Correct it's called oversight. This is a concept MJL is not willing to recognize.
- MnGump

MJL needs to shut it

Kudos to you for even knowing that there IS a difference!!

Miss USA is mostly about looks. There are three phases of competition all weighted equally - evenging gown, swimsuit and interview.

Miss America is more about the total package. There are five phases of competition - Talent at 35%, Interview at 25%, Evening Gown at 20%, Swimsuit at 15% and On Stage Question at 5%.

There are three things that really make the Miss Ameica system different...there is a talent portion, the interview is much more intense and, most imprtantly, it provides millions of dollars in scholarships not only to the winners, but runner ups, preliminary winners, etc. every year.

Neither system is necessarily "better" than the other. They are just different. There are girls that are successful only in one system, but there are many that crossover and are successful in both.

Hope this explains it
- stormey

It's nice that during these slow times, you are rerunning Classic Hockeybuzz episodes.

Good morning, everyone.

Did MJL take a break last night, or did he stay up to defend the NHLPA?

Oh, and by the way, I agreed with everything Damien Cox wrote today:

http://www.thestar.com/sp...ayers-ruled-the-roost-cox

It's a sign the apocalypse is nigh.

You still seem intent on convincing people that the owners are "screwing over" the players or as you put it in an earlier post, punishing them. I'm not going to address every issue here but I will say the owners aren't out to screw their players. Backdiving contracts are a huge problem, the Flyers are as guilty of that as anyone else. The problem here is that people are so focused about assigning blame for the problem. This is not a judicial case where the judge is going to award damages to one side or the other. This is about fixing the system going forward. You will never have a "perfect" CBA. Depending on whether the league grows or shrinks it will face different challenges. Adjustments will have to be made. The focus should be on how do we solve our problems not beating to death who was at fault. The agents as individuals are there to get the most for their clients. The GMs as individuals jobs are to assemble the best rosters they can within the confines of the CBA. The players themselves could give a rat's ass about the CBA when they are signing their contracts Everyone's at fault and assigning blame gets us no closer to a solution. While you focus angrily on how we got here, other people are trying to figure out how to move forward.

This is the one time in the whole process where everyone is supposed to be looking out for the league as a whole. This is the one time where it's about what's best for the league, not what's best for the individual owners or the individual players.

Regarding backdiving, if the NHLPA agrees that it's an issue, as you say, why aren't they pushing for that loophole to be closed? It's that simple, the NHLPA should be pushing for a 0% variance. As it stands, the players aren't trying to fix any issues. 5% may not solve everything but that's still more than the players are willing to do. The players have no desire to solve anything.

If the NHLPA supporters understand economics, I am still waiting to hear how the players are "winning" even with a "make whole" offer compared taking the owners 1 year transition from a month ago. Fehr can sell it to the players that he got them $300 mill while ignoring the fact he cost them $500 million. People who know how to add conclude the players lost the monetary battle even while the players call it a victory.

I have yet to hear anyone conclude that the players can make more money off of their proposal today than they could've off of the owners proposal a month ago. If the season does get canceled, everyone loses. The players biggest concern seems to have only one focus, that the owners not be deemed as winners, not what's best for them, nor what's best for the league.
- Flyers_01

I think that's it's being naive to think that this is about fixing the system. If the Owners really cared about the League as a whole. You'd see the top income teams doing far more to help out the struggling franchises. But they're only willing to go so far in doing that. And they're not interested in doing more. They want the players to pay for that. You'd see the Owners making real changes that will actually fix the system. Instead of more of the same. Don't kid yourself. Why would the players push for 0% Variance? You're making zero sense here. The players aren't willing to fix anything? Again, you make zero sense and ignore the facts. The players are willing to take a lesser share going forward of revenue. How is that not doing their part? It's amazing how you overlook the facts, and invent your own reality.

I answered about the players winning over on Cloutier's thread. Go ahead and read it.

The problem you have is that you want to apply your definition of what is good for the players or the League, to the players.
Do you know what is best for the League? A harmonious relationship between the League and it's labor force. The NHL is doing a real good job in establishing that. As they repeatedly try to undermine and break the Union. Including the latest farce of trying to keep Fehr out of the negotiations.

Correct it's called oversight. This is a concept MJL is not willing to recognize.
- MnGump

Most of the NHL supporters can't grasp the concept of what a concession is. Whether it needs to happen or not. The players taking a lesser share of revenue going forward is a concession to the Owners.

Now we can add oversight as the latest attempt by NHL supporters to try and spin it that the players aren't giving a concession to the Owners on revenue share.

