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
- Flyers_01[img][/img]

So Malkin and Ovechkin don't have anything to do with making the NHL the best Hockey in North America? Seriously? I know you're smarter then that.

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.
- Aetherial

The owners have said from the beginning that they would insist on five year contract limits and the players have said from the start that they are against that. They still are and will negotiate those once Gary gets over his little fit.

Posting on a nook sucks. Ignore the ending of my last post. I think the point still comes across

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.
- MJL

If you truly believe they lost out in the last CBA, I think we're done talking here. Someone call the nurse!

And with low-end revenue growth projections, the players will not lose money... They'll lose a percentage, but they'll actually end up making more than they currently do in just year two of the proposed CBA.

I'm done discussing this with you. You keep bringing up the same garbage, and in every thread you are proven wrong by a different poster... It should be getting embarrassing for you at this point. Your lack of common sense brings me to the conclusion that you are indeed an NHL player.

Players need to make a living, owners don't buy hockey teams to make Money every year, if they did they are morons.
- Scooby_Doo

So its ok if they lose money?

Agreeing with one side is fine, but this is just silly.

And do you realize why player salaries have grown so much? Whose fault is that? So were again back to mismanagement.
Some of the NHL supporters should take a class in common sense.
- MJL

So your solution to this is collusion? The owners should get together and agree to pay a certain amount?

Well thought out plan.

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

100%

But what happens if the franchise value is not increasing?

Or isn't increasing at a rate high enough to cover yearly losses?

So its ok if they lose money?

Agreeing with one side is fine, but this is just silly.
- hugefemale dog77

They aren't losing money... They say they are, but it's basically a bunch of bs. Steal from Paul and pay Peter.

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?
- Aetherial

They are not addressing their business model. They are lowering today's salaries. The business model is what drives up salaries for teams that can't afford it - the cap and floor system that the owners insisted on last time.

The only way they are trying to change the business model is by trying to destroy the PA so they can impose any salary reduction they want

100%

But what happens if the franchise value is not increasing?

Or isn't increasing at a rate high enough to cover yearly losses?
- Atomic Wedgie

The franchise has big problems.

The fault of the players?

They aren't losing money... They say they are, but it's basically a bunch of bs. Steal from Paul and pay Peter.
- Scooby_Doo

Except that doing so would be illegal, not to mention that it would be shouted from the rooftops from the NHLPA, who have full access to the books.

Do you know more than Donald Fehr on this subject?

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.
- MJL

Players are guaranteed 57% of revenues

So Malkin and Ovechkin don't have anything to do with making the NHL the best Hockey in North America? Seriously? I know you're smarter then that.
- MJL

Of course they do, but you didnt address his post. He never argued the nhl wasnt the best league. He wouldnt bother. Why do you have this need to constantly weasel and argue more? U twisted his argument so u could retort.

He said that its the nhl we all care about and gave example after example of why he felt that. And they were all true.

Ovechkin is mostly meaningless to us if hes not playing in the nhl.

If you truly believe they lost out in the last CBA, I think we're done talking here. Someone call the nurse!

And with low-end revenue growth projections, the players will not lose money... They'll lose a percentage, but they'll actually end up making more than they currently do in just year two of the proposed CBA.

I'm done discussing this with you. You keep bringing up the same garbage, and in every thread you are proven wrong by a different poster... It should be getting embarrassing for you at this point. Your lack of common sense brings me to the conclusion that you are indeed an NHL player.
- laughs2907

There is a simple concept that some people just can't get. Regardless of what Revenue share the players get. Revenue will be what it is. And if you get 50% of that revenue versus 57% of that revenue. The 50% number will be smaller then the 57% number. So even if 50% of that future revenue is greater due to revenue growth, of what 57% of revenue was in the past, you have still given. You have still lost money. Because 57% of that future revenue is worth more then 50% of that future revenue. A really simple concept.

