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 didn't argue that the NHL wasn't the best League, nor did I state it wasn't either.

He made this statement. "People watch the NHL because it is the best hockey in north america not because ovechkin or malkin are in it"

Ovechkin and Malkin are part of what makes it the best Hockey in North America.

I didn't say a word about Collusion.
- MJL

Then what is your solution to this 'owner mismanagement'?

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.
- Canada Cup

We'll see at the end of the day how well Fehr did.

We'll see how the players feel about it down the road.

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.
- wolfhounds

Absolutely. No question. I dont care about katz.

But we need those faceless owners to be financially solvent so they continue to give us our fav team to cheer for.

Eberle is my fav player. If he got traded tomo, id still like him, buy id switch to someone else on the oil.
Its the jersey and the league, regardless of the players

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.
- bloatedmosquito

Doesn't a Salary Cap limit what a team can pay a player? Are you saying that the NHL put a team in Winnipeg so that the PA is guaranteed 40 odd high paying jobs?

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.
- bloatedmosquito

Agreed. And I think it makes sense to limit the length and amount of contracts including bonuses, incentives, achievements, etc.

Of course, that means reining in GMs. (Look at Philly and Weber to see which side is leading the charge in unsustainable business practices.)

The only thing I have a problem with is people blaming the players as if the owners are these charitable people/corporations only looking to do good and the players are greedy capitalistic fuchs who care more about money than hockey.

Doesn't a Salary Cap limit what a team can pay a player? Are you saying that the NHL put a team in Winnipeg so that the PA is guaranteed 40 odd high paying jobs?
- MJL

ROFL! Yeah, *that* was his point

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.
- Atomic Wedgie

Absolutely, there is no question that the players share needed to be reduced. They made a ridiculous 70-75% of revenue before the last CBA, and their share grew to 57% over the last CBA. It's too high and 50/50 is fair. But what is also fair is to have current contracts honored, and for the players to keep some of the contract concessions they received in the last CBA. And what is also fair is for the Owners to pay a price and take responsibility for their mistakes. The players have agreed to a 50/50 split, and Make Whole probably won't honor contracts in full. So the players are doing their part. What have the Owners offered to do as a whole to fix the problems. Besides taking from the players?

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
- hugefemale dog77

No they wouldn't. They would be prohibited in doing so.

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.
- MJL

You think I don't understand that with a decrease in revenue percentage the players will make a smaller percentage? Holy sh1t.

You simply do not understand the whole projected revenue growth part... You actually ignored that part of my post. Whatever makes you happy I guess.

Yes I know they COULD make more if the percentage stays the same, but guess what, that CBA is up. Yes, their % is lower, but with the projected revenue for the next 6 years, they'll actually make more than they did last year. I guess it all depends on how you want to define "losing"... When someone ends up making more money, I don't consider that losing... You really need to google the basics of business.

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.
- MnGump

The 3 top teams are part of the equation. Let's cut out the top players and see. Let's waste our time! That 3 teams made almost 90% of the profit, doesn't matter. His statement is still valid

Agreed. And I think it makes sense to limit the length and amount of contracts including bonuses, incentives, achievements, etc.
Of course, that means reigning in GMs. (Look at Philly and Weber to see which side is leading the charge in unsustainable business practices.)The only thing I have a problem with is people blaming the players as if the owners are these charitable people/corporations on looking to do good and the players are greedy capitalistic fuchs who care more about money than hockey.
- wolfhounds

The market dictates what they make. So even though i think its disgusting how much they make, thats never been a problem for me. Cant blame them.

But said market dictating earning GOES BOTH WAYS. Many markets are struggling. What i can blame them for is not realizing is that some of the people signing ur checks are actually making less than u... And ur pissed cause they wanna change that?There isnt a player in the league that should make as much annually as the least owner. This would equal a healthy league.

How do we get there? A start would be to lower your revenue share and put some restrictions to keep costs down

All the while still paying players millions to play hockey

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

Exactly!

Just what I stated the other day, you have a few NHL players posting here or possible close family or friends of them.

What needs to be done after this dog and pony show is over is a organized boycott by us fans. I'm not talking just missing the first game or booing. There needs to be something big for an extended period of time that maybe effects the rate of salaries for players going forward. This way maybe the players will think twice about pulling this bullchit with us once again.

It boggles my mind how anyone could think this. The owners were more than willing to make concessions on secondary issues like arbitration and years to free agency waaaay back in September.

The only thing Fehr has gained for the players is $300 million in Make Whole, which won't come close to matching the money lost by losing part (or all) of this season.

He has cost the players money.
- Atomic Wedgie

what the hell are you talking about. Give your (frank)ing head a shake. The NHL offer in October wasn't even close to what it is today. Not close. And they said take it or leave it. Maybe just maybe if Bettman wasn't like Fehr and only cared about his ego and distroying the other side maybe we would have had a season.

what the hell are you talking about. Give your (frank)ing head a shake. The NHL offer is October wasn't even close to what it is today. Not close. And they said take it or leave it. Maybe just maybe if Bettman wasn't like Fehr and only cared about his ego and distroying the other side maybe we would have had a season.
- Bieksa#3

Cowboys still alive!!!

Effin seahawks wont lose though!! Theyre the real deal

The market dictates what they make. But that goes both ways. Many markets are struggling because of this. So even though i think its disgusting how much they make, thats never been a problem for me. Cant blame them

What i can blame them for is not realizing is that some of the people signing ur checks are actually making less than u... And ur pissed cause they wanna change that?