Some of you need to go put spend $50 for about 10 minutes with whatever female is standing on the local street corner. I'd say "go spend an hour," but I suspect a few posters would do good to get past 3 minutes.

I think that's it's being naive to think that this is about fixing the system. If the Owners really cared about the League as a whole. You'd see the top income teams doing far more to help out the struggling franchises. But they're only willing to go so far in doing that. And they're not interested in doing more. They want the players to pay for that. You'd see the Owners making real changes that will actually fix the system. Instead of more of the same. Don't kid yourself. Why would the players push for 0% Variance? You're making zero sense here. The players aren't willing to fix anything? Again, you make zero sense and ignore the facts. The players are willing to take a lesser share going forward of revenue. How is that not doing their part? It's amazing how you overlook the facts, and invent your own reality.

I answered about the players winning over on Cloutier's thread. Go ahead and read it.

The problem you have is that you want to apply your definition of what is good for the players or the League, to the players.
Do you know what is best for the League? A harmonious relationship between the League and it's labor force. The NHL is doing a real good job in establishing that. As they repeatedly try to undermine and break the Union. Including the latest farce of trying to keep Fehr out of the negotiations.
- MJL

So please, by all means, let us know how to fix the system.

Show us how you would fix it. Explain to us how you would use your profit sharing.

Please show us stats, #s, a way to make it work.

You can start with two issues.

1) Teams losing money in the Millions. Estimated total profits for 30 teams is 250mil.

2) front and back loaded contracts.

So please, by all means, let us know how to fix the system.

Show us how you would fix it. Explain to us how you would use your profit sharing.

Please show us stats, #s, a way to make it work.

You can start with two issues.

1) Teams losing money in the Millions. Estimated total profits for 30 teams is 250mil.

2) front and back loaded contracts.
- l3ig_l2ecl

I don't have solutions that would fix the issues. And never claimed that I did. I leave that to the experts, and someone on here like Irish Blues. But what I do know is that based on history, more of the same approach from the Owners isn't likely to solve the problems. My entire stance on the lockout and who I support is based on a few simple concepts. Regardless of either side engaging in rhetoric, staged theatrics in press conferences, and any of the repeated nonsense that has taken place in this entire process. None of that changes the basic concepts that I base my opinion on.

Let's look at it differently.
The players are not the product, the game is, but the players produce the product.
Let's look at the automotive industry.
the cars = the game and the players = the assembly line to make the cars.
Now every car company wants to have the best car and the most sales and be the most productive and to do so they will spend the most on the best robotics and workers for their lines.
Now those robots are expensive and maybe they amortized them over 10 years to make it easier to swallow but after 5 years those robots need to be replaced, but the old ones are still on the books for the next 5 years.
Now let's say Ford had record revenues one year, does that mean EVERY Ford plant was profitable? maybe not, which is why we see plants get closed.
Should the plant in Detroit support the plant in st-therese?
Now if Ford wants to keep all plants open they have to figure out a way to reduce costs, fewer robots?less pay to workers?
who knows but they HAVE to reduce costs to keep the model afloat, and normally the first expense you look at is the one that takes up the most of your revenues.

Maybe the players could pay for their own flights and hotels or not take a per diem on the road.

Sorry about my rant, I felt like typing.

So please, by all means, let us know how to fix the system.

Show us how you would fix it. Explain to us how you would use your profit sharing.

Please show us stats, #s, a way to make it work.

You can start with two issues.

1) Teams losing money in the Millions. Estimated total profits for 30 teams is 150mil.

2) front and back loaded contracts.
- l3ig_l2ecl

And how will the owners proposal fix the real problems in the league? The cap and floor were scheduled to go up to $70.2M and $54.2M respectively, an increase of 9%. A reduction in HHR of 7% is going to fix this?

I agree that loading contracts is an issue that still needs to be negotiated.

These negotiations are not about fixing anything. The new deal will mean another spike in profits for the winners and will just slow down the march to bankruptcy for the losers. The only real game plan of the owners is to break the union again, get rid of Fehr and let the players know that the owners will set salaries as they see fit going forward.

There is no moral or economic high ground on either side

And how will the owners proposal fix the real problems in the league? The cap and floor were scheduled to go up to $70.2M and $54.2M respectively, an increase of 9%. A reduction in HHR of 7% is going to fix this?

I agree that loading contracts is an issue that still needs to be negotiated.

These negotiations are not about fixing anything. The new deal will mean another spike in profits for the winners and will just slow down the march to bankruptcy for the losers. The only real game plan of the owners is to break the union again, get rid of Fehr and let the players know that the owners will set salaries as they see fit going forward.