What's embarrassing is that you can't get that. And then tell somebody that they have a lack of common sense. And arbitrarily state that I've been proven wrong. Here's what you don't get. If you had proven me wrong, you wouldn't have to state that you did. Making that kind of statement is all you can really do. That's what is embarrassing.

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?
- wolfhounds

Exactly. Teams must pay to keep there product competitive. If they didn't compete against other owners for a player's services then it would be considered collusion. The only way to solve this is to limit what a team can pay a player so to artificially create balance in the league.

A business that draws it's revenue from a populace in NYC has a far greater likelihood to succeed then a company drawings its funds from Winnipeg. But a successful team in Winnipeg guarantees 40 odd high paying jobs to the PA.

In other news, a monkey seen running loose in Toronti Ikea. Pretty sure it's not Dion.

http://instagram.com/p/TByJK-SsJt/

100%

But what happens if the franchise value is not increasing?

Or isn't increasing at a rate high enough to cover yearly losses?
- Atomic Wedgie

Then the Owners need to figure out why, and do something about it and take responsibility for it. Instead of looking for it's labor force to give in every area to do something about it.

So your solution to this is collusion? The owners should get together and agree to pay a certain amount?

Well thought out plan.
- bloatedmosquito

I didn't say a word about Collusion.

The franchise has big problems.

The fault of the players?
- wolfhounds

100% fault of owners. No doubt about it. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

Feel better?

Now, how do we fix it?

Because if we don't that's 23 NHLPA jobs gone.

Simple fact: when 50% or more of your costs go to one item, that's the first place you need to address if you have any hope of profitability.

Of course they do, but you didnt address his post. He never argued the nhl wasnt the best league. He wouldnt bother. Why do you have this need to constantly weasel and argue more? U twisted his argument so u could retort.

He said that its the nhl we all care about and gave example after example of why he felt that. And they were all true.

Ovechkin is mostly meaningless to us if hes not playing in the nhl.
- hugefemale dog77

I agree with that. And the NHL is a lot more than Owners and Players.

But I would also argue we all care a lot more about the players on our favorite franchises than we do the owners or management.

They aren't losing money... They say they are, but it's basically a bunch of bs. Steal from Paul and pay Peter.
- Scooby_Doo

Says who? Is this actually your argument?

Link?

The PA has the numbers. Theyve media spun and attempted to sway public opinion on every single minor issue. But u dont think theyd cast dispersions in the biggest issue of the entire lockout if they knew it to be false.

U need to take a look at the facts a little closer. You're not just biased, you're blindly so

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

My point is completely relevant based on the argument. He was siting that the owners on average make 3 and 1/2 times what the players make. Well obviously being 3 teams made almost 90% of the entire leagues profits, this is simply not a valid argument.

Revenue and profit being completely different things, his argument is meaningless and pointless and wrong. Cut the top 3 teams out and how much does the average owner "make" or profit compared to the players.

Except that doing so would be illegal, not to mention that it would be shouted from the rooftops from the NHLPA, who have full access to the books.

Do you know more than Donald Fehr on this subject?
- Atomic Wedgie

The owners all have other businesses which allowed them to buy a NHL team. They can fudge numbers and make it look like they are losing money for tax reasons.

End of the day, owning a pro sports team is more of a status symbol for billionaires.

Then the Owners need to figure out why, and do something about it and take responsibility for it. Instead of looking for it's labor force to give in every area to do something about it.
- MJL

They've done that.

The biggest expense is labour.

Just what do you think this lockout is about?

100% fault of owners. No doubt about it. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

Feel better?

Now, how do we fix it?

Because if we don't that's 23 NHLPA jobs gone.

- Atomic Wedgie

You kinda took the ball and ran with it there.

My point: a franchise that is losing money needs to look at a lot of things before it starts blaming the players as a whole for their revenue issues.

Simple fact: when 50% or more of your costs go to one item, that's the first place you need to address if you have any hope of profitability.
- Atomic Wedgie

When the players are the product, a 50% cost doesn't seem outlandish to me.