There isnt a player in the league that should make as much annually as the least owner. This is a healthy league. How do we get there? A start would be to lower your revenue share and put some restrictions to keep costs down.
All the while still
- hugefemale dog77

I agree with this somewhat. Only if Bettman is fired. It is his fault for insisting that the NHL continue to stay in markets they can't profit in.

Agreed. And I think it makes sense to limit the length and amount of contracts including bonuses, incentives, achievements, etc.

Of course, that means reining in GMs. (Look at Philly and Weber to see which side is leading the charge in unsustainable business practices.)

The only thing I have a problem with is people blaming the players as if the owners are these charitable people/corporations only looking to do good and the players are greedy capitalistic fuchs who care more about money than hockey.
- wolfhounds

I agree 100%. The only way of doing this farely is limit the amount/length of contract EVERY GM in the league can offer. Without rules in the CBA that address this, any efforts the GM do to 'rein in' would be considered collusion.

Cowboys still alive!!!

Effin seahawks wont lose though!! Theyre the real deal
- hugefemale dog77

the nfc wild card door just blew wide open today. Hell Stl is still alive. Huge win for minny today. I'm just glad Vick is gone after this season without the eagles owing him any guarenteed money. If/when the cowboys miss the playoffs, Garrett will be fired and Andy Reid hired.

You think I don't understand that with a decrease in revenue percentage the players will make a smaller percentage? Holy sh1t.

You simply do not understand the whole projected revenue growth part... You actually ignored that part of my post. Whatever makes you happy I guess.

Yes I know they COULD make more if the percentage stays the same, but guess what, that CBA is up. Yes, their % is lower, but with the projected revenue for the next 6 years, they'll actually make more than they did last year. I guess it all depends on how you want to define "losing"... When someone ends up making more money, I don't consider that losing... You really need to google the basics of business.
- laughs2907

I absolutely understand the whole projected revenue growth part. It is you who doesn't understand based on two completely false statements you made.

"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."

The players lost Billions in the last CBA and they will lose millions if not Billions in this CBA.

When someone winds up making less money then they could've of if they didn't take a reduced share, that is absolutely losing money. And you don't have to google the basics of business to know that. But this is just the mantra of some of the Owners supporters to try and discredit that the players are giving anything to the Owners. It doesn't fly.

Now if you want to state that the players won't have to take a pay cut. That might be accurate. But they will be losing money from this CBA. A lot of it. And not just what they've lost from the lockout.

I agree with this somewhat. Only if Bettman is fired. It is his fault for insisting that the NHL continue to stay in markets they can't profit in.
- Bieksa#3

I think all teams can be successful under the right circumstances. But its always gonna be marginal or relative. The key is all teams profitable as well as all teams with an equal
Opportunity to win a cup.

The states are vital to true league growth.

The players would be loathe to remove the cap floor or put it way down, but i think thats step 1. Keep ceiling at a reasonable number that most teams are gonna be relative to. (we want no part of an mlb type league)
And let those bottom teams spend down to get their houses in order.
Grow ur base, make profits, improve marketing etc etc and then start spending.

Exactly!

Just what I stated the other day, you have a few NHL players posting here or possible close family or friends of them.

What needs to be done after this dog and pony show is over is a organized boycott by us fans. I'm not talking just missing the first game or booing. There needs to be something big for an extended period of time that maybe effects the rate of salaries for players going forward. This way maybe the players will think twice about pulling this bullchit with us once again.
- Shadyron

I really believe this is true.

The market dictates what they make. So even though i think its disgusting how much they make, thats never been a problem for me. Cant blame them.

But said market dictating earning GOES BOTH WAYS. Many markets are struggling. What i can blame them for is not realizing is that some of the people signing ur checks are actually making less than u... And ur pissed cause they wanna change that?There isnt a player in the league that should make as much annually as the least owner. This would equal a healthy league.

How do we get there? A start would be to lower your revenue share and put some restrictions to keep costs down

All the while still paying players millions to play hockey
- hugefemale dog77

Nobody is pissed that the Owners want to change that. We disagree on how they want to change it.

Exactly!

Just what I stated the other day, you have a few NHL players posting here or possible close family or friends of them.

What needs to be done after this dog and pony show is over is a organized boycott by us fans. I'm not talking just missing the first game or booing. There needs to be something big for an extended period of time that maybe effects the rate of salaries for players going forward. This way maybe the players will think twice about pulling this bullchit with us once again.
- Shadyron

You start the organize boycott. See who joins you in solidarity.

I absolutely understand the whole projected revenue growth part. It is you who doesn't understand based on two completely false statements you made.
"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."The players lost Billions in the last CBA and they will lose millions if not Billions in this CBA.When someone winds up making less money then they could've of if they didn't take a reduced share, that is absolutely losing money. And you don't have to google the basics of business to know that. But this is just the mantra of some of the Owners supporters to try and discredit that the players are giving anything doesn't fly.ow if you want to A lot of it. And not just what they've lost from the lockout.
- MJL

No.
U can only say that their percentage or share of revenue in the next cba will be less than the share they had in the expired cba. Which they are no longer entitled to as of sept.15

They are not losing money. According to their own numbers they will make more in this cba, than they did in the expired cba. Which they are no longer entitled to