There is no moral or economic high ground on either side
- Canada Cup

Set the floor lower.

Let's look at it differently.
The players are not the product, the game is, but the players produce the product.
Let's look at the automotive industry.
the cars = the game and the players = the assembly line to make the cars.
Now every car company wants to have the best car and the most sales and be the most productive and to do so they will spend the most on the best robotics and workers for their lines.
Now those robots are expensive and maybe they amortized them over 10 years to make it easier to swallow but after 5 years those robots need to be replaced, but the old ones are still on the books for the next 5 years.
Now let's say Ford had record revenues one year, does that mean EVERY Ford plant was profitable? maybe not, which is why we see plants get closed.
Should the plant in Detroit support the plant in st-therese?
Now if Ford wants to keep all plants open they have to figure out a way to reduce costs, fewer robots?less pay to workers?
who knows but they HAVE to reduce costs to keep the model afloat, and normally the first expense you look at is the one that takes up the most of your revenues.

Maybe the players could pay for their own flights and hotels or not take a per diem on the road..

Sorry about my rant, I felt like typing
- braidan

I think that's a great ideal! All equipment, all the meals. Also, every endorsement a player makes should be included in the HRR.

Let's look at it differently.
The players are not the product, the game is, but the players produce the product.
Let's look at the automotive industry.
the cars = the game and the players = the assembly line to make the cars.
Now every car company wants to have the best car and the most sales and be the most productive and to do so they will spend the most on the best robotics and workers for their lines.
Now those robots are expensive and maybe they amortized them over 10 years to make it easier to swallow but after 5 years those robots need to be replaced, but the old ones are still on the books for the next 5 years.
Now let's say Ford had record revenues one year, does that mean EVERY Ford plant was profitable? maybe not, which is why we see plants get closed.
Should the plant in Detroit support the plant in st-therese?
Now if Ford wants to keep all plants open they have to figure out a way to reduce costs, fewer robots?less pay to workers?
who knows but they HAVE to reduce costs to keep the model afloat, and normally the first expense you look at is the one that takes up the most of your revenues.

Maybe the players could pay for their own flights and hotels or not take a per diem on the road.

Sorry about my rant, I felt like typing.
- braidan

So, who brought in the system that causes Phoenix's Ford plant to pay the same salaries as MLSE Motors? Why do we have a system where industry wide salaries are set by the least productive, least profitable company in the industry?

I don't have solutions that would fix the issues. And never claimed that I did. I leave that to the experts, and someone on here like Irish Blues. But what I do know is that based on history, more of the same approach from the Owners isn't likely to solve the problems. My entire stance on the lockout and who I support is based on a few simple concepts. Regardless of either side engaging in rhetoric, staged theatrics in press conferences, and any of the repeated nonsense that has taken place in this entire process. None of that changes the basic concepts that I base my opinion on.
- MJL

Sounds exactly like the PA's stance. We don't like what your doing, but we have no solutions.

Let's look at it differently.
The players are not the product, the game is, but the players produce the product.
Let's look at the automotive industry.
the cars = the game and the players = the assembly line to make the cars.
Now every car company wants to have the best car and the most sales and be the most productive and to do so they will spend the most on the best robotics and workers for their lines.
Now those robots are expensive and maybe they amortized them over 10 years to make it easier to swallow but after 5 years those robots need to be replaced, but the old ones are still on the books for the next 5 years.
Now let's say Ford had record revenues one year, does that mean EVERY Ford plant was profitable? maybe not, which is why we see plants get closed.
Should the plant in Detroit support the plant in st-therese?
Now if Ford wants to keep all plants open they have to figure out a way to reduce costs, fewer robots?less pay to workers?
who knows but they HAVE to reduce costs to keep the model afloat, and normally the first expense you look at is the one that takes up the most of your revenues.

Maybe the players could pay for their own flights and hotels or not take a per diem on the road.

Sorry about my rant, I felt like typing.
- braidan

Here's the problem here. You're offering another solution that is the players taking less. What are the Owner's going to do?
Another way of solving some of the issues, is not closing some plants. As that isn't in the NHL's plan. But making some plants more profitable. How can they do that. Why are teams such as Florida, Columbus, Phoenix, struggling. Does it have anything to do with mismanagement by the Owners and team management? So taking more from the players solves that and fixes the issues with those teams? Taking more from the players is going to make Columbus a quality team, and build a fan base there so they can be a successful franchise? Why isn't Columbus a successful franchise? Because the players were making 57% of revenue?

