondly, nobody is proposing the players take a 40% cut in pay as you are pointing out in your example.

You seem to like to cavalierly throw out the term "makes". If your use of the word "makes" means profit and the majority of the leagues teams are in the red or barely in the black,(which they are) the entire premise of your argument is meaningless.

You think most Owners are losing money. Don't forget about the value of the franchise.
- MJL

Did the Blues appreciate in value?

Were the Coyotes a good investment?

Think the Blue Jackets owners did better than just buying savings bonds?

This argument falls apart when the AVERAGE wage is $2.4m. It's ludicrous that you have been championing the players side in these negotiations.

Shame on you.
- bloatedmosquito

Only in your head is that some sort of rebuttal.

You do realize, of course, that players are paid exactly what management and owners have agreed to pay, right?

Think players should play for free while Owners should accept the lion's share of profits? How does that make any sense?

You think most Owners are losing money. Don't forget about the value of the franchise.
- MJL

The value of the franchise is only relevant when you go to sell it or borrow against it.

This argument falls apart when the AVERAGE wage is $2.4m. It's ludicrous that you have been championing the players side in these negotiations.

Shame on you.
- bloatedmosquito

Doesn't fall apart at all. The players average salary doesn't change anything. You wound me with those words!

The players do realize that they aren't immune from the companies failures. That is why they've agreed to take a lesser percentage share going forward. But what the Company has to learn is that they can't just keep taking from the players every time they mismanage their own Company. The Company should be grateful that they have such great players, that fans want to see play, and that fans are willing to buy merchandise that bears the name and the resemblance of the great players they have. All which contributes greatly to generating record revenue. And the Company also needs to realize is that fans don't come to the games to watch the owner sitting in the owners suite.
- MJL

How many people are watching the players play in europe? Anyone have their ovechkin or malkin Khl Jerseys? How about tanyone see the games Giroux played inGer? The players are nothing in terms of north american marketability without the NHL. People watch the NHL because it is the best hockey in north america not because ovechkin or malkin are in it. Is the KHL going to fold once the stars come back over here? How about the geman and swiss leagues when the nhlers return? A resounding NO. They could replace every player tommowithin 3 years be back to where they are now popularity wise. There is no competing north american league toto gowamerican hockey league to worry me[img][/img]

Exactly.

And after the owners fix the problem by rolling back salaries those three teams will continue to account for all the profits and will continue to drive up salaries for the bottom feeders as they generate the bulk of the revenues. Let's just not pretend that the leaguecis trying to fix its business model in these negotiations.
- Canada Cup

Uh, you do know that the "business model" includes expenses right?

You do know that player salaries are BY a humongous margin, the biggest expense right?

You do know, therefore, that the owners are, in fact, addressing their business model.

... or you think it is OK that the players take home 90% of the profits in the league?

If EVERY player quit tomorrow, the owners would EASILY be able to find replacements. Within 5 years the league would be pretty much equal quality.

If the players decided to try to find 30 new owners to pay them that much, treat them better than any other pro hockey league, and 30 cities and 30 facilities... ROFL, good luck with that.

So, in what universe does the previous split of profits make any sense?

The value of the franchise is only relevant when you go to sell it or borrow against it.
- bloatedmosquito

It's relevant all the time. It's one of the biggest reasons for buying a team.