I put the odds of that right along with the NHL Season being cancelled. And yet here you are!



- MJL

Yea, there's about four of us here, compared to the usual Sun. evening crowd of 10-15.
But I bet you have an answer for that too, like it's because of the lockout.

Who knows... You may be right? Perhaps Bettman isn't helping things. I do know the previous CBA was garbage though, and has to be seriously altered to make things work. Fehr sucks balls as well.
- laughs2907

Fehr is a clown. Bettman cost the NHL a entire season to get the deal he wanted. That he said will work. Now he says its unfair(which it is) This combined with his continued hard on for keeping teams in markets that simply don't have a decent fan base, just because he has a big ego. Make him an absolute problem. I have never once supported Fehr during the lockout. I simply pick the players to side with rather then the owners(anybody who denies both are very much in the wrong, is just blame stupid) for 2 reasons. 1) the rollback. 8 yrs ago they got a 25% rollback. Now they want it again? So not only do they want the players to give back on this CBA. They want them to give back on the one that cost us a season to get the bettman deal? 2) the owners putting all the blame for their failures on the CBA rather then get rid of the guy who has caused this mess

The only way the players are "losing" money is if they are entitled to what they were making.

Let me give you a clue, THEY ARE NOT! THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO 57% of the revenues or any other number!

You want to know who is losing money??? The 13 NHL owners that have negative cash flow.
- Shadyron

They don't have to be entitled to anything to lose money in the deal. And let me give you a clue. Once the CBA is signed and agreed upon. They most definitely will be entitled to a percentage of revenue. And if that percentage of revenue is 50%. Which is less then the 57% of revenue they were entitled to under the last CBA. It will cost them a lot of money in the future.

And let me give you another clue. Players have signed and agreed to contracts that despite the expired CBA, are still valid. Once the lockout ends, they will be entitled to what is in those contracts, subject to any changes in the agreed upon CBA.

And you think that 13 Owners have a negative cash flow. But you don't know for sure. None of us do.

Fehr is a clown. Bettman cost the NHL a entire season to get the deal he wanted. That he said will work. Now he says its unfair(which it is) This combined with his continued hard on for keeping teams in markets that simply don't have a decent fan base, just because he has a big ego. Make his an absolute problem. I have never once supported Fehr during the lockout. I simply pick the players to side with rather then the owners(anybody who denies both are very much in the wrong, is just blame stupid) for 2 reasons. 1) the rollback. 8 yrs ago they got a 25% rollback. Now they want it again? So not only do they want the players to give back on this CBA. They want them to give back on the one that cost us a season to get the bettman deal? 2) the owners putting all the blame for their failures on the CBA rather then get rid of the guy who has caused this mess
- Bieksa#3

The owners will get what they want. The players will never "win" a CBA negotiation. They will always be on the defense

I think both sides made out well in some ways. In some ways they didn't. But there is no doubt that the players lost money in the last CBA. They lost billions. And they will lose a lot of future potential money in this deal.
- MJL

Their salaries went from an average of $1.7 million to an average of $2.4 million. That's a 41% increase. Would they have made more if they had a higher share of the revenue? Obviously... But they still gained money... Approximately a 41% increase.

The only losers involved were the 13 owners who lost money.

The owners will get what they want. The players will never "win" a CBA negotiation. They will always be on the defense
- Cheeseballin

Did you read the post or randomly select a post to put a random answer too

The only way the players are "losing" money is if they are entitled to what they were making.

Let me give you a clue, THEY ARE NOT! THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO 57% of the revenues or any other number!

You want to know who is losing money??? The 13 NHL owners that have negative cash flow.
- Shadyron

Ding ding ding ding!

Did you read the post or randomly select a post to put a random answer too
- Bieksa#3

Random

Waiting to see votes from both sides to see if they would accept either proposal

Their salaries went from an average of $1.7 million to an average of $2.4 million. That's a 41% increase. Would they have made more if they had a higher share of the revenue? Obviously... But they still gained money... Approximately a 41% increase.

The only losers involved were the 13 owners who lost money.
- laughs2907

No question about it. They're average salary increased in the last CBA. But that was due to increased revenue. If they had not given the 24% rollback, and kept the same percentage, the average salary would have been much higher. And the aggregate total of money to the players side would have been much higher. Billions higher.
No one is saying that that wasn't necessary, or wasn't fair. The players making over 70% of revenue before the last CBA was flat out ridiculous. More evidence of NHL Owners not being able to control themselves. Same for this CBA. Players can't continue to make 57% of revenue. That is too high. 50% is fair. But that still doesn't change that taking a lesser percentage going forward will cost the players money.

No question about it. They're average salary increased in the last CBA. But that was due to increased revenue. If they had not given the 24% rollback, and kept the same percentage, the average salary would have been much higher. And the aggregate total of money to the players side would have been much higher. Billions higher.
No one is saying that that wasn't necessary, or wasn't fair. The players making over 70% of revenue before the last CBA was flat out ridiculous. More evidence of NHL Owners not being able to control themselves. Same for this CBA. Players can't continue to make 57% of revenue. That is too high. 50% is fair. But that still doesn't change that taking a lesser percentage going forward will cost the players money.
- MJL

Get a life

If I actually believed Ek had talked to 50 players I would take this as good news.