Set the floor lower.
- braidan

Or move to a luxruy tax system that recognizes the differences in economic capacity across the franchises and uses revenues generated by teams going over to support those at the bottom

So, who brought in the system that causes Phoenix's Ford plant to pay the same salaries as MLSE Motors? Why do we have a system where industry wide salaries are set by the least productive, least profitable company in the industry?
- Canada Cup

I think we should relocate or shut the plant down personally.
The salaries are set by the market, just like ticket prices.
The player shops his services around and tells each team the best price he can get and they are welcome to match it or not, now if they don't match it than they will probably need more revenue sharing since their product will suffer.

Sounds exactly like the PA's stance. We don't like what your doing, but we have no solutions.
- rmdevil313

PA is willing to do their share to help out. They're willing to do their part and take a lesser percentage of Revenue in the future.

Of course you didn't, because you're a real fan. You also can't deny some players generate more revenue for the league than others.
- trolleytracks

I don't think anyone is saying that.

I think the point is that those players are replaceable.

Three facts are relevant:

1) As a "generation" of stars gets older and eventually retires, people cheer for new stars, buy new stars' sweaters etc. Edmonton fans will buy Taylor Hall sweaters. I imagine there are very Few Gretzky and Messier sweaters being sold now, comparatively speaking.

2) If the big stars, or your favorite stars get traded, almost no fans will switch allegiance. They will continue to cheer for their team. Are Flyers fans rushing out to buy L.A. "Richards" sweaters or are they buying Giroux sweaters?

3) Even if your team sucks, do you go buy sweaters of the stars from another team. Do you cheer for another team. The Habs and Leafs were among the most supported teams in the league last year, and every year, and they were also among the 5 worst teams in the league.

The point is pretty clear, and pretty difficult (impossible) to deny. People cheer for the sweater. At any given point of time they will cheer for a star, or even a goon, wearing the sweater, but that particular star or goon is replacable. The cheering for the sweater endures.

The owners own the sweaters.

And how will the owners proposal fix the real problems in the league? The cap and floor were scheduled to go up to $70.2M and $54.2M respectively, an increase of 9%. A reduction in HHR of 7% is going to fix this?

I agree that loading contracts is an issue that still needs to be negotiated.

These negotiations are not about fixing anything. The new deal will mean another spike in profits for the winners and will just slow down the march to bankruptcy for the losers. The only real game plan of the owners is to break the union again, get rid of Fehr and let the players know that the owners will set salaries as they see fit going forward.

There is no moral or economic high ground on either side
- Canada Cup

Oh I agree that the owners proposal in the $ figure doesn't fix the problem. Someone posted something earlier that said you can't come up with a perfect CBA.

To be honest, the only way to "fix" the problem so that all 30 teams are healthy is to completely redifine HRR or base players salary on a fixed cap where the floor and ceiling are wider apart. Have a cap that does not increase 5-7% each year. So have a 5 year CBA and then you can renegotiate the cap.

I still say we will see Hockey this season

It will get done this week

I still say we will see Hockey this season

It will get done this week


- Marshmont63

I think there is a pretty fair chance of you being right.

Here's the problem here. You're offering another solution that is the players taking less. What are the Owner's going to do?
Another way of solving some of the issues, is not closing some plants. As that isn't in the NHL's plan. But making some plants more profitable. How can they do that. Why are teams such as Florida, Columbus, Phoenix, struggling. Does it have anything to do with mismanagement by the Owners and team management? So taking more from the players solves that and fixes the issues with those teams? Taking more from the players is going to make Columbus a quality team, and build a fan base there so they can be a successful franchise? Why isn't Columbus a successful franchise? Because the players were making 57% of revenue?
- MJL

You can have the best management around but if you can't afford players......
57% is to the cap?
so what if they can only afford to spend to the floor, then maybe they don't have the players to complete and then if they don't then attandance suffers and when the majority of revenues is gate......I'll let you figure it out

PA is willing to do their share to help out. They're willing to do their part and take a lesser percentage of Revenue in the future.
- MJL

OK, so that's one issue. What about the non money related issues such as back diving contracts?

What about the issues with a lock out every 6 years?

Because I think the NHL found a solution to those, but the players, although they claim to want to fix the game and be partners have not come up with a single solution.

I think we should relocate or shut the plant down personally.
The salaries are set by the market, just like ticket prices.
The player shops his services around and tells each team the best price he can get and they are welcome to match it or not, now if they don't match it than they will probably need more revenue sharing since their product will suffer.
- braidan

I'd like to see that (relocation or contraction) as well. The PA has argued for teams being moved in the past. The problems we see are the result of trying to surpress market forces when it comes to salaries