Fehr is a clown. Bettman cost the NHL a entire season to get the deal he wanted. That he said will work. Now he says its unfair(which it is) This combined with his continued hard on for keeping teams in markets that simply don't have a decent fan base, just because he has a big ego. Make him an absolute problem. I have never once supported Fehr during the lockout. I simply pick the players to side with rather then the owners(anybody who denies both are very much in the wrong, is just blame stupid) for 2 reasons. 1) the rollback. 8 yrs ago they got a 25% rollback. Now they want it again? So not only do they want the players to give back on this CBA. They want them to give back on the one that cost us a season to get the bettman deal? 2) the owners putting all the blame for their failures on the CBA rather then get rid of the guy who has caused this mess
- Bieksa#3

This is the basics of strategic analysis and is occurs in every business. The previous CBA was up, and the owners stuck with it. Obviously the owners are going to re-evaluate things, and create a system where 13 teams do not lose money. If you were an owner, you'd see things differently.

all im hearing

If I actually believed Ek had talked to 50 players I would take this as good news.
- Tim Anderson

that about sums it up. Why should there be anymore truth to his lockout blogs then his rumors blogs its not JVR for Schenn oh Ek, you should do a stand up routine

He'll probably be your boss and making a hell of a lot more money then you are.
- MJL

in my experience, people who have that sense of entitlement generally get nowhere in life.

This is the basics of strategic analysis and is occurs in every business. The previous CBA was up, and the owners stuck with it. Obviously the owners are going to re-evaluate things, and create a system where 13 teams do not lose money. If you were an owner, you'd see things differently.
- laughs2907

So as Canada Cup repeatedly points out. You think that this CBA and the offer the Owners have on the table is going to create a system where 13 teams do not lose money?

Their salaries went from an average of $1.7 million to an average of $2.4 million. That's a 41% increase. Would they have made more if they had a higher share of the revenue? Obviously... But they still gained money... Approximately a 41% increase.

The only losers involved were the 13 owners who lost money.
- laughs2907

The question of whether the players "lost money" depends on how you want to view things. Yes, their average salary went from $1.7 million to $2.4 million. How much higher would that $2.4 million be under the old system if they were getting 70% or more of revenues like they had been?

It's like when people say, "but the players only get 57% of HRR." It omits the fact that 1-way salaries to players not in the NHL, AHL salaries for 2-way contracts, and signing bonuses paid to entry-level players who are sent back to juniors or to their team in Europe don't count in the Players Share; throw those in, and the players are getting more than 57% of HRR.

Fehr is a clown. Bettman cost the NHL a entire season to get the deal he wanted. That he said will work. Now he says its unfair(which it is)
- Bieksa#3

Just a question.... if you acknowledge that the deal is currently unfair, and favours the players, and you say Bettman fought for the deal they got, when in fact, the fair deal was not only what he got, but further in favour of the owners, was it really Bettman that cost the season, or was it Goodenow, for fighting what was fair and right?

So as Canada Cup repeatedly points out. You think that this CBA and the offer the Owners have on the table is going to create a system where 13 teams do not lose money?
- MJL

All 13? Of course not, don't be silly. Prock mentioned that it was something like 10 or 11. And it's not just the 57% to 50% that will turn things around...

Gotta run.

Enjoy arguing over how many millions 20 year olds should make

Just a question.... if you acknowledge that the deal is currently unfair, and favours the players, and you say Bettman fought for the deal they got, when in fact, the fair deal was not only what he got, but further in favour of the owners, was it really Bettman that cost the season, or was it Goodenow, for fighting what was fair and right?
- prock

I can't make sense of this. I read it and pictured a hamster on a wheel.
What exactly is your question?

The question of whether the players "lost money" depends on how you want to view things. Yes, their average salary went from $1.7 million to $2.4 million. How much higher would that $2.4 million be under the old system if they were getting 70% or more of revenues like they had been?

It's like when people say, "but the players only get 57% of HRR." It omits the fact that 1-way salaries to players not in the NHL, AHL salaries for 2-way contracts, and signing bonuses paid to entry-level players who are sent back to juniors or to their team in Europe don't count in the Players Share; throw those in, and the players are getting more than 57% of HRR.
- Irish Blues

Are you 100% positive that drafted players whose EL deals slides, still get paid their signing bonus money?

Are you 100% positive that drafted players whose EL deals slides, still get paid their signing bonus money?
- MJL

I ran nhlscap.com for 3+ years and still help out at capgeek. Yes, I'm pretty confident they get their signing bonus money (where it's in their contract); in fact, that's why teams will try to sign guys as early as possible - the kids get some money up front, the teams get a lower cap hit when the player actually hits the NHL because of the contract slide.

The question of whether the players "lost money" depends on how you want to view things. Yes, their average salary went from $1.7 million to $2.4 million. How much higher would that $2.4 million be under the old system if they were getting 70% or more of revenues like they had been?

It's like when people say, "but the players only get 57% of HRR." It omits the fact that 1-way salaries to players not in the NHL, AHL salaries for 2-way contracts, and signing bonuses paid to entry-level players who are sent back to juniors or to their team in Europe don't count in the Players Share; throw those in, and the players are getting more than 57% of HRR.
- Irish Blues

Agreed. It depends on how you want to define "losing"... I don't consider going from 1.7 to 2.4 million as losing.

Gotta run.

PEACE!

Eklund: Polling 50 Players on NHL's 3 Demands. Take Important Survey and Be Heard
- Eklund

now its time for Gary to show his "love for the game" (as opposed to his love for the money he gets from the game) and show some real leadership by make Fehr get back to the bargaining table.

Put the inflated ego on the back burner.